JackHammer Forums: Last 35 Posts

JackHammer Forums: Last 35 Posts http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ JackHammer Forums: Last 35 Posts en Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:25:48 +0000 KentBrand on "Television: My Story" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=91#post-277 Wed, 07 May 2008 03:03:44 +0000 KentBrand 277@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Hi. My name is Kent. I want to tell you the true story of me and television. The names will not be changed to protect the innocent. I'm not innocent. Is anyone? We could add a chapter to James and say that he is a perfect man who can control the television. A television can no man tame. But I digress. Before I really get into this story, I want to give you a few preliminaries. First, for the last 20 out of 21 years, which is my married life, we have owned a television, but had no antennae or cable hook-up, which in California means that we don't receive any actual television to view. We do own a combination DVD/CD player and a VCR. Second, I think television can be as dangerous as anything to us. But so can guns. The Early Shows OK, I grew up watching television. I watched Armstrong make his one giant leap for mankind on our black and white tube television, peering through the porch window where my brother and I slept on a very warm July late evening before my dad left for graveyard shift at the factory. Did you notice that I remembered all that and television was a positive part of it? Yes. Gilligan's Island, Hogan's Heroes, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, The Andy Griffith Show, Get Smart, Gomer Pyle, Petticoat Junction, Leave It to Beaver, and The Waltons strand my cultural fiber. I remember the talking heads of the Watergate hearing. I first witnessed the amazing growth of homosexual political power in San Francisco on a news program on the same black and white. I'd never go to San Francisco after witnessing that. Ooops. Many days of my childhood I spent google-eyed in front of Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans. I still can't look at a shoe box without thinking of Mr. Kangaroo's, filled with his paste and scissors and other implements. After school I often rushed home for Popeye and Janey and during the summers it was Cowboy Bob and Chuckwagon Theater. I drank Chocola because of him and I'll never forget what he said at the end of every program: "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." Some of you might wish I had listened more closely to that one. I loved cartoons. I said "loved." I'm not proud of it, but it's true. I still love spinach because of Popeye. Not directly any more, but because I ate it faithfully and enthusiastically as a child because of the obvious consequences anyone could see if they watched the man. And then it was bugs bunny, the roadrunner, and the rest of the Looney Tunes cast. And then there were John Wayne, the three stooges, Abbot and Costello, Batman ("pow!" "bam!" "smack!"), the Lone Ranger (yes, Keemo-sa-bee), and you're a strange one, Mr. Grinch. I don't think any of it was the best for me, but I still smile when remembering. I don't endorse it. I'm still planning on studying out the uniform opposition of Christians to dramatic arts in church history. I don't believe we should ignore historic doctrine, especially unanimous, so we should find out why they were against the medium itself, let alone the content expressed. To do so, I've started reading Nietzche's The Birth of Tragedy, which compares Dionysian versus Apollonarian art. Dramatic art didn't originate in Scripture, you know. The Greeks came up with it. They knew what they were doing when they invented it, and since Scripture is sufficient and yet silent about it, we should wonder why. I'm going to do my best to find out and then I'll probably let you know my findings. And then I think of The Incredible Hulk, the Bill Bixby version, "You won't like me when I'm angry." Bill Bixby, ah yes, The Courtship of Eddie's Father and The Magician. Yes, I liked TV. I still do. I liked TV so much that my kids haven't grown up on it. We got rid of the television at least three times in my childhood history. When I was 12 we moved from Covington, IN to Watertown, WI. The TV didn't come with us. We didn't buy one. A few years later, however, one of the grandfathers bought us one. Not us. One of the grandfathers. After a few years and a few hot messages, we got rid of that one. We had gaps of television-less years that are holes in my trivial knowledge. I saw just a few episodes of Happy Days and zero of Cosby. The first Happy Days episode, which will explain why I saw just a few, was centered on Fonzi showing the rest of the "boys" how to remove a girl's bra strap. That was the main plot. We didn't pray before we sat and watched. Movies Movies were preached against. Sometime way back preachers started preaching against movies. It was a sin to go to the theater. Before that, it was a sin to go the playhouse. That was in Spurgeon's day. He was death on that kind of entertainment. I never went to the theater. The last time was five years old at a birthday party when The Jungle Book first came from Disney. My great grandmother took the tickets at the theater in Clinton, Iowa. We went a few times when we visited before I was five. We didn't go to movies, but we all kind of wondered why movies were so bad, but it was OK to watch the same thing when it came out on television. Television got worse too. The regular programming regularly attacked Scriptural values and behavior, making the alternative seem more normal and desensitizing the viewer often to the lifestyles observed. I remember seeing a few episodes of Charlie's Angels. That wasn't approved fare, but it did slip through a few times. Then I would see that Farrah Fawcett poster up at stores for purchase. As little as I saw, I know that wasn't the best thing for a teenage boy to have seen. It was very difficult to block out that image of Farrah and then the accompanying lust. Those are powerful tools of the world, the flesh, and the devil, those images. Amusing Ourselves To Death has been mentioned, but one part of that book that I remember is Postman's description of images as idols in the mind. Imaginations are the idols in the mind that we must pull down, even to get saved. We can't see Farrah on the poster and stay pure in heart. The pure in heart shall see God. It is a choice---God or Farrah. We know the right choice, but the the images create thorny ground that opposes genuine conversion. More images, less opportunity to be saved. When teenagers fell away, I think television was a major if not the major cause. How? Movies are preached against from the pulpit. The Christian family watches something much worse at home. Hypocrisy might be the worst enemy of Godly teenagers. They need a consistent message and real Christianity. What's the solution? We have to be honest about what we believe. We can't come out against bad movies if we are going to sit and watch it. You be a fake about your entertainment, and that might be how you lose your kids. Videos and Cable I didn't see television much in my high school years, none in my college and grad school years. That didn't hurt me at all. I saw an occasional game at someone's house. But I do know that when I was in college, something big took place that changed the landscape of entertainment forever. It also impacted standards and preaching. What was it? The invention and then marketing of the VCR. Now you could go to a store and rent movies, and watch them in your own home. So movie theaters wrong. No brainer. Television OK. Video stores? When in Christian college, you got expelled for theater attendance. What about video store visit? Nothing. A guy I was in school with worked at a video store. We just weren't scripted for the video store. And before we could get anything written up, a lot of the leaders were taking advantage of the loophole. The video store guy said that administration came in to rent stuff that was just in theaters. But kids were still getting shipped for theater attendance. Personally, I wasn't bent out of shape about the faculty renting videos. I didn't want to go myself to the stores, but I already knew there was heaping portions of hypocrisy to pass around. I was living my own Christian life with my own beliefs and I wasn't depending on their example. However, some were. For some, that kind of activity is a stumbling block. I also knew that we needed some video store talk or preaching. Not much of that ever occurred that I remember. It really was ambiguous to people what was the right thing to do. I still think it is for many. When I was in college, I was a counselor at a Christian camp. I gave out a survey to the jr. and sr. high kids with various questions. I asked what was their favorite movie. One kid wrote, "Raiders of the Lost Ark." I thought it was a documentary on the search for Noah's Ark. I thought he must be a fine Christian kid who didn't know about movies. At that time, he had to have seen it at the theater, which is, of course, wrong. You only get to see it when it comes out on video. Then it's right. You know that, right? Theater wrong. Video store right. We didn't have a television for the first several years of marriage. We didn't have furniture either, but I digress. When we did buy one about five years in, we decided on cable TV. We tried that for a year and we really started enjoying certain shows. Some were over the line, so we didn't watch, but some we thought we could watch with a clean conscience. Sometimes we saw things we shouldn't and as the leader of the family, I would confess it as sin. Sometimes when I was preaching, it crossed my mind that viewing a certain show might not match up with some of the sermon content. We stopped the cable subscription after a year. Cable offered so many things to watch that I started thinking about what was going to be on. We started thinking about our schedule as it related to certain television shows. This was new to me, this thing of controlling a TV, deciding what to watch. I found that you could easily rationalize something you perhaps shouldn't have seen. You didn't like it and you told yourself so. You could watch sports, educational, or only the "good" shows. Sports had the commercials, the cheerleaders, and the music. There was a lot of sports, enough to keep someone from being close to God. I couldn't explain how that it was worth it to pay so much if we weren't going to watch. The amount that you needed to watch to justify a cable bill was too much to be a good Christian. As children came along, television was another temptation for them. It would need to be monitored and there was already plenty to monitor---practice time, homework, devotional life, church ministry, and general behavior. There was the threat of it looking so important to us that it would be a bad testimony to them, causing them to stumble. We decided we wouldn't have cable, but what about videos? This was before DVDs came along. We wouldn't rent things at the video store. We would get films at the library and sometimes at the grocery store. Nobody made me stay out of video stores. When I walked into one, I wanted to walk right out. I was uncomfortable being in. That wasn't because I heard video store sermons. When I walked in, it looked like the wrong place for a man of God to be. But how much different was it to pick up something at the library? And when I got one at the grocery store, I dreaded that space of time, because it didn't feel good when I did. One time while at our pharmacy, which had a rental aisle, I was standing there when a church member walked by and said, "Hello." My heart pounded up into my throat, my face turned red. The church member didn't say anything or act like there was any problem at all. I hadn't preached a standard. It was my standard. Well, you might feel sorry for me. I shouldn't feel so guilty. I shouldn't let it bother me so much. I need more grace, more liberty, that God doesn't want me feeling this way. I'm fine with my reaction. I believe it was two things: my own conscience and the counsel of the Holy Spirit and I better listen. Was I feeling guilty because of getting caught looking at videos or was it because of the videos themselves? I don't feel guilty watching a movie. I do feel guilty showing public support of the movie industry. I think it hurts people. It won't help our church members if their pastor is a big movie guy. I don't think movie watching adds much to their lives. I know that I wasted so much time and the entertainment can produce a deadness toward the things of God, even if it's wholesome. It gives something that the Word of God must compete with our lives. I'd rather have the serious reaction. My Position My position on movies, the theater, television, and DVDs is essentially that, first, Scripture is technically silent about them. What is a theater, but a big building with a lot of seats, a screen, and a projector. What's wrong with that? Nothing in and of itself. The reasons I was given as a kid were good reasons not to go. They didn't tell me that it was a sin to go. I preach against going to a theater, but not because it is a sin to watch movies. I think it can be a sin and it can be wrong. I don't go to the theater myself. I don't encourage it. We'll talk about it. But what about IMAX? I'm smiling. Christians can go to IMAX, especially if it is at a museum or science hall, some educational center. But if it is disconnected from those places, standing alone. Whoooaa! Is it a theater then? Well, it depends, you know. If you are watching a documentary, it's an educational thingy and if you're watching Poseidon Adventure, it is a theater. This is why we need to be up front and honest about this. And what about Barnes and Noble? Don't they have bad books and magazines in there? This is why this thing has to be a matter of discernment. Kids are a lot more savvy than many give them credit. They start figuring out that our principles work places where we don't apply them. They start asking questions and that's where certain rigid standards stop working and we find we'd have done better targeting heart change and giving them discernment to make good decisions about any area in this fast-changing world. We need to keep them away from things, but it's even better if they witness firsthand our love for God. We don't have much time for these forms of entertainment because they interfere with what's really important to us, our service of God. Next time, I'll go further with my story and I'll tell you some more about what I think God's will for us is. DaveM on "What Your Television Says About You" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-276 Sat, 03 May 2008 21:46:15 +0000 DaveM 276@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ At the founding of our nation, if someone had told America's forefathers that in the future, a significant part of an American's day would be spent staring at a box in the living room, I feel fairly certain that he would have been dismissed out of hand. Somehow, it is hard to imagine that men like Franklin, Madison, Adams, or Washington would have the ability to fathom such a cultural phenomenon. Let alone imagine the possibility of it. And no, I am not simply referring to the invention of miniature projectors of animated images. Certainly, there are many inventions of the modern era (e.g., automobiles, telephones, i-pods, and tennis shoes) that would have baffled them. I am referring, not to the invention, but to the activity of television viewing. Considering the amount of time spent on this activity, we would have had one confounded Founding Father. Yet here we are, right smack-dab at the start of the Twenty-first century, where Television has replaced baseball as America's favorite pastime. To borrow a line from Neal Postman's delightful little book, we twenty-first century Americans are consumed with amusing ourselves to death. One might say that this new pastime of ours has had an impact on our culture. That would be irrefutable. And yet, one gets the vague feeling that such a statement somehow gets off the train a few stops short of reality. Television has had more than a mere impact on culture. Television has become our culture. Other cultures were farming cultures, were reading cultures, were fighting cultures. We are a television-watching culture. They planted, they debated, they worked. We watch television. Television defines us. It defines our culture. It defines our nation. To the rest of the world, America is the place where they make TV shows. At another time, we will discuss what television says about our culture. For right now though, we want to make it a bit more personal. After all, talking about them is easy. We need to talk about you for right now. What does your television say about you? No doubt some will immediately pop up with the old stand-by: we shouldn't have a television to begin with. This pastor finds little to disagree with that approach to television. Before my wife and I married, we decided that we would not own a television. We had several reasons for this, but ultimately we felt that our children and our household would be better off without one. However, in American culture, television is inescapable. Not having a television says something about you... we'll get to that in a minute. But we do not escape television by not having one. Our family does not own a television, but my children have seen plenty of television. Right now, we are enjoying the Utah/Houston playoff series. Both my boys are becoming true-blue fans of the Utah Jazz, especially as they advance in the playoffs (we'll see how that goes). Their father has followed the Washington Redskins since boyhood. So, when we get the chance, we will take the time to watch the Redskins play (or not) on TV. When we visit in other homes, or in the nursing home, or go to a store, we can't help but notice the televisions. The fact is that whenever our children see a television, they are glued. I say all of that simply to point out that we cannot escape television by not having one. In fact, if we don't have a television, we have an even greater task ahead of us in preparing our children to face a TV culture. Ignoring television in no way prepares us to confront our culture, and I for one do not think that this is a viable option for the Christian home. So, what does your television say about you? First, we should again note that having an empty spot where the television belongs still says something about you. As one who in fact has this empty spot in the TV place, I (of course) want people to think that not having a television says that you are holy, that you care about the things of God, that you value other things (like reading, family time, etc.). Of course, I want that to be the statement, because I want to be all of those things, and I want you to think all those things about me. But the truth is that the absence of a TV has no better chance of making you holy than the presence of a Bible does. Shocking as it is, people can still sin while carrying a Bible. And I have observed that people still sin even when they don't own a television. My wife, of course, more so than myself. Not owning a television can mean that you have other goals for your family. It can mean that you are exercising diligent stewardship and faithful headship in your home. It can also mean that you are taking the easy way out, that you prefer to avoid any sort of faithful stewardship and diligent teaching in your home. So, you take the easy way out --- say "it's bad," and go on. This is not meant as a reflection on anyone who does not have a TV, or who says that we should not have a TV. But the reader must answer the question honestly before the Lord. "By not having a TV, am I trying to teach my children diligently, or am I trying to escape my parental responsibility?" You see, the fact that you don't have a television certainly gives the appearance of godliness. But this appearance can be even more dangerous to your family than the alternative. Of course, none of this should be viewed as an argument for changing your position. To say, "I got rid of my TV for the wrong reason, so I am bringing TV back into my home" would be a bad idea. Abdication is not corrected by more abdication. A family that got rid of the television on a whim probably should not go get themselves a television on a whim. That being said, I have no doubt that a percentage of our "viewing audience" owns a television or three. And, your television(s) say something about you. I want to consider several areas where your television tells a story about life inside your home. Consider first... <h3>The Place of Television in Your Home</h3> I suppose that I could spend some time on "place" as "priority" here. I'll reserve that for another discussion. Right now, we should consider the literal meaning of "place." As in, where do you put your television? And yes, I'm talking location here. Because the location of your television in your home makes a statement about your home. In most homes, the television occupies the central focal point of the living room. The couches, chairs, and TV trays are placed appropriately for television viewing. And this makes a statement about you, and about your home. When the television occupies the center of the living room, God's people should be concerned. Consider the location again, and the language used to describe it. Your television occupies the center of the living room. It is the central focal point of the living room. What is the purpose of a living room? What should be central to that "living?" If your TV occupies the central focal point, has it not then become central in (if not to) the life of your home? If you could make the case that it is, in fact, not central, you nevertheless make the statement that it is. You placed it in the center. You arranged the furniture around it. Only you know what really happens in your living room. True. But regardless of that, I would argue that the location of the television sends a clear and vivid message about the priorities in your home. Consider next... <h3>The Volume of Television in Your Home</h3> Certainly, we could have a discussion of the proper sound level for the Christian home. We would probably get arguments about how loud it is, or should be. My experience tells me that wives always think it too loud (unless they are interested), and husbands always think it too quiet (unless their wives are interested). But I did not really want to center this part of the discussion on decibels. By volume, I mean... volume. The sheer amount of television viewing that takes place in your home. We have all heard preachers make comparisons between the amount of Bible reading you do and the amount of TV watching you do. I'm not sure that these are legitimate statistics. I tend to eat often during the day, and I wouldn't want you to compare my time spent eating to my time spent reading. But there is a legitimate point to be made here, nonetheless. Television exists for entertainment and amusement. So, the amount of television watching that one does says something about him, and about his life. Certainly, entertainment and amusement has its place, and has its place in the home. But the inordinate amounts of entertainment and amusement that the average home and family indulges is a concern to us. And the priority placed on it reveals a problem. When a Christian family, say yours for instance, spends a regular amount of time (even an hour a day) engaged in this kind of activity, it gives one pause to reflect on the priorities of that home. We are commanded to redeem the time because the days are evil. But television squanders our time. I have always been amazed at how quickly the time passes when I am engaged in TV watching. It truly consumes the clock, possibly more than any other activity. The amount of television consumed by the members of your household declares something about you and your home. Next, consider... <h3>The Content of Television in Your Home</h3> If the location of your television says something about you (and I say it does), and if the volume of TV-watching says something about you, then certainly what you watch also says something about you. There is a reason why most teaching/preaching on television focuses on the content of TV. Now, I am not one of those who says that there is nothing to watch on TV anyway. Give me a remote control, and I will prove you wrong. I have always enjoyed the irony of those who will make sweeping statements like this, only to admit later on that they in fact own a television (which they watch occasionally). If there really is nothing on there to watch, then why have one at all? But we should be ashamed for some of the things we allow into our homes via the television. And even more so, we should be aware of the content that we are allowing into the home, and diligently teaching our children through it. As a pastor, I am always concerned when someone tells me that they only allow show and show to be watched. What concerns me is that these parents are saying that they only allow their children to watch the safe shows. And that usually indicates that they allow their children to watch those shows without any guidance. No matter the show, there must always be guidance. Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House on the Prairie series is a truly wonderful set of books for children. But I won't allow my children to watch the TV series by themselves. The television series presents a worldview that is completely contrary to the Christian worldview. And I would include in this (especially) the approach that is taken towards romance, towards sin, and towards the flesh. But my main point in saying this is to say that we must never "turn the kids loose" on television. It is a powerful shaper of minds and morals. Finally, consider... <h3>The "Television Technique" in Your Home</h3> How you think about your television says a lot about you. For many Christians today, the television is truly untouchable. It is the American Idol. We will allow the preaching to touch many areas of our lives, but nobody touches our TV. This is wrong, it is rebellious, and it runs counter to a truly Christian worldview. Christ is the Lord, and He is Lord of everything. Including the television. But we must also consider how we watch TV. How you watch television news, for instance, says something about you. It says something about your prudence, your understanding, your discernment. Do you watch the news like Mr. Gullible? Do you believe what you hear on the news program? Do you consider their work to be "serious" work? Do you stop to consider the entertainment priority of network news? Do you take the time to consider the epistemology and ethic of TV news? How you watch television commercials says something about you as well. Besides their entertainment value (which is a key component of every TV commercial), we must consider commercials as persuasive sales pitches. We must consider the true nature of their appeals. Television commercials are about the consumer, not about the product. And they are written and designed to appeal to you in a worldly fashion. They appeal universally to the lusts of the flesh and of the eyes, and to the pride of life. The effect these commercials have on you says something about you. And how you watch television itself also says something about you. One of the worst ideas for a fun "family night" is to watch a movie. Don't get me wrong... I enjoy a good movie, and have done my best to thoroughly familiarize my kids with John Wayne. But imagine a family who, on the night designated for "family interaction," chooses to sit still and silent, staring at the TV screen. And that brings up one of my biggest pet peeves about TV-watchers in general. When watching television, we must not be interrupted. The message is very clear... TV-watching is too important for interruptions, or for kids. We do, after all, take our televisions very seriously. I'm not persuaded that what your TV says about you is exactly subliminal or even hidden. Especially within our homes, the television makes a bold statement, loud and clear. Perhaps we should unstop our ears, shake ourselves, and come back to reality long enough to notice. Jack Hammer on "Now This..." http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=89#post-275 Fri, 02 May 2008 16:01:59 +0000 Jack Hammer 275@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Television, Smell-a-vision, Aitch-e-double-hockey-stick-A-Vision. We can't live with it. We can't live without it. Some do, but most won't. We need our nightly news-fix. We love our commercials. Quality time with the remote --- Priceless. Channel surfing is the new sport. It is our babysitter, our nightly pacifier, our family unifier. Touch my couch, and you are welcome. Touch my coffee table, and you are forgiven. Touch my piano, and you are sophisticated. Touch my television, and you are ignorant, presumptious, meddling. American culture is television. We live it. We imitate it. It imitates us. It pushes us. We push it. We follow it. It follows us. We teach with it. It teaches us. We need it. It needs us. It is us. Should we have a television? Should we watch television? Why should we watch television? How should we watch television? What does television say about us? What does it teach us? How does it affect us. May is televison month on JackHammer. Hard to watch while your hammering, but it makes a nice sparky arch when it explodes. Fireworks! And we aren't even to July yet. Stay tuned! KentBrand on "The New Testament Teaches Tithing pt. 4" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=88#post-274 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:45:20 +0000 KentBrand 274@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I'm going to write a fourth one in this series and it will be posted here in the future, or over at my blog. It is an important one, but I don't have time to write it while I'm at a conference. JeffV on "Envelope Budgeting" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-273 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:54:12 +0000 JeffV 273@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds. (Proverbs 27:23)</blockquote> This proverb tells us how to take care of our money. Of course, paper money is not mentioned here, but the current trading commodities are. In the Bible a man's wealth was often measured by the number of his flocks. Think of Job right here. So, if we are going to obey this proverb, we will know the state of our money and we will watch where it goes. There is no better way to obey this Scripture than to use an old-fashioned paper envelope system. I grew up watching my father move money around his envelopes and when I established my own home, I thought that I would not have to do that. I had a mathematical mind and was technologically "savvy." <blockquote>I learned the HARD way -- my way.</blockquote> Now, I have helped many people set up their own envelope system. And I want to give a few pointers. Already some of you are saying, "This is JackHammer, where's all the Scriptures?" I reply that they're at the top of the post. An obedient Christian will know where his money is, where it has gone, and where it is going to go. He will control every dollar that he has been made the steward of. <ul> <li>Determine your monthly income. You get your bills monthly. (If you are paid weekly, multiply your weekly check by 52, then divide by twelve.)</li> <li>Gather your monthly expenses. (house, car, utilities, insurance, etc.)</li> <li>Determine your montly expenditures. (tithe, food, groceries, supplies, etc. - any consistent expenditure should be noted like haircuts and newspapers)</li> <li>List your monthly bills. Most people have these because they have not been using an envelope budget. (credit cards, consolidation loans, personal loans, etc.)</li> <li>Designate how much of each check should go into each envelope.</li> <li>Do not use cards (debit or credit) until you've learned the discipline of the envelopes (as short as 3-4 checks for some, as long as a year for others)</li> </ul> Buy an expanding envelope thingy from Wal-mart (or somewhere else) and label the several slots. When you cash your check put the dollars in the proper places. Only spend cash that is there. If you must use more money than what's in a particular slot, you must note it and pay it back from the borrowing slot with the next paycheck. After just a few months of controlling your money, rather than having it control you, you will be amazed at the amount of money that will be collecting in the different envelopes. This is not a comprehensive presentation, but it should be enough to get you started. If you've done this and you can testify to its usefulness, give me a comment. If you have questions, ask in the comments area. I look forward to helping more Christians obey the Scriptures. DaveM on "Strength and Money" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=86#post-272 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:02:38 +0000 DaveM 272@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. Proverbs 11:16</blockquote> In the realm of money, a key word is "stewardship." Stewardship is inescapable. Every person is a steward of his money. He either stewards his money faithfully, or he stewards unfaithfully. A man is either a good steward or a bad one. Retaining riches requires good stewardship, and strength. The verse above describes two realms of stewardship - stewardship of reputation and stewardship of wealth. And since the two are juxtaposed in the text, we see that there is on some level a connection being made between honor and riches. Essentially, the Proverb teaches that our stewardship extends to every area of labor --- to property, to wealth, to spouse and children, to employment, to work ethic, to reputation, to spiritual life and service, even to relationships. All of these areas can be considered wealth, and all can be considered "honor." A steward's work is to maintain these. The steward functions first as a servant. He serves his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ in this way. He serves his family, his church, his employer, his country. He serves by taking good care of all that he has been entrusted with. This should be the character of every believer. But a steward is more than a mere servant. The steward is the chief servant. He is in charge of the servants. Think of reputation as a servant. Many have, to their own undoing, made reputation a master, but reputation in its rightful place is a servant. And we are stewards of that servant. According to the verse above, only a gracious woman has the power to command reputation and honor. Other women are enslaved by it. They are forced to keep up the facade in order to maintain the impression. Money too is a servant. Wealth is a servant. Yet, so many are enslaved by it. They live for it. They must have it. And whether they get it or fail at getting it, they are always disappointed. Only a strong man can be master over money. A steward is a caretaker. God entrusts us all with money, whether it be a little or a lot. We must be caretakers of the money given. God entrusts us with reputation as well. We are caretakers of the reputation God has given. Today's Proverb shows us one of the unique qualities of the people of God... they are good stewards. With that in mind, if we follow the natural division of the Proverb, we see gracious women who retain honor, and we see strong men who retain riches. Gracious women and strong men characterize the household of faith, which means that the household of faith retains honor and riches. What I would like to address in this post is the real meaning of the Proverb, its spiritual application, and then an important priority. <h2>Like Leaves on a Fall Day</h2> The Proverb says that strong men retain riches. This does not mean that strong men are rich. In fact, the contrary is sometimes the case. Some strong men are not rich, and some poor men are very strong. For, while they might not have much, they take good care of what they have. They are diligent to know the state of their flocks and herds, as the Bible commands (Proverbs 27:23-24). Nor does the Proverb mean that rich men are strong. The Kennedy family would be a case and point here. Wealth is no sign of strength. It may be a sign of ruthlessness, but not necessarily of strength. The Proverb does mean that strong men take good care of their money. Good stewardship requires strength. Wealth, as they say, is hard to get and even harder to keep. Which Aristotle said is the reason why young people don't respect money. They have not yet learned how difficult it can be to hold on to. It is a sign of weakness when a man cannot retain his wealth. Spendthrifts, of course, think the opposite is true. They flatter themselves that their free and easy ways with money are a sign of manliness. I once took a group of teen agers to Washington, D.C. On one of our tour days, we stood in line for over an hour to see Ford's Theatre. At least half of that time was in the hot sun, on a day when temperatures reached up into the 90's. Of course, the peddlers took full advantage of our misery. One particular robust peddler pushed a cart full of iced down water bottles up and down the line, yelling, "Ice cold watah - $1.50 - all mah 'G's' and all mah 'homey's' - $1.50." As we watched, a fourteenish boy, pants sagging, hair souped, the picture of coolness, dug the necessary coinage out of his oh-so-hip pants pocket to make his purchase, as the coolest-of-the-cool water peddlers continued his sing-song, "You a high-rolla... I'm gettin' you one off the bottom... you mah homey... put 'er there... lay me some skin." Predictably, there was very quickly a small crowd of Junior high boys, all dripping with kewlness no doubt, in line for the 'dolla-fitty watah'. Including a couple of the kewler boys from my group. The water, which no doubt tasted cooler because it came from such a cool place, was consumed before the sun ran out. And when we got to the corner, I noticed that a little convenience store occupied the building. I stuck my head in the door, and asked the proprietor if he had bottled water for sale... he did. "How much?" I asked. "Seventy-five cents," he answered. I looked back at my group - junior high boys dripping with sweat. "Hey guys!" I said, "he's got the same water inside --- for half the price you just paid!" Of course, not one to rub it in, for the rest of the day I repeated, "Ice cold watah - $1.50 - all mah 'G's' and all mah 'homey's' - $1.50." I'm not sure what it is about spending money that makes us feel like big shots. I do know that a fool and his money are easily parted. Weak men fritter away their money like leaves blown away on a windy fall day. It takes a very strong man to hold on to money. That's why lottery winners rarely stay rich for long. Most men are too weak to keep it. KentBrand on "The New Testament Teaches Tithing pt. 3" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=85#post-271 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:49 +0000 KentBrand 271@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Not every tithing advocate does the best or even an adequate job in making a Scriptural case. However, I cringe quite a bit at what is said against those who believe Scripture teaches tithing. What do you think of these? <ul> <li>It is the “other side of the story” when 97% of the pulpits have pro-tithing sermons and discipline those who try to question them or ask for open discussions.</li> <li>You are playing games with statistics. Preachers have been trying to push tithing onto their congregations. . . . When are you going to learn, stop it, and go back to preaching grace-giving. . . . You are teaching by your actions that Law out-gives Grace</li> <li>Be sure and ignore my many pages of reasons to refute this argument. . . . Your principle allows YOU to be the judge of what applies and what does not. I contend that NOTHING in God’s Word about tithing from Abraham or Jacob is followed by your church or any other church today.</li> <li>Why do you give this story? It has nothing to do with tithing. Do you want to kill everybody who disagrees with you?</li> <li>Is that what you teach in your church? Do you teach your members to lay everything they own at your feet and then distribute them to every church member evenly so you can all live in a commune?</li> <li>It would work well if we could get the government involved, to make sure everyone gave his/her due. I have been conversing with officials on this matter and they recognize the work I have put into this matter. They have appointed me as a receiver to collect from all the Christians in this area.</li> </ul> The tone you hear is quite common in the anti-tithe people. Since I've been a pastor, I have found money and children to be the two most controversial subjects. This one falls under money and you can hear the bitterness. And their problem? People are giving at least 10% toward the Lord's work. They'd like to stop it, you know, for the Lord. It amazes me how much men who claim such a NT emphasis like to enunciate the gritty details of tithing under Mosaic law, so that we'll conclude that all tithing is wrong. I understand that the tithe in Israel was practiced differently than we do today. That's why I don't want to talk about exactly how they practiced the tithe under the Mosaic system. The principle, however, continues today. 1. The New Testament Does Not Do Away with Old Testament Standards 2. Jesus Taught Tithing 3. Jesus Taught Proportional Giving 4. Giving to the Church for Scriptural Purposes Continued 5. Paul Teaches Physical Remuneration for Spiritual Benefit in Identical Fashion As It Was Done in the Old Testament We spent the bulk of our time in pt. 2 thinking about 1 Corinthians 9:7-14. Did you notice how that Paul used the Old Testament law to make his point there? In 9:9 he quoted Deuteronomy 25:4. That text is quoted only by Paul and only one other time---in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. Paul writes: <blockquote> Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. </blockquote> Connect the dots between 1 Corinthians 9:9-14 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18. Paul uses Deuteronomy 25:4 in both of them. Here Paul is talking about "elders," and in the context you can see that they aren't of the old men variety. They are those in the office of the pastor, the presbuteros, the executive of the assembly. They rule. They labour in the word and doctrine. It says they are deserving of double honour. "Honour" does relate to money. BDAG lexicon says first: <blockquote>1) a valuing by which the price is fixed 1a) of the price itself 1b) of the price paid or received for a person or thing bought or sold</blockquote> And then the next verse we get Deuteronomy 25:4 again. 1 Corinthians had already been written when 1 Timothy came along. 1 Corinthians 9 establishes that the tithe ("even so"--in the same manner that the Levites were taken care of) was to take care of Christian labourers who had benefited you spiritually. Paul wouldn't require it himself even though he said he had the right to. However, in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, he consistently applies this principle, the spirit of this law, by saying that this was to be done with the office of the pastor. Russell Kelly, preeminent anti-tither, wrote: <blockquote>Do you give your whole tithe to Levites who are your ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, builders and politicians? . . . . Do you limit tithe recipients to one family or do you preach the “priesthood of all believers”?</blockquote> And then he added: "Like I said, you practice NONE of the OT tithe principles!" I'm going to let you evaluate most of that quote on your own in light of what you've read. One question though: Is every believer in the office of the pastor? But let's go a little further, because I believe that Galatians 6:6-10 relates here, which says: <blockquote>Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.</blockquote> The idea of giving tangible remuneration to those who have benefited you spiritually is reinforced by this text. The person taught is to share with the person teaching. The law of sowing and reaping comes in (vv. 7-8). What is the doing good in v. 10? It is the one taught sharing his carnal things with the one who taught him spiritual things. By doing so, he does not grow weary in well-doing and he does good to those especially of the household of faith. 6. There Was a Storehouse in the OT, the Temple Worship, and in the NT the church is the Temple and the Storehouse Malachi 3:10 reads: <blockquote>Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.</blockquote> God called for the tithes to be brought into the storehouse, which was the temple there in post-exilic Israel, to support and maintain the corporate worship of Israel. The church (local only) is the temple of God in this dispensation. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 states: <blockquote>Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.</blockquote> He says "ye" (plural) are the temple of God. The church is God's Temple. Jesus promised His special presence for the assembly (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; Revelation 1:19-2:1). The presence of God that inhabited the OT tabernacle and temple indwells the congregation of the Lord today. Therefore, the church is God's storehouse in the age in which we live. Paul communicates this in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2: <blockquote>Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.</blockquote> The store was the congregation. They laid up the collection proportionately by the saints on the Lord's Day. A pattern for giving for the NT times is set here for us to follow. We bring our tithes and offerings to the church, the storehouse in the age in which we live. DaveM on "Attitude and Money" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=84#post-270 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:16:55 +0000 DaveM 270@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty. Proverbs 10:15</blockquote> Money is important. If you don't think so, try living without it. Jesus Christ once met a very rich young man who, according to him, had kept the law perfectly from his youth. Christ loved the young man, and challenged him to go sell whatever he had, give the money to the poor, take up his cross, and follow Christ. Judging by the young man's response, it was easier to observe the entire law than to give up his wealth. God's Word has much to say about money, though not necessarily what we might think. For example, 'conventional' wisdom says that God blesses the poor and condemns the rich. Class warfare is one of Satan's favorite tricks. The rich despise the poor, and the poor equally (if not greater) despise the rich. Some rich men think that the poor deserve to be poor, in part because they have been careless with their money. All things being equal, this is true in some cases. But some are poor in the Providence of God. Meanwhile, and probably more often than the other, the poor man thinks that the rich are greedy, or worse yet, that they cheated to get their money. And while this certainly could be the case, it is not normally the case. Some men are just blessed that way. While one man is blessed with poverty, another is blessed with wealth. And who is to say which has the greater blessing? Are you rich? Are you poor? <blockquote>The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all. Proverbs 22:2</blockquote> In reality, "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. Contrary to what our government tells us, there is no standard, no arbitrary line, no dollar figure that divides between rich and poor. If a man lives in a cardboard shanty, he is likely to think that every man in a house is rich. If a man owns a multi-million dollar mansion, he may think that the guy in the quarter million dollar house is poor. To take a new spin on an old proverb, one man's wealth is another man's pittance. A couple of years ago, I read the Little House on the Prairie series to my kids. As we read The Long Winter, I explained to my family that the Ingalls family would have considered us to be fabulously wealthy. Especially during that long winter, Laura's family lived on wheat bread and potatoes from December to February. In February, the potatoes ran out. Until May, when the winter ended, Laura's family ate nothing but wheat bread... no butter, no honey, nothing else. And they didn't think they were poor. What is it to be rich? What is to be poor? If we have all we need, and to spare, are we not wealthy? Wouldn't "poor" mean that we have no spare, that we almost don't have what we need to get by? And who can say which is better? The truth be told, your attitude towards the money you have is more important than the amount of money you have. Money, contrary to popular opinion, is not the root of all evil. The love of money is. In the Proverb quoted at the beginning of this post, we are given a very important understanding of money. First, the Proverb says that the rich man's wealth is his strong city. Then, the Proverb adds that the destruction of the poor is their poverty. Whenever I read Proverbs, I find a wealth of practical wisdom and gospel preaching in them, and I hope in this post to give a little of each. We will begin with a direct application of the meaning of this Proverb, will continue with the lesson in it, and will conclude by considering a spiritual application. <h2>An Observation and a Warning</h2> All Scripture is given, we are told, by inspiration. I never quite understand why believers will dismiss the Proverbs as if they are somehow of less authority than the rest of Scripture. "Wisdom principles" is not a convenient way of dismissing. So, we will start our "exposition" of the Proverb with a simple observation... this Proverb is true. The rich man's wealth really is his strong city, and the destruction of the poor really is their poverty. There is much security in wealth (which explains why the words "security" and "securities" are used so frequently in the financial realm. On the other hand, almost all of the poor man's troubles can be traced back to the fact that he is poor. Poverty increases his worries. He lacks the means to provide for his family and meet their needs the way he would like. Dentists and optometrists are luxuries that he can hardly afford. Because he cannot stay on top of things financially, he tends to fall behind. Vehicles break down more often because he struggles to maintain them properly. Clothing gets worn, teeth rot, medical checkups are set aside because he struggles to make ends meet. On his part, good stewardship is of the "blood, sweat, and tears" variety. Because he has little money, if he splurges just a little, he pays dearly for it. He feels that he has little to contribute to his church. He may (though he shouldn't) feel embarrassed at family gatherings, as he scrapes together a little money, money that he really doesn't have, in order to give proper gifts. Certainly some of these limitations are artificial, but they are limitations nonetheless. Poverty can cause a man trouble in another way, which is why the poor man is tempted to live beyond his means. James reminds us that men really do despise the poor. While this is not so pronounced in our day as it was in hers, Jane Austen gives some revealing pictures of this kind of wealth snobbery in her very Christian novels. And what of tragedy, trial, and affliction? If the wealthy have a health crisis, they will spare no expense to find a cure. But what of the poor man? What if the poor man finds himself in need of an attorney? What if he loses his job? Anxiety and worry, if not given over to the Lord, will deteriorate his health, and eventually his wealth. Do we not see then that the destruction of the poor is their poverty? On the other hand, we also know it to be true that the rich man's wealth is his strong city. Money, though a bad master, is a good servant. When you have much money and to spare, you have many "servants" to guard your security. There is a natural security in having the means to provide and have to spare. And while it is true that the rich may have worries, they don't have the poor man's worries. Picture the wealthy man in his stone house, surrounded by a stone wall, guarded by the bars of a wrought iron gate, with a security code for entrance. He is the picture of safety and security. There is, in all of this, a warning for both the rich and the poor. The warning applies equally to each. <blockquote>Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. Proverbs 23:4</blockquote> Someone once compared income to a pair of shoes. Poverty is like shoes that are too small. They pinch and cramp your foot, and in general make it very difficult to walk with comfort. But excessive wealth is like shoes that are too large. They stumble and trip us. Aristotle once said that the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool. Henry Ward Beecher said, "some of God's noblest sons, I think, will be selected from those that know how to take wealth, with all its temptations, and maintain godliness therewith. It is hard to be a saint standing in a golden niche." The Bible warns against the deceitfulness of riches, which enter in and choke out the word. If riches increase, set not your heart upon it. The rich are tempted to trust in their riches. Some trust in chariots, and some in horses... The rich are tempted to insolence and arrogance, as if they can have anything they want because they have money. The rich are tempted to display, and to excess. They are tempted to think that because they are rich, they should also be powerful. More than a few rich men have destroyed a Bible-believing church by their efforts to buy influence. Nor is this a new problem, for Paul had some particular warnings for the wealthy: <blockquote>Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.</blockquote> Consider this quote about money... <blockquote>Money talks, we have been told since childhood. Listen to this dollar speak: “You hold me in your hand and call me yours. Yet may I not as well call you mine. See how easily I rule you? To gain me, you would all but die. I am invaluable as rain, essential as water. Without me, men and institutions would die. Yet I do not hold the power of life for them; I am futile without the stamp of your desire. I go nowhere unless you send me. I keep strange company. For me, men mock, love, and scorn character. Yet, I am appointed to the service of saints, to give education to the growing mind and food to the starving bodies of the poor. My power is terrific. Handle me carefully and wisely, lest you become my servant, rather than I yours.”