Rick Warren on the Colbert Report, Purpose, & the Chief End of Man

Today I came across a video of Rick Warren (Pastor of Saddleback Church) being interviewed by Stephen Colbert on “The Colbert Report”. The interview was around five minutes long and it was a complete tragedy to watch. One of the many depressing things about it was that Stephen Colbert seemed to display more Biblical knowledge than Rick Warren did during this interview.

Here is my personal transcript of the majority of the interview (I left out a few irrelevant caveats):

Colbert: Now before we go any further, the purpose of life does derive you’re basing this on biblical truths, right?
Warren: Absolutely.
Colbert: Ok, let’s explain to the kids out there that God does exist, that God does love you. Because their image of God from the MTVs and the Nintendos is like some vengeful monkey who’s throwing barrels at Super Mario.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: They don’t know who God is. Who is God Rick?
Warren: “God is creator, and He created the entire universe just so that He could create this galaxy, just so that He could create this planet, just so it tilted at the right axis so that it wouldn’t burn up or freeze up, to sustain human life, because He wanted to create human beings. He wanted to create you to love you. He loves even Stephen Colbert.
Colbert: Oh, I believe that.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: He created me in His image, and I sure love me.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: Now but that galaxy earth thing, that sounds like the gospel according to Carl Sagan.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: I mean, are you a fundamentalist preacher?
Warren: No.

Colbert: You’re not.
Warren: No. A fundamentalist is somebody who stops listening. There are fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheist, and secularists. It’s an attitude that doesn’t listen to anyone else.
Colbert: Well I don’t want to hear any of that. What I want to hear is that you say every word of the bible is inerrant.
Warren: I do believe that
Colbert: So we should stone gay people?
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: It says so in Leviticus, we should do that.
Warren: Who are your writers?
Colbert: Uh…. Who are my writers? I’ve got none tonight except the inerrant word of God. I mean, you’ve got a very friendly God, don’t get me wrong. The God you describe very friendly, very casual, probably doesn’t wear a tie either,
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: Your God is a lot like Jimmy Buffett.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: He’s very, very…He’s low key. Paradise is Margaritaville.
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: Why do you think people respond? Is it because the god you describe is not vengeful?
Warren: No. There’s nothing in [The Purpose Driven Life] that historic Christianity hasn’t said for the past 2,000 years. I just said it in a very simple way. It took me, actually, 7 months, about 12 hours a day, to write the book, and I spent about half the day just trying to make the sentences shorter. So if it was a 17 word sentence, how could I say it in 9? If it was a 9 word sentence, how can I say it in 5? Einstein once said that if you can’t say something in a simple way, you don’t really understand it.

Colbert: The sub-question of [The Purpose Driven Life], is “what on earth am I here for?” What do you think the purpose of life is? Is it individual, or do you believe in something like the Baltimore catechism where we’re here to know God, to love God, to serve God?
Warren: Well I do believe that. One of the things that the Bible teaches is that this life’s not all there is. You’re going to spend more time on that side of eternity than on this side. You get 60, 80, maybe 100 years on this side, you’re gonna get trillions of years on that side. This side is preparation for the next. And there are things that we’re going to do in heaven that God says, “I want you to practice here so that you’re not a dufus when you get there.”

Colbert: What is the purpose of every day? Can I say what my purpose is? “My purpose is to shout at people that I disagree with.” Am I living my purpose, Rick?
Warren: You know, when you be who God made you to be, that makes God smile. I used to think that God only smiles when we’re doing, like, spiritual stuff: confessing, going to church, reading the Bible, things like that. But actually God gets enjoyment out of watching you be you. When my kids were little, I used to watch them sleep at night. And their little chests would rise and lower, rise and lower, and I got so much pleasure out of that, ‘cause I made ‘em. I’m their daddy. And when you be who God made you to be, a dufus…. When you be you, God looks down and goes, “that’s my boy.”

Colbert: Let me ask you something. If you ask Jesus to come into your life, will He?
Warren: Absolutely.
Colbert: If you ask Jesus to come onto your show, will He do that too?
Warren: (laughs)
Colbert: Because I’m having a hard time booking guests right now.
Warren: I have connections.

I have some major concerns with this five minute interview and what Rick Warren said (or didn’t say) about himself and about God during it. The first thing that was very concerning to me was how Rick Warren painted God’s reason for creation. Basically, as I understand it, Rick believes that God created everything just so that he could create you in order to love you and me because we’re so loveable. How else can you interpret his comments about creation and God’s pleasure out of watching “you be you.”

It is providential that I saw this video today because I have been thinking a lot about what various protestant catechisms state is the chief end of man. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. But if, according to Warren’s comments, God created everything with loving His creation as His primary goal as they are, or “you being you”, what does that say about God’s glory, his hatred of sin, his demand for righteousness, and the need of grace? Some may argue that Warren’s statements reflect the essence of the message of unconditional divine love that was manifest in Christ during His incarnational mission. To that end, I would flatly disagree. His statements do the exact opposite. If God loves me for being me, and He’s proud of me for doing what I’m programmed to do, then why the cross? What’s the need to have God Himself beaten, spit on, mocked, unjustly tried, viciously executed, and for Him to bear the eternal wrath of God on His own for all of those who would follow Him?

