Pastor Kip

Priest Used Church Money to Live Lavish Double Life That Included Male Escorts

2010-07-07T22:53:00.000-04:00

The Republican-American website has an interesting article about a priest gone bad. Not exactly news these days, but it does provide me the opportunity to make a pithy, ironic observation at the end.

It seems beloved and respected 64-year-old Rev. Kevin Gray was living an extravagant double life that his parishioners knew nothing about:

Detectives say they discovered Gray, a well-respected Catholic priest and former leader of several city parishes, siphoned roughly $1.3 million from Sacred Heart to pay for a lavish lifestyle usually reserved for the wealthy.

Investigators claim this money went to pay for male escorts, $200,000 in restaurant bills, and hotel stays in the lap of Manhattan luxury.

. . . expenses amassed by Gray and paid for with the church's money

Furthermore, Gray had apparently told his congregation he was battling cancer. Investigators have determined that Gray has never had cancer and they believe he was using this ruse to explain his absences from the parish.

It's interesting to me how the police were tipped off that Gray was dirty:

Police have investigated Gray since May, when the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford came across financial "discrepancies" during an internal investigation. Archdiocese officials presented their findings to police, who say they've confirmed Gray embezzled the funds.

Now, there's where Gray messed up. He messed with the church's money, and NOBODY messes with the church's money.

If he'd just been molesting children, the church would've covered for him . . .

Puppet Pastors

2010-07-05T21:48:00.000-04:00

On July 1, President Obama gave a speach on immigration reform at American University, an event to which he invited several key pastors and national church leaders. Pastor Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church in Illinois introduced the President.

This prompted Dave Welch over at WorldNetDaily.com to write a commentary sounding off on politicians using nationally known pastors as props for their agendas. He calls them props, I call them puppet pastors.

Here are a few choice tidbits from his article:

. . . clergy have been used and abused by politicians as props as long as there have been politics.

. . . well-known in the political world – shared and confirmed by Chuck Colson – is how Richard Nixon would "wine and dine" key pastors, give them the red-carpet treatment and send them home to be good mouthpieces.

When highly influential pastors like Hybels and Joel Osteen (e.g., his giving thanks to God for "raising up" activist lesbian mayor of Houston, Annise Parker) give cover to reprobate politicians, they yield not only their own moral high ground and influence, but that of pastors all over the nation whom they are perceived to represent.

We need patriot pastors holding elected officials accountable to God's standards, not serving as pawns by enemies of our faith and our country

Truth is, this article speaks not only to the issue of reprobate politicians, but also to the current condition of a lukewarm, man-pleasing church.

Included in the article is this reference that I found troubling:

. . . Erwin Lutzer illustrates magnificently in his must-read book, "Hitler's Cross," [how] the theologically shallow and nationalistic nature of the German clergy proved easy pickings for Hitler.

Although there are some who would argue with me, I don't think Obama is a Hitler. But the description of the German clergy as "theologically shallow and nationalistic" is a frighteningly accurate description of the popular American church.

Are You One of the De-Churched?

2010-03-22T15:45:00.002-04:00

Over at the Out of Ur blog, there's an interesting article about a new segment of Christianity that has been labeled and is currently being discussed in seminars all over Christendom.

For a while we've known about the churched and the unchurched. The churched are the ones who've got it right and their mission is to bring the unchurched into both a saving relationship with Jesus, and a tithing relationship with the local church.

But there is now a new group: the De-Churched. These are people who were at one point involved in a local assembly, but have left the conventional structure of church and are now experiencing God in a different way.

Now, don't get all judgmental; sheathe your Sword of Rebuke. They've not abandoned the faith and they haven't forsaken the assembling of themselves together, they're just burnt out on the church machine and they're doing it a different way.

This article over at Out of Ur explores several different reasons people are leaving the church in alarming numbers. First, referencing the below video of Mark Chandler, pastor of the Village Church near Dallas, the exodus of young people is attributed to:

. . . the proclamation (explicitly or implicitly) of a false gospel of "moralistic deism." This understanding of the Christian life says that if you obey God's rules he will bless you with what you desire. This represents a form of the prosperity gospel . . . The problem arises when God's blessing doesn't come-or doesn't come in the form we want. Divorce, illness, poor grades, failed relationship-virtually any hardship has the potential to destroy one's faith in Christ and the church that represents him. So, according to Chandler, people walk away. They enter the ranks of the de-churched.

The article goes on to explore other reasons why so many of the churched are becoming the de-churched:

These Christians have simply lost confidence in the institutional structures and programmatic trappings of the church. For them the institutional church is not an aid in their faith and mission. Rather it's become a drain on time, resources, and energy. It feels like a black hole with a gravitation pull so strong that not even the light of the gospel can escape its organizational appetite.

I'd love to know your thoughts.

So, what are these de-churched people doing to express and grow their faith? In the next post we'll look at the burgeoning Simple Church movement.

Skeptic Month: Hey, Babe, Shut Your Pie Hole!

2010-03-15T10:00:00.003-04:00

Continuing with the skeptic theme here at Pastor Kip, we come now to a very uncomfortable section for the conservative fundamentalist: the issue of a woman's place in the church. According to the critic, this one issue deals a serious blow to the Bible's claim to both relevancy and inerrancy.

The Declaration
In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the Apostle Paul clearly states that he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man, She must be silent and learn in quietness and full submission. Paul remains consistent on this teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, going so far as to say it is "disgraceful for a woman to speak in church."

The main reason for the woman's subordinate role, and a passage that you'll rarely hear preached on, is that, while man was created in the image and glory of God, woman wasn't. She is the glory of man. This according to 1 Corinthians 11:7-9.

As you can imagine, this ruffles quite a few mother hen feathers.

The Response
The Biblical inerrancy crowd has several different reactions to this one. Some take it for what it says and do not allow women to hold authority over men in a church. It's fine for them to change diapers, run the children's ministry, and oversee the activities of the Women's Auxiliary, but their privilege of service ends there.

Then there are those more progressive types who teach that Paul's admonition isn't applicable today since it dealt with a situation specific to the culture at that time. Women, emboldened by the liberation given to them by Christianity and apparently insensitive to the most basic sense of decorum, had begun to ask questions of their husbands in the midst of the church service. This was distracting to say the least, since (according to some sources) men and women were seated on opposite sides of the room, the questions had to be shouted across the aisle.

Then there are the liberals who teach that, ages ago, church officials actually changed the language in the Bible in order to subjugate women. They claim that wherever the word "man" is used in this context, it should more appropriately be translated "husband". In other words, Paul was merely setting forth the order of accountability in a Christian home, not the administration of church leadership. I sat under a pastor who taught this, and I asked him if he was bothered that this might bring the whole authority of Scripture into question. He admitted that it was a risk, but he felt it was worth it to correct the teaching.

The Critic's Response to the Responses
The first response is both the least acceptable and the most honest. These people teach the inerrancy of Scripture and are determined to follow every jot and tittle in spite of social and political objections. And why shouldn't they? They are following the word of God.

The second response of cultural differences must then concede that, at least on this issue, the Scriptures do not apply to this day and time. In other words, the infallible word of God has failed to be relevant to our culture.

The third response is the most damaging to the integrity of the Scriptures. The preacher who holds to this teaching - that the Bible has been vitiated by human bias - has seriously weakened his ability to teach anything from Scripture with any authority. He cannot honestly claim to believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Finally, not one of these last two responses deals with the basic reason Paul gave for the woman's subordinate role: she was created subordinate.

Skeptic Month: Giants, Josephus, and More Giants

2010-03-12T10:00:00.004-05:00

Here at Pastor Kip we’re continuing on with Skeptic Month. Today we’re looking at a remarkable event described in the book of Genesis that critics say gives credence to the idea that the Bible is on a par with other ancient books of mythology.

In Genesis 6 we’re told that the Nephilim were on the earth in the days of Noah. Nephilim is rendered in some translations (such as the revered KJV) as “giants”. We’re also told that the sons of God were attracted to the daughters of men and had children with them. These children became “. . . heroes of old, men of great renown”.

Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Sounds a lot like Greek mythology, doesn’t it? We learned in school that the Greek storytellers told of how the gods intermarried with humans and had children by them, and we call those children “heroes”.

Hercules was a hero – son of the god Zeus and the mortal Alcmene.

Now, Christian apologists like to quote the Jewish historian Josephus as an extra-Biblical source proving the existence of Jesus, because he mentions Jesus twice in his work Antiquities of the Jews. It bears mentioning that one of those references (called the Testimonium Flavianum) is highly suspect because it makes overtly Messianic proclamations that Josephus did not espouse.

But did you know that Josephus also mentions Hercules? Yep, three times in fact – here are the references: 1.15; 8.5.3; and 10.11.1. Now, to be fair, one of those (8.5.3) is a reference to the temples of Hercules, but the other two speak of Hercules as a historical figure.

You’ll hear many sermons quoting Josephus on Jesus, but you’ll never hear an evangelical preacher mention Josephus’s references to Hercules. Why? Because it makes it easy to argue that Jesus is on the same level as Hercules. If, as it is sometimes alleged, Hercules was a true historical figure around whom many mythologies were constructed, why couldn’t the same be said about Jesus?

And what about those giants? We’re told in Genesis 7:21 that all creatures other than Noah and his family were annihilated in the flood, but then these giants show back up in Numbers 13:33. Where did these Nephilim come from?

Skeptic Month: Holy Postpartum Discrepancies!

2010-03-10T10:00:00.004-05:00

Only two of the Gospels record Jesus’ birth – Matthew and Luke. They come at the story from different perspectives and there are no real problems between the two, until we read about the events that came after the birth.

In Matthew’s account, there is some major stuff going on! The wise men come to see the child in Bethlehem, and are warned in a dream to not return to Herod because he’s planning an outrage of epic proportions. Likewise, Joseph is told to take his family and flee to Egypt because Herod is looking to destroy the child.

Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt and Herod slaughters all the male children under two years old in Bethlehem and surrounding areas. Once Herod dies, Joseph and his family return to Nazareth. Matthew points out that this was done so that the word of the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

In Luke’s account, Jesus is circumcised eight days after the birth and they remain in the area of Jerusalem for about forty days (to complete the time of purification) and then they take Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord. When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Nazareth and the child ". . . grew and became strong; He was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him."

No dramatic flight to Egypt. No devastating slaughtering of the children.

Why the difference? Did Luke simply choose to leave out a few major details because he didn’t consider them germane to his purpose in writing the story? Or was he ignorant of the additional stories in Matthew?

Are they reconcilable? Or are these just two versions of the same myth?

To understand what's going on this month at Pastor Kip, click here.

Skeptic Month: Jesus' Jumbled Genealogy

2010-03-08T10:00:00.003-05:00

We are in the midst of Skeptic Month here at Pastor Kip. The first two challenges we dealt with (here and here) were extraordinary events to say the least, but they could be explained away as being miracles. I’d like to shift gears now and deal with some direct contradictions and alleged inconsistencies that bolster the skeptic’s claim that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God.

The first we’ll consider is the problem of Jesus’ lineage. This is an important issue with Christianity because, in order to lay claim to being the Messiah, Jesus had to have descended from the royal lineage of David. So, both Matthew and Luke determine to lay out the foundation of Jesus' ancestry.

Problem is, they don’t match. And it’s not even close.

Both genealogies trace Jesus’ ancestry from Joseph back to David. In Matthew 1:17, Jacob begat Joseph and there are 28 generations from David to Jesus. In Luke 3, Joseph is the son of Heli and there are 43 generations from David to Jesus.

The conventional fundamentalist wisdom is that the genealogy in Luke is best seen as being the lineage traced through Mary, even though Mary is not mentioned. This is explained away as typical Jewish misogyny – women weren’t normally mentioned in genealogies – and where Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, it could just as easily mean son-in-law of Heli in the original language.

That’s all well and good, except it is traditionally agreed that Luke was a Gentile writing to Gentiles. Would he be so careful to observe Jewish tradition in this manner and risk confusing his Gentile audience? Moreover, Matthew was most definitely Jewish and was writing to Jews to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah – and his genealogy mentions four different women.

And that still doesn’t address the issue of the dramatically different numbers of generations.

In the notes on this passage, the venerable Believer’s Bible Commentary offers this advice:

What attitude should the Bible student take toward these difficulties and seeming discrepancies?

First, our foundational premise is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Therefore, it cannot contain errors.

Second, it is infinite because it reflects the infinity of the Godhead. We can understand the fundamental truths of the Word, but we can never fully comprehend all there is in it.

So, our approach to these difficulties leads us to conclude that the problem lies in our lack of knowledge rather than in the Bible's fallibility.

Basically, there are two rules when it comes to Bible difficulties:

It’s the Bible and it’s inerrant.
If you happen to stumble upon an error or contradiction, see rule 1 and stop thinking about it, reprobate.

Skeptic Month: Jesus and the Zombies

2010-03-05T10:00:00.002-05:00

Continuing on with the theme of Skeptic Month, here’s a hard one for even the most die-hard fundamentalist to defend.

According to Matthew 27:51-53, upon Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection graves around Jerusalem were, ". . . opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised."

And this wasn’t just some secretive act of necromancy carried out in the dark of night. Verse 53 tells us that these disinterred patriarchs then took their party into the holy city and appeared to many. Wow.

Now, this is hard to believe. But even if you chalk it up to an incredible miracle, don’t you think there’d be some extra-biblical source out there to corroborate this? Wouldn’t the Christian’s favorite historian Josephus have something to say about it? But, no, there is nothing outside of these three verses to verify this extraordinary event. Not even another mention anywhere else in the Bible!

This is not to say that Jesus didn’t exist, or that he wasn’t an influential figure in human history. The point is that the biblical account of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is suspect at best. And while it may contain some historical facts, the story (along with all of Scripture) is vitiated by mythology and human bias.

Skeptic Month: Does the Bible Contain Mythologies?

2010-03-03T10:00:00.005-05:00

Is the Bible made up of mythology?

This is a common criticism: the Bible does contain certain historical and geological truths – often proven by archaeology, but it also comprises a significant amount of wild stories and mythologies.

This is noteworthy because a lot of Christian doctrine is based on these narratives. Pastors guide their congregations based on principles learned from these ancient stories, and these exhortations are given authority because they are assumed to have come from the word of God.

But, the critic would ask, what if they didn’t come from God? What if they are simply man-made stories passed on through generations until someone wrote them down? What if we are being led by nothing more than a collection of fables?
Case in point: Joshua, the Amorites, and the Sun.

The tenth chapter of the book of Joshua tells about the battle between Joshua and the Amorites. After all the warfare and a miraculous hailstorm (that kills off a bunch of the Amorites but apparently misses the Israelites), there is just not enough time in the day for all the God-ordained killing. Joshua orders the sun to stand still and we are told that the sun stood in the midst of heaven, “and did not hasten to go down for about a day.” The moon, we are told, also stood still – apparently to preserve the natural order of things. We can’t have the moon gallivanting around while the sun is in timeout, now can we?

Okay, quick show of hands: how many out there would say, “I have no trouble believing that the God of Miracles could stop the sun as it traveled about the heavens”?

Wow, there are a lot of you out there!

Okay now, those of you who raised your hands, how many of you understand that the sun doesn’t actually travel anywhere? You do realize that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around it, right?

And now the million-dollar question: Doesn’t the geocentric nature of this story reveal that it was created by man? Certainly an all-knowing, creator God would have gotten this little detail correct.

Now, Christians dismiss this pretty flippantly by saying that it was simply told from man’s perspective and is no more damaging to the veracity of the Scriptures than the weather man’s giving the time of today’s sunrise and sunset is damaging to the science of meteorology.

Fine. But then you're left with the idea that in the Joshua story, God actually stopped the earth’s rotation for about a day! Are you comfortable with that? Do you realize what would happen if the earth suddenly stopped spinning? One astronomer has imagined that very scenario:

Earth is rotating at a speed of about 1100 miles per hour. If our planet suddenly stopped rotating, the atmosphere would still be in motion at that speed. The atmosphere would be moving so fast it would literally sweep the land masses clear of anything not anchored to bedrock, this would mean rocks, soil, trees, buildings, people and animals. All would be swept up into the atmosphere.