(1)</blockquote> If money is a danger to the rich, it is an even greater danger to the poor. Wealth comes with many unique temptations, and yet I find that poverty causes more covetousness than wealth does. Money causes the poor man to grow discontent. He can very easily become greedy, and often tends to be more greedy than his wealthy counterpart. Poor men often love money more than rich men do. Poverty causes a smallness of spirit, a miserly meanness of spirit. As we are fond of quoting, the poor man needs to be reminded that it is only money. Those who are poor in material things often attach too much weight to material prosperity. They tend to think that they would be happy if only... Poverty can make a man envious and bitter towards the rich, or (worse yet, I think) bring him to expect a handout. <h2>Blessing and Cursing</h2> Wealth, and the lack thereof, brings with it both a blessing and a curse. First, we have demonstrated already the blessing in wealth, and the curse in poverty. Among the blessings of wealth are the ability to have to give to him that needeth (Ephesians 4:28), the ability to give abundantly to God through the tithe (I Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 9:7), the ability to pass on an inheritance to his children's children (Proverbs 13:22), and the ability to live comfortably. But for the poor, besides being cramped and pinched by his purse, he faces many temptations unique to his financial status. He is tempted to steal or defraud, to abuse the generosity of others, to lust, or to discontent. Because of this, while Christians must not labor to be rich (Proverbs 23:4), they must exercise diligent stewardship over their money. Ironically, as wealth blesses and poverty curses, we find the opposite to also be true. There is a blessing in poverty, and a cursing in wealth. Abraham Lincoln once said, "The Lord must love the common people. He has made so many of them." Certainly, we find in Scripture a stated blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20). The poor man can live simply, eat his bread in quietness, and trust God. Godliness with contentment, as the Bible says, is great gain. Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife. The rich man, on the other hand, must be concerned over his money. If he fears God, he must be concerned with the temptations that are natural to wealth. The well-to-do often worry about their social standing and about their friends. There is an old Latin proverb that says, The prosperous man is never sure that he is loved for himself. The point here is that neither wealth nor poverty indicate the blessing of God, or the absence thereof. Rather, we find that we can be blessed in whatsoever state we are in. The poor man can be rich in the blessing of God, as can the wealthy man. The way God blesses a man will vary. Whichever way the blessing falls, if received with thanksgiving, it will make a man rich (Proverbs 10:22). <h2>Carnal and Spiritual</h2> Riches affect us spiritually. Depending on our attitude, our wealth (whether great or small) will have a spiritual impact. Historians Will and Ariel Durant mocked that as long as there is poverty there will be gods. We could point out that the converse is also true. Material wealth often brings spiritual poverty. For some, as long as there is wealth, there will be no god. Consider that many of the children of the affluent, having been sheltered from any sort of struggle, having been provided with anything their heart desires, do not seek the Lord. Thus, James' rebuke of the rich... <blockquote>Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.</blockquote> The point of this article is not to condemn the rich, nor to say that you cannot be both godly and rich, but only to point out the unique temptations and pitfalls that accompany wealth. Financial and social status really do impact us spiritually, and we really must be aware of the dangers. I certainly hope that no reader of this post will think that I only see the problems with wealth. To the contrary, poverty often brings more spiritual battles than wealth. Nevertheless, we must give careful consideration to the temptations of wealth. When wealth draws a man's heart away from the Lord, and hinder his relationship to God, we can say, Blessed be ye poor. For the poor can trust themselves to God alone. How often does God use poverty to make us dependent on Himself. The poor have food, they have raiment, they learn contentment. Is there any greater blessing than that of resting on Christ alone? Their means may be few, but their needs are fewer. They enjoy life, they laugh, they cry, they live without shame. What a blessing. On the other hand, there is a spiritual application to all of this. The man who is spiritually rich finds that his wealth is his strong city. <blockquote>Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?</blockquote> But if a man is spiritually poor, his destruction will be his poverty. <blockquote>And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.</blockquote> For this reason, we are challenged to covet earnestly the best gifts. The treasures laid up in heaven are of the sort that cannot be taken away from us. The dollar might decline in value here, but heavenly dollars only increase in value. So, get in the Word, pray, be rich in good works (I Timothy 6:18), and make this wealth your strong city. (1)Tan, P. L. 1996, c1979. Encyclopedia of 7700 illustrations : [a treasury of illustrations, anecdotes, facts and quotations for pastors, teachers and Christian workers]. Bible Communications: Garland, TX Behind-the-Zion-Curtain on "The New Testament Teaches Tithing pt. 2" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=83#post-269 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:00:34 +0000 Behind-the-Zion-Curtain 269@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ KentBrand on "The New Testament Teaches Tithing pt. 2" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=83#post-268 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:50:39 +0000 KentBrand 268@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ The anti-tithing contingency argues like tithing is some extra-scriptural innovation to pad church accounts. Russell Kelly exalts: "Preachers have been trying to push tithing onto their congregations only since the 1870s and only since 1895 in the Southern Baptist Convention and they have failed miserably!" Here's what Matthew Henry (1662-1714, several years before 1870) wrote in his section on the <a href="http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=le&chapter=027" target="_blank">last part </a>of Leviticus 27: <blockquote>A law concerning tithes, which were paid for the service of God before the law, as appears by Abraham's payment of them, (Genesis 14:20), and Jacob's promise of them, Genesis 28:22. It is here appointed, 1. That they should pay tithe of all their increase, their corn, trees, and cattle, Leviticus 27:30,32. Whatsoever productions they had the benefit of God must be honoured with the tithe of, if it were titheable. Thus they acknowledged God to be the owner of their land, the giver of its fruits, and themselves to be his tenants, and dependents upon him. Thus they gave him thanks for the plenty they enjoyed, and supplicated his favour in the continuance of it. And we are taught in general to honour the Lord with our substance (Proverbs 3:9), and in particular to support and maintain his ministers, and to be ready to communicate to them, Galatians 6:6,1Cor 9:11. And how this may be done in a fitter and more equal proportion than that of the tenth, which God himself appointed of old, I cannot see. 2. That which was once marked for tithe should not be altered, no, not for a better (Leviticus 27:33), for Providence directed the rod that marked it. God would accept it though it were not the best, and they must not grudge it though it were, for it was what passed under the rod. 3. That it should not be redeemed, unless the owner would give a fifth part more for its ransom, Leviticus 27:31. If men had the curiosity to prefer what was marked for tithe before any other part of their increase, it was fit that they should pay for their curiosity.</blockquote> I ask you to notice all the New Testament passages he cross-references. This isn't new teaching, brethren. These posts are about what the New Testament teaches, but observe what John Gill writes about the "fifth part more" that was paid by someone for the ransom of the tithe there in Leviticus 27:31: <blockquote>[B]esides giving the value for what part of his tithes he redeemed, he gave a fifth part of that sum over and above; as, supposing the tithe was worth fifty shillings, then he gave that, and ten shillings more, and so in proportion. The use of this redemption, as Jarchi suggests, was, that he might have liberty of eating it in any place: for he understands it of the second tithe, as before observed, and which was to be eaten at Jerusalem.</blockquote> Gill says that he redeemed his tithe with money. Money was interchangeable with other tangible gifts if so desired. A money tithe was not rejected by God even in the Mosaic law. I actually don't wish to wrangle at this time over every detail of giving under Mosaic Law. You've probably noticed in the comments how much that can be done. It is true that we don't live under an Old Testament economy. That doesn't mean, however, that we are now free to disobey God's law. I'll get to that later, so let's move on to another aspect about tithing in the New Testament. 1. The New Testament Does Not Do Away with Old Testament Standards 2. Jesus Taught Tithing 3. Jesus Taught Proportional Giving 4. Giving to the Church for Scriptural Purposes Continued The members of the Jerusalem church brought their offerings and laid them down at the feet of the bishoprick of Jerusalem (Acts 4:34-5:2). Church people were already giving for Scriptural purposes and they didn't just go to whoever wherever to give the money. You can see that they would sell what they had so that they could give money. I am not attempting to glean from this that the tithe went to needy families. I'm not even saying this was a tithe. I'm noticing one point: they brought their offerings to the church leadership for the money to be distributed based upon God's will. As a secondary issue, I'm pointing out that they gave money. You see this in Acts 4:34, 35 and then Acts 5:1, 2. On a side note, when Ananias and Sapphira gave less than what was expected of them based on their own commitment, God killed them for it. Earlier I had mentioned that stealing the Babylonian garment meant death to Achan, his family, and then quite a few soldiers in the first battle of Ai. In a comment, someone attempted to shame me for threatening people with death who don't tithe. Of course, I didn't do that, but does it seem to you that some threat of death exists related to the issue of giving? It sounds like someone could feel threatened by an honest exposition of the first part of Acts 5. Should anyone feel scared when they read Acts 5? Are we better preachers when we don't make that connection to the here and now? We see required giving accompanied by the negative reinforcement of physical punishment (cf. 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord's Table). Akin to this place in Acts 4 and 5 is 1 Corinthians 16:1-3. On the first day of the week, because that is when the church congregated, they were to collect their offerings for the purpose of God's will. Those gifts were to be "as God hath prospered him." Again we see Scripture teach proportional giving. What is the proportion that we see all over Scripture? The tithe. 5. Paul Teaches Physical Remuneration for Spiritual Benefit in Identical Fashion As It Was Done in the Old Testament In Paul's treatise on Christian liberty (1 Corinthians 6-10), he makes the case for personal restraint. In the midst of this treatment, in chapter 9 he establishes his right to receive physical remuneration (pay) for spiritual benefit bestowed. He argues this several ways. He makes a logical and cultural argument in 9:7. He uses the Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 25:4) to affirm his point in 9:9. So Paul refers to the Old Testament law as an authority for New Testament Christian living. Doesn't that make Paul a legalist? Or does he give us an example of the law's continued authority over a New Testament believer? Paul sees Deuteronomy 25:4 as still binding post-Pentecost. Several anti-tithing proponents, if consistent, would call Paul "dangerous" at this juncture. They don't undestand the nature of the New Covenant. The New Covenant didn't do away with God's law, but enabled law-keeping through a transformation of heart. From that Old Testament Mosaic law argument, Paul goes further. He twists in his point from Deuteronomy a little further in v. 10 and then makes a lesser to greater argument in v. 11. If the worker is to be a partaker in his labors, then this especially applies in a comparison between the greater spiritual things to the lesser carnal things. For anyone who understands the superior benefit of spiritual things, it is easy to give the far less valuable physical remuneration in return. In vv. 13, 14, Paul makes one more argument from the Old Testament. As a basis for his own support, he uses as authority the example of how the Levites were cared for under Mosaic law. Just like in vv. 11, 12 the more valuable spiritual things should be duly rewarded by physical things, the Levites were supported. The people who fulfilled the maintenance of Scriptural worship in Israel were taken care of by the gifts of everyone else. The key words for the tithing argument are "even so" to begin v. 14. The understanding of the two Greek Words are "even" "in this fashion" or "in this manner." Identical to the manner in which the Levites and priests were taken care of in the Old Testament, the one who leads in spiritual things today should be taken care of. In what fashion were they taken care of in the Old Testament? The tithe. The Lord ordained that men of God who minister in spiritual things should be taken care of with a tithe of the physical things of those who benefit from his ministry. Some might argue, "But Paul didn't partake of the physical remuneration." He didn't in his church planting and he explains why as we go through the rest of 1 Corinthians 9. He refused to take money from unsaved people and then even the newly saved people. A pastor continues maintaining the worship of the church just like the Levites maintained the worship of the temple. He should be supported in the same manner---the tithe. One commenter ridiculed the idea of financially caring for the spiritual overseer of the church. He argued that since we're all priests, we would all then need to be supported. Paul could have made that argument in 1 Corinthians 9. He didn't. That bit of rhetoric doesn't parallel with Old Testament tithing. The Old Testament tithing that Paul likens to New Testament tithing supports the spiritual leadership of the congregation of God. You see a parallel to this in Acts 6. Deacons were chosen out to do physical labor so that the spiritual leadership could spend time in the Word and in prayer. The tithes of New Testament church members should support the overseer of the assembly to hinder any distraction from the purpose of the Word and prayer. In addition to buttressing the practice of tithing in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9 gives a bit of a lesson on the proper understanding of the use of the Old Testament in the New. The rabid anti-tither would ask why, if we don't practice the prohibiiton against wearing woolen and linen together (Deut 22:11), we selectively practice the tithe. I'm going to deal with this a little bit more later, but until then, all should look how Paul Himself uses the Old Testament law here in 1 Corinthians 9. Jack Hammer on "Name that Theme" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=82#post-267 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:03:17 +0000 Jack Hammer 267@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <h2> More haiku (in case you haven't yet tired of it):</h2> Guess what our theme is We will tell you when you guess right We'll give three chances. Theme introduced through Riddles in poetic form, Haiku not old (yet). April's theme hinted It pays to discover the Card that pays you back. As light as paper Almost as valuable Heavy to the weak. Some who have it don't It has you, you don't have it Even when you do. The root of evil Not necessarily this Though you might dissent. <h3 style="text-align: left;">Have at it! </h3> KentBrand on "The New Testament Teaches Tithing pt.1" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=81#post-266 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:39:40 +0000 KentBrand 266@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Perhaps you have grown up being taught that you should tithe, that is, give the first ten percent of everything you earn to the church. As much as I have ever heard, men say that we've been wrong, that the New Testament doesn't advocate tithing. One man who maintains <a href="http://www.tithingdebate.com/" target="_blank">an entire website against tithing</a>, Russell Earl Kelly, endorsed his position in a comment here at Jackhammer. He and I exchanged emails and he sent me a pdf of a book he wrote in opposition to the tithe. With eagerness I read it to find out where I might have gone wrong all these years, hoping to have any of my misunderstandings of Scripture exposed. I didn't want to, as one man has accused, <a href="http://bible-truths.com/tithing.html" target="_blank">fraudulently fleece my flock</a>. Kelly's book didn't persuade me. By reading it, as is sometimes the case, I became stronger in the position I already believed. Some state or imply that a pastor might need to recuse himself from a conversation about tithing because of conflicting interests. Russell Kelly advertises his work by saying, "[I'm] bringing you the other side of the story, the side a portion of Christian leaders would rather you did not hear." Sounds sinister, doesn't it? Like pastors have been orchestrating this tithing conspiracy all these years just so they will get a paycheck from the church? They don't want you (hush, hush) to know that Scripture doesn't actually teach tithing. If you compared the number of people who didn't like tithing to those who did, which side would be the bigger group? <a href="http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=187" target="_blank">Barna researched people's giving </a>in 2004 and found that those who gave to churches averaged 3% of their income. Only 4% who gave to churches actually tithed. Out of those who claim to be "born again," only 9% tithed. Announcement: the tithing conspiracy is failing! If tithing is actually being preached by churches, it seems that the conspiracy actually is against tithing. Is that because the New Testament doesn't teach it? Are people striving to regulate their lives by God's Word so that they don't tithe? Scripture teaches tithing and I'm going to show you that at least 91% of those who claim to be born again, according to Barna's research, are living in disobedience to God. 1. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH OLD TESTAMENT STANDARDS Tithing is taught in the New Testament, but that doesn't mean that if something is taught only in the Old Testament, we don't practice it today. Tithing was taught and practiced in the Old Testament. It was the standard proportion for giving as an act of worship of God in the Old Testament. We first see tithing with Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18-20. Melchizedek is a clear type of Christ in Scripture (Hebrews 7:1-11). Abraham's grandson Jacob also paid tithes (Genesis 28:22). Both of these examples were hundreds of years before the Mosaic Law. Once God established worship of Him through the tabernacle, He expected the people to support the Levites, those who maintained the tabernacle worship, and the worship itself by giving a tithe of all their increase (Numbers 18:24; Leviticus 27:30). The Levites themselves gave a tithe of their tithe to the Lord (Numbers 18:26). Not tithing in this manner was considered to be robbing God, indicating that the tithe belonged to God (Malachi 3:8). The place of worship in the Old Testament, the tabernacle or the temple, was the storehouse of the tithe (Malachi 3:10). Besides being individual, worship was corporate and God designed corporate worship to be supported and maintained by means of the tithe. Not tithing would essentially be a vote to discontinue corporate worship. The tithe portion of the increase was rendered from the first harvest of the crop (Exodus 23:16, 19; Deuteronomy 26:10). The principle of the first fruit was that everything belonged to God, but that God's people would give a representative proportion of the increase to God to communicate to Him that they believed He owned all things. At the root of tithe teaching is that everything comes from God. We confess to Him that He is the Source by returning to Him at least ten percent of what He has provided. When Israel entered Canaan, God gave them Jericho. They marched round and round and God knocked the walls down. They were not to spare anybody or anything in the city. Nothing was to be taken. Of course, Achan took some items from Jericho, so that when Israel went to Ai for battle, Israel lost. God taught them that he must receive the first of all the increase. Israel stoned Achan and his entire family per God's instruction. A few dozen men had died because a portion of the first fruit was taken. Do you think God likes it when we don't tithe? The underlying principle begun in the Old Testament is proportional giving. We don't give an arbitrary amount to God but a proportion of our increase. We might give to God out of impulse, but our giving is not merely impulsive. Neither do we give Him what is left over. By giving Him the first of what He has given us, we honor Him with our substance (Proverbs 3:9). Jesus did not come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17). The greatest of His kingdom will keep the least of His commandments (Matthew 5:19). The law is good if a man use it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8). Certain Old Testament practices ceased especially with the death of Christ---not all of them. God didn't institute the New Covenant as a means of doing away with law. The New Covenant enables the law by giving a man a changed heart. Now he can honor God because of that change and the forgiveness of sins. The New Testament did not rescind tithing; it enabled it. 2. JESUS TAUGHT TITHING For purposes of pride and self-righteousness, the Pharisees kept the laws that they could keep and that would make a good impression to others. In Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42), Jesus declares: <blockquote>Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.</blockquote> Granted, Jesus was scolding the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. They should have been obedient to God in the matters of judgment, mercy, and faith. However, at the end of the verse, Jesus says that they were not to leave tithing undone. It looks clear to me. "Ye ought not to leave tithing undone." Positively stated: Do tithe. Tithing was still something that He wanted them to do. 3. JESUS TAUGHT PROPORTIONAL GIVING In Mark 12:41-44 Jesus watches the giving in the temple. He notices the rich people giving much. However, He especially sees the giving of a certain widow. She had two brass coins and she threw both of them into the treasury. The widow gave less than the rich men. However, Jesus says that she "cast more in," because her proportion was higher. She gave 100%. That was more than what they gave. In this narrative Jesus affirms the kind of giving that we already saw in the Old Testament, proportional giving. A tithe was just a measurement. It was the percentage or proportion that someone gave. Jesus supports that. The widow also gave money, not crops. One of the arguments against tithing is that in the Old Testament, the tithers gave ten percent of their crop production---it wasn't money. Of course, they had a different kind of economy in that day. In an agrarian society, their earnings were crops. They would most often trade their crops for other things they needed. Today our increase comes in the way of money, so we tithe in the way of money. (to be continued) KentBrand on "Deconstructing the Destruction of Youth Culture" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-265 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:34:35 +0000 KentBrand 265@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ You may be reading it first here: the youth culture is dead! Ding Dong! Youth culture. Gone. Extinct like the bird-like, antediluvian therapod, the raptor (dromaeosauridae). American civilization has bleached itself of traditional youth culture (those last three words no longer an oxymoron, for those not surfing YouTube) by transfering its most fundamental qualities to the mainstream of society. All of the pawns have become queens. The corner offices now live in tepees. The major U. S. institutions have pandered so long to the shallow, self-centered, fad-driven narcissism of a majority of young people that their culture is culture. Youth culture has gone the way of the comb-over like skin is the new hair. America has snatched the differentiating youth imagery from the bargain bin of life, leaving teens and twenties grasping at plastic. Youth is now the dominant power structure marketing itself as authentic. The adult population drinks the orange McDonald's koolaid at the fountain of MTV. The institutional power informed by the old paradigms of adult behavior projects teen desires and values upon its blank canvass. Tradition becomes novelty. The neo-hormonic now dictates its oppressive random personalities upon the centralized hierarchy. Pre-adolescent civilization incorporated the previously received notions of subversion concerning societal norms into a validated, reassured consumer commodity in the form of pseudo uncleanliness and originality. Now the warden is behind bars and no one cares. A totem has fallen on the reservation and without any natives, does it make a noise? I understand that it is impossible for me as an "impartial" observing arbiter to assign accurate cultural interpretation with my already set idealogical biases. My translation feature is infected with the presupposition virus. I'm not able to determine even my own sanity with any authority due to my preexisting conception of status quo. I can't possibly read the screen with so many pop ups in my broadband. It is akin to analyzing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan" target="_blank">Jacques Lacan's </a>mother-child bonding through the "male gaze" of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault" target="_blank">Michel Foucault</a>. Read my lips. Two words: Katie Couric. Two more words: Walter Cronkite. Peter Pan versus Captain Hook. The crocodile the creeping cuff of restraint represented by a ticking clock. Let yourself go. Do what you want. You're going to die, so live it up. Get that tattoo. Wear the goatee that pronounces pubescent liberty. Don't dogmatize. Dialogue. Consent the new authority. The messy hair and dirty cheeks of the lost boys club. A scruffy t-shirt hanging over beltless trousers pulling the noble savage back to his unspoiled jungle. Man was young. You're young. No longer tied down by a failed hegemony. Business man and unemployed cardboard bearer symbiotic, the Ocellaris clownfish dwelling among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. This is a kickball team where everyone's up last; no one first. You can purchase your props and then discard them when fashion changes. We've convinced ourselves that we're better now, but it's only a new and more pervasive brand of consumerism. We're a Madonna constantly reinventing ourselves to match the fad, to imitate the latest American Idol. We must shrink that gap between young and old by illustrating to young people what it means to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Him. We must judge everything and lose the foolishness that underlies the spirit of this age. We must frontload sacrifice and responsibility. A role model necessitates a role. Biblical manhood must be reflected and then mirrored. The virtuous woman must be praised at the gates. Young people must grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. Churches and Christian families must preserve a godly culture that respects authority and elevates maturity, one that looks like what we see in Scripture, one with everlasting thoughts and affections. We must lose the chaff for the tree planted by the rivers of water. With substance we must retard the flames of style. Instead of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, we must see God. Instead of legitimizing shallow, anthropocentric childishness by our silence, we must stand for a unique and sober adulthood that reveals the distinct, noncontingent nature of God. Let us stop the silliness. Let us put away the toys and tantrums. Let us quell the rowdy protests of the barbarians at the gate. Let us leave behind the giggling girly goofiness. Let us call incompetence what it is. Let us rise above the casual conviction. Let us be done with lesser things. DaveM on "CHRISTIAN WHIRLEDVIEW Starts at Home" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=79#post-264 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:15:07 +0000 DaveM 264@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.