Hate Religion but Love Jesus

- Kevin DeYoung - http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung -

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

Posted By Kevin DeYoung On January 13, 2012 @ 1:25 pm In Uncategorized | 1,143 Comments

UPDATE: Since I posted this article, Jefferson Bethke and I have had a chance to talk by email and over the phone. I included some of our conversation in a follow up post ^[1]. I hope you will be as encouraged by the exchange as I was.

******

There’s a new You Tube video going viral and it’s about Jesus and religion.
Specifically how Jesus hates religion.
The video—which in a few days has gone from hundreds of views to thousands to millions—shows Jefferson Bethke, who lives in the Seattle area, delivering a well-crafted, sharply produced, spoken word poem. The point, according to Bethke ^[2], is “to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion.” In the past few days I’ve seen this video pop up all over Facebook. I’ve had people from my church say they like it. Some has asked me what I think. Others have told me there’s something off about the poem, but they can’t quite articulate what it is. I’ll try to explain what that is in a moment. But first watch the video for yourself.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.
And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.
This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Verse 1
What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind
Doesn’t automatically give you vision

Okay, so the line about Republicans is a cheap shot (if you vote GOP) or a prophetic stance (if you like Jim Wallis). While it’s true that “republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian” and in some parts of the country that may be a word churchgoers need to hear, I doubt that putting right-wingers in their place is the most pressing issue in Seattle.

More important is Bethke’s opening line: “Jesus came to abolish religion.” That’s the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that’s not what religion is. We can say that’s what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn’t just define them however we want. “Jesus hates religion” communicates something that “Jesus hates self-righteousness” doesn’t. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear “religion” and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and “spiritual, not religious” bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote ^[3] a few years ago.

The word “religion” occurs five times in English Standard Version of the Bible. It is, by itself, an entirely neutral word. Religion can refer to Judaism (Acts 26:5) or the Jewish-Christian faith (Acts 25:19). Religion can be bad when it is self-made (Col. 2:23) or fails to tame the tongue (James 1:26). But religion can also be good when it cares for widows and orphans and practices moral purity (James 1:27). Unless we define the word to suit our purposes, there is simply no biblical grounds for saying Jesus hated religion. What might be gained by using such language will, without a careful explanation and caveats, be outweighed by what is lost when we give the impression that religion is the alloy that corrupts a relationship with Jesus.

Verse 2
I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

These claims say very little because they try to say too much. Have there been religious wars in the last two thousand years? Yes. Have there also been wars over money, land, ego, women, slavery, democracy, freedom, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and just about everything else you can imagine? Yes. Furthermore, if you want to blame conflict on religion, you can’t neatly excise Jesus from the equation. You may not like the Crusades, but many of the Crusaders thought they were sincerely fighting for Jesus by trying take back the Holy Land from the Muslims.

More to the point, Christians need to stop perpetuating the myth that we’ve basically been huge failures in the world. That may win us an audience with non-Christians, but it’s not true. We are sinners like everyone else, so our record is mixed. We’ve been stupid and selfish over the years. But we’ve also been the salt of the earth. The evangelical awakening in England in the eighteenth century is widely credited for preventing the sort of bloodbath that swept over France in the “enlightened” French Revolution. Christians (and conservatives in general) give more to charitable causes than their secular counterparts. Christians run countless shelters, pregnancy centers, rescue missions, and food pantries. Christians operate orphanages, staff clinics, dig wells, raise crops, teach children, and fight AIDS around the globe. While we can always do more and may be blind to the needs around us at times, there is no group of people on the planet that do more for the poor than Christians. If you know of a church with a dozen escalators and no money and no heart for the hurting, then blast that church. But we have to stop the self-flagellation and the slander that says Christians do nothing for the poor.

As for divorce, it is often (but not always) wrong. Even when it is wrong, there is forgiveness when people repent. Shame on any church that doesn’t think or demonstrate that there is room at the cross for unwed or divorced moms.

And about the harsh language in the Old Testament—it cuts both ways. All people in the Old Testament, and in the entire ancient near east for that matter, were religious people. Some of them were fakes and hypocrites and whores. Some were idolaters and adulterers. Some performed their rituals and went on to ignore the weightier matters of the law. And some of the religious people were God’s remnant, God’s holy people, and God’s friends. In both Testaments, God has no problem rebuking religious people and no problem loving them either.

