Without a doubt, Martin Luther’s work – The Bondage of the Will is a favorite of mine. If there is one thing that I appreciate about Luther – he doesn’t beat around the bush when dealing with Biblical doctrine. I strongly recommend his work to you. In reading this work you will find that some of the very battles that he faced in his day are also with us today. In particular, this published contest of his with Erasmus reminds us that the primitieve roots of error are always deeply planted in the soils of human wisdom and reason, whether in the past or the present. In his counter argument against the popular doctrine of free will, Luther contested the tactics of those who sought to advance their doctrines by avoiding many clear texts of Scripture. It is the historic habit of liberal thinking to call clear texts ambiguous, especially when those texts seem to threaten any system of thought in liberal theology. In his section on the Clarity of Scripture (or the Perspecuity of Scripture, as some translations have it), Luther refuted the shallow tactics of those who sought to ignore clear doctrines, by falsely claiming that certain relevant Scriptures were simply unclear.

You may be tired of hearing me say – “there is nothing new under the sun” [Ecc. 1:10]…but that’s really too bad!

Of The Perspicuity of Scripture: All the things, therefore, contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however, the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in the Open market place can see it plainly? [The Bondage of the Will, That the teaching of Scripture is clear and decisive, pp. 73-74].

That the Teaching of Scripture is Clear and Decisive: In a word, if the Scripture be obscure or ambiguous, what need was there for its being sent down from heaven? Are we not obscure and ambiguous enough in ourselves, without an increase of it by obscurity, ambiguity, and darkness being sent down unto us from heaven? And if this be the case, what will become of that of the apostle, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction?” (2 Tim. iii. 16.) Nay, Paul, thou art altogether useless, and all those things which thou ascribest unto the Scripture, are to be sought for out of the fathers approved by a long course of ages, and from the Roman see! Wherefore, thy sentiment must be revoked, where thou writest to Titus, (chap. i. 9) ‘that a bishop ought to be powerful in doctrine, to exhort and to convince the gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of vain talkers, and deceivers of minds.’ For how shall he be powerful, when thou leavest him the Scriptures in obscurity — that is, as arms of tow and feeble straws, instead of a sword? And Christ must also, of necessity, revoke His word where He falsely promises us, saying, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist,” (Luke xxi. 15.) For how shall they not resist when we fight against them with obscurities and uncertainties? And why do you also, Erasmus, prescribe to us a form of Christianity, if the Scriptures be obscure to you!

But I fear I must already be burdensome, even to the insensible, by dwelling so long and spending so much strength upon a point so fully clear; but it was necessary, that that impudent and blasphemous saying, ‘the Scriptures are obscure,’ should thus be drowned. And you, too, my friend Erasmus, know very well what you are saying, when you deny that the Scripture is clear, for you at the same time drop into my ear this assertion: ‘it of necessity follows therefore, that all your saints whom you adduce, are much less clear.’ And truly it would be so. For who shall certify us concerning their light, if you make the Scriptures obscure? Therefore they who deny the all-clearness and all-plainness of the Scriptures, leave us nothing else but darkness.

Sect. XXXVII. — BUT here, perhaps, you will say — all that you have advanced is nothing to me. I do not say that the Scriptures are every where obscure (for who would be so mad?) but that they are obscure in this, and the like parts. — I answer: I do not advance these things against you only, but against all who are of the same sentiments with you. Moreover, I declare against you concerning the whole of the Scripture, that I will have no one part of it called obscure: and, to support me, stands that which I have brought forth out of Peter, that the word of God is to us a “lamp shining in a dark place.” (2 Peter i. 19.) But if any part of this lamp do not shine, it is rather a part of the dark place than of the lamp itself. For Christ has not so illuminated us, as to wish that any part of His word should remain obscure, even while He commands us to attend to it: for if it be not shiningly plain, His commanding us to attend to it is in vain. [The Bondage of the Will, That the teaching of Scripture is clear and decisive, pp. 128-129]

Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”

I am not a big conference person, but every now and then I get the chance to attend some of the better ones – as the Lord allows. This year I will be attending the Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville KY. I registered for this one fairly early because I am particularly interested in learning more about the Southern Baptist Convention, particularly by Dr. Al Mohler’s doctrinal influences – his contributions have been very encouraging.

Prior to the event, Timmy Brister, of Provocations and Pantings, will be sponsoring a meeting at 3:00 pm, April 26th. If any are interested in attending this event, please e-mail Tim @ gospelcentral@yahoo.com, or go to his T4G post for more information.

“A Different Judas: Ancient text sheds light on disciple as Christ’s collaborator, not his betrayer” reads one newspaper headline. Yes – we could call this “new light” – Judas the collaborator. It is amazing, isn’t it, that God’s Word rarely makes the headline news; but a heretical and pseudepigraphal text, which has the substantive sophistication of a comic book (less the pictures), gets top coverage – along with a two hour special on a National Geographic cable program. This fable frenzy is just another sad illustration of what the Apostle John taught: …the whole world lies in the power of the evil one [1 John 4:19]. Like many of the “controversies” that surround the Bible today, the “Gospel” of Judas is just another overly-hyped, valueless flop, that will be heralded by a lost world which is content to feast on frivolity while forsaking the rich feast of God’s Holy Word. Despite all of the well-rehearsed talking points out there in the media, this is no controversy; instead, it is yet another moment of corruption that has been advanced by men who are at enmity with God and His Word. Frankly, if the fable frenzy were not so corrupt and foolish, it would actually be funny.

