Yesterday’s editorial page in our local paper had a viewpoint published from the pastor of a local Lutheran church.  She noted how her congregation had helped the United Methodist congregation over the past several years while the Methodists were rebuilding their burnt facilities.  In this spirit of cooperation and unity she concluded with the following statement: “Join us and we will praise God in one place, not just as Lutherans and Methodists, but as Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, Presbyterians, Jews and many other spiritual traditions.  Hope to see you there!”

Christians ought to be sharing their faith and Thanksgiving to God, and the friendship between these two churches is a shining example of unity and love to all of us.  Though there are differences between the beliefs and practices of Methodists and Lutherans, both Martin Luther and Charles Wesley held to the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Today, however, this view has been jettisoned by their heirs and replaced with religious pluralism.

I don’t want to rain on the parade, but as nice as it sounds Lutherans, Methodists, Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews can only praise the same God if it is spelled “god”.  “The Lord our God is one Lord”, and “Him only shalt thou serve.”  God shares neither His name nor His glory and has chosen to reveal Himself only through His Son as recorded in the Holy Bible.  He stands with open arms to all who believe in Him, but they must come in the way which He prescribes: through Jesus Christ for “there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.”

It is tragic that those in the godly traditions of Luther and Wesley have drifted so far from their founders’ faith in Christ.  While love and unity are Christlike character traits sadly lacking in much of Christendom, they must be exercised with the realization that all roads do not lead to Rome and all spiritual traditions do not lead to God.

Some of you may know that Ray Comfort, the California evangelist from New Zealand, has brought out a 150^th Anniversary Edition of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.  In it he has placed his own 50 page introduction where he points out the fallacies of the theory, notes some of the ramifications of evolutionary philosophy (eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, etc.), and preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is planning on distributing this book free of charge on the campuses of the top universities in the United States.

Evolutionists and atheists are predictably irate; Richard Dawkins, the notorious British author of The God Delusion, calls Comfort an ignorant fool and tells students to rip out the introduction that Comfort wrote (http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=346&catid=33&Itemid=74).  Brian Greenwood, a professor at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California, calls Comfort’s tactic deceptive since those who take the book are allegedly in support of Darwin (“Darwin”, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Friday, November 20, 2009, A6).

Our local paper reported on the 1,000 copies distributed to Cal Poly students yesterday.  What was interesting about the report was that Ray Comfort and his organization Living Waters were called “fundamentalist”.  According to the paper, a Christian fundamentalist was one who disagrees with Darwin, promotes Christianity above Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, and chastises those who don’t believe in Heaven or Hell.  This view was referred to as his “group’s version of Christianity”.

Notice that the orthodox and biblical view of Christianity was now called a “fundamentalist” and, by implication, an extreme and narrow view of the Bible.  The unspoken point was that Comfort and his ilk were out of the mainstream and promoting something sectarian and unorthodox.  We need to understand that the culture is slowly equating biblical Christianity with extremism.

We also need to understand that the historic term “fundamental” has lost its meaning within mainstream culture.  On the one hand, it is being used to accurately label those who actually hold to biblical inspiration and authority and its separation from the religious pluralism of the world.  In this, Comfort has solidly taken his stand, and the secular media are associating Comfort and true Christianity with radical Islam and other sects that promote terror and violence and are a menace to society.  On the other hand, traditional fundamentalists would say that Comfort is not associated with historic American fundamentalism, but broader evangelicalism.  Traditional fundamentalists need to recognized that from the standpoint of the world, fundamentalism has a much broader tent, and that in our battle against Satan we are cohorts with more men than just those who fill our little groups.

So, does being “fundamental” convey something accurate or even desirable in today’s mainstream culture?  At a recent conference of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) one of the speakers noted that his church has stopped using the term “fundamental” in its promotions for some of these very reasons.  They have found that the phrase “Bible centered” has more effectively conveyed who they are to the world around them.

