Faith of Reason Editorials

Lust is a temptation that continually plagues humanity. Since creation, Satan has used lust to lead us into sin. “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit” (Gen 3:6; Scripture quotations are from the ESV). Before she saw how pleasing the fruit looked to the eyes, Eve noticed its ability to please the hunger of her flesh. Such sin didn’t end with Eve though, “she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” thus, “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19).

We see this same lust of the flesh during God’s covenant with Israel. In Numbers 11:31-35, God’s children were overtaken by their lusts and led to gather more than God had authorized, and “While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people” (v. 33). Why? Because the people “had the craving” (v. 34).

Desire is not inherently evil, or else God would have never given it to man. Often when we read James 1:14-15 we focus on Satan’s active role in temptation without realizing that he often twists good things to tempt us to do evil. We must remember that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2Co 11:14) and no longer be ignorant of his devices (2Co 2:11). The Israelites were not killed for being hungry, but rather for not accepting God’s divine plan to meet that hunger.

God designed man to desire and seek certain things (Acts 17:26-27) and coupled that with the way to fulfill those desires (John 14:6; Heb 5:8-9). While we may understand this in terms of salvation, the principle holds true in other areas as well. God did not design humanity to be void of attraction, in fact he created us each with distinctions that both set us apart and bring us together (Gen 1:27; 2:24).

Fighting lust isn’t denying our humanity; it is restoring it to the glory for which God himself created us and by doing so, to glorify God in our bodies and spirit because he has paid for it with a much greater price (1Co 6:17-20).

Systematic Theology: Another Book on the Fundamentals of the Faith

By Rex A. Turner, Sr.

ACSR, now Amridge University (Montgomery, AL)

416 pages, hardback, 1989

Brother Turner’s passion in life was to entrust fellow believers with the same mission that he himself accepted as a preacher of the gospel of Christ (2Tim 2:2) by ensuring that future generations of preachers would have the tools necessary to preach the word in our postmodern age. It was for this purpose that he set out to write Systematic Theology, “in anticipation that the book will be read especially by younger men in their preparation for the ministry” (Turner vii). To achieve this purpose he determined to set forth the truths of the gospel both “within the frame reference of the Greek terms” that are usually associated with such studies and “in a way and manner that every person can understand and appreciate as he/she reads” (vii). In doing so, he has achieved a work that is timeless in its scope and application but limited in its failure to present certain key questions to the student.

Central to brother Turner’s work is an unfailing faith in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible as the written word of God. Though many fail to understand the nuances of this doctrine, Turner allows the word to stand on its own merits in order to demonstrate that, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2Tim 3:16-17; scripture quotations are from the ESV). Upon this premise he ably defends the authenticity of both the Old and New Testament scriptures against the claims of form criticism, oral tradition, the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” and the alleged primacy of the gospel according to Mark. He points out that the “underlying concepts” inherent in these assertions is “that the Hebrew religion [and therefore Christianity along with it] simply evolved in the absence of direct inspiration from the God of the high heavens” (24). He points out, however, that such claims merely beg the question rather than provide an answer.

The second great subject of the work is the existence, character and work of both God the Father and God the Spirit. The existence of God is the very first teaching of Scripture (Gen 1:1) and to not hold this doctrine is to remove the possibility of salvation altogether (Heb 11:6). The Father is presented as “the designer,” the “supreme ruler” and the “originator” of all things (61, 331-332). Not only this, but his Spirit is just as divine, eternal and active. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters (Gen 1:1-2).” The Spirit therefore serves as “the organizer, beautifier” and lawgiver of the Father toward his creation. His role, however, is not one limited to creation but extends throughout human history in the revelation of God’s written word to man (2Pet 1:21) as well as his continued role as the bearer of our prayers to God (Rom 8:26-27).

The author then shifts his focus to a lengthy discussion on the divinity, humanity and work of Jesus Christ. That Jesus has existed from eternity is clear from the writings of the Apostle John (see John 1:1-2,14). Brother Turner goes on to point out other important aspects of Christ as the Creator (Col 1:16), the innocent Lamb of God who was nonetheless found guilty (Isa 53:7-9), the sacrifice for man’s sins (Rom 3:26; Heb 9:22) and the first fruits from the dead (1Cor 15:20). One aspect of Christ’s work that is unfortunately not discussed in depth is what Christ accomplishes throughout the Old Testament before his permanent incarnation, on which brother Turner is virtually silent (see also Gen 16:7; John 8:56-58; and “The Pre-Incarnate Word”).

Against the onslaught of secular humanism, the author also appropriately discusses the true origins and nature of humanity. Humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) and as such are worthy of special favor among God’s creatures, favor which the Psalmist himself struggled with. “[W]hat is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Ps 8:4-6). Sin, however, threatens to destroy our favor with God (Isa 59:1-2) and without an appropriate remedy for this lost state, man would forever be separated from his Creator. Seeing this, though, God interposed the death of his own Son (Gen 2:16-17; 3:15) as a sacrifice for the sin of man so that God might reconcile both his infinite sense of justice on the one hand and his mercy on the other (see Isa 30:18). Only in this light is man properly understood as valuable in life, weak in sin and confident in submission (Jas 4:6-10).

