Daniel Abbey

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

It seems that atheism is undergoing something of a renaissance these days.

Not that it has ever gone out of style; there always has and always will be an abundance of people who don’t believe in God. In recent years, however, atheism (or the New Atheism as it is popularly known) is making a marked comeback, vehemently opposing anything and everything in its humanistic path, Christianity being its chief opponent.

Leading the fray is the multi-awarded Richard Dawkins, New Atheism’s poster child and perhaps the movement’s most outspoken evangelist. Dawkins is a biological theorist who used to teach at Oxford University until his retirement in 2008. He is the author of the best-selling book “The GOD Delusion” and a notorious critic of religion.

His disdain for Christianity is legendary. Says Dawkins in an interview with the Independent:

“…insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. “

Dawkins enjoys pillorying Christianity. The very notion that the God of the Bible could exist is patently absurd to him. Ironically Dawkins is something of a god himself for being as outspoken, accomplished, and articulate about atheism as he is. His major scientific cred and Old Testament zeal have impressed thousands of junior atheists the world over; his teachings have been all but canonized by the Dawkins faithful.

Dawkins is one in a long line of internationally famous atheists with sparkling academic credentials and snarling arguments against God. They all raise their fingers against the Almighty, denying His existence, insisting that THEY have the right answer and that all begins and ends with science and science alone.

They pen bestsellers, engage in international debates, and draw multitudes into their web forums; they laud their own ideas while ridiculing all opposition, even if their dissenters offer thoroughly academic counterarguments to their Godless positions.

There’s nothing we can do or say to repudiate their claims, we are told; our arguments are weak and emotional, our evidences flawed, fabricated, pitiful. Darwinism is the true gospel; the New Atheists its chief promulgators. We Christians are urged to move out of their way or be steamrolled by the unrelenting “truth” of the humanist perspective.

Of course, a whole slew of rabid followers eat this up. And the result is an intense movement that’s rapidly gaining momentum across the world, spreading a particularly aggressive form of atheism that’s aimed squarely at toppling Christianity and instituting Darwinism and humanism as the only true explanations for life and living.

What are we to do in the face of this fierce opposition to the truth of God’s Word and our Christian faith?

Well for one, don’t run. While it’s easy to be intimidated by intellectuals hostile to Christianity, don’t hide, don’t cower, and don’t feel sorry for yourself if you can’t answer their every objective. We have nothing to fear (2 Timothy 1:7); New Atheism is simply an old lie screamed with renewed conviction. But like dogs without fangs, atheists are limited to barking.

Next we need to realize that while atheism is in direct opposition to what we believe and its adherents often use arguments and speech that is painful to hear and tolerate, atheists are still lost people in need of a Savior. They are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13) and are blinded by the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). The fact that they are so anti-God should make us realize how much danger they are in and how desperately they need Jesus.

And how are they to come to faith in Christ?

Through the gospel according to Jesus of course.

The gospel is what convicts people, exposes their sin, and smashes their sense of self-righteousness to pieces. When God sees fit, the gospel breaks men in the light of His law which they realize they cannot possibly keep. And ultimately it ushers them to Jesus Christ, the sinless God-man who lived a perfect life and offered it on the cross as a pleasing blood sacrifice to the Father.

The gospel is the story of the atonement of Christ for our sins, His dying in our place that we might never have to endure the punishment for all our wrongdoing. It is the story of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, His victory over death that completes the redemption saga and makes possible full restitution between sinful man and an infinitely holy God.

It’s the news atheists need to hear, more than Biblical apologetics and arguments for Intelligent Design. For it is “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16) – the key to setting them free from sin and spiritual blindness.

Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe in refuting error with truth and sound apologetics, in being ready with an answer for anyone who asks why we believe in God (1 Peter 3:15). I agree that atheism needs to be debunked and that believers should arm themselves with Biblical knowledge (as well as knowledge of what they’re fighting against) to do so.

And I totally support and dig people who have devoted much of their lives to countering the shrill cry of atheism.

The works of great apologists like Ravi Zacharias and Josh McDowell are thought-provoking and indispensable; similarly, the distinguished Oxford mathematician John Lennox (who has refuted Richard Dawkins in many an insightful debate) has much good to say on the subjects of science, philosophy, and God. His life, teaching, and example are great sources of strength and encouragement for anyone grappling and squaring off with atheist ideas.

CS Lewis made a powerful case for the faith with his classic book Mere Christianity (as well as many other esteemed works); Lee Strobel, the investigative journalist turned Christian apologist, has written several compelling works that effectively destroy common “intellectual” objections against Jesus, the Bible, and the Christian faith.

And more recently, chief Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer has released a cutting-edge book on the case of Intelligent Design which has rocked the scientific community, both Christian and secular, with its arguments for a Creator God based on the unfathomable and magnificent complexities of our DNA code.

But as I said, while providing reasonable support for our faith through apologetics and thoroughly researched and well-written scientific books in favor of God is good, the arguments themselves won’t save people from their sins.