What is the point?  It seems that we need to re-think the label of “fundamental” that has defined us for the past eighty years.  If the label has become associated with that which does not become Christianity (Islamic terrorism), then we ought to abandon it.  It would please the god of this world to no end to have true biblical Christianity linked with that which is an abomination to God.  However, if the media is going to call us “fundamental” for believing in creation, Heaven, Hell, and the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then we will have to accept their label even as we try to show the difference between those who blow themselves up for a coercive and unmerciful god and those who preach Christ to convince men to freely trust in a merciful God.

David Wahlstedt is lead pastor at CrossPointe Commnity Church, an emergent church in Carrollton, Texas.  He was interviewed recently in the NOV/DEC 2009 Church Production magazine, and he recounts the incident that lead him away from traditional church services and into emergent worship:

“Ten years ago I was watching 20-somethings on AOL carrying on six different instant message conversations while talking to me and watching a movie at the same time.  And I thought to myself, ‘How am I ever going to get them to sit through 45 minutes of message when they are used to that fast-paced interaction?’”

While the question is intriguing, the answer needs to be based upon Scripture.  In our age of distraction and lack of focus, is the answer to package God’s Word in 15 second video sound-bytes while walking barefoot in 2,000 lbs. of sand spread over the sanctuary floor?  It seems that we have lost sight of the sufficiency of Scripture in breaking through the noise of our culture and penetrating the unregenerate heart.  From the days of Moses through the ministries of the Apostles the Lord has expected people to stop and listen to the spoken Word.  It takes time to reason through the message of the Gospel, and we dare not short-change that message.  The Christian message cuts across the distractions of a culture running from God and offers a place of quiet rest before Him.  All too often churches have resorted to reinforcing the very elements that keep men from a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Is there a place for a short verse? a quick Bible quote? a short video presentation?  Sure, but it must not come at the expense of giving attention to the reading of the Word and the subsequent time needed in expounding on the biblical text.  Digital screens, candles, and prayer walls cannot and should not take the place of the preaching of the cross.

Here is a quote from a recent interview with Michael Horton in Christianity Today (Nov. 2009, p. 49).  Mr. Horton is a professor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, CA, and the author of Christless Christianity.

“You also say it’s [the Gospel] not ‘a personal relationship with God’ or ‘making Jesus your Lord and Savior.’  What do you mean?

I realize that those are deeply held, personal convictions among many evangelicals.  But everyone has a personal relationship with God.  You start with Genesis and work your way to the Book of Revelation–everyone has a relationship with God.  In Romans 1-3, Paul says Gentiles have a relationship with God, even when they are engaging in idolatry.  The question is whether the relationship is with a father, who has justified and adopted his heirs, or with a judge.

The phrase ‘making Jesus Lord and Savior’ does not appear anywhere in Scripture (any more than does ‘personal relationship’).  It assumes we are the ones who make God something.  It is hard to imagine a Jew saying he made God his liberator and Lord in the Exodus.  No.  God made the Israelites the recipients of his saving and lordly work.  So we don’t make God anything; it is he who makes us his people.  The Good News is not that Jesus has made it possible for you to make him Lord and Savior.  The Good News is that he has actually saved and liberated you, and that he is your Savior.”

There is much confusion about the salvation today because we have adopted these and other unbiblical phrases to represent the Gospel.  The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ applied by faith to the hopelessly lost repentant sinner through the mercy and grace of God.

BLAME IT ON THE BRAIN?

Edward Welch ( 1998 )

Blame It on the Brain? was written to help believers distinguish among chemical imbalances, brain disorders, and disobedience. His task was “twofold: to introduce areas where the brain has received too little credit, and to highlight where the brain has received too much credit (or blame).” (pp. 13-14). The brain, as an organ in our body, does have an influence on behavior, so the problem becomes one of knowing when it is “legitimate to blame our misbehaviors on the brain” (p. 15) and when it is not.

