"Take a stand for the truth, but do it in LOVE, fool!" -www.ateamblog.com


Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 
Search
View Article  Quenching God's Oracles, Part 4
Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 4: Conclusion

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists
Part 3: The Condemnation of the Montanists

Conclusion

Epiphanius noted that the Montanists “accept of the Old and New Testaments, and acknowledge likewise the resurrection of the dead, but they boast of having as a prophet one Montanus, and Priscilla and Maximilla as prophetesses, in adhering to whom they have turned from the truth.”[1] The early church did not condemn the Montanists for opposing the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but rather condemned them on mostly prophetic grounds. Specifically, four accusations have been cited against the Montanists: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophets. Of these, it appears the accusation of false prophecy was the most common and the most serious.

Several conclusions about the early church can be drawn from this study for the aid of those looking to seriously apply the ancient-future paradigm. First, for each of the critics of Montanism examined, the gift of prophecy was understood to still exist. The cessation of prophecy or charismatic gifts was not the criticism; it was that the so-called prophets were false and misleading. Second, the standard by which to judge whether one is a true or false prophet has at least four criteria: awareness and logical coherence, factuality, coherence with Scripture, and lifestyle above reproach. If any of these criteria are not perfectly met, then the person in question is not a true prophet. Third, prophecy always refers to divine authority and is either true, and thus directly from God, or false, and thus directly against God. This third conclusion has specific application for the contemporary “Third-Wave” movement, which holds prophecy to be only a human report of what they think God has done.[2]

            Critics will charge these to be the opinions of some early church fathers and not necessarily biblical teaching. While these were the opinions of the fathers, these teaching were, however, based on their understanding of the Bible. Especially in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm contemporary Christians should not be so quick to dismiss those who were closer to the sources of the Bible (the apostolic authors) and contended earnestly through thoughtful argumentation for the Christian faith as they understood it. We would do well to learn from their examples: to take confidence in the authority and truth of God's word, to apply it ruthlessly in our theology and lifestyles, and act in boldness to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.



[1] Epiphanius, 48.3

[2] See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 2d ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 313-327.


View Article  R. Laird Harris (1911-2008)


Sean Lucas has posted a note stating that Dr. R. Laird Harris passed away last Friday, April 25th. (HT: JT) Covenant Seminary has a great biography of him. President Bryan Chapell offered these remarks:

"Dr. Harris was a man of great curiosity whose wide-ranging interests led him to explore with eagerness science, theology, people, and the world around him in his quest to better understand and appreciate God's creation. His love for God's Word and the goodness of the Gospel made him a great teacher who demonstrated that brilliant thought and simple faith were not contradictory. His humble and fun-loving heart was a great gift to the two generations of church leaders he helped to train."

Dr. R. Laird Harris wrote, edited, and contributed to a number of books, but one in particular has been important for me: The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. This was one of the books I read while in high school, upon recommendation by a mentor, as I was gaining an eager interest in apologetics and theology. It shaped my understanding of the authority and integrity of the Bible, and I can't think of any book I've read since then that could match the quality and depth of Dr. Harris's work. I've recommended it to many people since, and I commend it to you as well.
View Article  Quenching God's Oracles, Part 3
Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 3: The Condemnation of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

The Condemnation of the Montanists

            It should be clear that the Montanists were not condemned for disregarding traditional/orthodox beliefs about the Trinity and salvation. In fact, their adherence to these doctrines led some to accept the Montanists and even join them. However, most church leaders at the time did condemn the movement. Three main sources known today for condemning Montanism: “The Anonymous,” Apollonius, and Epiphanius. From these sources four specific reasons can be assembled: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophetic trio.

            Two of the sources are found in the history written by Eusebius, in which he recounts why the Montanists were condemned. The first is simply known as “the Anonymous.” After asserting that Montanus was seeking leadership, the Anonymous described how the prophecies came about: Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstacy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.”[1] He recounts that while some accused Montanus of being possessed by a demon, many were taken in by this display of power and followed the proclaimed prophet. F. David Farnell notes the standard the Anonymous used in judging the Montanists on this count: “For the Anonymous, such ecastic, irrational prophesying violated scriptural standards for prophecy…. Prophecies should come in an orderly and rational manner.”[2] The Anonymous attributed such activity by Montanus to Satan himself.