Building on this platform, the author then shifts to the doctrine of the church as God’s chosen people. Though “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” he has provided a means of salvation and righteousness with him “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:21-23). Since the church (literally the called-out) of God are those who have accepted the call of God through the gospel (Acts 2:39; 2Thess 2:14), the church is the body of the saved (Acts 2:41,47). We, then, as the people of God are called out of the world to work (Eph 2:10) and worship (John 4:23-24) in a way that expresses our grateful devotion as sons of God (Gal 3:26-27). Though attention is given in this section of the book concerning the early church’s practices of teaching, fellowship, the Lord’s Supper and prayers (293; see Acts 2:42) the emphasis in Turner’s treatment of worship is clearly on singing (289-327), saying little about the others except that they are commanded as necessary parts of the Lord’s Day assembly. He is also virtually silent on the nature of a woman’s role in this assembly (124; see 1Cor 14:34-35) as well as her submission in other aspects of life (1Tim 2:12-15).

On eschatology (that is, the study of last things) brother Turner is thankfully much more comprehensive. There is perhaps more emotion on this subject than any of the foregoing ones and it is with good reason that the author treats it last. He begins by well-defining the distinctions between a-, post- and premillennialism as well as the historic and dispensational views of the last (361-363) before dealing in turn with both the biblical and dispensational teachings on the rapture of the saved and the revelation of our Lord (363-372). Though Turner’s exposition of Daniel is somewhat fragmented and relies far too heavily on literal interpretation at the expense of context (see 373-405) he rightfully emphasizes the centrality of the resurrection to Christian eschatology, and the eventual triumph of the faithful over death (407-416).

One final aspect of the work remains to be discussed. Though brother Turner deals with it fairly early (in fact, immediately after his discussion of the Trinity; see 67-100), I personally view it to be of least importance concerning faith, salvation and fellowship: his teachings on angels, Satan and demons. To begin with, while I agree that angels exist, are created by God (Neh 9:6) and serve as his ministers (Heb 1:7,14) our agreement virtually ends here. Throughout this section little care is given regarding the Hebrew and Greek words themselves, both of which mean simply messenger (see Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). Except then for the assumption that the word refers to heavenly beings rather than earthly men of God, no case from the New Testament can be made to prove that angels have ever sinned or that they are in fact free moral agents (see Jude 6; 2Pet 2:4). In fact, biblical passages that do refer to heavenly beings seem to imply quite the opposite since Christ had to come in the flesh in order to be tempted and aid fallen humanity (Heb 2; see also “The Definition of Angels”). Considered alongside Satan’s own inherently evil nature (John 8:44), we begin to understand that not only can Satan no longer be considered a “fallen angel” but that he could not even have been created (Gen 1:31; for more on this see “Did God Create Satan?”). Concerning demons brother Turner admits a certain ambiguity biblically but rather than launching a discussion concerning the etymology of the word or perhaps its use in ancient literature, he resigns the discussion stating that it “is more likely . . . that the demons were [are] the departed evil spirits of the present order of creation” (100; brackets in the original), a conclusion with which I concur.

To conclude, brother Turner has certainly provided a comprehensive look at the “fundamentals of the faith” but such praise stops short of a full recommendation. Many subjects are treated only in part, certain assertions are left unsupported, and his approach lacks a truly critical look at what one may rightfully call humantradition. Still, brother Turner occasionally shines through with interesting tidbits of historical, linguistic or other biblical insight, that may well aid the discerning student.

Many Infallible Proofs: Evidences for the Christian Faith

By Henry M. Morris with Henry M. Morris III

Master Books (Green Forest, AR)

376 pages, $10.39 paper, 2005

In our postmodern, subjective and relativistic world, Henry M. Morris and Henry M. Morris III stand as premier examples of what good men can accomplish in a lifetime of study. Convinced of the Bible’s inerrancy the Morrises treat the subjects of creation, textual criticism, christology, inspiration and the veracity of the Scriptures with a scientific mind and a heart for Bible study. Many Infallible Proofs displays both their knowledge of the Bible as well as the various peculiarities of their teachings so that others might learn from both their successes and their failures.