Now, you can still say that God is the all-powerful, creator and sustainer of all things, and by Him all things hold together. If He so ordained that the earth should stop its natural course of action, He is more than able to maintain everything as it should be.

But, the laws of nature are important; we often explain away such natural disasters as earthquakes and hurricanes by blaming them on the natural laws of creation. Cold air mass meets warm air mass and trouble ensues – because that’s the way God designed it. And if it is to be believed that God is so cavalier about upsetting the natural order of the universe, why did He bother to include the little detail about the moon stopping as well? Either He was concerned about that, or the person who made up the story was . . .

In his excellent study Bible, John MacArthur says that this story, ". . . is best accepted as an outright, monumental miracle", and therein lies the problem for many. When the Christian literalist's back is finally pushed to the wall, he's left with the simple, feckless assertion that God did it, which reduces the power of God to an absurd deus ex machina.

How do you respond to this criticism?

To understand what's going on this month at Pastor Kip, click here.

Skeptic Month

2010-02-25T21:00:00.009-05:00

For the month of March, I'll be taking on the mindset of the skeptic, consider this a lame attempt at reverse psychology.

Lately I’ve been considering some of the strongest and most legitimate criticisms of Christianity and the Bible. I believe that truth has nothing to fear and will overcome any serious test. The only thing that can give truth a run for its money is a really good deception . . . and even that will fall eventually.

I think something like this must have been on John Stott's mind when he wrote the following:

The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh Biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.

My intention this month is to not answer the criticisms, but to simply present them. I’ve tried to weed through the easily dismissed objections and pull out the heavy-hitters, so be warned – these are some of the most challenging objections I’ve found. Many of these claims I'd never heard before, and some I'd casually dismissed as the reckless musings of the damned (sorry for that last comment, but hey, I was raised Southern Baptist - it's in my blood!), but now that I'm no longer dependent upon the church's teat for my sustenance, I feel free to examine these things honestly.

Reaction to Tiger's Apology

2010-02-20T08:52:00.004-05:00

Over the years, I’ve come to recognize that I’m a sucker for three things:

Movies about cute-but-mischievous family pets that die.
Songs featuring an acoustic guitar and harmonica.
Sincere apologies.

I believed Tiger Woods when he spoke to the media for the first time in nearly three months.

I’m not a golf fan, and I’m certainly not a Tiger Woods fan. In fact, for years I’ve been somewhat of a Tiger Woods critic, mainly because I knew it was irritating to family members who greeted every mention of his name with a fawning, doe-eyed expression (yeah, I can be a real jerk like that!). And along with everybody else in America I was disgusted by the continual revelations of his many revelries.

But the way many in the media are attacking his apology can only be described as arrogant and disgraceful.

Here’s the video of his mea culpa:

Religious issues aside, here are the most vociferous complaints I’ve heard so far:

He’s a control freak. People are upset at the way the whole thing was staged, but I think I understand that this was a sensitive moment that affected a lot of people. It needed to be controlled. And I’m not sure how much of this was Tiger and how much of it was his PR and legal team.
He didn’t take any questions. The questioning could quickly get out of hand and be damaging. Could he really risk taking questions from a sensationalist media? How long before he was asked about whether or not Elin beat the bejesus out of him with a golf club? How long before someone asked him to verify the rumors of threesomes? Or foursomes? Multisomes?
He wasn’t sincere. How do you know? Seriously, how can you tell? His mettle will be tested and proved over time, but I’m not comfortable judging his sincerity based on a 15 minute speech. To me he appeared broken and contrite.
He seemed so robotic. This is Tiger. I don’t know the guy, but I’ve always heard that this is his strong point. Cut the guy some slack, this was without question the most difficult thing he’s ever done in his life.
I wasn’t impressed. Ooooh, touch you! So, at his lowest point as he comes before the world to flay himself, he gets a demerit because he didn’t impress you! Wow, his PR team should’ve done more research into what it would take to impress you. This is the arrogance that prompted this rant.

Was it perfect? No. But I saw a man defending his wife against accusations of domestic abuse, blasting himself for being spoiled and feeling entitiled, and taking full responsibility for his actions.

I think that's a pretty good start.

Following Pastor Ed Young's Money Trail

2010-02-19T10:50:00.007-05:00

The latest mega-pastor to come under fire is Ed Young, pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas. Here's a quote from WFAA News 8 in Dallas/Fort Worth:

Not long ago, the Fellowship Church in Grapevine was one of the largest and fastest-growing churches in the nation.

Its pastor, Ed Young, was making national headlines by encouraging married couples to have more sex.

But since that time, sources say membership has waned and some say Pastor Young may have lost his way — putting himself and secrecy over God. …

One former staff member who says he was close to Young but wishes not to be identified, described it this way: “The lack of accountability. The lavish lifestyle that keeps increasing, while the attendance keeps decreasing.”

Here's the video from that report:

And here is Pastor Young's address to his congregation on the matter (WARNING: it's rather lengthy):

There are several things that I'd like to comment on, and I'll try to do so in a rather succinct manner:

I don't trust mega-pastors.
I don't trust people who accuse mega-pastors while wearing creepy hoods and having their voices distorted like Darth Vader.
I believe those are good men who serve on Fellowship Church's board of Directors (they close out video #2).
I believe good men are trusting by nature, and can be duped.
I don't like the flippant way Pastor Young tried to dismiss the allegations.
I believe there's more to come.

A Valuable Lesson From an Unexpected Source

2010-01-29T12:38:00.006-05:00

Gayle Haggard has been through more than most pastor's wives.

In 2006, her husband, high-profile evangelical pastor Ted Haggard, was outed publicly by a former male prostitute, Mike Jones, who said Haggard had paid him for sex over three years and had used methamphetamine in his presence.

Haggard also later admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 20-year-old male church volunteer.

But it's Gayle's testimony that is grabbing my attention. Despite the incredible difficulty, she's stood beside her husband and maintained her faith in God. Here's a quote from the CNN.com article:

"I haven't doubted my faith in this process but I have redefined it," Gayle Haggard said. "Early on, I was so satisfied with my faith walk and I felt as though my life was just wonderful.

"But then I went through this very dark time where I felt like there was nothing good. ... But I held on by a thread because I trusted God was going to show me the way through that and he did."

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

I admire Gayle Haggard. No one would have blamed here if she'd walked away gracefully from the marriage, but she honestly loved her husband and trusted her God.

I makes my petty annoyances and actions seem so small. For me, her actions provide a real-world example of the power of faith - even when that faith is as frangible as a thread.

Thank you, Gayle. I needed that . . .

Here's a video clip with Ted and Gayle on the Larry King show.

WARNING: It's interesting, but they talk about the issue of intimacy within their marriage after the revelations of infidelity. Some may find it uncomfortable.

Liberal New Ager On Mega Churches

2010-01-27T10:27:00.007-05:00

It's interesting and instructive when a liberal UK news source offers up a stinging indictment of the way we go about church these days.

. . . popular evangelical Christianity is religiously vacuous. It is directed to secular ends which, arguably, should be promoted by secular means.

As a navel-gazer, I was depressed by [Rick Warren's church] Saddleback. It seemed the butt end of Christianity: stripped of history and iconography, wholly immersed in its secular surroundings, constructed according to a business model and promoted by motivational speakers – bland, cheerful, dull.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

It's disturbing when non-Chistians can recognize the emptiness found in modern man-centered ministries, while we dance around and pat ourselves on the back for the big numbers and outlandish budgets we generate.

Is this what happens when the salt loses its savor?

Article: Mega Churches Mean Big Business

2010-01-25T14:50:00.010-05:00

Here's an article at CNN.com that discusses the money-making machines that are mega churches. A few quick quotes and then some salient observations:

Mega churches across the United States are becoming increasingly popular which is not only bringing thousands of worshippers together, but also billions of dollars in profit.

Scott Thumma, professor of sociology and religion at Hartford Seminary told CNN that "the mega church on average has about $6.5 million in income a year."

The Lakewood Church which [Joel] Osteen is in charge of has a yearly budget of more than $80million, but church officials deny that it's about money.

However, some critics argue that it's hard to be both a pastor and someone in charge of a yearly budget in the tens of millions.

You can read the entire article here.

The Scripture says that where words are many, sin is not absent (Proverbs 10:19), and I suspect the same can be said of dollars. Now, don't get angry with me - I don't mean to impugn any of these mega ministers, and I'm very well aware that sin can germinate when there is little money present.

I guess what I'm saying is that money carries with it a certain inherent danger - and there are plenty of Scriptures to back that up, with warnings about being pierced with many griefs and having your faith shipwrecked.

Then there's the more subtle warning in Proverbs 30:8-9 about how having an abundance of money can lead to forgetting God, and that's where my concern about these mega churches lies. It's just far too easy to abandon faith in the leading of the Holy Spirit and lean on slick marketing campaigns, demographic data, and sermons based on felt-needs polling.

And large attendance and financial success are not necessarily indicators of God's blessing. Just ask the Laodiceans . . .

Scoring Christian Bumper Stickers

2010-01-25T11:14:00.006-05:00

Over at the Stuff Christians Like blog, John Acuff talks about Christian bumper stickers.

I've had a long love-hate relationship with Chritsitan bumper stickers and billboards. Sometimes they make me cringe with their puns and cliche's, and sometimes they are genuinely funny and poignant.

On a recent post, Acuff created a scorecard of sorts, based on real stickers that are available. Here are some of his scores:

Your sticker features a bit of wry Christian word play. “Jesus accepts knee-mail.” Or “This car is prayer-conditioned.” = +1 point

You give America a bit of a “talking to” with the sticker. “America needs a faith lift!” = +2 points

You find a sneaky way to have a swear on your car. “God’s last name is not dammit.” = + 5 points

You find a way to work topical, relevant issues into the mix. “Jesus Recycles.” = +2 points

Acuff then offers up some of his own bumper sticker ideas:

“Quit judging! I direct deposit my tithe.”

“Sorry I cut you off. I’m a Christian, but I drive like an agnostic.”

“My other car is a chariot of fire.”

Good stuff! I'll leave you with this one I saw the other day:

"Jesus Loves You! Then again, He loves everybody."

Have you seen any good, interesting, or gosh-awful Christian bumper stickers lately?

Pat Robertson and Ecclesiastical Idiocy

2010-01-17T18:51:00.005-05:00

If you haven't seen it, here's the video where Pat Robertson cites a Haiti legend as the reason for the island's troubles, most notably poverty and earthquakes.

Now, I'm a Christian, but I'm not hyperspiritual and I don't buy what Pat Robertson is saying.

The pact with Satan is an unsubstantiated rumor from Haiti's past. A World Net Daily article quotes Haitian Christian minister, Jean R. Gelin PHD, who has studied the issue (emphasis mine):

. . . such a strong affirmation should be based on solid historical and scriptural ground. But, although the satanic pact idea is by far the most popular explanation for Haiti's birth as a free nation, especially among Christian missionaries and some Haitian church leaders, it is nothing more than a fantastic opinion that ultimately dissipates upon close examination.

This really bugs me. Aside from the inherent cruelty of the statement (that being the idea that Haiti brought this on itself), when a high profile minister such as Robertson publicly cites this as a reason for the earthquake, it threatens the credibility of every Christian minister. How can we expect the world to take our claims of eternal life or damnation seriously when we are seen as giving credence to legends and rumors?

John Piper: Is it ever appropriate to call out prosperity gospel teachers by name?

2010-01-17T14:58:00.003-05:00

A friend sent me this video of John Piper discussing the dangers and merits of naming false teachers. I've admired Piper for a long time and really appreciate his approach to the subject. In typical fashion, he's balanced, Scriptural, and self-effacing.

Back in 1985, author Dave Hunt published a book titled The Seduction of Christianity. He was widely criticized for naming specific teachers and pointing out the harmful effect their doctrine was having on Christianity. Even though the critics agreed with his general assessment for the most part, they objected strongly to his publishing the names of these teachers.

Me, I had no problem with it. Still don't. My position has always been that if you're going to accept the call to teach the Word of God to the people of God, you are publicly accountable for what you say.

Honestly, what's the big deal? If you're teaching is in line with Scripture, you're not afraid of criticism. If your teaching is off base, you should be humble enough to accept the truth and repent.

Anyway, I'm curious about your response: Are you offended or put off when a minister publicly outs another minister?

Survey Says: Half of Clergy Members View Pornography Every Month

2010-01-13T19:38:00.007-05:00

Here's the disturbing story from the Canada Free Press.com:

The reality of Christian America’s shift away from faith in God and sound doctrine is evident by some staggering statistics.
. . . perhaps the most shocking news coming from these surveys concerns the men (and women) in the pulpit. In any given month at least 50% of priests, pastors, and ministers have visited at least one pornographic website.

Why this decay? Why is the church worldlier than ever? There are many reasons: Liberal theology that denies the inerrancy of the Holy Bible; the attempt by many churches to grow in numbers instead of making disciples; churches that love tell you ‘God loves you’ but don’t preach the need for Repentance.

You can read the entire article here.

Ingrid Schlueter over at the CrossTalk blog adds this salient commentary:

The enemy has used porn to derail more lives and ministries than probably anything else . . . If half of all pastors are watching this filth, you can only guess at what the laity is doing.

We are living at a time that resembles the that of Noah. Everyone, including tens thousands of professing Christian pastors, seems to be doing what is right in their own eyes. Scripture tells us that judgment begins at the house of God. Porn-viewing pastors, and porn viewing Christians in general, have reason to tremble.

Revival of the Labrynth

2010-01-10T18:51:00.006-05:00

In the wake of the current Biblical drought facing American churches, we have news of the revival of an ancient practice: walking the labrynth.

The denverpost.com has the article here, and here are a few quotes:

Advocates say walking a labyrinth will quiet the mind, feed spiritual hunger, heal suffering, release the ego, bring order to chaos, amuse, amaze, transform the psyche and give firsthand experience of the divine.

More labyrinths have been built in recent years than at any other time in their known 4,000-year history, labyrinth historian Jeffrey Saward said.

The labyrinth was fashionable again in the 19th century, Saward said, and its use has exploded in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The labyrinth had re-emerged in the early 1980s, here and there, in relatively small circles of geomancers, dowsers and New Age adherents . . .

[Psychotherapist and Episcopal priest Lauren] Artress is largely credited with reviving the ancient spiritual discipline in contemporary Christian experience after it had largely slipped from awareness for some 350 years.

I've been reading about this practice for quite a while now, and it does concern me. This is all part of the growing Emergent Church movement, which is a lot of New Age theology dressed up in Evangelical Christian clothing. Whenever God's people begin seeking "new" ways to experience Him outside of the Scriptures, serious error is not far behind.

It must be understood that we are not priviledged to seek or experience God any way we want. We are invited to come to Him freely, but on His terms alone.

How can we be so blind as to accept these practices that find equal acceptance in New Age thought, neo-paganism, and the church?

Once again, I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of today's pastors. Solid biblical instruction has been replaced by man-centered psychology, leaving the congregation bereft of discernment. Vapid preaching leads to an emptiness of the soul, and the people will seek out other means to find spiritual fulfillment.

Dr. Dobson's Problem Child

2010-01-06T10:33:00.003-05:00

Get Religion.org has an interesting article on what James Dobson is doing now. Seems he’s launching a nonprofit Christian group and will be hosting an accompanying radio show with his son, Ryan.

This new ministry will be focused on the family (it’s called James Dobson on the Family) and will be in direct competition with Focus on the Family – a ministry Dobson started back in 1977 and stepped down from in February 2009. Dobson is already hitting up potential donors for the startup costs of $2 million.

According to sources within FOTF referenced in the article, Dobson was frustrated at being forced to leave before he wanted to go.

Furthermore, there’s speculation that Dobson had wanted to pass the torch to his son, Ryan, but couldn’t do it at FOTF because Ryan went through a divorce in 2001.

You can read the article by clicking here, but here’s my take on the whole thing: I question Dobson’s motives. He seems to have an axe to grind and, while everybody’s saying the right things, it looks like he’s sticking it to his estranged child, Focus on the Family.

Three years ago I wouldn’t have thought an iconic religious leader like Dobson could be motivated by power, greed, and ambition. But I’ve seen the ugly side of the ministry business, and it does things to people. With this much power and money flowing through a ministry, I can see how a person’s “focus” could get skewed.

