In the last post, I acknowledged that there’s really nothing more I can add to the volumes of critiques written about the phenomena known as the contemporary church in America. Having been recently challenged, however, to evaluate a local gathering of a seeker-friendly, culture-relevant youth group in terms of an adherence to biblical standards, I’m writing this series of articles in the hopes that, as the title of this blog suggests, those who are thirsty for God, the truth, and His way of salvation and holy living, may be similarly challenged to weigh their involvement in such groups according to the standards of the Bible.

It is also my intent to try to avoid any arguments that may provide a young person the opportunity to claim that I don’t like his youth group simply because of my age and any perceived generation gap. The goal will be to earnestly evaluate any group or meeting based entirely on whether or not it can be said of it that it honors God because it meets and acts in ways endorsed, prescribed, and/or dictated by the Bible, which is our entire rule of life.

Where does one begin? There are several aspects of such a meeting that should be examined individually, perhaps, but certain aspects overshadow others. By itself, the preaching at this youth group had some very good points. The young man who is the pastor jumped right in by saying that his was not a “drive-by” message. By that, I presume that he meant that what he was going to say should be taken simply as a spiritual “fix-it-and-make-it-feel-better” kind of therapy talk, but would deal with a transcendent topic, “Who God Is.” This subject, the person of God, should inform every other area of our lives, and in fact, God, because of who He is, demands and deserves control of your life. The content and delivery of the sermon, however, will have to wait for an upcoming post so as not to make these posts huge.

We’ll have to begin with the medium in which the whole experience occurred, for in our culture especially, the medium IS the message. What do I mean by, “The medium IS the message?” Essentially, it is that whatever medium is used to deliver any message becomes the foundation of the message itself. For example, imagine you were in the middle of Iran and witnessed someone like Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn show up to conduct a “crusade.” You would see them arrive in their personal,

Kenneth and Gloria Copeland

multi-million dollar, private jet, be shuttled to the arena in their hired limosine, and take to the stage dressed in their $3000 suits. Now, to make the picture really complete, imagine that before the sermon, there was a testimony time and the speaker, giving her testimony of how Jesus is her savior and Lord, was none other than Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who blew her opportunity to become Miss America because of her politically-incorrect answer at last year’s top beauty pageant.

Why have I conjured up such a ridiculous scenario? Well, before I get to the biblical evaluation of such meetings, I have to first establish that the format and the container of any message will convey something important about the message. In such a situation, it wouldn’t matter at all what the message was. Miss Prejean and the preacher could preach a very sound message, but the container of that message would convey something entirely different to the Iranian audience. In fact, it would actually be worse if they connected the preaching of God’s word to the container I have presented in my hypothetical situation because it would further ingrain into the minds of the hearers that Christianity is immoral, covetous, sensuous, and wicked. If the message were doctrinally sound, would they perceive such a thing by the words spoken? No, it would be gained from the way it was presented.

Unfortunately, our culture is really in the driver’s seat right now when it comes to dictating how the church’s messages are delivered, and, as Henry Van Til said, “Culture is religion externalized and made explicit.” What does that mean? It means, simply, that that which man worships in his heart is made evident by the things he values and does. A culture is the ideas, customs, arts, and skills of any people which are transferred and communicated to the next generation.

We’ll examine the medium used to deliver the message to the contemporary, seeker-friendly, culture-relevant church and see if it aligns more closely with our culture or with scripture in Part 3.

Thanks for reading.

-Tracy

25 years ago, I began attending a local church which, at the time, had about 150 people. Today, it is a full-blown megachurch, boasting 14,000 members (though in actuality, those numbers probably take into account anyone who has ever been there, not those who currently attend – IMO).

Since it’s been about 16 years since I attended this church, and I have since been in very small, and very conservative  assemblies, I thought I would check out their “young people’s group” on Friday night. Even though I felt like I could have probably scripted the entire meeting just from having attended there for 9 years, and from seeing  the volumes of videos on the Internet, there were 2 reasons compelling me to attend. One reason was for my own personal amusement. I wanted to see how closely this group’s meeting aligned with the parody video I referenced above. The other reason was to be able to speak intelligently to any young person, especially my own 6 children, about what I think is good and what is wrong with such a meeting. Or, to put it more correctly, what I see that is biblical, and what I see that is not biblical. It didn’t seem right to be confronted by someone saying, “Oh, well you’ve never been there, so you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Wrong. Been there.

Admittedly, I have not been there consistently, and I don’t plan to be a regular attender, so there is the potential that what I observed could be “out of context,” but, I’m pretty confident that what happened there last Friday was representative of a typical Friday night’s meeting. All in all, though, I hope to engage young people on a scriptural basis. Hopefully, there may be some young people out there who are willing to sift through scripture to see if their meeting lines up with what pleases God and with what He has established as a pattern for us in our worship and service of Him. This should, in theory, avoid the accusation, “You don’t like it because you’re old,” or “It’s not part of your generation, so you won’t be able to relate.” Since the Word of God transcends generations, and concepts of young and old, we should be able to evaluate a meeting like this, or any other meeting, for that matter, even a very small, very conservative one.