            False prophecy was the most common accusation against the Montanists, and the Anonymous accused them of this as well. One of problems in determining what exactly the Montanists said and did is that none of their own writings are currently known and very few quotes that are attributed to them. Even so, one of the quotes attributed to Maximilla says, “After me there will now longer be any prophetess. It will be the end of all.”[3] This “end of all” is understood to mean the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Anonymous was likely referring to a similar prophecy when he said, “And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace among Christians.”[4]

            The third accusation leveled by the Anonymous is the misuse of Scripture. He seems to have been responding to the Montanists’ use of Matthew 23:34 when he said, “Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those the Lord promised to send to the people, let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere.”[5]

            Apollonius was Eusebius’s second source in recounting the condemnation of the Montanists. His first accusation had to do, once again, with the false prophecies of the Montanists, however, Eusebius does not record how Apollonius dealt with these prophecies. Farnell speculates that, “Since he discusses Apollonius’s refutation of Montanism right after his survey of the Anonymous, one may reasonably conclude that he may not have given details because this would have overlapped of much material already covered in the discussion on the Anonymous.”[6]

The second accusation made by Apollonius related to the practices and lifestyle of those in the movement, including Montanus. “We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca [Priscilla] a virgin… Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When therefore I see the prophetess receiving god and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?”[7] This ultimately has to do with whether they were true or false prophets, since Apollonius held that, “It is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.”[8]

Epiphanius accused the Montanists of some of these same things. He contended that the Montanists, “separated themselves, ‘adhering to spirits of error and doctrines of demons.’”[9] He too pointed to the false prophecies of the Montanists. “Everything that the [true] prophets have said, they also said rationally with understanding; and the things they said have come true and are still coming true. But Maximilla said that the consummation would come after her, and no consummation has come yet—even after so many emperors and such a lapse of time!”[10] The central point here is the false prophecy of Maximilla, but Epiphanius also alludes to true prophets speaking “rationally with understanding,” as if to say this is an essential quality of a true prophet absent from the Montanists. He clarified this later in saying, “Now what rational person who receives the ‘profitable’ message with understanding and cares for his salvation, can fail to despise a false religion like this, and the speech of someone who boasts of being a prophet but cannot talk like a prophet?”

            Misuse of Scripture is another similar accusation leveled by Epiphanius. “Apparently, the [Montanists] cited the sleep of Adam and his response to Eve’s creation in Genesis 2:21-23 as an example of proof for ecstatic prophecy.”[12] The response of Epiphanius was that, “Adam’s case was nothing like theirs… God brought the unconsciousness of sleep upon Adam, not distraction of mind… Adam’s senses and wits were not in abeyance.”[13] Epiphanius built a case condemning the Montanists for twisting scripture by showing that they changed the meaning of the text. He claimed that, “they wish to mix truth and falsehood and render senseless the minds of those who care about orthodoxy, and they gather for themselves passages by means of which they fabricate their error, claiming they have the same meaning.”[14]



[1] Eusebius 5.16.7-8.

[2] F. David Farnell, “The Montanist Crisis: A Key to Refuting Third-Wave Concepts of NT Prophecy,” Masters Seminary Journal 14 (Fall 2003): 246.

[3] Elaine C. Huber, Women and the Authority of Inspiration (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 220.

[4] Eusebius 5.16.19.

[5] Eusebius, 5.16.12.

[6] Farnell, 248.

[7] Eusebius, 5.18.2

[8] Eusebius, 5.18.11

[9] Epiphanius, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, trans and ed. Philip R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1990), 170. 48.4

[10] Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, ed. J.M. Robinson and H.J. Klimkeit (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997) 48.2.4-7. As quoted in Farnell, 253.

[11] Epiphanius, 48.3, as quoted in Farnell, 255.

[12] Farnell, 256.

[13] Epiphanius, 48.4.6-6.4, as quoted in Farnell, 256.

[14] Epiphanius, 48.4.4


View Article  Quenching God's Oracles, Part 2
Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism

The Beliefs of the Montanists

            Perhaps more important than the history of Montanism is what those in the group believed. It is commonly noted that the Montanists held mostly orthodox beliefs. Schaff recorded, “In doctrine, Montanism agreed in all essential points with the Catholic Church, and held very firmly to the traditional rule of faith.”[1] Sine the movement existed prior to the councils and creeds, such formulations should not be expected of them. However, in relation to their contemporary doctrines, they expressed orthodox understandings of the Trinity and salvation. Shelly notes that Montanus “came with a demand for a higher standard and a greater discipline and sharper separation of the church from the world. Had he halted there, he could have done little but good, but he went much further.”[2] Deviation from what some might call “the fundamentals” did not trouble the Montanists’ critics. Rather, it appears the church found their claims regarding prophecy and some of their practices intolerable.