Inside a Church Business Meeting

2010-01-05T21:17:00.012-05:00

Allow me to take you inside a church business meeting. I’ve been employed by three different churches over the past 25 years, and have had the opportunity to sit in on many of these meetings of ecclesiastical minds.

Full disclosure here: I learned at an early age to dread and despise church business meetings. My first youth pastorate opened my eyes to just how mean, ambitious, and self-promoting humble children of God can be.

But, I must admit, meetings are necessary for any organization, and over the years I’ve attended many good, profitable business meetings; meetings where people demonstrated humility and sacrifice in the interest of the ministry. As I’ve reflected on my past experiences, I’ve realized that there are certain individuals who seem to appear in most church governing boards, like characters in a play.

The Figurehead
In many cases, this is the pastor. He’s the one everybody sees behind the pulpit, but he doesn’t wield any real power. God Himself may charge the pastor with the responsibility of the welfare of the congregation, but his hands are often tied by policies and procedures, politics and precedents. Oh, he’s loved and respected, but he’s also weak and ineffective.

The Bully
This is where the real power lies. This individual usually runs the business of the church as treasurer, president, elder, or deacon. The Bully knows what he wants and how to get it. He enters each meeting with an agenda and a plan to execute it. He usually already has his supporters lined up and knows just how the votes should turn out. Anybody who opposes or questions his agenda is blasted with emotional outbursts, and is usually intimidated into silent compliance.

The Manipulator
The Manipulator often works in conjunction with another, more aggressive personality (often paired with The Bully). The Manipulator prefers to work behind the scenes, allowing someone else to do the real dirty work, but make no mistake, she (females work best in this role) is very active.

The Spiritualist
This person wants to solve everything with prayer. There's nothing wrong with that, until it becomes a subtle form of manipulation itself. Often, after an extended prayer session, the Spiritualist receives a word from God that solves the issue at hand. Ironically, God’s direction usually agrees with what the Spiritualist had been saying all along. The Spiritualist and the Manipulator can sometimes be the same person. In this case the Manipulator teams up with God to push his or her agenda. At least that’s what she would have you believe.

The Pragmatist
The Pragmatist is the antithesis of the Spiritualist. He feels like spiritual matters are too goofy even for church business – after all, these are called “business” meetings, are they not? It all comes down to money and property, the Pragmatist will say. Spiritual stuff is fine for the pulpit, but the boardroom requires a certain worldly savoir-faire. Often Pragmatists have proven their mettle in the business world and it is widely assumed they’d be good at running the church. The Pragmatist and the Bully can also be one and the same.

The Pacifist
This person lives by the Rodney King credo: Can’t we all just get along? Everybody’s right and everybody has a good point. Pacifists can’t bear offending anyone, so they pretty much agree with whatever is being said at that very moment. Even if it contradicts something that had just previously been said. With which they also agreed.

The Servant
The Servant is able to set aside self-interest in order to seek first the kingdom of God. The Servant has no hidden agenda, but serves with humility and grace. Church boards are full of Servants, but, unfortunately, their abusive counterparts (the Bully, the Manipulator, and the Pragmatist in most cases) often overrun them. Servants tend to be meek and are ill-equipped for the fight. They are trusting by nature and don’t discern the treacherous doublespeak used by more savvy members of the committee until it’s too late.

Time for you to add your own. What other personalities have you encountered in church business meetings?

John MacArthur: Raising the Error Alert

2010-01-05T15:55:00.006-05:00

Here's a great article by John MacArthur. In this short burst, he clearly articulates what many of us have been saying for several years: good, solid Bible teaching is in short supply in America's pulpits today.

Here are a few quotes:

Why do so many evangelicals act as if false teachers in the church could never be a serious problem in this generation?

Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation.

Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator-- and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

Fox News' Brit Hume to Tiger Woods: Turn to Christianity

2010-01-05T15:24:00.003-05:00

Wow. I didn't think I'd ever see this. Way to go, Brit.

Okay, so he didn't go into the theological basis for salvation by Christ alone - I'm sure there were time constraints - but he'll take some serious flak for the little bit he did say. Notice co-host Bill Kristol's uncomfortable little joke at the end.

Churches across America are filled with Sunday morning pulpiteers who could learn a lesson or two from Brit Hume about boldness.

Tyranny of the Tithe: Pro Tithing Quotes

2009-12-31T22:46:00.007-05:00

As many of you know, I’m not a tithing advocate. I’ve written about the topic many times over the past year, explaining ad nauseum the Scriptural problems with the teaching. However, I do like to pay attention to the various pro-tithing voices out there (and they are losing ground, by the way).

I ran across the following quotes that typify the pro-tithing mindset. I grew up in a tithe-teaching church, and have spent all of my adult life ministering in pro-tithing churches, and I’ve heard this type of talk many, many times. Even taught it myself a time or two:

"Tithing is an important test of our personal righteousness."

"By this principle it shall be known who is for the Kingdom of God and who is against it... By it shall be known whether we are faithful or unfaithful"

Who said these things? Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church.

Was Jesus Wealthy? - Part 2

2009-12-31T22:13:00.006-05:00

In a previous post, I dealt with some of the ideas put forth by prosperity preachers that Jesus was, in fact, a wealthy man. The impetus for these posts comes from an article at CNN.com that you can find here.

Biblical and historical ignorance are on full display every time one of these Ministers of Materialism opens his or her mouth. There was so much I wanted to cover, I decided to split it up into 2 posts.

The argument for Jesus’ affluence continues:

[The Rev. C. Thomas] Anderson says Jesus never would have had disciples or a large following if he was poor. He would not have been able to command their respect.
"The poor will follow the rich, the rich will follow the rich, but the rich will never follow the poor," Anderson says.

But, what about Martin Luther King? And Mahatma Gandhi (who wore a diaper)? The article points out that they amassed quite a following without being paragons of opulence.

The Scriptural record is clear that the people followed Jesus because of the healing and the teaching. He taught things the religious establishment of that day did not. He offered hope in the form of reconciliation with God – something they cherished back then, and that seems to be lost on society today.

But this assertion points to a more troubling problem I have with the prosperity movement: the idea that we must ascend to greatness (i.e. material wealth) in order to be effectively used by God. This betrays a worldly and covetous heart, and it flies in the face of Biblical truth:

1Co 1:26-29 NIV Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. (27) But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (28) He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, (29) so that no one may boast before him.

I pray that the peddlers of prosperity would spend less time feeding their flesh, and more time meditating on the Word of God.

Was Jesus Rich?

2009-12-29T15:22:00.004-05:00

The prosperity preachers are really reaching in order to justify their religion of opulence. For years they’ve been spouting the nonsense that, contrary to centuries of understanding, Jesus was a materially wealthy man.

You see, they have to assert this falsehood in order to legitimize their own right to wealth (after all, they are the King’s Kids). This affluence is also available to their followers, who are willing to plant a fully deductible faith-seed into their ministry.

This article from CNN.com does a good job presenting both sides of the argument that Jesus was wealthy. Here are some quotes:

[Rev. C. Thomas] Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says. "Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson.

This is an example of blatant biblical ignorance coming from a supposed Man of God. Even a cursory glance at scripture will show that there is no mention of Mary and Joseph taking a donkey on their journey. That’s just the stuff of legend used to fill out a nativity scene at Christmas time.

Also, regarding the gold, frankincense, and myrrh, it’s widely agreed that these “lucrative gifts” were used to finance their trip to Egypt (remember that – fleeing from the murderous King Herod?). Presumably, Joseph had no carpenter clients in that area, so they would have used the gifts to live on during that time.

As for the soldiers gambling for His clothing? Records from that era show that this was a typical practice. Roman soldiers routinely gambled for any intact garment of a crucifixion victim. What wasn’t typical, though, was the crucifixion of the wealthy. This torturous death was reserved for the despised slaves and rebels.

More on this in the next post.

The New American Religion

2009-12-28T17:56:00.003-05:00

According to a nationwide survey, lots of people like to blend Christianity with Eastern and New Age beliefs.

You can read the LA Times article here, but here are some quotes:

About a quarter of those surveyed expressed beliefs in New Age or Eastern religious principles such as reincarnation and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects.

About 65% of those surveyed also expressed belief in or report having an experience with a variety of supernatural phenomena, such as believing in astrology, being in touch with the dead or consulting a psychic.

S. Scott Bartchy, a professor of the history of religion at UCLA, said the results were not surprising given the increasing cultural diversity of the United States.

Regardless, Lichterman said, Americans have the idea that religion and spirituality are a matter of choice.

"That kind of religious individualism," he said, "is the American religion."

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to the direction the American church has been taking for the past – oh, I don’t know – 10 years or more? I know I’ve been speaking out about it for over half that time.

I’m afraid that evangelists, pastors, and teachers across the continent have failed in their mission. When America’s pulpiteers abandon biblical preaching in favor of ear-tickling entertainment, the masses are left to fend for themselves.

100th Post Special Extravaganza Lollapalooza

2009-12-27T08:03:00.004-05:00

Well, this is my 100th post. Quite a milestone considering I had no idea what I was going to do with a blog when I started. I’ve decided to interview myself and ask some questions I’ve been dying to know the answer to!

Why did you start this blog?
At the time I was the Associate Pastor/Youth Pastor at a local church here in Roanoke, and I was looking for another way to connect with the people in the congregation there.

And you’re not in the ministry anymore?
Nope

Gonna be again?
Not any time soon.

Why do you still call the blog Pastor Kip, seeing as how you’re no longer a pastor?
Well, I hope some of my reflections will serve as a pastoral help to those who read my blog. Plus, I know it really irks some people.

That’s not very Christian of you.
So I’ve heard . . .

Why do you write?
I write about things that interest me – that I find amusing. I’ve always enjoyed sharing things I like with others. I also find writing to be a catharsis to help me sort out how I feel about certain things, and to sound off on personal pet peeves. I’m not always right, and I may not always say things the right way, but I try to be absolutely honest in what I write – even if it ticks some people off.

But you’re such a sweet guy, have you ever ticked anyone off?
Oh, yes. I’ve had to remove two of my posts because of the furor they incited – one got me accused of blasphemy (I’ve reposted that one here) and one even became the subject of an entire church board and council meeting.

I didn’t know you had that much power . . .
Me neither!

What’s the future of Pastor Kip, the blog?
Pretty much the same. I’ll continue to write about religion, pop culture, sports, etc. Now that I’m no longer a part of the church machine, I’m freed up to express my raw feelings about things, so it should get pretty interesting.

Any final words for your readers?
Yes. Thanks for taking time to care about what I have to say. Don’t take me too seriously (Lord knows I don’t), and feel free to disagree. I can handle it. I even change my mind from time to time.

Thanks for the interview.
My pleasure.

Don’t forget to call your mom.
Oh, thanks!

Video: Top Dollar Tithing Tunes

2009-12-24T12:50:00.006-05:00

Here's the video I posted a few months back that had some accusing me of mocking and ridiculing Christianity. I took it down because of the criticism. However, on further reflection, I've decided to repost it. The mockery is not of Christianity, but the avarice that defines so much of what passes for "Christian stewardship" today.

Plus, it's just plain funny.

Truth is, this video was made by the folks at GodWhy for a sermon series on things people don't like about church. Maybe we could set aside our self-righteousness, stop taking ourselves so seriously, and learn something.

Article: Vatican Newspaper Praises "The Simpsons"

2009-12-24T11:56:00.003-05:00

Wow - didn't see this one coming! Here's the scoop:

According to Catholic News Service, the Vatican paper went on to describe "The Simpsons" as "tender and irreverent, scandalous and ironic, boisterous and profound, philosophical -- and sometimes even theological -- nutty synthesis of pop culture and of the lukewarm and nihilistic American middle class."

"Simultaneously reflecting modern people's indifference toward and great need for the sacred, Homer ... finds his ultimate refuge in God."

You can read the entire article here.

And to think I was once chastised by my pastor for referring to The Simpsons during a youth message . . .

Priest Says Shoplifting is Okay - Seriously

2009-12-23T11:57:00.004-05:00

The Yorkshire Evening Post reported that on Sunday, the reverend Tim Jones told his congregation at the Church of Saint Lawrence in York that it was okay for poor people struggling to survive to steal food and other essentials from stores.

Here's more from the article:

"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift," he said, as originally reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post. "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."

Jones set down strict guidelines for would-be Christian criminals. "I would ask that [people] do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices," he said. "[And] I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need."

Needless to say, the reverend Jones has come under some serious fire from authorities and storeowners alike.

Modern Youth Ministry Labeled "Indisputably Unbiblical"

2009-12-22T21:32:00.003-05:00

In a recent conference, Scott Brown, director of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, claimed that modern youth ministry is "indisputably unbiblical."

Here are a few tidbits from the article:

Age-segregated youth ministry, trained youth ministers and programs to draw and entertain youth are a new invention in the history of the church, Brown said.

"Modern youth ministry is also inherently destructive in its impact. It divides the church by creating generational division and multiple cultures instead of a unified 'body,'" he maintained.

. . . age segregation leads to the isolation of an individual's perspective to one that only looks outward from within the confines of their age group and excludes the lessons that can and should be learned from previous generations," he adds.

The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches holds that the biblical order and unity of the family are crucial to the stability and health of the Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, churches have contributed to the breakdown of the family, the center claims.

"We now have almost three generations of children who had no father who walked beside them but a youth group instead. It is obvious that half a decade of youth group does not produce young people who are passionate about the church."

Research and estimates by youth workers have suggested that a majority of youth group seniors drop out of church after graduating.

Brown is quick to point out that while he rejects youth groups, he supports ministry to youths. He advocates generous investments in teaching Scripture to teens.

Having been a part of the church machine for the past 25 years or so, and most of that spent in youth ministry, I have to say that – for the most part – I agree.

I don’t have a problem with teens having their own group, but I’ve seen it go way too far – to the point where teens don’t know what to do with themselves after they graduate and are no longer a part of the “youth group”.

I also don’t have a problem with burping contests, and snot shot contests, and all those crazy things, but I’ve seen those become the soul purpose of the youth ministry. In all my years, I always strove to teach solid Biblical doctrine to teens while allowing them to have fun on their own terms. And, all in all, it worked pretty well. The main emphasis, however, must be the Biblical presentation of the gospel and discipleship.

And Brown hits a home run with his indictment of the failure of families (and fathers in particular) to teach Biblical truths in the home. That, in fact, is the Biblical pattern.

MacArthur on the Prosperity Gospel

2009-12-22T16:04:00.003-05:00

Randy, over at the CrossTalk blog, has posted an excerpt from a John MacArthur message regarding the prosperity teaching so rampant in the church today. With a fervor for the truth of Scripture, MacArthur speaks out strongly against the shameful practices and teachings of the TBN network in general, and Oral Roberts and Paul and Jan Crouch in particular.

Here’s the excerpt in full:

And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is “a different gospel; which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.

TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to “plant a seed” by sending “the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write” with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the “seed faith” plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.

The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.

If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)

Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as “you little people,” and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN “to assure God’s blessing.”

Article: The War on Christmas

2009-12-22T15:25:00.005-05:00

Every year we hear the battle cry, "Don't take Christ out of Christmas!" and we know the Christmas wars have begun once again. But here's an article that explores the battle fronts taking place in areas other than the hallowed manger in Bethlehem.

Here are a few quotes on a few different topics:

Economics

In his book, "Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn't Buy Presents for the Holidays," [Joel] Waldfogel says gifts generate less satisfaction than things we buy ourselves. We don't really know what other people want, he says, but we do know what we want. Because of this, in his view, Christmas shopping is "an orgy of wealth destruction" as we spend on things people don't value as much as the money we pay for them.

"I'm not against spending, just sloppy spending," Waldfogel said on NPR's Tell Me More.

Health

Last week, Australian public health expert Dr. Nathan Grills of Monash University was called a "killjoy" and a "scrooge" in the media for an article he wrote suggesting Santa Claus was promoting bad health habits. The article, called "Santa Claus: A public health pariah?" was published at bmj.com, a British medical journal, and suggested that Santa was sending the wrong message with his obesity, drunk sleigh-driving, speeding and generally bad lifestyle choices.