God doesn’t love me for being me. He hates me for being me. He despises sinful men in their natural condition. Does He desire to have mercy on us and command all men everywhere to repent? Yes, but that doesn’t translate into an “’at-a-boy” attitude. Furthermore, Warren’s example of watching his own children sleep is such a distorted analogy of God looking at us, and I can’t stand it. Let me put forth an analogy that is closer to reality from a Biblical standpoint.

A father is sitting in the bedroom of one of his children watching him sleep. Earlier that same day, that child had murdered all of his siblings, raped his own mother, did various other wicked things to other people, and only fell asleep because of exhaustion. And when that child wakes up, if he has enough strength, he’ll kill his father. Does this father love his child for being who he is? Does watching this slumbering murderous and hateful little monster fill him with the same type of joy and pleasure that Rick Warren described? Make no mistake; our sinful condition is more heinous in God’s sight that this man’s son would be in his own. It is from this point, and only this point, of understanding our wretchedness that we can ever hope to understand the cross of Jesus Christ and what that means about God’s grace and the nature of man.

The second thing that was fairly frustrating to me was how Rick Warren defined fundamentalists and fundamentalism. According to Warren, fundamentalism is a bad thing because those who follow this type of a system don’t listen to others and their opinions. I’m not sure how much I would need to listen to and interact with those who disagree with me in order to not be guilty of this sin in his eyes, but I have to point something out to Mr. Warren. He’s guilty of the exact same thing that he is accusing fundamentalists of. Namely, he’s not listening to them. This is the same type of foolish and self-defeating argument that people have use frequently. One familiar incarnation of this type of logic is when the idea of absolute truth is being attacked. The objection used is, “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” And the problem with that statement is that the statement itself is a statement of absolute truth. I’m sorry, Mr. Warren, but your presentation of fundamentalism is not only untrue, but it’s also unfair and it makes you a type of fundamentalist because you won’t listen to what people like me have to say.

This type of foolishness is exasperating. He could have sad that fundamentalist Christians want to understand the Bible in a more plain and literal way, and they disagree with his church model and watered down gospel message (that ends up being so diluted that it is impossible to be certain that he preaches or believes the true gospel of Jesus Christ). He could have said that fundamentalists see Church primarily as a place for believers in Christ, whereas he sees church as a place to draw in unbelievers and effectively starve any believers of solid Biblical food. But he said neither of those things.

Thirdly, Mr. Warren was repeatedly asked direct questions about the Bible and about life that he completely ignored, shrugged off, or didn’t really answer. I couldn’t believe that someone who professes to be a Christian, when asked directly who God is, doesn’t immediately mention the name of Jesus Christ. But Rick Warren is not merely a professing Christian, he holds the position of an elder and that leaves him even less of an excuse for not being forthright and clear with matters relating to the gospel and Jesus Christ. If Warren’s lack of clarity wasn’t bad enough, it was the host of the program, Stephen Colbert, and not Pastor Rick Warren who was the only one to use Jesus’ name.

A little while later, on the heals of Warren’s assertion of his belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, Colbert asks if we should stone homosexuals based on the book of Leviticus. There are many different ways that a pastor could have addressed this issue that would have both been glorifying to God and edifying to those who were listening, but Warren opted for a different type of response. Warren’s response of “who are your writers?” neither is glorifying to God or edifying or instructional to his hearers. Furthermore, this response shows his complete unwillingness or inability to address the larger issue of homosexuality. A pastor should be willing and able to deal with this issue, even if he is uncomfortable or nervous when he does it.
With all of the concerns that I have noted here, I must say that the majority of my frustration with this interview was not with what Rick said or didn’t say. Even though his performance was tragic, it was with the way that he showed, or didn’t show, his reverence for God that was most concerning to me. There were at least five different occasions where Rick Warren laughed at or encouraged blasphemous talk. When speaking about God – who is the creator of the Heavens and the earth, the One who holds all things together by His own power, the One who is a consuming fire, the One who holds the heavens in the span of His hand, the One who sought to satisfy His own justice and display His own grace by suffering to be a man and dying for those who hate Him – Colbert compared Him to a Donkey Kong-like figure and Jimmy Buffet. Colbert also compared Heaven to Margaretville, and he mocked Jesus by talking about how to get him on the program. Now, I don’t know if Colbert claims to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to hold the name of God in honor; but Warren claims to be a Christian and an elder and he ought to hold God’s name in honor. To every one of Colbert’s blasphemous comparisons of God and to his horribly sickened way of joking about heaven, Pastor Rick Warren sat there and laughed. He sat there and laughed. And if that wasn’t bad enough, he even joked along with Colbert’s comment about getting Jesus onto his program by saying, “I’ve got connections.” I’m sorry, Pastor Warren, but that is not funny and it seems to be apparent to me that your “connections” that you have with Christ may not be what you seem to think.

This despicable lack of reverence for God and reluctance to be bold about the proclamation of the gospel should cause me to be upset and offended for the sake of my God, His son, and His church. But it should also cause me to be ready to answer questions about God and proclaim the gospel whenever I might get the chance. Now, it is very unlikely that I will ever have the platform that Rick Warren has every week or that I would be on the Colbert Report to talk about Christ and Christianity. But if that should ever happen I need to be ready to answer the questions and do a better job of defending my Lord than Rick Warren did.

Pastor Warren, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just Sickening - fleasing the flock & maligning the gospel

I recently have come across some video clips that show/discuss various televangelists and their money-loving/hording ways. I have three clips on here, and I want to briefly explain them.

