…Or, The Importance of Squashing those Big Stumbling Blocks in Life.

Like the Greek and Roman mythological figures in Christ’s day, we too have our idols that have been attributed with many god-like qualities. In fact, we have in our day that grand character – Santa Claus, who makes Zeus, Baccus and Hermes look like the three stooges. After all, old Saint Nic is attributed with the qualities of omniscience (he sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake); omnipotence & omnipresence (he delivers his goods to billions of children throughout the world in one night); he is the moral basis for righteous living (he knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake) and he doesn’t seem to die… well, not until he was violently squashed by a 727 jet airliner…oh well, so much for his immutability.

Santa Claus has become the chief mascot for the retail industry and is, therefore, the most popular figure during the Christmas season for those whose heart is set upon playing stool-ball, rather than worshipping Christ. Contemporary idols such as Saint Nic should remind parents that we must be very careful about what we set before our children during the Christmas holidays – or any time:

Matthew 18:6-11: 6 “…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell. 10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven.” 11 [For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]

The Lord’s call to cut off whatever causes one to stumble is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of radical amputation, and for obvious reasons. We are not to take lightly those things which get in the way of our pure devotion to the Lord – they must be “cut away” for the sake of Christ. Nor are we to tolerate the abominable practice of causing little ones to stumble in the same way. The Savior’s “woe to the world” is a severe warning.

Such a reflection ought to remind us of the godliness of Paul and Barnabas when the natives of Lystra believed that Barnabas was Zeus and Paul was Hermes. Rather than offering to adorn themselves with costumes and thus play their resptective roles (if even for the sake of the little children), their response was a violent one – like the doctrine of radical amputation:

Acts 14:11,12,14-15: …they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” 12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes…14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God…”

These men would have rather died than to place an idol before those to whom they ministered. For them, it was Christ alone or nothing. Rather than seeing the idols of Zeus and Hermes as being tools to communicate Christ to them, they understood that these idols were an abomination – a stumbling block, and they needed to be cut off immediately.

Let me encourage all to take our celebrations of Christ very seriously, for the glory of the Savior and for the sake of our testimony in this world. The world watches us in ways that we often cannot know or assess, therefore let us show them that we celebrate the 1st Advent of Christ – that is, when the eternal Son of God came to this earth, rather than when Santa Claus is coming to town.

Well, it seems that Christmas came early this year via two gifts from the brethren @ PBC –

1. A – T.U.L.I.P. Tree Ornament: Many thanks to Scott and Amanda for their PERSEVERANCE in finding three lovely silk tulips and bringing them together into an ornament that is absolutely IRRESISTABLE. Of course, they were gracious enough to give us this ornament UNCONDITIONALLY, however, because they had generously determined to make the one ornament, we were thereby LIMITED to converting one tree… no more, and no less. Beforehand we considered our tree to be TOTALLY worthless, but now it is a new kind of Christmas tree…yes, we like our T.U.L.I.P. Tree. Thanks a bunch…

2. A Maxwell House Ornament: Well, this week’s Maxwellbucks™ award goes to brother Burnie for secretly smuggling more of that imitation coffee (Maxwell House) into our house once again. Just when I thought I had settled a truce with the Maxwellites in our midst, I find that the they are once again invading my turf and polluting the pure java supply. The most recent coffee crime involves some of our Christmas decorations. We have a miniature Starbucks coffee shop replica (lighted) along with other miniaturized houses, people and streetlamps – a fun thing that we have the kids setup every year. Well, this peaceful landscape was rudely interupted Wednesday night when an invader arrived on the scene.

Thanks brother – now I owe you one…

When the Lord redeemed me in 1982, I remember being like a child in a toy store – I was so joyful to be surrounded by the abundance of His grace and the riches of His truth that I realized that there weren’t enough waking hours in a day to take it all in. I would exhaust myself on a daily basis by digging into the treasuries of His word, fellowshipping with His people and praying for continued grace to grow in Him (I’m still like that kid in the toy store – but at my present age, I now go to bed a wee bit earlier). Now there is one thing that I did in my spiritual infancy that would require a slight adjustment in later years – and that has to do with the Christmas holidays. You see, when I was first saved I cynically became like…

…the Grinch who stole Christmas…only without the green skin…

The Grinch hated Christmas!