Grills also said Santa could easily become a vehicle for spreading disease because he allows so many children to sit on his lap. Factor in all the sugary products he helps sell, he added, and the man in red is clearly not pushing a healthy agenda.

Editor's note: Grills later said the article was a spoof he wrote in his spare time.

Environmental

As Christmas trees went up and light displays started flashing around the world, some people cringed at the thought of the electricity required to light the season.

Many of these light detractors suggest swapping out traditional Christmas lights with LED (light-emitting diodes) strings, which can be 90 percent more efficient.

While using LED lights may be a step in the right direction, some point out that many of those lights still end up on carbon-eating trees that have been mercilessly chopped down.

Selling Jesus

2009-12-21T15:01:00.004-05:00

Here’s an interesting article about one of my pet peeves: Christian Marketing. Ever since I saw “Testamints” (breath mints with Bible verses on them) at my local Christian retailer, I’ve been cynical about the selling of what church marketing consultant Brad Abare calls “Jesus Junk”.

In this article, Abare nails it:

"We think it's just dumb. It's not a true reflection of creativity," said Abare, of the nonprofit Center for Church Communication in Los Angeles.

He’s speaking specifically about the current t-shirt trend where widely recognized logos such as Subway, iPod, American Idol, and Coca Cola are altered to contain, upon closer inspection, Christian themes.

“Reese’s” becomes “Jesus”.
“American Idol” becomes “Amazing Grace”.
“Sprite” becomes “Spirit”.

Some are going beyond the creativity criticism and questioning the copyright infringement. Aren’t these clever religious marketers violating the eighth commandment – thou shalt not steal?

My main concern is that these cheesy, banal rip offs will cheapen the message of Scripture. How are we to take seriously the idea of a loving God giving his only Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins against His holiness, when we see Him referred to as “My Homeboy”?

A Lesson Learned From Tiger

2009-12-13T15:38:00.004-05:00

The Tiger Woods saga is a cautionary tale. As more and more women come out of the woodwork, and Elin moves out, and Tiger steps away from golf for a while, it’s good to remember that while a wise man learns from his mistakes, a wiser man learns from other people’s mistakes.

Let’s face it, we’re not billionaire athletes and our personal sins will not be plastered across tomorrow’s headlines. The world at large does not care about our transgressions.

But our own little spheres of influence will care. That illicit relationship, that shady financial deal, that shameful habit, these will not remain hidden. And the secret things that invariably come to light will affect our own little world of family, friends, and peers.

The Bible puts it this way in Numbers 32:23:

. . . you may be sure that your sin will find you out.

Tyranny of the Tithe: Paul, the Law, and Biblical Ignorance

2009-12-02T21:18:00.005-05:00

Several months ago, a local church leader asked to meet with me about my tithing articles. He was complimentary and even said it caused him to consider changing the way he teaches the subject at his church. Then he made the statement that I’ve been thinking about for quite a while.

He said that after thoroughly reading Paul’s writings in the New Testament, he observed that Paul only rebuked Christians for following the Law of Moses when they made it necessary for salvation. He concluded that Paul was okay with New Testament Christians observing the Law (including tithing) as long as they didn’t take it too far. I nodded along as he spoke, but I wasn’t sure at the time if I agreed with the statement.

Now, I’m sure I don’t. In fact, I fear that argument may reveal a grievous error of attempting to force the Scriptures to fit a predetermined agenda.

Over and over again Paul exhorted Christians to not observe the Law. In Galatians 5, regarding those were tempted to return to the Law, Paul tells them, “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

Burdened? Yoke? Slavery? Do those sound like the wishy-washy words of a guy who wasn’t all that serious about the issue?

Paul goes on to say, “. . . if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.” He even says that if a Christian chooses to obey the Law regarding circumcision, he is obligated to obey the entire Law. It’s not something to deal with lightly – there’s no pick-and-choose option with the Law.

Furthermore, to teach a congregation that it’s proper to obligate oneself to any part of the Law is to separate them from the grace of God – see Galatians 5:1-4.

Some would say, “Well, I just want to follow the Law so I can please God.”

Sorry. The Scriptures make it clear that following the Law – even if you could do it perfectly – would not please God. That kind of attitude, when boiled down to the basics, is self-righteousness. The only way to please God is to come to Him by faith through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Tiger Woods is in the Rough

2009-11-30T10:14:00.014-05:00

In case you haven’t heard, Tiger Woods was involved in a little incident this past weekend.

Click here for the story from Fox News.

I want to comment on this because I’m interested in both sports (although not golf, particularly) and pop culture – and Tiger Woods has a commanding presence in both. I find that I’m torn in my opinion of the coverage this story is getting. Let me work this out in the ever-popular blog format of bullet points:

The accident. This was a small accident. Just a little fender bender involving a pricey Cadillac Escalade, a fire hydrant, and an innocent tree. And an emotional woman with a golf club hovering over a bloody international sports icon who's floating in and out of consciousnesss. Not newsworthy if it happened to anyone else.

The celebrity. Seeing how his fame transcends the sports world, Tiger Woods is easily one of the most recognizable celebrities in the world.

The time. It happened at 2:25 am on Friday, November 27th. This alone raises the public eyebrow – where was he going at this time of day? Is it even anyone’s business?

The rumor. It happened two days after the National Enquirer published a story alleging a little romantic tryst with pop-tart Rachel Uchitel (which both Woods and Uchitel have denied). We can scoff at the reputation of the Enquirer, but remember, it was this publication that broke the news of Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction in 2003, and John Edwards’ affair and subsequent love-child in 2007.

Here’s a quote from the FoxNews story:

Celebrity Web site TMZ claimed Woods was confronted by Elin (his wife) with the report that he had been seeing New York night club hostess Rachel Uchitel.

The argument grew heated, and according to TMZ’s source, she scratched his face up.

He then beat a hasty retreat to his SUV, with her following behind with a golf club. She reportedly used the club on the golfer's vehicle. Woods, then, reportedly became distracted, causing the car crash.

Here is where I’m conflicted:

Is it anyone’s business? On a personal level – no. I hear people talking about the public’s right-to-know, but I don’t think we have any such right when it comes to a celebrity’s personal life. They are entitled to their privacy as much as any other person. However . . .

Tiger Woods is the first ever billion-dollar athlete, and he makes 10 to 100 times more off the golf course than with a club in his hand. When a celebrity uses his or her image and reputation to endorse products, and sell the public on those products, said celebrity is held to a higher level of scrutiny than the average Joe Citizen.

What are your thoughts?

The Audacity of Forgiveness

2009-11-29T20:09:00.003-05:00

Lately, God’s been dealing with me about forgiveness – both seeking it and offering it. I had no idea how challenging it would be. Forgiveness is never easy. In fact, it can be, as one commentator said, “the most difficult thing in the universe.”

Making it doubly difficult is our culture, which mocks at the idea of forgiveness. We are constantly encouraged to exploit our “right” to be offended at everything and exact vengeance on those who cross us.

Forgiveness, however, is a fundamental pillar of Christian character, and perhaps the one that is the most easily neglected. But to neglect it causes great harm. It can turn the Christian into the very things he hates: harsh, rigid, and bitter. This, in turn, leads to holding grudges and elevating pride.

As uncomfortable as it is, it is absolutely essential in Christian relationships. Though we hate to admit it, the church has its share of sins, imperfections, errors, misjudgments, and wrong attitudes, and these occur among the church leadership as well as the congregation.

John MacArthur:

The church needs to be filled with forgiving people because in this life people are always going to do things that irritate others or cause problems. If you’re willing to forgive an offender, you’ll be free from the bondage of bitterness. You’ll also be free to be forgiven by God and experience blessing from Him.

In the next few posts, I’ll share what I’ve been learning about forgiveness from the Scriptures.

The Hypocrisy of Forgiveness

2009-11-22T14:09:00.012-05:00

It's easy to preach forgiveness when you're the offender; not so much when you're the offended . . .

Now, don't misunderstand me, forgiveness is an integral quality for a healthy life. It is indespensible in relationships with our fellow man as well as with God.

But, in my considerable ministerial experience, I've seen forgiveness applied with both hypocrisy and cruelty. How?

It goes something like this:

You realize you've offended someone. You apologize and then (humbly) demand that they forgive you. Sometimes you don't even have to apologize - you just stress the fact that they need to forgive even if there is no apology forthcoming (it's helpful if you're able to do this from a position of power, like a pulpit).

If there's still no discernible forgiveness on the part of the offended party, it's time to pull out the big guns. Scare them into submission by belaboring the point that God is on your side, and if they don't forgive you, He won't forgive them. If you're crafty, you can make this threat ambiguous enough so that they aren't sure if you're saying they will lose their salvation, or just be afflicted with some sort of malady that will make them a little less comfortable - like gout, or or a hellacious case of gas.

You can then rest easily, knowing that the person you have wronged has been properly warned against holding any kind of grudge against you. Furthermore, any retaliative action on their part will be further confirmation of their lack of forgiveness, and will get them in even deeper trouble with God, who - as has been previously stated - is on your side.

Now, put the shoe on a horse of a different gander (or something like that). You're the one who has been horribly offended. I mean, some low-life slob has debased himself and sunk to an all-time low in an attempt to hurt you.

And it did hurt, too.

And let's say, for kicks and giggles, that the offender has offered a public, heartfelt apology.

What do you do? Do you forgive and forget? Or do you launch a campaign of your own to further sully the scum's name and ostracise him or her?

I've been on both sides of this debate, and I can tell you - it ain't easy. At times I've responded well, and at times I've failed miserably.

How aboout you?

Article: Did Christianity Cause the Crash?

2009-11-10T21:56:00.006-05:00

For years I have decried the bad theology and inherent cruelty of the prosperity gospel. I even earned myself some pretty serious reprimands from the leadership I was under at the time for publicly calling out some of the more egregious Ministers of Mammon.

So, I was fascinated when I ran across this article over at The Atlantic that examined the role this teaching may have played in the recent financial crash. I'd heard thoughts on this before, but journalist Hanna Rosin really goes into great detail explaining the prosperity movement, its appeal, and its likely impact on our country's current financial malaise.

It's a pretty long article (3 whole pages - a virtual War and Peace to this 140-character twitter generation!), so here's a quick quote that sort of encapsulates the whole:

. . . critics have begun to argue that the prosperity gospel, echoed in churches across the country, might have played a part in the economic collapse. In 2008, in the online magazine Religion Dispatches, Jonathan Walton, a professor of religious studies at the University of California at Riverside, warned:

"Narratives of how 'God blessed me with my first house despite my credit' were common … Sermons declaring 'It’s your season of overflow' supplanted messages of economic sobriety and disinterested sacrifice. Yet as folks were testifying about 'what God can do,' little attention was paid to a predatory subprime-mortgage industry, relaxed credit standards, or the dangers of using one’s home equity as an ATM.

In 2004, Walton was researching a book about black televangelists. 'I would hear consistent testimonies about how ‘once I was renting and now God let me own my own home,’ or ‘I was afraid of the loan officer, but God directed him to ignore my bad credit and blessed me with my first home,’' he says. 'This trope was so common in these churches that I just became immune to it. Only later did I connect it to this disaster.'

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

Just two quick thoughts:

I think it's sad how people in this time were taught that their loan approval was a blessing from God, when it was only at the behest of a bad government program.

And finally, this is what happens when the church gets away from its true mission and begins dabbling in the flesh.

Are You Being Emotionally Blackmailed?

2009-11-09T22:38:00.013-05:00

I ran across this interesting theme in a book I was reading today: the idea of being emotionally blackmailed.

The book is Why Men Don't Have a Clue and Women Always Need More Shoes: The Ultimate Guide to the Opposite Sex by Barbara and Allan Pease. It's a fascinating and often hilarious look at relationships and the inherent differences between men and women.

The book goes into the topic of emotional blackmail in dealing with husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, but it also points out that the abuse can (and often does) extend to friendships and even work-related relationships.

I did a little reasearch on the topic and found this article that is actually a review of the book Emotional Blackmail by Susan Forward. In her book, Susan Forward uses the acronym FOG to stand for fear, obligation, and guilt - the tools of the blackmailer's trade. Here are a few more snippets from the review of this book:

The author says, "Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish us if we don't do what they want…

Blackmailers pump an engulfing FOG into their relationships, ensuring that we will feel afraid to cross them, obligated to give them their way and feel terribly guilty if we don't."

You can read the entire review by clicking here.

It occured to me that this kind of behavior can even be seen in *gasp!* the church. From Sunday School classes to board meetings, anytime you have people gathered together to push their own agenda, emotional blackmail is not far away.

That's why it's so important to make sure that in all we do we are seeking first the kingdom of God, and not our own kingdoms . . .

The Bible: Taking on A Classic Argument for Divine Inspiration

2009-11-02T21:04:00.018-05:00

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I also believe that the current sixty-six books we have fully constitute the inspired Scriptures - nothing should be added, none should be left out. But lately I've been thinking critically about an argument we Christians have been trained to use to help prove the inspiration of Scripture.

For years I have believed, and taught, that one of the greatest testimonies to the divine inspiration of the Bible is the incredible unity it contains. We tell students that the Scriptures were written over a 1500 year period, on three different continents, and in three different languages. We say that it was written by over 40 different authors in all different walks of life: farmers, kings, judges, poets, tax collectors, priests, doctors, etc.

And we like to point out how, in spite of these vast influences of time, culture, and geography, the Holy Writ is amazingly consistent in dealing with such controversial topics as the nature of God, the nature of man, death, eternity, personal ethics, worship, etc.

Finally, we conclude this proves that One Divine Hand guided the writers as they wrote. But, I have to wonder . . . does it really? I mean, all of that is true, but is it a valid argument for divine inspiration?

Plain and simple, the sixty-six books of the Bible are so remarkably consistent because way back in 393 AD, a standard was recognized to weed out books and letters that just didn't fit in.

This standard is called the “canon” – an architectural term referring to a standard measuring rod. In 393 the Council of Hippo (no giggling!) recognized the canon for the Bible.

From ChurchTimeline.com (emphasis mine):

To be recognized as canonical, a book had to be Apostolic, fit in with the other scriptures, and have been of fruitful use throughout the church up to that time.

So, claiming that the unity of Scripture is indicative of divine inspiration is simplistic and misleading – mundane steps were taken to insure they were unified.

Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but there are much better reasons to believe.

The Culture of Cults: 10 Cult Warning Signs in Any Group

2009-10-31T14:43:00.009-04:00

In an earlier post, we dealt with the 5 Characteristics of a Cult Leader. In this post, I want to look more specifically at the warning signs within a group.

The gang over at SOS Dallas.org has provided a helpful and interesting list to think about when evaluating a religious group (or even a church) that you - or a loved one - consider joining.

The following characteristics of cults and sects are based upon the cult classification systems of the world’s leading cult experts like, Singer, Langone, Lifton, and Hassan.

Obsession about group or the leader, putting it above most other considerations.

Member’s individual identity becomes increasingly fused with the group, the leader and/or God followed by the group. Cloning of the group members or leader’s personal behaviors.

Emotional overreaction when the group or leader is criticized. Seen as evil persecution.

Belief that the group is "THE WAY" and they have a mission

Increasing dependency upon the group or leader for problem solving, explanations, definitions and analysis, and corresponding decline in real, independent thought.

Excessive hyperactivity and work for the group or leader, at the expense of private or family interests. Drifting away from family and old friends

Preparedness to blindly follow the group or leader and defend actions or statements without seeking independent verification.

Demonization of former members or members of alternative groups.

Desire to be praised for doing the right thing and fear of public rebuke

Unhealthy wish to be seen with or aligned publicly with the leader(s) of the group

The site points out that:

An organization doesn’t have to have all of these characteristics to be a cult, and variations on the characteristics are many, it just has to have a good number of them to be a cult or moving in the direction of becoming one.

The Culture of Cults: Why People Join

2009-10-30T19:52:00.009-04:00

In any discussion of cults, the question inevitably arises: Why do people join them?

Could it be that cult members are simple-minded, weak-willed people? Let Us Reason.org posts an interesting statistic on this (emphasis mine):

According to one research, 48% of cult members had been between the ages of 19 to 25 years old when they joined. 35% had been between the ages of 26 to 35. They are looking at those fresh out of high school or in college that are targeted. 26% were Protestant Liberals and 28% were Catholic. Many three years of college. This dispels the myth that cult members are uneducated and don’t know any better. Many are educated, but naïve to the religious world and its deceptions.

