Why I prefer Christian hip-hop over Christian rock

As some of you readers know by now, I spent some time this week at Freedom Experience, which included a Christian hip-hop artist and a Christian rock band. I am not sure that my hearing will ever recover. I did not mind the Christian hip-hop, but I was not a fan of the Christian rock.

I believe that Christian music is most glorifying to God when it is teaching instead of entertaining. I think that music must be entertaining (to an extent) to glorify God because boring music, even if teaching, will not benefit the listener. Talent is also nice, but neither talent nor entertainment is the primary purpose.

Since teaching should be the primary purpose, I also want to point out that it should not take much to teach truth in song. However, the more truth that a song contains, the more potential you have to teach those around you the truth. I think that Christian music is important because it does teach truth to people who do not understand concepts until they sing about them. For example, many children are able to accept the reality of the Trinity as truth because of singing Holy, Holy, Holy as a child ("God in three persons, blessed Trinity"). Although it may be a concept not understood, it can be accepted as truth when it becomes part of the church conversation, even in song.

I think that both Christian hip-hop and Christian rock have the potential to teach through song. However, I think that Christian hip-hop may be a more effective medium to teaching truth through song. First, rap is a lyric driven music form with the beats taking a backseat to the words of the artist. Rappers are gifted at telling stories in a form that is catchy, quick, but packed full of truth. Second, if you listen hard enough, you can understand the rapper (usually without getting a headache). Although it is fast paced, and therefore hard for some people to catch what is said, many Christian rappers are presenting pure truth in a format that is gifted and entertaining. Third, that type of lyrical flow takes pure talent. I believe that it is a God-given talent, and I am pleased to see young men using that talent to glorify God. Fourth, many of the young men who are rappers are going to seminary or involving themselves in intense Bible study so that they can make sure that what they are presenting is true. These men are committed to biblical music and are concerned that their lyrics are true. This shows me that they understand that they can fulfill their purpose of glorifying God best by teaching through music.

I think that I have been listening to the wrong Christian rock bands, and maybe that is why I am not a huge fan of their music. First, I cannot understand them. The instruments are drowning out the lyrics (even the best secular rock bands know the importance of not allowing the instruments to drown out the lyrics!). The screaming instead of singing makes it hard to discern what is said. How can you teach if the audience cannot understand your words? Maybe I have not trained my ears to hear the words in Christian rock as well as I have in Christian rap, but honestly, the screaming gives me a headache. Second, there is a lack of depth in most songs. A song can be deep and filled with truth without many words (Just Give Me Jesus comes to mind - not Christian rock, but just an example of a simple, truth-filled song). Some songs are shallow with a lot of words (including some Christian hip-hop songs). Most Christian rock songs seem to be in the middle (number of words-wise), yet lacking in deep spiritual truths. I will confess that maybe I am missing the deep spiritual truth because I cannot understand what is being said. Third, I am sure that some do, but I do not hear Christian rock artists speaking things that indicate depth in their own spiritual lives. Part of teaching is training others to follow your example in being committed to learning more about God. I hear Christian rock artists talk a lot about experience (although the group this week did not - so this is not a complaint about their presentation), but not enough about the importance of God's word. Finally, most Christian rock artists incorporate very little of God's word into their music. The best way to convey truths about God is to include how God revealed Himself through His word.

I know that people can point to one or more of these points and say "What about ___________, they do not do this or they do that?" I think that the main point that I am trying to make is that Christians should be discerning in choosing music. Just as discernment is required when listening to teaching and preaching, it is required when listening to music. If there is something theologically incorrect in a song, we should train ourselves to catch it. We cannot allow entertainment to excuse us from the duty that all Christians have to discern. If the audience is more discerning, and encouraging musicians to teach truth over entertainment (but while remaining entertaining), then the quality of Christian music, hip-hop, rock, or otherwise, will improve to a level far above what we currently have available to listen to. I encourage believers to be active instead of passive listeners. Hold musicians accountable for what they sing. Encourage those singing truth. Finally, enjoy music because it is a gift from God.

Response to Complaints about Evacuees

I received this in my e-mail today, and I thought that I would provide a response but more from the Christian perspective than a secular prospective. Again, as I stated yesterday, I am not going to join the debate about whether FEMA payments are valid or any social issue like that. Instead, I am choosing to make a public response to her letter (since the letter was in the newspaper in Shreveport apparently). I would not do this except that the end of her letter appears to imply that she is a Christian.