To be continued in “Biblical Evaluation of ‘church’ in America, Part 2.”

Thanks for reading.

-Tracy

This story

It’s pretty rare that any leader of any country would take a stand like this. I’m not sure why he is doing so, but I applaud his stance.

Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding said the country’s parliament would not recognize same-sex marriage while he was in power.

“I make no apology in saying decisively and emphatically that the government of Jamaica remains irrevocably opposed to the recognition, legitimization or acceptance of same-sex marriages or same-sex unions,” Golding said on Tuesday.

“There is the possibility that sometime in the future parliament could pass a law that says same-sex unions are legal but it won’t be done in this parliament. Not as long as I sit here.”

But he stressed “I will not accept it that homosexuality must be accepted as a legitimate form of behavior or the equivalent of marriage.”

Thanks for reading.

-Tracy

We must begin thinking in terms of ‘going out,’ and stop our weeping because ‘they won’t come in.’”

-Jim Eliot

(Quote provided by Missions Mandate blog for August 11, 2009)

You can see all 5 videos over at Defending Contending.

-Tracy

Paul Washer

We live in an age of Pluralism – a belief system that puts an end to truth by declaring everything to be true, especially with regard to religion. It may be difficult for the contemporary Christian to comprehend, but the Christians living in the first few centuries of the faith were actually marked and persecuted as atheists. The culture surrounding them was immersed in theism. The world was filled with images of deities, and religion was a booming business. Men not only tolerated one another’s deities but also swapped and shared them. The entire religious world was going along just fine until the Christians showed up and declared that, “gods made with hands are no gods at all.” They denied the Caesars the homage they demanded, refused to bend the knee to all other so-called gods, and confessed Jesus alone as Lord of all. The entire world looked on such jaw-dropping arrogance and reacted with fury against the Christian’s intolerable intolerance to tolerance.

This same scenario abounds in our world today. Against all logic, we are told that all views regarding religion and morality are true, no matter how radically different and contradictory they may be. The most overwhelming aspect of all this is that through the tireless efforts of the media and the academic world, this has
quickly become the majority view. Nevertheless, pluralism does not address the issue or cure the malady. It only anesthetizes the patient so that he no longer feels or thinks. The Gospel is a scandal because it awakens man from his slumber and refuses to let him rest on such an illogical footing. It forces him to come to some conclusion – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is
God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” The true Gospel is radically exclusive. Jesus is not “a” way, but “the” way, and all other ways are no way at all. If Christianity would only move one small step toward a more tolerant ecumenicalism and change the definite article “the” for the indefinite article “a”, the scandal would be removed, and the world and Christianity could become friends. However,
whenever this occurs, Christianity ceases to be Christianity, Christ is denied, and the world is without a Savior.

An excerpt of an article by Paul Washer in the Nov. – Dec. issue of HeartCry Magazine, published by HeartCry Missionary Society.

Jonathan Edwards

In the 18th century, Jonathan Edwards wrote the following:

“First, I am to prove, that God has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents. One would think it should be wholly needless to enter on such an argument with any that profess themselves Christians: but so it is, God’s certain foreknowledge of the free acts of moral agents is denied by some that pretend to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God; especially of late.”

There is a contemporary system of “theology” (if you can dare to call it that) known as Open Theology which has as its core tenets, the notion that God does not know the future and that he simply has to react to the free will decisions of man. So, in short, the future is “open” and not even God knows what will happen in it.

There is a book – I don’t know if it was ever popular or not – called, “God of the Possible,” by Greg Boyd, which lays the groundwork for many of the “doctrines” of

Greg Boyd, author of "God of the Possible"

Open Theology. As I read the book a few years ago, it was very interesting to find out that the main proof-text that the author cites as beginning his odyssey into Open Theism is the one where King Hezekiah prayed after receiving word that he was going to die and, supposedly, God, affected by Hezekiah’s prayer, changed His mind, and gave Hezekiah 15 more years to live. What was interesting about Boyd’s use of that as a proof of the “openness” of the future is that about 250 years before Hezekiah was born, it was prophesied that God would raise up a king of Judah in the lineage of David named Josiah. Josiah was Hezekiah’s grandson, born to Hezekiah’s son who was born after Hezekiah’s life was spared. So, if Hezekiah had died, there would have been no Josiah.

But, as I am not really qualified to critique Boyd’s book, I thought I would post a helpful link to an examination of it and the system of Open Theology. Following is a brief excerpt.

In his latest book, Dr. Boyd states his position this way: “God determines whatever he sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to possibilities as he sees fit. The God of the possible creates the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ structure of world history and of our lives within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized.”⁷ He states this position again in another section of his book: “God predestines and foreknows as settled whatever he sees fit to predestine and foreknow as settled.”⁸ In this view, some of the future is predetermined and some of it is not.  I, for one, cannot understand how God can decide what aspect of the future to choose to foreknow unless the future is already laid open before His eyes, in which case it is foreknown. I will leave that conundrum for others to grapple with. According to the “open” view, future choices of free moral agents are in the category of being unknowable to God and not determined by God.⁹ The rest of this article will examine some of the texts that are used to support the open view of God.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this post is helpful.