The whole Christmas season!

Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.

It could be that his head wasn’t screwed on quite right.

It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were to tight.

But I think that the most likely reason of all

May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

But,

Whatever the reason,

His heart or his shoes,

He stood there on Christmas Eve, hating the Whos,

Staring down from his cave with a sour, Grinchy frown

At the warm lighted windows below in their town.

For he knew every Who down in Who-ville beneath

Was busy now, hanging a mistleoe wreath.

Well, actually, I didn’t hate anyone who celebrated Christmas – but my zeal for a pure devotion to Christ had become imbalanced and without good wisdom…and thus:

Every vestige of Christmas I removed from my presence

And refused to engage in the sharing of presents (alright, now I’m rhyming – enough of this already)…

Over time, I began to realize that many of the ancient roots of Christmas (which are primarily pagan) are almost entirely unknown to most people. For example, I have not had anyone compliment us on our “Druid Tree” yet. Besides this, I began to realize that the Christmas season often affords many opportunities to share the Gospel. In other words, it is a wonderful opportunity to speak to others about the Christ of “Christmas” – no matter what the world does with the holiday. I am often reminded that it is this time of year that affords the unique opportunity of standing on someone’s porch and singing Christ-centered hymns – I.e., caroling. In fact, several weeks ago we were invited to come to one of our local (public) libraries in order to sing Christmas hymns. Some folks from church joined with us, and we all had an opportunity to share the Gospel. One of the hymns that we sang was – “What Child is This?” Verse two of this hymn provided a wonderful opportunity:

Why lies He in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding

Good Christian fear; for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.

Nails, spear, shall pierce him through; the cross be borne for me, for you

hail, hail the Word made flesh, the babe, the son of Mary.

Verse two provided a blessed opportunity to present a very simple Gospel message – the verse itself is a roadmap for the Gospel indeed. By God’s grace events like these have been very fruitful in terms getting the seed of God’s word out. Through opportunities like these, I have come to learn that it is possible to enjoy Christmas, and to even use the holiday as an opportunity to share Christ with others…

But this would not have been…

…had I remained on the top of Mount Crumpit…

proudly determined to take Christmas and dump it…. (this post really needs to end soon)…

My exhortation to all is that we should seek every legitimate opportunity to communicate Christ to others, telling them about the hope that lies within us – even if such opportunities are to be found during a holiday season that most in the world celebrate, but very few understand. That is our mission and calling – to bring Christ to this lost and dying world.

P.S. As for our Christmas tree (or as some of you might think of it – Druid Tree) – we’ve reformed the thing – be sure to have a look.

The modern controversies over “Happy Holidays,” “Merry Christmas” and “Seasons Greatings” have reached a fever pitch. In Sacramento, as many as 50 protesters visited a local Wal Mart in order to protest the store’s failure to use the term “Christmas” in their retail practices – yes, “Christmas” that 12th century expression derived from the Roman Catholic tradition of mass/transubstantiation – i.e. “Christ’s Mass,” not necessarily a favorite expression for every Protestant on this planet. One of the protestors was pastor Dick Otterstad, of the Church of the Divide, who donned a Santa Claus costume and greeted shoppers with the message: “Don’t forget about the meaning of Christmas.” Yes, you read that correctly, a pastor in a Santa Claus constume with a “Merry Christmas” sign…

…now that’s really nailing down the “reason for the season.”

All this vocabulary-venom is poisoning the true message of the Savior, and it leads non-Christians to believe that Christianity is all about retail marketing and overweight men with white beards in their red pajamas. Brethren – we need to rise above it all and make sure that we communicate Christ to others – on December 24th, 25th, 26th… that is, on every day of the year.

But I truly wonder how the modern day Christmas Combatants would fair with the likes of Mr. William Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrim settlers of the Plymouth Colony (who later became the Governor of the Plymouth Colony). Actually, I don’t think that most people today would have enjoyed spending “Thanksgiving” Day or “Christmas” Day with him or most of those early Pilgrims. To the Puritans, Christmas was a pagan celebration that was grounded in secular tradition and thus represented the remnants of the church of England, more than anything else. And with this, the tradition of Christmas was often filled with partying, drinking and reveling of all sorts. For the believers in Plymought Colony, December 25th was just another day, unless of course it fell on the Sabbath – otherwise, it was simply a work day. The following excerpt from Bradford’s “Of Plymouth Plantation [1620-1647]” helps us to see the early Americans’ view of “Christmas”:

“And herewith I shall end this year. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth than of weight. On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor called them out to work as was used. But the most of this new company excused themselves and said it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, he found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar, and some at stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them and took away their impliments and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play and others work. If they made the keeping of it matter of devotion, let them keep their houses; but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets. Since which time nothing hath been attempted that way, at least openly.”