There is a dire need in our age to defend truth against the heresies of both fellow believers and those outside of the body of Christ. While gospel preachers maintain an essential role in this effort, it is even more important for Christians to realize their individual responsibility to stand in defense of the faith. Peter wrote to the first-century church to be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1Pet 3:15; unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the ASV). With this understanding, the Morrises stress not only the timeless need for such a defense but also the issues of current concern to all those who profess a belief in the Bible as the Word of God and Jesus as his Son. Such defense, however, should not be a cold recitation of Scripture but rather a “warm and interesting” discussion “manifesting a genuine concern for those to whom one is witnessing” (Morris and Morris 13). Christians would do well to remember the example of Paul by “speaking truth in love” (Eph 4:15) remembering that evangelism in general, and apologetics specifically, is not about proving others wrong but about making them right (Rom 1:16-17).

The authors then move to a discussion of Christianity that is at the heart of all that follows. Christianity is not a mythic religion crafted outside the bounds of human history, science and archeology. Instead, it provides the only authentic account of the creation, the history and the nature of humanity. In other words, Christianity is the only religion that teaches the sinful state of man, the redemptive work of God through grace and the lifetime commitment of trust and obedience required to enjoy such salvation (see Eph 2:8-10).

Central to Christianity, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth himself. The virgin birth, sinless life, sacrificial death and victorious resurrection of Christ exemplify all that Christians, and indeed centuries of God’s people before, look forward to in hope. Having established the authenticity and viability of both the Old and New Testament documents, the Morrises set off to defend these fundamental pillars of faith both biblically and historically. They begin by clearly articulating the eternal nature of Christ (John 17:5), his pre-incarnate existence as “the angel of Jehovah” (Gen 16:7; John 8:56-58) and his human birth to a virgin (Matt 1:23) to show that he truly is the Son of God (John 1:33-34). They then demonstrate Christ’s perfection in both character and teaching, so that he might bear “our sins in his body upon the tree” and in doing so enable us to “live unto righteousness” (1Pet 2:22-24). Most importantly, however, they firmly establish the historical proof for the resurrection of Christ, which serves as the “crowning proof of Christianity” (Morris and Morris 97) as well as the sole explanation for the power of the gospel. For “if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain,” “your faith is in vain,” “ye are yet in your sins” and “they also that are fallen sleep in Christ have perished” (1Cor 15:14, 17-18).

All of this quite obviously implies the presence of an all-powerful Creator and the authors do not leave this subject untouched. Concerning God the Father the Morrises elaborate on the existence, the character and the design of God for the world. The Bible begins with this simple assertion (Gen 1:1) and ends with a warning that even on the Last Day the power of life and death remains firmly in his hands (Rev 22:18-19). His unimpeachable character hides his face in moments of wrath and shows kindness and mercy toward his redeemed (Isa 54:8) that he might truly be glorified in their repentance (2Pet 3:9). The design of God, then, is not to destroy humanity because of their sin but to free them to serve him acceptably (see Acts 17:24-28).

The remaining chapters of the book discuss some of the greatest stumbling blocks to people of faith and those with whom we study. Many simply cannot accept that “Every scripture is inspired of God” (2Tim 3:16-17 KJV) when it teaches such ‘childish’ and ‘unscientific’ things as prophecy, creation and the flood of Noah’s day. Though these teachings are not without their fair share of evidence (which they detail extensively), the Morrises emphasize that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1 KJV). Since every Scripture is given by the breath of God, contradictions are impossible. The appearance of these alleged discrepancies is not a matter of God being wrong but rather man taking passages out of context, failing to recognize symbolic language, not being able to appreciate the situation being addressed, relying on a poor English translation or merely misunderstanding the structure of the passage in question (Morris and Morris 224-226).

While Proofs certainly deals with the above issues in a manner worthy of true respect, the authors occasionally fall prey to the very pitfalls they warn against. One such instance is their insistence on the doctrine of inherited sin. Yet if man inherits sin, how can one explain the fact that Christ was himself human (1Tim 2:5) yet without sin (1Pet 2:21-22)? Seemingly simple: “His human experience must begin, as for all men, with conception, but the embryonic form so generated could have no genetic connection with either mother or father, both of whose heredities were contaminated by both biological defects and inherent sin . . . . Therefore, by special creative power, God prepared a perfect human body for the incarnation” (Morris and Morris 68). While their consistency is to be praised, their solution is no more than theological gymnastics. Paul reminds us that “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (Rom 5:12, emphasis added). In other words, all men die because all men sin, if a man did not sin, his own death would be undeserved, hence the resurrection of Christ from the grave (Phil 2:5-8; Rom 6:23). Similar problems arise concerning their views on demons operating in the world today (see Morris and Morris 88) and predestination (137-143).

Even with these shortcomings, however, Many Infallible Proofs stands as a testament to the contribution these men have made to the strengthening of literal, six-day, young-earth creationism within the last century. While certain conclusions throughout the work leave something to be desired biblically, the general approach the authors take is simple and consistent, allowing the student to determine each matter for himself. Its structure is logical and progressive, with each chapter building on the foundation of the preceding ones. Its content is clear and understandable, making it an obvious choice for an introductory survey of Christian apologetics. And above all else, its loyalty to the Bible is proof that sincere, rational Bible study is not a lost art in the twenty and twenty-first century world. Proofs is an excellent resource for the Christian to “wage the good warfare” (1Tim 1:18).