Rod Benson with John Mark Ministries posted a sermon he preached on the subject in which he lists the following 6 reasons he believes people join cults:

Unfulfilled expectations of traditional churches. Benson calls cults "the unpaid bills of the church". Where the traditional church has failed to maintain and teach biblical doctrine, or where it's become ineffective, cults rush in to fill the vacuum.

A sense of love and affection. We all need to experience a sense of love and care from friends and loved ones. Cults excel in this crucial area, because they know that meeting felt needs pays great dividends.

A sense of belonging. People - especially young adults - increasingly join cults in order to find a family that gives them a sense of belonging they lack in their biological family due to the prevalence of divorce, single parenthood, generational conflict and child abuse.

A sense of acceptance and self-worth. People who feel for one reason or another that they don't 'belong' in society (or in the church) are especially attracted to cult organisations - because they feel alienated, or isolated, or they lack a positive and healthy sense of personal identity. Cult members may believe the lie that they're now on God's side, or that they have "found the truth," and they develop contempt and resistance toward orthodox churches. Cults also encourage a high degree of lay-involvement, elevating the importance of the individual member, which many adherents find attractive.

Idealism. Some people are attracted by the enthusiasm and personal sacrifice of cult members, or by their wholesome lifestyle in contrast to the relatively worldly lifestyle of the major culture and the traditional churches; the strict regimen and discipline of some cults is also attractive.

Spiritual fulfillment. All people hunger for spirituality - for something beyond the material and the tangible. As our society becomes more technologically advanced and more secularised, that spiritual hunger becomes more apparent and focussed, and cults tap into that lack, filling the void.

I like this list and agree with his conclusions. It was interesting to me how all but #1 are also true of why people join legitimate, traditional churches. In fact, there seems to be a fine line between the true church and cults - much like there is a fine line between legitimate currency and a really good counterfeit. That's why it's important to know the truth and be ready to discern the false.

Heb 5:14 NIV
(14) But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

I also think it's a legitimate argument that some cults are simply good groups gone bad. It's very possible that a cultish group started out as a legitimate, Bible-believing church that lost its moorings somewhere along the way. It may be that people entrenched in such a church are blind to its condition because the deterioration has happened so slowly, much like the analogy of the frog in a slowly-heated pot of water. Or maybe they've invested so much time and personal resources in an organization, they are loathe to admit the truth.

In addition to learning the truth of Scripture, lists are helpful in discerning. You can find the 5 Characterisitcs of Cult Leaders by clicking here. And in the next post, I'll share 10 things to look out for in a particular group.

The Culture of Cults

2009-10-27T18:36:00.011-04:00

Recently a friend called to ask me about cults. Her daughter had moved several states away and was looking at different churches. My friend was concerned that she might get involved in something that would alienate her from her family and “zap her personality”, as she put it.

I've been interested in the psychology of cults for quite a long time. Umpteen years ago I wrote a college research paper on the subject because I wanted to understand how in the world reasonably intelligent people could become caught up in mind-warping, will-breaking cults.

I shared with her some things I'd discovered on the topic, and I thought I'd post some of my findings over the next several days. I hope you find it interesting as well as helpful and informative.

In this first post on the subject, I want to quickly point out a very important distinction. CultFAQ.org posits that the term 'cult' can be defined either theologically or sociologically.

Theologically deals with doctrine and ". . . the reasons why a particular group's beliefs and/or practices are considered unorthodox - that is, in conflict with the . . . teachings of the movement the group compares itself to." In other words, the Mormon church may call itself Christian, but even a cursory comparison of its teachings with orthodox Christianity will reveal serious conflicts (to put it mildly!), thus landing it squarely in the 'cult' category (sorry, Mr. Romney . . .).

Sociologically deals with behavior, and ". . . considers such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, [and] conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate)." This is to say that a group or a church can be orthodox in its doctrine, but still exhibit cultish tendencies in the way it handles criticism, demands loyalty, or manipulates decision-making processes.

For more information, check out the CultFAQ.org site by clicking here. In the next post we'll look at 5 characteristics of cult leaders . . .

The Culture of Cults: 5 Characteristics of Cult Leaders

2009-10-26T22:23:00.012-04:00

I wonder sometimes if people would just rather have their lives governed by someone else. Every year at tax time, I think it would be a lot easier if I just dropped out of society, grew a ponytail, and sold flowers in the airport. Come on, when the stress levels peak, who hasn't considered the value of moving to South America and living in a commune where you grow hemp in neat little farms? Anyone else? Nah, me neither . . .

But I've long been fascinated by the psychology of cults. In a previous post we looked at a helpful definition of cults and a distinction between theological and sociological cults.

The alarming thing is how easily devout, intelligent people can get caught up in a cult without even knowing it.

So, how do you discern the good groups from the bad? How do you know if the church you're attending, or the Bible study a member of your family is attending, is safe?

The folks over at SOSDallas.org have posted a helpful checklist suggesting 5 things to look out for in any group leader(s). This is not an exhaustive list and it's far from perfect, but it serves as a springboard for discernment:

[The leader(s) demonstrate an] authoritarian approach and intolerance of questioning or criticism. Lies about and insults opponents.

Leader(s) shows anxiety about the world, speaking of threats or conspiracies against the group or its leaders.

Leader(s) regularly accuse(s) dissatisfied members who leave of having something wrong with them, having personality disorders or being transgressor and deserters.

Ex-members have similar stories of abuse and ill-treatment by the leader(s).

The group/leader(s) is always right and followers never feel they can be "good enough".

Next we'll examine the appeal of cults - why do people join them?

Tyranny of the Tithe: God's Plan for Giving, Part 2 - John MacArthur

2009-10-10T17:33:00.004-04:00

Here's some tidbits from part 2 of John MacArthur's excellent series on God's Plan for Giving:

The right thing to do in the area of giving is to teach the truths of the Word of God and then leave it to the Spirit of God to generate the response.

There are two kinds of giving stressed in the New Testament. One, pay your taxes. Two, give God whatever you want. There is no amount.

There is no exacting of the tithe on the church anywhere in the New Testament. It is never required of the church. It is always in reference to Israel's economy in the gospels and in the book of Hebrews it is only mentioned in reference to Melchiezedek and Abraham way back in the book of Genesis. It has no bearing on the church at all.

At no time does the New Testament ever suggest or even hint - and there are plenty of places where it might have - that the tithe is exacted upon the Christian.

Let's go to freewill giving. And here we enter the category of the giving that is truly giving to God. There is no reference about tithing in any passage at all in the New Testament that talks about Christian giving. Absolutely none.

MacArthur then goes on to list 10 principles the New Testament gives for Christian giving:

Giving is investing with God

Giving is to be sacrificial

Giving is not a matter of what you have

Giving affects spiritual riches

Giving amounts are personally determined

Giving is to be in response to need

Giving is to demonstrate love and not law

Giving is to be planned

Giving is to be generous

Giving generously results in blessing

He develops each of these further and, in typical MacArthur style, packs in loads of relevant Scripture.

You can listen to the entire sermon and follow along with the transcript by clicking here.

Tyranny of the Tithe: God's Plan for Giving, Part 1 - John MacArthur

2009-10-10T16:17:00.005-04:00

Over at John MacArthur's site you can listen to sermons and read the transcripts for free. Here's a great message he preached on God's Plan for Giving. This is part 1 where he focuses on the Old Testament giving - part 2 deals with the New Testament plan for giving.

Here's a brief sampling from God's Plan for Giving, Part 1:

[Concerning money] The major issue of Scripture is concerned with how you give your money. This dominates Scripture. It's too important a subject for us to bypass. How we give our money is extremely important.

Now, many people come along and they say that the solution to everything is to just accept the biblical pattern, which is 10%.

In all the passages where the church gives, there is no mention . . . any place of tithing. But what they're really saying is, "We know tithing is not New Testament giving, but if we don't push the tithe, we're afraid we won't get enough money to operate." It really boils down to that kind of motivation. The 10% sort of keeps the money flowing.

You know what's wrong with the 10%? Number one, it isn't biblical and it's giving for the wrong reason. It's giving to fulfill an obligation rather than a response to a loving, willing heart. Second thing that's wrong with it is, it hinders what you could do by making you think you're done. Giving is never to be by coercion. It is never to be by fundraising. It is never to be by compulsion.

God's pattern for giving is not tithing in the New Testament. It isn't even tithing in the Old Testament. It never has been tithing, it never will be tithing.

[T]he Bible does not institute tithing in Genesis. There is no statement from God ever regarding tithing at this point. No one told Abraham to give a tenth. No one told Jacob to give a tenth . . .

Tithing was always taxation. So that the programs of the government could run.

Freewill giving was independent of taxation.

Freewill giving was always whatever came out of the willing heart. But I'm telling you . . . when people believe in what you're doing, that willing heart opens up.

Don't get stuck at the tenth. Don't limit yourself to legalistic giving. Be free in the spirit of God to give super abundantly and sow bountifully that you may reap bountifully.

To listen to the sermon and follow along with the transcript, click here. More coming on God's Plan for Giving, Part 2.

Tyranny of the Tithe: Article - The Ancient Rise and Recent Fall of Tithing

2009-09-27T19:29:00.004-04:00

Here's an interesting article on ChristianityToday.com that gives a brief synopsis on how the doctrine of tithing rose to prominence. Here's a snippet (with occasional italicised emphases added by yours truly).

The early church's expectation that every Christian would tithe found formal expression at the Synod of Mâçon in 585, which embedded the practice in canon law. A millennium later, the Council of Trent sharpened this law's teeth: it provided for excommunication if any Catholic declined to contribute his tithe. This, despite the stain in the Church's monetary record that Luther had so recently uncovered in his critique of papal indulgences.

Post-Reformation Europe, however, didn't do much better: in the centuries after Luther, secular governments often acted on behalf of the churches by collecting mandatory tithes. These more closely resembled American property taxes than Jewish monetary offerings.

Without a state-imposed tithe, giving in the United States developed quite differently than in Europe. American church leaders have often emphasized the New Testament's command to give freely and cheerfully, which some leaders have cited to advocate giving less or even more than ten percent. As a result, tithing has been practiced only sporadically in the modern church, though some revival has been seen in recent decades among Baptists and elements of the Wesleyan holiness movement and Pentecostalism.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

Tyranny of the Tithe: Various Quotes

2009-09-27T18:20:00.003-04:00

The Encyclopedia Americana:
"It (tithing) was not practised in the early Christian church but gradually became common (in the Roman Catholic church in western Europe) by the 6th Century. The Council of Tours in 567 and the 2nd Council of Macon in 585 advocated tithing. [It was] made obligatory by civil law in the Carolingian empire in 765 and in England in the 10th Century...

Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church:
“It is admitted universally that the payment of tithes or the tenths of possessions, for sacred purposes did not find a place within the Christian Church during the age covered by the apostles and their immediate successors.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica:
“The Christian Church depended at first on voluntary gifts from its members.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The early Church had no tithing system ... it was not that no need of supporting the Church existed or was recognized, but rather that other means appeared to suffice.”

Easton's Bible Dictionary:
“It cannot be affirmed that the Old Testament law of tithes is binding on the Christian Church...”

C. I. Scofield - Scofield Reference Bible:
2 Corinthians 8 and 9, "In contrast with the law, which imposed giving as a divine requirement, Christian giving is voluntary, and a test of sincerity and love.”

Wycliffe Bible Dictionary of Theology:
“The silence of the NT writers, particularly Paul, regarding the present validity of the tithe can be explained only on the ground that the dispensation of grace has no more place for a law of tithing than it has for a law on circumcision.”

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association:
“…the question as to whether to tithe from one's net or gross income is not answered in Scripture, nor is the question of whether to give it all to the local church or to include other ministries. We feel that such decisions should be based on personal conviction… It (tithing) is not mentioned in the New Testament except where it is describing Old Testament practices or in the Gospels where Jesus is addressing people who were under the Old Testament law.

...we should give individually, regularly, methodically, and proportionately. The matter of your giving is between you and God, and He always takes into account our circumstances.

The important thing is that we see giving as a privilege and not a burden. It should not be out of a sense of duty, but rather out of love for the Lord and a desire to see His kingdom advanced.”

Martin Luther (Sermon; August 27, 1525):
"But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the Gentiles, such as the tithe..."

Jerome Smith – The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (p. 1152.):
“Tithing is not taught in the New Testament as an obligation for the Christian under grace... Because we are not under law, but under grace, Christian giving must not be made a matter of legalistic obligation, lest we fall into the error of Galatianism…

The LORD commanded the Israelites to ‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house....’ (Malachi 3:10) Christians are often urged to tithe based upon a mistaken appeal to this Old Testament text, which is wrested out of its rightful context, when applied to such a purpose... The storehouse is clearly the temple, not the church... Taken in context this passage lends no support to the mistaken doctrine of `storehouse tithing,' whereby Christians have been directed to restrict all their financial giving to their own denomination or local church, or as a variation, church members have been directed to pay the tithe to the local church, and restrict giving to outside organizations to amounts over and above the church tithe.”

Fred J. Scroggins - Tithes Are Unbiblical For The New Covenant Church (excerpt from article):
“The New Testament Church never paid tithes. Tithing was for the state of Israel, a taxation to support the priesthood of the Old Law of Moses. Christians never tithed till the Catholic Church came up with a plan. The Church needed a plan to take control of the money of the congregation. So through covetousness they brought people back under the Old Law to control them and their money...”

Greg Albrecht - Q & A About Tithing (re: what percentage to give):
“Christians are not required to give a specific percentage of their income. Christians are, however, commanded to give, as God has blessed them, as responsible stewards of their time, talents and treasures...”

“Tithing needs to be approached from the perspective that no specific or dogmatic guidelines are given to Christians...The amount we give is a choice we make, not a percentage mandated by the old covenant, or attempted to be imposed by any human or group of humans.”

“...no church, pastor, or ministry can ‘demand’ or ‘require’ that a tithe, or all of the free will offerings that a Christian decides to give to God’s work, be given only to them.”

Merrill F. Unger, ed.- New Unger’s Bible Dictionary:
“To understand the Gospels one must not confuse the kingdom offered to Israel and the church of Christ. Christ fulfilled the law, died under the law, and set us free from the law. Therefore, to understand the Gospels one must expect to be on legal ground up to the cross (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:22-28; Mark 1:44)….

In understanding the New Covenant it also must be borne in mind that the full-scale revelation concerning grace is to be found in the Epistles, not in the Gospels. The Gospels do not present the doctrine of the church.”

Bruce Metzger – The Oxford Companion to the Bible:
“The New Testament nowhere explicitly requires tithing to maintain a ministry or a place of assembly.”

Nelson’s Bible Dictionary:
“In the New Testament the words tithe and tithing appear only eight times - Matt. 23:23, Luke 11:42, 18:12, Heb. 7:5-6, 8-9. All of these passages refer to Old Testament usage and to current Jewish practice. Nowhere does the New Testament expressly command Christians to tithe.”

John MacArthur, Jr. Commentary on the Book of Romans 9-16 (p.233):
“…Christians are not under obligation to give a specified amount to the work of their heavenly Father. In none of their forms do the tithe or other Old Testament levies apply to Christians.”

Charles R. Swindoll – The Grace Awakening (p.264):
“How and why we give is of far greater significance to God than what we give. Attitude and motive are always more important than amount. Furthermore, once a person cultivates a taste for grace in giving, the amount becomes virtually immaterial. When those age-old grace killers, Guilt and Manipulation, are not used as leverage, the heart responds in generosity.”

Drive-in Church?

2009-09-04T17:49:00.001-04:00

Now, is this creatively meeting people where they are, or just catering to the lazy?

Alice Cooper

2009-09-01T20:15:00.005-04:00

Here's an article that really gets me thinking. Ever since I heard that Alice Cooper became a Christian, I've occasionally wondered how that's working out. And when I heard he's still doing the same stage show he always did, I wondered how he reconciled that with his faith.