First, here is the letter:

Dear Editor,

I am a nurse who has just completed volunteer working approximately 120 hours as the clinic director in a Hurricane Gustav evacuation shelter in Shreveport, Louisiana over the last 7 days. I would love to see someone look at the evacuee situation from a new perspective. Local and national news channels have covered the evacuation and "horrible" conditions the evacuees had to endure during Hurricane Gustav. True - some things were not optimal for the evacuation and the shelters need some modification.

At any point, does anyone address the responsibility (or irresponsibility) of the evacuees?
Does it seem wrong that one would remember their cell phone, charger, cigarettes and lighter but forget their child's insulin?
Is something amiss when an evacuee gets off the bus, walks immediately to the medical area, and requests immediate free refills on all medicines for which they cannot provide a prescription or current bottle (most of which are narcotics)?
Isn't the system flawed when an evacuee says they cannot afford a $3 copay for a refill that will be delivered to them in the shelter yet they can take a city-provided bus to Wal-mart, buy 5 bottles of Vodka, and return to consume them secretly in the shelter?
Is it fair to stop performing luggage checks on incoming evacuees so as not to delay the registration process but endanger the volunteer staff and other persons with the very realistic truth of drugs, alcohol and weapons being brought into the shelter?
Am I less than compassionate when it frustrates me to scrub emesis from the floor near a nauseated child while his mother lies nearby, watching me work 26 hours straight, not even raising her head from the pillow to comfort her own son?
Why does it insense [sic] me to hear a man say "I ain't goin' home 'til I get my FEMA check" when I would love to just go home and see my daughters who I have only seen 3 times this week?
Is the system flawed when the privately insured patient must find a way to get to the pharmacy, fill his prescription and pay his copay while the FEMA declaration allows the uninsured person to acquire free medications under the disaster rules?
Does it seem odd that the nurse volunteering at the shelter is paying for childcare while the evacuee sits on a cot during the day as the shelter provides a "daycare"?
Have government entitlements created this mentality and am I facilitating it with my work?
Will I be a bad person, merciless nurse or poor Christian if I hesitate to work at the next shelter because I have worked for 7 days being called every curse word imaginable, feeling threatened and fearing for my personal safety in the shelter?

Exhausted and battered,

Sherri Hagerhjelm, RN

My response:

Dear Sherri,

In your letter, you seem to indicate that you are a Christian and therefore, I am writing this response. There are many people that have voiced some of your same opinions. Therefore, since you published your "new perspective" in a newspaper, I am choosing to respond on my blog. Specifically, I am responding to the last sentence of your letter wherein you asked if it would make you a poor Christian if you hesitate to work in the next shelter. I do not know what you mean by "poor Christian," but I am of the opinion that if God has gifted you with medical capabilities, and there is a medical need, you would at least be a disobedient Christian if you fail to provide your services the next time that it is necessary. There are several reasons for me stating this.

Number 1: You spend a lot of time in your letter focusing on the individuals instead of viewing the individuals in a biblical way. Jesus indicates that we are to treat those that we minister to as if we are ministering to Him (Matthew 25, and more specifically verses 31-46). If Jesus asked for medication, we would give it to Him no questions asked, including the question about whether or not He can afford it. I do think there is a level of discernment you have to exercise though because you do not want to provide medication to an addict, but that is not the point of that statement. If Jesus asked for shelter, we would open our arms wide instead of questioning His motives. Stop looking at these people as people with an entitlement mentality and start looking at them through gospel eyes. Yes, they may have an entitlement mentality or be lazy or be unappreciative, but that is why our servant attitude and heart will be a witness to them. Be a suffering servant doing all of this for the glory of God instead of for the people that you are helping.