Verse 3
Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies
While the corpse rots underneath

I’ve already said that I don’t think “religion” is the right term for what Bethke is talking about. But he has done a great job here of describing false religion. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for being “whitewashed tombs,” for looking beautiful on the outside and full of dead people’s bones on the inside, for appearing righteous but being full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matt. 23:27-28). It is possible for churches and churchgoers to have the reputation for being alive, but actually be dead (Rev. 3:1). Some churches claim to love grace, but all they give you is legalism. Bethke is hitting on a real problem.

Verse 4
Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

I wish Bethke, and critics like him, would admit that they are “judgin.” He is evaluating Christianity. He is criticizing church as he sees it. The whole poem is a harsh judgment on religious people. Granted, judging is not the same as judgmentalism. After all, I’m judging this poem. So I don’t think what Bethke is doing is wrong. I just wish he wouldn’t try to claim the moral high ground.
Other than that, this is another good verse. Bethke tells his own story to prove that we can be real good at fooling everyone, including ourselves. We need to realize that there are plenty of people in many of our churches who seem to have it all together but don’t. They are kidding themselves and we should not encourage such self-deception.

Verse 5
Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

There is much that is good and a few things that are confused in this verse. The church should be an ocean of grace. We don’t have to hide our sins before God. It doesn’t depend on us. We should love the church and the Bible and believe that sin exists. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus never supported self-righteousness. All of that is wonderfully and powerfully true.
But let me raise a few other points.

One, we have to remember that the purpose of a hospital is to help sick people get better. I’m sure Bethke would agree with that. But there is no indication in this poem that the grace that forgives is also the grace that transforms. Following Jesus is more than keeping rules, but it’s not less. In one sense, loving Jesus is also all about keeping rules (John 14:15, 21, 23-24). I’m not sure how the Jesus of John 14 fits in the world of Bethke’s poem.

Two, there is no inherent dignity in being broken. Jesus likes the honesty that acknowledges sin, hates it and turns away, but he does not love authenticity for its own sake. We have to be more careful with our language. When Paul boasted of his weakness, he was boasting of his suffering, his lack of impressiveness, and the trials he endured (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9). He never boasted of his temptations or his sins—past or present. That’s not what he meant by weakness. Being broken is not the point, except to be forgiven and changed.

Three, as I’ve mentioned before ^[4], the religious leaders hated Jesus, first and foremost because they thought he was a blasphemer who dared to make himself equal with God (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; and less clearly in John 18:19-24). It’s true that many of the religious elite found Jesus too free with his meals and his associations. They called him a “glutton and drunkard” (Luke 7:34), though he wasn’t either. But they also said John the Baptist “has a demon” (Luke 7:33). They were just as opposed to John’s asceticism as they were upset with Jesus’ liberty. More than hating grace, the Jewish leaders hated the truth about Christ and found ways to reject God’s messengers.

Verse 6
Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans

I won’t repeat my initial comments about religion and Jesus and whether they are really “on opposite spectrums.” I don’t think they are. That point notwithstanding, Bethke speaks the truth in this section. The differences between slavery and sonship, bondage and freedom, blindness and sight are all biblical themes.

I think the line about “religion says do, Jesus says done” can be misleading. Too many people hear that as “relationship not rules” when we’ve already seen that Jesus wants us to do everything he has commanded (Matt. 28:20). But if “do” means “do this to earn my favor” then the contrast is very appropriate.

Verse 7
Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
“Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

There is a lot to like with this final section. Great affirmation of Jesus active obedience. Great focus on the cross. Great invitation for sinners to come to Christ. I think Bethke understands justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. I would have liked to have heard something about the wrath of God being poured out on the cross as opposed to simply “absorb[ing] all of your sin.” But given Bethke’s previous video criticizing Love Wins, it’s best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I’m not sure it’s best to so emphasize that Jesus was thinking of us on the cross. The “joy set before” him in Hebrews 12:2 was the joy of being seated at God’s right hand, not the joy of being with us as Bethke advocates in another video ^[5]. But these are smaller points that do not negate the strong message of grace and forgiveness.