In this article on examiner.com, Alice explains his position and I must admit, he makes some very good points. Here's an excerpt:

As a Christian, I don't declare myself as a 'Christian rock star.' I'm a rock performer who's a Christian. Alice Cooper is the guy who wants to entertain the audience - it happens that he's a Christian. Alice (the character I play on stage) began life as a villain and he remains one. There's a villain and a hero in every Shakespeare play," he said.

Alice is no more dangerous than a villain in a cartoon or a Disney film. We have fun with him. He snarls and wears make up. He's punished for his crime and he comes back on the stage in white top and tails. We put on a good show. I've always put limits on Alice because I believe there's a certain amount of Alice that's a gentleman. He'd slit your throat, but he'd never swear at you. And there's always a punchline; he may kill you, but he'll slip on a banana peel. I get right-wing Christians down on me and I always ask them the question: 'If I was doing Macbeth, would it be OK?' And they always say that's Shakespeare so of course. I say that's about four times more violent than anything I do on stage.

I remember people giving Christian artist Phillip Bailey a hard time in 1984 for His duet with Phil Collins Easy Lover. People said he was a secular sell-out and not a real Christian. His response was that he was a Christian who worked in show business just as you might be a Christian who works in a car dealership, law office, or whatever.

Works for me, what do you think? Where should Christians draw the line?

*****BONUS VIDEO*****

Tyranny of the Tithe: Insight for Living on Tithing

2009-08-16T20:27:00.004-04:00

One of the most outspoken critics of the pro-tithe position is Russell Kelly, PHD. You can find his site by clicking here. This site is very thorough and goes into great detail.

One of the things I appreciate about the site is the quotes he includes from recognized church leaders such as J. Vernon McGee, Walter Elwell, and (to a lesser extent) James Kennedy.

Here is an excerpt from an email by a representative for Insight for Living about the ministry and Swindoll's position on tithing:

Insight for Living, October 15, 2007

... Chuck believes that the tithe was part of the Law, not New Testament teaching.

...We are not under the Law.

The New Testament doesn’t teach tithing or how often we are to gather as a church.

...Under the Law of Moses tithing was an obligation, not an option. It meant paying a precise percentage of one’s goods, produce or income to the Lord. ... Merrill Unger helps up sort it all out in his Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Dallas/Moody] and I encourage you to read the entire article.

...The [Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord, Dallas] cautions us about using [Malachi 3:10] to support church giving. ... While not requiring a tithe of believers today, the New Testament does speak of God’s blessing on those who give generously to the needs of the church.

The New Testament does not command church members to tithe like Jews in the Old Testament. The people in the early church did not tithe per se but they did give regularly to the work of the ministry following the principle of the tithe. We find several references to special offerings for specific projects (2 Cor 8 & 9) that were given in addition to the early Christian’s normal pattern of giving. So, although they weren’t required to give a specific percent of their income they were giving regularly.

Under the New Covenant giving is a matter of the heart, not percentages. ...

Still the answer remains, how much should we give? The answer is this, As much as the Spirit leads. The percentage and frequency of our giving ought to be a personal matter between each person and the Lord. Ten percent may be a good amount for you. Certainly the Lord considered ten percent a fair amount for the Hebrews. But the Lord may lead you to give less or more. ...

Church leaders who pressure you to give a certain amount are robbing you of the joy of being a cheerful giver. They are putting you under compulsion and making you feel guilty, which is not the way God wants us to give. As a member of Stonebriar Community Church, where Chuck is the Senior Pastor, I have not heard Church try to manipulate people or use guilt as a motivation. In fact I have not heard him preach on the tithe as a rule for giving. He has taught that giving as the Spirit leads is the way to approach it.

So while Chuck feels we are not obligated to tithe like the Israelites under the law, the principle of systematic giving is a good idea for all Christians. ...

I think those who continually preach the tithe are being manipulative. It is the Holy Spirit who directs our living and that includes our giving. They are not the Holy Spirit. We are not under the Law. ... I am glad that Chuck preaches grace giving from the heart.

Warmly in Christ
Graham M Lyons, Pastor

Tyranny of the Tithe: WWJD - What Would Jesus Donate?

2009-08-08T20:42:00.011-04:00

As if we don't have enough schisms and labels these days, there's a growing group of people who call themselves "Red-letter Christians", meaning they only concern themselves with the things Jesus said in the Bible. I think this is silly, but I admit that, while the writings of Paul and the other New Testament writers are equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, I can see why special weight would be given to the One upon whom everything is founded.

So what did Jesus have to say about our pet topic of tithing? Surprisingly little, yet much has been made of it. And I'll need to warn you - I get just a wee bit upset. His words have been twisted and mangled like a secondary character in one of those Saw movies to support the pro-tithing position, violating the most rudimentary principles of Bible interpretation and simple logic.

There are only two instances where Jesus mentioned tithing: Matthew 23:23 (and the parallel passage in Luke 11:42) and Luke 18:12. Let's take a look . . .

Mat 23:23
(23) "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

I actually heard this verse read recently at a church service right before the offering was taken. The pulpiteer read the verse and then said, "See, tithing is still for today." The pro-tithe teaching on this verse takes the part where Jesus says, ". . . without neglecting the former." (referring to the tithe) and uses that to say that Jesus approves of tithing - or at least that He says to not neglect it.

What ignorance! Do they really expect us to believe that Jesus was commending the Pharisees for their scrupulous tithing practices?!!? I'll guarantee you that the Pharisees did not leave that meeting feeling like Jesus had just given them a gold star. They recognized that they had just been spit-slapped by this uneducated friend-of-sinners, and they were none too happy about it.

Listen, of course they were supposed to be tithing - they were still under the Mosaic law! Jesus confirmed this in the passage, ". . . you have neglected the more important matters of the law . . .". As we discussed in an earlier post, Christians are not obligated to the law, and are sternly warned against allowing themselves to be brought back under it. Paying tithes was the Pharisees' duty. To overlook this and misinterpret the passage to say that Christians are obligated to tithe reveals one of two things: an ignorance even greater than that of your typical National Inquirer subscription holder, or a bias for a particular doctrine that has seriously skewed the preacher's interpretation.

As an aside, Jesus was referring to the Pharisees' practice of tithing their spices - not money. This was an extreme variation on the Old Testament tithe which, by the way, never required money. Look it up - it was all agricultural product. If your pastor insists on using this passage to defend his position on tithing, start putting some paprika or lemon zest from your spice rack into the tithe envelope . . .

Now let's look at Luke 18:12 in its context:

Luk 18:9-14
(9) To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
(10) "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
(11) The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
(12) I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
(13) "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven,
but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
(14) "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

First of all, notice that tithing is mentioned in this context (as well as in the passge discussed previously) as part of a rebuke of the Pharisees' self-righteousness. The only two times Jesus mentions the tithe is to use it to illustrate the hypocrisy of the religious elite - doesn't this bother the tithe advocates?

Notice also that the only one of the two who went away justified was the non-tither (I'll admit to getting a kind of perverse pleasure out of that!). The only one who truly got anything out of church that day - who truly touched heaven - was the one who ignored the offering plate and did real business with God.

Incidentally, the Pharisee also fasted twice a week. Where are the sermons about the importance of fasting in the life of a Christian? Few and far between. Must not fit the agenda . . .

Luther. Martin (Sermon; August 27, 1525)
“But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the Gentiles, such as the tithe..."

Tyranny of the Tithe: The Abrahamic Fallacy

2009-08-03T13:29:00.009-04:00

Here's the story: In Genesis 14, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked and looted, and Abram's nephew, Lot (who was living in Sodom), was taken captive. Abram (soon to be renamed Abraham) caught wind of this and went out to rescue his nephew. Abraham was successful and brought back everything that was stolen, along with all the people who were captured. When he returns, he is greeted by the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God. Melchizedek blesses Abraham, and Abraham gives him a tenth of all (the book of Hebrews says he gave a tenth of the spoils of the battle).

Now (buckle your seatbelts - we're going on a twisty, windy road), since this story takes place some 400 years before the law of Moses is given, the tithe advocates are able to say that when the law was fulfilled and cancelled at the cross, it did not cancel tithing because tithing existed outside of the law.

Furthermore, since Jesus is referred to as a priest in the order of Melchizedek and Christians are children of Abraham, we are to tithe to Jesus just as Abraham tithed to Melchizedek (this tithe is to be collected and administered by your local neighborhood church administrative board, finance committee, and council members). The conclusion reached by the tithe teacher is that Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek seems to teach us that tithing is meant to be a continuing part of the New Testament Christian's life.

This kind of jigsaw hermeneutics can be very convincing and has developed quite a following. In fact, it is the strongest argument the tithe teachers have. But the problem is that Abraham's tithe looks nothing like the tithe the local church requires today. Let's take a closer look at Abraham's tithe:

Bad Bible study principles
Every first-year seminary student learns that Old Testament narratives cannot be used to establish doctrine, only to illuminate or illustrate a doctrine clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. As we discussed in an earlier post, Christians are never taught to tithe - NEVER. When expositing an Old Testament story, the student must determine the purpose for that story. In this case, we are given the purpose of this story in Hebrews 7. This story is used to illustrate the truth that Jesus (a priest in the order of Melchizedek) is greater than Abraham and the entire Levitical priesthood. The Jews needed to understand this because they were still holding to the Old Testament traditions and commands that were made obsolete at the cross.

Tithing was a cultural offering that existed in many cultures
The practice of giving a tenth to a reigning monarch was not new, neither was it unique to the Jewish people. This was a common practice at the time among cultures as disparate as the Greeks, Chinese, Arabians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians: when one entered the realm of a king, one was expected to give a tithe of his possessions to that king - presumably one-tenth was the standard because it made the math easy to calculate on the fingers. It's very possible that this custom is the reason for Abraham's tithe - notice that the tithe is not mentioned as being connected to worshipping God (as in an offering) - the only one mentioned worshipping is Melchizedek.

One time gift
Abraham is never recorded as having ever tithed again. And he's not recorded as having ever tithed before. Based on this, we cannot say that tithing was a defining element in his relationship with God (and as discussed previously, Abraham's tithe may not have even been an act of worship). Abraham is recorded as offering up sacrifices and burnt offerings (as acts of worship), but never a tithe.

The tithe-teacher likes to point to Jacob's tithe to show that the practice was common to Abraham's family - hey, Jacob had to learn it somewhere! But, again, the tithe to a monarch was a well-known, customary practice among many cultures in that day. Besides, Jacob is a very poor example of a willing, cheerful giver. Jacob promised to tithe (we're never told whether he actually did or not) if, and only if, God came through on certain demands. Today's tithe-pastor would cringe at teaching his congregation that practice. When have you ever heard a tithe-teacher tell you to lay out a set of conditions you want God to meet and then, if He does, give the church ten percent of whatever you have at that time?

Not out of personal possessions
Hebrews points out that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils of war. Abraham did not give a tenth of his personal wealth, even though he was a very wealthy man. This is a far cry from the church mandating you give ten percent of your regular paycheck every payday.

Quickly, I want to point out two real problems the tithe-teacher has to answer:

What about king of Sodom?
There's another character who plays a significant role in this story, but the king of Sodom gets forgotten in this whole discussion. The passage indicates that Abraham gave everything else to him because he didn't want it to be said that Sodom made him rich. What are we to do with that? Sodom was well-known as a wicked, immoral city and represents man's rebellion against God - that's why Abraham wanted nothing to do with the place. If this story is indeed teaching us that tithing is to remain a part of the Christian's life, what is it teaching us about the other ninety percent?

What about circumcision?
Abraham carried out circumcision as well - long before the law of Moses was given. If we are to argue that we are to tithe because tithing preceded the Law, we might as well pick up circumcision as well. Circumcision preceded the Law. But how did Paul and the other apostles respond to some people's insistence that circumcision was necessary for believers?

Gal 5:1-5
(1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
(2) Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
(3) And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
(4) You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(5) For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Based on the above, couldn't it be said that if you accept the law of tithing (just as circumcision), you are obligated to keep the entire law? Have you not then fallen from grace?

So, I say to you as well: Stand fast in the liberty that Christ has purchased for you! If you submit to this tithing nonsense, you take up the yoke of slavery again: Christ does not require a tithe from you.

Next, we'll take a look at what Jesus had to say about tithing . . .

Tyranny of the Tithe: Mishandling Malachi

2009-07-11T23:06:00.010-04:00

In the movie The Untouchables, Robert DeNiro wields a baseball bat with brutal efficacy. In pulpits across America, the tithe-teacher's bludgeon of choice is Malachi 3:8-9.

Have you ever heard that if you don't pay your tithes, God's gonna getcha? You are robbing Him and He's angry, and now you're going to be cursed with a curse? It's all based on this passage in Malachi:

Mal 3:8-9
(8) "Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings.
(9) You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation.

This is the tithe-teacher's muscle passage. Basically, if you're not paying your church dues, God's going to collect in a form of ecclesiastical extortion. But once you get past the scary premise of the threat, there is one really big problem with this application:

Malachi is addressed to Israel, not Christians

See the article on Christians and the Law. The Law was given to the Jews and it's commandments were binding on them and them alone. In fact, the New Testament points out that non-Jewish Christians were "strangers from the covenants" of Israel (Ephesians 2:12)

To fully understand this point, notice Malachi's remedy for Israel:

Mal 4:4
(4) "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

God, through Malachi, tells the people to go back to the law of Moses which was given for all Israel. This is obviously meant for Old Covenant Israel and not New Covenant Christians. Christians were never told to return to the law of Moses. In fact, Christians are warned against that very thing. Look at Galatians 3:10:

Gal 3:10
(10) All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

The tithe-teacher wants to tell you that you are robbing God and are under a curse, but the New Testament tells us that those who wish to continue in the law are under a curse. Galatians 3 goes on to say this:

Gal 3:13
(13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Wow, think about it: Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, yet the tithe-teacher keeps trying to bring us back under it by telling us that we are displeasing to God if we aren't tithing. We are to believe that, although Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, we are cursed anew if we aren't tithing.

Christians are to be ministers of a New Covenant

2Co 3:6-8
(6) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(7) Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,
(8) will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

When a tithe-teacher stands in the pulpit and fleeces the flock by intimidating them into tithing, he is taking them out of grace and bringing them back under the law. He is no longer a minister of that which gives life, but that which kills.

Let's move the church into that glorious ministry of life, freeing people from the bondage of sin and legalism through the blood of Christ. Christian, if you have been bound by guilt or fear because of errant teaching on this passage, take courage. The New Testament model of supporting the church and various ministries is through voluntary, joyful giving out of a grateful heart to God.

Coming up . . .
The tithe advocates hate the fact that Christians are not obligated to tithing under the law. They had to find a way to skirt that pesky law issue, and they did. It turns out Abraham tithed to Melchizadek before the law was given, therefore tithing existed outside of the law and did not go away with the rest of the law (can you hear the tithe-teacher's heart palpitating?). This is the tithe advocate's coup de grace, but is it as ironclad as it seems? We'll discuss it next . . .

Tyranny of the Tithe: What??? The Bible never teaches Christians to tithe?!!?

2009-07-10T20:16:00.010-04:00

That's right. Nowhere in the Scriptures are Christians ever taught to tithe.

Having established the Christian's relationship to the Old Testament Law, we'll use a previous post as a road map for a discussion on tithing, beginning with the assertion that Christians are never instructed to tithe. In fact, the practice is only mentioned one time in the New Testament after the Gospels where it is used as an historical Old Testament reference (which we'll get into in detail at a later time).

And it's not like New Testament writers never had the opportunity to broach the subject. In 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, Paul lays out the New Testament plan for giving to support ministry (yes, a plan does exist), but nowhere does he mention the tithe. It would've been so simple for him to say "You know the tithes you've been paying to support the Temple ministry and all the priests? Well, now they're going to be used to support pastors and churches and toothy televangelists."

Why no mention of the tithe? Because it wasn't required of New Testament Christians. In fact, regarding offerings, Paul said, "I am not commanding you . . ." and, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion . . ."

And let's take a closer look at the Corinthians. Isn't it curious that the Corinthians, who were guilty of all kinds of unseemly acts (to put it mildly!), were never admonished for not tithing? Are we to believe that in spite of being drunken, gluttonous, hero-worshiping perverts they were remarkably consistent tithers?

Come to think of it, one would be welcome to serve on many church administrative boards with that kind of resume . . .