Number 2: You talk about being exhausted and drained. Again, I speak for most everyone that worked in shelters (including myself) when I say that you are not alone. However, there is a verse in the Bible that speaks directly to this issue. You will find it in Galatians 6:9-10, written by perhaps one of the most abused, exhausted, battered, and person in danger that ever set out to live and preach the gospel. "And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." Galatians 6:9-10. Preach to yourself in those times that you are feeling incensed, less compassionate, exhausted, discouraged by reminding yourself of those verses. The verses do not say to do good to only those who are of the household of faith or only those who deserve it or only those that are grateful, but to everyone. I know that I had to during the midst of serving in the shelters during Gustav and Ike. It is when you stop preaching to yourself that you fall victim to looking at these people individually, full of faults, instead of looking at them through gospel eyes, as referenced in number 1 above. I had to constantly remind myself not to grow weary in doing good. I had to constantly remind myself to view the people I was serving as Jesus or at least as someone who needs to hear the gospel through my actions and attitude. I had to constantly remind myself to smile so that the evacuees could see the joy that only God gives. I had to constantly remind myself that these people are people who are at the shelter because they do not know if they are going to have a home when they leave the shelter. Yes, they may have chosen the shelter route because of the free food, free medication, free trip out of town, but the evacuees still may be returning home to nothing. That kind of stress causes some people to be unable to provide care to their children. I have seen it with my own eyes with someone I now consider a close friend. I had to help care for her child because at that time in that type of stress she was unable to. I had to realize I had no right to complain because God had placed me in that position to be able to minister in that way. Was it frustrating at times? I would be a liar if I told you know. That is why it was necessary to preach to myself. This is a habit that all Christians should incorporate into their lives. I often fail in my attitude towards the evacuees, but by God's grace, there are moments that I am able to be an example of the gospel as well.

Number 3: Your concern for safety seems to hinder your willingness to share the gospel. One of the problems in the church today is that people are too concerned for safety. I should probably limit that to the American church since there are other churches around the world who are answering the call to sacrifice safety for the spread of the gospel every day, and are gladly giving their lives for Christ. Many in the church, myself included, are too afraid to put our safety on the line for the spread of the gospel. Start trusting God and His will for your safety instead of fearing what may happen. Should you die in this type of situation, your death may result in great things for God's Kingdom. Be willing to have Paul's attitude that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Realize that God may have called you to a situation where your safety was in jeopardy to get you out of your comfort zone and to show His provision in such times. Safety is not a valid concern when turning down opportunities to serve.

Number 4: Your "new perspective" lacks all everything that a Christian should be showing the world. The glory of God is proclaimed when the world sees that we Christians are willing to serve and sacrifice even when God calls us to serve and sacrifice to those in society that may not deserve it. Isn't that what the gospel is all about? Showing grace to the world because God showed grace to us when we did not deserve it? There is a church in my town that had their facilities damaged by the evacuees from Gustav, had situations go on during Gustav that would have justified their decision to no longer be a shelter, yet they opened their doors to evacuees in Ike. There is another church in my town that made the decision not to be a shelter, despite significant financial and people resources, not to mention adequate facilities to house evacuees. Which church is portraying the glory of God to the community and to the world? Isn't it the church that makes decisions that do not make sense? Be the example that the church who opened its doors even when it would have been justified in closing them instead of the example of making a decision that makes sense to the world. You may be justified in not volunteering in the future, but choose to be the type of person who is asked why you are willing to serve again so that you can explain the gospel to someone who needs to hear it.

This response is not meant to address what is wrong with FEMA or whether FEMA needs to change. Right now, FEMA and its regulations are as good as law (if they are not law already), so complaining about FEMA is not the way to change things. Instead, it is better for the time being to follow the law, and do it with a smile and attitude that comes only from Christ. Personally, I am glad that persons who were on medication for bi-polar depression in the shelter at our church could receive their prescription for free due to the FEMA rules because I am sure that we would have had our hands full if the prescriptions were not readily available. I am grateful for the presence of the guard even if I may think that it is sad that the guard is necessary. I am also grateful that God allowed me to participate in a ministry that is hard for me and requires me to rely so much on Him and His provision. I also pray that anything that I did in my service may be used by God to change hearts and lives, realizing that He is the only one who can provide that change.

I am sure that this response may seem harsh to you at this time. However, I pray that God will allow it to be a teaching situation in spite of the sin it may contain.

Exhausted, but praising God for the privilege of service,

Cyndia Hammond

Pierced for our Transgressions

Pierced for Our Transgressions is a very thorough examination of the doctrine of penal substitution. Fortunately, I do not think that I have encountered too many people who do not believe in the doctrine of penal substitution who also profess to be Christian. However, I enjoyed the book because it covered the doctrine from so many different angles that I at least have a resource to refer to that provides me with a biblical defense of the doctrine should I need to defend the belief.