Only the gospel can do that.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of engaging an atheist via email and exchanging a few ideas regarding God, science, the Bible, and what it means to be a Christian. I was told by a mutual friend that he was open to the idea of God if only someone could produce incontrovertible proof of His existence. I sat for a while, pondering how I should phrase my first email.

Although I wanted to start with an emphatic statement, a contention that was almost as incontrovertible than the God I was trying to prove, I ended up abandoning an “opening argument” as it were and proceeded instead to narrate my statement of faith – why I am a Christian and what I believe to be true of God, Jesus Christ, and the gospel. I didn’t want to get bogged down by complex apologetical/scientific arguments (there’d be plenty of time for that later) – I simply wanted to be like Paul who declared to the Corinthians, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

He replied right away, rejecting outright the existence of God (claiming, among other things, that since he doesn’t believe in God and sin, that he is actually sinless!) We went into a short exchange, a quick 24-hour flurry of activity which ended in 16 emails, lots of strong words, and a fascinating look into the mind of an atheist.

His comments were irritating and insulting; perhaps mine were too (to his ears anyway).

And while no one was soon “converted”, I like to think that I had sowed the seeds of the gospel in his heart. If he one day responds and turns to Christ then I will rejoice with the angels in heaven. If he doesn’t, I’ll be sad but not surprised.

“The gospel is foolishness to the natural man; his mind cannot understand it” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Ultimately, atheists will reject the gospel and the God from whom it comes simply because they do not understand it. They want no part in God’s truth; their only wish is to believe worldly ideas which, although they may have the appearance of wisdom, are as valuable as goat droppings.

Yet for every thousand or hundred thousand people who mock the gospel, who spit on the Savior, who laugh ferociously at the truth of the Atonement, there will be a handful of people who’ll be genuinely saved (John 6:37). These will be penetrated by the Word, quickened by the Spirit into believing God’s truth, and they’ll abandon all hope in their faulty and humanistic concepts to embrace Jesus as Lord.

The gospel is the means by which men are saved. Apologetics and sound scientific arguments in favor of a Creator God are extremely useful tools in opening minds to Christ. But the opening of hearts is the Spirit’s work. When the Word of God is taught with clarity and conviction the Spirit moves men to repentance.

Share the gospel. Don’t be afraid of the New Atheism.

I’ve often heard people say that spiritual maturity has nothing (or very little) to do with growing intellectually in the faith. That somehow, true spiritual growth is defined by what you do and not how much you learn.

I have no idea what that means. Growth in Christ comes by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2). And that entails learning spiritual things.

Once we learn new things, we can put them into practice. Correct theology begets correct living.

The idea that a Christian can grow and live spiritually without loading up on Biblical truth is a strange one. But it’s a popular view often presented as a humble way to approach the Christian life. After all, doesn’t knowledge “puff up”? Isn’t living like Christ more important than mastering sound theology?

Not really. The Bible puts equal emphasis on both practical Christianity like praying, loving, and serving (1 Thessalonians 5:17; Galatians 5:14; 1 Peter 4:10) and loving the truth, which involves holding to it, preaching it, and guarding it (Titus 1:9, 2:1; Jude 3). You can’t have one without the other.

But these days many Christians can’t be bothered with the workings of sound doctrine. I suppose a dark history of burning each other at the stake over theology put a damper on the call for learning systemized truth.”Doctrine divides; love unites!” is as prevalent a cry as it ever has been.

Yet consider what the author of Hebrews had to say:

“…though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (5:12-14)

Apparently, he was expecting his audience to have matured enough in their faith to be teachers of spiritual truth.  Instead he finds them still as spiritual babes, unable to discern good from evil, let alone teach the faith. They needed “the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” – the equivalent to baby milk, which is all their undeveloped minds could take.

Why is it so important to move onto “solid food”?

I can think of three reasons.

A Strong Foundation

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25)

When you make Jesus’ teaching the bedrock of your faith, you’re invincible. Notice how Jesus says, “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” won’t be shaken? It’s about understanding (hearing) and doing (practice). You can’t practice what you don’t understand.

It’s also important to actually live out the things you believe in, to let your knowledge of the truth shape your behavior. Knowledge that isn’t acted upon leads to destruction; it’s like building a house on the sand (v 6). When the storms of life and the attacks on your faith begin to pummel you like a relentless tsunami, you can bet your house will be swept away in the chaos.

If we’re grounded and growing in the truth and power of Scripture, we can rise above any situation and help others do so too. Which leads us to:

Effective Outreach

We are all called to proclaim the gospel and the beauty of Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). But how can we do so if our knowledge of the Lord is thin? How can we win others to Jesus if we ourselves have little comprehension of man’s depravity, the nature of salvation, and God’s sovereignty over the entire process?

How can we mutually build each other up if we can never progress from the elementary truths of Scripture? How can our messages of hope to one another be anything more than fluff if we’ve never feasted on the meatier aspects of our faith?