The last clip is of a news story done by the local news from where Creflo Dollar resides. We get to hear in his own words how he views the gospel and prosperity. One interesting note is that both of the clergy critics of Mr. Dollar are on the left-side of Christian theology. In other words, they most likely wouldn't agree with me on many things, but we are all opposed to the false teaching of the prosperity gospel.

The second clip shows the exposing of Peter Popoff. This is disturbing, and what's more is that this is fuel for skeptics of all kinds to throw away the true gospel along with this rubish.

But the first clip is from ABC's 20/20 where John Stossil investigates televangelists and their money. One note about this one is that after this aired, it was brought to the attention of the public and 20/20 (i.e. 20/20 was sued) that the first minister shown in detail, K.C. Price, was taken out of context in his comments about his extravogent life-style. It seems reasonable to believe that he was taken out of context, but in a rebuttal to the newscast, he stated the following,

“It’s not in theology, It’s not in denominationalism, but it is in the Bible. I can go to the Scriptures and quote Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that shows us that it is God’s will for us to materially prosper. In my own ministry, and others that teach along these lines, we’ve been telling people [that] we’re always going to have opponents because Satan is going to fight us tooth and nail so he can keep everybody poor.”¹

Even though his comments were taken out of context, and that is a horrible thing to do, it doesn't seem as if Dr. Price would be ashamed to admit (not boast, no no) that he had those things if he did.

If the viewer windows don't show up, you can view the videos by clicking up the hyperlinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujxKq4qwUx4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ol-K8-osGU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_knKUT586nQ

---

¹ Dr. Fredrick K.C. Price on the prosperity gospel. “THE TRUTH: About 20/20's Report on Dr. Price & CCC” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LurX47zfks

The Plague of Prosperity

Sometimes while we’re watching a bit of television, I will, to the complete annoyance of my wife, flip to the religious channel. I won’t go to just any religious channel – we receive 3ABN (7th Day Adventist), EWTN (Roman Catholic), and TBN. I will usually stop at TBN because, similar to a car accident that you see happening in slow motion, I just can’t look away. I know that there is going to be a lot of mangling and much harm done to anyone involved…but I just can’t look away.

I don’t watch a lot of 3ABN because I weary of their misunderstanding of the Sabbath; the fact that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, and we find our Sabbath rest in him. Also, the promotion of the annihilationism (God “snuffs” out the condemned, so they will not be punished eternally) as well as the teaching, and I believe that I’ve seen it more than a few times, that worshiping on Sunday is what the Bible speaks of when referring to the mark of the beast. I also don’t watch EWTN because I just cannot handle the devotion to Mary that this channel so saturated with. I mean, there is nothing like hearing titles and powers ascribed to Mary such as Mother of All Peoples, the New Eve, Co-redemptrix, and Mediatrix of all graces, Advocate, and others that make my idolatry “hackles” stand on end.

With all that said, since I am neither a 7th Day Adventist nor a Roman Catholic, I don’t quite feel the need to defend against what is going on there or confront the false teachings in nearly the same way as I do with what is broadcast on TBN. Why? TBN, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, positions itself as the premier place on television for all things Protestant and Evangelical. Virtually all of the preachers that I have ever seen attempt to more closely resemble the model and ideas of Biblical and true Protestant Christianity, even though they quite often do a horrible job of it. For instance, I find it funny (you either laugh or you cry) that one of TBN’s heaviest hitters is a man who denies the Triune nature of God. Call me quirky, but I would have thought that this would be a prerequisite for association, but I guess that’s not the case. Also, I am sure that there are as many charlatan preachers in other movements in and around Christendom, but my focus tends to be more on the assortment displayed on TBN because these are the men and women that are most difficult to distance myself from because they embody much of contemporary American Evangelical Christendom.

One of the most frustrating heresies that is so rampant on this network is that of the prosperity gospel. It is called the prosperity gospel, but it “is really not another [gospel]; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:7) Those who preach this twisted view of Scripture argue that God wants all Christians to be healthy and wealthy to the virtual exclusion of speaking about the cross. And when the cross is referred to, it was done so that we could live an abundant life. What does that mean? Here’s what Joel Osteen says about the cross giving us an abundant life,

“… Not a barely-get-by life, not a life filled with bad habits and addictions, and lack, and mediocrity. No, because of the price He paid, we have a right to live in total victory. I want you to get that down on the inside. Not partial victory, to where we have a good family, we have good health, but we constantly struggle in our finances. That’s not total victory. If God did it for you in one area, he can do it for you in another area. Get a vision for it. Don’t’ get stagnant. Maybe God’s blessed you; you have a good family and a good job, but you’ve had pain in your body for years and years. You used to stand against it, you used to believe that you could be free but now it’s been so long that you’ve decided, ‘This is my lot in life. Joel, I guess this is my cross to carry.’ He has paid the price so that we may be totally free. That means free from bad habits and addictions. Free from worry. Free from discouragement and depression. Free from poverty and lack. Free from low self-esteem. You need to start seeing yourself in the right way. You are not a sick person trying to get well, you’re a well person fighting off sickness. God made you healthy and whole….”¹

This sickening and cheap portrayal of what Christ accomplished on the cross is the same type of stuff that you will hear from the majority of people on TBN. The various preachers will have their own styles and things that they specifically emphasize, but the main heartbeat is health and wealth. Did you notice anything missing? There was no mention of sin at all. In fact, the statement, “God made you healthy and whole” seems to directly deny the doctrine of original sin or, for that matter, any doctrine of sin and depravity at all.