In the first part of the book, the authors perform a survey of the Bible on the doctrine, pointing out many Scriptures that support the doctrine that Jesus Christ died in place of sinners through His death on the cross. The doctrine of penal substitution teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty of our sins when He died on the cross. After making a biblical case for the doctrine, the authors take the readers on a journey through church history to exam what church fathers have said about the doctrine up to the present time. The first part of the book was outstanding. I think that any resource that examines such a key doctrine so thoroughly is worth reading.

In the second part of the book, the authors take key questions and/or assertions made by opponents of penal substitution and respond using references to Scripture or just logic. The authors show their gift of apologetics during this portion, although I have to admit that I became disinterested in some of the arguments. I do think that this portion of the book is not only necessary, but an invaluable resource should someone find themselves in a position of needing to defend the doctrine.

Pierced for Our Transgressions is a difficult book to read. It is very textbook like in its writing style. However, I believe it to be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in apologetics or the issue of penal substitution. The book is well-thought out and put together. My suggestion for lay persons would be to read the first part of the book, and saved the second part for times when you need it.

Quote

I receive a Quote of the Day on my RSS feeder, and today's quote seems to be what so many in the world believe on the matter of truth:

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."  Andre Gide

The world does not value absolute truth anymore, just those who are seeking the truth.  Of course Gide had to put in there "Doubt those who find it" because, as a Christian, I have knowledge of the absolute truth (although not perfect knowledge yet).  I bet that Gide would not believe that Christianity has found absolute truth in Jesus Christ.  He would be blind to the fact that absolute truth has been found in Jesus Christ.  The world seeks after something that it isn't even sure exists, and can't see when it is presented to them.  

I do hope that there are people who are actively seeking Truth, and we need to pray that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes to the Truth once they encounter Him.  Those who find the absolute Truth need to be bold to proclaim that it is truth in a world that is unwilling to believe that anyone can have knowledge of absolute truth.

Doctrine and Application

I wrote this a while ago, but I am just now getting around to posting it.

While studying for my Sunday school lesson a while back, another reason to study and to teach doctrine occurred to me.  In reading Matthew 19-22, there are several examples of ways that the Saducees and Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus through their questions.  Every time that He was presented with the challenging questions, Jesus was able to answer in a doctrinally sound way.  You may be thinking, "Of course, He did.  He was fully God after all, and so all-knowing."  I think that no only was He proving His deity, I think He was setting an example for His followers to follow.  We are told throughout the New Testament to be like Christ.  I think this extends to the way that we answer the challenges of the world, including the difficult questions that we may be asked.

The only way that we are going to be able to answer in the way that Jesus did is if we know the Bible and have the Holy Spirit within us.  Therefore, it is important to learn as much doctrine as we can in order to be ready to give a clear, accurate defense to questions posed by those who are our modern day Pharisees and Saducees.  We have to have such a solid foundation that the hard questions don't shake us up.  I think that the ideal way to establish this foundation is in the same way that Jesus did, meaning starting as a young child.  We should be challenging our children by teaching them the truths of Scripture at a young age.  There are many ways to do this, but we need to stop using the excuse that children do not understand.  Instead, we need to be challenging children from a young age.  Most adults do not fully understand the doctrines presented in Scripture, and there are many mysteries that we have to accept by faith.  Therefore, we should be teaching children to accept the mysteries by faith young.  Plus, people learn more than we think that they are capable of learning when people are challenged.  

It seems that the church as a whole today wants to steer clear of doctrine because it isn't relevant or it doesn't meet people's felt needs.  However, many in the church cannot give a defense when questioned by non-Christians about things such as the doctrine of the Trinity, doctrine of the Church, and the doctrine of salvation.  Too many in the church are not firm in their convictions because they are more concerned about becoming better people than having a changed heart and mind.  They would rather focus on self and how God can make self better, instead of focusing on God and the things of God so that self becomes smaller and smaller (which, ironically, results in becoming a better person).