Conclusion
I know I’ve typed a bunch of words about a You Tube video that no one may be talking about in a month. But, as I said at the beginning, there is so much helpful in this poem mixed with so much unhelpful—and all of it so common—that I felt it worth the effort to examine the theology in detail.
The strengths in this poem are the strengths I see in many young Christians—a passionate faith, a focus on Jesus, a love for grace, and a hatred for anything phony or self-righteous. The weaknesses here can be the weaknesses of my generation (and younger)—not enough talk of repentance and sanctification, a tendency to underestimate the importance of obedience in the Christian life, a one-dimensional view of grace, little awareness that our heavenly Father might ever discipline his children or be grieved by their continued transgression, and a penchant for sloganeering instead of careful nuance.

I know the internet is a big place, but a lot of people are connected to a lot of other people. So who knows, maybe Jefferson Bethke will read this blog. If you do, brother, I want you to know I love what you love in this poem. I watched you give your testimony ^[5] and give thanks to God for his work in your life. I love the humble desire to be honest about your failings and point people to Christ. I love that you love the church and the Bible. I love that you want people to really get the gospel. You have important things to say and millions of people are listening. So make sure as a teacher you are extra careful and precise (James 3:1). If you haven’t received formal theological training, I encourage you to do so. Your ministry will be made stronger and richer and longer lasting. I encourage you to speak from the Bible before you speak from your own experience. I encourage you to love what Jesus loves without tearing down what he also loves and people are apt to misunderstand. I encourage you to dig deep into the whole counsel of God.

Thanks for reminding us about Jesus. But try to be more careful when talking about religion. After all, there is one religion whose aim is to worship, serve, know, proclaim, believe, obey, and organize around this Jesus. And without all those verbs, there’s not much Jesus left.

---

Article printed from Kevin DeYoung: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung
URL to article: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/
URLs in this post:

[1] a follow up post: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/14/following-up-on-the-jesusreligion-video/

[2] according to Bethke: http://rapgenius.com/Jefferson-bethke-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-spoken-word-lyrics

[3] the book Ted Kluck and I wrote: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802458378/deyorestandre-20

[4] I’ve mentioned before: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung../../../../../2009/12/02/why-did-they-hate-jesus/

[5] another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjmnoUKXaZM&list=UUc4yillQaNo6a-iG2PYbbrA&index=6&feature=plcp

Copyright © 2009 Kevin DeYoung. All rights reserved.



YOU ARE LOVED ...

John 3: 16 - 18

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  (18) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Visit http://claytonjennings.com/ for more audio and visual content ...

Rick Warren, Islam and King's Way Document

 

 

Article by Erin Benziger (from the Do Not Be Surprised blog, printed in full)

Could it be that Saddleback Church's interfaith initiative, known as the King's Way document, has been a bit more trouble than it's worth?

Last week, Orange County Register reporter Jim Hinch broke a story that quickly went viral. Saddleback church, he reported, in conjunction with the Islamic Center of Southern California, had co-authored a historic interfaith document. Hinch's report reads in part:

The Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and one of America's most influential Christian leaders, has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

The effort, informally dubbed King's Way, caps years of outreach between Warren and Muslims.

The effort by a prominent Christian leader to bridge what polls show is a deep rift between Muslims and evangelical Christians culminated in December at a dinner at Saddleback attended by 300 Muslims and members of Saddleback's congregation.

At the dinner, Abraham Meulenberg, a Saddleback pastor in charge of interfaith outreach, and Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, introduced King's Way as "a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians." (Online Source)

Rick Warren quickly responded to this post with the following:

This post by Warren was later removed. Warren followed this up by producing a white paper which first appeared on the blog of Ed Stetzer, and later also appeared on Warren's own blog. Part of this white paper reads as follows:

QUESTION: A recent newspaper article claimed you believe Christians and Muslims worship the same God, that you are "in partnership" with a mosque, and that you both agreed to "not evangelize each other." You immediately posted a brief refutation online. Can you expand on that?

WARREN: Sure. All three of those statements are flat out wrong. Those statements were made by a reporter, not by me. I did not say them ... I do not believe them... I completely disagree with them ... and no one even talked to me about that article! So let me address each one individually: First, as I've already said, Christians have a fundamentally different view of God than Muslims. We worship Jesus as God. Muslims don't. Our God is Jesus, not Allah. Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Second, while we urge our members to build friendships with everyone in our community, including Muslims and other faiths, ("Love your neighbor as yourself"), our church has never had any partnership with a mosque. Friendship and partnership are two very different levels of commitment. Some of our members have hosted a Bible study with Muslim friends, which I applaud, but I've never been to it, and a Bible study certainly isn't any kind of partnership or merger! It's just crazy that a simple Bible Study where people explore Scripture with non-Christians would be reported as a partnership and others would interpret that as a plan for a new compromised religion. Just crazy! Third, as both an Evangelical and as an evangelist, anyone who knows me and my 40 year track record of ministry that I would never agree to "not evangelizing" anyone! I am commanded by my Savior to share the Good News with all people everywhere, all the time, in every way possible! Anyone who's heard me teach knows that my heart beats for bringing others to Jesus. (Online Source)