            F.F. Bruce uniquely summed up Montanus’s position: “For (he maintained) Christ’s promise of the coming Paraclete had now been fulfilled, and he, Montanus, was the Paraclete’s mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the immediate prelude to the second advent of Christ and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns of Phrygia.”[3] The gift of prophecy, according to the Montanists, continued beyond the apostolic age, and each Christian could expect to receive revelation through the power of the Holy Spirit. However, Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were the central prophetic figures. They not only proclaimed the second coming of Christ, but Shelley explains they also set themselves up against the church by claiming higher authority: “The prophet claimed the right to push Christ and the apostolic message into the background.… In the name of the Spirit, Montanus denied that God’s decisive and normative revelation had occurred in Jesus Christ.”[4]

            A fundamental element of the Montanist prophecies was their millenarian perspective. D.H. Williams defines a millennial movement “as a religious-social movement which expects immediate, total, collective, this-worldly salvation, and which believes this will be accomplished by divine agencies.”[5] In other words, the substance and motivation of Montanist prophecies rested in the belief in a rapidly approaching apocalypse, which was often characterized by the descent of a New Jerusalem. This eschatological emphasis appears to have enticed many Christians to accept and even follow Montanus and his prophets.

            Beyond their beliefs regarding prophecy, the Montanists were also known for some distinctive practices. Because Maximilla and Priscilla had left their husbands to serve with Montanus, some thought that they taught celibacy and the dissolving of existing marriages. However, the records only indicate strong teachings against second marriages. They did adhere to a form of asceticism and self-denial, and this too was rooted in their millenarian perspective.



[1] Phillip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1950), 421.

[2] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain English, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 65.

[3] F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 218.

[4] Shelley, 65.

[5] D.H. Williams, “The Origins of the Montanist Movement: A Sociological Analysis,” Religion 19 (1989): 335.


View Article  Quenching God's Oracles, Part 1
Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Introduction

            In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the faith of the early church. Some have insisted the way forward must be traveled first by looking back, and thus embracing an “ancient-future” faith. There is much to be said for such a position since history and tradition ought to significantly inform the faith of those in Christ’s church.

            Given this paradigm, the struggles and disputes the church has grappled with through the centuries are of considerable importance to Christians today. The standards put forward by leaders in the early church ought to inform contemporary discussions in some authoritative regard. One such struggle in the early church was with a group who referred to themselves as the New Prophecy.

            Those in the New Prophecy, also known as Montanists, immediately raised suspicion and were ultimately condemned as charismatic heretics. The standards used by the early church to condemn this group should have direct implications for current charismatic discussion in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm. Therefore, it is important for theologians today to understand the Montanists and why they were considered heretics to see what it may mean for current debates.

The History of Montanism

            Montanus and his followers considered themselves the New Prophecy; however, historians usually refer to the group as Montanists. While it is agreed that Montanus began the movement, there has been some debate as to when it began. Humberto Raul Treiyer notes, “The date of the organization is uncertain because Montanists remained in the Christian churches as long as they were permitted to remain.”[1] Based on calculations in light of Epiphanius, an early apologist, the origins of Montanus’s prophecies date to around 156 C.E.; however, calculations based on Eusebius, an early historian, date the origins to around 171 C.E. Most other speculations fall within these two dates. Some have suggested the earlier date may have been when Montanus began his teaching and the later reflects when the bishops of Asia Minor condemned him.[2]

            Montanus was a convert to Christianity in Phrygia, a region in central Asia Minor. According to Treiyer, “Being a devotee of the goddess [Cybele], he most probably was a self-made eunuch, because castration performed in her main sanctuary… was considered the highest manifestation of worship and reverence to her.”[3] Though Montanus was a priest of Cybele, it is unknown to what degree this impacted his Christianity. Shortly after his conversion Montanus began his ministry and enlisted the service of two women, Maximilla and Priscilla. The trio claimed to be prophets bringing new revelation in an effort to reform the church. After being condemned by most church leaders, Montanus was compelled to start new communities of believers, though they still called themselves Christians. The most notable conversion to Montanism was that of the early apologist Tertullian, who made his affiliation known in 201 or 202 C.E. Montanus’s message spread throughout much of Asia Minor, but after repeated condemnations and persecution, the movement was ultimately paralyzed under the persecution of Justinian in 530 C.E. Montanus and Maximilla are said to have committed suicide. “Incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.”[4]  



 

[1] Humberto Raul Treiyer, “An Investigation into the Possible Influence of Montantism in the Development of the Theology of Tertullian” (D.Theol. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974), 43.