-Tracy

One of the neo-Calvinist preachers wearing his appropriately-themed pulpit attire

The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London was once the pastoral home of C. H. Spurgeon, one of the last in the line of exceptional English preachers/pastors. Spurgeon published a periodical called The Sword & The Trowel. Today, that publication is once again carried on by those at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and it appears that they are striving to retain some of the spirit and zeal of their famous predecesor, Mr. Spurgeon.

Though I would not categorize myself as a Calvinist, I do consider this to be a worthwhile article. There are many who do not accept the label of Calvinist because we do not adhere to many of the other tenets of Calvin’s teachings, however those things which are typically considered to be the Doctrines of Grace are believed to be scriptural, and therefore, we usually get labeled as Calvinists.

Here’s an excerpt from Dr. Master’s article.

When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12.1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.

But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside…

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.

I could not agree more with Dr. Masters and hope that this new “breed” of Calvinists soon pass away in the graveyard of “relevance.”

(St.) Francis was a preacher. And the type of preacher who would alarm us today. “Hell, fire, brimstone” would not be an inaccurate description of his style.

My studies recently have me in Romans 1 and that which has been most notable the last couple of days has been the preeminency and necessity of preaching the gospel, for this, the preaching of the cross of Christ, is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

But, preaching has fallen on hard times. We’re far more enamored with dramas, entertainments, music… anything but preaching the cross of Christ. We somehow think that we can live our lives without speaking to others of Christ and that they will see our lifestyles and ask us what is different about us. Like Voddie Baucham says, “My neighbor is not going to see me mowing my grass and come up and ask me ‘Something’s different about you. What is it?’” No, we have to speak of the gospel, and back it up with our lives, not the other way around.

I suppose that there is a pervasive attitude among us that sincerely hopes that others will ask us about our spiritual lives, but the chance of that is very slim. This attitude is embodied in the famous quote, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, which says, “Preach the gospel at all times, use words when necessary.” As this article in Christianity Today points out, however, St. Francis probably never uttered these words, and in fact, Francis was anything but a quiet and subtle evangelist.

Here’s a brief excerpt from the article.

He apparently was a bit of a showman. He imitated the troubadours, employing poetry and word pictures to drive the message home. When he described the Nativity, listeners felt as if Mary was giving birth before their eyes; in rehearsing the crucifixion, the crowd (as did Francis) would shed tears.

Contrary to his current meek and mild image, Francis’s preaching was known for both his kindness and severity. One moment, he was friendly and cheerful—prancing about as if he were playing a fiddle on a stick, or breaking out in song in praise to God and his creation. Another moment, he would turn fierce: “He denounced evil whenever he found it,” wrote one early biographer, “and made no effort to palliate it; from him a life of sin met with outspoken rebuke, not support. He spoke with equal candor to great and small.”

Paul was not ashamed of the gospel and he desired to take it to Rome, the center of persecution against Christians. He also testified that he was not afraid to take it to Jerusalem, where he knew the result would be imprisonment and suffering. The point is that he would not have suffered these things for just “being” a Christian; just living out the Christian life. He suffered because Christianity has exclusive claims and it must be spoken.

May we each have the grace and boldness to evangelize in our circle of influences and in the world.

-Tracy

Jobs admits early in the speech that he never graduated college, but only attended for 6 months.

Overcoming trials and attending versus not attending college, however, were not the outstanding points Jobs made in this speech, in my mind. The most beautiful point he made was one which I’m sure that he did not intend to make: that the legality of abortion is depriving our nation of some of its potentially brightest minds and most prolific contributors.

It is appropriate, however, for me to interject here that our nation being deprived of brilliant minds is NOT why we should oppose abortion. We should oppose abortion because it violates the commands of God and shakes an angry, defiant fist in His holy face and asserts that we are the gods of our own lives and we don’t want Him telling us how to live.

Here is the entirety of Mr. Jobs’ “pro-life” commentary from his speech at Stanford in 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.”

Jobs continues in his speech explaining some of the amazing events in his life which allowed him to start 2 other major companies, NeXT and Pixar, both of which produce services which affect most Americans every day. But, had his mother decided that she simply wanted to get on with her life and not be “punished” with such an inconvenience as a baby while she was in college, we would be without these things as well (not that I think that would be a bad thing necessarily).

In such an ironic spin at the end of his address, Jobs states, “No one wants to die.” Yes, Mr. Jobs. You are right. No one wants to die. Not even those defenseless babies in the security of their mothers’ wombs. Not only does no one want to die, no one should have the right to terminate the innocent life of another.

So, Mr. Jobs, thank the One True God that He has been pleased to give you every breath you have been privileged to take. Thank God for the PRO-LIFE attitude of your adoptive parents.

Thanks for reading.

-Tracy
The unapologetic pro-life photographer of Colorado Springs