Once in a while you may be fortunate enough to hear Rod Parsely, Benny Hinn, or another prosperity preacher present a pretty clear presentation of the actual gospel (i.e. you’re a sinner, repent and place your faith in Christ for salvation from sin and it’s end result in hell), but these are few and far between. More often than not, the message that is sent out to the world is that Christians can (and should) be wealthy and that we could have all of the stuff that we want. And this is the message that is exported from the United States to other countries labeled as the gospel.

I have heard stories about how the prosperity (or other non-gospel messages) preachers are making their way and having a lot of influence in non-Western countries. I also saw this on a different scale when I went to Africa in the summer of 2000. When I was in Kenya, I saw all of the worst parts of western culture splashed across the city of Nairobi. From Brittney Spears to the latest movies, that is what my Kenyan friends saw and understood about the United States (and the West). The most tragic part of it, though, was when one of the men from the church that I was working with began talking about the very good teaching that he had been hearing over either the radio or television (I’m not sure which). I was still pretty green as it relates to the false teaching that is so prevalent inside of Christendom, but I still asked him who he was listening to. His response gave me no pause at the time, because I hadn’t heard of the man, but he looked at me and said, “Benny Hinn.” I knew that Benny Hinn was a preacher on TBN, but not much more than that, so I didn’t think much more about it until a year or so later. But now that I know the kind of chicanery and horrible teaching that goes on with his ministry, I am so very grieved. I found that the following words from John Piper articulate so much of what this perversion of the glorious and saving gospel of our Lord brings out from my own heart.

“I don’t know what you feel about the prosperity gospel, but I’ll tell you what I feel about it. Hatred. It is not the gospel. And it is being exported from this country to Africa and Asia selling a bill of goods to the poorest of the poor. ‘Believe this message, and your pigs won’t die and your wife won’t have miscarriages. And you’ll have rings on your fingers and coats on your backs.’ That’s coming out of America! People that ought to be giving our money and our time and our lives, instead selling them a bunch of crap called ‘gospel’. And here’s the reason it is so horrible: When was the last time that any American, African, Asian ever said Jesus is all-satisfying because you drove a BMW? Never! They’ll say, ‘Did Jesus give you that? Yeah? Well, I’ll take Jesus.’ That’s idolatry, that’s not the gospel. That’s elevating gifts above Giver. I’ll tell you what makes Jesus look beautiful. It’s when you smash your car and your little girl goes flying through the windshield and lands, like I was with a little girl on 11th avenue two weeks ago, dead on the street, for three hours before the police would let her go, and you say through the deepest possible pain, ‘God is enough. He is good; He will take care of us; He will satisfy us; He will get us through this. He is our treasure. Whom have I in heaven but You? And on earth there is nothing that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart and my little girl may fail but you are the strength of my heart and my portion forever. That makes God look glorious, as God, not as giver of cars or safety or health. Oh, how I pray that Birmingham will be purged of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel. Indeed America would be purged. And that the Christian church would be marked by suffering for Christ. God is most glorified in you when you are most satisfied in Him in the midst of loss, not prosperity.”²

It is this kind of false teacher that Peter’s second letter warned us of when we would have teachers in our midst, “will secretly introduce destructive heresies,” and that there will be many who “will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;” (2 Peter 2:1,2) If this type of perversion does not cause us outrage on behalf of our glorious Savior, then I do not know what will. Will it take persecution and calamity to purge the Christendom in the West of this plague of prosperity and with it unleash the true gospel in it’s glory as testified to by saints with their blood, not their Rolexes? My week and faint heart hopes that God will not send judgment on the church in the West but still purge this infestation from among the redeemed. But my spirit is not so optimistic about the future of Christianity in the West. Christendom may survive and flourish, for a false presentation of Christ is no threat to the devil. But Christianity, wherever the gospel message is pure and Christ is exalted as He should be, I fear will not be unscathed.

May God give us grace and courage now to use what freedoms and resources we have to preach the gospel. And may God give us grace and hope and love for the future for when those freedoms and resources are stripped away from us. May You cause me to cling closer and more firmly to You and Your Word, Lord.

In all things, soli Deo gloria.

---

¹ I personally transcribed the quote from an uploaded video of Joel’s sermon as posted on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di9-PebV634

² http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=29b26cfc46fd9a91ec47

Emergent “Seeker Sensitive Fluff”

I was scanning a popular emergent church youth leader’s blog recently when I came across a series of interesting videos. In case you don’t catch the parody, let me explain. There is a fairly popular ad campaign from Apple Computers where two actors represent the two rival computers types. The Apple, “Mac”, is portrayed by a young and contemporary actor, and is shown to be laid back and to have it all together. Mac’s rival, “PC”, is played by an older actor who is playing a very uptight, high maintenance and is shown to be deficient in all ways when compared to Mac.

Now, having the template in mind, we can look at the Christian parody of it. In the video series, the two character types are relatively the same, but instead of portraying rivals in the computer industry, they portray two different types of Christians in modern western society. The first character is a traditional protestant (I assume) named “Christian”. The second character is the contemporary believer, “Christ-Follower”, who is set up to be a character who is cool and, basically, the opposite of irrelevant “Christian”.