By the way, pitching the bar and stool-ball were both common games in their day. Pitching the bar is thought to have consisted of throwing a stick in some fasion, and stool-ball incorporated the use of a milkmaid’s stool and some rocks – based upon an old game enjoyed by young milkmaids who threw rocks at each others’ stools in order to knock them down; the defensive object of the game was to prevent your opponent’s rock from hitting your stool – using your bare hand…well, that sounds like a lot of fun.

Now an observant reader may be thinking many thoughts after such a quote – perhaps regarding Puritan work ethics or sabbatarianism; possibly even how very bored those milkmaids must have been. However, my only focus in this reference concerns the exhortation that was made to those who insisted that they observe Christmas, which was this: if, for conscience sake, you wish to reflect on Christ this day, then do reflect on Christ as a matter of devotion to Him instead of using this time as an opportunity for the flesh. These Christmas celebrants apparently were newcomers to the colony (from England) and may not have been believers; and thus their desire for Christmas was not centered on Christ, but instead they desired to use their holiday as an opportunity to play stool-ball. In some way, these Christmas game players of the past are like many in our culture today. In the modern era, many demand their right for a Christmas holiday, but then they only fill their day with games and activities which have little or nothing to do with Christ Himself.

It would be like a young person who anticipates Christmas mainly because he expects to get that expensive X-Box game, so that he can play…stool-ball on it for hours without end…

…or something like that.

As the Apostle Paul often said: me genetai – may it never be.

P.S. After the last two posts – please know that I am not trying to abandon the expressions “Merry Christmas” or even “happy holidays” – I’m just advising people to have wisdom regarding their seasonal dogmatics: More will be said about these phrases later.

And just to put others at ease, we do have a Christmas Tree in our living room; however this one has been somewhat reformed – even sanctified in a way. More on that later as well…

I think that it’s fascinating that the Savior warned us about the leaven of the Pharisees (Parushim), rather than the leaven of the Chaberim.

I’m sure that you’ve thought that too.

Who were the Chaberim, and why bring it up? Well, I wanted to talk to you about being a God-honoring neighbor during this busy time of year. In Christ’s day the word Chaberim was used to denote a godly “neighbor” but with an interesting twist: This term Chaberim was actually the name that the Pharisees used for themselves to depict their spiritual practice, i.e., they were the true assembly of Israel due to their unparalleled obedience to the law. Emil Schurer, in his work “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” says it this way:

“This gives us however a deeper insight of the self-estimation of Pharisaism. It so far stands on a level with general Judaism of the post-exilian period, that to it also the population of Palestine is divided into two categories: 1. The congregation of Israel, I.e., the Chaberim, for chiber means simply “neigbbor,” fellow countryman, and 2. the people dwelling in the land. In the eyes of Pharisaism however the former term is restricted to the circle of those, who strinctly observe the law together with the entire paradosis ton presbuteron [tradition of the elders]. Only the circle of the Pharisaic association represents the true Israel, who perfectly observe the law and have therefore a claim to the promises.” [Schurer, History of the Jewish People, pp. 23-24.].

Though the Pharisees used this term Chaberim for themselves, you’ll notice that the Savior never used it to identify them. His term was parushim, that is, the separatists: To refer to the Pharisees as “neighbors” would have been ironic at best, for by their conduct, they proved themselves to be nothing of the sort. Instead, they were separatists; that is, they sought to separate themselves from the world so much, that they almost avoided it altogether. And rather than separating themselves unto God’s word alone (which they believed they did [John 5:39-47]), they had sadly set themselves apart unto the traditions of men – and not only this, but they sought to bring others with them in the process [Matt. 23:15]. This tenstion between the actual attitude of the Pharisees, versus their publicity spin as the “Chaberim” may have had some basis in the parable of the godly Samaritan, where at the end of that parable the Lord asked this question:

Luke 10:36-37: 36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers hands 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, Go and do the same.