It’s hard to win people to Christ; it’s even harder to raise a flock of healthy believers. The work is all the more cofounded by people who harbor weak doctrine and an unwillingness to learn the deep truths of God.

We need to continuously steep ourselves in the Word and fortify our doctrinal foundations in order to make more effective presentations of Christ and His truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Defending the Truth

The Bible makes it clear we are to be ready with an answer for people who might ask why we believe what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). We must also be ready to teach the truth and refute those who stand in error (Titus 1:9).

Failure to defend the faith will allow others to steamroll over the truth with their heresies. This can be disastrous for people who have yet to hear and respond to the gospel.

A case in point? Roman Catholicism. If we can’t even present a correct gospel to people trapped inside this insidious and apostate system, if we can’t refute the numerous heresies perpetuated by the Roman church, then how can we expect Catholics to come to a true saving knowledge of Jesus?

We must be able to take a stand and effectively defend the truth when called for.

Now does this mean we should all enroll in Bible school and become masters of theological wizardry? Do we need to commit to unfailing memory every jot and tittle of Calvin’s Institutes or Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology?

While that might be very cool, not everyone has the mental capacity to be an RC Sproul or Augustine. But that doesn’t mean we should shy away from the deeper mysteries of the Bible. Rather, we must be compelled to learn continuously about Christ, to embrace His revealed truth, to cherish it, uphold it, and let it transform our minds and daily living.

We fail to do so at our own peril (Hosea 4:6).

During our Old Testament Review class at CCF yesterday we came across a couple of happenings in the book of Numbers that made everyone stop reading and break into laughter.

Which, of course, begs the question:

The book of Numbers???

I’ll admit, it’s the last place in the Bible I thought I’d find something funny. All those people being swallowed by the earth, blowtorched by God at the Tent of Meeting, or mauled by poisonous snakes – surely there couldn’t be a more serious book in Scripture?

And yet Numbers has some fascinating accounts which amount to some interesting black comedy.

For instance, in chapter 11 the children of Israel are complaining to Moses about their seemingly boring food supply. The effect of Manna (that mysterious yet tasty material rained down from heaven everyday) has worn off on them and now they’re moaning about how much they miss meat:

“…If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!” (Numbers 11:4b-6)

Pretty grateful bunch, eh? God thought so too. Consider his response to Moses:

“Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The LORD heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the LORD, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?” ‘ ” (18-20, emphasis added)

God peeved = holy sarcasm = funny.

And sobering.

We all had to chuckle again, a short while later, in chapter 25. Here, Israel really lets it loose:

While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them. (Numbers 25:1-3)

These guys were the recipients of God’s 10 commandments. They knew the standard to which they were called to live. They also knew how severely God dealt with sin: from the supernatural plagues in Egypt to the splitting of the Red Sea, to the quelling of Korah’s rebellion with fire – they had a pretty good idea of what it was like to push God over the edge.

And yet they “played the harlot” (NASB) with foreign women and started worshipping non-existent gods, something they were expressly forbidden to do.

God’s reaction?

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” (4)

Standard operating procedure, really. God is holy, man is sinful, and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). God demands the violators be put to death in no uncertain terms – and the better people in Israel mourn because judgment has come upon them.

But what happens next?

Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. (6, emphasis added)

Some dude with a Midianite chick on his arm walks right past Moses and everyone else gathered at the Tent as they mourn their grave situation. The nerve!

I can imagine God has just made his fiery pronouncement and the people are stunned into silence, broken only by repentant sobbing. Suddenly this guy comes strolling through the compound, girl in tow, and he weaves his way through the people, oblivious.

“…excuse me, thanks… excuse me, guy coming through…cheers…”

I can imagine a thousand jaws dropping and Moses almost having a seizure.

What happens next, however, is far from funny:

When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. (7-8)

The couple is in their tent, seemingly getting their groove on, when in walks the priest’s son with a spear and bam! He impales the couple permanently to their bed.

So much for having a bit of fun.

The lesson in all this?

One, God hates sin and will punish it one way or another.

And two, while some sin may seem like fun to us at the time, we won’t be having the last laugh.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

The emergent church has finally made it to Philippine shores.

I guess it was just a matter of time.

What is the emergent church? There’s no way to sum it up in a pithy one-liner. If you’re dying to know what all the fuss is about I suggest you go over and read what David Kowalski has to say about all things emergent/ing over at Apologetics Index. His definitions and summations are spot on.

But for those of you who don’t have time to read through several pages of material and want something in a nutshell, let me have a stab at it:

The emergent church is a movement in evangelical Christianity that seeks to do things differently, usually in ways that challenge evangelical church traditions.