</blockquote> <blockquote>Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.</blockquote> The Johnson family was not your typical Christian family. At least, not on the surface. Mr. Johnson was a dedicated teacher in his local church’s Christian school. Mrs. Johnson gave herself to the ministry in their local church. Joe, the oldest son, always wore his suit and tie to church, sat in the front row of all services, and in general, towed the line. In fact, all four of the Johnson kids were fine, well-behaved, and (seemingly, at least) godly children. So, when Joe strayed away from the church and went into the world, other church members began to scratch their heads. What went wrong? I suppose every reader could provide a theory on this. Some (in fact, way too many nowadays) will declare that these things are all up to chance, that if you train up your child in the way he should go, you give him the best chance of making it, but there are no guarantees. Others will want to know about the church and the surrounding Christian community. Still others will blame it on the age in which we live, where there are (admittedly) way too many temptations. If you say that something went wrong in the home, then you are on the right track. That should be obvious. At the very least, we are justified in saying so because Joe strayed from the church and went into the world. But beyond this assertion, pinpointing a problem can be a very delicate task. Since many of the readers of this blog are themselves Pastors, I will simply point out what every diligent pastor knows to be true… untangling these messes make for some of the most difficult work in the ministry. The Pastor must catch the tears of a heartbroken parent, while at the same time pointing out the problems in the home and urging them to change things before the same heartache repeats itself in the younger children. Perhaps I’m taking this month’s discussion down the wrong trail, but I don’t think so. Much of the current compromise amongst fundamentalists who once maintained a distinction from the world could, I think, be traced to our children. The standards were imposed, and a Christian culture maintained both in the home and the church (school and all), but when the kids grew up, they threw it off like a man whose shirt is on fire. And the fallout from this rebellion is predictable. First their fathers, then their pastors compromise in order to get the kids back. If you visit the typical fundamentalist church of average size, there will be a good-sized group of young people. And, if the church is like many of those churches you might find advertised in the Sword of the Lord, you will notice that a significant portion of those young people will sit together somewhere near the back. And, during the course of the service, these same young people will entertain themselves with all sorts of "disengaged" activities. Their general boredom and non-interest is as plain as the smirk on their faces. The more licentious churches will immediately point to the standards as the culprit. The "hypocrisy" of it all, the "legalistic" requirements caused all this, no doubt. And this charge could, of course, have some truth to it. But in general, I think that this explanation is too simplistic. Certainly, the licentious want it to be so. Nor does this surprise us. But if that was the explanation, then how does the licentious evangelical explain their own young people who stray from the church and into the world? Because, of course, this does happen – the licentious lose their children to the world too. The problem runs much deeper than surface hypocrisy. Certainly, a form of hypocrisy plays a role in the production. But hypocrisy afflicts the licentious as much if not more than the legalistic. Both sides of the ditch are filled with stagnant, stinking water. Pond scum is pond scum, regardless of which side of the road you find it. At the root, the problem has much more to do with our worldview than it does anything else. Those who believe that God depends on nothing, that everything and everyone depends on God, certainly are headed the right direction. But those who apply this Biblical worldview inconsistently are in great danger. Therefore, we should consider how the misapplication or subsequent non-application of the Biblical worldview afflicts our children. Ostrichism – If I don’t look, it isn’t there Certainly, the lack of a Biblical worldview in many homes can be traced directly to the lack of Biblical teaching in the home. Christian worldviews are not passed on by means of a vaporizer. The atmosphere in the Christian home cannot bequeath a Christian worldview. Nor will your children acquire one the way they might acquire a cold the next time you sneeze. Fathers must diligently teach their children at home. But teaching the children in some sort of Family Devotions setting is no guarantee that they will pick up the Biblical worldview either. This is because of the nature of a worldview. A worldview, any worldview, is a way of looking at the world. It is very possible, as has been demonstrated time and again, for a family to teach their children all the right stories and all the right verses, meanwhile leaving their children without a clue about how to interpret the world. And why this general lack of discernment on the part of our children? One culprit is found in our general retreat from the world. We hide our children from the world, and the world from our children. We could call it the "don’t look" philosophy of child rearing. What they don’t see can’t hurt them. So, we bubble wrap our children and send them… home. There is a difference between sheltering our children (which is a parental duty) and raising them in a bubble. I once knew some parents who literally sanitized everything their children would touch. The mother would not allow the children in the church nursery for the first three months of their life. When she finally did put them in the church nursery, she personally sanitized everything in the room on a weekly basis. She carried sanitary wipes with her everywhere she went, and meticulously wiped down everything from grocery store carts to the car seat, to the handrail on the stairs. Not surprisingly, her children were sick all the time. This is not to say that we should carelessly expose our children to every diseased person we encounter. But hiding them from germs can prevent the building of necessary immunities. As I see it, this is the problem with families who, if they allow their children to ever see a TV at all, never allow them to see anything above a "G" rating. If they allow their children to read a book at all, they never allow anything that wasn’t written by Jennette Oake (or Disney). If they allow their children to play with anyone outside of their home, it is only with those children who are just as prissy or uptight as their own. In short, the family has decided on a "Neo-Amish" lifestyle, similar to what is recommended by men like Michael Pearl. "Hear no evil, see no evil" is their motto. Just as there is a difference between protecting our children from evil and attempting to put them in a world in which evil does not exist, so there is a difference between flaunting evil and hiding our children from evil. If we hide them from it like a doting mother, when they finally encounter some real germs they are in for a great sickness. Since we want them to build up immunities, and since these immunities take shape in the form of a worldview, what is needed is not a "hide your eyes" approach, but rather a pointing out the sin and error, teaching our children to understand, to discern, to judge the world with a righteous and Biblical standard. But when our children grow up in a bubble and one day leave the protective confines of their own home, they are sometimes surprised to find that there is a whole wide world out there that they never knew about. And when parents have not taken them on "the tour" beforehand, they are often caught and captivated in the glare of the neon lights. Godly fathers call their sons over to the window, point out the strange woman, and say, "watch how she operates, son." Godly fathers drive their sons over to the local good-for-nothing’s house, point out his overgrown fields and broken down buildings, and say, "notice what happens when you’re lazy, son." This is another way of repeating God’s command in Deuteronomy 6:6-7: <blockquote>And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.</blockquote> Lone Ranger-ism – If I leave them alone, they’ll figure it out Another all-to-common error among Christian parents moves in the opposite direction. Some parents allow their children to be exposed to every kind of sin and every kind of worldliness without any interpretation whatsoever. I’m not now addressing those parents who think that the world is cute or neat. Rather, I am speaking now about parents who are too lazy to teach anything to their kids. We have plenty of examples of this sort of thing. The family, when they have time together, watches a movie in silence. When the movie is done, everybody packs off to bed. There is no interpretation, no discussion of what was good and what was true and what was beautiful. Nor is there any discussion or of what was terrible and what was deceitful and what was ugly. There is no application of a Biblical standard to anything that was seen. The children are left to themselves. In such a home as this, the kids are often alone with a book when they are not watching television. They read literature that their parents have never even looked at, and are getting a worldview independently of their parents. When friends come over to play, they spend all their time away from the adults. Events at school are rarely discussed, and the children are left to interpret the world for themselves. Consequently, the worldview they develop may or may not resemble yours. Either way, they’ll turn out autonomous. Relativism – Your wrong is my right Still another common error teaches a worldview, loud and clear. This problem shows up in two very different homes… first, in the home where anything goes, and secondly in the home where nothing does. On the one hand, we have "Mr. Nice Guy," who never says, "turn that TV off right now," who never says, "You will NOT wear that outside of this house," who never says, "your friends want to do WHAT?" He may chafe at some of the things that are watched, or discussed, or done by his family, but he allows it anyway. This father, contrary to what you might think, teaches a worldview, and he teaches it faithfully. His children learn their lesson well… we are the authority. What we want is ultimate. We will do what we will do. They are not dependent on God for their moral standards; they are dependent on themselves, on whatever makes them happy, on whatever they want, for these kinds of moral determinations. But in Fundamentalist homes, we often err in precisely the opposite way. Here is a father who sets himself up as the ultimate authority. He is exactly the opposite of "Mr. Nice Guy." He is "Mr. Authoritarian." If I allow it, then it is okay. If I don’t allow it, then it is sin. "Sin," he proclaims, "is transgression of my law." This is another, perhaps more subtle form of moral relativism. Subtle because the relativism is not so immediately apparent. Moral relativism rests on the authority of the self. Whatever is right for me is right. Period. Doesn’t matter how you view it. Ethics rests on the individual. When a father views his home as his own private empire, of which he is the rightful dictator, then he has fallen into this error. As I have already stressed, it is vital and urgent that parents be interpreting the world through the filter of a Christian worldview. This must be happening all the time, and especially during times when the rules are being expounded. Please don’t misinterpret this to be arguing for a less stringent rule in the home. I am not. God commands children to obey their parents. This is basic to the Christian worldview. But when a father demands that his children obey him because "he’s the boss," then he undermines the Christian worldview. From their earliest years, we must teach our children to obey because God requires this. One of the better writers on the family has urged parents to be regularly making a distinction between "house rules" and "God’s rules." In other words, every well-ordered house needs to set standards. Some of these standards are clearly laid out in Scripture (for example, in Matthew 5). Some standards require some interpretation and application. A diligent father, who is conscientiously incorporating a Biblical worldview, wants his children to understand that we depend on God for our moral standards. In a practical way then, a father who faithfully incorporates the Christian Worldview in his home will strive to have a Scriptural reason for every rule. Do we require our children to take their shoes off when they come in the house? There certainly is no Scriptural requirement for this. But, a diligent father will still give a Scriptural warrant for the rule. "First, you are always to obey your parents, because God commands this. But God also requires us to keep a clean home, and to be good stewards of what we have. So, we have decided that we want you to take your shoes off when you come in the house." This is but one example. In my house, we have three boys who love to play war. We struggled with the "never point a gun at a person rule." The rule seemed too wooden to us. What is the point of having a gun if you never aim it at anybody? Someone suggested that a better rule would be to apply God’s rules regarding war, self-defense, and murder to the toyland world of "playing guns." Again, the point is not to lay out a big thick rulebook for the home, but rather to lay down principles for determining rules, and for applying Scripture. When we fail to set a right ethic in our homes, we push our children towards their own interpretations and autonomous worldview. After all, if dad can be strict on his own authority, then I can be loose on mine. The point here is that a worldly worldview is bred, not in the institutions for learning, and certainly not at the neighbor’s house, but inside the four walls of the home where Christ is not Lord, where His Lordship does not extend to everything, where individual autonomy takes the day – either in a legalistic or licentious way. Why do young men like Joe Johnson stray from the church and into the world? Ultimately, the answer is that they never received a Biblical worldview, were never taught to interpret the world through Scriptural eyes. Somewhere along the line, either from a father who was too nice to say "no" or else from a father who ruled autonomously, these young men learned that they are the ultimate authority. And families like the Johnsons make up the local church. Since Fundamentalism has reached its full maturity, we are now finding ourselves full of children. And the children of Fundamentalism don't like all the rules. One need not look any further than Jason Janz's now-famous Young Fundamentalist survey to see this. These Young Fundamentalists are my own generation. My generation doesn't like all the rules. We want a more "liberated" (read, licentious) lifestyle. Why? A big part of the blame has to go to the way the standards were adopted in the beginning, and the way they were taught in the home. I know plenty of Young Fundamentalists who either chafe at the standard, or who have altogether shrugged it off. And I know plenty of Young Fundies who have not, who love the standards, who delight in obeying God's Word. What is the difference? I can't say that I've given it exhaustively, but I think the answer lies somewhere close to home. KentBrand on "Culture Decay---The Attack on Standards" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=78#post-263 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:40:15 +0000 KentBrand 263@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Have you looked at and compared the crowds that gather for a blue-state candidate or a red-state candidate? I'm not talking about race and ethnicity. Remove that from your thoughts and this discussion. I'm only referring to how they appear in dress and decorum. To make it more simple---notice the difference in the look of a Hillary crowd versus a Huckabee crowd (this is not an endorsement for either of these candidates or world views). By observation it is obvious that these two groups have different standards. Culture shock if they attended the other's rally. Does this matter? Do the differences mean anything? We can go further with this comparison. Look at this <a href="http://www.ingolfwetrust.com/golf-central/content/binary/babe.jpg" target="_blank">earlier female golfing attire</a> (and <a href="http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jsh/41.1/images/clemente_fig01b.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>), <a href="http://archives.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/images/athletics/tennis.jpg" target="_blank">early female tennis player</a> (and <a href="http://www.fashion-era.com/images/sports_clothes/POLISH.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>), early female <a href="http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Edwds1890-1915/cyclistsx20.jpg" target="_blank">cyclists</a>, and then early female <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/barnard/theater/kirkland/3136/Late_Victorian_Gallery/images/32.1890.5.4.jpg" target="_blank">swimmers</a>. Have the standards of dress changed? Are we better now? These men were <a href="http://www.hellocincinnati.com/Images/People/5262006spectators_1905.jpg" target="_blank">watching a baseball game</a>. Why have things become more casual all around? Is there an underlying philosophical reason? Are we better off with the new standard? Standards Standard fare today on standards is that they are nasty ole additions to Scripture. I ask myself, "Why didn't the godly people, who loved the Word of God, not recognize that the standards they implemented weren't actually biblical?" Corollary: "Were they that much spiritual dunces?" Also, "How could there have been such a widespread conspiracy to get especially young people to do things, i.e. keep standards, that were so detrimental to their lives?" I contend that the standard bearers' spiritual and biblical elevators did go all the way to the top. They did have a clue. We have a regular attack on standards today not just in evangelicalism (<a href="http://contendearnestly.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-steps-to-become-legalist.html" target="_blank">typical</a>), but also in professing fundamentalism (<a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/11/30/chapter-8%E2%80%94i-just-love-rules-dont-you-part-one/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.danburrell.com/?p=278" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3355&highlight=standards+Pharisees" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2612&highlight=standards+Pharisees" target="_blank">here</a>). Are they trying to help us? Have we really been duped by modern day Pharisees? Is the world a more godly place with their new found influence? Or are they actually contemporary Mr. Worldly-Wises who can't say "no" to their worldly lusts? "Standard" isn't an English word found in the English translation of Scripture, so to argue a proposition that standards are good and necessary and that obliterating them decays a Christian culture, we should define the term. The free dictionary online says that a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Standards" target="_blank">standard</a> is: "a. A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment. b. A requirement of moral conduct. Often used in the plural." When we talk about standards, we are talking about institutional application of biblical principles and commands. The two Scriptural institutions are the family and the church, but today there are schools you can add to that. Families have standards---"call if you'll be late," "put back what you got out," "elbows off the table," "answer when spoken to," and "you'll wear a tie on Sunday." Churches have standards---"no faithful attendance; no choir," "no tie; no usher," "no evangelism; no teaching," "alcohol; no membership," "divorce; no deacon," "no haircut; no leadership," and "movie theater; no leadership." Defenders of Christian culture or personal holiness have taken these standards from direct statements or applications from principles. For instance, you might recognize that "divorce; no deacon" comes from 1 Timothy 3. Many evangelicals will argue against that. "No haircut, no leadership" comes from 1 Corinthians 11. No one with whom I fellowship uses standards as a means of justification or sanctification (Romans 3:20; Galatians 5:1-4). We have many explanations for standards that are found in 1 Corinthians 6-10 in Paul's discussion on the proper use of liberties. We are to flee idolatry and flee fornication. Do we apply these with track shoes? We aren't to get close to sin, thinking that we will stand and not fall. Romans 13 and 14 give more principles. This is how these verses have been applied or obeyed for centuries. The Attack on Standards Evangelicals and fundamentalists combat these standards by many different means. Sometimes they use Scripture. Jeroboam used Scripture to support erecting his idols at Dan and Bethel. Who did he quote? He cited Aaron when Aaron defended his building of the golden calf. Normally, they will attack personally and speculate motives. They say that you are trying to sanctify by works. They claim that you want to impress people out of pride. They say that you are working at conforming everybody into something that you're comfortable with. They say that it is legalism and not grace. Most often today, they say that you are just making these standards up without biblical support. Recently, over at a bastion of post-standard fundamentalism, SharperIron, Stephen Davis, an associate pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA (home of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the National Leadership Conferences) <a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/2008/03/24/fundamentalism-in-the-21st-century-an-opinion/#more-2489" target="_blank">wrote</a>: <blockquote> Yet in my opinion and observation, Fundamentalism’s commitment to the authority of Scripture often attaches itself to interpretations and positions on issues to which scriptural authority cannot be legitimately attached. . . . [O]ne finds great diversity due in part to the level of certainty that is accorded to the application of Scripture to issues that are far removed from the fundamentals of the faith. These applications on a host of issues—from standards to music to Bible versions to eschatological distinctives—have helped create a fractured Fundamentalism. </blockquote> That is the common criticism for personal and cultural separation based on standards. A lot of what Davis wrote, I agree with, and especially this: <blockquote> I will not allow a movement to define me and to choose my battles. The Word stands above every movement and every culture in every time and in all places. To that sacred and timeless Word and to its Author we must yield and give our allegiance. </blockquote> This is why I don't consider myself to be a fundamentalist. However, I will defend fundamentalism when it is attacked for upholding standards of personal holiness. Places like Calvary in Lansdale still practice mixed swimming, which includes men and women stripping down to something sometimes less modest than underwear. In my experience with the Lansdale type cross-section of professing Christianity, I have found that they consider a standard against mixed swimming to be one of these "illegitimate applications of Scripture." One of the detriments of being a fundamentalist is the initial concept that certain teachings of Scripture are already relegated to something less than a fundamental. In this case, mixed nudity doesn't count as a violation of a fundamental, so it should be ignored as a matter of separation. And most of the traditional brand of fundamentalists (the Bob Jones, Detroit, Maranatha, Northland, Central axis) do ignore this. That's why I like Davis' last quote (read it again to see if you like it). We'll do just what Scripture says and not worry about whether traditional fundamentalists will agree with us (they won't). I'm sure many of these men don't like that I am saying that they are supporting nudity or maybe better 'Christian nudist retreats.' If they don't support it, then why don't they separate over it? Are they really uncertain as to whether it is wrong? Maybe not. I do believe it is interesting that these fundamentalists will regularly coddle up to men like C. J. Mahaney of <a href="http://www.t4g.org/2008/" target="_blank">Together for the Gospel</a>, when his church this year is putting on Andrew Lloyd Webber's <a href="http://www.covlife.org/joseph/index.php" target="_blank">Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat</a>. Last year they put on <a href="http://www.covlife.org/godspell/" target="_blank">Godspell</a>. The latter is of the same type of show as the blasphemous Webber musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, which had opened on broadway a year earlier. Perhaps they could rename their fellowship, Together for the Godspell. When fundamentalist Dave Doran got together with them last year, he<a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/2008/03/10/potential-and-pitfalls-of-together-for-the-gospel/print/" target="_blank"> reported</a>: <blockquote> In many respects, it was one of the most spiritually beneficial conferences I’ve attended—the message by John Piper alone was worth the time and cost of the conference. </blockquote> John Piper <a href="http://calendar.marshillchurch.org/archives/national-resurgence-conference-text-context?ec3_id=205" target="_blank">doesn't have trouble </a>with the <a href="http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=178" target="_blank">standards</a> of the pastor of Mars Hill church in the Seattle, WA area, <a href="http://images.