Sunday evening, at Pilgrim Bible Church, we had the opportunity to review the subject of the gnostic book called: The Gospel of Judas. It was my goal to equip the brethren with just enough background about this text so that they would be mindful of two things: 1. This is a non-issue; and 2. That this should be used as an opportunity to share the Gospel of Christ. The following is a summary of our two points of evaluation:

1). The Gospel of Judas: A Non-Issue: What is called “The Gospel of Judas” is in fact a pseudepigraphal and gnostic text that was written sometime in the 2nd century A.D., most likely by a heretical group called the Cainites (more on the Cainites later). While scholars have known about this manuscript’s existence from the beginning, an actual copy was only recently recovered in this century. It is pseudepigraphal because it was not written by Judas, but was a contrived document that sought to vindicate the “son of perdition” as a part of the system of doctrine peculiar to the Cainite dogma. It is gnostic, in that it upholds the basic tenants of a very broad system of religion that more fully developed during the 2nd century A.D. It is important to clarify that gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity; but people become confused over this issue, especially since many gnostics adopted some constructs of Christian doctrine that only gave it the appearence of Christianity:

“The name (from the Greek gnosis = knowledge – since Gnostics claimed to have a secret knowledge which was the key to salvation) is given to a group of systems taking color, chameleon-like, from their intellectual surroundings. Their beginnings preceded Christianity by many years. These systems were philosophical in that the problem which concerned all Gnostics was the reconciliation of the existence of evil with God who is good; religious because they offered salvation.” [A History of Heresy, David Christie-Murray, Oxford University Press, p. 21].

Likening gnostic teaching, or gnostic writings, to the teachings and writings of Holy Writ is frankly rediculous – even heretical. Though the gnostics claimed to be Christian in their root form, they were very far from it. They devised a system of doctrine that was based upon Greek mythology (and Platonic dualism) that looked to reconcile the reality of God’s holiness and the existence of evil. While their systems of religion varied from group to group, they all patterened themselves after the following model: 1. God created a sphere of spiritual beings in what was called the “Pleroma”: these beings were said to be able to create and procreate; 2. Sophia (one of the spirit beings of the Pleroma) wandered away to the edge of darkness and procreated a being called the Demiurge who was said to be Jehovah, or the being who created Jehova; 3. It was this Demiurge who created the fallen world and it is by this system of separation that the existence of evil was thought to be clarified. Of course, this solves nothing and only produces a pagan religion that is utterly anti-Trinitarian:

Gnosticism is not a variant form of Christianity – it is an anti-Christian heresy. But of course, the gnostics of the 2nd century were very skilled at adapting their appearence in order to resemble Christianity, thus maintaining the perception that they were not heretical. Consider Irenaeus’ observation of the tactics of one gnostic group, the Valentinians:

“When the Valentinians meet people of the great Church [as Irenaeus himself records] they attract them by speaking as we speak to one another. They complain to us that we are treating them as excommunicated when, in this or that respect, the doctrines are the same, and thus, they unsettle our faith little by little by their questions. Those who do not resist, they make into their disciples: they take them aside to unveil before them the unspeakable mystery of their Pleroma.” [Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, MJF Books, New York, pp. 18, 19.].

For the gnostics, Christian vocabulary was a useful cloak that was used to hide error and draw new disciples. However, their teachings and mystical texts are not comparable to Scripture by any stretch of the imagination; and lest we think that this is the last that we might hear about such gnostic documents “shedding a new light” on our understanding of the Biblical record, let the reader be warned – there are many other such gnostic texts. So mark your calendar now, you’ll probably hear about others in the future:

The interesting thing about the Gospel of Judas is that it was refuted as a heretical work in its own day by several early church fathers – most notably by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. In his work “Against all Heresies” Irenaeus invests 31 chapters of ink and paper in refuting the heresies of his day, to include the Cainites along with their heretical, pseudepigraphal “Gospel of Judas”:

Against all Heresies, Chapter XXXI. – Doctrines of the Cainites. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. …they declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.” Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Irenaeus understood that this movement, along with their concocted writings, were a menace. They sought to make prophetic heros of men like Cain, Esau, Korah, the Sodomites and Judas. Their theological agenda should be clear here: Heretics are heros. The only light that this might shed upon the Biblical record is that those who mock the Word of God have been around from the very beginning – from their day to ours today.

2. This should be used as an opportunity to share the Gospel of Christ: The water-cooler conversations that we might have over this, or even the Davinci Code, should be opportunities for us to bring people to a contemplation of God’s Word. In the case of the Gospel of Judas, the record is clear concerning Judas’ defection:

John 17:12: 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.”

Mark 14:17-21: 17 When it was evening He came with the twelve. 18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.” 19 They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, “Surely not I?” 20 And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21 “For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Judas was the son of perdition, of whom the Savior said: “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Judas’ defection, condemnation and damnation is no laughing matter. His hellish torment should serve as a warning to others that those who reject the Savior stand as the enemies of God and as the collaborators of Judas, and even Satan himself. The valid warning that we ought to issue to the lost is that the Lord graciously calls them to salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. Should they resist the Redeemer’s offer of mercy and grace, then they will only join the confederacy of the fallen, along with Judas the traitor – the son of perdition.

Some of the recent discussions about the Gospel, especially as it is communicated through John chapter 3, have led some to conclude that it is not at all worth the time or effort. Perhaps this is true in some cases – especially with discussions that that don’t track well with the Scriptures, however, when we consider the importance of the Gospel itself we should not be so quick to cast aspersions on the debate. For many years, the Gospel message has been kicked around like a ball in a bad competition between extreme viewpoints, and John chapter 3 has often been one of the major playing fields in such contests. Amidst the realm of modern “Evangelicalism” the issue too often becomes reduced to a binary debate about whether God loves sinful men (John 3:16) or whether His wrath burns against them (John 3:18, 36).