I am not saying that doctrine should be taught without application.  I just don't think that application should be taught without doctrine.  If doctrine is not put into practice, it is worthless.  It becomes too much head knowledge without exhibiting a changed heart and a faith that is alive.  However, application without doctrine is destined to fail because it doesn't necessarily spring from a changed heart and mind.  We need to be careful about teaching water and milk to those in the church.  2 Timothy 2:2 commands Timothy to teach faithful men who will be able to teach others.  This is a command that extends to all those in the church.  If we teach only water and milk, we aren't preparing faithful members who can teach others.  However, if we are not afraid to tackle the hard stuff and the doctrine, then we will be preparing faithful members to teach those they come in contact with, including the modern day Saducees and Pharisees.  We will be teaching our church members to be ready to give a defense just as Christ was ready to give a defense when presented with a challenge.  If the church does not know how to make a defense because it hasn't been taught doctrine, the leaders will experience greater punishment for failing to fulfill the commands in Scripture.  However, if the leaders and teachers in the church teach sound doctrine that equips the saints, the leaders and teachers will not be held accountable.  Maybe if more leaders and teachers understood this (or were qualified to teach in the first place), our churches would not be filled with spiritual infants.

Surprised, Kind Of

I have been reading various blogs, as those of you who read this often (mom) know since I have been trying to post a blog of the week.  I have a list that updates each day, I go to the updated blogs, and if it looks like it is something that interests me, I save it to read later when I have a break at work, eat at my desk, or have some extra time at the end of the day.  Today I was going through the list of blogs to read, and I came across a few blogs that were discussing a conversation that took place between Doug Paggitt and some guy named Todd from Way of the Master.

Doug Paggitt is one of the "leaders" of the Emergent Church, which basically has the goal of engaging and reaching a post-modern world.  I think that there is some truth to what is said, meaning that they say a lot of things that would be found true in Scripture, and state a lot of goals that even I agree with.  Way of the Master is a ministry that teaches evangelism, street evangelism, and ways to refute what they consider heresy.  I want to say up front that although I think that some of the Way of the Master things/methods are ok, I am not sure I agree with all of it.

That brings me to what I read about, then decided to listen to for myself.  Bloggers were talking about the interview that occurred between Todd and Doug on the Way of the Master podcast.  I decided to listen to it for myself (and would suggest that you do so as well because it is quite disturbing on so many levels).

First of all, I am very displeased with how Todd conducted the interview.  When engaging in conversation, it is necessary to be gracious and kind and gentle (things I have a hard time doing, so I will probably not ever be interviewing a Doug Paggitt) in order to engage in the conversation Biblically.  Speaking truth without love is probably as bad as speaking something false because both lead people astray.  Todd definitely was speaking the truth, but there was no love in his speech.  His attitude, disrespect, unkind/harsh words to and about Doug are just as sinful and lead just as many non-Christians away from the truth as Doug's false teaching.  That has to be said upfront.  A good example of someone who does engage in conversation in a Biblical way is Dr. Albert Mohler on his daily radio program.  I have listened to Dr. Mohler converse with athiests (for example) in a way that was not condescending, yet speaking in truth.  Love was in his voice.  He may not have convinced the athiest(s), but his words also did not push people away because of the tone in which they were spoken.

I have to say that I was shocked by some of the statements made by Paggitt.  I have been trying to build a foundation of systematic theology in my own studies, but I thought that there were areas that were not up for argument even by people who did not have a foundation in systematic theology.  One such area is the existence of heaven and hell.  Surprisingly, Paggitt doesn't believe in a physical heaven or hell.  One of the core beliefs to even be able to consider yourself a Christian is believing that there will be a bodily resurrection to a physical heaven.  That is an area that we do not compromise on.  Yet, this Emergent Church leader believes in a spiritual (non-physical) reality that will either be an interaction with or an absence of God (if I got that right.  He really didn't put any of his thoughts in a system - another benefit of systematic theology - and was left with very disorganized words that didn't form clear thoughts).  I was also surprised that apparently this man doesn't use methods such as the historical-grammatical method to interpret the Bible.  If you aren't studying the history, what the words meant back then, the context, then how can you interpret what the words mean for the church today?  Sure, what he said sounds good to a people who do not want to believe in the harsh realities of a hell and who only want to believe in a loving God, but that is not the God of the Bible.  Jesus described hell, and it wasn't just the absence of God.  It is and will be a place of desperation, pain, agony, weeping, gnashing of teeth, etc.  If we do not believe in a hell, then what are we really trying to save people from?  

I think that what I learned most from listening to Paggitt's comments is how important it is to understand redemptive history.  There are multiple types of redemption that will occur.  Two of those types seem to be something that Paggitt does not believe in - redemption of our physical bodies (comes at bodily resurrection) and redemption of this earth (meaning, there will be a physical heaven when this earth is distroyed).  I think it is important that we make sure we ground ourselves in doctrine and systematic theology so that we realize that the Bible is "strung together" (something that Paggitt also seems to disagree with) and has a common theme.  