[2] See Paul Monceaux, Histoire Litteraire de l’Afrique Chretienne Deupis Les Origines Jusq’a l’Invasion Arabe, Vol.     1 (Paris: Leroux, 1901-1923) 177.

[3] Treiyer, 39.

[4] Eusebius, “Church History” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 232. 5.16.13


View Article  America Bewitched?
Most polls quoted these days claim that anywhere from 80 to 90% of Americans believe in God. Some people find comfort in this statistic, but it actually says very little about the God or god they believe in. For example, included in that number are a rising number of pagans and witches. A recent MTV.com feature highlights some of the popular incentives for practicing "the Craft":

Witches do not worship Satan and hardly ever practice black magic. Witches or Wiccans, who practice similar strains of Paganism, may follow numerous ancient, Earth-based traditions of worship, but have a few simple beliefs in common: 1) a deep, spiritual respect for nature; 2) worship of a deity (or god) who is equally male and female (priests and priestesses have equal power); and 3) accountability for all your own actions. In other words, being a witch includes believing in environmentalism, equality of the sexes and karma.

The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:

Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies courses are offered in major universities, she said.

Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.

As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:

But many young people enter the Craft in reaction to a very conservative religious upbringing — Southern Baptist, perhaps, or Catholic. "Some people don't feel God in the church, so they seek out different expressions of God that are more personal or mystic," said Raven, who has mentored younger Pagans and is active in the online community. "[Witchcraft] is revolting against common views of God. That's a huge part of the appeal, especially for young people — that you don't have to follow the herd."

The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: "there is no wrong way to worship." This is why Wiccans only have "a few simple beliefs in common." Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them. Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is now private expression.

Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?

Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?

Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.

Articles and books by Peter Jones
are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.
View Article  Interview with David Wells, Part 2
Click here Part One of the interview.
David F. Wells

One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination?


Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and “relationships” which have none of the human reality of actual relationships.  Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation.  So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why.  What needs are they meeting?  The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can’t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.

You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?

The key is that biblical spirituality comes from “above” and pagan spirituality comes from “below.”  The language of “above” is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ’s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access.  God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar.  That fact, however, is not obvious to us.  If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want.  These assumptions make up the spirituality from “below” and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing.  The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.

Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices "from below," as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is "from above" because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices "from below" to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?

No, we should not play games with ourselves.  The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living.  The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today.  So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ.  Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” or “his Spirit”?  When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God’s Word?  Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ?  If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the “Spirit” doing this and doing that!

Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?

Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways.  They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture.  And, almost incidentally, they are reminders—since most come from the past-- that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world.  Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.

You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?

It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural “relevance.”  Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say “congregations”?!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding.  Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal.  May their number grow every day!

View Article  Interview with David Wells, Part I

In the first chapter of The Courage to Be Protestant you map out three constituencies that make up the current evangelical world: classical evangelicalism, church marketers (or seeker-sensitives), and emergents. To help familiarize our readers with your book, could you briefly explain each of these groups and the problems they pose for Christianity?

What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.  There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge, instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).  But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise is....hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling, confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, "It is important for us to remember that culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches. You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.  The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.

View Article  On Our Treatment of Common Sexual Sins

One of the emails I received today linked to a men’s devotional series called “Live by His Power,” which is published by Christianity Today. The very brief “devotional” for today recites the story of a pastor counseling a young man regarding sexual temptation:

I counseled Justin, a gifted young man fighting a losing battle with pornography and chronic masturbation.

"The next time you rent a porno movie," I advised, "pray, 'God, I know this isn't right, but I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.'"

"You call yourself a pastor?" Justin exclaimed. "How could you tell me to keep on doing this!" He rose from his chair and headed for the door.

"God already knows the needs in your heart," I said. "He knows the content of every pornographic movie you've rented and witnessed your every act of self-gratification. Why not stop pretending and acknowledge the God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff?"

Justin left my office very upset with me. But several months later, he returned. "You were right," he admitted. "God is there with me. Recognizing that has spoiled lust for me and made me listen to the real yearnings for love in my heart."