The problem with this form of argumentation is that it establishes a false dichotomy.

A careful study of John 3 will remind us that it is not for us to pick and choose one reality over the other. What typically happens in various theological camps is that some will adopt an all-or-nothing approach, rather than accepting the biblical fact that the truths of God’s love, and His wrath, exist together in perfect harmony. Our greatest problem is found, not in the doctrines themselves (God’s word is non-contradictory), but in the frailty of our own human understanding; after all, the character of God is so far beyond our grasp that we must at some point recognize that such concepts are beyond the pale of human reason:

Romans 11:33-35: 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

God’s wrath against, and His love for the unbeliever is in many ways – unsearchable and unfathomable; but that doesn’t mean that we are not to accept it in faith. With respect to John chapter 3, it is most popular in the modern church to try to emphasize God’s love to the exclusion of His justice and wrath; but on the other hand, this problem is never remedied by minimizing the vast nature of God’s love; and especially with respect to John 3, such a de-emphasis is a textual impossibility:

John 3:16a “gar hegepesen ho theos ton kosmon…”

Mark this: the emphatic position of the verb in verse 16 [hegepesen] should be translated [or at least should be understood] as: “LOVED! God the world…” Though this reading might seem odd, it is the way in which the sentence is constructed for the sake of emphasis (Most translations employ the word so [so loved] in order to convey this emphatic idea). This emphatic expression is crucial. If we were to relegate God’s love for the world to some minor thought or point – then we have failed to herald what Christ Himself emphasized – and that’s not a good idea (that’s what’s called an understatement by the way). But on the other hand, it must be recognized that this message of God’s love ultimately loses its depth and profundity should we minimize or even remove the reality of man’s impending doom (v. 16 to perish), the judgment he deserves (v. 18) and the condemnation that he will face should he not believe in Christ (v. 36) – and that too is not a good idea. You see, the glistening gem of God’s love is most wonderfully magnified against the dark reality of man’s sin and deserved condemnation. Therefore, should we fail to present John 3 in the fullness of its glorious context, then we run the risk of corrupting the truth in some way.

The Gospel is not a buffet line where we can simply put on our platter only those things that we prefer. Our only real option is to serve up the full measure of God’s Word – and do our best to get out of the way in the process. The simultaneous realities of God’s love and holy wrath are often a stumbling block for the human mind, but even though it is a confounding thought, it is nonetheless true – the Lord loves and even hates His enemies:

Romans 9:6-13: 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The Lord hated Esau? Yes, that’s what it says. God’s hatred of sin and evil is a doctrine that is often hidden with shame in the contemporary church; and yet, we must be careful not to stress this truth beyond the balance of the full counsel of Scripture. I say this because there are some who will take this text and emphasize it to such a level that they forsake the truth of God’s compassionate love for this world of rebellious sinners:

Matthew 5:43-45: 43 You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.” 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If we were not to consult the full counsel of God’s word, then we would find ourselves with a monochromatic message of love (without justice) or justice (without love) – but neither of these offer us the Biblical option. Matthew 5:43-45 is a profound text. The children of God are to love their enemies so that they may imitate the Father’s universal love, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of loving one’s enemy is not the product of human logic, but it is an imitation of God’s universal love, which includes a love for those who are His enemies. God has a love for men who are evil and unrighteous – even men like Esau! In light of Matthew 5:43-45 it is amazing to consider that the Lord simultaneously hated Esau while bestowing upon him a great bounty of compassion and love; this He did upon the very one who desired his forsaken birthright, rather than the Lord Himself. God’s love for the godless may be one of the most counter-intuitive truths in Scripture, but this only shows us that human intuition is not a trustworthy resource for truth – ever. We must avoid the common error that concludes that God has no love for those who are not His own. The Lord’s love is patient, kind and full of compassion. Thus, it is by His loving patience that He has endured the many generations of sinful men (1 Peter 3:20); it was by His loving-kindness that He appeared to mankind, endowed with salvation (Titus 3:4) and offered the gracious Gospel to all men (Matthew 28:18-20); and it is by His loving compassion that He does not delight in the death of the wicked, therefore He graciously calls the wicked to repentance (Ezekiel 18:23). By His perpetual beneficence, all men have physical life and on a daily basis they behold the chorus of praise declared from all creation (Psalm 19:1-6). He showers mankind with the sun and the rain, within this habitable earth which He created for His good pleasure, and which someday will be destroyed with intense heat. Until that day, all men will continue to be the recipients of God’s universal love, without exception. And so it is: This love of God is bountifully lavished upon all men universally.

Unfortunately, the modern error is one that makes God’s love one dimensional, thus nullifying the truth that His love is distinguishable and thereby ignoring the reality of God’s unique love for His own: “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated…” God’s love for Jacob here is not the same as His expression of love for His enemies (Matthew 5:43-45). This love for Jacob is the exceptional love that God has for His own children. This is a distinction that has been all but lost in the modern era and is directly impacting the ministries of churches throughout America. But it is necessary to affirm that God’s exceptional love is given uniquely to those who are in His Son, so that they would share in His holiness. The Lord’s love for His own children is – exceptional. It is of the very same quality of unique love that the Father has for his Beloved Son, therefore, the Lord deals with His redeemed as sons.

John 15:9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.

