Meant by Christ for unity, the Lord's Supper has been turned into a cause for division

There is an irony in the way church men have handled the Lord's Supper since Jesus instituted it with his disciples by saying, "Do this in remembrance of me." The details are certainly important. By the 1500's parishioners were running from church to church to admire the bread being lifted by the priest and see his "magic" pronouncement Hoc est corpus meum, "This is my body," which they thought turned bread into the actual body of Christ. The elements of communion had become idols and Christ was being sacrificed again. The Eucharist was a good work Christians did to earn God's favor.

The Reformers in turn argued about how much or how spiritual vs. physical Christ's presence was in the ceremony. At Marburg, Zwingli and Luther could agree on 14 of 15 articles of faith, but could not unite on the Lord's Supper. For this, Luther proclaimed that Zwingli did not have the same spirit as Luther and his contingent. He did not mourn Zwingli's death and saw it as God's justice for Zwingli's heretical views. It may be hard for 21st century onlookers to identify with just how crucial and "all or nothing" doctrine was to a believer in the 16th century. Today there is a "It doesn't really matter what you believe," attitude that is pervasive. We, in our age have lost the fire and courage of our convictions.

On the other hand, there is an original and New Testament purpose to the Lord's Supper that transcends the detail. Christ meant it as a time to come together and remember Him and His death until He returns for us. It is this bringing Christ's death and its implications which brings Christ closer to our own hearts and to our church community. Just as the disciples shared an intimate meal with Jesus in that upper room, so we are to use this ritual to bring us closer to Christ. Jesus talked to the multitudes and to his disciples in John 6 about being the true bread from heaven. It was easy for many to misunderstand. The multitudes wanted a free lunch, but Jesus wanted to show them true bread that would satisfy them forever, just as he told the woman at the well to obtain the water which, once imbibed, would leave her never thirsting again.

Jesus never meant us to think that the bread and the wine were His actual flesh and blood. This is a simplistic understanding of truly meaty and spiritual event. Some Muslims, similarly base in their thinking have accused Christians of being cannibals for this reason. Jesus meant both his pronouncement and the act of communion to be profoundly spiritual and symbolic. We are to remember and worship Him during communion and not get distracted by the elements themselves. Jesus is the object of our worship and our thoughts during this ritual. It is not some good work we get credit for, nor is it some credit voucher to add up points toward salvation. It is a time where God gives to us and strengthens us as we remember His ultimate act of love and unity for us on the cross.

21st Century Laodicea: Come on in! The Water is Shallow and Tepid

I have recently read Romans and John Owen’s great work from 1565, On The Mortification of Sin. Owen, the learned Puritan, wrote it in the midst of helping Oxford recover from the ravages of the English Civil War in his role as Vice Chancellor.
I felt that Owen’s sharp and precise exegesis combined with a study and meditation probed narrow and deep as down a cavernous well. He thirsted for a treasure buried deep like a cold, underground stream. In contrast, we postmoderns wade toes at our leisure in inches of a lukewarm kiddie pool, easily accessible, but not satisfying for bathing or drinking on a hot summer day.
Owen’s seminal verse was Romans 8:13: “For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Owen states the stark reality, unadorned: the wages of sin is death and if our habit of life is in accord with the sinful nature we can expect to perish in God’s judgement. Paul urges us to “examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith,” and says, “unless you have believed in vain.” In Romans 2 Paul warns the church and the Jews that it is not the hearers of the law or those who know the law that are justified, but those who do the law.
Today we are very quick to assure anyone who has made a profession of faith. The Puritans waited for fruit and confirmation of faith over a period of time before even accepting a “professor” as a church member. The crucial phrase in Romans 8:13 is “by the Spirit.” It is only the Holy Spirit that can truly cure us and rid us of stubborn sin habits. Only He can transform us substantially and permanently. Although we cannot obtain perfection in this life, we should still aim for no less. “You shall be holy for I am holy.” And I Thess 5:23-24: God will sanctify us entirely and present us blameless at the coming of Jesus Christ.

Be killing sin by the Spirit

We are a distracted, shallow, uniformed, uninspired generation, and our kids are noticing and going anywhere else but the church to find their purpose in life. Where is the zeal, the evangelism, the radical love of the New Testament in our lives? It is time to return and revive this type of New Testament Church in Action Today. We should face the indictment of Laodicea in Revelation 3, “Because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Does that sound like a secure place to be? John Owen warns us early in his book, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

All Religions not the same? Really?

New book by Boston University's Stephen Prothero makes the point that all religions do NOT lead to God. There are substantive and real differences that put religions in conflict with one another.

