Hyperbole?

hy·per·bo·le:  exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.

I recently heard a pastor make a statement in a video message that had me actually say out loud, "What did he just say?"  I could not believe what I was hearing.  In fact, overall, the video message was more akin to that of a "Shock Jock" (a DJ or radio host who uses provocative language and broadcasts his or her extreme views) than of a mature man of God.

He actually said,  "Let this be a church populated by the unconverted dressing immodestly".

Really?  Let's leave out the "dressing immodestly" part of the statement and address the "populated with unconverted".   Isn't that what most seeker friendly churches, that water down the gospel, are populated with?  Is not the church to be populated with God's people who gather to worship Him?  Of course, there are unconverted people there; but, do we really want the church to be populated with the unconverted?  Of course not.  In fact, the unconverted should be very uncomfortable at church, regardless of how they are dressed-even when the Christians are loving to them.

So, why did he make that statement?  I say it was because he didn't want to be accused of being a conservative, legalist.  However, was it a biblically correct statement?  Oh, you say, it was simply hyperbole--he was simply exaggerating to make a point that we should not judge how the unconverted dress when they attend our church .

I would say, if that is what he meant, then that is what he should have said.  If this was hyperbole; it is at best, inappropriate and at worse, dangerous, confusing and misleading.

I could go on and on about this particular video address; but, will save my full review for another time.  I think church leaders should spend a little more time in really listening to messages and being more discerning in which ones they use to "teach" their people.

  Needless to say, I was disappointed.  This same pastor actually stated, that the "mature" should be corrected if they dress immodestly.  I ask you, "If one is indeed mature in the faith; would they still be dressing immodestly?"   Additionally, this pastor did not use the word, "most" when talking about groups of people.  He did not say "most" young ladies don't understand; he said, "young ladies in particular simply don't have a clue"  He did not say "most" men; he simply said "men...young and old".

On a side note:  Is Esther really a good role model for modesty?  I think not; but, that's just me. I would rather think that Queen Vashti is a role model for modesty.  Of course, some of you might think that the Queen should have submitted to her husbands drunken request that she be paraded in front of the Kings men while they were all "three sheets to the wind".

Basically, the video painted all men "young and old" to be weak, lust-filled, leches who can't control themselves and all women to be mindless shop-alcoholic "fashionista's".

Conclusion:  The message was both verbally, audibly and visually manipulative.  The background music was even hauntingly similar to that of the soundtrack to the original motion picture "the Exorcist".  If I had heard this message and was a young woman who was new in the faith, I would actually be afraid to attend any gatherings (church or non-church) where men are present, unless I was clad in a burqa.  But, then again, I might still be concerned that my eyelashes were too long and that I was blinking them to often and would only feel safe around men if I had on a pair of dark sunglasses, as well.  Oh Hyperbole!  What a powerful and manipulative form of speech.

I Should have Posted this Last Week

Darn it, I forgot today was Valentine's Day!  I meant to post this a week ago.

A message to women:

What is it that most husbands would absolutely love for Valentine's Day? Well, based on my conversations with men over the past 25 years, as well as, listening and observing how men talk and act about this particular "holiday" (when their wife's cannot hear them); there is something that you can give them that would bless most, if not, all men.

Here is what I would highly recommend: First, ask your husband if you might be allowed this year to tell him exactly what you want for Valentine's Day. Once you have his attention, simply tell him that what you would like for Valentine's Day is absolutely nothing. Tell him that your gift to him this year is to let him off the hook.

Okay, I admit this was not what you might have expected to hear. But, perhaps some of you women, reading this blog, might actually embrace this concept. I don't think you will be disappointed--unless flowers make you happier than your husband's smile.

How I wish more women would do this. Do they have any idea how most men feel about Valentine's Day? I often wonder why women put so much emphasis on these things. Do they actually determine the level of their husbands love by how big a bouquet they get? Forgive me women, but I don't get it and I hope I never do.

Give your husbands a break this year and rejoice in the happiness you might bring him by blessing him with the freedom he will feel when he realizes that you are perfectly content without receiving the obligatory "Valentine's Day" gift. Now, men, make more effort to express your love for your wives all year round so that you don't feel you have to somehow make up for what was lacking the rest of the year by purchasing that ridiculously over priced jar of flowers that will die in a week or two.

Post Script:
In the event that you happen to be a man who absolutely looks forward to this day and can't wait to go shopping for that perfect Valentine's Day gift for your wife, please forgive me for even suggesting such things.

Labels:

Courageous!