Such love from the Father is also a love that supplies the pedagogy, chastening, reproof, and correction that is needed in order to conform His children to the image of Christ Himself. It is called exceptional here because it is uniquely given to those who are His and is withheld from those who are not:

Hebrews 12:6-8: 6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives. 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

In this important text, we have a clear distinction that is made between those who are the sons of God and those who are not. God’s love for all sinners is distinguishable – for those who are His enemies, it is a love of great mercy and compassion; for those who are in Christ, through faith in Him, it is exceptional and unique. This distinction must never be confused lest we confound the Gospel message itself.

As creatures of weakness, we are prone to go to extremes in our thinking, drifting to the left or the right of the biblical pathway. Because of this we must remember not to de-emphasize any aspect of truth in God’s Word. Thus, we must not minimize God’s universal love for all men without exception when defending the truth regarding God’s unique love for His own. As well, we must guard against a message that confounds the nature of God’s redemptive love. Yes, unbelievers are loved by God – but as His enemies (Romans 5:9-10). Because of this, the Gospel message is cohortative in nature – that is, it is a call of repentance and faith. It is a call for sinners, who are now being mercifully preserved in this life, to turn to Christ in faith so that they would be forever enveloped in the love that the Father has for His Beloved One – the Lord Jesus Christ.

Should we ever preach God’s universal love with such ambiguity that the unbeliever remains ignorant of, or satisfied with, his state of enmity – then we have failed to preach the complete message of God’s justice, mercy and holy love – all of which comprise the Gospel message of Christ and Him crucified. I can assure you that this is important: After all, we are speaking of the good news of our Savior and the very souls of men…

By God’s grace, may we never take these matters lightly!

Final note on John 3:16:

There are varying views concerning the scope of God’s love to the “world.” I hold to the view that this is an explicit and universal expression of God’s love to all men – without exception, and that God’s redemptive love is only given subordinately and implicitly in the latter portion of the verse; that is, believers (For a corollary example of God’s general and redemptive grace see 1 Peter 3:18-20 & 2 Peter 3:1-9).

Others believe that God’s love for the world, in verse 16, is to be seen as particular – for believers, from beginning to end. By itself, this is not a divisive issue among Calvinists (or at least it doesn’t have to be), nor should it be concluded that such distinctions in John 3:16 somehow become determinative concerning one’s views of God’s universal and exceptional love.

Several years ago I remember being alerted about a book that was written by a Catholic apologist, Peter Kreeft. The book was entitled: Ecumenical Jihad, Ecumenism and the Culture War (Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1996). In this book, Kreeft calls for a very broad form of ecumenism – that is, moralistic ecumenism. After advocating Christian and Jewish-Christian ecumenism, Kreeft says:

“…even here, an ‘ecumenical jihad’ is possible and is called for, for the simple and strong reason that Muslims and Christians preach and practice the same First Commandment: islam, total surrender, submission of the human will to the divine will. We fight side by side not only because we face a common enemy but above all because we serve and worship the same divine Commander…even atheists and agnostics, if they are of good will and intellectual honesty and still believe in objective truth and objective morality, are on our side in the war against the powers of darkness. Perhaps they can be called ‘anonymous Christians.'”

Writings such as these remind us that the seeds of corruption found in Genesis 11 are here with us today. I was reminded of Kreeft’s work when I saw that Ingrid Schlueter, from Slice of Laodicea, had posted an article which exposes yet another modern prophet of universal ecumenism. Below is an excerpt from the CT article “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere” regarding Dr. Yong’s background and teaching:

At a time when Pentecostals are stereotyped as insular and anti-intellectual, Amos Yong may seem like a fresh wind.

Beyond Common Grace: Yong, who last year left Bethel College in Minnesota to help establish the Ph.D. program in renewal studies at Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia, distinguishes classical, primarily Western “Pentecostalism” from the “pentecostalism” that is the largest and fastest-growing branch of Christianity in the world. He is a product of both.

[Dr. Yong]: “My studies at a Wesleyan Holiness seminary [Western Evangelical Seminary] raised the intra-Christian ecumenical question for me with great force, challenging me to confront the very sectarian and exclusive form of Christian self-understanding which characterized the Chinese American Pentecostal churches of my upbringing, ” he later wrote. “Further graduate studies expanded the ecumenical question: If it was possible that those whom I considered before as outside the pale of Christianity (e.g., Catholics, Orthodox, even Lutherans) did indeed have a saving relationship with God, what about others also categorized as pagan, heathen, or non-Christian?”

[CT]: Where most Pentecostals see the devil’s work, Yong sees the Spirit’s. Concretely, that means Christians should be open to learning from and being enriched by the Spirit’s work in world religions. Dialogue must take place alongside evangelism, he argues, so that all the religions – including Christianity – can learn from each other what the Spirit is doing.

This even goes beyond the pale of Peter Kreeft’s book. What is distinct about what Yong is proposing is that he is arguing that ecumenism is the direct work of God, rather than it merely being a moralistic strategy of men (Kreeft). This is disturbing – but it needs to be exposed.

This should also serve as a warning to believers not to confound the subject of God’s sovereign providence. While it is true that all events in history are directed by God’s sovereignty, this does not mean that He is to be blamed for sin, heresy and blasphemy – such things are the culpability of sinful men, not the holy God of the universe.

It grieves me deeply when I hear people pontificate that Islam is a peaceful religion – because – this simply is not true. I would suggest to you that when people make such confident assertions that they could be doing so as a result of personal ignorance, intellectual denial, or perhaps because of a blatant attempt to deceive others. No matter what the reason, it is important to understand that Islam’s history and doctrine speaks for itself. In recent days we have been watching the dreadful story of Mr. Rahman who converted from Islam to Christ, and for that, he was slated for a trial and execution (under Islamic law, that’s simply the way it goes). Now we have learned that Mr. Rahman has been released from custody, but only to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Perhaps they are doing this to prove once and for all that Christian’s are indeed fools for Christ (1 Corinthians 1:23). As it stands, he is still faces the mob of obedient Muslims who are quite ready and eager to tear him to shreds:

Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to “pull him into pieces.” His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its Western backers.