I’d say that’s a very basic definition of what it is to be emergent. Mark Driscoll, himself an “emerging” pastor, sums it up this way:

The emerging church is a growing, loosely connected movement of primarily young pastors who are glad to see the end of modernity and are seeking to function as missionaries who bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to emerging and postmodern cultures. The emerging church welcomes the tension of holding in one closed hand the unchanging truth of evangelical Christian theology (Jude 3) and holding in one open hand the many cultural ways of showing and speaking Christian truth as a missionary to America (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Since the movement, if it can be called that, is young and is still defining its theological center, I do not want to portray the movement as ideologically unified because I myself swim in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church.

So far, so nice. I myself gravitate towards conservative emergent thought, especially the idea that we should be missionaries that truly speak the truth in a culture that mostly despises it, in a way that is clear and not hindered by “old fashioned” sensibilities (i.e. I have long hair, wear an earring, but can and will make a coherent presentation of the gospel of Jesus whenever possible). It’s probably this part of the emergent movement that young people mostly gravitate to – the promise that there are new and exciting ways to express one’s faith and not just be a product of a legalistic and boring system.

But I reject emergent values mainly because of the liberalism and heresy that typifies most of the movement. Driscoll, a theologically conservative pastor himself, explains why he had to distance himself from his peers:

I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church Movement in its early days and spent a few years traveling the country to speak to emerging leaders in an effort to help build a missional movement in the United States. The wonderful upside of the emerging church is that it elevates mission in American culture to a high priority, which is a need so urgent that its importance can hardly be overstated.

I had to distance myself, however, from one of many streams in the emerging church because of theological differences. Since the late 1990s, this stream has become known as Emergent. The emergent church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only differences is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.

The liberal stream that Driscoll refers to is the real cause for alarm. And at this point in its development, it is a dangerous mix of post-modernism and heresy that is systematically attacking Biblical truth and undermining the Body of Christ.

I suppose that’s a pretty harsh summary for a movement that seems so bent on recapturing what it means to “live like Jesus” in a needy, dying world. As Driscoll mentions, US emergents have elevated mission work in their country and others across the world are following suit. It’s a good thing, for sure, to authentically reach one’s community for Christ by loving and serving people while proactively and unashamedly sharing the gospel (Galatians 5:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

The problem is, many emergents don’t believe in the Biblical gospel; many don’t even believe in a Biblical hell. And that’s not all; most of the emergent church’s key leaders have embraced relativism and liberalism in exchange for orthodoxy and the reliability of Scripture.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, says of the movement:

“Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this [emerging church] movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind.”

And this is the heart of the emergent/ing brand: truth is unknowable, so let’s all stop making creedal propositions and start a conversation.

Emergent pastors and leaders have a real disdain for the idea of absolute truth. They teach that the Bible is ultimately a big mystery. That we should be “humble” in approaching the Word and not make big, definitive pronouncements.

Consider what Brian McLaren, the emergent movement’s principle spokesperson, has to say about the gospel:

“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be ’saved’?…. I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”

Compare that to Jesus’ declaration: “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18). The Lord sounded pretty sure that his gospel would have its desired effect. For McLaren to assert we’ve somehow missed the point after two thousand years of Christianity seems to undermine Scripture and all that the Lord has accomplished in history so far.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who attends an emergent church in The Fort. I asked him what they’re all about. He gave me the run down: they’re about reaching people in their contexts.

In this case, they’re reaching young people who have “short attention spans and communicate through music”. Which explains why they do church inside a bar with alternative rock bands holding down the stage. You can also sit and drink beer while worship is in motion; he once drank whiskey during a service.

Anyone can attend; the preaching is “inspiring and unthreatening”. The atmosphere is “non-judgmental,” my friend told me. The overarching idea is that his church is hip and cool, the preaching short and peppy, and you can be yourself, whatever you may be.

Which suits people of many persuasions, of course. Another friend of mine, a gay non-believer, informed me she attends this same church. I asked her how this came to be.

She basically finds it a really cool place to hang out (it is held in a bar after all) and besides the fact that she can drink alcohol while the worship service is in motion, she likes what she hears.

“Did you know that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality?” she asked me.

I was astounded. “What else do you like about that church?” I asked.

“It’s just really nice to know that God loves me.”

Indeed. This seems to be the trend. And it’s easy to see why people buy it. A fun, modern “church” where you can sip beer and listen to perky, non-confrontational messages and funky music sounds like a good deal.

Except it’s not anything like a New Testament church.

Yet emergent churches embrace this “anything to everyone” approach because it fits their pragmatic ideals. It’s rooted in the seeker sensitive philosophy that if you’re cool enough, if you rock like the world, look just like the heroes of the young, and preach (or dialog, as is the emergent buzzword) in non-threatening sound bites, then you can win people over.

Forget teaching about sin, the atonement of Christ, the holiness of God, and what it means to obey Jesus as unequivocal Lord; what do you want to do, scare people away?

Says McLaren,

“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are, to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord.”