I remember talking with a church official several years ago about the tithing issue. He told me that the tithe doctrine was "precious" to him and that it was a primary foundational teaching in the Christian life. After looking into this I have to ask: if this is such a precious, primary teaching in Christianity, why is there scarcely any mention of it in any of the New Testament letters to the churches?

Simple. It's not required.

Next, we'll look at the tithe-teacher's bludgeon of choice - Malachi 3:8-9

John MacArthur, Commentary on Book of Romans 9-16
(p.233)
. . . Christians are not under obligation to give a specified amount to the work of their heavenly Father. In none of their forms do the tithe or other Old Testament levies apply to Christians.

John MacArthur – Thoughts On Tithing (excerpt from sermon preached at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, CA)
. . . Tithing, basically, is never, ever advocated in the New Testament; it is never taught in the New Testament – never!

Tyranny of the Tithe: An intentionally short and woefully inadequate primer on the Law of Moses

2009-07-03T21:03:00.005-04:00

When someone starts reading the Bible at Genesis and intends to read it straight through, he or she often does well at the beginning. The stories in Genesis and Exodus provide great drama and interesting discussion. However, many people get bogged down in the next several books - Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. These are the books of the Law (Genesis and Exodus are too, but they are more narrative). The Law of Moses contains commands and instructions for Jewish life in the Old Testament. It covers all things political, sociological, and religious.

Before we go any further in our discussion about tithing, we need to lay out a few important details about the Law of Moses in the Old Testament.

The Law is Holy
This is essential to understand. The Law came from a Holy God and is a reflection of His holiness and perfection. The Old Testament saints praised it (a cursory glance through Psalm 119 shows this clearly) and Jesus honored it, saying that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Because we know that New Testament Christians are not bound by the Law, we sometimes treat it like it's irrelevant or not important. Not true. The Law is every bit the word of God as any other portion of Scripture.

The Law reveals man's innate sinfulness
The Law was essentially a written code that condemned man and proved he could never earn God's favor on his own. We all stand hopeless before the Law.

Although Holy, the Law is powerless
The Law could reveal man's sin, but could not do anything about it. Now, the Law provided for sacrifices to be made for sins, but these were messy (downright gross, in fact - involving words like entrails), costly, and temporary (the sacrifice had to be made every year).

The Law was intended to drive men to Christ
As man realized his imperfection, he recognized his need for a savior. The intent is for man to be driven to the point where he cries out with the Apostle Paul, "Wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?" It is then that man is ready for the good news of the gospel.

Jesus met all the requirements of the Law on our behalf
In so doing, Jesus fulfilled the Law and took the punishment for our sin (that's what the cross is all about). Jesus' death on the cross was indeed messy and costly, but it was also permanent. The book of Hebrews has so much to say about this, but I recommend you check out these verses in particular: 9:11-14, 9:24-26, 9:28, and 10:19-22.

Through faith in Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice, we are freed from sin and any obligation to the Law
Jesus paid it all. There is nothing to be gained by following the Law of Moses. In fact, in the book of Galatians, Paul is astonished that the people would consider going back under the Law after having been set free by Christ. He goes so far as to say that the person who wishes to continue in the Law is cursed. Why would he make such a strong statement? Because he knows that the Law cannot save - it can only condemn. And the only way to be free from that condemnation is through faith in Christ.

In short:
Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4)
The Law was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14)
Christians are not under the law, but under grace (Romans 6:14)
The Christian who seeks justification under the law has fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4)
Now the righteousness of God is revealed without the aid of the law (Romans 3:21-22)

This primer on the Law is intentionally short and woefully inadequate, but hopefully provides answers to rudimentary questions.

Tyranny of the Tithe: Seven Things Your Pastor Doesn't Want You To Know About Tithing

2009-06-28T21:17:00.006-04:00

These points will serve as a roadmap for where we're heading over the next several posts. I'll develop each of these in more detail later, but here's a sampler to whet your appetite:

Nowhere in Scripture are Christians commanded to tithe. Nowhere. In fact, Christians are never even gently encouraged to tithe. There are several opportunities in the New Testament where Paul or the writer to the Hebrews could have easily slipped in a verse to that point, but there is no such exhortation.

Malachi 3:8-9 does not apply to Christians. This is the tithe-teacher's bludgeon-passage about robbing God in tithes and offerings. It contains the scary "you are cursed with a curse" threat and is often used to intimidate congregations in a manner that amounts to ecclesiastical extortion. But, it was written to those under the Law of Moses (see Malachi's remedy for the readers of his letter in 4:4). Christians are not bound by the Law because it was fulfilled in Christ and the debt of guilt created by the Law was cancelled at the cross (Colossians 2:13-14).

Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20) is not binding on Christians. This is important. Abraham's tithe to Melchizadek is a favorite way tithe-teachers try to get around the pesky Law issue, but it is an illegitimate argument and violates basic Bible study and application principles.

The Biblical means of supporting the local church is through the freewill giving of its members. The New Testament is not vague on the issue of giving as some would have you believe. In fact, Paul devotes two full chapters to the issue of giving - 2 Corinthians 8 & 9. Very briefly, he says that Christian giving should be done liberally, cheerfully, and under no obligation. It's interesting that in this thorough treatment of the subject, Paul never once mentions the tithe (that's because it wasn't required of New Testament Christians).

Jesus only spoke about tithing twice. Both times it was to condemn the Pharisees who loved to boast about their tithing record (incidentally, they were supposed to be tithing - they were still under the law).

Newly converted Gentiles were not required to tithe. There was a huge debate in the early church about which Jewish practices were to be required of the new Gentile Christians (circumcision was the main area of controversy). In the end, the church leadership decided there were only a few things required of Gentile believers (Acts 15:28-29): three of them were dietary and there's an obligatory warning to abstain from sexual immorality - but no mention of tithing (or circumcision, for that matter!).

The Church didn't practice tithing for the first 700 years of its existence. As the Church of Rome started to grow, it needed the people's money to operate. It has been posited that the doctrine of the tithe rose as the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer eroded under Rome.

Just for clarification, I'm delving into this topic to hopefully set a lot of people free who are currently under a bondage of guilt and fear. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for binding heavy burdens and laying them on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and I see the tithe doctrine as being just that.

In order to better understand much of what is going to be discussed, we need to have a quick primer on the Law of Moses - that'll be the next post.

Tithing Revisited: Part One

2009-06-23T18:32:00.004-04:00

Boy, this ought to get 'em fired up! One thing I've learned after 25 years in the ministry - money rules the roost (it's true - I once had a pastor tell me that ministry comes down to "bucks and real estate"). If you want to get the religious elite to shed their piety, just threaten their money.

A couple of years ago my wife spoke with a friend and told her we missed her and her family since we hadn't seen them in church for a while. Our friend said that they had stopped coming because times were tough and they weren't able to tithe - and they felt guilty. My wife assured her that they could come anyway - giving money was so far from what it was all about - but the story got me wondering how many people feel that way about church. Is this the way the church presents itself - even without meaning to?

I had to admit that the church we were part of at the time had a definite two-levels of membership based on whether or not you were actively giving. You could be a member for free (yay!), but to really be able to serve and participate, you had to be a "tithing member". This meant that in order to serve on church governing boards or vote on church issues or serve in various ministries, you had to be giving 10% of your annual income (incidentally, this didn't apply to nursery workers. Apparently, no one cared about your tithing record as long as you were willing to change poopy pants).

So . . . I got out my John MacArthur Study Bible and began studying the topic of tithing for myself - apart from the tried and true church propaganda. What I began to discover surprised and angered me, and I'll be sharing my findings in the next few posts.

For now, I leave you with this apt quote by venerable theologian John Stott (Christianity Today, January 8, 1996):

"The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh Biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform."

Get Real, Christians!

2009-06-15T09:46:00.003-04:00

Here's a great post by pastor/writer Paul Prather about how Christians need to be real. A few snippets:

"If I had to name the most debilitating problem with Christianity, I might say it’s the 'everything’s great, I’m so blessed' syndrome. Christians often feel compelled to show only their happiest and most saintly faces to their ministers and fellow churchgoers."

"What ends up happening, then, is that dedicated Christians frequently live in private hells. They think they’re the only ones with problems. They’re guilt-ridden. They’re spiritually hamstrung."

"The fact is, everybody’s messed up in one way or another . . . It’s just that hardly anyone wants to admit it."

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

I was thrilled to read this. I found it liberating and it rang true with my personal experience. I also know how much I've been encouraged as those I've admired over the years have opened up about their own struggles and how God has remained faithful to them.

A couple of years ago when my wife and I were being mentored in the ministry, she was discouraged from starting an outreach to struggling young women. We were told that, as ministers, it was not a good idea to open up about our frailties and failings. To do so would threaten our reputation and we needed to maintain an air of authority. The truth is that when we open up about our struggles and how God has comforted us in the midst of them, we then are able to become agents of that comfort to others who are struggling. I call it the Cycle of Ministry (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

Does this resonate with anybody else?

Religious Freedom is in Deep Doo-doo

2009-06-14T15:09:00.004-04:00

Okay, here's the story: In Nicktown, PA, an Amish community is in deep doo-doo over local sanitation ordinances. Seems that the Amish elders have decided that state laws are ". . . enforcing stuff that's against our religion . . ." by requiring them to upgrade their outhouse waste storage capabilities.

I won't go into details about what the Cambria County Sewage Enforcement Agency found at the Amish school house (you can read the story by clicking here), but they laid down the law and required the community to make substantial improvements.

The Amish elders complied with some of the regulations, but felt other requirements (such as installing a 5,000-gallon precast concrete tank and allowing someone certified by the state to use an electronic meter to test the waste’s chemical content) were way too modern. Meanwhile, people are compaining (and rightly so) that not handling sewage properly can have a seriously bad affect on the entire county's health.

The case is still pending - there've been meetings and jail sentences - and neither side is willing to budge, but it does bring up the thorny issue of how far religious freedom should be allowed to go.

What if an elected official wants to be sworn in on something other than the Bible? What if a Rastafarian is elected and he wants to smoke a little ganja at his inaugral ceremony? Sounds extreme, but we've seen parents let their children die because their religion wouldn't allow them to see a doctor . . .

Many would like to see prayer taught again in the schools, but what if the official at your child's school is a Muslim, a Buddhist, or (gasp!) a liberal?

That's when the poop would hit the fan . . .

Debaptism: the latest trend in Atheism

2009-06-14T09:55:00.005-04:00

So, you realize that you made a rash decision years ago and you want to take it back . Or maybe you were baptized as an infant and you want to officially undo that bit of nastiness. What do you do? You can download a Debaptism Certificate from the National Secular Society! According to this article, they claim that over 100,000 people have already taken this step to purge themselves from the eternal waters of holy immersion . . .

A few thoughts:

Baptism is an outward indication of an inward consecration. That being the case, if your heart wasn't in it at the time, the only thing your baptism did was get you wet. A "debaptism", then, is nothing more than a public renouncement of church affiliation, which I guess is the point.
I've never been a big fan of infant baptism. I think it's okay as a ceremony where the parents commit themsevles to training the child up in the faith, but not as an indication of saving faith. I mean, come on . . . experience has proven that a baby's brain is nothing more than one big drool-and-poop gland - can we really assert that the child has weighed the course of his life and decided to accept Jesus as his Savior?
If a person "gets saved" at one point in his life and later wishes to recant, was he ever really saved to begin with? This is the classic "once saved always saved" issue that has divided Christians for centuries. For passages supporting both sides of the issue see John 10:27-29 and Hebrews 6:4-6.

Memorize the 10 Commandments and Win $20K?

2009-06-12T17:33:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting take on learning the 10 Commandments I read over at Todd Rhoades' blog Monday Morning Insights:

Darrel Rundus is distressed that Americans readily can tick off a list of 10 stores, 10 sports teams – even 10 beers, but there's a collective "Uhmmm" when those same people are asked to cite the Ten Commandments. To change that, he said, he and his wife decided to do "something a little crazy." They are taking $20,000 of their own money and posting it as a prize that either will be dispatched via casher's check or wire transfer to the first person who, on Monday, Oct. 26, answers his random telephone calls and can recite the Ten Commandments in order in 20 seconds or less.

Here's the promo video - then a couple of questions:

First off, I like the idea and I think the video is well done and makes a good point. But, if we live under grace, what is the value in learning the Law? (Hint: Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:24)

Secondly, do ploys like this serve the cause of Christ well? Or does it cheapen the gospel?

BTW, I've registered and I hope he calls me 'cause I'm READY!

Can Twitter Help Worship? Does Twitter Hinder Worship?

2009-06-09T21:31:00.002-04:00

Unless you've been hermetically sealed in a chamber for the past few years, you're aware of the social networking tool Twitter. What you might not be aware of is how people are using the twitter phenomenon to inform the world about every aspect of their lives. Even the rich and famous are getting into the act.

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was fined $25k for his Twitter comments criticising NBA officials, and some members of congress were "tweeting" during Obama's prime time speech back in February.

The question has arisen about the etiquette of churches allowing and promoting tweeting during worship services, and there are several compelling arguments both for and against the idea. Reverend Taylor Burton-Edwards - director of worship resources with the United Methodist Board of Discipleship - has written a thorough article exploring both sides. You can read the article here, but I'll give you a quick synopsis:

Pro: Twitter can allow for a genuine sense of interactivity between the congregation and the ministry staff at appropriate times during the worship service - i.e. prayer requests, Q & A sessions.

Also a person could tweet the service making the experience available vicariously to the world at large (think especially how this could benefit shut-ins and other home-bound people).

Con: Using Twitter might privilege the "haves" over the "have nots," and the "techies" over the "non-techies."

Switching focus from one thing to another . . . creates a gap in our primary attention . . . This means that for parts of worship where continuous primary attention is appropriate, the physical act of Twittering actually reduces attention to whatever is going on at the moment and causes a total loss of primary attention between the time you start Twittering and the time you return your focus to whatever is going on in worship.

There's lots more at the actual article, but I'd love to get your thoughts on the subject . . .

Cornerstone and me . . .

2009-05-08T22:40:00.004-04:00

Due to budgetary changes, it was decided at the last Board and Council meeting (after much painful deliberation) that my position would be eliminated. I was encouraged to start looking for full-time employment elsewhere and I started making calls to people I knew in the beverage industry. After over 8 years with Coca-Cola, I had some pretty good contacts.

Long story short, I got the call from Blue Ridge Beverage this past Tuesday (they want me to start next Tuesday) and I turned in my resignation to the pastor on Wednesday night. I met with the pastor and two other church leaders after the Bible study and went over the various ministries I had been overseeing.

I see this as a real blessing – to be offered a stable job with a stable company in this economy is no small thing. It's good, honest work that I'm thrilled to be doing again.

Although Sunday, May 10th was my last Sunday as Associate Pastor, we will continue to attend Cornerstone for now, but I am pulling out of all ministry activities - the new job is going to be physically and mentally challenging and I will need to focus on it.

I thank you for your friendship and prayers throughout this difficult time.

National Day of Prayer is in doubt . . .

2009-04-27T20:54:00.002-04:00

It's true! This article in the Washington Post has the story. Here are a few quotes:

"Obama Has Yet to Announce Whether He Will Continue Tradition of Hosting Conservative Evangelicals, Who Now Have Made Other Plans"

"The White House . . . declined to comment on whether it would even hold an event this year, much less who would be invited. "

"[Some speculate] that if the White House does mark the day, it would probably include "lots of different types of religious leaders," akin to the interfaith feel of last year's Democratic National Convention."

I'm wondering, though . . . do we really want a day of prayer hosted by a President who's just not that into it? Do we really want to play politics with prayer?

Finally, if Obama had a taste for the ironic he'd go ahead full steam with the event - and invite the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to lead it . . . .

The Hell Yeah Church of Love and Miracles

2009-04-08T09:27:00.003-04:00

No, that's not crass profanity. That's this church's real name.

Now, to be honest, this is not a Christian church. It's a New Age Unitarian church as evidenced by the following quotes:

The foundation of the Hell Yeah Church is connectedness through consciousness.

It's a vibrational thing. We are all comprised of energy; we harmonize with it. We can't help but be moved by it.

I think that it helps you stay aligned with your vision and stay in touch with who you are -- your basic goodness and connection with the whole . . .