One thing that I was reminded of last night in our 2 Timothy Bible study is that false teachers will start out with a message that sounds good and people want to hear (and even contains truth in it), but they veer away from the truth to prey on the fleshly desires of those who follow.  I, too, wish that I could not believe in hell because I do not want to think of a place as harsh as that.  My flesh does not want to believe in a place of torment for eternity for those that are not believers.  However, my flesh must submit to the Spirit, and I have to realize that if I believe in the God of the Bible, I accept His word as true.  His word is clear on the subject.  It is important to know His word so that we can discern when we hear something that sounds good to our ears (and flesh), but does not line up with the word of God.

2 Timothy 1:13

I am learning that the more I study the Bible, the more I realize I don't know.  Yesterday I was doing my Precept study in 2 Timothy, and the day's assignment was to focus in on the words used to make up one verse.  You would think that would be a quick Bible study.  I mean, it is just one verse.  But somewhere between 30-45 minutes later, I was amazed at what I had learned after just scratching the surface - I did not make it past the 6th word in my study. 

Here is the verse:

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.  (NASB)

Follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.  (ESV)

Before looking at the meanings of the words, it is easy to just repeat these words as a sort of catch phrase to show our knowledge of Paul's letter and to encourage others to retain the standard.  However, as I studied the meaning of the words, the meaning of the verse became so much deeper.  

I have to apologize now for not being able to refer to the Greek words whose meanings I am going to give (since my notes are at home), but I don't like to latinize the words anyway (you can call me a Greek snob).  The word translated retain is also translated hold-fast, hold-firm, stand strong.  I don't know if this is how the term was used or not, but I picture in my head an army that is holding the line, following the general's orders, even though it may not look like the smartest thing to do because they are being attacked.  The word translated standard in NASB is probably better translated pattern (as the ESV translators realized).  It has the idea of an artist who makes a sketch before drawing the real thing.  The picture that comes to mind for me is a sewing pattern, or maybe even a blueprint/instructions that come along with building a prefabricated building.  Sound words are healthy ideas, healthy complete thoughts.

What is it that Paul is instructing Timothy to do?  Paul is telling Timothy to follow the pattern of teaching and preaching and presenting the gospel that Paul has set.  Paul is instructing Timothy to hold fast to the biblical model of teaching.  That means that those who are teaching the Bible need to look to the Bible to determine if a particular method of teaching is supported by the Bible.  It means that one has to have a grasp of Scripture to teach Scripture.  Paul used Scripture to interpret Scripture.  More importantly, Paul had the gospel as the center of all that he taught.  Christ is the main character of the Bible, and the gospel needs to be proclaimed.  I know that there are times when teaching through Scripture that I have failed to include the gospel.  Since studying that verse, I have thought over the stories and the teachers in the Old and New Testament.  Just look at the Minor Prophets, and the gospel is throughout what they are teaching.  Look at Jewish law and Christ was being taught (Hebrews confirms this).  Look at the epistles in the New Testament, and you see the gospel of Christ.  

In all, I think that we need to make sure that the focus of everything that we teach is Scripture so that we can follow the example of Paul and other biblical writers and teachers.  We need to allow Scripture to teach us how to teach Scripture.  Most of all we need to make sure that the gospel of Christ is taught in each message that we bring.

New Precept

It has been a while since I wrote anything.  It is strange how I go through periods of not being able to write enough, then periods of not having much to say.  I think that part of that comes with how busy I am at work, at home, how much time I have to read, etc.

I have started a new Precept course.  This time we are doing 2 Timothy.  I am so thankful that God has gifted me with the desire to study His word in such an indepth way.  Too often I am tempted to be lazy and just see what others have to say about the Bible, or too busy to really take a portion of Scripture and contemplate its place in God's word as a whole.  Another temptation is to skip the putting Scripture into context, and just jump to the application.  However, you can't have correct application without studying the context, which I believe is best accomplished by studying inductively (meaning observation, interpretation, then application).  What is so convicting so far about 2 Timothy is that we are to learn Scripture not just for personal edification, but so that we can teach.  I think that we tend to skip this step in our churches.  What I mean by that is that we talk too much about application without really teaching someone how to teach by our style of teaching.  I know that I am tempted to do that (and do it quite often unfortunately).  When someone can tell that we have observed a passage so that we know the basic who, what, where, when, and why, and can tell that we have interpretted the passage by using Scripture to interpret Scripture, then they can trust our application.  Also, they can learn by our example how to study the Bible for themselves and how to teach.  The goal of Bible study should not just be about personal edification or relationships (although both are important), but it should be to glorify God by equipping the Saints to be prepared to give a defense in season and out of season.  This means that the gospel should be central to all that we teach because we need to equip the Saints to share the gospel and there may be someone there that needs to hear the gospel.  