“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die,” said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001. [AP News, via CNN]

Sadly, many believers suffer throughout the world in nations that do not supply the same freedoms that we enjoy here in America. What is happening to Mr. Rahman is not an isolated incident; but there should be no surprise that such a conversion should be treated in this manner – without a doubt, the Qur’an advocates fighting and violence against infidels (unbelievers). Here are just a few texts which support such violence:

Women: 74-76: 74. Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah -whether he is slain or gets victory -Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). 75. And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? – Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!” 76. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: [Ali, A. Y. (2004). The meaning of the Holy Qur’an (Electronic version.) (Surah, Women, 4:76)].

Muhammad: 1. Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah – their deeds will Allah render astray (from their mark). 2. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad – for it is the Truth from their Lord – He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition. 3. This because those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord: Thus does Allah set forth for men their lessons by similitudes. 4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah—He will never let their deeds be lost. [Ali, A. Y. (2004). The meaning of the Holy Qur’an (Electronic version.) (Surah 47, Muhammad, 47:4)].

Strangely, there are those who wish to hold out for a better hope: that Islam will someday render a new doctrine of peace, despite the religion’s violent progenitor (Muhammad) and its “sacred scriptures” that clearly proclaim a message of hatred and revenge. Perhaps such optimists are hoping that the religion of Islam will be overrun by some Arabic version of postmodernism, thus degrading it into a rabid form of liberalism (a guy can have his dreams can’t he?). Those who believe that true Muslims will someday become infidels to their own religion, by political means, are holding on to a mere dream. Political diplomacy may offer a temporary restraining order on such violence – but this will not last.

Of course, we have only been speaking of physical violence here. Spiritually speaking, we must remember that no religion of mankind can supply true and lasting peace – ultimately, all such religions are violent because they are not founded upon the only source of peace in this world:

Ephesians 2:14-15: 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace [NASB].

It is the Lord Jesus Christ alone who establishes peace between God and man; and between Jew and Gentile. Without Him – there is no peace. The Apostle’s indicative expression – “He is our peace” is a clear reference to the body of Christ – the church. The church is a unique creation that has been brought together in the genuine peace of Christ, thus, the true church possesses a present and real peace with God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Such peace is not the present and indicative possession of the world – the only way in which the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) can taste this peace is by trusting the Savior for His finished work on the cross. Until then, men remain at enmity with God (John 3:36, Romans 5:9-10) as the active enemies of the cross (Philippians 3:18-19).

Thus, no religion of man can be called “peaceful” in the truest sense. Because of this, calling Islam a religion of peace is no small error – it is erroneous by several orders of magnitude. But let us hope and pray for genuine peace. Let us pray for Mr. Rahman; for those around the world who are watching his witness for Christ; and let us pray that the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) will bring about a great awakening of souls throughout the world through the message of the Gospel of Peace (Ephesians 6:15).

Soli Deo Gloria

Some men are covert about their leaven of error, while others are more open in their display of Scriptural defection. In this latter class of “theologian” we find the grandfather of modern liberalism: Harry Emerson Fosdick. I can at least respect such a man for his openness and honesty – if for nothing else. One doesn’t have to search very hard to find his denials of sound doctrine – his books are dripping with such denials. In All Nations Under God, I mention Fosdick because the seeds of his error remain with us today:

“Harry Emerson Fosdick’s grandmother once told him that if he couldn’t believe in the story of Jonah, and the fish that swallowed him, then he might as well surrender all of his Bible and his religion…

Harry should have listened to his grandmother.

…at the root of his error was the exaltation of man centered thinking – in its worst form. Even the man centerdness of his hymn ‘God of Grace and God of Glory’ is clearly revealed in those words ‘Let the search for thy salvation, by our glory evermore.’ That’s quite an admission: man’s search for salvation is his glory evermore! This should serve as a reminder to us all that church history is filled with many theological potholes and detours. Because of this, one must be careful when journeying through it, in order to avoid any serious collisions.” [All Nations Under God, Christ’s Triumph over Tradition: There are Foolish Men on Both Sides of the Argument, pp. 132-33].

Sadly, Fosdick’s man-centered thinking remains with us today. He was a remarkably skilled redactor of truth, but at least he was fairly open about it. Of course, this doesn’t mean that he didn’t resort to the traditional liberal doublespeak that confused some people:

“My adversaries, and even my friends, have sometimes had difficulty in defining just what my theological position is, and I think I know why. I have never been able to be either a theological reactionary or a theological radical. I could not be a theological reactionary because, so it seemed to me, the fact that astronomies change while stars abide is a true analogy of every realm of human life and thought, religion not least of all.” [Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Living of These Days, An Autobiography, pp. 229-30]

Beyond his occasional vagueries, Fosdick was generally overt about his convictions. For this reason I say that despite his corrupt doctrine, you can at least respect the fact that he kept very little in the closet. Fosdick was proud of his theological innovations. Rather than preaching the ancient truth of God’s Word, Harry was glad to offer a new generation new truths and ideas; he continues in his autobiography:

“No existent theology can be a final formulation of spiritual truth. Concerning every human experience theories of explanation and interpretation are essential, but however confidently they may be held, their probable insufficiency must be assumed and their displacement by more adequate ways of thinking positively hoped for. Cosmic theories and theologies are meant to change. Static orthodoxies, therefore, are a menace to the Christian cause. If the day ever comes when men care so little for the basic Christian experiences and revelations of truth that they cease trying to rethink them in more adequate terms, see them in the light of freshly acquired knowledge, and interpret them anew for new days, then Christianity will be finished.” [Ibid., p. 230].