While Warren's words seemed to contradict previous actions, this statement nevertheless was acknowledged by those who initially reported on the story. Not long after this, however, Ken Silva ofApprising Ministries corresponded with OC Register reporter Jim Hinch, who shared with Silva an excerpt of this elusive King's Way document. Upon reading this excerpt, it is not difficult to see why or how Hinch arrived at the conclusions that he did when he stated in his article that the document proposed, "a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God." Below is the excerpt of the King's Way document that was sent by Jim Hinch to Ken Silva:

The document, which was given to me [Jim Hinch] by a source for this story on condition it not be published in its entirety, outlines several areas of theological agreement between Christians and Muslims and commits members of both faiths to three goals: becoming friends; making peace; and sharing “the blessings of God with others.” Here is how the document describes the points of theological agreement:

I. WHO: we believe in ONE GOD:

1. God is one (Mark 12:29; Muhammed 47:19)

2. God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Al Shura 42:11)

3. God is different from the world (1 Timothy 6:16; An An’am 6:103)

4. God is Good a. God loves (1 John 4:16; Al Buruj 85:14) b. God is just (1 John 1:19,Romans 3:26; Hud 11:45) c. God’s love encompasses God’s judgment (1 Peter 4:8; Al A’raf 7:156; Al Ghafir 40:7)

The Register story based the phrases “same God” and “one God” on the phrasing in this document, which states that Christians and Muslims believe in one God. (Online Source)

Thus far, the contents of this King's Way excerpt have not been addressed by Rick Warren. This is unfortunate, as clearly some further explanation is necessary.

Today, however, has yielded another interesting discovery. In the post, "Historic Interfaith Document was One Year in the Making," it was noted that the following post was found in the December 2011 archives of the blog of the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC):

Last Sunday, a historic event took place at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Saddleback is known for its famous pastor, Rick Warren, who delivered the prayer at President Obama’s inauguration ceremony. The Church hosted a number of Muslim communities in based in Southern California for its second annual celebration of Jesus (pbuh). This event is significant because Saddleback is a large evangelical church with over 22 thousand members. Although only a select number of individuals were invited to this dinner, it demonstrates the new theological position of Saddleback. At the celebration, a document one year in the making was presented which encourages Christians and Muslims to appreciate the similarities of our faiths.

The document encouraged that our communities work together towards the common good and to combat bigotry in a 1-2-3 plan. The first step in the plan identifies the belief in one God. The second step acknowledges God’s commandment to love God and your neighbor. Finally, step three is for our communities to commit to three things: making friends, building peace, and serving the world at large together.

This relationship with Saddleback Church was initiated over a year ago with a friendship between one of the pastors, Abraham Meulenberg, and the ICSC’s Jihad Turk. Pastor Meulenberg reached out having heard about the Center and our interfaith work. From this friendship developed an institutional link between their respective organizations. (Online Source. To view pictures of this event, visit here.)

If one attempts to click on the links above, which initially led to the original blog post and to the ICSC Flickr page containing pictures of the event, it will be noticed that these links either lead to a different blog post, or, in the case of the pictures, the link no longer works.

Is this a mere coincidence? If Rick Warren is being so honest with his denials of the claims of the OC Register story, then why is all of the evidence of the King's Way document suddenly disappearing? Well, thanks to today's technology, the missing ICSC blog post has been preserved, captured, and can be viewed right here:

(Click to Enlarge)

This blog post by the ICSC is not just a mere blog post, however. It is important to note some of the language used within this post, specifically the following statement:

This event is significant because Saddleback is a large evangelical church with over 22 thousand members. Although only a select number of individuals were invited to this dinner, it demonstrates the new theological position of Saddleback.