The parable of the good Samaritan is actually a response to a lawyer’s question in Luke 10:29, where he asked: “and who is my neighbor?” The true neighbor was the one who, in genuine godliness, showed mercy. It is interesting that those men who had a reputation for being religious were ultimately rebuked by the life of one who showed compassion to a man who disdained the Samaritans. Yes, it was a Samaritan, of all people, who proved himself to be a genuine neighbor.

The lessons that we can draw from all this are very crucial for our own souls. There is within Christian faith and duty a constant tension that exists between our need to separate ourselves from worldliness, while at the same time being careful not to forsake our ministry of mercy and compassion in the Gospel of Christ. In all our striving to avoid being of the world we cannot forsake our privileged duties that we have while in the world.

During this time of year, I often find myself feeling frustrated over much of the hoopla that surrounds the celebration of Christ’s birth. Frankly, there is much that we should not be associated with, for a great deal of it is simply an advancement of materialism or mysticism – or both. Because of this, we don’t want to find ourselves in association with those things which mar the glory of our Savior, who came in the flesh in order to die in our stead. But in saying this, I would also encourage you to think carefully about not becoming a separatist after the pattern of the Pharisees, such that we might miss some important opportunities to minister as a godly neighbor to this lost and dying world. This time of year often yields some interesting opportunities for believers to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that has yet to hear about the real meaning of Christ’s incarnation and death. Here are some ideas that might be helpful for you to extend yourselves to your own community for the sake of the Gopsel of Christ:

1. Try charoling in your neighborhood & bring some Gospel tracts with you.
2. Consider having a get together with several neighbors for a dessert/coffee time.
3. Give thought to having some people over who might be alone this season (singles, widows, divorcees or young couples) – folks who don’t know Christ and don’t have anywhere to go.
4. Should you endeavor to do any of these things, be sure to bask it all in prayer, asking the Lord to open doors of opportunity for sharing the truth of Christ.

This is a strange time of year – it is a time where many believe (mystically) that the season itself can bring true joy – just like magic. As believers, we know that there is only one true source of all peace and joy, and it is found in Christ, who was born in Bethlehem and died on Calvary for our sin. May the Lord grant us multiple opportunities to be neighbors, not after the pattern of the Pharisees, but after the patter of Christ Himself.

P.S. If you are thinking that by the above picture I am taking a shot at the word “holiday” as it might relate to the “seasonsgreetings-happyholidays-merryChristmas” debate – I’m not, but I will be posting on that one later…

There has been a recent discussion concerning the advocacy of continuationism – which teaches that the Apostolic sign gifts are still present with us today. The forms of this teaching will vary, but the sign gifts that are normally thought to be continuing to this day are: tongues, the interpretation of tongues, prophecy and miracles. The advocates of this doctrine are not new on the block, but have a heritage of advocacy that is rooted in the Pentacostal/Charismatic movements from the early 20th century to the present. For an excellent article related to this discussion, be sure to read Pastor Jason Robertson’s (at Fide-O) work entitled: The Revelatory and Confirmatory Gifts. David Kjos at The Thirsty Theologian has been faithfully linking many other discussion on the matter, and there has also been an interesting interview between Tim Challies and one of the leading advocates of continuationism – Dr. Wayne Grudem.

I have included this post in the Strawman series, because I believe that this issue is becoming very dangerous for the church. Many advocates of this teaching have been entering into the ranks of the Reformed community and the result is that the Charismatic movement is taking root right in our own backyard. The issue is important for (at least) two reasons:

1. The hermeneutic behind this teaching is quite wreckless and therefore establishes a dangerous precedent of Scripture being a matter of one’s own interpretation.
2. The infallibility of God’s prophetic message is reduced to that which is fallible (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Concerning the second point, I believe that this strikes at the heart of the Christian’s confidence and hope (Hebrews 6:13-20) – for the Lord’s revealed oaths and promises are sure and immutable. As I have already indicated, one of the leading advocates of this argument of continuationism is Dr. Wayne Grudem. His primary argument for continuationsim is rooted in his interpretation of Ephesians 2:20 which advocates that Paul’s mention of “apostles and prophets” is, in fact, a reference to one group of people. In other words, apostles and prophets do not constitute two different groups, but one – that is, apostles = prophets. By this argument, Grudem is then permitted to say (as he argues) that there is another prophetic office – that is, fallible prophets. This is what he has to say about the “apostles and prophets” mentioned in Ephesians 2:20:

“…the grammatical structure clearly allows for the possibility that one group with one component is meant, for there are several instances in the New Testament where one definite article governs two or more nouns joined by kai and it is clear that one group.” [Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington: University Press, 1982), p. 97].