Classic liberalism will often herald the incompleteness of human knowledge in order to forsake any form of Biblical dogmatics. It is as if the Liberal’s mantra is: “There is only one thing that a person can be certain of concerning his or her theology: it is wrong.” Credalism such as this is thought to release a person from the constraint of doctrine, thus allowing him to run freely in the fields of human speculation – and Fosdick was an expert at it. Fosdick has many spiritual descendents today – at least in terms of his core beliefs. Many today are proclaiming that we need to adjust our thinking to the times. However, there are those who do it much more covertly – such that when you confront their error, they retreat into their closet of denial and double-speak. Others, like Fosdick, stand for their liberalism without batting an eye. I can at least respect the honesty of the latter, even though the doctrine isn’t any less deplorable.

The most dangerous brand of such teaching comes from those who spread their leaven covertly, rather than overtly – as did Fosdick. Much of modern Liberalism has gone underground by adorning itself with double-speak and words that might appear to represent orthodox Christianity. Because of this, the church must be on guard lest such errors might creep in unnoticed. Like the generations before us, the church needs biblical discernment in order to resist all error – whether it attempts to come in through the front door, or the back.

“False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and proclaim that it is false. It does not blow a trumpet before it, and endeavor openly to turn us away from the truth as it is in Jesus. It does not come before men in broad day, and summon them to surrender. It approaches us secretly, quietly, insidiously, plausibly, and in such a way as to disarm man’s suspicion, and throw him off his guard. It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, and Satan in the garb of an angel of light, who have always proved the most dangerous foes of the Church of Christ.” [Warnings to the Churches, Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew 16:6, pp. 56-57].

With this, if one were to say to the late Bishop: “but Bishop Ryle, it is only a little leaven!” – his response would most likely resemble this one: “Exactly!” But in the modern day, men often scoff at the kind of preaching and exegesis which seeks to honor every jot and tittle of God’s word. To them, textual wrecklessness is justifiable just so long as one has “good” intentions. The problem with such thinking is that no one is good but God alone and therefore our intentions are always suspect, and will never establish a basis for authority or truth. To be faithful to the Chief Shepherd, we must seek to proclaim His Word for His glory:

John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”

Men who value their traditions and opinions will gladly inject their own “truth” with the absolute truth of God, believing all the while that such an exercise is spiritually profitable. However, contrary to this, we must remember that Christ’s sheep will respond to His voice, and not a stranger (John 10:4-5); therefore it is crucial that we employ the plain language of the Savior, rather than our own, lest we painfully find that those in our ministry are the lost goats of Satan, who are more content to follow the wisdom of men rather than the words of the Chief Shepherd.

In the previous post (Welcome to the Latest Movement in Church Ministry: The SeekErgent Movement) we examined two fundamental problems that the seeker and emergent movements have in common:

1. There is a failure to correctly understand the nature and doctrine of the church which leads to…

2. A corruption of doctrine concerning the church’s relationship with and ministry to the world.

There we looked at the very nature of the church, considering the important fact that the bride of Jesus Christ should be seen in view of His shed blood; thus, we represented the church with the color red; the dark ways of the world with the color black (Ephesians 5:1-14) and the compromised church of Laodicea as a repugnant mixture of the two – I referred to it as “skubala” brown (Phil 3:8):

In this post I will offer some brief thoughts about the church’s relationship with, and ministry to the world. The main focus here will be concerning the biblical model for Gospel outreach.

But before I begin here, allow me to offer a few preliminary thoughts, especially in view of the last post: I am amazed to see the kinds of reactions that came about as a result of the first post. It would seem as though the new, enlightened, and “modern” approach to things would be to refrain from reproving error and engage in a friendly “conversation” in order to gain better understanding – of course, this approach isn’t a new idea either (2 Corinthians 11:1-4). But rather than having such conversational chit-chats, I am convinced that there is a need for godly and measured rebukes, much like what we see in the strong language used by Christ and the Apostles when they dealt with error. For example, to the compromised church at Laodicea, the Lord said that He wanted to spew (literally, vomit) them out because of the detestable nature of their courtship with the world. To the Philippians, who were in danger of infusing the error that was being advanced in their midst, Paul said: “beware of the dogs, beware of the evil-doers, beware of the false circumcision” (Phil 3:2). And as if these labels weren’t enough to grab their attention, Paul then likened fleshly wisdom and works to that of skubala – that is, fecal material (Phil 3:8).

Lovely.

I just wonder how Christ and the Apostles would be treated in this modern era that so often exalts gentility over truth. Let me say immediately that no preacher should ever be cruel or wreckless when rendering a rebuke; but with this it must also be said that no genuine preacher should ever shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God which clearly upholds truth while rejecting error; that reveals the glory of Christ versus the world’s shame; that discloses the church’s true mission versus the ways of the world and clearly teaches the uniqueness of Christian fellowship versus the world’s rebellious confederacy against the Lord and His anointed (Psalm 2). I am personally grieved over the phone calls and e-mails that I receive from people who are starving for the biblical preaching and fellowship that they should have in a church – my heart aches for them. Many of these saints are being offered the emaciating mechanisms of manmade wisdom along with the veritable dog & pony show of many progressive churches today, and yet there will be those who will say: “Oh, just leave these movements and their leaders alone!” Writing in a confrontational manner is no mere hobby here at The Armoury. When I do it, it is because I am compelled to do so for the glory of the Savior who shed His precious blood for the church. This is no game – this is a very serious matter. The bride of Christ, and her mission, are essential matters to explore and understand – thus, let us being with the subject of the church’s relationship with, and ministry to the world:

When considering the Savior’s prayer for His disciples, it is evident that He desired that we would go out into the world in order to preach the Gospel of peace, after His own example:

John 17:15-18: 15 “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

Literally, Christ’s disciples are to go out into the world just as [kathos] Christ did. This comparative particle [kathos] establishes an important correspondence between Christ’s pattern of outreach and our outreach. This is a crucial and oftentimes lost challenge concerning the church’s genuine mission: as Christ went out into the communities at large, He did so with His disciples while taking the message of reconciliation to a lost and dying world. The pattern of His life and conversation is our model: With a woman steeped in sin, Christ transformed a common conversation about physical water into the message of living water (John 4:1-29) and remained for two days with the dejected Samaritans in order to preach the word to them; the Savior turned the people’s selfish pursuit for bread into an opportunity to speak of the Bread of Life that alone gives eternal life (John 5-6); and like Christ, we see Paul ascending Mars Hill in order to teach the philosophers concerning that which they did not understand about the unknown God (Acts 17). This principle of going out into the world in order to engage it with the Gospel is crucial, for it reminds us that we have been created for good works (Ephesians 2:10) in order to manifest Christ’s glory in every aspect of our lives – in the workplace, the marketplace, in the public assembly, with our relatives, in our neighborhoods – even when we are grabbing a bite to eat at a restaurant. This is the outreach ministry of the church: ego apesteila autous eis ton kosmon – to be sent out [apo + stello] into the world. An emphasis such as this highlights our need to take the Gospel to the world, rather than emphasizing this matter of taking the world into the church.

I am constantly challenged by the precious examples of the Savior (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in Acts). Such an emphasis on outreach in no way eliminates the fact that evangelism takes place within the local church (1 Corinthians 14:23-24), but what it does emphasize is that which is often de-emphasized in the modern church: believers need to get off their pews and go out to the people of this world with the Gospel message, rather than re-inventing church in order to better suit the world, as in the case of Laodicea:

The study of the church at Laodicea is an important one. At some point, the spiritual walls of Laodicea came tumbling down, such that there became little to no discernable distinction between those in the church versus those outside of the church – contrary to the standard of God’s word (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Thus, whatever Gospel witness that this church had to begin with became buried beneath the worldliness that crept in over time. But in direct opposition to this dreadful example, the church is to be that unique place in the world where Christ’s sheep are discipled (1 Peter 5:1-4), fed (John 21:12-17), nurtured (Ephesians 4:1-14) and lovingly disciplined for their restoration (Matthew 18 & 1 Corinthians 5). Truly, the church must never be a place where an unbeliever is turned away from hearing the word of God simply because he is an unbeliever, however, the church must never change her God-ordained priorities of ministry in order to accommodate the people or the philosophies of this world. Christ firmly commanded Peter to feed and tend His sheep (John 21:12-17, 1 Peter 5:1-4) – and such a command as this must not be trifled with. If shepherds are to love Christ, then they must feed Christ’s sheep with His word and nothing else. By this shepherding ministry, the Savior’s sheep are to be built up in the word in order to do the work of service (Ephesians 4:12) which includes this important matter of going out to this lost and dying world with the Gospel of Peace (Ephesians 6:15). But when the church’s ministry of discipleship is cooled in order to accommodate the world, then Christ’s sheep become weakened, and the Gospel’s radiance is diminished.

The precious examples of Christ and the Apostles render a continual reminder to my own soul concerning my own need to go out and engage the world for Christ, remembering that the outreach of all believers is to occur whenever we engage the lost at work; at school; on the ball field; at the gym; in the grocery store; at a restaurant and especially – especially – in our own neighborhoods. For myself, it has been through a recent Bible study for several of my neighbors; and just the other day, it was the opportunity that I had to talk to the gentleman who gave me a shuttle ride while my car was being repaired. I truly believe that we all need to consider how we can do more in terms of going out into the world with the Gospel of peace for the glory of Christ. What the people of this world truly need, more than attending a church service, is to hear the glorious message of redemption and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ! And they need to see Christianity displayed in real time, where they live – not just on a stage in a church building. Clearly, Christ didn’t setup a tent in Judea for several years, inviting unbelievers to become a part of His “community” – rather He and the disciples went out into the world and called unbelievers to follow Him.

Sadly, many of the movements found in modern “Evangelicalism” have actually weakened Gospel evangelism through a model of ministry that is eerily similar to the defections found at Laodicea. As a pastor, I am continually warned in my own heart by these things. As a friend of many brethren who are scattered abroad, I am saddened by their struggle to find a church that is committed to feeding Christ’s sheep and sending them out with the Gospel. As a child of God, I petition the Lord for renewal in our land, by the revival of His church and the spiritual awakening of the lost. Living now in the “Bible belt” I see many churches capitulating to the popular methodologies of our day. Many of these ministries have adopted a very loose concept of the church, thereby producing a breeding ground for those who are willing to believe that they need only have a positive interest in Christ in order to be a part of the “church community.” As I talk with people who are in such “ministries” they speak much about what activities they do, their baptism, their membership, their “potlucks,” their knowledge, their books or their discussion groups – but how sad it is to hear them say nothing about Christ. Unfortunately, too many of these people will someday discover that Christ demands so much more than a token partnership with the true church (Psalm 2:12), especially when He will declare to them: “I never knew you; depart from Me…” (Matt. 7:21-23). What the lost really need to understand is that they are not a part of this unique community called the church – and they will never be, unless they repent of their sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ who laid down His life in sinner’s stead.