You can watch the two videos for yourself, but here is a brief synopsis of them:

Video 1: This is the first of the series where we are initially introduced to Christian and Christ-Follower. Christian has his stack of books and other materials that is capped off with his Bible, and it is noted that it is a King James Version. After divulging the contents of his stack of materials, Christian asks if Christ-Follower wants to see his bumper stickers. When given the go-ahead, Christian opens his suit coat to show various bumper stickers stating that he ran out of room on his car. The ending of the parody shows Christian copying everything that Christ-Follower says culminating with Christ-Follower saying, “I’m a big dork.” And then Christian repeats, “I’m a big dork…oh….”

Video 2: This video is sixth (and final, I believe) video in the same series. It shows Christian and Christ-Follower meeting with a therapist in some sort of a counseling session. The session opens with Christian talking about how he feels inadequate and has to hide inside of his church. The therapist then encourages them to give each other a compliment. Christ-Follower makes a genuine comment about how Christian is good at exegesis and that he dresses nicely. Christian grudgingly says that Christ-Follower is better at reaching “today’s generation”, but then he comments that it is done with “seeker sensitive fluff” and it is a “total waste of time” under his breath. The video ends with the therapist stating, “Maybe you should come in… twice a week.”

In the first video, I found it interesting that the books and materials that were mocked included “rule books, ethics manuals, and a morality play or two just for good measure” as well as Christians’ Bible. How did they mock his Bible? For starters, when displaying his Bible, Christian looks like a buffoon when he swings his bible around like a sword, and this is both mocking the type of believers that Christian represents as well as the fact that it seems to be demeaning the Bible and the power of the Word itself. I realize that might be a bit nit-picky, but…come on.

Also, I would like to know what rule books and ethics manuals the creators were referring to and, obviously, looking down upon. If this parody was to be an equal comparison (even with the above mentioned concerns) between modern Christ-Follower and Christian, I think that Christ-Follower should have had the following books in his hands:

• A New Kind of Christian (Brian McLaren)
• Blue Like Jazz (Donald Miller)
• Velvet Elvis (Rob Bell)
• A Generous Orthodoxy (Brian McLaren)
• The Message (Eugene H. Peterson)

You see, the truth is that those in the Christ-Follower (Emergent) movement don’t want to get rid of rule books and ethics codes, they want their rule books and ethics codes to replace the old ones. When you disregard authors like Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Rile, Owen, Spurgeon, Edwards, and others and substitute them with the flavor of the month contemporary writings that are only “relevant” for a short time, you’re in danger of separating yourself from actually following Christ in favor of following a contemporary fad.

As far as the second video, I actually thought that it was funny. I understand that it was set up in such a way as to mock people like me who do classify a lot of what goes on now-a-days as “seeker sensitive fluff and a total waste of time.” But as far as the main thrust of my thoughts regarding this video, I’ll let another blogger’s comments set the stage.

The full brunt of his critique is best understood when all of the videos in this series are viewed. But, in case you don’t want to subject yourself to that, the basic thing to know is that in the other videos you see Christian listening to his “jPod” (an iPod filled only with explicitly Christian music and other media), carrying his HSHD (Holy Spirit Hard Drive) so that he can get a jump start of the “Holy Ghost, or Spirit, or something” when he gets bored in church, and we see him proudly displaying his WWJD bracelet. All of these things are to show that Christian is woefully out of touch with contemporary society and, rather foolish looking in his attempts to copy culture. After seeing these things, this blogger named Guy writes:

"Does it strike anyone else as awkwardly ironic that there is a Christian mimic of a popular sales campaign that is mocking the type of person who gets excited about Christian mimics of popular sales campaigns?"¹

In his comment, Guy identifies himself as an emergent type of individual, but wants to be real about who and what they are about. I find this comment as an accurate critique of the videos as well as somewhat ironic. How long will it be before videos like this, books like “Blue Like Jazz” and “A New Kind of Christian”, and other contemporary things are as foolish and out of date as Christian wearing his WWJD bracelet.

What could be more relevant to any hearing audience than the truth that God has revealed about how to be made right with Him, be forgiven of our sin, and avoid His terrible wrath and judgment? And in order to do that, we must proclaim the gospel in an undistorted and unapologetic manner.

---

¹ http://www.ysmarko.com/?p=1042

Apparently I Am a Bigot…and You Might Be Too

I don’t listen to too much of the political talk anymore, but sometimes flashes of it make it into my listening regiment because of a Christian or moral component that surges to the forefront. One such issue slammed me harder than, I think, many Christians seem to be taking it. To set this issue up, here is a snippet of an article that, I believe, has some very ominous overtones.

During a debate on religion and politics at the New York Public Library with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation."

On the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, Romney fired back, calling Sharpton's comment "terribly misguided."

"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," Romney said. "I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make."

Asked if he thought Sharpton is a bigot, the former Massachusetts governor said, "I don't know Rev. Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing. But the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment.

"Perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but the way it came out was inappropriate and wrong."¹

Why is this so frightening and ominous? If Al Sharpton is called a bigot because he made a statement that categorized Mormons as people who do not “really believe in God”, what does that signal for the rest of us? Now, I am not a fan of Rev. Sharpton in most cases, but this is the second time that I have agreed with what he said (or inferred). The first time that I agreed with Rev. Sharpton was when he was critical of the prosperity preaching and theology of Creflo Dollar.