Are scholars finally getting this? Yale, Princeton and Harvard seem to agree according to the book jacket.

This book follows Prothero's excellent study of American religious history called, Religious Literacy

Naturally, the book does not go so far as to say one religion is right and the others are wrong. This is the only possible logical conclusion in my mind. Likely Prothero is of the opinion that none of them are absolutely true. The latter conclusion would make me wonder how I got here without a God, or why He hasn't chosen to communicate with us clearly.

Avatar

I saw Avatar.

Yes, I saw Avatar with my Mom last weekend. I won't attempt to rehash any kind of thorough review, which has been done well elsewhere.

http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/avatar.aspx

I will just register some brief comments from my own unique perspective:

1. I've been reading about "Story" by Robert McKee, the Hollywood screenplay guru. One point he makes is that no one ever writes any kind of story without trying to convince you of something important. You may think Dickens was just telling cute, little stories with quirky characters. Actually he had a passion for exposing the miserable living and working conditions of the urban poor--especially children.

What is James Cameron's passion? To oppose and demonize U.S. foreign policy and to promote environmentalism.

2. In doing the above, Cameron succeeds in making the plea a religious one, going beyond a "Dances With Wolves" diatribe against removing indigenous peoples by ugly, impossibly evil white men (see point three)to drawing on worship of the Earth goddess and ancestor worship--in short, a revival of paganism. So Cameron not only undermines the goals of Western Civilization, he also provides the alternative, in effect a return to earth and ancestor worship that Christianity replaced. I think it's ironic that Cameron thinks this is some kind of solution. As you may remember, both the Romans and the Greeks were imperialistic marauders, much more brutal than the "Christian" conquerors who followed. Not to mention the Indians (Oops, I did, and not politically correctly), whose brutal, tribalistic, territorial wars constantly displaced each other. Their scalping, torture and barbarism are not taught to our children in school any longer.

3. To pull this off, to make a band of scientists who betray their government and the human race and have sex and mate with aliens look like the good guys, Cameron must make the villains look cartoonishly greedy, vicious and evil. Such characters are impossible to believe and are the content of today's graphic novels marketed to children. Immorality, a Benedict Arnold like traitorism, and neglect of authority are glorified to a holy aura as behavior to be imitated.

4. In a word, "Propaganda." Your children are seeing it and buying into it. Be very afraid. Unless you believe and follow Jesus Christ, then, proceed from fear to courage and faith and counter with the gospel, the greatest story ever told or ever to be told

Why Pray if God is Sovereign?

What is the use of praying if God knows the future and in fact controls the unfolding of events? Here a few good articles by men I respect:

Spurgeon: "If Predestination is True, Why Pray?"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12821206/If-Predestination-is-True

Piper: "The Sovereignty of God and Prayer" http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1976/1475_The_Sovereignty_of_God_and_Prayer/

Reisinger: "Basic Facts About Prayer and Sovereignty" http://solochristo.com/theology/Salvation/sogip/reisopr2.htm

A.W. Pink: "God's Sovereignty and Prayer" http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/pink_sov_09.html

Lots of good reasons to pray to a God who is in control!

Zechariah, Our Next Book in Sunday Class?

What about Zechariah for our next book? A minor prophet that we could cover at about a chapter a week. I like it for its history, being near the Babylonian Captivity, but it's also about prophecy and theology. The book has a pastoral flavor as well: God will care for his people. Ezekiel is supposed to be influential.

What are your thoughts? I know Rick and I are interested in doing a survey of the major doctrines of the church. This topic also excites me.

I'm very open at this point, but we should make a decision soon.

A Brief Case for Expository Preaching

A Brief Case For Expository Preaching

Let me briefly outline what I hope to discuss with each of you:

1. What is it?
A. It is allowing God to speak through the text rather than "using" the text to communicate what we want to say. Expository preaching exposes what it is already there. It does not create what is not there or misrepresent what is there.

2. Aren't we doing it now?
A. Our preaching now tends to be "needs-based." Even when we go through a section of scripture consecutively this leads to imposing our own meaning on the text and adjusting or wrestling with the text to accommodate our predetermined intention.

3. Neither Jesus nor the apostles are seen teaching expository sermons in the New Testament. How can you say expository preaching is Biblical?
A. No one had a closed, agreed upon Canon of Scripture until the 4th century, A.D. Now that we have God's revelation that may not be added to, we must look to it to decide how to preach. I think the attached article summarizes well how to do that supported from scripture.

4. Why change the way we're preaching now?
A. When we don't expose the text, we do the opposite, we can impose our own meaning on the text. In our age false teaching and every kind of error is rampant. We like to think we are teaching the whole counsel of God accurately. But if we are not systematically exposing the Word of God, how do we really know if we are wandering or not?