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/09/13/righteous/story.jpg" target="_blank">Mark Driscoll</a>. This mixture could make things confusing couldn't it? Isn't this the reason why we separate ecclesiastically (churches separate) over issues of personal holiness? The evangelicals and fundamentalists don't have these standards of personal holiness over which they will separate, and so they have an incredible lack of discernment. This causes many to stumble. The most common text I hear quoted as a Scriptural refutation of standards is Mark 7:7: <blockquote> Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. </blockquote> Believers have not historically relied on this verse in contradiction to standards of personal holiness. God expects us to apply Scripture to our life and standards are the way. As a means of seeing how that believers have applied Scripture to life, and not considered legalistic, take a look at William Gouge's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=grassrU5viMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=of+domestical+duties+gouge&source=web&ots=fwmePJVNdy&sig=JVAVh7sIZs0HAD-jcs2iNdDJj1c&hl=en" target="_blank">Of Domestical Duties</a> (1622). Gouge has a several page section in which he shows that a biblical practice would be a mother nursing her infant children. Most evangelicals and many fundamentalists would call this legalism. As a result of these kinds of attacks on standards, churches lose their Christian culture, looking, acting, and sounding like the world. The churches of today look more and more like the blue crowd compared to the red crowd they once did. Some may say that this either doesn't matter or it's actually good. What do they do with Zephaniah 1:8? <blockquote>And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.</blockquote> Dressing in "strange apparel" was to dress like the world. God would punish those of His people who wore worldly clothes. He expected them to be distinct. Distinctiveness was holiness. This verse alone is a proof text for standards. This is also the <a href="http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com/listdetails.asp?ID=915" target="_blank">historic position </a>on this verse (and <a href="http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/durhamondress.htm" target="_blank">here</a>). God expects believers to have personal standards of holiness. Zephaniah 1:8 doesn't explain what "strange apparel" was. They were to know. They obviously did know. They were going to be punished for something that they knew and were supposed to practice. God hasn't changed on this, even if we have. The Relationship to 2 Timothy 3:2 I've been relating the cultural decay to the last days. One last expression of the times of apostacy is that men shall be "lovers of pleasure." Men want their way. They want their creature comforts. On the other hand, Jesus said that His way was self-denial. The rich young man in Matthew 19 said he wanted eternal life, but he couldn't give up his things. Jesus described His way in Luke 9:58: <blockquote> Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. </blockquote> Those following Christ shouldn't expect to have anywhere to lay their heads. That's not what people want to hear today. And because people want what they want, churches <a href="http://www.amazon.com/This-Little-Church-Went-Market/dp/1591600499" target="_blank">market themselves to pleasure-loving people</a>. It's no wonder that they don't like standards and scramble to find verses to avoid them. They even present a kind of Christian hedonism (<a href="http://www.thefaithfulword.org/cathedonism.html" target="_blank">these articles are against it</a>). The evangelical, John Piper, has popularized a form of Christian hedonism, and he states the first point in his book, Desiring God (p. 23): <blockquote> 1. The longing to be happy is a universal human experience; it is good, not sinful. 2. We should never try to resist our longing to be happy, as though it were a bad impulse. Instead we should seek to intensify this longing and nourish it with whatever will provide the deepest and most enduring satisfaction. </blockquote> He starts with man's longing to be happy. What verse teaches this? Um. (<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080115184301AA2k0h9" target="_blank">Crickets</a>.) Mark 7:7 anyone? This idea in particular satisfies man's fleshly desire to gratify himself. As a result of these kinds of philosophies, evangelicalism is full of worldliness. Low standards or high standards can result from legalism. Grace doesn't contradict man's happiness, but it centers on the pleasure of God. It doesn't make provision for the flesh. It won't always deliver us if we walk near the edge of the moral cliff. Grace will build a fence there. It won't make it easier for the flesh. It teaches us to deny ungodliness and lust. Standards graciously apply Scripture. They protect the distinct, holy culture of the Christian. Anonymous on "Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=73#post-262 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:14:42 +0000 Anonymous 262@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Chapter Four of Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election is up: Elect "In Christ" <a href="http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/Elect.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/Elect.htm</a> KentBrand on "Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=73#post-261 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:25:03 +0000 KentBrand 261@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Lance, I'll give it a read. I had not looked over here for awhile, but thanks for letting us know. Cathy on "Snowflakes" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=47#post-260 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:29:15 +0000 Cathy 260@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Glad to see this place has defrosted, can you do something about our weather? LOL JeffV on "Culture Crucified - Christian Crucified" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=77#post-259 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:48:10 +0000 JeffV 259@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Crucifixion is one of the most cruel forms of execution mankind has conceived. It is a punishment reserved for only the most vile criminals. No self-respecting citizen would want anything to do with someone who is punished in this way. Crucifixion means shame, reproach, mockery, and ostracism for everyone who aligns themselves with the one that is executed in this way. That the philosophy of someone who was crucified would be helpful in any way is pure foolishness and it's true that anyone who's hanged on a tree is cursed. Crucifixion not only executes; it stigmatizes. So when the Apostle Paul writes, <blockquote>But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross or our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.</blockquote> there is significance to a Christian and culture that cannot be ignored. Galatians 6:14 teaches us that the world and its culture deserves from Christians all the shame, reproach, mockery and ostracism that a crucified criminal deserves. It also teaches us that Christians should live in a way that receives all the shame, reproach, mockery and ostracism from the world and its culture that a crucified criminal receives. Christian, the cross of Christ should change the way you view the world. It should change your worldview. Can you despise the world? Can you mock the world? Can you heap shame and reproach on its culture? Alternatively, does the world approve your lifestyle or reproach you for it? Are your worldly friends ashamed to be around you or do you fit right in? Does your Christianity make you do anything that is a mockery to our culture? You see, the cross of Christ changes a man so that the world views him differently also... <blockquote>...<a target="_blank" href="http://jeffvoegtlin.mypodcast.com/2008/03/A_Glorious_Cross-89892.html" title="A Glorious Cross">the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world</a>.</blockquote> KentBrand on "Culture Decay---But Who Cares? part two" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=76#post-258 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:17:41 +0000 KentBrand 258@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ As I write this, we are in the midst of a presidential primary and down to two democratic candidates, as history will show, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In this last week, the media has finally revealed the incidiary statements of Obama's long time friend and pastor, Jeremiah Wright (decent articles about it <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/america-obama-wright-1998925-rev-bless">here</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/17/jeremiah-wrights-greatest-hits/">here</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-agrees-with-reverend.html">here</a>). This is the man that gave Obama the title of his bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, married him, baptized his two daughters, and was the long-time pastor of the church of which Obama has been a member for twenty years. Obama says he had no idea that his pastor was like this. Obama <a target="_blank" href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/just-what-did-o.html">doesn't think</a> that these comments need separate him from Wright, because they are only a few things that he said among, you know, mainly good. Then again, Mussolini got the trains to run on time. And imagine if another candidate said, "This man, David Duke, has influenced my life almost as much as anyone---I do separate myself from some of what he says---but he is a good man." How would that go down? The media talks about this like it's old news and yet I had heard nothing about it. The mainstream media, that I know of, has said nothing about Obama's <a target="_blank" href="http://yikes101.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-trying-to-bamboozle-you.html">regular usage</a> of the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.californiaconservative.org/2008/obamas-pastoral-problem/">terms</a> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/21/143317/391">hoodwinked</a> and<a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboozled"> bamboozled</a> on the campaign trail, especially in areas where his crowds were huge numbers of African Americans, terms utilized by Malcolm X in speeches that were borrowed by Spike Lee for films They are code language for many African Americans. Imagine if anyone else besides Senator Obama had connections with this man or used these terms, what would that do to his or her candidacy? You know the answer. This all relates to the subject of toleration. Toleration seems to work only in certain directions in this culture (which I'll explain below). For instance, politically correct toleration works with the media's treatment of the Senator from Illinois, who is running for president. His association with intolerance is tolerated. Toleration, however, is the chief virtue of the culture. And that toleration has destroyed the culture we once had for a truly pseudo liberty. One can easily see that the true beginnings of toleration started when Adam tolerated Eve's option of eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That plunged our world into sin and since then, mankind has continued to look at much of what God said to be and do as merely optional. More seriously, the ever increasing philosophy of unrestrainedness has penetrated at first subtly and now more obviously into churches. Churches became permissive and now have taken on the look, sound, and attitude of the world. A Description of the Unrestrained, Toleration Culture Nowhere is the mounting culture of toleration described more brilliantly than the 1987 bestselling book by the late Alan Bloom, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671657151?ie=UTF8&tag=jackhammr-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0671657151">The Closing of the American Mind</a>. Bloom begins by examining the students in the prestige universities, and he finds them deficient in moral formation, in reading of serious books, in music, and above all in love. They have no love in their souls, no longing for anything high or great. Their minds are vacant, their characters feeble, and their bodies sated with rock and roll and easy sex. These same students come furnished with a simple-minded relativism that is quick to close off all discussion with the question, "Who’s to say what’s right and wrong?" Their relativism justifies an easygoing openness to everything, an openness which expresses their incapacity for being serious about anything. This proclaimed openness, in fact, turns out to be a dogmatic closedness toward moral virtue no less than toward even true thoughtfulness. The cause of the closedness, in Bloom’s diagnosis, is modern philosophy. He posits that America was founded on modern principles of liberty and equality passed from Hobbes and Locke. Liberty, however, turned out to mean freedom from all self-restraint, and equality turned out to mean the destruction of all differences of rank and even nature. Our Founders may have said to have acted "with a firm reliance on divine providence" (Declaration of Independence), but Bloom says that their natural-rights philosophy came from the atheists Hobbes and Locke. He characterizes the Lockean doctrine of the Founders in this way (p. 163): <blockquote>[In the state of nature, man] is on his own. God neither looks after him nor punishes him.</blockquote> The practical result (p. 230): <blockquote>God was slowly executed here; it took two hundred years, but local theologians tell us He is now dead.</blockquote> Similarly, Bloom says the Founders may have thought they were establishing a political order based on reason. At first reason legitimated industriousness and money-making, but eventually lost its authority and became impotent against expectations of self-indulgence and mindless self-expression. Finally, the infections caused by our political principles sapped the strength of faith and morality. The relativism of today’s students is, then, in Bloom’s view, a perfect communication of the real soul of liberty, which from the start, in Hobbes’s thought, meant that life had no intrinsic meaning. The anti-design dogmas of women’s liberation, which in the name of equality deny the obvious differences between men and women, are destroying the family, which had been the core of society through most of America’s history. Likewise, the anti-design dogmas of affirmative action—insisting that equal opportunity be suppressed until all categories of Americans come out exactly uniform—deny the obvious differences in ambition and intelligence among human beings. Thus equality and liberty eventually produced self-satisfied relativism which sees no need to aspire to anything beyond itself. How the Toleration Culture Infects the Church If I were to add a chapter to Bloom's book, the subject would be how that this relativism has infiltrated the church. A first aspect began when the church turned over the stewardship of science including origins, government, art, psychology, and history (among other things) to the state. The state gladly left the church with theology. The Bible could apply to spiritual matters. We arrived at a distrust for the Bible to speak to anything that is cultural, including music and dress. I think it also applies to the text of Scripture itself, but I want my multiple version readers to stay with me. There is one last step that I see in the church's ejection of culture---since the Bible does not speak to science, government, art, psychology, and history, and it is not trustworthy in those matters, then how could it be in theology? This ends where many liberal churches already exist: the Bible has no authority in anything. Political correctness, what Bloom describes as the closing of the mind, has lead to theological correctness. This reigns in liberalism, permeates evangelicalism, and is now greatly influencing fundamentalism. Your view of biblical subjects must fit within a certain realm of theological correctness to be acceptable. Like with the secular education system, there is no visibly organized authority for this correctness, yet it can be seen and felt all over. Some of the most prominent advocates of absolute biblical truth will cower especially on the cultural issues. They have been given up in the same fashion that higher education abandoned absolute truth long ago. Scripture is sufficient for all matters to which it speaks. The theological police are busy removing cultural issues from its body of sufficiency. They have no historical basis for doing so, but they do so nonetheless. This parallels with higher education dumbing down its own music, literature, and appearance in lieu of the <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage">noble savage</a>. A splatter on a canvass becomes great art and a violent stroke on guitar strings great music, akin to the superiority of a cave painting by aboriginals. The noble savage isn't faking it. He isn't very good, but he keeps it real. This is the kind of faux authority we're left with when we abandon the Bible on cultural issues. In keeping with the relativistic approach to culture, <a target="_blank" href="http://remonstrans.net/index.php?s=The+Many+against+the+Few&sentence=sentence&submit=Search">criticism</a> of music and other culture based upon absolute truth is scorned. Man's feelings reign even in Christian criticism (the little there is). What becomes important is whether you like it or whether it kept you listening. We "musn't" be bored with a song. People must like it. Neither can we criticize anyone for how they dress when they come to church or worship, if that's why they happen to be there (which is more and more unlikely due to our methods). For all the talk about God, man remains the measure for all things, including worship of God. Covetousness, Rebellion, Unthankfulness, and Unholiness In this first part of this essay, I had begun explaining the present cultural decay in churches. I referenced 2 Timothy 3:2: <blockquote>For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.</blockquote> Modern evangelicalism and much of fundamentalism pursues self interests. This relates closely to covetousness. What I want becomes more important than my testimony for God. Men argue for liberties, but they forget that they are not here for themselves, but for God (Romans 14:7, 8). They also may fail to remember what Jesus said about our relationship to others in Matthew 18:6: <blockquote> But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. </blockquote> 2 Peter 2 relates man's lust with his relationship with authority (vv. 10, 18, 19). We live in an era with a motto: Question Authority. Most fundamentally this manifests itself in disobedience to parents. Parental rights are greatly weakened in a permissive society that also has influenced Christians. Libertines prefer weak authority. They chafe and rebel at what keeps them from their self interests. God gives every good and perfect gift because He knows how to give good gifts as a good God. For unthankfulness, that isn't enough. He complains for more creature comforts and conveniences. He expects permission to touch, to drink, to jive, and to dance. Covetousness, rebellion, and unthankfulness aren't compatible with God's holiness. God's nature is separate from these character traits. God's holiness relates to his unique attributes and nature. He is separate from all things, high above and distinct. God expects that same quality in His own. More than ever the world's culture is separate from the character of God. This unholiness has influenced the church. The church has become increasingly common and profane in the ways it manifests itself, more and more like the world and less distinct, therefore, less like God. Anonymous on "Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=73#post-257 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:36:08 +0000 Anonymous 257@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Chapter Three is up: The Unfolding Nature of “the Regeneration” in the Plan of God <a href="http://disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm" rel="nofollow">http://disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm</a> KentBrand on "Culture Decay---But Who Cares? part one" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=75#post-256 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:40 +0000 KentBrand 256@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I drove by a billboard several years ago that was probably sponsored by the American Dental Association. It read: "Ignore Your Teeth; They'll Go Away." I snickered. I'm not laughing about cultural decay though, because I want to keep a Christian culture. But if we ignore it, it will go away too. This last week somebody sent me a DVD produced by Ken Ham and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/">Answers in Genesis</a>, entitled, "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-The-Key-to-Reclaiming-the-Culture-Expanded-Version,4743,229.aspx">Genesis the Key to Reclaiming Our Culture</a>." I haven't watched it yet, but on the cover (and you can see this by clicking on the DVD after going to the link provided) is a photograph of a girl with multiple piercings in her nose and her arms wrapped around the tattooed right arm of an older male, her head also planted on his shoulder. I guess Ken Ham thinks that something in this picture isn't right, so he believes it illustrates that culture needs reclaiming. I showed the photo to my wife and I asked her what she thought was wrong with it. Her first words were: "It's extreme." I said, "But I want something Scriptural. What verse would you use to tell me what's wrong with it? Why is it 'extreme'?" She paused and wrinkled up her face a little. I added, "It's not that easy to get a verse that makes a direct statement about these types of things. Because of that, many evangelicals and even now fundamentalists believe it is acceptable." And <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham">Ken Ham </a>is probably in the conservative evangelical category akin to the late <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris">Henry Morris</a>. Yet, he thinks that this was the appropriate picture to choose to portray a wayward culture. I agree with Ken Ham. Something's wrong in his cover photo. Something's even worse in the picture of evangelicalism and fundamentalism today. The Christian culture decays all around and few seem to care. With all of my exegetical, observational, and analytical abilities, I want to diagnose what's wrong. LOVE OF SELF As we get closer to the end, 2 Timothy 3:2 says that "men shall be lovers of their own selves." We've arrived. Men love themselves, including in churches. The world's culture, and this isn't new, has always been about self. The world pushes the pampering of self, elevating me to number one. We can see the conflicts between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of me in 2 Peter 1:4: <blockquote> Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. </blockquote> When the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature, he escapes the corruption that is in the world through lust. "Lust" is that desire to please self. The world is corrupted by its desire for self-gratification. You've heard of the Copernican theory, that says that the world revolves around the sun. The world has more than a theory, more a conviction, that the world revolves around self. Like I said, we knew self dominates the world, but what's different is that now Christians are also about self. A lot of terrain on the Christian blogosphere is dedicated to defense of selfish pursuits. They have staked out their love of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2006/06/biblical_libert.html">booze</a>, the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?p=24747#post24747">movie theater</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=178">dance</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/music/">rock music</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.valleybible.org/index.cfm/pageid/699/index.html">dating touching</a>, and a<a target="_blank" href="http://billynewhouse.blogspot.com/2006/04/church-dress.html"> casual dress philosophy</a>. These are all activities, which have historically been <a target="_blank" href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=4eoDAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22Anti-Bacchus%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=L6g8Rg45a1&sig=SKQblJHxPNQ3PZkgst15kjf_mqo">rejected</a> by <a target="_blank" href="http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/spurgeon.htm">Christians</a>, but not anymore. Did you notice in 2 Peter 1:4 that at the moment of one's justification, the believer escapes a world corrupted through lust. He escapes one culture for another culture and the one he escapes has been corrupted through feeding self. What undergirds the culture of the world is a philosophy that centers on self. Since he escapes it, he is no longer of it and that is a direct result of his partaking of the divine nature. Paul describes this attitude of self interest that captivates the unbeliever in Philippians 3:19: <blockquote>Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.</blockquote> Saved people are not about getting what they want. They are not disposed with the same things the world is. They are described earlier in Philippians 3 in v. 3 and are the polar opposite of those in v. 19. <blockquote> For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. </blockquote> Genuine believers have won the battle where it counts the most, on the inside, and this sincerity is characterized by the three qualities Paul lists here. These are the cultures in conflict. One sincerely seeks after God, rejoicing in Christ, not following at all the leadership of his own desires. The other minds earthly things, dragged along by his appetites (his belly). The man with the heavenly citizenship (Philippians 3:20) sees no advantages to fitting in with the world. Tattoos are not about God. Piercings are not about God. A sensual rhythm isn't about God. The buzz from a Budweiser isn't about God. What kind of dress will make me most comfortable isn't about God. The tidal wave of entertainment pounding from the big screen of a theater isn't about God. Jazz music, let alone rap, rock, and hip, is not about God. Marketing the church by shortening, humoring, and providing an easy-reader, remedial version of Scripture isn't about God (please keep reading multiple version users). Those are all about self. I turned on the live stream of the Shepherd's Conference from Grace Community Church and John MacArthur in Southern California. It was the one message I would have time to tune in. I expected to hear Albert Mohler, but they showed the music before hand. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.masters.edu/DeptPageNew.asp?PageID=2008">The Master's Chorale</a> came on first. I perked up. I could see them only from the distant camera, but they were very modestly and conservatively dressed. They looked reverent. I smiled in hopeful anticipation. I'm going to mention only their second number, because it was an arrangement that mainly utilized jazz, ragtime and blues, components to communicate a theological message supposedly to God. I'm confident that God rejected the song, so that it never got further than the ceiling of the auditorium. Why? The jazz composition wasn't about God. It was about about having fun and feeling good. The message of the words were corrupted by lust, a whole dimension of life that the professing believers were to have escaped. What was the worst for me was that they syncretized. The belly god yanked the holy, godly words through the sewer culture. The last chord of the song was unresolved. My son, who walked in on it at the very beginning, groaned, and I cried, "What?!?!" And then, "Are you kidding me?" I asked, "Did you hear that?!?" And he groaned again. He understood it. He heard the same stuff from some squirrely godless teenagers a few weeks before at the California All State band. He walked out on that because it was spiritually septic. The earth was without form and void. Tohu Bohu. That's the Hebrew in Genesis 1:2. A play on words. The ending of the Master's Chorale song was empty and shapeless too. God hadn't come through to give completion and fulfillment. They ended tohu bohu. God didn't move through the song. It wasn't good. When God is done with something, it's good, and this wasn't. I understand a Buddhist leaning on that form of communication, but not a true worshiper of God. So why? Why did they do it? Self. It felt good. They looked enlightened according to earthly wisdom. "Did you hear that? That sounded just like a real group; you know, the ones in the world." That has become, in so many cases, the standard for Christians. They imitate the world. They mind earthly things. They hear something they like and do it---the lust of the flesh. The defense for the belly god? "Scripture doesn't say it's wrong!" And, "so you're saying that we can't have fun?! We can't enjoy anything?!" Meats for the belly and belly for meats. "People got emotional in Scripture, didn't they? So emotion is good, so rock music is good." They'll drink to that. They'll smoke a cigar to that. "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm">Spurgeon would have!</a>" We can take the individual aspects of earthly things and by convincing ourselves that each part is acceptable, persuade ourselves that so is the whole. "Barley's fine, right?" "Drums are in the Bible, right?" What guides the pursuit, however, is what led Solomon along in Ecclesiastes. It's altogether vanity. Professing Christians and their churches follow after self and call it grace. That same pattern is found in the apostates of 2 Peter 2 and 3. They walk after their own lusts. They offer men temporal things, just like the world. In so doing, they make merchandise of them. They return and then lead others to the pollution of this world, promising liberty, but entangling men again in what God had saved them from. God the Appetite Instead of worshiping God in the spirit, professing Christians focus on fleshly pursuits, like booze and big-time entertainment. They justify it by saying it's not in the Bible, but, of course, neither are crack pipes. What leads them along are their personal appetites. For a Judaizer of that day, it was his own fleshly accomplishment, but that's not all it was for people in the time Paul wrote Philippians. Many Gentiles of the day in the Roman Empire were Gnostics who had a dualistic philosophy. The philosophy said spirit is good and matter is evil. The influence was that we are Christians in the spirit. Body is matter, is evil, therefore, what your body does doesn't matter at all. It's inconsequential. Since it is going to be evil no matter what you do with it, just feed it. That belief went right into what was called in theology antinomianism, which is right in the contemporary libertinism of today which disconnects what we look and sound and act like from who we are on the inside. Glory in their Shame Being led along by something other than God, their appetite, their glory becomes their shame. They revel in the things that they should be ashamed of. They are proud of their fleshiness. They stamp liberty on it, but it is their own belly dance. We've lost shame for these kinds of things, for improprieties and selfish pursuits. Now evangelicals brag about them. Everything's the same as the world, except they're forgiven. Mind Earthly Things I really do get worldliness. I get entanglements with the affairs of this life. It's the struggle that Paul describes in Romans 7, one, however, that we have won. We've been delivered and God keeps on saving us. He didn't release us from the bondage for us to be trapped by fleshly pursuits. You're right if you say that the Bible says nothing about lathering our head with juicy hair care products. It doesn't, so we should just leave it alone, right? Why leave it alone when it cries for attention? A teenage boy with glistening locks wants someone to look. I'm not thinking that it is this forty-five year old man, but it's someone. I have one question for him. You know what it is. "Why?" He can keep wearing it, but it sends the wrong message for a Christian. He's got to fit into his state college campus and they require conformity to their philosophies or at least he thinks they do. Or it's what he perceives that girl that works at the hardware check-out might like, the busty one with the tight top and shorts. His hair communicates a compatibility to her view of the world. His piercing is a whole other story. I could squeeze all the jell from his hair and lube the wheels of my car and I don't think he'll be an inch closer to God. So yes, the insides matter the most, but his outsides are also wrong. They conform to the world. His externals haven't been transformed by the renewing of his mind. His body isn't a living sacrifice and isn't acceptable to God. In addition to his spiritual feebleness, he's also not fashioning himself in a godly manner. As I look to Christ's return, because He is coming back, I will set my affections on things above. That up look will manifest itself in my outward adornment as well as my choice of activities. I'll gird up my loins like a man and be done with lesser things. The things of earth will dim in the light of God's glory and grace. DaveM on "CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW Starts at Home" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=74#post-255 Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:46:31 +0000 DaveM 255@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ So, we’ve laid the foundations of the Christian worldview. You can refresh your memory <a href="http://www.jackhammr.org/2008/02/08/christian-worldview-viewing-the-world-through-christian-eyes/">here </a>and <a href="http://www.jackhammr.org/2008/02/18/christian-whirledview-viewing-the-world-through-worldly-eyes/">here</a>, or you can keep reading. And since foundations serve a vital role in building, we see the necessity of covering our bases. Since we view the world through Christian eyes, we understand that God is absolute, that God is sufficient, that God is the ultimate reality, the Uncaused Cause of all things. We understand that nothing exists apart from or independently of God, and thus we understand that Creation is entirely dependent on God. And this means that we depend on God for knowledge. We can only know what God intends that we should know, what God has revealed to us in nature or in Scripture. God knows all things originally and exhaustively, we only know after Him. And that includes our knowledge or understanding of right and wrong, and how right and wrong is determined. We do not make up our own ethic. God has revealed the Christian ethic, and we receive that ethic. This, in a nutshell, is the foundation. And foundations, as they go, are fine things. I once knew of a man who spent a great deal of time digging out footers, setting in reinforcement, and building a very sturdy foundation for his future home. After several years of work, he finally finished with the foundation. We all admired it, wondering what would sit on it. But the foundation just sat there, holding up nothing but leaves, dust, and the occasional stray ant. Foundations need a house hat. Our Christian Worldview, while certainly an admirable thing, needs something to cap it off. In other words, we need to take this fine Christian Worldview, and put it to some practical use. Foundations are only good when they are useful. And foundations are only useful when they prop something up. A Christian Worldview is viewing the world through Christian eyes, which implies that we Christians do some viewing, and that we are actually looking at something. We apply our Christian Worldview. This work of applying the Christian Worldview begins in the home. Ephesians 6:4 gives us a mandate for applying the Biblical Worldview, starting in the home. <blockquote>And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.</blockquote> The modern meaning of nurture is similar to the word nourish – to feed, to promote growth. But the word nurture is broader than mere physical nourishment and nurturing. It includes growth in maturity. This is accomplished through education. To nurture is to educate, to train up. The Greek word in this passage is paideia, which is the word the Greeks would have used for education. In the Greek world, classroom instruction and formal education was a central part of paideia, but it was not the entirety. The central point of paideia went further than mere knowledge, extending into the culture at large. The goal of paideia in the Greek world was the establishment and furtherance of a culture. Children were cultivated, both by the culture and for the culture. Greek philosophers pictured the ideal citizen taking his place in the ideal culture, and all education aimed at producing that ideal.Then along came the Apostle Paul. Paul presents a new picture – a new ideal. "Bring them up" Paul says, "in the paideia… of the Lord." A new culture, Paul argues, a new kind of culture is required. And, unlike the Greek world, Paul places the responsibility for this enculturation on the fathers, not on the government. Fathers must bring their children up in this Christian culture, this "culture of the Lord." Obviously, this "culture of the Lord" looks different than Ephesian culture. But since this is no reactionary culture, simply doing the opposite of whatever the surrounding pagans do, we need a better idea of what Christian culture looks like. On a theoretical level, the foundations of such a culture should be fairly easy to distinguish. Worldly culture is built on the sand of lusts, of emotional feelies, of shifting ethical norms, of various shades of Epicurean and/or Stoic-isms. Christian culture is founded on the Rock. But will there be a difference in the house? Will that difference be seen on the outside of the house? Will it be noticeably different on the inside of the house? Will there be a difference in the structure, in the layout, in the materials, in the furniture, in the decorations, in the atmosphere, in the noises, in the aroma of the Christian home? The answer is: absolutely. There is such a thing as a distinctively Christian culture. And our goal during the month of March is to describe, as best we can, what that distinction will be, to apply the Christian worldview and particularly Christian ethics to culture in order to present a model for a paideia of the Lord. But before we get too far into it, we really ought to work on a framework for our cultural ideas. To extend the metaphor, there is no sense hanging the drywall until we have framed the walls. In this post, I would like to present a framework for a godly culture: basic guidelines for proper Christian living in this present world. First, a truly Christian culture must be centered on Christ. While this seems basic enough, we really need to think about what this means. A Christian culture is a worshipping culture. On the other hand, a worldly culture is also a worshipping culture. The direction of worship runs in two vastly different directions, but the fact of worship remains. The worship in a Christian home must be distinct from the worship in a worldly home. And the first application of this is that worship must characterize the Christian home. Worship must be on-going, regular, and faithful. We cannot claim to have a "culture of the Lord" if we make a habit of ignoring the Lord. The Christian home then will be characterized by faithful worship, both public and private. Worship involves sacrifice. Every home makes sacrifices, faithful sacrifices in fact, to their God. The worldly home sacrifices each other for themselves. The Christian home sacrifices themselves for each other. The worldly home lives for pleasure. The Christian family presents their bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service. This means that a Christian home faithfully serves the Lord together. The worldly home worships and serves the creature more than the Creator (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Worship includes authority. A culture "of the Lord" means that Christ is the Lord of the culture. The Lord governs the Christian home. The first rule of the Christian home is "thou shalt love the Lord thy God." Since the Christian home loves the Lord God first, keeping God’s commands are first priority. Every activity, every custom, every decision is weighed in the light of God’s commandments. The Christian home regularly discusses God’s laws, seeking to apply God’s law to their manner of living. But the worldly home has a different set of rules to live by. Right and wrong are defined, not by the Word of God, but by tradition, by preference, by whim. "I like it" or "I don’t like it" carries the most weight. The ethic of the worldly home follows the shifting standards of carnality, and the worldly home is tossed on the waves of fashion and style and popularity. Secondly, a Christian culture must itself be a culture. A real, actual, honest-to-goodness, thriving culture. In other words, we must not simply reject culture because we reject the world’s culture. The passage commands us to bring them up in the paideia (that is, culture) of the Lord. Ours is a work of displacement. The Bible does not tell us what the rest of the world was like when God created the Garden of Eden for Adam. But we do know that Adam was commanded to "subdue the earth and have dominion over it." This indicates that Adam was commanded to expand the boundaries of Eden. Eden was, for Adam, a starting place. And the Garden of Eden was the model for the rest of the world. God commanded Adam to make a garden like Eden. Even so, we must be making our own little Garden of Eden within the confines of our own homes, and subduing the earth from there. Every father should strive to establish and develop a particular culture in his own home. This culture must be different in nature from the culture of the world. And yet, we must recognize that God has placed us in this world. We are required to know the world, even to understand the world in order to discern. We must interpret the surrounding culture, and we must interpret the culture for our children. We don’t reject vinyl siding or tinted windows merely because the world has them. In fact, from the outside the Christian home will look very similar to the neighbors – grass, flowers, driveway, two and one half cars, and a mailbox. For that matter, the neighbors have couches, and so do we. The neighbors have pictures hanging on the walls, and so do we. The neighbors have free-standing lamps, and so do we. The neighbors have beds, some even have bunk beds, and so do we. In these and other ways, Christian culture resembles the culture of the world. The Christian culture does not insist on living outside the bounds of cultural norms. And yet where the resemblance begins, it also ends. For the distinction lies, not in the bunk beds, but in how we approach things like bunk beds. The distinction lies, not in living room furniture, or two and one half cars, or garages with gardening implements hanging on the walls. The distinction lies in how we think about living room furniture, why we have it, how we arrange it, our attitudes towards it. The distinction lies in our approach to our vehicles, and our gardening implements. Nevertheless, we have a culture. And that culture includes things… music, stories, laughter, food, tears, rest, work, furniture, appliances, and entertainment. The world approaches these things as the end. The Christian considers these things to be means to an end. The world serves their technologies. The world becomes enslaved by them. Consistent Christians, on the other hand, makes a servant of technologies. The world looks at the things that are seen. The Christian at the things that are not seen. The world thinks on the abundance of the things which he possesses. The Christian thinks on the things that are true, and honest, and just, and pure, and lovely, and of good report, and virtuous, and praiseworthy. These things enrich the Christian’s culture, and in all his choices, he aims at these things. Thirdly, a Christian culture must be patriarchal. The verse commands, "And ye fathers… bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Here lies yet another distinction. In American culture, mother dominates the home. Dad either abandoned the home long ago, or else is absent somewhere between the workplace and the garage. At the very least, the average worldly dad abdicates in his responsibility. As believers, we must begin to grasp the cultural impact of this problem. We have a generation of young people who are angry at their parents, particularly at their fathers. I have heard plenty of fathers claim that their children rebelled against their "faithfulness to the Lord." But in counseling, I have found this rarely to be the case. What the children rebel against is a father who uses his service for God as an excuse for not serving the family. Children rebel against a father who reserves his gracious speech for everyone living outside their home. Children rebel against a father who prefers to be anywhere, including the garage or the workshop, but home with the family. We must understand that this is a cultural issue. A Christian culture is characterized by diligent fathers. In a Christian culture, dad sets the tone, dad determines the details, dad sets the example, dad cultivates the garden. If the garden is full of weeds, then dad is neglecting his own vineyard. God puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulder of the father. At the same time, when fathers obey God, roll up their sleeves, and work to establish a Christian culture in the home, this too has a cultural impact. Finally, a Christian culture must be instructive. The Bible commands us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The Christian home then is a place of instruction, where the family is being instructed from the Word, and the father is doing the instructing. In the Christian home, the father does a work of interpretation. In worldly homes, the children are left to make their own interpretations about the world, about themselves, about life. Often, the child in a worldly home turns to the television for interpretation, with the result of even more worldliness. But in the Christian home, the father interprets the world and the surrounding culture for his children. This work of instruction involves probing and questioning about the details of the day. When the kids get home from school, and as the family gathers around the dinner table, the father must be engaged, involved in the conversation, and must be a good listener. The father must help his children understand what happened, why it happened, and what they should learn from it. This is such a vital part of establishing a Christian culture in the home that I daresay a truly Christian culture will never be established apart from this sort of instruction. Our children must have all of Scripture applied to all of life, or they will never themselves make the connection. Parents need to learn to ask their children, "what does God’s Word say about this?" And once again, this is precisely the point at which a Christian home differs from a worldly home. Such a Christian home, full of instruction in righteousness, is not only a place of instruction, but is also instructive to the surrounding culture. Surely, we must preach the gospel to every creature. But the loudest, most eloquent, and most powerful gospel preaching we will ever do is through the culture of our own families, as we live in our neighborhoods, worship in our churches, and involve ourselves in our communities. Anonymous on "Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=73#post-254 Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:10:16 +0000 Anonymous 254@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I have begun to put up my new book on Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election on my web site. This will be about a 347,000 word document when it is totally up. We will be adding a new chapter about every week as the Web Master formats them. The link to these studies is below: <a href="http://disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm" rel="nofollow">http://disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm</a> There is an Introduction and the first two chapters up presently. There is a link to a Comments page at the bottom of each Chapter. If you would like to add a comment, you can click on the link and do so. If you want to be notified when a new chapter is up, sign up for notifications on the Line Upon Line Blog and you will be notified by e-mail (link below): <a href="http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/</a> KentBrand on "Salvation Is Cultural Separation" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=72#post-253 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:04:53 +0000 KentBrand 253@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Evangelicals know something is wrong. They talk about it. They've essentially ignored cultural separation for decades and they've gotten huge in part through their non-practice. The emerging evangelicals are compromising even more on cultural issues. Now the especially conservative evangelicals seem to be starting to see that the Bible has something to say on it. But if they say much about it, they might sound like fundamentalists. If they tolerate, they'll keep more audience, but if they do that too much, they see mounting ungodliness from their left flank. Sound confusing? It gets that way when you've been compromising your entire life. So now, certain evangelicals are mentioning worldliness somewhat regularly, more than I've ever seen. Since many evangelicals are moving further to their left on cultural issues, even they can't stomach it any longer, and even they feel compelled to say something. Here's John MacArthur over at Pulpit Live--- <blockquote>You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if we don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christanity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times. Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/11/grunge-christianity/">worldly</a>. They just don’t want to be thought uncool. There is and always has been a fundamental, irreconcilable incompatibility between the church and the world. Christian thought is out of harmony with all the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/25/the-church-vs-the-world/">world’s</a> philosophies. Genuine faith in Christ entails a denial of every worldly value. Biblical truth contradicts all the world’s religions. Christianity itself is therefore antithetical to virtually everything this world admires. But what the contemporary church is into is not holy living, it is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/56-16">worldliness</a>. They think that rather than being separate from the world and thereby laying a foundation of credibility on which to witness, you need to be like the world. They don't call it worldliness, they have a new word for it, it's called contextualization, which is a fancy word for worldliness. The contextualization of the gospel today has infected the church with the spirit of the age. It has opened the church's doors wide for worldliness and shallowness and in some cases a crass party atmosphere. The world now sets the agenda for the church.</blockquote> And then there's his comrade, Phil Johnson, at Team Pyro--- <blockquote>[N]ot all the world is charmed by <a target="_blank" href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/01/land-of-1000-dances.html">worldly</a> religion, and the apologetic value of "Disco Night in the Sanctuary" is by no means a given. In short, taking pains to demonstrate how hip and liberated we can be in our places of worship might not always be the finest "missional" strategy. Think about it: Youth ministries (not all of them, of course, but the vast majority of squidgy evangelical ones) deliberately shield their young people from the hard truths and strong demands of Jesus. They tailor their worship so <a target="_blank" href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/11/smells-like-teen-spirit.html">worldly</a> youth can feel as comfortable in the church environment as possible.</blockquote> And then you have David F. Wells, who writes about the culture: <blockquote>What the church has to do, therefore, is to look for correlations between <a target="_blank" href="http://www.the-highway.com/wordworld_Wells.html">worldliness</a> as I have described it and the cultural consequences of modernization that I am sketching. At the point where they coincide, the church has to become both anti-modern and carefully self-conscious about its virtue and its cognitive processes.