After watching "Fireproof" a few years ago, I had no desire to watch "Courageous" as I felt there were many problems with how the gospel message was handled in that movie and since "Courageous" was made by the same group, I had determined that it would probably just bring me sorrow.  In fact, my normal disposition to these types of movies, is one of scepticism and concern--always assuming that they will "not get it right".  That they will "water-down" the gospel.  That they will present a "man-centered" type of Christianity that dishonors Christ and the gospel.  The truth is that I rarely even want to watch a movie that is produced and advertised as a "Christian production" for mass humanity.

I was wrong!  This movie is by no means perfect.  However, the true Gospel is proclaimed.  There is a scene where a young officer thinks that Christianity is a religion based on a list of rules and regulations and that the way one is reconciled to God is by trying their best to be good.  He is clearly corrected by his partner who informs him that God is a just God and that no one will be justified accept through Christ.

Anyone watching this movie will have heard the TRUTH!

After we watched the movie last night, I had a suspicion that others in the "reformed camp" would have held the same negative opinions that I had previously held.  You know what our problem is?  We are snobs!  We are self-righteous, pompous elitists, who think that unless a person agrees with us, they have no real value and God cannot use their efforts for His glory!

This morning I explored whether or not I was correct in my assumption about the "reformed camps" opinion of this movie.  I was saddened to discover that some in that camp ( not all) had bashed this film.  I read the review at the White Horse-In and was disgusted by it.  The author of the review was specifically critical of the "Resolution" portion from the film.  Without the reviewer probably even thinking about this, his same criticism could be equally applied to the Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards.  Does he realize that?  I think not.  Why?  Because once we become self-righteous, pompous, elitist we also become blinded to our own arrogance. 

I support this film and I would challenge any "reformed man" who has subconsciously boycotted this film and decided that it is unworthy of their time, to WATCH it!  After watching it, I would also challenge them to ask their wife's and children to WATCH it with them and to honestly tell them just how they are doing at being the spiritual leader's in their family (which was an aspect of this film that was strongly emphasized).

How can any true born-again believer, who has a heart for the lost and a desire to hear the gospel proclaimed to the lost, have any issues with this movie?  There is nothing heretical being conveyed in this film.  This group of Christians, has done what none of us in the "reformed camp" have managed to do or have even thought of doing.  They gave sacrificed their time, their talent, and their money to produce a film that has brought the gospel message (yes, the TRUE GOSPEL message) into the home of millions of Americans while also encouraging men to turn to the Word of God and to be the Spiritual Leader's of their family.

In addition to that, this effort was bathed in faithful and consistent prayer.  When I watched the "making of the film" portion on the DVD, I was strongly convicted.  The Christians that were involved in the making of this film, were in constant prayer: before, during and after.  How's your prayer life?

I strong word to men.  Based on observation and the conversations that I have had with your wife's, most of you are failing at being godly husbands, fathers, and spiritual leaders in your homes.

WATCH THE FILM!    

Modesty

Let us imagine an entire church where there was not a single woman, young or old, who was dressed in the least bit provocatively.  Could a Christian man attend this church on Sunday and not be caused to stumble?  Perhaps.  However, what happens as soon as he leaves the building when he is bombarded with passerby's, billboards, co-workers, etc?  Yes, women who wear the name of Christ should be concerned to reflect their Lord in an honorable way; both inside a church building and everyday they walk out of their home.  However, unless the local church decides to close their doors to everyone accept members who are mature enough in the Lord to dress modestly, men will need to look at themselves in regard to their struggles.

"A Sanctified Eye"

"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus."

A man does not need to forever walk through life with blinders on in order to gain victory over his unholy lusts. In fact, as his mind and heart are gradually transformed by the Spirit of God through the Word of God, he finds that he can walk through this world with his eyes wide open and the things that were once stumbling blocks will have little to no power over him.

In fact, immoral things that once enticed him to sin, he will find as, not only unattractive to him, but actually nauseating. No "accountability group" can accomplish this; no amount of self discipline or behavior modification can accomplish this. Unless there is an inward transforming going on--a renewing of the mind; these "techniques" used to conquer lust will fail miserably every time. Until a man actually hates what used to entice him to sin, he will be a prisoner of it as long as he walks on this earth. Until he sees these things through a "sanctified eye" he will love them in all their ugliness.