The first part of the book is devoted to laying a theological foundation for dealing with behavioral issues. He helps the reader to understand that the body and mind (soul) exist biblically and that they make up the unity of the human being. In doing this, he clearly defines the mind (soul, spirit, heart) and body so that one can differentiate between physically caused behavior that may not be sinful in and of itself and behavior that is sinful and therefore a result of sinful choices. He strongly notes personal responsibility in that “the brain cannot make a person sin” (p. 49), and, in fact, “brain problems can expose heart problems” (p. 56).

He clearly lays the foundation that there is a close relationship between the brain and behavior and wisely acknowledges the limits of our ability to know everything about this relationship. In doing so, he shows that there are behavior patterns that are organically caused and are therefore not a result of sin. He also points out that too often Christians have been willing to swallow secular views of behavior and consequently accept bad behavior as being medically predetermined instead of being the result of individual sinful choices.

Welch then divides his presentation into three categories: [1] The Brain Did It: Brain Dysfunction; [2] Maybe the Brain Did It: Psychiatric Problems; and [3] The Brain Didn’t Do It: New Trends in the Brain Sciences.

Under brain dysfunction, Welch speaks about head injuries, chemical imbalances, and other measurable and quantifiable physical problems that affect the brain and hence behavior. Unfortunately, sometimes Christians can label legitimate physical malfunctions as sin problems, and this problem is carefully addressed. He gives case studies of a head injury and Alzheimer’s Disease. He is firm on not allowing a genuine brain malfunction excuse sinful behavior, but gives examples of how to patiently, compassionately, and firmly deal with the suffering party.

Under Psychiatric Problems, Welch speaks about psychologists’ diagnosis such as panic disorder, anorexia, ADD, depression, and borderline personality disorder. This is probably the most problematic area to address because of the close ties between behavior and the brain. Does medication help? is it sinful to take medication? is the behavior a result of a physical malfunction? can spiritual decisions affect the brain? Welch tries to help the reader carefully discern between non-sinful behavior and sinful behavior. Hallucinations are not sinful, but the response to them might be. Is someone hallucinating because he is not getting rest? on drugs? responding sinfully to guilt? He uses two case studies (depression and ADD) to help the reader understand how to work with those who have these kinds of problems. He encourages Christians to be sure to keep sinful and non-sinful behavior as separate issues, and then work with the strengths and weaknesses of the individual deemed to have psychiatric problems.

Welch notes that there is “the myth that psychiatric problems are strictly medical” (p. 107). He does not rule out, however, that medical issues may be contributing. He is firm on not allowing sinful behavior to be excused, but is equally strong in encouraging compassion and love in dealing with these kinds of problems. He notes that medication may help relieve some non-sinful biological symptoms (like Tums reduces the symptoms of a stomachache or Tylenol a headache), but no medication cures the underlying sinful problems that are present. Too often Christians can go to one extreme or the other: [1] there is no human responsibility and therefore issues of the heart are ignored, or [2] that there are no contributing biological factors that should be addressed, even, sometimes, through medication.

Finally, under New Trends in Brain Science, he deals with problems such as homosexuality, alcoholism, and sexual addiction. These things are now being blamed on genetics and the brain, and therefore the perpetrators of them have been given an excuse for their behavior. He clearly shows that these kinds of things are sins both in their execution and in their cravings. He particularly deals with homosexuality since that has become such an issue in our culture as churches capitulate to worldly thinking on this topic. In reality, it is not any different than the wholesale abandonment of biblical thinking with regard to drunkenness, anger, depression, and any number of other things that we now excuse through labels and social constructs.