In a sense, Grudem’s argument is established upon the foundation of a faulty grammatical interpretation. In Daniel Wallace’s summary of the misapplications of Sharp’s rule in “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” pp. 284 – 285, he uses Grudem’s teatment of Ephesians 2:20 as an example of a misapplication of Sharp’s rule:

“As we have seen, there are no clear examples of plural nouns in TSKS fitting the identical group in the NT, rendering such a possibiity here less likely on grammatical grounds.”82 [footnote 82] – “In Grudem’s study he mixed singular TSKS constructions and plural participial TSKS constructions in with Ephesians 2:20. But the semantic patterns of each of these constructions do not match noun+noun plural TSKS constructions: There are no clear examples of plural nouns displaying identity, while all singular and virtually all plural participles fit this category.”

All in all, the disjointed interpretation which says that the apostles and prophets are identical then leads Grudem to conclude that there is another group of prophets – prophets who were fallible. Not only does Wallace reveal the error of this, but he copiously lists a number of articles which address this same issue in footnote 81, on page 285. These issues are important and should not be carelessly tossed aside. Without trying to adjudicate motives or intentions here, let me just say that this is a serious issue, because the Bible does identify another kind of prophecy other than what is mentioned in Ephesians 2:20, and it is nothing to play grammatical games over. You see, the Bible refers to errant prophets as false prophets, and the church is to beware of such men, rather than enfold them as a part of God’s program for the church (1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1).

In his introduction to Dave Hunt’s book “What Love Is This?” Tim Layhaye offers his praise and commendations for a work which confronts that “dreadful doctrine like Calvinism,” referring to the ancient doctrines of sovereign grace as “the false God of Augustinianism and Calvinism.”

I would like to thank Mr. Layhaye for his honesty.

I can at least respect someone who doesn’t pull any punches about his convictions, even if he is beating the air – and that, with all his might. What I can’t thank him for, nor especially Mr. Hunt, is that they are advancing a work that is disingenuous, hostile, exegetically weak and is filled with enough strawman arguments to constitute a fire hazard. Why is it that the opponents of God’s absolute sovereignty always feel obligated to attack John Calvin? Why not engage in a discussion where only the Scriptures are unveiled, and church history is somewhat of a parenthesis?

Answer: Because John Calvin is not here to defend himself – that’s why.

All this brings me back to thoughts of my youth. When I was a very little boy I used to play basketball in our family’s backyard. My specialty was to play in two man contests, up to 40 points. I was so good at it that I always won in these contests – yes, you heard me right: always. Of course, my opponent was an imaginary one, but let’s not get bogged down with details here – I always won! It’s easy to defeat an opponent who isn’t there to compete against you or defend himself – what is a real challenge is to get in a real match where the rules are not established by the players, but by an impartial referee whose standard is true in every way: enter in the Lord himself – who is the judge and arbiter of all our words and discussions. God’s own word is the sole standard of measurement for everything; without it, we could never hope to have any theological contest adjudicated rightly. In view of this, let me offer the following segment from Mr. Hunt’s book so that we can consider it in light of the Word of God. In chapter 11 of his book (Sovereignty and Free Will, What God cannot Do To Save Man), Hunt offers the following statement:

“God cannot force a gift upon anyone. That fact also shows that salvation for the elect cannot be by predestination. Salvation can neither be earned nor merited–it can only be received as a gift from God. And the recipient must be willing; the gift cannot be imposed by the giver against the recipient’s will. Finally, even God cannot force anyone to love Him or to accept His love.”