Apply this to the so called "addiction to pornography" by professing Christians. A man whose mind is being transformed and renewed by God, will eventually feel nothing but sorrow and compassion for the women who are giving themselves to this industry. He would think of them as daughters to be rescued, not "things" to be used for his own sexual gratification. He would feel a righteous anger towards this entire industry. He would see it for the emptiness, ugliness, and animal like depravity that it truly is. He would see it as Christ sees it. Yes, this is possible and it is the only way that a man ever gains victory. As he is transformed by the Spirit through the Word, he will want to cover a woman's nakedness out of love for her, not "undress her with his eyes" and desire to defile her. Let us listen to Jonathan Edwards:

"When a holy and amiable action is suggested to the thoughts of a holy soul, that soul, if in the lively exercise of its spiritual taste, at once sees a beauty in it, and so inclines to it, and closes with it. On the contrary, if an unworthy, unholy action be suggested to it, its sanctified eye sees no beauty in it, and is not pleased with it; its sanctified taste relishes no sweetness in it, but on the contrary, it is nauseous to it."

"And as to a gracious leading of the Spirit, it consists in two things: partly in instructing a person in his duty by the Spirit, and partly in powerfully inducing him to comply with that instruction.

But so far as the gracious leading of the Spirit lies in instruction, it consists in a person's being guided by a spiritual and distinguishing taste of that which has in it true moral beauty. I have shown that spiritual knowledge primarily consists in a taste or relish of the amiableness and beauty of that which is truly good and holy: this holy relish is a thing that discerns and distinguishes between good and evil, between holy and unholy, without being at the trouble of a train of reasoning.

As he who has a true relish of external beauty, knows what is beautiful by looking upon it; he stands in no need of a train of reasoning about the proportion of the features, in order to determine whether that which he sees be a beautiful countenance or no; he needs nothing, but only the glance of his eye. He who has a rectified musical ear, knows whether the sound he hears be true harmony; he does not need first to be at the trouble of the reasonings of a mathematician about the proportion of the notes. He that has a rectified palate knows what is good food, as soon as he tastes it, without the reasoning of a physician about it.

There is a holy beauty and sweetness in words and actions, as well as a natural beauty in countenances and sounds, and sweetness in food: Job 12:11 , "Doth not the ear try words, and the mouth taste his meat?"

When a holy and amiable action is suggested to the thoughts of a holy soul, that soul, if in the lively exercise of its spiritual taste, at once sees a beauty in it, and so inclines to it, and closes with it. On the contrary, if an unworthy, unholy action be suggested to it, its sanctified eye sees no beauty in it, and is not pleased with it; its sanctified taste relishes no sweetness in it, but on the contrary, it is nauseous to it. Yea, its holy taste and appetite leads it to think of that which is truly lovely, and naturally suggests it; as a healthy taste and appetite naturally suggests the idea of its proper object.

Thus a holy person is led by the Spirit, as he is instructed and led by his holy taste and disposition of heart; whereby, in the lively exercise of grace, he easily distinguishes good and evil, and knows at once what is a suitable amiable behaviour towards God, and towards man, in this case and the other, and Judges what is right, as it were spontaneously, and of himself, without a particular deduction, by any other arguments than the beauty that is seen, and goodness that is tasted.

Thus Christ blames the Pharisees, that they "did not, even of their own selves, judge what was right," without needing miracles to prove it, Luke 12:57 . The apostle seems plainly to have respect to this way of judging of spiritual beauty, in Rom. 12:2: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God."

Jonathan Edwards

Morality & Regeneration

Let us talk about unregenerate, sinful man.

Before we are “born-again”, we all live lives of varying degrees of outward and inward morality. Yes?

We all have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are strong-willed and disciplined and some are weak willed and undisciplined. Some, when they put their mind to a task stick to it and win the battle. Some decide to quite smoking, and with shear determination, quit smoking. One may try the patch and gum and nothing seems to work for them. Some struggle with drugs and alcohol abuse and some do not. Not every lost sinner is a drug addict. Some see what drugs do to people and decide to never indulge. Some are raised by an alcoholic parent and decide to never touch the stuff. Some have too much respect for their own bodies and for others to be used or use others as toys to satisfy their own sexual desires, and some are sexually promiscuous; for various reasons. Some decide to stick to a diet and are successful, some simply cannot seem to deny themselves pleasure for more than three days; some find coarse and vulgar language distasteful and crude and some cuss like a sailor; and the list goes on. I think you get the point. Unregenerate man has varying levels of natural strength based on the strength of their will, self-determination and self-discipline and live varying degrees of “sinful” or moral lives.

Why is this so important to understand? It is important to understand because as Christians we seem to have a very short sighted, and perhaps even erroneous, understanding of what occurs when a person is “saved”. We get confused about the outward life of a person and the inward change that has taken place.