A new theological position? For a Christian church? Perhaps the members of the ICSC misunderstood the intent of this entire endeavor. If so, one wonders why Saddleback did not seek to clarify such a misunderstanding sometime between December and today. One also must surely wonder why the King's Way excerpt that has emerged has been ignored by Warren and his team. Finally, it cannot help but be questioned why it is that the ICSC has suddenly deleted this clear, boastful evidence of the December event and this "historic interfaith document." In the interest of Christian ethic, we certainly hope that there is no "King's Way Cover-up" underway.

Additional Resources

Is King's Way an Interfaith Document or Not? You Be The Judge.

Rick Warren Addresses Chrislam Controversy

A Common Word Between Us and You (Interfaith document created by the Muslim community, aimed at uniting Christians-Muslims)

A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You (Interfaith document created by the Christian community, signed by Rick Warren)

Controversy Over An Article About Rick Warren's Efforts to Bring Muslims, Christians Together

Islamic Center of Southern California Co-authors Historic Interfaith Document ("King's Way")

"Historic Interfaith Document" (King's Way) was "One Year in the Making"

Critical Issues Commentary: A Biblical Look at Rick Warren's Teaching

One World Religion - Here we come .....

Will Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally Be About Ecumenicalism and the Social Gospel?

By Brannon S. Howse

To be "Loving" now means you embrace ecumenicalism and don't divide on theological and doctrinal issues for success in the culture war and you embrace a social gospel. Will this be the message we hear at Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally on 7-28-12 in Dallas?

If you don't agree with Beck's spiritual agenda will that make you a bigot? In 2010 I was quoted in a CNN article on why Christians should not unite in a spiritual enterprise with a New Age Mormon to win the "culture war." Beck talked about the article on his radio program and said, "so now the religious bigotry is there too". I wrote about Beck's comment in a column back in 2010.

Beck's rally will center on a three day event of "Celebration of Service". I believe Beck is really pushing a social gospel agenda along with his ecumenicalism. Recently Beck's website announced his global plan which included a visit to the Vatican. Therefore, may I suggest Rick Warren be a keynote speaker at Beck's rally so Warren can talk about his global Peace Plan, the social gospel, and his ecumenicalism. After all, Rick Warren has proven he can work with Muslims so why not a Mormon? After all there are a lot of similarities between Mormons and Muslims. A few years ago Warren signed the Yale document that declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. The document declared:

We applaud that A Common Word Between Us and You stresses so insistently the unique devotion to one God, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same god. Glenn Beck, like Warren, is also pushing a social gospel agenda along with ecumenicalism. Beck's website states:

"Glenn Beck will be reaching out to individual organizations, churches, and more across the area and ask them the question: 'If you had unlimited manpower for one day – what would you do?'…I have said enough words. It's time for me to help hold up the arms of community and faith leaders and serve those who are doing the heavy lifting on healing our nation…It is time to deemphasize the political solution and first demand real change in ourselves."

So Beck is going to rally the churches and faith leaders and Beck is going to help hold up the arms of the faith community?

If Beck is going to deemphasize the political solution that really only leaves a spiritual solution and thus the desire to work with the churches. Are you interested in in the spiritual solutions of a New Age Mormon? I for one am not. Christians should not unite with Beck in spiritual enterprise as declared in Romans 16:17, 2 John 9-11, Ephesians 5:11, and 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Beck's social gospel, ecumenicalism, and global plan seem very similar to that of Rick Warren. In the December 20, 2011 Orange County Register it was reported that Rick Warren is opening the PEACE Center as part of his global PEACE Plan. I believe Warren's PEACE plan is really a communitarian philosophy of bringing together the church, corporations and the government for what Warren has called the three-legged stool.

The Irvine woman is one of about 72,000 people who have benefitted from Saddleback's food pantry since its 2009 opening, according to Saddleback officials. The pantry is one of several services that will be part of the church's new PEACE Center.

The OCR reported:

A permanent larger, two-story structure is in the planning stages. It will house a free health clinic, clothing exchange, warehouse and auto-repair shop in addition to services being offered at the temporary center. So far, $600,000 has been raised through donations toward the $2 million cost of the structure.

In the OCR Warren was quoted as saying:

"This is not for members of Saddleback but for people in the community," he said. "When the final building is built, it will be the first thing people see when they come to the campus. It's not about the church but the hope and love that's in that building."

Nowhere in the New Testament Church description of the church do we see the mandate for the corporate church to focus on social programs for those outside the church. While this could be a ministry for individuals as a platform for preaching the Biblical gospel, it is not a function described in the Bible as a calling of the New Testament Church. The New Testament church is to equip and train its members for the work of ministry-the preaching of the gospel.