This statement is unfortunately filled with semi-truths and outright errors. What it certainly doesn’t do is adequately represent what most advocates of sovereign grace would say. The word “force” carries with it the thought of wrote mechanism – a process that would exclude the transformation of the one being drawn by God’s grace. But the Scriptures clearly teach us that it is the Lord who “caused us to be born again” (1 Peter 1:3), and yet by this gracious work we are thus made to be the willing worshipers and lovers of God (1 Peter 1:8). The word force makes the advocates of sovereign grace sound as though they teach a grace that is mechanistic – even robotic. Yes, the sheep of Christ are sovereignly drawn by the Father to Christ (John 6:44), but His drawing is a work that inclines the heart and mind of man to genuine and willing discipleship, not to a mechanistic compliance (John 10:26-27). But when Hunt says that “God cannot force anyone to love Him or to accept His love” I would suggest to you that he gives us the clarity of his error. The only ones who come to Christ are those who are drawn by Him and those to whom it has been given:

John 6:44: 44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65: 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Apart from the Father’s sovereign act of drawing and His sovereign gift (“granted” ~ dedomenon – having been given), no one can come to Christ. Despite these clear texts, Hunt still feels compelled to deny that God sovereignly draws us and gives us a faith and love for Him. Consider the following passage:

1 John 2:29: if ye know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten. [Young’s Literal Translation]

Everyone who is presently doing righteousness, of Him hath been begotten [gegennetai – Perfect Passive Indicative]. John’s statement here is very clear and important. John lets us know that those who presently practice righteousness [pas ho poion ten dikaiosunen – all the ones presently doing righteousness], do so because of an antecedent work – God’s work of regeneration [gegennetai – Perfect Passive Indicative]. That’s pretty clear. Disciples are made, not by their works; rather they perform righteous deeds because God has brought about new life within them (click on the diagrams below to expand):

Mr. Hunt might even agree with this principle. If not, he would have to argue that Christians labor in righteousness for a reason other than the initial work of God in them. There is really nothing to debate – the structure of John’s statement is indisputable. But what about our love for God? Does John address this matter at all? Consider the following text with nearly identical structure:

1 John 4:7: Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God [YLT]

Here we have, in like manner, another statement given to us by John which shows us that those who presently love the brethren and God, do so because they have been begotten of God [gegennetai – Perfect Passive Indicative]. Once again, the structure of his statement leaves us no room to cry foul:

John clearly teaches us that righteous living, faith (1 John 5:1) and love all have their root in the gracious work of God from the very beginning. By the way, this is why the Christian can give God all the glory and praise for his salvation. And we can thank God that our wretched hearts have been turned from our rebellion against Him, to a love that cherishes Him above all else:

1 John 4:19: 19 We love, because He first loved us.

This is a very sad post – one that is hard to believe in one way, but is somewhat predictable in some other ways. Earlier, in The Laodicean Legacy Part I, I said that churches have become religious entertainment centers, complete with theatre seating, drama, puppet shows, rock bands and stand-up comedians who try to impersonate Gospel preachers. With all that I mentioned in the above list, I forgot to mention – clowns. It stands to reason that if the world’s entertainment is to be an important basis for the ministry of the “church”, then why not clowns? I have heard, here and there, of churches having clown ministries of some sort – it all fits in with the venue of drama and puppet ministries etc. But what I have posted below is something that is both shocking and disturbing. If anyone reading this post doesn’t know Jesus Christ as his/her Savior, then please remember that the activities of Trinity Church-St.Paul’s Chapel (below) have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. I Can assure you that when the Apostle Paul made the reference to the “foolishness of God” (1 Corinthians 1:25) he was using irony to point out the exceeding foolishness of men. The following is very sad.