When an individual experiences repeated losses, dead ends, rejected pleas, or years of pain and suffering, they sometimes wish that life would come to an end. Suicide is often chosen by individuals as an escape from the temporary problems of life. As I write this article, I’m drawn to several recent news stories about suicide: on March 8, a suicide bomber in Iraq killed 32 other people and wounded 60;1 last week a Washington state law legalized physician assisted suicide;2 and today (March 9) a news article states that suicide hotlines in Massachusetts are experiencing 31% more calls now than at this time last year.3 Suicide is the third leading cause of death among youth between the ages of 15 and 24, and the sixth leading cause of death among children between the ages of 5 and 14.4

Suicide is a real problem in our world today, but not a new problem. Even the Bible records accounts of individuals who ended their lives in suicide. King Saul and his armorbearer each fell on their swords in suicide (1 Sam. 31:4). King Zimri set the palace on fire with himself inside, dying in suicide (1 Kin. 16:18). Ahithophel, a counselor of David and then of Absalom hung himself when his advice was not taken by Absalom (2 Sam. 17:23). Judas hung himself after it was obvious that Jesus would be killed (Mt. 27:5). Besides these individuals, there are others who requested that God take their life, including Elijah (1 Kin. 19:4) and Jonah (Jon. 4:3) - God, of course, did not grant their plea. The existence of suicide causes one to question the morality of suicide. In some occasions, suicide occurs when individuals due to illness are incapable of sound judgment. In these cases, we recognize that our just God does not hold individuals accountable for that which they are not capable of understanding. In many situations, however, it is sad that suicide is chosen as the easy way out for an individual wishing to escape some temporary problem - whether it be a problem of finances, of harassment, of coming punishment, of rejection, or of some other nature. Many individuals see suicide as the way to “just end it now” and escape all of their problems.

Suicide is not a proper response to problems, for many reasons. First, God expects us to face the consequences for our mistakes. God’s forgiveness does not remove consequences (2 Sam. 12:13-14), and it is not man’s place to do so through suicide. Second, suicide leaves many victims. The love God expects us to have for others is one in which we seek to show kindness to others, not to work them ill (Rom. 13:10). Suicide violates this principle. Third, suicide brings an end to the good I can do in life. Though Paul longed for the time in which he would die and be with God, he looked at every day he lived as a day to serve God (Ph. 1:20-26). Fourth, suicide ends a life created by God. There are few exceptions given in scriptures in which taking a human life is justified. Suicide is never given an exception by God, and so to take one’s life in suicide directly violates God’s will. For these reasons, and no doubt many others, suicide is not a righteous path.
To eliminate suicide from one’s list of options is not to say that options do not exist. As stated before, suicide is often chosen as a means to escape consequences. While repentance and forgiveness from God require one to face consequences, there are many means of support provided by God to the individual facing consequences. God provides encouragement through His word (Ps. 119:105-107). He provides support and encouragement through his people, Christians (Gal. 6:2; Rom. 12:15). Finally, God provides every necessity of life to those who follow Him (Mt. 6:33).

The support provided by God makes it possible for one to reject suicide, and choose to live. Making this choice, turning to God in faithfulness, and receiving the support God provides, enable an individual once on the brink of suicide to come to experience the “Peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). If you or someone you know is battling with suicidal thoughts, always take these thoughts seriously - seek medical attention first to address any medical problems, and at the same time seek the support provided by God to deal with the issues of life.

_______________________

1 - http://www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,,12215_cid_4082921,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom
2 - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008819020_apwaassistedsuicide1stldwritethru.html
3 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506892,00.html
4 - http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/teen_suicide

Looking Ahead with a Plan

There are few times during the year wherein we tend to be more introspective than we become at the turn of the calendar. Now that it is officially 2009, we should use this time of self-consideration to take into account more than just our waistlines, salary goals, vacation plans, and other such physical pursuits. Instead, let us use this time given us by our Lord to examine the most important aspect of our lives there is for us to consider…our souls.

The apostle Paul, writing to those individuals in Thessalonica, told them to, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (I Thess 5:21-22). Now, much has been written and said about these two short verses over the years, but let us take a moment to consider exactly what they meant to those brethren of the Fist Century in Thessalonica, and what they must mean to us today as well.

First, we can see that the context of this passage is in relation to the receiving of prophesyings in the church (vs. 20). The brethren there in Thessalonica were not to “despise” them; that is, they were not to reject them out of hand. Instead, they were to consider them for their veracity (prove them), hold tightly to those that rang true, and discard those that had the consistency of wrongfulness about them. True, this required a bit of judgment on the part of the Thessalonians, but using the written word they had thus far, and the teachings of Paul and other known men of God as their guide, they were certainly capable of complying with this direct command. If not, how could a just God give it to them through the power of an inspired writing such as this book?