A person who (because of their own nature and strength) lived a life outwardly less sinful (was loving and giving; didn’t practice habitual sinful activities--was “morally” a very strong and disciplined person) will appear as a “strong” Christian after they are reconciled to God through Christ. A person who was weaker “morally” will struggle more with the old nature.

The work of regeneration is perfect as to kind, and perfect as to parts, extending to all his powers and faculties—but is not yet perfect as to degree—as an infant has all the parts of a man, though it is not arrived at the full stature of the perfect man. And thus it is with souls that are new-born, which made a worthy divine say, "every regenerate man is two men"—that is, he has a new nature in him, which is wholly for God, and an old nature still in part remaining, which is wholly for sin. And these two natures residing in the same soul and in all of its faculties, which are but in part sanctified—the corrupt nature, the flesh, lusts against the spirit, or holy nature in his heart—and the spirit against the flesh; and these being contrary, the one to the other, souls that are born again cannot do perfectly the things that they desire, because of sin that dwells in them.

There is then no true holiness in mere morality. Much as there is in such a character that is highly esteemed among men, there is nothing that is right in the sight of God. The principle and motive of such a character is at a great distance from all that God requires and loves. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” The moral quality of actions lies in the disposition of heart with which they are performed. A man may be very moral, but if the disposition of heart with which the acts of morality are performed be not such as God requires and approves, though he may believe he is going to Heaven, he is in the broad way to hell. Mere morality never aims at the heart and would never touch it if it should. It may lop off the luxuriances of human depravity, but it never strikes at the root. It may not sink into the baseness of degeneracy, but it never soars to the purity of holiness. It is a fascinating picture, but it is cold and spiritless as the canvas on which it is delineated. It is like the twinkling glow worm which borrows all its light from the putrescent and earthy substances of which it is composed, but sustains no relation to the luminary which imparts light and heat to the universe. However fair this exterior, and however accordant with the expectations of the world, it falls far short of what a man must be to become either holy or happy.

Reader: If our old nature was more disciplined and strong willed prior to being saved we will have less of a struggle mortifying the flesh since we have been doing that most of our life (not in a “saving” way, in a temporal way). It is our disposition that has been changed, not our old nature.

Let us not judge our brothers and sisters based on outward morality. Let us have compassion on one another and understand that sanctification is a process and there is, and will always be, (while the old nature still resides) an inner battle. Ask a man about Christ before you ask a man about his “walk with Christ” and you will find out a lot more about the disposition of this man’s heart and soul.

To be continued……

What would things look like If Satan Actually took over a city

I first heard the quote below from Donald Grey Barnhouse, in Michael Horton's 2008 book, Christless Christianity.  I heard it again (with delight) today from the pulpit at Immanuel Baptist Church in Sarcramento, California.  What a powerful and arresting illustration to bring a much needed truth home to our minds and hearts.
 

What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshipers dragged off to City Hall. Over a half-century ago, Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church, gave his CBS radio audience a different picture of what it would look like if Satan took control of a town in America. He said that all of the bars and pool halls would be closed, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer “Yes, sir,” “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full on Sunday … where Christ is not preached.

Think long and hard on that, Christian. Above all else, Satan desires to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ from being made known. And he does so often by substituting other things for Him. Like an illusory veil of moralism that hides our need for the Savior. And he does so even within the church.

Below is a review of Horton's Book written by Martin Downes who is the minister of Christ Church Deeside (North Wales, UK).


There are certain books that, even within a few pages, give you the distinct impression that they must be read, and re-read, with great care. Michael Horton's latest volume Christless Christianity : The Alternative Gospel of the American Church is that kind of book.


Horton's analysis of what is wrong with so much that passes for Christianity in the United States, and which of course is being exported across the globe, is clear sighted, substantiated by the evidence, and devastating in its implications. Old errors are alive and well and the good news of God's grace in Jesus Christ is being supplanted by them.


Some twelve and a half years ago R. C. Sproul wrote:
    "We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God's grace be not only overshadowed but be obliterated in our time."


It is precisely with that same concern, and in that same vein, that Horton has directed his aim at a "Christless Christianity" that draws us away from God's astonishing sovereign grace. This appalling trade-off leaves us with a Christ that we may still call a Savior, but "we really save ourselves by knowing and following the steps of the new birth and victorious living" (p. 54).


This "Christianity-lite" is no more than the redux version of the old errors of pelagianism and gnosticism, a heady brew of works-righteousness and subjectivism, but all tailored to the needs of those reared on 21st century aspirations and expectations.