5. Isn't expository preaching dull and boring, full of dry, esoteric facts?
A. On the contrary, our message may be dry, but anyone who reveals the Word of God is always relevant and interesting. More importantly, expository preaching does not depend upon modern showmanship and charisma to be effective. Ordinary men may effectively teach and preach when submitted to God and His word.

6. What's in it for us?
A. The New Testament Church was interactive. People spoke the Word of God to each other, sang to one another, prayed together in church. The hearer shared all good things with the one teaching. When we preach expositorily we not only teach others how to study the Word of God for themselves, we inspire them to interact. We can take the focus off of our personalities and onto the Word of Christ. We encourage people to be active doers rather than passive viewers.

Thanks for taking the time to read,

Paul


See the following links:

http://www.wsbiblechurch.org/documents/a_case_for_expository_preaching.pdf


http://biblebb.com/files/MAC/CISv2n2-1.htm

Calling a Wolf a Wolf

Why do we expect "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing," to look just like wolves? False teachers come from us and they look like us. There is a time to point out false doctrine, name it, and if it is put out in the public arena by a leader, to speak up against it. "For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."

We know those verses, but sometimes I think we have a disconnect from what that really might look like or does look like in our churches in present day. Nice looking, nice sounding people, who are subtlety or overtly overturning the simplicity and purity of the gospel and our devotion to it.

These people must be opposed in every way. Opposition includes:

1. Living a Christ-like life beyond reproach that will put our enemies to shame
2. Speaking out against false doctrine and informing our leaders, brothers and sisters.
3. As Peter says, being ready to answer any falsehood, prepared by our knowledge of the Scriptures.
4. Being zealous for the truth, honor and name of Jesus Christ. Driving our chariots like Jehu to have Jezebel thrown from the balcony.

Lord, Save us from Your Followers...

...Who want the gospel to be something other than the cross.

I saw this movie last night with my good friend, Thessalonians expositor, and well-known radio engineer, Troy Bryant. I can honestly say this movie, Lord, Save Us From Your Followers was a positive, thought-provoking experience. And before I tell you about the deception it's selling, I want to talk about that positive learning experience.

The movie interviews many people from many different persuasions about what needs to change in Evangelical Christianity to solve the problem of Christians dividing the United States into two hostile camps. You will not be surprised to know that the answer is not for liberals and unbelievers to repent of their sin and change their minds about accepting the gospel. Ah, yes, it is conservatives who must abandon their strident, provocative methods and doctrines.

Watch the trailers here: View the trailer here:

Positives:

1. The movie truly tried to be even handed in interviewing both sides of the issue. Even as it was clear that conservative evangelicals were being called to change their message and not liberals, the movie was in no sense heavy handed. Conservatives got a lot of air time. Definitely not strictly a Michael Moore assassination of a position by creative editing.

2. The movie is correct that the nation has been unnecessarily divided by Christians insisting on dividing based on political affiliation. When a Christian declares Democrat or Republican he immediately alienates half the country. This is particularly a problem when a Christian's identity cannot be separated from his politics or if his religion largely or even primarily consists of his politics.

3. SO MUCH can be gained by not merely having the correct doctrine but actually living out the love and service of Jesus in the lives of the poor and in the lives of our enemies. The power of this love is ASTOUNDING. This is a great lesson as far as it goes for modern evangelicals.

4. Ever since I read, Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, I have loved the idea of the confessional booth. Dan (the protagonist) sets up the booth at a Gay Pride festival and he confesses his sins to them. This really opens doors to speak into people's hearts and get them to open up. I think it would good to have a booth at the Fair some year and do this--without getting into the liberal guilt trip, just honestly naming where we have fallen short in loving people.

Now I will proceed to the lie, which is quite subtle. After the movie was over most in the crowd applauded and agreed with Dan (who was present and addressed the audience and took questions).

Let me summarize the lie before expounding: "Preaching against sin and for the cross is not effective in 21st century America. Therefore we need to lay aside our doctrine and address the human need of the hurting and needy in our society."

Now, several points about that:

1. The heroes of the film turn out to be Bono and Tony Campolo. Of course, when they show up, not everyone in the audience knows their backgrounds. Campolo has been accused of not believing hell. Recently, I have seen him quoted saying that he does. But he is always decrying its use in preaching. He and Brian McLaren claim it means that anyone preaching it doesn't care for the quality of people's lives here on earth. Nice deflection.

