Every decade there is some new movement that seeks to revitalize the local church. Some of these movements are a welcome relief while others are a wicked poison. Often the movements are not anything new, just a repackaged version of an older attempt at reform. Change is often the mantra of these movements and they are proclaimed as a panacea for the church. The doctrines of such movements should always be the first thing examined. The popularity of a movement is not an indicator of validity. Fascism has been very popular at times, but that does not mean it is a correct political approach. Animism has had more adherents than any modern religion, but we know it is not the correct religious approach. After theology, practice should be the next thing examined. Does the movement practice what it preaches? Does it encourage correct ethical behavior among its adherents? These would seem to be obvious concerns, but it is amazing how many people follow modern pied pipers who publish and profess lies.
We are constantly told about how we can better do church. Often the methods do not require any change of theology and only minor changes in practice. However, there are still troubling elements that often emerge from these movements. Why do modern churches feel the need to criticize traditional churches? Emergent and missional churches are quick to call traditional churches judgmental and insincere. Is the name calling not an indication that they are no different? They are quick to judge those who prefer to dress well for church - apparently sloven dress is intended to bring us closer to God. The problem is not the style of worship, but the aim and source of worship.
The goal of any church service should be to glorify God. Ultimately this cannot be done by human methods and means. The Holy Spirit must be the source of true worship. Only when God enables us to worship can we truly worship. If God is not the object of our worship, worship becomes a deluded form of entertainment. If God does not initiate worship, then we end up pursuing our own ideals of God and create idols in our image. These dangers exist in all churches, whether they are traditional, emergent or missional. Change is not the solution nor is it necessarily the problem. We must worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Pope Benedict the Evangelist
Well, evangelist may be a stretch. The Pope has caused some confusion among the media and anger among Islamic advocacy groups by baptizing a Muslim convert during his Easter services. The Muslim man in question, Magdi Allam, has been critical of Islam and a supporter of Israel's right to exist. The conversion is not a surprise, only the manner in which the conversion took place. Media pundits are scratching their heads because the Vatican has been pursuing better relations with the Islamic world. This would seem to be a move in the wrong direction, politically speaking. That is because they do not understand the Papacy nor do they understand the difference between Christianity and Islam.
First, the Pope is still the Pope. He does not care about Media opinions. The Pope is still the last great, powerful Monarch in the world. His word is law and is not formed by focus groups or opinion polls.
Second, baptism and Easter are a good fit. Baptism is the outward expression of the true impact of the Resurrection. As a Protestant I would be the first to point out that the Catholic Church has added more to the act of Baptism than was intended, but even for the Catholic Church it remains an important act of identification with Christ.
Third, Benedict has affirmed, perhaps indirectly and unintentionally, that Christianity and Islam are ultimately incompatible. We can coexist, but that does not mean that we think we are equals. Christianity and Islam claim to be the only true faith. Since both faiths make contradictory faith claims, only one can be right. Magdi Allam was not fine where he was at (as a Muslim). He needed Jesus and has come to Christ as Savior. This is more than changing clubs or choosing a new baseball club to root for. Allam has acknowledged that Islam was insufficient to meet the ultimate need of man. Allam knows that only Jesus can truly make him whole.
I do not foresee a new wave of revivals breaking out across the world, nor do I expect to see Benedict leading a new throng of evangelists. However, I celebrate any time a man surrenders to Christ and rejoice in any opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.
First, the Pope is still the Pope. He does not care about Media opinions. The Pope is still the last great, powerful Monarch in the world. His word is law and is not formed by focus groups or opinion polls.
Second, baptism and Easter are a good fit. Baptism is the outward expression of the true impact of the Resurrection. As a Protestant I would be the first to point out that the Catholic Church has added more to the act of Baptism than was intended, but even for the Catholic Church it remains an important act of identification with Christ.
Third, Benedict has affirmed, perhaps indirectly and unintentionally, that Christianity and Islam are ultimately incompatible. We can coexist, but that does not mean that we think we are equals. Christianity and Islam claim to be the only true faith. Since both faiths make contradictory faith claims, only one can be right. Magdi Allam was not fine where he was at (as a Muslim). He needed Jesus and has come to Christ as Savior. This is more than changing clubs or choosing a new baseball club to root for. Allam has acknowledged that Islam was insufficient to meet the ultimate need of man. Allam knows that only Jesus can truly make him whole.