This story was quoted from a book, so I don’t know if there was more to it. I sure hope the pastor worked with Justin to help him repent of his sexual sins instead of simply pointing out the God knows the desires of his heart. Regardless, I think this brief story highlights some of the problems with the way in which we often address sexual sins with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1)      “Chronic masturbation”- “Chronic” has strong psychological connotations. There’s a sense in which something chronic is out of our control. Too often we treat pornography and masturbation this way- we know they are not healthy, but we sometimes treat them like psychological conditions or diseases rather than sin. While there are often emotional and behavioral problems related to these actions (e.g. misplaced intimacy, addiction) that should be addressed, we must not lose sight of the simple yet devastatingly sinful nature of these problems.

2)      “I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.” At best, this is a poorly worded statement. We have unmet desires of all sorts in this life, but I’m not sure we have unmet sexual “needs.” The claim that these are needs too often becomes an excuse for engaging in sinful activities (e.g. viewing pornography, masturbation). We recognize that we must eat to survive and nourish our bodies. Many see certain sexual sins in the same way- such as masturbation is necessary to relieve stress or tension. A man once told me he masturbated before dates so he wouldn’t be as tempted to go too far with his girlfriend. Because he viewed his sexual desires as “needs,” he exchanged a terrible sin (pre-marital sex) with a “lesser” sin. But it was still sin, and the Bible makes it clear that following Christ means we must repent of all sin.

3)      "God already knows the needs in your heart.” This is true. God knows our needs and provides for them. He also knows our desires, and some of them are repugnant to His holiness. The desire to feed our lusts inappropriately is one of those desires. Not only does God know these, so does everyone else. We treat them as if they are secret unique sins, but just about every one in some way struggles sexually. Because we don’t often acknowledge that, we find comfort in sharing our struggles through sympathizing with others. I’ve been in a few “accountability” groups were guys would go around in a circle and list some of their sexual sins from the past week. Then everyone would pray and leave. There’s nothing wrong with sympathy. It can often be helpful. But finding sympathy alone will not lead to repentance. God does know my desires, as well as every other totally depraved man, and that’s why some of them need to be drastically changed under the guidance of His word. God doesn’t just know and understand them, He wants to sanctify them.

4)      “God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff.” God not only knows, He’s not only present, but He has also spoken on these struggles. God is there, and He has not been silent. Whether we view Him as a caring friend or a condemning judge, we must not stop at simply acknowledging His presence. We must also seek to understand what He has said- what He has commanded and what He has forbidden. What did Jesus mean when He said “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”? (Matt 5:28) Lusting after a single woman may be acceptable if we limit adultery to a crime against someone’s marriage. But if adultery is also a crime against God, then the marital status of the woman is irrelevant. Such excuses for sin will be destroyed when we regularly and humbly meditate on the Bible. The Holy Spirit works through God’s word to instruct and change us- to make us look more like Him. So while it’s okay to point out that God is with us, we must not fail to point also to His word as it is His means for sanctification in our lives.

For a more thorough biblical treatment of sexual sin, I highly recommend David Powlison's excellent chapter, "Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken,"  in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, which is available for free in .pdf on Desiring God's website.
View Article  On the Passing of Dr. Cook (1935-2008)

Yesterday evening Dr. Clyde Cook passed away. He played an important role in just about everything that is good at Biola University as its president from 1982 to 2007. I never met him, but I, along with thousands of other students, have benefited from his commitment to academic excellence, the truth of Christianity, and strength of character.

Biola University's posts:
Public memorial information
Dr. Clyde Cook Bio
Read about Dr. Cook's Legacy

John Mark Reynolds has posted some reflections on Dr. Cook:
Dr. Cook: We Will Meet, But We Will Miss Him.
The Passing of Dr. Clyde Cook
An Interview Where Dr. Cook Discusses His World War II Experiences and Hopes for Biola

Reflections from others:
Magnolia Mountain
Laura's Writings
Home of the Clint
Mere-Orthodoxy



www.NewMediaFrontier.com

Interviews
David Wells- Part I / II

Stephen Wagner- Part I / II

Kim Riddlebarger- Part I / II / III

R. Scott Smith- Part I / II / III

Devin Brown- Part I / II

Bruce Edwards- Part I / II

Glenn Lucke- Part I / II / III / IV

Doug TenNapel- Part I / II

Alex Chediak- Part I / II

Richard Abanes- Part I / II / III / IV / Analysis

Mary Kassian- Part I / II