Second, we can see that the concepts of “proving,” “holding fast,” and “abstaining” are just as bindable upon us as they were on those of the First Century. We know that “if we do as they did, we shall be as they were,” and it is upon that appeal of sameness…planting the seed of the word in the good soil of our hearts (Matt 13:1-23)…that we look to the example of those of our brethren from long ago, and make the application of what they were commanded to do to our own lives today. None of the Bible was written specifically to any of us, and so it can only be applied through the laws of reason and logic to our lives in understandable and conformable ways.

Third, we can know what those words mean. “Prove” literally means “to be found acceptable,” and was used in reference to the examination of ancient coins to make certain that they were not counterfeit in any way. “Hold fast” carries with it the idea of “to hold down” as if to restrain by force. The idea is that the object being held in this manner is one that must be retained at all cost. “Abstain” comes from a very similar word to the previous one, but it means “to hold [one’s self] back” instead.

Finally, we must put all of this information together and realize that, whenever we are taught something (whether from the pulpit, class room, school house, move theater, playground, office, or home, etc.), it is our Christian duty to examine that new information against the sure pattern of God’s revealed word. Then, having tried the teaching to discover its purity (or lack thereof), we must hold fast to that which is righteous, as though our lives depended upon it; and hold our selves far back from those teachings which are discovered to be counterfeit, vain, and damnable.

Brethren, if we’ll all do that consistently…this year will be one of our best ever!

I recently read an article once again proclaiming the intelligence of primates. The article described different problem solving activities of chimpanzees. The apes were first taught that certain activities would cause a machine to release food. After being successful a few times the controls of the machine were separated so that one chimpanzee was no longer able to activate the machine alone. The next step was putting two chimps in the area at the same time, and seeing if they would cooperate to get the food reward. In the final stage of the experiment one ape was set free in the area with multiple chimps left in cages that could be opened by the free chimp. Consistently the free chimp would release only one other chimp, and if the free chimp had worked in the room successfully with one of the caged chimps, the previous partner was the one the free chimp chose to release.There is no doubt that God created many beings other than humans with great cognitive ability. However, there are some things that no animal has the ability to learn or do, and Worship is one of those things. Consider the following contrast.

Singing is to be part of our worship in the New Testament. This singing is to be more than merely making melodious sounds. Singing is to be communicating and edifying to others. “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;” (Eph 5:19). In order for our singing to be worship it must also be motivated from a heart of adoration toward God. God is Spirit (John 4:24) and is not served with physical or outward gestures. While a chimpanzee could be trained to imitate singing, could it ever be trained to be motivated from the right heart as it committed right deeds?

Prayer is an important part of our worship. We are to pray with the spirit and understanding (1 Cor 14:15). Our prayers are to be offered in faith without doubting (James 1:6). We are to pray for our enemies and those who would harm us (Luke 6:28). Once again our motivation must come from a righteous and selfless heart. While an ape could be trained to bow a head or look to heaven; while it could be taught to fold hands or lift them up; could an ape pray in a Spiritual way?

The Lord’s Supper is to be a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 11:24, 25). It is to be done in a spirit of adoration and consideration of our own lives. To partake unworthily or without considering the sacrifice of Christ is to call down condemnation (1 Cor 11:28, 29). So again the right attitude is essential, else one is not worshiping God. A chimp could certainly be trained to break a cracker and eat, or to drink grape juice. However could it do so while discerning the body and blood of Christ? The same reasoning could be used with our free-will offering, and partaking of the Word of God. The heart and mind must be used in ALL aspects of our worship. While an ape could put money in the basket and could be trained to sit without making distractions during a sermon, that is NOT worship.

What about humans who gather on the Lord’s Day? Are we conforming to expected behavior patterns that have been instilled in us from youth, or doing something more? Is the extent of our prayers folding hands and bowing heads? Is the Lord’s Supper more than eating and drinking? Are we engaging the heart and mind in worship to the All Mighty? Or to put it another way, on Sunday as you fill a pew is it worship, or are you just aping around?T. Parker

When I initially ran this article on 11 Oct 08, the final paragraph contained a statement that is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. That paragraph has since been revised to better state the biblical case on this vital subject (other minor editorial changes have also been made). I sincerely apologize to our readers and in the future will endeavor to provide more precise information. Many thanks for your continued patience and support. - Jon Burnett

Change is essential to Christian living. In fact, obeying the gospel of Christ would be impossible without making some changes. We are called to change what we believe (Rom 10:17), to change how we think (Rom 12:1-2), how we speak (Rom 10:9-10), how we behave (Rom 6:1-6) and to change for whom we do all these things (Eph 2:10). But change itself is not always good. When man took and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, something changed. Through his sin, he separated himself from God (Isa 59:1-2), he brought death into the world (Rom 5:12-14) and he destroyed the abundance of our lives in a way that only the death of God’s Son could restore (Rom 5:15-17). Change itself, then, is neither good nor evil.