This book is helpful on several fronts. First, he does not come across in a strongly confrontational style. While this is unsettling at times because it seems like he is giving ground to views contrary to Scripture, it also creates an atmosphere of sympathy for those who would not even consider a stronger approach. Second, he really attempts to be balanced in his arguments. There are many things that we don’t understand about the interaction of the heart/mind/soul and the body/brain. There are mysteries that we have not solved. This realization should drive us to humility and compassion when dealing with these life-devastating problems that so many encounter in our families and churches. Third, he clearly communicates the authority of God’s Word and the need to found one’s life upon it. Though one is not slapped across the face with this point, it underlies all of his conclusions and practical advice.

A weakness of the book is the legitimacy given to many psychological evaluations. While this reviewer does not have the solution, it is unfortunate that Welch is having to use the terms from Psychology. Psychology is built upon presuppositions that are completely contrary to Scripture and therefore the whole concept of “mental illness” is a misnomer. Welch, however, does show that psychological labels such as ADHD, schizophrenia, mania, bipolar disorder, bulimia, and multiple personality disorder are descriptions of behavior, and that the assumption that there must be “underlying biological causes for these behaviors” is “unfounded” (p. 113). The way he uses the terms, however, sometimes lends one to believe that these are scientifically researched illnesses that have their foundation in biology.

A second weakness of the book may be his wholesale avoidance of the issue of demon possession. This is mentioned numerous times in Scripture, is definitely related to the brain and its functions, and certainly has the same behavioral manifestations as some psychological disorders. While the believer must not label all, or even most, behavioral disorders as demonic, there should at least be an acknowledgment that this is a biblical reality that may be involved in certain cases. Christians should be confronted with the realization that this is within the realm of possibility when dealing with friends and loved ones that have these brain disorders. This, of course, is not to say that one should blame behavior on demon possession; it is to say that the problem of demon possession is not organic but spiritual in nature, and calls for biblical solutions not medical ones. The skirting of this issue in a book devoted to the topic of the brain and its problems is a curious one.

A final question may be asked in his division of categories. He treats alcoholism as something that is definitely not caused by the brain (chapter 10), but also lists it on page 105 as in the “maybe” category. So which is it? Is he saying that alcohol abuse is not the same as the disease of alcoholism? Stepping away from alcoholism, is there really a “maybe” category at all? Could it be more “cut and dried” than Welch leads us to believe? If there is not a direct medical/biological cause, then is it not a cognitive one—decision of the will? These questions demand more consideration.

Blame It on the Brain? is well worth reading, especially if one has loved ones and friends who are dealing with some kind of brain related situation. His section on ADD is extremely helpful as are the sections on dealing with Alzheimer’s Disease and head/brain injuries. The chapter dealing with homosexuality is also well done; he carefully outlines the arguments against the traditional Christian view of sodomy, and then shows from Scripture why they are false.

Welch’s strength lies in his biblically compassionate ways to handle the stress and challenges involved in these kinds of circumstances. May we graciously and mercifully communicate the authority and truths of God’s Word in our socially confused and spiritually hurting generation.

WORSHIP IN THE MELTING POT

Masters, Peter (2002)

Worship in the Melting Pot was written by Dr. Peter Masters, the pastor of the world famous Metropolitan Tabernacle since 1970. The Metropolitan Tabernacle was the church which C. H. Spurgeon pastored in the 19th century. Metropolitan Tabernacle has continued in the Baptist tradition of simplicity and predictability in its worship, which is in stark contrast to the pre-Reformation aesthetic (visual and/or physical) worship of Roman Catholicism and the post-modern ecstatic (feeling oriented) and profane (worldly) worship of Charismaticism and Evangelicalism.

Dr. Masters set out to answer questions such as the following: “What’s the matter with contemporary music groups? Isn’t there every kind of instrument, including percussion, in the Psalms? Didn’t they dance in worship in the Bible times?” (p. 9). He aimed to “focus on the four great pillars of worship—the principles which the Bible insists on” (p. 9).

Dr. Masters primary text for worship centered around Jesus’ answer to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:23-24: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” From here Masters identified four major deviations from biblical standards in most modern worship.