Therein lies the fatal flaw of this movie. The movie is not concerned about escaping an eternal Lake of Fire by faith in a Christ who both died on the cross and rose from the grave. This gospel, the true one, is not advocated. It is abandoned in favor of loving people and accepting them right where they are at. A group of young, Christian students gathering in San Francisco, are chastized for their posturing. Gay and transsexual protesters are cast in a favorable light. These protesters one after another claim that any message assaulting their lifestyle will never have any affect in converting them.

The movie wants us to embrace a social gospel of good works. Of course if you do good things for the poor and hurting and at the same time manage to leave out the gospel, you won't have to face the persecution of the cross. I think Paul in Galatians 6:12 lays bare the motive of Progressives, Emergents, Liberation theologians, and others. If you preach good works, you avoid the persecution of preaching the cross.

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

-Galatians 6:12

The goal of Christianity is not primarily to be at peace with others or to quell strife or to get along. Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword and even division among members of one's own family. There is something greater at stake than peace when there is no peace: The eternal destiny of souls.

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

-James 4:4

How much easier it is to settle for a gospel that does not mean walking in the footsteps of Jesus, who was opposed by the establishment at every point and put to death by the same. Jesus did not entrust himself to men because he knew what they were like. The crowds who shouted praises and carried palm fronds one day yelled "Crucify" soon after.

Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. He came to give His life as a ransom. Any message where that is not the centerpiece is at best misleading.

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

-I Corinthians 2:2

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said

-I Cor. 15:3ff

2. The movie is effective propaganda for the primary position of the Emergent Church. We need to engage people and have a conversation without insisting on traditional doctrines of right and wrong. This includes shying away from taking a position on abortion and homosexuality. Clever, but subtle shots are taken at Republican politics.

One scene confuses the personal morality of "Thou shall not murder," with a denunciation of the Bush administration using a preemptive strike in an act of war. Obama quotes are strained to make him appear to believe in prayer to a personal God (He believes in prayer as a meditative, therapeutic exercise). Another clip has him advocating the common theme of all religions, to do unto others as they would do unto you. Of course, only one religion, Christianity advocates this in Matthew 7:12.
Do Muslim holy men teach this doctrine side by side with the glories of jihad to eager young students who forbid their sisters and mothers to receive an education?

So, the movie is very deceptive on doctrinal grounds, but also cannot help slip its political leanings. It tries so hard to say that it is apolitical, but of course, when eternal salvation is exchanged for merely improving the lot of people here on earth, that is all about politics. I am not condemning Democrats here. Christians shouldn't be subjected to a political litmus test and Republican politicians have perpetrated a large amount of folly in recent years.

I just find the masquerade interesting. These people claim to be just like us, but if you took a secret poll of how these people vote I suspect you wouldn't find any Bush supporters. That in itself is not a problem. Being honest about it is. It reminds me of the polls taken of the voting preferences of the supposedly unbiased media. The preponderance of liberals is remarkable. Why the effort to hide this?

In short, I believe this movie is an excellent teaching exercise for leaders in the church. It should be shown, dissected, and discussed so that they understand the folly of the reasoning and course of action advocated.

Wanna watch the DVD together and have some discussion?

Is Hell Eternal? Is the Unbeliever's Punishment?

Let's address this in a new post.

1. When the question is posed, a number of elements spring to mind. In Matthew 25, Jesus separates the sheep and goats and sends the goats to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

2. The Book of Revelation and its references to the Lake of Fire that burns forever. (Here may be where your definition of aeon comes in, Gary?)

3. The people who are eager at present to dispense with an eternal hell tend to be groups full of error that raise my ire: JW's and the Emergent Church come to mind, among others.

Who is proposing a hell that does not last forever? Clearly there is one. I presume annihilation is not an option here. Also, I am supposing we believe that the soul exists eternally, so unbelievers just don't cease to exist. Are we talking about a temporary hell?

Freedom in Christ from Rick's Colossians Study

Wow! I was really impressed and stirred by Rick's study on Sunday morning. All week I've been thinking about Gal. 5:13: "It is for freedom that Christ set us free..." and also Gary's parable about kids in the yard. When I'm tempted I just say to myself, you are free to go to Japan! And then I realize how good it is near to home. My last mental picture was seeing a poster of Jeff Hutcheson pointing a finger at me and telling me not to sin. This was predicated on the idea that you don't sin as much when someone's there watching. But it broke down at certain points.

Rick really hammered the fact that Christ became sin for us and that we--our new man, the true us--no longer sin, but it is sin doing it. Great connection between II Cor. 5:21 and Romans 6-8. I have been experiencing the freedom all week and just haven't seemed to have the desire to sin. Temptations come and then they go. Because...I can go to Japan! But I don't want to! I am thankful to be at home!

Paul