He adds,

“The problem with the critics [conservative Evangelicals] here is that they think they have a superior, timeless gospel that floats above any culture…”

McLaren can say things like this because according to him, truth is ultimately inscrutable. Yet is that accurate? If so, the gospel is truly unknowable and we conservatives really can’t believe in a “superior, timeless gospel”.

But what does the Bible have to say about itself?

“For the word of the LORD holds true, and everything he does is worthy of our trust.”

Psalm 33:4

“The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

Psalm 119:160

“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

1Timothy 2:3-4

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 8:32

It would seem the Word of God is clear on how truthful it actually is. And it’s not some kind of unreachable truth that’s shrouded in mystery. Jesus promises that we’ll know and truly understand the truth – and it will set us free.

McLaren, of course, is not the only one who espouses such ideas. He and many others have jettisoned orthodox Christianity for a post-modern approach. And in their abandonment of sound theology they have opened the floodgates to gross error; error that can lead to damning results.

How much of the emergent movement has infiltrated the Philippines? I honestly don’t know. I see strains of it here and there; there are a couple of churches that seem to be leaning in the emergent direction.

I heard one local pastor preach and infer that theology and knowledge are not really that important to the Christian life; simple faith is what has the most potent and lasting impact. This may sound wise and appealing on the surface (especially to those who are tired of dead orthodoxy and “divisive” theology) but in reality it’s just another way of saying, “It’s OK to not pay attention to sound doctrine as long as your heart is in the right place.”

Which of course is nonsense.

Faith and knowledge go hand in hand; the greatness of your faith is informed by how much you know about God, his Word, and His character as revealed in Scripture. There’s no big mystery to it: the more you know about Him, the more faith you have. The less you know about God, the less your faith.

But things like knowing God, Biblical truth, and orthodox theology have little place in emergent churches. These things come across as outmoded, heavy handed, and too certain (not enough mystery).

Says Kristen Bell, wife of emergent superstar pastor Rob Bell:

“I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again — like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”

Tony Jones, another prominent emergent leader adds that we should,

“…stop looking for some objective Truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible.”

In abandoning the truth and clarity of the Word of God, many emergents have fallen headlong into serious error. We’ve already seen how far off the theological deep end Brian McLaren is. Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, flatly denies the reality of eternal punishment for sinners in hell. And read what Rob Bell has to say about the virgin birth:

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

“But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?”

Riiiight.

I’m watching how the movement evolves here in the Philippines. I pray the extremes of emergent thought never take root. To now deny absolute truth and weave in its place a concoction of half-truths masquerading as Biblical wisdom is even more perilous than just being seeker sensitive. (A marriage of the two, which seems to be the happening thing, is probably our worst nightmare).

John MacArthur helps put things in perspective:

I believe the church has one function, and that is to guard the truth, to proclaim the truth and to live the truth. So you take the Word of God, you teach it, you proclaim it, you protect it, you defend it, and you live it, and that’s a church. The Word of God rightly divided, rightly understood.

That’s not the idea in a seeker church; that’s not the idea certainly in an emerging church.  Everything becomes style and contextualization and everything is built around the manipulation of people’s hot buttons as if we were selling a product like any other product in our culture. This fails to understand that the only real power in the spiritual realm is Divine and that God works His power through His truth, and that’s all that matters.

Stand for the truth people. God bless.

I wasn’t aware of how complex this question was until a recent controversy in my mother’s home church.

My mum, who is the church treasurer and head of the Budget Committee, received a letter that took issue with her proposal to raise the pastor’s salary.

She didn’t take it too well. Not only did she find the complaint offensive but she couldn’t understand why someone (a church leader no less) would want to limit a pastor’s income when the church was quite capable of providing good compensation.

This led to a lively discussion as we analyzed all the angles. The proposed raise was by no means exorbitant but admittedly, it would mean the pastor would be earning a better salary than many of the church members. Yet it seemed acceptable and I thought it was a wonderful idea. The congregation certainly had no qualms about the proposed raise, save for this one voice of dissent.

Anyway, it got me thinking: just how do you calculate a pastor’s salary? And if you settle on a salary that is good (not excessive but better than some secular salaries), how do you justify it?

Should a pastor’s pay be based upon the total average income of each church member? Or should he be paid according to certain criteria that include academic accomplishment, field experience, and man-hours?

My mum wanted to write a rebuttal and I offered to help her out. I did some research and thought long and hard about what I believe are valid reasons to pay a pastor a decent salary. In getting my thoughts on paper and hashing out my convictions on the matter, I reaffirmed my commitment to honoring the pastorate and would like to now explain how we can all do that.

Of course, there is no singular formula that works across the board for all churches. Each institution is unique. The pastors too: some are more experienced than others; some are better educated; others are more committed to certain types of ministry than the rest.

There are so many variations and expressions of the local church and so many different kinds of pastors it would be difficult and impractical to impose one particular rule of compensation on everyone.

Yet I believe there are a few sensible ideas to consider when figuring out how much to reward a minister.