The first broken principle was that of aesthetic worship. Worship that focused on the physical trappings of art, drama, music, and performances denied the fact that true worship was worship that emanated from the spirit of man apart from any external means. Masters argued that today’s contemporary worship with its bands, orchestras, lighting, and dance has become a throwback to the Roman Catholic emphasis on the physical to please the Lord.  Great performances and production do not make, and in fact, may actually destroy, true worship.

The second broken principle was that of ecstatic worship. Worship that attempted to generate feelings at the expense of rationality denied the biblical principle of worshipping in truth. Modern worship tended to “dumb down” the songs, messages, and anything else that might cause a seriousness of thought on the part of the worshippers. Modern choruses were theologically shallow (if not down right wrong) and repetitive, and were used to generate an emotional state of satisfaction and happiness. Masters argued that emotions should be involved in worship, but only after the mind was engaged and made fully aware of the great truths found in Scripture.

The third broken principle was that of profane worship. Worship that adopted the styles and elements of the world that were directly associated with and used to promote anti-Christian themes and rebellion was worship that was worldly and profane. Worship has always maintained a separation from that which was evil; Christian worship was holy. Masters noted that the current trend arose out of two blending streams: [1] the Jesus People of California that refused to leave their “hippie mysticism” behind, and [2] worldly Christianity that wanted worship music to be like secular rock. These two were immediately adopted in Charismatic circles, which gave rise to almost all the new idioms of worship.

The fourth broken principle was that of reverence. Reverence and godliness ought to characterize Christian worship and Masters argued that when this was lost, everything else went. He showed how a reverence in worship affected not only the believer’s demeanor at church, but also his dress, his behavior, his values, and even his personality.

Masters debunked the myths that the great hymn writers such as Martin Luther borrowed from profane secular music. He spent time showing what kind of instrumentation was used for Old Testament worship and why dance, lifting of hands, and unrestrained percussion were not to be used. He focused on several worship passages in Scripture which gave rise to the traditions used for generations in Protestant churches. He evaluated the Charismatic argument of spontaneous worship and showed that God’s plan was that things were done decently and in order. He has some helpful charts that showed the similarity between the topics in traditional hymnals and the topics from the Psalms.  He spent a great part of the book dealing with prayer in worship and gave a number of recommendations and biblical examples for public prayers.

The book was refreshing in that it completely avoided discussions of musical genres. Rock, pop, country, jazz, blues—who cared? The issue was one of biblical principles and the consequent rejection of all that failed to live up to the Bible standard. This book should be a serious read for all who are concerned about worship. Many fundamental churches fall far short of the ideals articulated during the Reformation and reaffirmed here by Masters, even if they have not fallen prey to the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) movement.

While this reviewer did not necessarily agree with every specific conclusion put forth, Dr. Masters has presented a well articulated case against the modern worship trends. When one takes away the emotions involved in our worship and deals specifically with the biblical texts and arguments in this book, there will be little left to support the deviations Evangelicals–and Fundamentalists–have embraced over the last forty years.

In the process of trying to establish and build God’s church here in San Luis Obispo, I have not been able to invest the desired time and energy in posting to this blog. This means that there are relatively few articles communicating my concerns, views, and teachings from Scripture. (BTW, this is primarialy for the benefit of the congregation that God has given me oversight of.)

Last May I published a review of a message that was preached at the 2007 meeting of the CARBC. The message itself communicated a repudiation of the position of ecclesiastical separation affirmed by the GARBC at the national meeting in 2006; this message was very concerning to pastors within the CARBC and to members in our own church.

Two things have arisen out of this:

1. Communication from a friend within the CARBC was that–in its context–the message was meant to be a call for a less caustic and narrow-minded view of separation. This goal is one in which I would affirm; it is easy in the stand for truth to become so tight that one cannot get along with anyone that does not dot his “i’”s and cross his “t”s the same way. This pastor friend gently prodded me to consider how the review came across to my CARBC brethren: an attack against them and the CARBC. After prayer and consideration, I can see how that perception is true. As a newcomer to the fellowship, my only response has ended up being negative, and for that I am truly sorry.