I do not foresee a new wave of revivals breaking out across the world, nor do I expect to see Benedict leading a new throng of evangelists. However, I celebrate any time a man surrenders to Christ and rejoice in any opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Is Huckabee good for Evangelicals?
At this time I am not sure who I will support for president. I had hoped that Fred Thompson would make a decent run - the last actor elected president was very good for America. Unfortunately, Thompson's campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning. Though he is the most consistent conservative of the group running, it is highly unlikely that he will get the Republican nomination. So, I have been looking for a new horse to back. Unfortunately, the field looks pretty anemic.
Why not Mike Huckabee? He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I should identify with him and support one of my own. The media expects evangelicals to lock step with the SBC candidate without question. But I do have questions.
Southern Baptists are not uniform in belief or practice. There are many who use the title the Southern Baptist, but their beliefs are far from mine. Jimmy Carter is a faithful member and Sunday School teacher in an SBC church. (A quick explanation is needed here. Carter has renounced being a Southern Baptist, but that move revealed his ignorance. Only churches are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, the Convention only technically exists during the few days it convenes in June to conduct denominational business. After the convention, denominational entities are responsible to carry out the will of the Convention. Individuals are members of the local church. Though Carter may not claim to be Southern Baptist, he is still a member of a Southern Baptist Church - though that church is also aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). All that is to say, there is still a great deal of diversity among Southern Baptists.
I have never heard a sermon by Mike Huckabee. His previous churches will not post or release his past sermons. However, there are media claims that he was more of a moderate Baptist. Huckabee himself participated in a liberal Christian reconciliation effort sponsored by Mercer University, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the CBF (SBC leadership was not invited). Huckabee later pulled out because it was more political than he had expected.
Still, a moderate Southern Baptist is better than a Mormon or a secular candidate, right? Not necessarily. My largest concern about Huckabee came in an interview he did right before the Iowa Caucus. In the interview he stated that he was an agent of change and that he was comparable to Barack Obama. How are they alike? Both are engaged in populist rhetoric. They are both willing to say what people want to hear. Perhaps Huckabee's reference to being like Obama only meant that he was the underdog candidate that was not handpicked by the party machine. Still, populist often means appealing to the lowest common denominator, not well reasoned principles and standards.
Is Huckabee the best candidate? Is his candidacy good for Southern Baptists and evangelicals? One concern is that if he were elected many evangelicals would sit back thinking that American politics had swung back to the good old days and relax their efforts to effect social change. That alone is not a reason to vote for or against Huckabee, but it does add something to the pot.
I doubt that Huckabee will get the nomination. He scares the daylight out of the normal political establishment, both left and right. That is good. While I still have questions about Huckabee for president, there are many positives to his campaign. He has certainly helped to make the current election cycle interesting.
Why not Mike Huckabee? He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I should identify with him and support one of my own. The media expects evangelicals to lock step with the SBC candidate without question. But I do have questions.
Southern Baptists are not uniform in belief or practice. There are many who use the title the Southern Baptist, but their beliefs are far from mine. Jimmy Carter is a faithful member and Sunday School teacher in an SBC church. (A quick explanation is needed here. Carter has renounced being a Southern Baptist, but that move revealed his ignorance. Only churches are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, the Convention only technically exists during the few days it convenes in June to conduct denominational business. After the convention, denominational entities are responsible to carry out the will of the Convention. Individuals are members of the local church. Though Carter may not claim to be Southern Baptist, he is still a member of a Southern Baptist Church - though that church is also aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). All that is to say, there is still a great deal of diversity among Southern Baptists.
I have never heard a sermon by Mike Huckabee. His previous churches will not post or release his past sermons. However, there are media claims that he was more of a moderate Baptist. Huckabee himself participated in a liberal Christian reconciliation effort sponsored by Mercer University, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the CBF (SBC leadership was not invited). Huckabee later pulled out because it was more political than he had expected.
Still, a moderate Southern Baptist is better than a Mormon or a secular candidate, right? Not necessarily. My largest concern about Huckabee came in an interview he did right before the Iowa Caucus. In the interview he stated that he was an agent of change and that he was comparable to Barack Obama. How are they alike? Both are engaged in populist rhetoric. They are both willing to say what people want to hear. Perhaps Huckabee's reference to being like Obama only meant that he was the underdog candidate that was not handpicked by the party machine. Still, populist often means appealing to the lowest common denominator, not well reasoned principles and standards.