THE PASTOR’S COMMITMENT TO THE WORD AND SOUND PREACHING

The job of the pastorate is considerably harder and more demanding than many, if not all public service jobs.

You see a pastor’s primary responsibility, the one thing that consumes most of his time, is to study and preach the Word of God, a responsibility that not just anyone can assume. It is a calling of the highest order, a job that God will judge with the utmost severity (Jas.3:1) precisely because it is such a monumental task.

We are talking about “rightly dividing” the Word of Truth. There is no other job in this world that comes close to the utmost seriousness of this task. If the pastor mishandles the Word, it is not only a personal affront to our Lord, the source of all Truth, but the results could be disastrous – broken spiritual lives and lost souls condemned to hell.

Hence the stern warning and strict requirements of pastor-teachers.

How a pastor handles the Word, in both study and delivery, has great bearing on how he should be monetarily compensated. Put another way, if he performs his studying and preaching duties worthily, we should reward him accordingly (1 Timothy 5:18).

Sermon preparation is an intense process that requires much concentration, energy, and skill. Pastors must be versed in ancient history, culture, systematic theology, maybe some Greek and Hebrew (the more knowledge, the better), and even current events, to name a few. It is highly consuming work that knows no standard hours and requires a dedication of the mind and spirit – as well as a heart that is radically in tune with God. For it is God that illuminates and grants wisdom.

The interpretation and preaching of the Bible is not something anyone can do; it is not a job that should be taken lightly; it is not a task that gets easier with time. Just look at the hundreds of cults that rise out of the slipshod handling of the Word – anyone can assign meaning to Scripture and twist it to support their convoluted theology.

It is a dedicated and fearful man who rightly divides the Word of truth. The pastor who approaches the Scriptures with fear, reverence, academic intensity, and Christ-centered devotion must be rewarded by the church out of respect and love, as commanded by Christ.

I believe pastors who spend most of their week steeped in the Word, drawing deep from the well of God’s truth so that we might understand it more fully, are worthy of reward.

If this means paying the pastor a salary that allows him to eat, clothe himself, and enjoy some of life’s luxuries, as well as provide for his family, send his children to good schools, save for his future, and have money left over to bless other people (of which there is an endless abundance) I fully support giving a pastor a salary above the average pay of a public servant, complete with as many fringe benefits as possible.

THE PASTOR’S COMMITMENT TO SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Pastors are called to serve – and that often means sacrificing one’s own time and comfort to respond to crises or situations no one else is equipped (or willing) to handle.

On a purely secular level, the work hours some pastors put in are above and beyond that of, say, a traditional nurse or schoolteacher. Many pastors are practically on call 24/7. Their job, in terms of man-hours, is comparable to that of a doctor in that he is available all the time to respond to the needs of his flock.

The tremendous amount of work a pastor is often faced with is enough to make lesser men balk and run for cover. The minister who continuously makes himself available in a self-sacrificial manner is worthy of reward.

THE CONGREGATION’S COMMITMENT TO LOVE

I think the biggest factor in determining how much a pastor should be compensated lies in how much a church is willing to love back her God-given shepherd.

Let’s say a pastor has labored in your church for 20 years. For two decades you have known him, seen him and his family grow, saddled with him through various trials, afflictions, temptations, and storms; seen and heard firsthand the incredible amount of personal attack, demonic persecution, and emotional testing over many years of service; you’ve listened and been privileged to hear him preach the Bible, day in, day out, with a dedication to academic excellence, theological purity, and devotion to the glory of Jesus; you’ve watched him shepherd you and the rest of his flock through many ups and downs, changes and growth, over many years; you’ve witnessed him stand with integrity as many others have fled or compromised their faith;

How deep are you willing to dig into your heart to give back and ensure that he and his family live comfortably as they continue to serve with joy and gladness in your church?

Is it too much to reward a pastor, someone who leads in spiritual matters that have eternal ramifications, beyond what people in the secular world earn?

Is it too much to provide a pastor with all that he needs and beyond, especially when so many pastors around us are underpaid, mistreated, and vilified by their own congregations?

Now I don’t want to be misunderstood: I DON’T advocate compensation packages that allow for lavish and ridiculously excessive lifestyles like those of many televangelists out there. I simply believe that dedicated ministers should be well taken care of, whether it’s through a reasonable salary or helpful fringe benefits (or both).

If you are blessed with a shepherd who has been in the trenches longer than you would probably care to consider, who has demonstrated an undeniable devotion to the Word, the church, and the Lord Jesus, and your church can afford to pay him well, I say do so.

Your thoughts?

I seriously love our new coffee machine.

My wife and I recently bought a Braun Coffee Maker so we could start consuming a huge cask of ground coffee sent by my mother-in-law from the US. We didn’t want to let the coffee go to waste and had always wanted to ditch instant coffee anyway. So we invested in a simple unit and began brewing.

So far, so addicted. I’ve always enjoyed coffee but to now wake up to the pleasant aroma of freshly brewed coffee hanging in the clear morning air, well it’s pure joy.