</blockquote> What Wells wrote, in very dressed up language, sounds just like what separatists have been saying for years. When you say it in such a high-brow way, it seems easier for evangelicals to swallow. I think it actually makes it easier for them to dismiss themselves from the actual practice of separation from the world. However, again, they know something is wrong. Evangelical Criticism of Cultural Separation in Fundamentalism When evangelicals are asked to evaluate fundamentalism, a common negative is fundamentalism's emphasis on cultural issues. Just recently, as we ended writing this first month on culture here, very popular Southern Baptist evangelical, Mark Dever, and his 9 Marks organization published <a target="_blank" href="http://filemanager.silaspartners.com/dox/9marks/9news/mar-apr08ejournal.pdf">a critique of fundamentalism in their online ejournal (pdf)</a>. Here are some quotes from some of the evangelicals, critical of the emphasis of fundamentalism on cultural issues: David S. Dockery--- <blockquote> Carl Henry once said that Fundamentalists cannot distinguish between the important truth regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ and questionable matters like attending movies. In their attempt to defend the Bible and the gospel, Fundamentalists have often presented the truths of Christianity in a negative light. Their concerns with worldliness have resulted in a separatism that has no impact on the culture or society. The emphasis on holiness often results in an unhealthy legalism. </blockquote> Os Guinness--- <blockquote> In their zeal to resist modern culture, for example, Fundamentalists have been quick to abandon such costly teaching of Jesus as "Love your enemies" and forgive as we have been forgiven—without limits. </blockquote> Jerammie Rinne--- <blockquote> Fundamentalists tended to take a hard line on drinking, dancing, movies and the like, and to withdraw into separate colleges, missionary organizations and denominations. Unfortunately, this separation too often fostered an oppressive legalism and divisive denominationalism that impeded the gospel. </blockquote> So you can see that several evangelicals have a concern about modern day cultural philosophy and practices of professing Christianity, but on the other hand, they will criticize cultural separation within fundamentalism. You really can't have it both ways. We either should separate culturally or we shouldn't. What Does Scripture Say About Salvation and Cultural Separation? What matters is what God says, and the Bible does instruct us about cultural separation. What I see in Scripture is that salvation is cultural separation. When God saves us, He separates us from the culture. A "salvation" that is not culturally separate is not salvation at all. I want us to look at just a few passages and I believe you will see this truth with me. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 God commands Christians not to fellowship with non-Christians. In light of a lot of other instruction in Scripture, this doesn't mean that we don't interact with unbelievers. All of the nouns and verbs combined in this text help us to understand what this separation is. Believers are not to fellowship, have communion, have concord, have part, or be in agreement with the unsaved. Scripture nowhere teaches a believer to find common ground with an unbeliever. A Christian as light has characteristics that pertain to his nature and lifestyle that are incompatible with the darkness descriptive of the unconverted man. He especially does not share a common culture. He is radically different than the unbeliever---he isn't to cooperate, share, or associate with. Gill writes: <blockquote>Now, what "communion" can there be between persons so different one from another? for what is more so than light and darkness? these the God of nature has divided from each other; and they are in nature irreconcilable to one another, and so they are in grace. . . [W]hat part, society, or communion, can they have with one another? </blockquote> In vv. 17, 18 we see this connection to salvation. Those who do not separate from the world and its way, God will not receive and He will not call these non-separatists His sons and daughters. Those God saves He also separates. As a separatist, have you ever looked at a worldly evangelical (they're all over), and thought: "to me he doesn't seem like a saved person"? This passage says the same thing, that those who won't separate culturally aren't saved. Their desire to associate, share, and relate with the world says something about their profession of faith. God doesn't receive them nor will He call them His sons and daughters. You're seeing them the same way He does. 1 Peter 3:18-21 During the days in which Noah built the ark, out of His longsuffering the Lord Jesus Christ preached through Noah to those on earth who mocked and persecuted him. At the end of that time period, Noah and his family, eight souls, were saved by water. That's right, Noah and his family were saved by water. Those eight souls were also saved by the ark, but not in the same way they were saved by the water. If you were rushed down river in dangerous rapids, ready to drown, but you reached up and grabbed a tree branch just in time, you wouldn't say that you were saved by water. You would say that you were saved by that tree branch. So how were Noah and his family saved by water? One aspect of a believer's salvation is his separation from the world. We will not share eternity with those who oppose God, like the men who ridiculed Noah while he built the ark. God will separate His own from unbelievers. This is another way that God saves us. Like water saved Noah and his family, so v. 21 says that baptism also saves. Someone's water baptism will separate a believer from the world. It is one of the reasons for baptism. When a new Christian makes his salvation public through baptism, he will separate himself from the world. The reality of God's salvation of Noah from the world is symbolized by baptism. Some day God will physically and permanently separate His people from all others. However, believers are to subject themselves to a temporal separation through water baptism. Noah did not share the antediluvian culture. He clashed with their way of life. God saved him from it with the flood waters. After the flood, he could live without their influences. When we get saved, God wants the same for us, so he provided baptism, water that saves believers from pagan culture just like the waters of the flood saved Noah and his family. Hebrews 13:13, 14 Gill writes concerning v. 13: <blockquote>[T]he world [is] full of enemies to Christ and his people; and for the noise and fatigue of it, it being a troublesome and wearisome place to the saints, abounding with sins and wickedness; as also camps usually do; and for multitude, the men of the world being very numerous: and a man may be said to "go forth" from hence, when he professes not to belong to the world; when his affections are weaned from it; when the allurements of it do not draw him aside; when he forsakes, and suffers the loss of all, for Christ; when he withdraws from the conversation of the men of it, and breathes after another world; and to go forth from hence, "unto him," unto Christ, shows, that Christ is not to be found in the camp, in the world: he is above, in heaven, at the right hand of God; and that going out of the camp externally, or leaving the world only in a way of profession, is of no avail, without going to Christ: yet there must be a quitting of the world, in some sense, or there is no true coming to Christ, and enjoyment of him; and Christ is a full recompence for what of the world may be lost by coming to him; wherefore there is great encouragement to quit the world, and follow Christ: now to go forth to him is to believe in him; to hope in him; to love him; to make a profession of him, and follow him.</blockquote> The separation from the world is shown here to be the act of saving faith. Believing in Jesus Christ is changing association. Jesus bore the reproach of the world and receiving Him is also receiving His reproach. Believers don't engage the culture, but bear its reproach. Verse fifteen further explains. We aren't trying to fit in here because this isn't our home. We have no "continuing city" here. We're passing through so we're not interested in conforming or fashioning ourselves like the world as if we had some future here. Jesus didn't fit in, so neither do we. 1 John 2:15 John tells us that the love of the Father does not abide in the man who loves the world. Salvation is love for God. Love for the world can't be. Worldliness is incompatible with salvation. Evangelicals Divide Cultural Separation from Salvation Against this teaching of Scripture, evangelicals remove cultural separation from salvation. They do this by making cultural issues a secondary matter, distant from the gospel. On p. 24, the 9 Marks ejournal reports: <blockquote> Most of the answers focus, positively, on the Fundamentalists’ willingness to stand for truth and, negatively, on their tone and an inability to distinguish between primary and secondary matters. </blockquote> Even professing fundamentalist, David Doran, mentions this (p. 25): <blockquote> Later, in the midst of the conflict between the Fundamentalists and new Evangelicals, in some ways the focus shifted off of the gospel to secondary matters. Separation, rather than serving the goal of gospel purity, sometimes came to be viewed as end in itself. </blockquote> Lance Quinn writes (p. 30): <blockquote> While we can appreciate the Fundamentalists’ tight grip on the essential elements of Christianity, we must eschew their doctrinaire stances on issues which are much more secondary or tertiary. </blockquote> Evangelicals also disjoin cultural separation from salvation by disconnecting the practice of separation from the gospel. In their view, the gospel is something we can prize in everyone that claims the gospel, even if they are worldly too. However, we can change the nature of the gospel by our lifestyle (1 Peter 2:11, 12). The terms of the gospel, who Jesus is and what faith is, can both be affected by our association with the world. The cares of this world can choke the word, so that it becomes unfruitful (Mark 4:19). In other words, Scripture itself doesn't separate worldly living from the work of the gospel. Evangelicals have done and do it at their own peril. Their ranks are full of worldly individuals, who still profess to be saved. Doesn't sound so secondary, does it? Cultural Separation Doesn't Separate from the Gospel The Gospel separates from the culture. The practical righteousness that we live comes out of the positional righteousness from our justification. The Gospel does not disconnect from personal separation. God saves us but He keeps on saving us. That ongoing salvation through our justification also continues to separate. The grace of God that brings salvation also teaches us to deny worldly lust (Titus 2:11, 12). We won't desire to act, look, or sound like the world if we have received the grace of salvation. It won't stop teaching us to deny wordly lust because it won't stop saving us until our glorification. DaveM on "Cultured and Refined" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=71#post-252 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:20:06 +0000 DaveM 252@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Without all the snobbery Hammered dulcimer. *********************** Leaves and stones unturned Creepy crawlies undisturbed Disturbing to us. ******************** JackHammer culture Culturally old-fashioned Following Scripture. ******************** Foundation building Ultimate authority Authoritative. ******************** Foundations laid Fastened to the Solid Rock With extra rebar. ******************** Practical speaking Foundations without houses So impractical. ******************** Adam is alive Living on the adamah Doing lots of things. ******************** Paideia of God Living life to the fullest Without the lemons. ******************** Salt unsavory Headlamps hidden in helmets Cities of the plain. ******************** Some savory salts Finding ways to salt the earth Especially slugs. ******************** The pillars and posts Artistically are adorned Truth, goodness, beauty. Anonymous on "Joseph Murphy- Power of the Subconscious Mind" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=70#post-251 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:33:16 +0000 Anonymous 251@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Does anyone know a good book that critiques this book and/or Murphy's work in general? KentBrand on "Culture: What's Not to Love" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=69#post-250 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:06:20 +0000 KentBrand 250@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ You hear the light, syncopated throb of the trap set, the pound of snare followed by the light rake of the wire brush on the cymbal, and then start the cat calls, loud whoops and hollers, because the teenagers know what it means. You’re quiet and they’re loud, because you both know. Your silence repudiates what the sound means. Their rowdiness signals reception. They love it. You don’t. Should they love what they’ve heard? Should they even accept it? The World, That’s What (James 4:1-6) In an examination of genuine saving faith, James in chapter four exposes characteristics of the world. To start, everyone should know that God is an enemy to anyone who is a friend of the world, that is, affectionate with the world, all the drives and impulses that would be associated with it. The unwillingness to break from the world’s culture comes because of this affection ("friendship," James 4:4, philia) for the world. And then when someone loves the world, the world no longer hates the person. If you are "of the world," the world loves "its own" (John 15:19). The way the world treated Christ is how it will treat the friends of Christ, so if you can get along with the world, you can know why. The term "world" refers to the man-centered, Satan-directed system, which is hostile to God, Christ, and the Christian. It’s not talking about the globe, about terra firma, or about anything physical. It’s talking about the spiritual reality of a Satan-directed, man-centered system hostile to the Lord and His nature and work. It refers to all the values, the mores, the lifestyle, the ethics, the morals, and the institutions of the world as they are established apart from and antagonistic to God. The goal of the world is self-glory, self-fulfillment, self-control, self-indulgence, and self-satisfaction. All of it opposes God’s will, so James is very direct when he says that an affection for the world is utterly incompatible with loyalty to God. He says it is enmity, that is, personal hostility or hatred to God. It is one thing to do worldly things and then hate them. It’s something else to love the world and its lusts and then defend that activity. James pictures this friendship of the world as a great danger first because of the conflict that will surely result, primarily because the world system itself is fundamentally conflicted. You can’t be the world’s friend and not be pulled into the war that it characteristically is. Since the primary issue of the world is self, all of those selves that make up this system can’t but be in conflict with one another. Selves keep bumping into each other like atoms before a nuclear explosion. At the beginning of chapter four, James asks where the conflicts occurring in the assembly of believers, the internal warfare and fighting that was in their midst and causing great destruction, came from. Those fightings originated from the belligerence between two crowds of people—those who love God and those whose affections are for the world. Some want the best for God and others are more interested in consuming things upon their own lusts. Some are for living by faith in what God said and others are for attempting to fit Christianity into what they desire. You can’t maintain these two groups of people in a church and not have ongoing conflict. Not only will conflict manifest itself in the church because of the worldly, but the worldly church members themselves will have a natural tension and stress inside of themselves. The same people causing strife in the church will have their own personal issues that will cause problems also. People who want what the world offers and can’t get it like they want will become frustrated. And their frustration will come out of their own hedonism ("lusts," hedone, end of v. 3). They have their difficulties because they live for pleasure. If they will have any peace, then they need to give up personal pleasure for God, because the road of pleasure, even as James 1 showed, ends in death. John wrote in 1 John 2:15-17 that those in the world are controlled by the things in the world—the lust of their eyes (what I see, I desire), the lust of their flesh (what I feel, I desire), and the pride of life (the gratification of self). Someone who loves the Lord is content with Him and what He will provide. The best the world can offer is temporal, because the system and all that are in it will pass away. However, what is the worst aspect of love for the world is the conflict it makes between God and you. In verse four of chapter four, James says that this affection for the world puts you in antagonism with God, and not only Him, but in verse five, His Word. If you would be a friend of the world, you have ignored what Scripture says about the nature of the flesh---you just disregard the Bible about it if you are someone who thinks you can get along with the world, be its friend. Scripture in general says that the spirit of man lusts to envy. The evil impulses of man’s heart draw him toward a worldliness that will be judged by God. God wants to give grace to man, but He won’t if man won’t humble himself. In the context of chapter four, being hedonistic and worldly is the same thing as being proud. If you’re proudly consumed with what you want in the world, you won’t experience the grace of God. He does give grace but He gives it only to the humble. On the other hand, the Lord fights the proud, because they are His enemies. Even someone who is saved will spin the wheels of his Christian life, getting nowhere, when he takes a friendly disposition toward the world. What does love or affection for the world look like? To know what loving the world is like, we must understand what love and affection is. I believe that if you started looking at the times that the word "love" itself is used in the Bible, you would see that when we love something or someone, we invest in it our time and energy. We pour ourselves into it. We make it a priority, put it as first above other things. The devotion for the world and its things will manifest itself like our love for God will reveal itself. When God commands us "love not the world," it means that we must also hate the world. We can’t love both God and the world—they’re mutually exclusive. In Psalm 139:19-22, David wrote: <blockquote>Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.</blockquote> How Not to Love the World Someone who loves God and hates the world will exhibit this in at least three different degrees. First, God’s child will not adapt to the world system. Romans 12:2 commands, "Be not conformed to this world." "Conforming" is "adapting." A believer will continue to conflict with the world’s styles and philosophies. The world itself isn’t neutral in its relations to God. We were sometime in darkness, but now we are light in the Lord, so we walk as children of light (Eph. 5:8). "Conform" and "adapt" also mean "to be similar." The art, music, dress, attitude, and aesthetics of a Christian won’t be similar to the world’s. Christians don’t adapt to the culture, because Christianity itself presents an unchanging, infinite message. The goal is to see the people of the world change, not God’s people. When we adapt to them, we lose the distinctiveness, the saltiness, that God uses to show them the difference between His ways and theirs. Consider what Richard Kyle, Professor of History and Religion at Tabor College in Hillsborough, Kansas, writes about evangelicalism in his Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity (p. 2): <blockquote>The first tendency—the acculturation of evangelicalism—has dominated and has been a key to evangelicalism’s numerical success. Rather than develop a viable subculture, evangelicals have created a counterfeit culture—that is, they have baptized and sanctified secular culture. . . . For any religious body . . . there is only a fine line between being relevant to its surrounding culture and being absorbed by the culture. American evangelicalism has stepped over this line. . . . For much of its history, evangelicalism has accommodated popular culture. This trend has accelerated itself in the late twentieth century. . . . Because evangelicals have become culturally mainstream, their social acceptance has greatly increased.</blockquote> James Montgomery Boice writes in The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (p. 20): <blockquote>What was once said of liberal churches must now be said of evangelical churches: they seek the world’s wisdom, believe the world’s theology, follow the world’s agenda, and adopt the world’s methods.</blockquote> Second, God’s child will not absorb the world system. A Christian isn’t to "fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). God’s holy priesthood are "peculiar people" (Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9), putting off "the old man and his deeds" (Col. 3:8, 9). Saints will "put off the former conversation of the old man" (Ephesians 4:22). Knowing that "the night is far spent, the day is at hand," a believer will "cast off the works of darkness, and" "put on the armour of light" (Heb. 13:12). You can see that absorbing the world’s culture is not God’s plan. Those who absorb the world, love the world. God’s disdain for absorbing the culture is seen in Jeremiah’s command to God’s people in Jeremiah 10:2, "Learn not the way of the heathen." Third, God’s child will not adopt the world system, that is, he won’t become like the world. He won’t look like the world, act like the world, or sound like the world. The man involved in the battle for and with Christ will not "entangle himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim. 2:4). "Affairs" is hapaxlegomena from which comes "pragmatic." Being like the world is not an acceptable strategy for someone entrenched for the Lord. As a part of our holiness, majestic transcendence from this world system, Peter instructs: "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance" (1 Peter 1:14). "Fashioning" is suschematizo, "to form according to a pattern or mold." A believer will not adopt the culture. In The Christian Mind, Michael L. Gowens writes: <blockquote>When people who profess to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ fail to apply their Christian faith to every sector of their lives, they will inevitably descend into the world’s way of thinking. They will adopt the world’s values, court the world’s approval, and pursue the world’s symbols of status. The church, consequently, will lose its distinctiveness, the basis of its power.</blockquote> A Case Study in Not Loving the World: Jazz Music Wynton Marsalis, one of the foremost trumpeters in the world and jazz afficionado, in an interview about his music, especially jazz, commented: <blockquote>There is so much in jazz music to be studied and to be learned, and so little education. I could go on and on and on, just about what Duke Ellington did. And also the romantic connotations of the music. The music had the effect of liberating a lot of the people from the Victorian image of sexuality. But for some reason people still think they need to be liberated from that. This is something jazz music was doing around the turn of the century. And now it's degenerated in the modern era to the type of vulgarity that is represented by rock and roll, which parades under the guise of giving you sexual freedom, which is really, truly, sexual repression. Sexual freedom is found in the sensuality and the romance and the lyricism of the great songwriters like George Gershwin and Cole Porter and Duke Ellington, and of the great instrumentalists like Louis Armstrong. These people had a truly romantic conception that was based on elevation of the relationship between a man and a woman, rather than the denigration of it into just some abusive adolescent sexual discoveries.</blockquote> Musicians know the meaning of their music. The music is a language, which communicates explicitly with notes, melody, harmony, and rhythm. Like written or spoken communication, which use letters and punctuation and inflection, the music can be used to express something edifying or filthy. Paul commanded in Ephesians 4:29: <blockquote>Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.</blockquote> He also wrote in Colossians 3:8, "But now ye also put off . . . blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." Words, like musical notations, will be assigned meaning. The meaning of the words and their combinations can either glorify God or dishonor Him. Also with music, the goal is to evaluate the style with Scripture to discern whether it is a musical form that can honor God. Much of other modern music style conveys a message, like jazz, which contradicts the nature or attributes of God. We repudiate and avoid those aspects of the culture of this world for the glory of God. Even if it’s eating or drinking, that is, the most mundane activity, all is to be the glory of God. Since our lives are a perpetual offering to God, everything in our life is to be acceptable to God. For that reason, God wants us to discern what is Godly in our culture and hold on to that, and to ascertain what is profane and worldly and to eschew one’s self from that. The culture of this world is what's not to love. On the other hand, our unique Christian culture is the distinctiveness, the savor, by which believers can preserve society. KentBrand on "The Christian and Alcohol" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-249 Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:30:26 +0000 KentBrand 249@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I agree with what you have said. Anonymous on "The Christian and Alcohol" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-248 Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:53:05 +0000 Anonymous 248@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Brother Kent, I share most of your same concerns for most of our professed Baptist Bible Colleges. I will not recommend most of them to young men seeking training for full time ministry (there are a few I do). It has been my blessing to see many young men called into the ministry in the churches I have pastored. It was necessary to give considerable effort to prepare them theologically to deal with issues I knew they were going to face in some of the colleges they chose to be trained in. Although many of these institutions call themselves Bible Colleges, they are really Liberal Arts Schools with a Bible Major tacked on (many with as few as 32 credits for a Bible Major). I think there is a place within education for Liberal Arts schools. Many of these Bible Colleges mask their Eclectic Texual position behind a political statement of using the KJV in all their chapels when that is really not their priority at all. Most of them are radical Textual Reconstructionists and do not believe in Textual Preservation in any Texts or group pf Texts. I do not believe they are honest or ethical about these positions (I think the Bible has something to say about honesty and ethics). Another great concern of mine is the wide diversity of theological positions among the faculty (some of which you mentioned). I believe this naturally results in the Hegelian Dialectic within the student bodies. Thesis (orthodoxy) is presented along with Antithesis (any degree of unorthodoxy) resulting in many in the student body taking a position other than orthodoxy (Synthesis; i.e., a synthetic, plastic, constantly changing or evolving positions). This is what has birthed the Young Fundamentalist movement that comes out of these Baptist Bible Colleges. These young men form another kind of Criticism of questioning everything anyone has ever taught before (except Calvin and Augustine). This dynamic of discussion and dialog is what has produced the Emerging Church. This is birthed from weak and faulty Apologetics where a person's beliefs are not based upon an autopistic approach to Scripture, but an axiopistic approach. In axiopisticism, the Word of God must be proved true before it is accepted as true. Therefore a hearer's faith is dependant upon the ability of the proclaimer to prove the Bible true. This results in highly subjective outcomes based upon the skills of the one trying to convince the hearer of Truth. Autopisticism, on the other hand, is an APPEAL to accept the Bible as true even BEFORE a person may understand what it says. I think this is what Christ is teaching in John 7:17. I think Brother Phelps offers many things to Maranatha that may be able to move them to positions we might more readily accept. I think before that will happen there will need to be some house cleaning. I was happy to see Brother Phelps take the wheel of the ship. I hope he can connect it to the rudder. KentBrand on "The Christian and Alcohol" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-247 Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:18:15 +0000 KentBrand 247@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Lance, I am thankful that someone will preach against alcohol on campus at Maranatha. I was in Watertown from 1973 to 1987. My dad, sister, brother, and I all graduated from there. I got my BA, MA, and MDiv there. I went back for my 25th high school reunion at the Academy in the summer of 2005. I would be hard-pressed to send anyone there for several reasons, and I don't mind these being discussed. I can tell you that I discuss things Scripturally, unlike what MBBC has done with me. 1) They don't believe in verbal plenary preservation---and they attack that belief vehemently. Dr. Oats teaches an ipsissima vox position. He believes that Jesus used the Septuagint, a corrupt OT text. 2) Their standards of holiness and against worldliness have changed. You will now see female students walking around with tight blue jeans. The girls playing sports wear shorts that end above the knee. 3) They no longer teach local only ecclesiology---they're universal church. 