Recently, some of my brethren have issued a cry for change. Changes that are prompted by what is being called the ‘Emergent’ or ‘Emerging Church.’ One organization within this otherwise decentralized movement defines itself as, “a growing, generative friendship among missional Christians seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (from their page “About Emergent Village”). Their emphasis on personal relationships is rooted in a conviction, “that living in reconciled friendship trumps traditional orthodoxies – indeed, orthodoxy requires reconciliation as a prerequisite.” They go on to say, “Above all, we became convinced that living into the Kingdom meant doing it together, as friends. Thus, we committed ourselves to lives of reconciliation and friendship, no matter our theological or historical differences” (About, emphasis in original).

While this will appeal to many, the second of their “Values and Practices” quickly alerts us that there is nothing ‘new’ or ‘friendly’ about this reemerging ecclesiology.

“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms – Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anabaptist. We practice ‘deep ecclesiology’ – rather than favoring some forms of the church and critiquing or rejecting others, we see that every form of the church has both weaknesses and strengths, both liabilities and potential.

“We believe the rampant injustice and sin in our world requires the sincere, collaborative, and whole-hearted response of all Christians in all denominations, from the most historic and hierarchical, through the mid-range of local and congregational churches, to the most spontaneous and informal expressions…” (emphases added).

 But is there really more than one ‘form’ of the church? Are there indeed Christians in all denominations? Is there not but one body of Christ (Eph 4:4)? Is there not but onefoundation and one Cornerstone of His church (Eph 2:19-22; cf. Mat 16:17-19)? Did not God reveal one ideal pattern of leadership for His people (Eph 1:22-23; Php 1:1)? Or did God simply give us a plan for a ‘shallow’ church?

So to what extent is ‘friendship’ the goal of the Christian? Or, to word this question in a more familiar way, “What is the relationship between truth and unity?” Luke writes that the believers immersed on the Day of Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” (Act 2:41-42, NKJV, emphasis added). To Rome, Paul repeats this formula in the negative, urging the saints in that place to “note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom 16:17, emphasis added). Taken together, we see that we must have truth and unity if we are to be pleasing to God. We cannot have fellowship with those who do not obey the teachings of Christ; we cannot obey God’s word without being at peace with those who do the same; and we know that one does not obey these teachings when he causes division contrary to God’s word.

So while the Emerging definition of ‘friendship’ is correct in its critique of denominationalism, its solution is simply toreassert the equally fallacious doctrine of ecumenicalism. The Emerging Church clamors for unity and yet encourages us to be content with the causes for our division. Such a ‘friendship’ leaves us with neither truth nor unity; it is a toleration of the doctrines of men at the expense of our relationship with God. Instead, we should remember the words of the apostle Paul, “Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul” (1Co 1:12-13).

Rather than divide by the names of men or their doctrines, we should instead “speak the same thing … that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1Co 1:10). Toward this end, Christ gave us His inspired writers, “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro … and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph 4:14-16, ESV).

The Emerging Church chose its name to emphasize that it is “coming into view … requiring immediate action … crossing a boundary” (About). On this there can be agreement:  we recognize some age-old false doctrines that cross boundaries laid down by the word of God and that therefore require our immediate action. Change is no doubt needed in the church today but any changes should lead us closer to Christ, not further away. Our prayers are with those who have already begun making changes in the direction of the latter.

In 2006, 32% of traffic fatalities in the United States involved an alcohol-impaired driver. In these accidents 13,470 souls ended their sojourns on earth, including 306 children ages fourteen and under (from “Alcohol Alert”). Alcohol’s full effect, however, is not only felt in the number of lives it takes but also in the many lives it ruins. While no direct correlation has been established between alcohol and other evils such as divorce, domestic violence and rape, alcohol rarely makes these situations better and usually serves as a catalyst to deeper and broader harm for those involved.

Many Christians, however, are wary of condemning what many call ‘social drinking.’ Usually, these brethren see non-drinking as a matter of principle rather than one of precept (as if the former is any less binding), even though they often agree that other equally harmful activities are wrong on the same grounds. In 1 Peter 4:3-5, however, Peter gives us good reason to question this common view. There he exhorts, “For the time past may suffice to have wrought the desire of the Gentiles, and to have walked in … winebibbings,revellings, carousings … wherein they think strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (emphasis added). The remainder of our space here will discuss these three words and their application for the Christian today.