I think I kind of changed subjects there near the end.  Here are my personal goals for 2 Timothy:

(1)  Learn the book so well that it is etched on my mind and heart.  This tends to happen with the book Precept studies.  There are certain words and phrases that should become a part of my Christian vocabulary as a result of this study (i.e., The righteous man shall live by faith from Romans, Contend for the faith from Jude, Be prepared to meet your God from Amos).

(2) Be prepared to teach the book.  I like to teach.  I always have the desire to teach.  However, I have to prepare before I teach, and part of that preparation should be studying a book indepth before I teach it.  I think that this is the step that too many teachers in our churches skip, in part because too often we do not give them enough time to prepare to teach.  You can't ask someone to teach a month before the study starts and expect them to be prepared to teach properly.  You also can't just give them a packet of literature and expect them to teach properly (in part because too much of our literature is focused on application instead of observation and interpretation, but that is the subject of a future blog when I have fully thought through how to approach that subject -- stay tuned!).  I am not saying that God isn't able to use teachers who are dependent on literature or anything like that.  What I am saying is that we could be more effective at equipping the Saints for good works if we taught in the way that Paul tells us to teach in 2 Timothy (and his other books such as Ephesians).  That having been said, I hope that I will be ready to teach 2 Timothy at the end of this study if I am called upon to teach it at some point in the future.

I have to confess that this blog may be a little unorganized and seem to ramble at points, but I really don't feel like going back and editing it or making it flow better.

Better to not have lived

I was listening to the Albert Mohler Program a few days ago as I washed my dishes (yes, mom, I finally washed my dishes!), and there was an interesting program on a modern philosopher who has determined that it is better not to live and that humans should phase themselves out to extinction. It sounds like a radical argument, but when you see yourself as just another animal, you can see how one would begin to think this way. Also, this guy says that if you take a life, bad things outweigh good things, and therefore it is not worth it.

Really, if you think about it, any non-Christian should feel this way. The only way to find meaning in this life is through a relationship with God through Christ. It is only in a relationship with God that bad times can even be seen as good because of the change of character and blessings from God that one receives through trials. It is only through a relationship with God that we can look past the bad of this world and long for the good in the world to come. It is only through a relationship with God that we find our true worth. Our response to ones making this argument that life is not worth living because the bad outweighs the good should be to share the gospel.

The whole theory that humanity should phase itself out to extinction is crazy! The guy didn't suggest that we start killing people off, but that we start aborting more (I think, but I really can't remember) and stop having babies. Can you imagine what that would look like in the last generation? Paints such a bleak future! However, we must remember that we have been commanded to be fruitful and multiply and populate the earth. Christians should understand that is a command from God and should realize it is how we are a witness of God's manifold witness, on earth and in the heavenlies, since God's grace can often be seen through generation after generation in many families.

Why is it important to study God?

This past weekend I picked up a book that I bought a while back and started to read, but put down probably to read another book that interested me more. As I began to read the book again, I quickly became overwhelmed with different terms used to describe various views of God and His interaction with man. So overwhelmed that I found myself wondering whether it would be beneficial to continue reading the book, especially since there are many others that I have not read and that definitely look easier to read.

The more I thought about it, the more important I realized it is for me to continue reading the book. I think that one reason is that too many people who label themselves as Christians or Evangelicals or who even claim to believe in the same God I do even though they do not call themselves Christians do not understand who my God, the God of traditional orthodox Christianity is. Unfortunately, I often do not understand enough about their view of God or my own view of God to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation where I can start at the point of disagreement instead of having them try to convince me based on the points of agreement. Over the past several weeks, I read the debate between Mohler and Card (mentioned in a previous blog I believe), and I realized that the only way that Mohler was able to distinguish Mormonism from Christianity was by pointing out the differences. This took a knowledge of what Mormons believe about Jesus. However, it also took knowledge about what Christians believe about Jesus and knowing the issues that we refuse to compromise on. Of course this knowledge must be obtained somehow, and I believe it is by studying the Bible and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us about God through Scripture. It is only then that we are able to read the words of other men and know that they speak truth when describing God.