“To try and distort Jesus to try and justify your new jet plane or your new Rolls Royce is, to me, an abomination.”²

But regarding his recent comment pertaining to Mormons and Mitt Romney, he may have been intending to make a poke specifically at Republicans and used the only Mormon as his target. So I am not totally sure of what exactly he intended, but the way in which it was said and subsequently received by Mr. Romney was one of bigotry.

Furthermore, even though the Rev. Sharpton has backpedaled in his attempts to “spin” what he said or meant to say in the context of that debate and he seems to no longer agree with what he stated, that doesn’t change the fact that it is true. Even if he might have intended it to be more of a shot at Christians who are also republicans, it came across as a shot at Mormons, and the fact of the matter is that Mormons don’t believe in the true God of the bible at all.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines a bigot as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” and one who especially “regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. “³ Now, you can disagree with what I, or the Rev. Sharpton, believe about who does and who does not really believe in the true God. However unless you can prove that myself or Rev. Sharpton display hatred or are involved with an agenda to deny “equal freedom of expression” or we are “unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights” ⁴ to Mormons, the accusation of bigotry is a giant leap in its application.

Do I believe that Mormons worship God? No, I don’t. I would say the same if you asked me if Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Oneness-Pentecostals (“Christians”), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists (Christian Science). I would ardently defend my statements because the Word of God basically says that if you don’t believe in Christ and worship Christ, you are not worshipping God. This is not something that Christians have made up in order to be mean; it is something that God has shown to us through His Word.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23)

"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27)

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)

Lest you think that I am overreacting in my concern over the “bigot” comment made by Mitt Romney, I came across another use of this term by a different religion. The following dialogue was taken from a BBC Panorama documentary called “Scientology and Me”. In watching it, the primary goal was to ascertain if the Church of Scientology is, as it is referred to in British law, a cult. Here is a summary of what both U.S. and British courts have stated about Scientology,

In 1984, Scientology was described by [British Judge] Mr. Justice Latey as: "both immoral and socially obnoxious...it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top". The same year, in Los Angeles, Superior Court Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., called Scientology: "a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo-scientific theories ... The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard".⁵

That British decision is one of the reasons why Scientology is not considered a religion in Great Britain, and therefore does not receive the various tax (and other) perks of a religion. When John Sweeney, the BBC reporter, asked this question to a very high ranking member of the Church of Scientology, Tommy Davis, the following exchange occurred.

“Some people say [Scientology] is a sinister cult.”

“You have no right whatsoever to say what is and what isn’t a religion. The constitution of the United States of America guarantees one’s right to practice and believe freely in this country, and the definition of religion is very clear, and it’s not defined by John Sweeny. And for you to repeatedly refer to my faith [as a cult] is so derogatory, so offensive, and so bigoted. And the reason you keep repeating it is because you wanted to get a reaction like you are getting right now. Well buddy, you got it. Right here, right now, I’m angry. Real angry.” ⁶

So what is all of the fuss about? In our society, calling someone a bigot is a serious charge that carries with it a detestable (and rightly so) stigma. It has been used to refer to those persons who view people of other racial ancestry or religions affiliation (i.e. Africans, Mexicans, Jews, Gypsies, etc.) as less human or as people deserving a lower class status in the culture. Being a classified as a bigot seems to be one of the quickest ways to be marginalized and demonized. However, if our culture (and subsequently, our legal system) moves the classification of a bigot from one whose views are shown to call for a lower or a sub-human class of people and subsequently to socially discriminate against them over to a definition that includes theological statements about who God is, we are in grave danger in America.

Hate speech laws are already knocking at the door when it comes to preaching the Biblical doctrines of sexuality. Even though no Christian church is calling for the persecution of homosexuals, we have had terms of bigotry and homophobia thrown at us. In no way do we want to make those who practice homosexuality second class citizens with voting, employment, or other citizenship infringements, we are proclaiming God’s Word.

But, if the sentiments of Mitt Romney are heard, receive, and amplified by our anti-Christian (I could say “anti-God” because it would be the same thing) culture, we are not only in danger of legal ramifications for proclaiming and preaching portions of Genesis Leviticus 18, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6 because they refer to the abomination and condemnation of homosexuality, but we would now be in store for the same type of restrictions when preaching passages about the exclusivity of Christ like John 14:6 or 1 John 2:23.

Honestly, I don’t believe that we can stop this trend, but that does not mean that we should give up the fight. It is inevitable that our land will see preaching the gospel of Christ and the preaching for holiness and purity in doctrine as well as holiness and purity in living as intolerant, bigoted, and illegal. That will not stop us from our preaching, but it will make the cost of preaching that much higher. Preaching the gospel in America today may bring ridicule, scorn, and bad looks from those around us. Preaching the gospel in America when hate speech and bigotry legally includes the subjects above will bring legal persecution in the form of taxing our churches, infringements on the publishing of bibles, and jail time for preaching the Word of God.

Now is the time to preach the Word with the freedom that we have. We need to take full advantage of the time and freedoms that we have before they are taken away, and this country becomes even darker and more hostile to the gospel.

May God – the one and only True God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is eternally existent in three Divine Persons and who demands our repentance of our sins and belief in Jesus Christ alone for salvation – give His true children strength, courage, and diligence now, and may He carry those same attributes into and through increased persecution.

May God convict His children of our sinful and lethargic wasting of time and of legally protected opportunities to proclaim the gospel so that we will waste no more time. God, give us mercy and grace to be bold and unashamed.