Winebibbings. The Greek word oinophlugiais is a plural noun meaning ‘wine-bubblings’ (cf. Strong’s 3632 and Vincent’s note on 1Pe 3:4). Though this word is often rendered as ‘drunkenness,’ a distinction should be made between ‘winebibbing’ and the word methe, which is translated as ‘drunkenness’ in Luke 21:34, Romans 13:13 and Galatians 5:21 by most reliable translations (e.g. ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB and NKJV). Peter’s word choice emphasizes the “abundance of wine” (as Barnes notes) while metheemphasizes the effect of any drink on the drinker (i.e. inebriation). With this distinction in mind, Peter condemns an abundance of wine, regardless of whether it leads to excess or drunkenness.

‘Revellings.’ Peter then turns to a more explicitly ‘social’ form of drinking. The word rendered ‘revellings’ is komoi, which Thayer gives two meanings. First, it refers specifically to, “a nocturnal and riotous procession of half-drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honor of Bacchus [or, in Greek, Dionysus] or some other deity, and sing and play before the houses of their … friends.” The second is a more generic use referring to, “feasts and drinking-parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry” (emphasis in the original). Since the word exists only as a plural noun in the Greek New Testament (cf. Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21), the inspired writers seem to use the word in this second sense only, condemning revelings in general, including (but not limited to) the Feast of Dionysus.  In other words, Peter condemns public events where drinking is a primary activity.

Carousings. Peter uses one final word to refer to various forms of ‘social drinking,’ the Greek word potois. Likekomoi, potois has both a specific and a generic meaning. A Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (abbreviated ‘BDAG’ from the surnames of its contributors), refers to this specific usage in stating that, “In the [Greco-Roman] world it was customary for literati to hold banquets at which topical discussions were featured, with participants well lubricated with wine.” Freeman states elsewhere that such gatherings (known in Classical Greece as symposia) were held in private dining rooms with a maximum of fifteen men (Egypt, Greece and Rome, p. 217). More generally, however, the word simply refers to “a social gathering at which wine was served” (BDAG). Unless Peter was condemning book clubs or good conversation, then, the Apostle’s concern is primarily with private gatherings where alcohol is served.

This does not mean that consuming alcohol is not wrong in principle as well. Solomon condemns it without any mention of the amount consumed (Pro 20:1). Elders, older men and younger men are all commanded to be sober-minded (i.e. ‘to be in control of oneself,’ BDAG; 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; 2:2, ASV) while older women are to teach younger women to do the same (Tit 2:5, ASV), a principle we turn from with our first drink. Peter merely expounds upon these principles by giving specific instances where they should be applied:  an abundance of wine, public events where drinking is a primary activity and private gatherings where alcohol is served. When all things are considered, we begin to understand that there is nothing ‘social’ about ‘social drinking;’ it is not a matter of opinion but a practice wholly incompatible with the Christianity revealed in the New Testament.

Recently I noticed a bumper sticker that said, “Got Christ?” Though I have often seen bumper stickers with a similar message, this one began to turn the wheels in my mind. Generally, religious messages from the world center upon Jesus, yet this sticker asked “Got Christ?” Is there a difference? In one sense, of course not, Jesus was the Christ. Yet perhaps the view many have of Jesus ignores that very fact - ignores that Jesus is Christ.

When Mary became pregnant, God spoke to Joseph in a dream, assuring him that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that she was still a virgin. Within that dream Joseph was also told that when the child was born He should be named, Jesus, “for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The name Jesus means “Savior” (Barnes). Jesus was given His name to signify that He was the one through whom salvation is offered. Jesus was sent into this world in order to be the savior (1 Jn. 4:14), to seek and save those who were lost (Luke 19:10), to be the sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 Jn. 2:2). Many religious people are quite fond of talking about Jesus, without recognizing Him as Christ. Their perception of Jesus is that He somehow saves everyone, that He is a kind loving man that wouldn’t allow pain to come to anyone, that He brings blessing without any responsibility. This perception of Jesus is a false perception, for it overlooks His role as the Christ.

The name Christ means “anointed.” Anointing was performed on two main groups of individuals in the Old Testament - priests (Exo. 28:41), and kings (1 Sam. 15:1). Jesus is the anointed one, for He fills both of these roles. He is the High Priest (Heb. 6:20) of the New Covenant, and He is the King of all kings, the King of the church (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 15:3; Col. 1:18). To recognize Jesus as the Christ is to recognize His role as our king. To follow Jesus as King requires being submissive to Him. Paul’s letter to the church at Rome shows the result of such, when he said that God has given us freedom from sin in Christ, but that such makes us the “servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). This servitude was taught by Jesus Himself, when He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). The idea of having love for Jesus without submission is foreign to the teachings of God’s word. Truly loving Jesus requires the humility of submitting to Him to the point that we can say, “Christ is living in me” (Gal. 2:20).

Many today in the religious world want to focus on the message of Jesus the Savior, but to ignore the message of Christ the King. However, one cannot separate the two, for Jesus is the Christ. Salvation through Jesus requires serving and submitting to Him as my King. That is, fully recognizing Jesus as Christ requires saying I will be His servant! While the world today ignores the full message of Jesus Christ, we should desire to serve Him as King for being our Savior.