Pastor Jesse Johnson put it best when he wrote:

There is a very real danger that has been played out through history repeatedly, that when churches embrace a vision for combating poverty, evangelism is one of the first victims of this altered commission…To guard against that, the church is never commanded to show compassion to the poor as a means for expanding the kingdom. Simply put, you owe the poor the gospel; Jesus died to purchase for them the privilege of hearing the testimony of his death and resurrection (1 Tim 2:6). That is both the most and the least you can give, and Robin Hood ethics do not overlap with the Great Commission.

The most loving thing Christians can do is reject the social gospel and preach the Biblical gospel to a lost world. The most loving things Christians can do is expose false teachers and their false teaching. While these Biblical mandates may be declared hateful by those committed to a social gospel, false teaching, and ecumenicalism, it is not. In Revelation 2:15 God declares his hatred of false teaching. A hatred for and not rallying around false teaching, the social gospel, and ecumenicalism is a hallmark of those that love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

ABORTION: After-Birth ...an article from Ken Ham

More on “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”

ShareThis Published on March 3, 2012 in Current Issues in the World and Thoughts and Things.

Recently, the Journal of Medical Ethics caused an uproar when it published an article titled, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” News reports initially focused on the short abstract of the article that was available for free online (the full paper cost $30 to purchase, according to one report www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions), when the paper was suddenly made available in full shortly after the controversy began. Although I already posted about this story on my Facebook page, I thought it worth looking at the full report for today’s blog and including this link so now you can all read the four-page paper for yourself here (jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html).
The authors of the paper were Alberto Giubilini, who works with the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University in Australia, and Francesca Minerva, who works with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Their thesis? They believe that parents should be allowed to abort their newborn infants.
The authors stated their argument as follows:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. (p. 1)

Giubilini and Minerva take abortion a step further, arguing that parents should be allowed to abort their newborns. They justify their position by claiming that an infant is not technically a person:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. (p. 2)

At which point do Giubilini and Minerva consider infants to be persons? They declined to say: “we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible” (p. 3).
To give you an idea of just where this sort of thinking leads, consider this paragraph from the article:

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on ahealthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet. (p. 2)

What we’re seeing here is what happens when society loses its biblical foundation. Once people abandon a basis in the absolute authority of God’s Word, then moral relativism will permeate the culture. This is what is happening in our once Christianized West. The situation is akin to that described in the book of Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

It also reminds me of Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” These people are so blinded by evil that they believe allowing after-birth abortions will be good for society—that it will be good for parents to be able to abort kill their own newborn children for any reason.
This type of thinking may shock many Christians who understand that all life, both inside and outside of the womb, is precious, but it is not really new. Another “ethicist” named Peter Singer has advocated similar ideas for years. (See Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical Ethics, 1st ed., pp. 122–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) And it won’t just stop at what this article is reporting on—much evil will be claimed as okay as God turns our nations over to judgment because of their rebellion, and as sinful man determines to do what is right in his own eyes.
Romans 1:28–32 delivers the sobering reality of what society will look like when the people willfully reject their Creator. Among other things, they invent ways of doing evil, and even though they know that those who practice such things deserve death, they not only engage in those activities, but approve of those who practice them.
What these two “ethicists” believe about life is exactly contrary to what God teaches about life. The Psalmist praises God, saying, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” God tells Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Our God is about life—He values it—and He makes clear in His Word that every person—unborn babies and newborn infants alike—are known by Him and exist from conception.
For more on this shocking pro-infanticide thinking, see today’s News to Note and read the commentary by a medical doctor and AiG researcher, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Worldview Training Event - April 1, 2012

Have you ever felt that the world we are living in is spinning out of control?

Do you wish to engage the culture and the church, but do not know where to start?

Soldiers must go to bootcamp before they step on the battlefield and so must Christians.

If a Biblical worldview was easy, every Christian would have one!

We will be kicking off our 3rd year of training with a special conference featuring Worldview Weekend Rally with Brannon Howse, Dr. John Witcomb & Dr. Jimmy DeYoung.

The event is FREE but you must reserve your tickets online.  To reserve your spot please visit:

•  http://www.worldviewbootcamp.org/HQ.htm
• http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/store/product.php?SessionID=&CustomerID=0&ProductID=1924&CategoryID=1
• http://www.harbourshores.org/