Finally, let us remember that salvation is the work of God alone, and not man. As well, the Lord will call His people using the imperfect men, women and ministries throughout the world. As an imperfect vessel myself, I can affirm, with Paul, the reality of this truth (Phil. 3:12-13). However, the reality of our frailty should never become an excuse for the corruption of sound doctrine in the church – our sin will never change His standards. Therefore, may the Lord grant us His grace to do His will for His glory alone. And may the church return to the simplicity of devotion that we find so clearly displayed amidst that newly born church at Jerusalem, where the brethren were together continually, being regularly devoted to the Apostles’ doctrine, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to corporate prayer. The holiness, purity, and beauty of that Spirit filled community of Christians had such an impact on the neighborhood around it that the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Yes – here it is ladies and gentlement. Allow me to introduce to you the never-before-seen – SeekErgent™ Movement (or SEM™). It’s a new, authentic-marketing approach to church ministry.

Perhaps I should apply for the trademark now before it actually does become the next “new” thing!

Alright, I confess that this isn’t a new movement, but all the discussion concerning the seeker and emergent movements of late has made me wonder what will be the next fashionable thing in the American church. Right now it is the “Emergent Movement” with the “Seeker Sensitive Movement” now passing into ancient history. Amidst all the present discussion concerning these issues, it is important to remember that while there are practical differences that distinguish these movements, it is more important to comprehend their philosophical roots, rather than investing too much time cataloguing their distinctions. At the end of the day, these movements come from the same fundamental defections:

1. There is a failure to correctly understand the nature and doctrine of the church which leads to…

2. A corruption of doctrine concerning the church’s relationship with and ministry to the world.

I will address these defections in two brief posts, beginning with the first matter concerning the nature of the church:

The Nature of the Church: There are many today, especially those in the emergent movement (EM), who believe that unbelievers can become a part of the “Christian community” simply by their interaction with believers, or by their involvement with the activities of the church. The philosophy behind this form of thinking is one which ultimately minimizes, and even nullifies, the distinction between the church and the world. To say that unbelievers become a part of the Christian community simply by their interactions with Christians is a dangerous error. The danger is twofold: 1. It leaves the unbeliever with the false impression that one can become a part of the “Christian community” apart from faith in the Savior Himself, and 2. It fosters the false notion within the church that such a “Christian community” should be comprised of something other than believers in Christ. It is this latter point that is tantamount to justifying just a little leaven into the bread of Christ’s church. It is important to correctly identify the source of such a philosophy in order to reveal what is at the heart of the seeker and emergent movements:

“Let the church become infused with and conformed to the world – then it will be effective in reaching the world.”

The problem with this form of thinking is multifaceted such that we could spend hours nitpicking the details of the emergent and seeker philosophies, dissecting their particulars; but I believe that it is much more important to identify the fundamental nature of this popular philosophy and thereby make haste to pursue the solution – emphasizing it above all else. At the heart of it all is the failure to see the word church in the color red; and by this I mean that we should think of the precious blood of the Savior when we think of Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:23-27), for without the fountain of His blood – there would be no church.

The church is not the creation or propriety of men. It is the creation and propriety of Christ by the sacrifice of Himself:

Ephesians 2:13-16: 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Christ created [ktizo] this “one new man” which Paul clearly identifies as the church [Ephesians 2:17-22]. This one new man, comprised of God’s elect among the Jews and the nations of the world (the Gentiles), was formed and fashioned by the hands of the crucified One, therefore we cannot forget that this “one new man” is covered from head to toe by the blood of Christ. Therefore, when we think of the church, we must think of the flowing blood of the Savior.

POINT: There is only one way to become a part of this community – and it is not by the institutions or programs of man; it is solely by the priceless blood of Jesus Christ.

To suggest that there is another way to become a part of this one new man is dangerous at best. In like manner, to redefine the nature of the church trifles with the priceless blood of the Lamb. The church is not a social club which defines its “community” by an arbitrary set of standards; and it must never be a place which communicates to the world that the lost can become a part of this special “community” by any other means than through redemption in Christ. It is a community that is unique, alien and lives out the Gospel to such an extent that the world can clearly see that there is a difference:

Acts 5:11-14: 11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. 12 At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,

I can just imagine a conversation between a 1st century believer and a modern “evangelical”:

1STCC: “What happened at your church today?”

MOD-E: “Oh, we had impressionistic dance, a dramatic presentation, a puppet show and a short message. What happened at your church?”

1STCC: “Two people were judged by God when they lied about their giving; the whole church has been overcome with awe over the wonder of God’s holy and powerful work in our midst; and while the community around us has been gripped with much fear over these things, still the Lord is constantly adding to our number… but uh, no puppet shows…& what’s ‘impressionistic dance?’”

The saints of the past would barely recognize what many refer to as the church today. The glory of Christ is unique, and is incomparable to the world’s “glory.” In like manner, the Savior’s glory in the church is unique, and is clearly diminished when the world is allowed to influence her privilege of worship. Like the church at Laodicea, those who choose to mix the dark ways of this world with the Savior’s church, concoct nothing but a rejectable mixture of truth and error:

The color of Christ’s church is regal-red and is not to be mixed with the dark and corrupt philosophies of this world (Ephesians 2:1-3). Thus, in the worst of all cases, those who dabble in such admixtures produce a ministry that would be likened to a kind of skubala-brown – which truly speaks for itself.