New York City church holds ‘Clown Eucharist’ Looking like refugees from Clown Alley at Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey Circus, ministers and many parishioners participated in a “Clown Eucharist” at an Episcopal church in New York City. Earlier, the rector of Trinity Church-St. Paul’s Chapel Trinity Church, the Rev. Dr. James Herbert Cooper, encouraged the parish family to come to church “in clown dress, big hats, floppy shoes or some sort of foolish garb. Those watching on the Internet might even be foolish enough to put on some white face or a big grease-paint smile as we worship God and learn about the structure of the Eucharist by being the circus which came to town and to church on that day.” The Rev. Dr. James Herbert Cooper breaks the bread during communion at Trinity Church in New York City during a ‘Clown Eucharist’ service. The church bulletin’s order of worship for May 22 states: “The Procession-Entry of the Gladiators arrangement by Owen Burdick: The Ring Master, Choir, Acolytes, and Clergy enter the Church.” Someone mimed the Old Testament reading, and three people mimed the Gospel reading. Then, the bulletin states, “The Ringmaster directs the Sacred Ministers to the front of the altar.” After that, listed under The Offertory, the bulletin states: “The alms, oblations and other offerings of the People are presented. The Celebrant blesses the gifts, the altar and the People. The People respond to the blessing with their noise makers.” During The Breaking of the Bread, according to the bulletin, “The Celebrant breaks the Bread. At the cue of the Ringmaster the People respond with noise makers.” And, during The Retiring Procession, as the ministers retire to the narthex, the bulletin states that, “The People toss their streamers into the aisle.” After the service, as people gathered outside for a parish picnic, one parishioner in clown makeup said, “It’s okay to be happy.” In a letter posted on the church’s Web site before the service, Cooper said that the church would celebrate Trinity Sunday with the Clown Eucharist, “‘doing church’ as if we were a circus come to town. We will celebrate the Eucharist and learn about the basic traditional outline for Eucharistic worship by experiencing it and participating in it from a new perspective.” While he admitted that it might “be a surprise to see clowns inside Trinity Church,” he asked church members to think about “how we perceive the world in light of our relationship with Jesus could rightly be called foolish. Jesus looked at things in a new and strange way – a foolish way. But, as St. Paul said, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of the world. Paul declared himself a fool for Christ’s sake.” According to Cooper, “clowns represent the underdog, the lowly, the remnant people. Their foolishness is a call to unpretentiousness. They take incredible risks – balancing on tight ropes, eating fire, keeping silent, being poked by others or getting soaked in water. Clowns are parables in themselves, spending great amounts of energy uncovering small things, then showing forth the hidden treasure of life (like the kingdom of God) and, surprisingly to us, giving their most cherished possessions to others. … Clowns look at the world, like parables, inside out and upside down: the last shall be first, the smallest seed is the greatest tree, and those who work all day get paid the same as those who worked an hour. To the world, this is foolishness. “Yet foolishness – the foolishness of God – is wiser than man. It brings light, laughter, joy, renewal, salvation, and life. Whose fool are you?”

Note: When believers herald the cross of Christ as the most serious reality in their lives, then we are counted as “fools for Christ.” But when men act like worldlings in the name of Christ, they are counted as the religious fools of this world who hold to a form of godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). This mockery of Christ and His table is beyond description. Let us be warned concerning the dangers of approaching the Lord’s table in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27). While this is an extreme example of approaching the Lord’s table in an unworthy manner, we must not be arrogant in our hearts – we must all herald Christ with greater sobriety and earnestness, lest we too be guilty of His body and the blood:

1 Corinthians 11:28-29: 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

May the Lord have mercy…

I began the series “The Laodicean Legacy” with a quote from Mr. Bill Hybels, and then later from Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church, as follows:

Hybels: “There [used to be] a barricade mentality, a let’s huddle and separate-ourselves-from-this-terrible-awful-world thing. There’s none of that left. Those churches have closed down or have been merged with a church that has a more positive vision.”

Parkinson: “…our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don’t go to church…”

I presented these quotes in order to do two theings: 1. To unveil the truth about the mindset of the seeker sensitive movement and 2. To issue a warning to us all concerning our own natural tendency to want to become ear-ticklers in order to gain the approval of men (2 Timothy 4:3-5). Let me repeat that second point in a more fully expanded way: By exposing the errors of the modern church in this way, I have no desire to foster attitudes of pride or arrogance in anyone – in any way. We must not boast in our hearts and declare “we don’t do that at our church – we would never do that in our church.” Brethren – pride comes before destruction (Proverbs 16:18), therefore we ought to be humbled and warned by these observations and look to the godliness of a man like Paul whose ministry was truly patterned after that of Christ Himself:

Galatians 1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

We must all consider our own hearts as we approach the assembly of the saints to engage in corporate worship and ask: “am I seeking the favor of men or of God?” When we actually think that we are exempt from such questioning, we are in great danger. This again is a needful premise to yet another quote harvested from Dan Kimball’s book – “The Emerging Church, Vintage Christianity for New Generations.”