2. Since there are no balancing articles and views expressed, the review appears to be being used to spread the rumor that our church is pulling out of the GARBC. This is not true at all. There is no movement within our church (including its pastor) to change our status with the GARBC or CARBC. We are encouraged that the fellowship stood up and affirmed our historical position of separation and have no cause to go elsewhere. We certainly make no apologies that we are conservative, but there are many others within the fellowship who share our views.

In light of the misunderstandings that have arisen, I have removed the review from this blog. The review was not meant to be an attack so much as a very concerned response, and I apologize for communicating otherwise.

Very Naughty Figs
Dan and Sonya Carlson, Traffod Publishing, 2006

Very Naughty Figs came across my path recently. It was written and illustrated by a husband and wife team to help expose the archaic expressions and words found in the AV (Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version). The book catches the eye and brings a smile to the face because it includes around eighty cartoons showing how a child might interpret phrases and words found in the AV. In I Kings 11:1 the Bible says, “king Solomon loved many strange women”; the cartoon depicts a king surrounded by weird ladies. The title itself begs the question: just what are “very naughty figs” and the cartoon brings the naughty figs to life. In the text, the authors attempt to counteract the King James Only movement (this sect teaches–to varying degrees–that the only Bible for English speaking people is the AV) while laying a simple biblical foundation for understanding a little bit about how translations work.

While the cartoons are cute and highlight the challenges of understanding the English of the AV, not all of them represent problems with the AV. For instance, on page 60b the authors parody the measure of a “homer” from Ezekiel 45:11, noting that it should be “eight bushels”. The problem, however, is that the word stands for a homer, not bushels, and one will find that the NKJV (New Kings James Version), ESV (English Standard Version), and NASB (New American Standard Bible) all use the correct term “homer”. This wouldn’t be so bad, except that the authors are inconsistent in their application of translation principles. For instance, the authors chastise the King James translators for using the term “Easter” in Acts 12:4 (pp. 26-8) instead of the term “Passover”. The use of the word “Easter” was simply a translation decision to help the reader understand the time of year. While this reviewer prefers the more accurate translation of “Passover”, it is hardly fair to castigate the AV for putting the date in modern terms in one area and then deride the same version for not putting a measurement in modern terms in another area.

This really brings to light the first of the two major weaknesses of the book: the arguments are skewed to make the AV look bad. Despite overtures to the contrary, the authors spend 20 pages (chapter 2) presenting supposed translation errors embedded in the AV. While the authors include a nod to the issue of alleged scribal errors, they completely eschew addressing them as such and present all the errors as if they were unique to the AV. Among the authors’ arguments are the forty thousand stalls of horses (I Kings 4:26), thirty-five cubit pillars of brass (II Chron. 3:15), two hundred and fifty chief officers (II Chron. 8:10), Gad’s three years of famine (I Chron. 21:11-12), and the four hundred and fifty talents of gold (II Chron. 8:18). These are presented as AV translation errors, yet the same numbers are found in the NASB and NKJV. This is because they are NOT translation errors, but correct translations of the Hebrew text. However, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson say, “All of the above examples are instances of mistranslations of Hebrew numbers—an easy mistake to make.” (p. 19). This is completely erroneous.

In the New Testament (NT) the authors note that in the AV there are two demoniacs in Matthew while only one is listed in Mark and Luke. They fail to state that this is what the Greek texts say and both the NASB and NKJV record the same thing. On pages 19-21 they mock Dr. C. I. Scofield for trying to explain why the AV says that the men heard a voice in Acts 9:7 but did not hear a voice in Acts 22:9. Again, this is NOT a translation problem, and one will find that both the NASB and the NKJV agree with the AV. They present “sanctify the Lord God” from I Peter 3:15 as a translation problem (p. 39), when, in fact, it is an accurate translation of the Greek text used by the AV and NKJV.