To be able to warm the house with a pot of coffee in the afternoon while the world outside endures a cold and relentless downpour is also a real treat.

Reading a good book over a swirling mug of steaming coffee is further proof we made a decent and crucial investment.

I’m loving every minute.

I’m also wary of the shakes.

Not that my increased coffee intake has suddenly turned me into a sunken-eyed, trembling madman (homeschooling my son takes care of that). It’s just that whenever I amplify my flirtations with coffee I always undergo a heightened sense of awareness that seriously impedes my ability to function like a normal human being.

In other words, coffee plays on my nerves.

I can remember several occasions when this hasn’t been a good thing.

One was when I was shaving.

I was at the kitchen sink and had laid aside a small stand mirror to rinse my razor. Now anyone who knows me is aware that I abhor rats and anything else that crawls rapidly and without remorse. You’ll also know that I once lived in a house that had a serious rat and cockroach problem.

I was at the sink when I saw some quick movement in the mirror, something that resembled a lumbering rodent headed in my direction.

Naturally, I freaked. After a few seconds flailing about the kitchen like a donkey having a spasm, I realized that the “rodent” in the mirror was merely a quick reflection of my arm.

How sad.

My current caffeine intake, although elevated, has so far produced little in the way of similarly erratic behavior. But I do feel it’s fast approaching a level where paranoia is a virtue and regular gesticulation is the mark of a true coffee hero.

I’m sort of code yellow at the moment, approaching code red, if you know what I mean. I’m more prone to fiendish outbursts whenever my son jumps out from behind me, more liable to type a hundred mistakes a minute when speed typing (or whatever you call rapid typing with four fingers while salivating over the keyboard).

I don’t want to regulate my coffee, although that’s probably the best thing to do at this point.

It’s a good thing there are no rodents where I now live.

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

The Bible.

Either it’s true or it’s not.

Either it’s riddled with lies, tainted by men’s meddling fingers, tinged with heresy, and a false account of history…

OR

…it’s the truth of God, inerrant, infallible, and must be obeyed.

Think about that for a second.

If the Bible is false then it is not the Word of God. And if we don’t have the Word of God we must then give up our faith and walk away. We should close our churches, ditch our 6-day creation beliefs, forget the 10 Commandments, and move on to something else.

Why? Because the Bible is to the Christian what space is to the universe. You can’t have a Christian faith without the Bible. It is the foundation upon which our faith stands.

No Bible = No Christianity = No salvation = No heaven = No hell = No Accountability = No submission to Christ as Lord.

Which explains why there are many people who try to discredit the Good Book. If you can undermine the truthfulness of Scripture then you can pretty much destroy the Christian system. And if you can destroy the system, there’s no need for church, for following Christ’s audacious demands, for bowing the knee to the Creator God.

I can see how a “holey” Bible is appealing to atheists and non-Christians. It frees them from the “oppression” of God, the threat of eternal punishment in fire, the need to give up vice and worldly pleasure. It allows them to pursue their own agenda in this world minus a seared conscience.

It allows people to “move on” from so-called backwater ideas of deity and into 21st century, naturalistic enlightenment.

So the attacks happen and they are constant. They are fierce and unrelenting. And they are designed to dismantle Christianity and do away with God forever.

But…

…what if the Bible is true?

What if God really does exist and has revealed Himself through a first century Jew called Jesus?

What if Christ really did die on the cross and rose from the dead that we might be delivered from sin and punishment to eternal life in heaven?

If the Bible is true, then we need to be paying a whole lot of attention to what it’s saying.

There’s just too much at stake.

Your soul, my soul.

Eternity.

But is there even a way to know if the bible is true? A way to verify its claims or at the very least, look into it from a historical point of view and see if it holds up under scrutiny?

Surely if one can prove it to be a historically sound and bibliographically reliable document, one can – and must – look into its claims as divine revelation?

There are, of course, myriad questions surrounding the Bible. Its origins, reliability, and truth are all subject to regular debate. And for a book that claims to be divine revelation – God’s truth no less – it deserves to be put under the microscope.

What most people don’t realize is that for each provocative question about the Scriptures there are equally provocative answers.

It’s all about examining every angle. From the Bible’s reliability as a historical document to its proclamations, prophecies, and its fiercely moral teachings; from its claims about Jesus’ life and works to His death and resurrection; from its power through the testimony of the early church fathers who died for it to the genuinely changed lives of the countless who believe it – the Bible must be examined, dissected, and pored over to see why these things are so.

There’s nothing to be afraid of. Jesus Himself assured us of two things:

“I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6, emphasis added)

“Then you will KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32, emphasis added)

The following links should be a good start.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
http://www.citw.org.uk/claims.htm

Last Wednesday I had an interesting conversation with one of our worship leaders, the multi-talented Magoo del Mundo. We were initially discussing traditional hymns and praise and worship, contrasting the styles, messages, and experience. I’m a big hymns fan and love it when the church band incorporates old hymns into the worship set. Magoo has an equal love for the timelessness and theology of many traditional hymns.