I have to admit that the first time I heard the term “postmodernism” several years ago, I was completely at a loss as to what in the world the individual with whom I was speaking meant by it.  I’m sure I nodded my head as though I was keeping up with the conversation, and I was able to piece a bit of it together from the surrounding context of the discussion, but it was not until I was able to do some research on the matter that I fully recognized the import of the term and the philosophical conclusions for which it stands.  Even more importantly, I have now come to a clear undertanding of just how dangerous this mindset is to the church of our Lord today.

Postmodernism is set apart from modernism in the following basic ways:

The modernist sees man as a being that, through his own scientific advances, his capacities to reason well, and his ever approaching to a degree of complete knowledge of his surroundings, is able to uncover, apply, and live by a set of rules, scientific truths, that are applicable to all men everywhere and at all times equally.  It is what Frederick Taylor was in search of defining in his work, Principles in Scientific Management (1911), wherein he set forth his use of time studies and employee observations and interviews to find that “one best way” for any job to be done.  He thought that, given enough time and effort, he could come up with the one best way for a miner to shovel coal, and that if that one best way were implemented all over the world, then productivity would go up immensely, saving the coal company and the customers untold millions.

The postmodernist, on the other hand, is one that rejects that assumption of any one best way in any aspect of life, especially when it comes to the foundational principles by which mankind lives with one another.  The postmodernist instead suggests that we are our own worst enemy because we look for something which cannot exist: Universal Truth.  Because the postmodernist cannot accept the existence of a universal truth for mankind, he must, by implication, reject anything that would avow the presence of such a truth.  Although there are all sorts of philosophical subfields in which one could lose himself by way of such a study, the primary focus for this editorial is that of how the postmodern mindset approaches the question of religion.

The postmodernist rejects all formalized religion, not to put too fine a point on it.  For the postmodernist, religion is not the avenue by which man can find truth by which to live, but it is instead, merely the writings/rantings of those men of long ago centuries imposing their own world views upon the following generations.  They assert that there is no truth that is universal in any way; there is no way for man to live that is universally acceptable; there is no “way unto salvation;” and in fact, there is no need for salvation, since we are all answerable only to our own truths.  The postmodernist believes that “truth” limited a concept as it is, only applies to the individual who perceives it as such.  Therefore, you may see or know something that you believ is true, but it is only appearing that way to you, because you have perceived it as such.  Someone else, with a different perspective, might perceive the matter completely differently, and that “truth” would be just as real to him as your “truth” is to you, even though they may well be mutually exclusive to one another and cannot both be logically true…to the postmodernist, they can be.

Therefore, there are no rules, no regulations, and certainly no requirements that have been placed upon all men everywhere by anyone throughout the history of man.  We have individually and as smaller societies imposed rules upon ourselves, but that is, according to the postmodernist, because we were heretofore ignorant of just how liberated we truly are.  “Surely,” they might tell us, “man unfettered by simplistic ‘thou shalts’ and ‘thou shalt nots’ is a more noble being, since he is then all the more capable of taking his place in the big picture of nothingness, happy accident, and mental manipulations to make himself feel better about whatever situation in which he finds himself!”

Or, at least that might be what the postmodernist would tell us, if he were completely honest with us and himself about where his philosophy leads him ultimately.

 No, the postmodernist sounds liberated by his philosophy, and that is, sadly, what has attracted the morally and doctrinally immature among some of our own brethren.  But, when brought into the light of reason and strict examination of the mantra for what it claims for itself, there is one huge glaring inconsistency in the postmodernists’ cozy little world:

The assertion that there are no universal truths applicable to mankind is in and of itself a universal truth applicable to mankind!  If they have missed this one, and they have…how can they know that they have not missed another, maybe two, maybe hundreds, maybe…who knows but God Himself?

You see, the postmodernist, like his kissing-cousin the atheist, may be one of the most arrogant among all of humanity, because he does not assert just that he knows something, but he asserts (by necessary inference), that he knows ALL things.  Further, out of ALL that he knows, he knows that universal truths DO NOT exist in any form, but in knowing that, he has found his universal truth, and his philosophy falls flat.

Brethren, education is a wonderful thing.  Socrates himself said that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato, Dialogues, Apology), and by this he meant that it was a terrible waste for one to merely be alive without truly living, and he meant “living” to mean using your mind for all it is worth to discover the truths around you.  But sometimes, as the inspired writer records of Festus in accusation of Paul, “much learning [can make one] mad” (Act 26:24).  When one’s education begins to lead one away from the truth of God’s word and into a realm wherein there is no truth to be applicable to man, and anything goes…it’s time to drop the class.

Postmodernism brings about many ills among us, if left unchecked, and there are editorials upcoming that will examine some specifics that have raised their evil heads in the church.  Brethren, let us have the diligence needed to weed out this error wherever it may be found!