Some other problems include their bizarre reading of II Kings 6:25 where they change the Hebrew “kab of dove’s dung” to mean a kab of vegetables. The NASB, NKJV, and ESV all agree with the AV. Though it is admittedly weak, they do ignore the textual evidence for the AV including the word “not” in Isaiah 9:3 and call it a mistranslation. In one of their most glaring errors, they accuse the translators of the AV for pandering to King James by supposedly changing the name of Jesus’ brother from “Jacob” to “James” (Acts 12:2 et al; pp. 24-6). The authors ask, “Simply because the KJV translation team chose to switch names, does that make it right?” (p. 26). The authors insinuate that this was a new way to translate James’ name into English, but they fail to account for the Geneva Bible of 1560 calling James “James” and John Wycliffe’s English translation of 1382—the first English translation of the Bible and almost 250 years before King James—translating James in the same manner. At best, this is nothing less than grossly negligent research on the part of the authors.

The second major weakness of the book is the one-sided assertion that older manuscripts are better.  While most of the King James Only movement would attack this view, there are many theologians outside of that sect who also believe this assertion to be false.  On page six they call the more recently discovered older manuscripts “more reliable”, and on page seven they note that “It’s a fact that the closer one gets time-wise to the original writings, the more accurate they tend to be.” This may be a “fact” when dealing with secular literature, but in the opinion of many, including this reviewer, this completely ignores the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. It is more theologically sound to believe that God preserved in a continuing stream His very words. This has been amply illustrated through the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls where one finds that after over 2000 years the current OT readings have been preserved. This is miraculous.

They falsely note that the AV translators “were limited by the lack of manuscript evidence available” (p. 36). The true facts are that the reformers, including men such as Francis Turretin (mid-1600s), knew fully about the Alexandrian readings, refer to them in their writings, and rejected them out of hand as being unreliable (see Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, p. 115). The authors call the TR (Textus Receptus, the Greek text upon which the AV translators relied) “less-authentic” (p. 40) and note that “they had to ignore overwhelming manuscript evidence” on occasions. This is purely opinion, and they fail to note that many hold to a contrary position. This “overwhelming manuscript evidence” that is sighted amounts to less than 500 out of the 5,500 extant copies of the NT text—hardly overwhelming.

In arguing for their position they note that the “less-authentic” TR had pietistic additions. This theory states that pious copyists added to the text to help clarify Bible doctrine by doing things such as replacing “He” with “Jesus Christ” (pp. 31-2). Yet in their first illustration of copyist “errors”, they note that the older texts identified Jesus as “God” in John 1:18. So, how come the pietists supposedly deleted a clear indicator of deity when the authors argue that they usually added it? Such inconsistencies abound in the book.

The point is this: there are conservative scholars who are not King James Only who disagree with the philosophy behind the “older” manuscripts of the NT. To paint this as an AV problem is disingenuous at best.

Very Naughty Figs is a very naughty book. The authors fail to show actual translation errors in the AV and ignore the theological tradition behind the translation of both the AV and the NKJV. Unfortunately, the authors seem to have allowed their strong feelings against the King James Only movement to taint their presentation. Because of this, they twist their arguments and are unfair with the facts and inconsistent in their criticisms. In the end, this actually undermines the veracity of Scripture itself by promoting the concept of multiple errors in our Bibles. The illustrations bring a smile, but the rest of the book erases it quickly. Naughty figs indeed.

In the June 2007 Church Production magazine there is an article about Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Chandler, AZ. The church has constructed a new auditorium and the magazine was reporting about the multimedia equipment that was used to punctuate their worship with a “live band and expansive video presentation.” (p. 24).