4) You can't change that they're a parachurch organization and you don't see in Scripture that is the way that training for the Lord's work should get done. 5) They don't separate from those who are extremely weak and dangerous, like Calvary Baptist in Lansdale. And they are tied into the all the BJU type seminaries---Central, Detroit, etc. I have many other reasons and many, many personal reasons. There is opposition to what I believe and practice there---belligerent, antagonistic opposition. Early on, when I brought up issues, they were not welcomed there. Just an example---I knew that Trinity in Jacksonville used rock music in their services. I didn't think they had a church philosophy that MBBC should emulate. But they gave Tom Messer an honorary doctorate. When I called them about that, I received no open ear. They were angry for the call. At that time it was Dr. Weniger, but it was also his administration counterparts that are still the influential, familiar faces there. I'm not against them. I hope the best for them. Again, we can all be happy for the great things that Dr. Phelps brings to the table. I'm happy for anything Scriptural. It isn't enough for me to endorse Maranatha as a place to send one's children. I think someone could make it out of there intact and still do well for the Lord, but I would warn against it. I say this despite having old friends there. Anonymous on "The Christian and Alcohol" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-246 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:15:41 +0000 Anonymous 246@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I would highly recommend this message by Dr. Chuck Phelps on The Christian and Alcohol. Dr. Phelps is the President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College in Watertown, WI. We thank the Lord for a man who is willing to be dogmatic about this issue when most of our schools are unwilling to do so. Many of the professed Young Fundamentalists are coming out of our Baptist Bible Colleges with a drink in moderation position. <a href="http://www.mbbc.edu/sermons/sermon.aspx?s=406" rel="nofollow">http://www.mbbc.edu/sermons/sermon.aspx?s=406</a> I would encourage forwarding the link to others. You can also find the link on my blog: <a href="http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/</a> KentBrand on "The Culture War: Sacred, Common, and Profane Culture" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=67#post-245 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:01:02 +0000 KentBrand 245@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ While in college I visited the Indianapolis Children’s Museum. Inside was an American Indian display with a tepee and a young dark-skinned woman sitting Indian style besides a faux campfire. A railing in front separated the exhibit from the common area. In the realm of the demonstration, the fake village was sacred. Crossing the barrier was to profane the sacred place. I found out the hard way. I gave my camera to a friend and ducked the partition. In a very literal fashion, I attempted to penetrate that American Indian culture, fake albeit. Immediately a loud, piercing alarm went off and I was quickly back to the other side, walking away, passed by rushing security with walkie-talkies. I sensed that the guys with the uniforms wanted a continued practice of separation. The barrier was more than a decoration. It would be great if churches cared at least as much about the things of God, to keep them sacred. Winning the culture war requires preserving the sacred by holding the line on what is sacred and what is common. That can be accomplished only by the gospel, but it will be accomplished through the gospel. It isn't the gospel if it doesn't set believers apart from this world system (1 John 2:15; Romans 12:2; James 4:4). (I know this probably won't bother you or stop you from reading the very meaty, doctrinal central portion to get to the cutting edge, practical ending, but this article will have no pictures.) Sacred and Profane Things Anything that violates the holy things of the Lord is considered profane. Some things have been set apart by God for His own use. They are therefore holy. They are sanctified or hallowed. God places special boundaries around these objects, and these boundaries can lawfully be passed only on God’s publicly specified terms. One sacred object was the Ark of the Covenant. It was not to be touched. It had rings on its sides through which poles were inserted, so that no one would need touch it when moving it (Ex 25:14). Furthermore, only Levites were permitted to carry it (Deut 10:8). When one man dared to reach out to steady it as it was being moved, God struck him dead (1 Chron 13:9-10). When the Philistines brought the Ark into their territory, God struck down the image of their god Dagon, and struck them with boils (1 Sam 5). They sent the Ark back to Israel on a cart pulled by oxen. They also placed gold objects into the cart as a trespass offering (1 Sam 6:8; Lev 21:7,14). God dealt even more harshly with the Israelites at Beth-Shemesh, who dared to look into it. For this act of sacrilege, God struck down over 50,000 of them (1 Sam 6:19). The interior of the Ark itself was sacred space. No one was allowed to look inside it. It was housed in the holy of holies, a sacred room inside the tabernacle and temple. Only the high priest was allowed to enter this space, and only once a year (Lev 16:2). He had to sprinkle the interior with blood as a ransom payment for himself and the people (Lev 16:14, 15). In short, this most sacred of objects was surrounded by sacred space---in fact layers of sacred space, beginning at the national borders of Israel. Inside the Ark were the two tablets of the law (Deut 31:26). The Ark served as the earthly throne of God, the place where the high priest annually placated His wrath. This is why the holy of holies in which the Ark was so holy. We see in Leviticus 20:24-26 that God had made His people sacred and He expected them to stay that way. We can see that He reminded them of that with the clean and unclean animals, some animals being sacred and others profane. God’s people had become sacred to Him. His priesthood was sacred to Him. His temple or tabernacle was sacred to Him. Certain animals were sacred to Him. Why Is Something Sacred? Something is sacred because it has been judicially declared sacred by God. A good example of this is found in Exodus 3:4, 5. God declared soil as sacred soil. It was not sacred before that time. God’s name is sacred. We are commanded not to say the name of the Lord God in vain, because God’s name is not to be profaned with a common kind of usage. The church is a sacred place. We know that it is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:17), the place of Jesus special promised presence (Matt 18:18-20; Rev 1:19-2:1). The believer offers his body as a sacred sacrifice to God, not conformed to the world (Rom 12:1, 2). A Christian’s worship of song is a sacred offering unto God (Heb 13:15), the fruit or calves of his lips. The Lord’s Table is a sacred practice, the bread and the cup the sacred symbols of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11). Christians are sacred people, their bodies the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 6:19, 20), a holy priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices unto God (1 Pet 2:5). Anyone who is a friend of the world is an enemy of God (James 4:4). In Isaiah 6, Isaiah was impressed and humbled about the lack of sacredness of his own worship in comparison to what he saw in God’s heavenly throne room. He was a man of unclean lips. More than any other area, we are to be discerning in our worship. We see this fact through the Old Testament starting with Cain and Abel (Gen 4). Israel’s kings profaned worship by burning their incense in the high places, common areas that were not specified as places of God’s choosing. We are still supposed to show judgment in worship, discerning the sacred from the profane, understanding that God is blasphemed by the common. What Profanes the Sacred? What profanes the sacred is the lack of or loss of distinction. People have become sovereign, even as in the last days men shall be lovers of their own selves. The lines of delineation between the sacred and the common have been blurred, erasing the separation necessary to preserve holiness. A news program reports <a target="_blank" href="http://www.terrorwhy.kg.co.yu/images/stradanje/17.jpg">dozens killed in Kozovo</a> and during the commercial break <a target="_blank" href="http://www.rmhokc.com/Portals/0/Ronald%20McDonald%20Images%20029.jpg">Ronald McDonald </a>hops across the screen. The advertisement impacts the message of the news story. People have seen so much violence on television that when they see real violence, they often report that it didn’t seem real; it was like a movie. In the same way, we have lost the clear differences God expects between His culture and the world’s. What we must understand is that everything has meaning. Tight jeans on women have meaning. A piercing has meaning. A tattoo has meaning. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.moderngrooming.com/images/hair_photos/messy_hair.jpg">Messy-style hair </a>has meaning. <a target="_blank" href="http://cfs2.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzk3OTYwQGZzMi50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvMzMuanBn">Pants sagging </a>below the waistline has meaning. A <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fontbros.com/images/1060/FOLI-THUG-SP.gif">particular font style </a>has meaning. Street slang has meaning. A youtube promotional video for a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.resolved.org/">youth conference </a>that stylistically looks like a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Stimuli/Matt_Barone_on_Handheld_Horror_Movies">hand-held horror film </a>has meaning. A <a target="_blank" href="http://img2.timeinc.net/instyle/images/2005/tr/041805_tr_blanchett00b.jpg">butch haircut </a>on women has meaning. A <a target="_blank" href="http://meadowlarkcommunitychurch.org/UserFiles/Image/mcc(1).jpg">smiling, casually dressed family </a>on the brochure has meaning. Lispy speech from a man has meaning. <a target="_blank" href="http://adrianwarnock.com/rickwarren.jpg">Short sermons </a>with lots of humor have meaning. The meaning of the gospel of Christ should come to bear on every area of life. To retain distinctions we must discern the meanings and separate ourselves as believers, as a holy priesthood, from the common and profane. A Godly culture should be elevated above a common one. Church goers dress casually with the emphasis on their own comfort. Soloists in church act like performers, using a style of music that is fleshly and worldly. Young men obtain a wife with the same methods as the world. Churches advertise "fun" as a legitimate reason for joining. Joy has been replaced by happiness. Love has been exchanged for lust. The grace of God has turned into lasciviousness. Christians are different, not just forgiven. They are new creatures. Their old lifestyles, philosophies, and perspectives have changed. Their lives are sacred—the way they act, dress, play, and talk has changed. They have a barrier set up between themselves and what is common, that is, the world. The Enemy of Sacred Culture The biggest enemy of the sacred today isn't the profane, but that there is nothing sacred. Some call this multiculturalism and others egalitarianism. By tolerating everything, we believe in nothing. If every culture is equal in value, then nothing is sacred. Instead, everything has meaning so everything must be judged. To preserve the sacred we must discern where the world system, the zeitgeist, clashes with a Scriptural culture and draw our battle lines right there. We once thought we were right to take strong stands on cultural issues. Then the United States as a whole began confusing pluralism and multiculturalism. Churches took their cue from the world. They compromised Scriptural application to culture and found out they could be more successful when they did. The world became more comfortable in the church. Now we've moved way beyond that into arguments over the roles of men and women and the legitimacy of homosexuality. Churches and church leadership have made this cultural cave-in look legitimate in several ways. The first one sounds very spiritual. "Where does it say anything about that in Scripture?" The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt wear a tie." Or, "I don't see anything in there about rock music." This theology of cultural compromise has become very elaborate and convincing to the shallow and weak. Now having standards is Pharisaaism and making the teaching of man into the commandments of God. Many have bought into this to their demise and destruction. Of course, the Bible says nothing about crack-pipes either and this is where they have to start doing the heavy lifting of applying Scripture to culture. We've gone from there to "can we really be sure how Scripture applies?" Or even further to "can we really know what Scripture says?" These two are an attack on the authority of the Word of God, which is what all this is anyway for scoffers walking after their own lusts. There are so many viewpoints that we can't say that any one is legitimate, so we'll have to just agree to disagree. Sound familiar? If I were to gauge the second biggest enemy, it is the false idea that in order to transform culture, we need to engage the culture on its terms. To get an ear from the cultural elite, you need to wear a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.battlefortruth.org/">black t-shirt, shave your head, and sport a soul patch</a>. We've taken the world's dress, the world's music, the world's art, the world's vocabulary, so that we have nothing left that is distinctly Christian in our culture, all so that we can "reach" the culture with the gospel. By the time you get to this point, words and symbols have become so devoid of meaning, that we don't have much of a gospel left either. All it takes is a little compromise to go from sacred to profane. God's holiness is, well, holy. And we, His saints, are His sacred people. We too are to remain distinct from this world, not taking on its attitude, look, characteristics, or spirit. Jesus left heaven's glory, but He didn't take on the spirit of His age. He stuck out. So should we. Anonymous on "NEW DVD GOSPEL PRESENTAION AVAILABLE" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=66#post-244 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:47:53 +0000 Anonymous 244@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <a href="http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2008/02/dvd-gospel-presentation-available.html" rel="nofollow">http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2008/02/dvd-gospel-presentation-available.html</a> This presentation is intended to be used with the God Want You To Know booklet. There is considerable expense in producing this DVD. We will in no way recuperate our cost at the price we are distributing it for. The DVD is intended to help overcome the one, two, three, say it after me Easy Prayerism being propagated in many Baptist and Evangelical churches. Its focus is upon the doctrine of condemnation and God's solution through repentance and obeying the gospel. DaveM on "Christian Whirledview: Viewing the World through Worldly Eyes" http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=65#post-243 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:37:55 +0000 DaveM 243@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Christopher Hitchens says that Christianity is bad for the world. In response, believing apologists have rightly asked Hitchens what warrant he has for saying that anything (including Christianity) is bad. Bad is a moral claim. Given atheism, what warrant is there for saying that one thing is bad and the next thing good? On what ground does Hitchens say that atheism is good and Christianity bad? One answer he gives is "innate human solidarity" – in other words, what most people think is right. If we mostly agree that a thing is right, then it must be. For the time being at least. But that is not his final answer. His final answer is this: Human morality evolves. So, for the time being, what everyone thinks is moral should be considered moral. But that could all change tomorrow. Essentially, Hitchens (and others of his ilk) say that moral claims are not absolute. They are "mental constructs" --- ways of understanding the world and human behavior, without any real sort of judgement (except, of course, when one deals with Christianity). The unbelieving worldview sees the material world as the ultimate reality, and all existence evolving from that. We can only know what we can sense, what we can prove empirically, or perhaps what "makes sense" to us in a rationalistic sort of way. The Epicureans run the world, and "if it feels good, do it" is still the rule of the day. Never is the contrast between the worldview of the believer and the worldview of the unbeliever more plain than when a faithful Christian meets an atheist. Their respective views of reality, of knowledge, and of morality will contradict directly on every point. The unbelieving atheist interprets the world without reference to God. He presumes that there is no God, and from there interprets the world for himself. On the other hand, the believer presupposes God, and accepts God’s interpretation of all things in the world. When it comes to worldviews and their cultural effects, the contrast should be evident. If God is the absolute and ultimate Creator, then God interprets the world for us, and declares what is right and what is wrong. Since the unbeliever denies that God created all things, he also denies God’s authority in anything. If God has no authority, then man is the authority, and cultural norms set the boundaries for right and wrong. ((It should be noted here that if the unbeliever is correct, then there really is no such thing as "right" or "wrong," nor could we make any sense of such a discussion. Truly, consistent atheism must proclaim that "right" is merely another way of saying "I like it" and "wrong" means "I don’t like it.")) Since we are discussing a theology of culture, it is good and necessary that we lay out the two poles of how one might view the world. But we must also remember that God has, by His grace, moved the believer from the South Pole to the North Pole. And in our pilgrimage, some are straggling. My intention then is to expose our attraction to mud puddles, despite God’s deliverance from the miry clay. Man fell autonomously. In the Garden, God’s authority was self-evident. The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Then, the LORD God proceeded to plant a garden in front of Adam, so that Adam saw firsthand the work of God as Creator. The LORD God created this garden for Adam, and then placed him in it, with instructions. The LORD God instructed Adam to dress the garden and keep it, and then the LORD God commanded, <blockquote>Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.</blockquote> As an eyewitness, Adam saw that all of reality came from God. Adam received his knowledge directly from God, and Adam knew right from wrong because God commanded him. Adam understood God’s absolute authority as the Creator of all things to set down laws and enforce them. In other words, in his innocence, Adam had a Christian worldview. But, there in the midst of the garden, in close proximity to the tree of life, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This tree, through the suggestions of that old serpent, lured Adam away from the Christian worldview. You see, God revealed good and evil to Adam. But the serpent promised Eve that if they would eat of that tree, they would be as gods, knowing good and evil. In other words, the serpent promised Eve the ability to interpret the world independently of God. Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. In his autonomous quest for his own interpretation, Adam willfully disregarded God’s command, claiming the right to decide for himself. ((Anyone who has read Cornelius Van Til’s The Defense of the Faith will recognize my source for this analogy, which I gratefully acknowledge.)) Since the Fall, men have repeated this sequence over and over repeatedly. In fact, every time a child is born, the pattern is repeated. Every one of us has fallen the same way. Autonomy ruined man, and the quest for autonomy keeps him in ruins. As a father, I have marveled to watch this pattern repeat itself in each of my five children. Almost as soon as they are capable of free movement, they begin to want their own way. When they can grab with their hands, they grab what is forbidden. When they can crawl with their legs, they crawl to what is forbidden. Recently, we noted this same inclination in our youngest son. He is relatively uninterested in touching, let alone playing with, any of the toys that we permit him to have. He wants the things that we have forbidden… the cupboards and knickknacks that we have commanded him not to touch. Those are the things he insists on having. This should not surprise us. When we tell our toddlers "no," we resist their autonomy. We should not be surprised that they find words like "no" to be offensive. They are in a natural state. We go astray as soon as we be born, speaking lies. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. This, by the way, is why we need a Savior. We need a Savior because we are alienated from God, because we are enemies in our minds, because we have gone aside, because we do not seek God. We need a Savior to be wounded for our transgressions, to be bruised for our iniquity, to bear the chastisement of our peace, and to heal us with his stripes. And, when Christ saves us, we are new creatures. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new. Yet, we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed. Like Adam in the garden, we ourselves are faced on a daily basis with the allurements of the world. In our quest for a Biblical approach to culture, we would do well to remember that worldliness comes from lust. And our lusts, we could say, are our autonomous desire to decide for ourselves. Ultimately, this is what happens whenever we take a neutral approach to the things of the world. Neutrality is one way that we strive for autonomy. If we take a neutral approach to our culture, if we avoid taking sides, if we ignore our Christian commitments in our approach to our culture, then we act as if we are lord, instead of acknowledging the Lordship of Christ in everything. In the Garden, the LORD God commanded a particular approach to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But the serpent presented another argument. The serpent avoided making the "authoritative" demand that God made, at least on the surface. The serpent merely invited Eve to step back and consider some other information. Eve was invited to consider both sides – the arguments of Jehovah as Lord and Creator, and the arguments of the serpent – before making a final decision. When Eve stepped back and evaluated the two opposing arguments, the very moment she stepped back to do this, she set herself up as the judge between right and wrong. Eve viewed the two claims as being of equal merit and equal authority, and considered herself, at that very moment, to be the ultimate authority. And this is exactly what happens whenever God’s people take a neutral approach to culture. We see God’s commands regarding the world, and we note God’s authority to make such demands. Rather than submitting to God’s rightful authority as Lord and Creator of all things, we instead determine to look at other arguments and decide for ourselves "objectively." At the very moment we do this, we decide by lust, rather than by submission to our Lord. Autonomy turns the Christian worldview into a whirled view of the world. We view the world through worldly eyes. And when this kind of sinful autonomy dominates our life, the love of the Father is not in us. There is much to consider in this very important discussion of the Biblical approach to culture. But first, the foundations must be laid in the truly Biblical worldview. If we are to approach our culture Biblically, we must not approach as the Judge. We must not attempt to interpret our culture independently of God. We must not strive to be as gods, knowing good and evil. We must not make for ourselves a false idea of morals and knowledge. The world has already been interpreted for us. Judgement has already been cast. We must receive that judgement, the judgement of the Righteous Judge, we must accept it, and we must submit to it. Footnotes: (1) It should be noted here that if the unbeliever is correct, then there really is no such thing as "right" or "wrong," nor could we make any sense of such a discussion. Truly, consistent atheism must proclaim that "right" is merely another way of saying "I like it" and "wrong" means "I don’t like it." (2) Anyone who has read Cornelius Van Til’s The Defense of the Faith will recognize my source for this analogy, which I gratefully acknowledge.