Is Huckabee the best candidate? Is his candidacy good for Southern Baptists and evangelicals? One concern is that if he were elected many evangelicals would sit back thinking that American politics had swung back to the good old days and relax their efforts to effect social change. That alone is not a reason to vote for or against Huckabee, but it does add something to the pot.
I doubt that Huckabee will get the nomination. He scares the daylight out of the normal political establishment, both left and right. That is good. While I still have questions about Huckabee for president, there are many positives to his campaign. He has certainly helped to make the current election cycle interesting.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
New Year Traditions
Growing up my grandfather made sure that the family followed certain traditions. These traditions were rooted in superstition, but they were fun. I still choose to follow some of these traditions.
1. Greens and Black Eyed Peas - the most important of New Years traditions. The Greens can be collard, turnip or mustard greens. Spinach is also allowed. Greens are eaten to insure folding money in the coming year and are the critical part of the meal (contrary to what some Yankees put on their websites). Black Eyed peas are eaten for change. I like to round out the meal with pork chops and cornbread.
2. Do not wash clothes on New Years Day. By washing clothes you are washing someone out of the family or you will have to wash clothes for a funeral in the coming year.
3. Whatever you do on New Years Day you will do the rest of the year.
4. Do not sweep on New Years Day - similar reasons to number 2.
While these superstitions have no real impact on life, they are fun and harmless. Plus they provide a good excuse to avoid regular household chores.
1. Greens and Black Eyed Peas - the most important of New Years traditions. The Greens can be collard, turnip or mustard greens. Spinach is also allowed. Greens are eaten to insure folding money in the coming year and are the critical part of the meal (contrary to what some Yankees put on their websites). Black Eyed peas are eaten for change. I like to round out the meal with pork chops and cornbread.
2. Do not wash clothes on New Years Day. By washing clothes you are washing someone out of the family or you will have to wash clothes for a funeral in the coming year.
3. Whatever you do on New Years Day you will do the rest of the year.
4. Do not sweep on New Years Day - similar reasons to number 2.
While these superstitions have no real impact on life, they are fun and harmless. Plus they provide a good excuse to avoid regular household chores.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Are Christians Prone to Anti-Semitism?
There is a great deal of concerns that Christians are anti-Semitic. Some scholars, many within Christianity, argue that there are elements within Christian orthodoxy that are inherently hateful toward the Jews. That is rather strange for a faith that uses the Jewish Bible, was founded by Jews and worships a Jewish Rabbi. The New Testament is a Jewish work with the exception of Luke's writings, and even his identity as a Gentile is questioned.
The idea that Christians hate Jews is foreign to my upbringing. I was taught that the Jews had been persecuted and would be persecuted (but the same holds true for faithful Christians). However, we were warned never to persecute the Jews. Every people or nation that persecutes the Jews will experience the judgment of God. Those who bless the children of Abraham will be blessed and those that curse them will be cursed.
Have Christians persecuted Jews? Yes, but they have also persecuted other Christians in the name of Christ. Is evangelism persecution? The free exchange of ideas with the intent to persuade is not persecution. True evangelism is never coercive.
How can Christians avoid anti-Semitism? Love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body (The Jewish Shema and the Greatest Commandment for Christians). We must love God with our whole self. Next we must love our neighbor as ourselves. When we love God and neighbor without qualification or reservation - we cannot hate anyone.
The idea that Christians hate Jews is foreign to my upbringing. I was taught that the Jews had been persecuted and would be persecuted (but the same holds true for faithful Christians). However, we were warned never to persecute the Jews. Every people or nation that persecutes the Jews will experience the judgment of God. Those who bless the children of Abraham will be blessed and those that curse them will be cursed.
Have Christians persecuted Jews? Yes, but they have also persecuted other Christians in the name of Christ. Is evangelism persecution? The free exchange of ideas with the intent to persuade is not persecution. True evangelism is never coercive.
How can Christians avoid anti-Semitism? Love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body (The Jewish Shema and the Greatest Commandment for Christians). We must love God with our whole self. Next we must love our neighbor as ourselves. When we love God and neighbor without qualification or reservation - we cannot hate anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)