Anyway, I think that I am embarking upon an interesting journey during which I hope to learn about the areas that modern (or postmodern) man with his worldly wisdom is seeking to make God Almighty, Creator of the universe, Savior and Redeemer, Sovereign Lord into something or someone that God is not. Maybe this will prepare me to respond to people who attack who God is. It will definitely enable me to better understand the points of difference. So in conclusion I think that it will enable me to be better prepared to give a defense.

Contending and Enduring

In our study of the book of Jude this summer, I learned that we are to contend for the faith (Jude 3). I am also learning that contending for the faith takes lots of energy, as well as lots of time in the Word. What I mean is that so many people around us do not have a firm grasp on what they believe, which means that they ask questions about all sorts of things. I have to be prepared to answer. So how can I do that, especially when learning and standing firm takes so much energy? Especially when at times I am discouraged and just want to give up? The way is to persevere and run with endurance by the grace of God. God gives us the endurance and ability to run the race that He has set before us. Here are some verses that John Piper recently pointed out in a promotional regarding the upcoming Desiring God Conference (or some conference that he is putting on):

“rooted and grounded” (Ephesians 3:17)
“having done all, to stand firm” (Ephesians 6:13)
“stand firm thus in the Lord” (Philippians 4:1)
“not carried away with the error of lawless people” (2 Peter 3:17)
“we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9)
“love . . . bears all things, . . . endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7)
“suffering produces endurance” (Romans 5:3)
“stay awake” (Matthew 24:42)
“the one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death” (Revelation 2:11)
“keep alert with all perseverance” (Ephesians 6:18)
“the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13)

We are called to endure! Contending requires endurance, and endurance requires training, so keep training in the Word of God!

Are Mormons Christian?

Recently I have been reading a series of blogs that are supposed to be a back and forth discussion between Dr. Albert Mohler (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Orson Scott Card (some science fiction author and a Mormon) debating whether Mormons are Christian. As most of you are aware, Mitt Romney, who appears to be one of the top three leading candidates for president in the Republican Party, is a Mormon, and his openness about his faith has led to quite a bit of debate on the issue of whether Mormons are Christians. The debate can be found here http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/.

Well, I decided I wanted to weigh in on the issue. I think that the only religious systems that can call themselves Christians are those who believe in the historic Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. This means that you have to believe in the deity of Christ, understand redemptive history as revealed throughout Scripture, and believe in substitutionary attonement. From the little that I know about Mormonism, they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, making Him 100% God but also 100% man (a concept that is difficult for our minds to comprehend, which is where faith comes in). They think of Jesus as Savior, but from what I know (and I might be wrong), they believe Jesus' did not save us by taking on our sins on the cross and dying in our place (accepting the punishment for our sins), and/or He wasn't resurrected (which shows the completeness and sufficiency of the sacrifice, and therefore, is one of those issues that defines Christianity). Also, I believe that to be considered a Christian religion, the religion must believe in the Trinity. Although many claim that the concept of the Trinity is not found in Scripture or laid out for us in the Bible, clearly those persons have not read Ephesians (although Mormonism probably doesn't teach the writings of Paul because they also clearly mark out the deity and humanity of Christ and substitutionary atonement). Ephesians starts out by laying out the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation. Throughout, Paul teaches the different roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in dealing with the Church (invisible church, that is) and building of the body of Christ.

It is so important for Christian (and now I am talking true Christian churches, and not Mormons) churches to teach issues of doctrine so that we know what to look for in other churches claiming Christianity, such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. We need to be grounded in our view of Christ, and know why it is important to believe what we believe. I am saddened as I read some of the comments that think just because the Mormon church uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or whatever the name is, is Christian because it contains the words "Jesus Christ." Others think the Mormon church is Christian because they say Jesus is Savior. That is not the test. We need to learn who Christ is through study of God's Word so that we can recognize Him. As part of the Christian church, we need to contend for THE FAITH, which means that our opinions will not always be accepted in our world that touts tolerance. I admire men like Dr. Mohler who are willing to stand up against popular opinion to point out the truth to a world that does not believe in truth.