But it wasn’t his comments on the modern rendition of classic music that drove me into a fit of deep thought – it was his thoughts on what true worship is and his leftfield idea on how we might challenge traditional corporate worship.

“The Jews worshipped differently,” Magoo informed me. “They sang in response to what they heard about God.” In other words, we’ve got it wrong. We go to church on Sunday and do the bulk of our praise and worship before hearing the Word, not the other way around.

So the question is, why are we singing? Is it because Sunday morning worship is a centuries-old established pattern? Do we assume our seats and “warm up” for the sermon by singing or are we praising because we’re responding to something we learned about God’s awesomeness and Biblical truth?

My bet is that of say 100 people singing in church on a Sunday morning, only a tiny fraction are worshipping as a direct response to God and His Word. The rest of us just go through the motions because hey, that’s the pattern. We’re used to it.

What my friend postulates is this: Sunday morning praise and worship is nullified when all we do is sing because we’re used to it. True worship happens when we respond to the preaching – the Truth of God’s Word – by singing praise and adoration.

So if he had his way, and this is the cool part, the bulk of corporate praise and worship would be at the END of the service, not the beginning.

I love it when traditional paradigms get flipped on their head.

I think Magoo is right. The Bible says that true worshippers worship in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:23). A lot of us worship in Spirit, coming before the Lord on Sunday singing because it feels good and is a great way to “get started”. We may try to dig down and ask the Holy Spirit to fill our minds and buoy us as we sing, (perhaps hoping, erroneously, that a little mysticism will go a long way too).

But we don’t worship in Truth – we’re not responding to the preached Word that morning; we’re not singing because we’re absorbed in the Bible. We might simply be singing a shallow modern worship song that’s more vague that it is theologically uplifting.

There needs to be a balance; we must worship in Spirit and in Truth if it is to be acceptable and pleasing to the Father as well as meaningful for us.

I wonder if we can accomplish that by shaking things up and literally restructuring the Sunday service. What if we all arrived at church, sat down, and after a moment of prayer and perhaps one song (as a concession), the pastor plunged right into preaching? Then, after hearing the Word we give our offering and start the praise and worship in earnest?

The worship leaders would be free to choose songs that are tied into the sermon message and urge the congregation to really think about what they just heard. Like if the pastor preached on the Holiness of God we might just sing Holy, Holy, Holy with a lot more conviction and understanding. If the message was about God’s superabundant grace, Amazing Grace might turn into something more than just a timeless classic.

I’m all for experimentation within the church, especially if it means trying to Biblical over traditional.

What do you think?

I like a great analogy.

Not all of them work but when they’re spot on, like this one about parenting and archery, they can really shake the roof.

The other day when feeding my baby I noticed something that lent itself as an analogy for Christian consumption of the Word.

You see, a distinct pattern has evolved when it comes to feeding my baby girl. We start out normal – she’s sitting in her high chair, I’m feeding her out of a bowl. I make airplane noises and do nose-dives with the spoon; she opens her mouth to accept my culinary cargo.

Then after about 10 spoonfuls, she gets tired of sitting down and decides to stand up, hold the back of the chair and turn away from me. She’s still interested in eating, made evident as I maneuver her spoon and make some dynamic passes at her eagerly awaiting mouth. It’s just that she wants to move around a bit, distracted by the dining room at large.

After about another 10 spoonfuls she’s tired of the lame Spitfire engine sounds and constant pleading I’m subjecting her to. She tries to dismount her chair (dangerous) so I lift her out and relocate her to my left knee (safe). From here we resume the cargo delivery process, except this time my pleading has taken on a musical quality, the kind of sing-song tone that daddies assume makes their baby become more interested in finishing a meal (?!).

And the grand point of all this?

No matter what happens, Christian leaders must always preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).

Baby Christians will always be distracted by the world. The Devil continuously tries to lure God’s children away from truth with the pride of life. And at times it can get mighty frustrating for spiritual leaders trying to aid Christians in their daily sanctification and growth.

But rather than cater people’s every whim, rather than give in to their wants and tailor our message to fit their distracted natures, we should continue to feed them the pure, unadulterated Word.

They may test the sturdiness of their high chairs; they may be mesmerized by other objects in the room. But if our mission is to feed them, then feed them we must.

Can you imagine what’d happen to my baby if I gave up feeding every time she didn’t sit still and conform to my standards of eating a meal? Imagine how long she’d last if I exchanged baby food with lollypops just because they’re more colorful and tantalizing.

Yet all too often that’s what happens in some churches to the detriment of many spiritual lives.

We ought to take care that our flock is fed the Word, no matter what fickle diversions come their way.

Oh and I hope the analogy works

The Office meets modern Christendom. I haven’t laughed this much at a Christian video since… I can’t remember! I wish I had thought of this.