You can read the whole story here, but let me say this:

I'm all for a little spunk and even a certain amount of bucking against the establishment (hey, Jesus was quite the rebel, too), but this is what happens when you throw out the Bible and start "doing church" any ol' way you feel like it. God Himself has ordained how He will be worshipped - He didn't leave it up to us to just do as we please. This is the ultimate end of a church that is man-centered and not God-centered - and Evangelical Christianity is in danger of heading down that path.

This highlights the need for us to return to the Scriptures and discern what "church" is really all about . . .

Obama: "We Do Not Consider Ourselves A Christian Nation"

2009-04-07T22:15:00.002-04:00

The True Weight of the Cross

2009-04-07T12:45:00.001-04:00

Some Quick Observations on Church Life in America

2009-04-06T12:58:00.002-04:00

The guys over at Resurgence.com have posted an interesting study on church life dealing with staff, worship, and pastors’ job duties. Here’s a sample:

The number of paid staff for the average congregation is three. But nearly half of all congregations have one paid staff member.
The median pastor who is paid by the congregation works about 50 hours per week.
In almost all congregations, about half of the attendees stay after the worship service to socialize for about 25 minutes.
53.4 percent of congregations have small groups meeting regularly.

You can read the rest by clicking here.

Teenagers Then and Now: A Comparison and Contrast

2009-04-04T21:45:00.004-04:00

I’ve been involved in youth ministry for the past 25 years, but driving a school bus for the past year has given me the opportunity to observe the teen culture outside of the church walls. I graduated high-school in 1983, and I’m amazed at how much teenagers have changed over the past quarter of a century. I’m perhaps even more amazed at how much they have remained the same.

Here are a few quick observations without much commentary. Feel free to add your own . . .

The Likenesses

Boy/Girl relationships – You can see the awkwardness when the opposite sexes start to notice each other. Middle school boys chasing girls are like the classic dog-chasing-car scenario – they wouldn’t know what to do with one if they caught it. The maturity disparity is on full display:

Middle school girls are young women.
Middle school boys are big children.

Outcast kids – Some kids seem to be born with a target on their backs

Cool kids – Some kids are born cool, some achieve coolness, and some have coolness thrust upon them (apologies to the Great Bard).

Insecurity – Over school, family, friends, overall social position . . .

Peer pressure – The world still revolves around what everybody else thinks about you.

The Differences

All-access to anything – There are many more entry points into their lives – both good and bad.

Innocence Lost – Kids today are exposed to so much more at a much earlier age. As a teen, my biggest temptation was to sneak downstairs and watch an R-rated movie on HBO when my parents were asleep; today, that’s laughable.

Peer Influence – The internet allows MUCH MORE peer influence – Used to be parents had a certain amount of control over who their kids hung out with and were influenced by.

Language – Language seems to be in a transition. The profane is accepted, and words that were once innocuous are becoming offensive. Seated behind a keyboard, teens today are emboldened to express themselves in ways that only the worst of kids used to.

Order of service at Cornerstone Church Sunday, April 5th

2009-04-04T12:29:00.003-04:00

• A44.5 – All This For A King
• G67 – God of Wonders

Announcements
Special Music

• B57.5 – Blessed Be Your Name
• W135 – The Wonderful Cross
• H152 – Here I Am To Worship

Greeting
• H195 – Holy, Holy, Holy (Worthy to Receive Glory)

Ransomed – Bluefield College Drama Team

Song of Dismissal
• H195 – Holy, Holy, Holy (Worthy to Receive Glory)

Vending Machine Jesus???

2009-04-01T12:53:00.002-04:00

Here's a clever video produced by Community Christian Church that makes a point about our prayer lives. What do you think? Is it accurate?

Worried About the Future?

2009-03-31T13:03:00.000-04:00

Salvation by Chicken Wings and Napping

2009-03-30T11:34:00.003-04:00

Last week, ABC's Nightline aired a debate on the existence of Satan - and all the things that go along with that. Arguing for the Biblical position of the existence of the devil were Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle) and Annie Lobert (former prostitute and founder of Hookers for Jesus - not what it sounds like).

Arguing against the existence of Satan were Deepak Chopra (New-Age author of many popular books who dresses like a classic James Bond villain) and Bishop Carlton Pearson (former evangelical demon-caster-outer).

Here's a short YouTube clip:

One of the best lines came when Mark Driscoll said (as only Driscoll can say) that if people would have made up a religion and voted on it, they would have come up with something like a "salvation by eating chicken wings and napping". At least he said that is what he would have voted for.

You can watch the entire debate by clicking here. Scroll down and click on the video labeled "Driscoll Slams Pearson's Religious History" to see a great exchange.

Diversity: Is It Really All That Great?

2009-03-26T10:25:00.004-04:00

Okay, that title was intentionally inflamatory - but still an honest question. For the record, I'm not talking about racial diversity, or physical diversity of any kind. I'm talking about a spiritual and philosophical diversity that threatens our relationship with God. Hear me out.

Here's the article that sparked the thought: Parents Sue Florida School District Over Religious-Themed Song.

Apparently, some parents were outraged that their children were being taught an overtly religious song in a public school. The song - "In God We Still Trust" by Diamond Rio - contains the following lyrics:

"You place your hand on His Bible/When you swear to tell the truth/ His name is on our greatest monuments/And all our money, too/And when we pledge allegiance/There's no doubt where we stand/there's no separation/We're one nation under him."

Now, there are a lot of directions my mind went on this story, but the one I wanted to explore - and get your thoughts on - was the idea that we can't publicly teach our children songs about the Christian God of the Bible because we might offend the devotees of some other religion (and that includes Atheism, btw).

Even though this country was founded on Christian principles by mostly Bible-believing men, we are taught - in the name of diversity - to honor, respect, and treat as equal other belief systems. We are told over and over again how rich our culture is to have so many varied inputs into our "melting pot". Other cultures have so much to teach us we hear them say. But I can't help thinking (over there in the stubborn, politically-incorrect portion of my brain) that the "melting pot" has become a standing cesspool of diluted truth (how's that for a word picture!).

You know, there's a reason why God warned Israel about fraternizing with diverse cultures and "learning their ways". He knew it would cause them to fall away from Him and eventually bring about their nation's demise . . .

Bonus Post: The Small God of The Shack

2009-03-24T19:43:00.003-04:00

Here's an article by Travis McSherley over at Chuck Colson's BreakPoint site. In it he makes some quick, salient points about the insidious nature of The Shack. Here are a few quick quotes:

"[The God of The Shack] is not God. At least not the God of Scripture. He (or she, in this case) doesn’t speak like God, doesn’t judge like God, and—despite the entire premise of the book—doesn’t love like God. Nearly every aspect of God’s glory and power are distorted and diminished in the “Trinity” of The Shack."

"And as much as God’s majesty and power and authority are diminished, His Word is completely disregarded . . . With the tether to Scripture broken, the book makes plenty of bold, though unsupported, assertions involving God’s sovereignty, man’s free will, forgiveness, submission and relational hierarchy, the purpose of pain, the design of Heaven . . ."

". . . there are a number of truths in The Shack, even valuable ones . . . But these small nuggets of truth are in no way worth taking in the abundance of theological distortion."

You can read the entire article here.

To play off an old Jerry Reed song title: William P. Young got the gold mine; truth got the shaft.

Mark Driscoll on The Shack

2009-03-24T17:17:00.003-04:00

Here's the second of two posts on the Christian publishing phenomenon known as The Shack.

This video features Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll debunking the book - which he refers to as heresy. As you'll see, Pastor Mark is one of these up and coming church leaders who is well-grounded in solid Biblical doctrine.

The purpose of this is to really lay out the facts about the book and let Christians decide. Is this a serious misrepresentation of Almighty God, or are we to view it as simply a harmless little allegory that deeply touches our emotions?

The Shaft

2009-03-24T16:57:00.003-04:00

Here's the first of two posts on the Christian publishing phenomenon known as The Shack.

A good, Biblically-solid friend of mine was carrying around a copy of the book just recently, and I realized that the deception still continues! Just so there's no confusion about how I feel about the book, here's a cartoon I drew several months ago:

BigDog Robot Being Used in Afghanistan

2009-03-24T09:28:00.002-04:00

I love this kind of stuff! Here's a 4-legged robot that looks like a headless canine and uses a gasoline engine that whines like a pack of killer bees - CREEPY!

Here's more from the article:

"Its robot brain, a sophisticated computer, controls locomotion sensors that adapt rapidly to the environment. The entire control system regulates, steers and navigates ground contact. A laser gyroscope keeps BigDog on his metal paws — even when the robot slips, stumbles or is kicked over."

Town Outraged After Pastor Takes In Child Killer

2009-03-19T12:56:00.002-04:00

FOXNews.com reports:

A pastor in this quiet, picturesque New England town opened his doors to a
convicted child killer who had served his time but had nowhere to go.

You can read the article here.

Is this good Christian charity or just plain irresponsible? Would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you open your home up to someone with this history? WWJD?

Global Warming Research Expedition Called Off Due to Cold Weather

2009-03-19T12:36:00.002-04:00

No foolin'! Here's a quote from the article:

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather
were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver
them supplies.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,”
expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement.

Read the article here.

You can't make this stuff up . . .

Holy Cheetos! People are seeing Jesus everywhere!

2009-03-19T10:32:00.002-04:00

Okay, so what are we to do with this?

We could be skeptical: That was about as legit as a Fred Phelps smile.
We could wax sarcastic: Wow! I just saw Jesus in a liberal church! What're the odds? Never seen that before . . .
We could be really spiritual: Yes, but do others see Jesus in yooouuu?

What do you do with this?

American Idol: Over Half the Finalists are Christians (or have strong ties to the church)

2009-03-19T10:04:00.002-04:00

This season's American Idol is shaping up to be a gospel music showdown.

MTV.com reports that:

"This season . . . Christians . . . are . . . watching because more than half of this year's crop of finalists — including Danny Gokey, Michael Sarver, Kris Allen, Scott MacIntyre, Matt Giraud and Lil Rounds — either have a strong affiliation with the church or are worship leaders in their communities."

And here's an interesting quote that begins the article:

'[This year's 'Idol'] shows that a Christian singer can have artistic integrity,'

Read the entire article here and come back and respond to these questions:

Understanding that we are called to come out and be separate (2 Corinthians 6:17), is this a case of Christian sellouts trying to come as close as possible to the world (you know, the whole "friendship with the world = enmity with God" truth that James talks about)?

Or are they being providentially elevated to a position of incredible influence because of their faithfulness (like the Old Testament prophet Daniel)?

Ignatius! The future of youth ministry . . . or are we there already?

2009-03-18T09:21:00.003-04:00

Many thanks to Todd Rhoades over at the Monday Morning Insight blog for this little gem.

Watch this hilarious mockumentary about a seriously pathetic youth-speaker-wannabe. There arent' really "ministers" like this out there . . . are there?

Ignatius from travis hawkins on Vimeo.

Though We May Be Small . . .

2009-03-17T13:19:00.003-04:00

. . . we can accomplish much when we pull together.

Christians and Alcohol: The Age Old Debate Continues

2009-03-17T12:58:00.003-04:00

ChristianityToday.com's Out of Ur blog has an interesting post that's sure to distill some controversy. Here's a sample:

"Some younger pastors in traditionally teetotalling denominations are beginning to view bans on alcohol use as out of date. Is their so-called liberty in Christ simply an excuse for bad behavior? Or are the old timers adding laws to the gospel?"

Read the rest of the article here, then come back and post your thoughts on this intoxicating subject (sorry about that).

Where's My Bailout? Great post on God, the Church, and the Economy

2009-03-16T19:04:00.004-04:00

Perry Noble, senior pastor of NewSpring Church in Anderson, S.C. , serves up some good advice for Christians in these troubled economic times. Listen to this:

"The reason our country's in such bad financial shape is we let our need for greed consume us . . . When the stock market started going down, your god died and you don't see him resurrecting any time soon," Noble noted. "You think the economy has a hold on you when you don't understand that God actually has a hold on the economy."

Strong words; good preaching. Read more here.

Helping Churches Make Difficult Financial Decisions

2009-03-16T17:05:00.006-04:00

Pastor Mark Driscoll has offered up 3 Principles to Guide Financial Decision-Making for churches facing a serious budget crunch.

The three principles are:

Spending - Spend money on those things that grow the ministry and not simply on those things that make it easier on your staff.

Pruning - Without pruning, a ministry is wasting energy, time, resources, and leaders on proverbial branches that are no longer bearing lots of good fruit . . . most—if not all—leaders know what needs to be cut. But they fail to act with courage because they anticipate fallout, people leaving, and hurt feelings. Sometimes God uses hard times to compel his leaders to make the decisions they need to make, and this is one of those times.

Core - Don’t make cuts on your core essential ministries but rather on your secondary and auxiliary ministries.

Read the full post here.

John Maxwell Arrested on Weapons Charges. What??!!??

2009-03-16T09:00:00.003-04:00

Yeah, you read it right. Leadership guru and Christian speaker John Maxwell was arrested for carrying a weapon hidden in his luggage into an airport. Sounds crazy, but you can read his own words about the incident in his blog by clicking here. It's not as diabolocal as it sounds . . .

Frankly, I think it's refreshing to see a leader taking responsibility for his actions. In the past, we've seen politicians, sports figures, and religious leaders engage in elaborate cover ups - here we have a leader exhibiting the true marks of leadership.

Comparing and Contrasting Christianity and Eastern Religions

2009-03-14T13:15:00.004-04:00

The Resurgence website has posted a great little article that uses some classic Walter Martin material to compare and contrast Christianity and Eastern religions. Here's a snippet:

Comparing and contrasting Eastern beliefs with Christianity is an excellent way to see the differences and dangers they present by downplaying the foundational theological elements of the Christian faith.

Read the rest of the article here.

All Bound-up by Religion?

2009-03-12T09:10:00.004-04:00

That's easy to understand. The word religion is connected to the Latin word religare which means to bind fast, or tie up. It later came to mean to place an obligation on. What's that tell ya?

Just remember, Christianity is not a religion - it's a relationship. Binding up is the exact opposite of what God wanted to accomplish through Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for burdening the people with religion (Matthew 23:2-4), and referred to his requirements as easy and light.

Matthew 11:30 NIV
(30) . . . my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

The Most Anti-essential Christian Books

2009-03-11T11:45:00.003-04:00

Eugene Cho has posted a list of Christian books we most definitely don't need. They're fictional, of course, but hilarious. Here are a few of my favorites:

Everyone Is Going To Hell Except Me - John MacArthur
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid - John Hagee
This Book Looks Longer Than It Really Is - Rob Bell
God Wants You To Pay For My Airplane - Creflo Dollar
10 Keys To The 8 Steps To The 3 Paths To The 1 Way to God (TM) - Rick Warren
How to Smile - Joel Osteen

Read the entire list here.

breakfast song

2009-03-10T10:30:00.001-04:00

There's a part of me that would love to do this song one Sunday morning . . .

John Piper: Testing David Wilkerson's Prophecy

2009-03-10T10:00:00.006-04:00

Maybe you've heard about famed preacher David Wilkerson's scary prophecy everybody's been talking about? Has he heard from God? The only way to tell is to test the prophecy against the true standard of the word of God.

Bible teacher John Piper does just that in this post from his blog. In short he says:

What shall we make of this? . . . Two things give me pause . . .

First . . . God might have said this. But it doesn’t smell authentic to me. Too prudential. Too reminiscent of the embarrassing Y2K excesses.

Second, my confidence level drops when the Scriptures are not handled carefully.

But my own effort to be discerning says: Stick with the Bible, David. It is scary enough. And it is absolutely true. And your credibility will never fall.

Good stuff. Read all of Piper's post here.

Christian Sinners?

2009-03-09T13:28:00.001-04:00

How do I know if I sin because I'm a bad Christian or a non Christian? Here's a great answer to that age-old qestion.

Pastor Mark Driscoll - pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle - answers this question as part of a live "Ask Anything" session in which audience members text questions to the pulpit to be answered in real time.

New Financial Order to Emerge out of G20 - CNBC 2/25/09

2009-03-06T09:37:00.001-05:00

Is this financial crisis leading to a New World Financial Order? One government. One currency. One man to rule them all