---

¹ http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/sharpton.romney/index.html (emphasis mine)

² http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_knKUT586nQ

³ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

⁴ From Merriam-Webster’s definition of intolerant http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/intolerant

⁵ http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/30457/the-cult-of-scientology.thtml

⁶ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0UZ7xeni28

Out of the mouth of babes...

Memorizing Scripture

Ok, I know that I have had a lot of videos lately on my blog, and I really don't want to have my blog turn into a primarily into something where I just link to other stories or post videos from others. I wasn't going to add another one for a while...but then I saw this one. This is a longer video, but if you love God's Word, you will not mind the length.

Aparently, this gentleman memorized Hebrews 9 and 10. But not only did he memorize it, but he worked with the text to be able to deliver it in a passionate and compelling way as oppsed to a static recitation.

Truly, I think you will be blessed by watching (or even just listening to this). If nothing else, I hope that you are edified by it and encouraged to memorize scripture yourself.




source: fide-o

a remix

The original version of this video was funny, and this new one (with John Piper's commentary) is as good...if not better.




source: Provocations and Pantings

2 Peter 3:9

This video is a good look at this verse in 2nd Peter to see how it relates to biblical soteriology known as Calvinism.

the funniest thing that I have seen in a while...

Watch this - it is priceless.




Seriously, though. It is only once we realize the fact that we are horribly bad people that we can then understand and appreciate the sacrifice of Christ.

Bullhorn Guysthe battle over how to evangelize

Recently (mid September), there was video that was uploaded to the Internet that was critical of street preaching. The specific targets were men who stand in a public area, grab a bullhorn, and preach about the coming of judgment. The video was aptly called “Bullhorn Guy”. Rob Bell, an emergent-style pastor, is the individual who is on screen to make his case as to why he doesn’t think that Jesus approves of bullhorn guys and their message of God judging people and sending them to hell. He then starts talking about how he thinks that evangelism should be done.

Well, not long after this video was posted on the Internet, another ministry made a response video (in pseudo-parody fashion) to give another idea, or to defend bullhorn guys. After setting up the video (so that there is no mistaking what the motivation for it was), the individual on screen in this video is Todd Friel, a classic fundamentalist preacher/apologist and host of Way of the Master Radio, who mocks the idea of “lifestyle” evangelism (i.e. that someone off the street will come up to you and ask, “Please tell me about the hope that lies within you!” when you have been saying or doing nothing explicitly to draw attention to yourself or your message) and then argues that true love is shown by telling people the whole message of the gospel. The bad, then the good.

Watch them both, and see who clearly gets the gospel across to people and by doing so, who is more loving. Regardless of the reception of the hearer (whether they receive Christ, reject Him, or are ambivalent), which makes the gospel clear?

Click here to watch Rob Bells’ Nooma video “Bullhorn Guy”


Click here to watch Todd Friel and the Way of the Master response to Bullhorn Guy

a Rabbi, a Priest, and a minister...

Larry King has a habit of interviewing religious leaders (from many different religions and Christian denominations) and he is meticulous about asking one line of questioning to all of them. The gist of his question is this, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” There have been confessions made by many different people, and many of them (from what I have seen) have fallen into a similar category of deceived non-biblical nonsense. And by the way - I am primarily referring to those people who claim to be Christians. Sure, we get the same universalistic and all-inclusive drivel from other religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age religions, and (sadly) Judaism, but we cannot expect false religions to provide us with the truth. But we can and should expect more from those who are or claim to be Christians and who claim to hold dear the very gospel that Christ died to give to us.

If you don’t think that the devil has set up false systems to be inclusive of everything but the truth, here is a quick rabbit trail. I have found, interestingly enough, that the position of many (if not most or all) modern Jewish Rabbis is that if a person keeps the laws of Noah (Noahide law), they will have a share in paradise. These 7 Laws of Noah are (although not universally agreed to in order or in content) these:

• Prohibition of idolatry


• Prohibition of blasphemy


• Prohibition of murder


• Prohibition of theft


• Prohibition of illicit relations


• Prohibition of eating live meat


• Prohibition of failing to establish courts of justice

The basic doctrine associated with these laws is that if a non-Jew keeps these laws, they will inherit eternal life. It is interesting to note that “Maimonides has maintained that Islam is a Noahide religion” while, although there is some debate, “the strict view is that Christian theology is considered [idolatry] for all people, both Jew and gentile, as it subscribes to the Trinity.“ It is funny that the Jewish tradition holds that practicioners of Islam would be keeping the laws of Noah when true Muslims (in my view) are the ones practicing the Ji’had on everyone else. I call them “true Muslims” because their holy book calls for war and destruciton and of the infadel as plainly as Christ claimed exclusively to be the only way to God in the New Testament (John 14:6). Is it more ironic or more wicked that this doctrine most specifically rejects Christ, but accepts Mohammad and those who wage an endless war on Jews?

Leaving false religions aside (because, really, how much truth can we expect to find in those who openly and viciously deny the deity of Jesus?), I want to focus again on various “Christians” and their affrmations of the gospel. In order to do this, I have found a few video clips from the Larry King Live show that I would like to share. The first video is one that I have sent to a few Catholic friends and it has received by them with anything from calling the Priest a heretic to defending him totally on what he says. Let us just listen to this ordained minister and Priest of the Roman Catholic Church talk about the gospel:

(Click here to view the video Clip)

The universalism is so thick; I had a hard time listening to it. The sickening works righteousness of being a good person “doing the best he can” which then allows one to get eternal life just oozes out of his mouth. This is another gospel than the one contained in the Bible.