“…late one night I happened upon the band the Cranberries playing an Unplugged concert on MTV. It was an all-acoustic performance. The stage was draped with a dark, rich fabric and lit by candelabras. It looked more like a grandmother’s attic than a rock-concert venue, and I was struck by the simplicity of it. No fancy light shows or drum-set risers. I also noticed how close the audience was seated to the musicians. There wasn’t a giant separation between the two groups. Rather, they were sort of all together in a ‘community.’ I immediately felt that there was something very interesting to this ‘unplugged’ approach. MTV obviously studies culture and knows their audience, so maybe they were on to something here. Besides, going unplugged would be a heck of a lot easier than gearing up for our usual Wednesday night full production. So a few weeks later, as summer began, we tried an unplugged experiment for our midweek meetings. Instead of all the flash and lights, we set up only candles. I felt that this would add a sort of catacombish feeling to our meetings, reminiscent of the early Roman church in hiding. I played up this catacombs angle to the high schoolers as we launched this new approach…when one of the unplugged nights ended, one teenager waited to speak with me…he smiled and gave a nod of approval. ‘I like this,’ he said. ‘This was really spiritual.'” [Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church, Vintage Christianity for New Generations, pp. 34-35]

When I first read this over a year ago, I remember doing a double take on this one. Besides the insensitive reference to the catacombs – a place where dear Christian brethren from the past buried their dead and hid from Roman persecution [i.e., “a catacombs angle”], I was most amazed at Kimball’s reference to…MTV. MTV? Did Kimbal really say that he was getting his cues from MTV for his youth services? Absolutely he did – one must remember that if you are seeking to provide what the culture wants and desires, then sure, television would be an important place to start; and if the golden egg to church ministry is to be found in researching the preferences of popular culture, then MTV is the goose for you – I suppose. Kimball then continues to explain how they furthered their research by “gathering several young adults, both believers and nonbelievers, for a series of brainstorming sessions,” a revelation that lends itself to the repeated philosphy of importing the world into the church. While there is nothing problematic with acoustic guitars and candles per se, the question is this: What will be fashionable tomorrow? Juice harps and lava lamps? Had Kimball conducted his research in the Bible, he would have found that men are restless creatures who are forever in the pursuit of what they believe is “new” and “novel” (Ecclesiastes 1:8-11). All human beings, by nature, are like those loiterers on Mars Hill, who continually spoke and listened to things that they believed were “new” (Acts 17:21). However, by getting his cues of ministerial direction from the world, Kimball is essentially strapping his followers to a bucking bronco – and where that beast will be tomorrow, nobody knows. But Paul did not ascend Mars Hill dressed as Zeus or Hermes in order to more effectively reach his audience (wait, Barnabas would be Zeus and Paul would be Hermes – Acts 14:11-18). Rather, instead of catering to their desire for something new, Paul preached the ancient truths of creation, redemption and coming judgment, reminding them that even one of their own “novel” poets revealed nothing new about the Creator’s universal dominion over all humanity (Acts 17:28). But what he did tell these novelty seekers was this:

Acts 17:29 “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.”

Paul teaches us that we “ought not” or literally [ouk opheilomen] we are indebted or obligated not to take the liberty to think of God according to the art and thought of man. In other words, the pursuit of our own wisdom and creativity is a dead end when it comes to the pursuit of God and the worship of God. This is how Paul dealt with a culture that continually sought out that which was “novel” and “new.”

Should we be pursuaded to do anything different? By God’s grace, may it never be.

This is from a resource that was given to me years ago – what are the real names of these songs?

1. Move hitherward the entire assembly of those who are loyal in their belief.

2. Listen, the celestial messengers produce harmonious sounds.

3. Nocturnal timespan of unbroken quietness.

4. An emotion excited by the acquisition or expectation of good given to the terrestrial sphere.

5. Embellish the interior passageways (not a first advent song).

6. Exalted heavenly beings to whom harkened.

7. Twelve o’clock on a clement night witnessed its arrival.

8. The first – first advent song.

9. Small municipality in Judea South of Jerusalem.

10. Omnipotent supreme being who elicits respite to ecstatic distinguished males.

11. Tranquility upon the terrestrial sphere.

12. In awe of the nocturnal time span characterized by that which is set apart for God.

13. The first person nominative plural of a triumvirate of far eastern heads of state.

14. In a distant location of existence of an improvised unit of newborn children’s slumber furniture.

15. Proceed forth declaring upon a specific geological alpine formation.