"Christless Christianity" is anti-gospel error with a smile. It has enough truth, or perhaps words associated with the truth, to maintain plausibility, and enough error to pander to the cravings of our sinful hearts and minds. Our ability to obey is massaged, our spirituality is pampered, but our sins, true guilt, total helplessness, our need for Jesus Christ and his substitutionary death are neglected, ignored, and replaced.


Horton writes:
So much of what I am calling "Christless Christianity" is not profound enough to constitute heresy. Like the easy-listening Muzak that plays ubiquitously in the background in other shopping venues, the message of American Christianity has simply become trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant...I think our doctrine has been forgotten, assumed, ignored, and even misshaped and distorted by the habits and rituals of daily life in a narcissistic culture. (p. 21)


Instead of a gospel that is grace all the way down, "Christless Christianity" is "moralistic, therapeutic deism" (p. 40). Even though it may try to distance itself from the old legalism of the fundamentalists, it is in fact a gentler form of legalism with an irrepressible confidence in human ability. It is law, and not gospel. This whole approach is typified by the dazzling self-help moralism of Joel Osteen:


"Osteen seems to think that we are basically good people and God has a very easy way for us to save ourselves--not from his judgment, but from our lack of success in life--with his help. "God is keeping a record of every good deed you've ever done," he says--as if this is good news. "In your time of need, because of your generosity, God will move heaven and earth to make sure you are taken care of." (p. 70)


Indeed the pandering to works is astonishing:
Make no mistake about it, behind all of the smiles there is a thorough-going religion of works-righteousness: "God's plan for each of our lives is that we continually rise to new levels. But how high we go in life, and how much of God's favour and blessing we experience, will be directly related to how well we follow his directions." (p. 86)


But it is not only the Joel Osteens and Robert Schullers of this world who confuse law and gospel, the same is true in the writings of emergent guru Brian McLaren (p. 110-4). The good news for Osteen is how to become a better you.  For McLaren it is following a new way.  But for both the work of Christ outside of us, apart from us, and crucially for us, is being jettisoned. Horton rightly says "Jesus and the community, his work and ours, blend into one saving event" (p. 114).


If the Reformation gave us a clearer grasp of the biblical offices of prophet, priest and king, "Christless Christianity" by way of contrast, majors on Jesus the prophet and teacher, is muted on Christ the king, and has no real need for the high priestly suffering of the Son of God.


One could be forgiven for thinking that Christless Christianity is merely a withering critique of all that is wrong with the pragmatic, pelagian, individualistic, market and emergent driven American church landscape. However, at every turn Horton points us, to borrow the title from another of his books, to a better way. As well as having a polemical edge this book is spiritually enriching. It is as we are reminded of our sinful depravity and helplessness, as we are humbled, that we are led again and again in the book to the sheer grace of God in Jesus Christ, to his atoning blood, glorious resurrection, and total sufficiency. Indeed Horton directs us to preaching Christ, to the churchly means of grace, as God's provision for burned out souls.


Michael Horton is an astute observer of the evangelical church scene and its relationship to culture.  The difference between his assessments of the data, and that of a George Barna or a Willow Creek, is ultimately rooted in a different theology and a different ecclesiology.  Claiming to be orthodox on paper counts for little if your approach to church life and the gospel effectively undermines the truth.  The sections of the book that deal with the doctrine of the church ought to leave us with some serious thinking about what the church is before God, and what the church must do in the world.


"Christless Christianity," leaves no orthodox doctrine untouched.  God is reduced to our fellow sufferer, our sympathizer.  Sin has become bad feelings and poor self image.  Christ has become our example and our teacher.  Eternity has become time, the world to come eclipsed by the here and now.  Scripture becomes a self-help manual.  The true biblical world-view has been inverted.  God's holiness no longer stands in such stark contrast with our sin, and therefore his justice and our eternal condemnation no longer remain our most pressing issue.  By this route, atonement and justification need not be denied because, frankly, they are now irrelevant.


Let me end this review with a striking passage that I think encapsulates the reason why evangelical church life is so desperately faddish, frantically pursuing a boom and bust cycle of spiritual experience:

Similarly today, the preaching of the law in all of its gripping judgment and the preaching of the gospel in all of its surprising sweetness merge into a confused message of gentle exhortation to a more fulfilling life. Consequently, we know neither how to mourn nor how to throw a real party. The bad news no longer stands in such sharp contrast with the good news; we become content with so-so news that eventually fails to bring genuine conviction or genuine comfort but keeps us on the treadmill of anxiety, craving the next revival, technique, or movement to lift our spirits and catapult us to heavenly glory. (p. 63)