The article brings out the philosophy behind the two 9×16 foot and one 19×36 foot video screens and the subsequent sound system to go with them. The worship director said that their goal was to try to “create somewhere people can come every week and enjoy their worship experience; it’s about speaking the language of the people and reaching them.” (p. 24). Their old system “detracted” from this experience, and they wanted to correct this with the new building (p. 26). Their new system was designed to create a “high-impact environment that immersed people, like the music was surrounding and embracing you, and pulling you into the worship experience.” (p. 26).

Let us unpack this. According to their own worship director, worship is about our own enjoyment, is an experience to be immersed in, and is something that we create.

I have a few questions: should the goal of worship be that people can enjoy it? Now, I am not saying to make worship miserable, but what does this have to do with worship in the first place? Is not worship the individual offering a sacrifice of praise to the Lord? Is not worship the individual giving worth to God? Is not worship to be done in spirit and in truth? How in the world does one generate a “worship experience”? Outside of translating the Bible into the common tongue, since when has external medium like music, videos, and sound systems become the “language of the people to reach them”? Hasn’t the language of the people always been the plain and simple teaching of Scripture?

We cannot generate worship; we cannot generate salvation. Any goal to try and generate these will be misplaced and result in methods that do not glorify the Lord.

We can, however, come with hearts prepared to give worth to the God of creation. We can come prepared to offer a sacrifice of praise to Him. We can come planning how to best do this by using prayer, the Word, and music that honors, exalts, and glorifies His name. We can worship in the beauty of His holiness and come into His courts with thanksgiving.

We can do this in a simple room with nothing more than our voices. The article noted that “society has learned to judge the quality of the message by the quality of the medium”. This may be true, but it is completely at odds with the Bible. While I certainly think that we ought to do things to the best of our ability, the gospel message is not dependent upon our external mediums. The gospel’s effect is just as great whether given on a street corner, in a bus, at the hospital, or from the pulpit of a church.

Once we have capitulated to worldly thinking—we can generate worship, worship is for our enjoyment, worship is used to reach the lost—then it is only a short step to all kinds of methods and means that run contrary to the Word of God and the holiness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

With their band, videos, sound system, and light effects, this church mimics the world’s concert venues, all under the name of ministry and evangelism. I wonder how pleased the Lord is with this kind of “worship”?

Let us be sure that as true worshippers of our God that we approach Him in holiness and truth, and with a sacrifice that wants the Lord to be pleased whether we enjoy it or not. God does not want dead and lifeless praise of His name, but neither does He want us to try to generate emotional experiences to make us feel “immersed in worship”. We will be blessed when we seek to bless Him, but we should not come seeking our own blessing. Do you go to church with the purpose of sacrificing for Him?

In our local newspaper (The Tribune) there was an article from the Los Angeles Times about tattoos in the work place. Many work places require tattoos to be covered, although more and more companies are becoming accepting of them.

There were a couple interesting statistics; almost 50% of those between the ages of 21 and 32 have a tattoo or piercing other than in the ear. This is a significant portion of the younger generation in our country. A Harris Poll found that “men and women alike say their tattoos make them feel sexy and rebellious.” As a majority turn to tattoos and piercings, it will be harder to do it in rebellion without getting more and more extreme.

The question, of course, has to do with a believer seeking tattoos and piercings. Are the goals of “sexy and rebellious” in line with biblical Christianity? While not everyone who gets a tattoo or maybe even a piercing is doing it to be in rebellion, we certainly ought to be cognizant of our own goals and how our actions come across to others. The industry is built upon the rebellious, and it is questionable how far one can distance himself from that perception.

The Harris Poll also found that the majority of the population who is without “body-art” think that “those with tattoos and piercings are less intelligent and less attractive.” Of course, the Christian’s goal is not to come across as attractive and intelligent, but there is still a negative stigma within our culture attached to this behavior.

The bottom line is this: will it advance the glory of the Lord? will it help His kingdom? will it promote my distinction as being holy to the Lord? Let us carefully and honestly evaluate some of these things before plunging into making permanent changes to our bodies.