Now, to show that I am not just ragging on Catholic statements of Christ and salvation, here is the poster-boy for contemporary (pseudo) Christianity: Joel Osteen.

(Click here to view the video Clip)

To be fair to Mr. Osteen, he did pretty well for the first 31 seconds of this exchange. After that, it wasn’t just that he went downhill; he did a freefall plummet out of the sky. Saying that the people in India (who presumably are not Christians by the context of his statement) “love God” by practicing what the Bible declares to be idolatry is nothing less than pure theological garbage. He is right that we don’t know definitely who is or who is not saved, assuming that we’re only looking at professing Christians, but to say regarding other faiths, “I don't know if I believe they're wrong.” is to skip past humility and jump straight into a denial of God’s Word and it is heresy of the first order.

In the final clip, there are three primary speakers here: a rabbi, a priest, and a minister. No joke, that’s the case. Rabbi Harold Kushner, Father William Byron, and Albert Mohler who is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary fulfill these three different roles. You can watch for yourself, but you will see both Rabbi Kushner and Father Byron basically say that regardless of what you believe, your good works will get you to heaven. After that, Mohler will give the appropriate, correct, and biblical response. (this clip has bad video quality)

(Click here to view the video Clip)

I don’t think that Rabbi Kushner, Father Byron, or Father Manning represent the crazy wacko-wings of their respective religions, but rather I think that they represent the main-stream. In the same way, I think that Joel Osteen represents much of those who would now call themselves evangelicals. Albert Mohler represents the traditional and historical affirmations of the Christian faith in that we are saved in Christ alone by the preaching of the Word of God (Romans 10:13-15).

I am not in line with Mr. Osteen’s presentation of the gospel, his emphasis on prosperity (health, wealth, etc.), or that Christians can live your best life now in Christ (unless by that he means and articulates that we will undergo trials, tribulations, persecutions, and possibly martyrdom for the cause of Christ). If he were a pastor in my denomination, I would call for disciplinary action and most likely removal from his pulpit because he clearly does not understand the gospel. Dr. Mohler affirms the gospel, and although we may disagree on some issues (none come to mind right now), I applaud his stance and encourage him on in his ministry.

If these two Catholic Priests are correctly articulating Catholic theology, then it is proof positive that the Catholic Church is as apostate as the Mormon church or the wishy-washy self-help protestant churches like the one that Mr. Osteen pastors. Again, if indeed this is the official gospel preached by the Roman Catholic Church, neither I nor you owe it any allegiance, nor should we pay it lip service, nor should we genuflect to it. If, however, these Priests are preaching a gospel that is contrary to official Roman Catholic theology, with the very intricate hierarchy that exists, why are they still active Roman Catholic Priests? Why have they not been corrected by whatever disciplinary system that is present? Why have they not been defrocked? Why have they not been excommunicated?

If the Roman Catholic Church is unwilling or unable to severely discipline those members of its clergy who so blatantly blaspheme the gospel, I cannot support it, I cannot defend it, and I cannot be in communion with it. Any church that allows men to preach the false gospel that these men (Byron, Manning, or Osteen) preach is apostate to the very gospel that Christ died to bring to us in such a basic and foundational way that there is no excuse for it.

Justification by Faith - John MacArthur Vid.

John MacArthur articulates the doctrine of imputation relating to the believer's justification in 45 seconds.



Praise god that I am forgiven and that God has granted me eternal life based upon the life, death, and resurrection of His Beloved Son!

be a berean - don't be fooled

When dealing with the issue of Iraq being a just war, watch to see if you can see someone misusing/misquoting scripture to. Also, the point of using this clip is not to get into a discussion for the pros/cons of Iraq or any other political matter, it is only to show the use of scripture by people who claim to affirm Christ.



Did you notice the quick references to the prophets by Bishop Talbert? He made reference to "making swords into plowshares" as having been promoted by three prophets (Joel, Isaiah, and Micah) and uses that as the basis to say that Christ would be opposed to war (specifically this one). Well, I took the liberty of looking up the references that he seemed to be talking about.

"And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war." (Isaiah 2:4)

"Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, 'I am a mighty man.'" (Joel 3:10)

"And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war." (Micah 4:3)

Isaiah and Micah both tell their audience to "hammer their swords into plowshares" but Joel says, "Beat your plowshares into swords" which is the exact reverse. This shows that at times God calls for the use of arms, and at others we are to be peaceful. It is as untrue to make the blanket statement that God is opposed to all war as it is to say that He is a war monger who always delights in endless warring.

Compromising the Gospel

I know that I am way behind on getting involved in the "you tube" phenomenon, but...oh well. I thought that the video clip below was a good articulation of the gospel and specifically regarding the exclusiveness of it.

I think that this shows the danger of being at all squishy in our theology or even in how we express our theology. We dare not ever proclaim a gospel that is only true "for me" or that is "my path" and not make the declaration that all men need to repent and believe in Christ. I also think that the pointed scriptural questions that John MacArthur asks as a rebuttal of the statements of a non-exclusive God is clarifying. The first response back is to ask about the faith of a genuine Jew, and if what MacArthur is saying (he is expressing what the Bible clearly teaches), then the Jew is on the wrong path. EXACTLY! That is why we need to evangelize everyone.