When Not Knowing How to Help the Poor is Not Helping

For all of those Christians who have replaced the logocenter of the cross for the logocenter of helping the poor (especially in other countries), consider this.

From Nicholas D. Kristof on today's New York Times Op/Ed section,

One of the ugly secrets of global poverty is that a good deal of suffering is caused not only by low incomes but also by bad spending decisions. Research suggests that the world’s poorest families (typically the men in those families) spend about 20 percent of their incomes on a combination of alcohol, cigarettes, prostitution, soft drinks and extravagant festivals......In one village here in Nicaragua where children were having to drop out of elementary school because they couldn’t afford notebooks, a midwife, Andrea Machado Garcia, estimated to me that if a man earned $150 working in the mountains as a day laborer during the coffee harvest, he might spend $50 on alcohol and women and bring back $100 to support his family.


Notice, I didn't say Christians shouldn't help the poor. If you think I did,please re-read the first paragraph of this post. Perhaps we don't know really HOW to help the poor, and maybe are even doing them harm. In this vein, You might wish to read my review of a book on this very subject here.

Does "This" Look Familiar?

.....Liberal Theology had done much to disintegrate the theological integrity of the Protestant Churches. Activity in the field of social reform was taking the place of witness to the Gospel of Redemption.

Hmmm...does this sound familiar? Emergents perhaps?


And there were those who were willing to fill the void created by their own disbelief by political entusiasms....


Hmmm..does this sound familiar? New Christian Left perhaps (and Old Christian Right too?)


So, what is this author (credits at the bottom) writing about? He continues,


....enthusiasms for Socialism, or in the situation of 1933, for National Socialism. It was from these people that the so-called "German Christians" emerged.


Hmmmmm....very interesting indeed. Did you get that part about filling the void left by a "no redemption through the cross theology?"


From:
Franklin H. Littell, article-"The Protestant Churches and Totalitarianism (Germany 1933-1945)" from Totalitariansim by Carl J. Friedrich, editor, 1954, pages 110-111

Since the middle of the 16th century, I've noticed in Protestant countries that whenever the evangelical church goes on, what 19th century pastor Charles Spurgeon called, the downgrade, it's interesting to see how the counties of those churches going down too. This obviously is what's happening here in the western world. Here is a sad sample of our evangelical world today at the CrossTalk blog.

Great Quote of the Week

This nicely sums up one of the major philosophical problems with the emergent movement,

"They [the Emergents] seem to be quite "certain" of their position of uncertainty and want others to believe it as well. It seems to be central to their gospel dogma, which has affirmations and denials and a missionary force, just like every other creed. If they are certain of the "dogma of uncertainty" then isn't it fair to ask if they are not using this as an attempt to gain power over others? And since certainty is impossible to avoid at some level, rather than pretend that we are free from it, it is a better question to ask how we can maintain certainty without oppressing others. I think THAT is the question we must ask. And the answer to this question is in the gospel itself...

Then he says, "The 'grace narrative' rather then the 'moral improvement narrative', as Tim Keller likes to call it."


From:
Deconstructing Uncertainty
by John Hendryx & Nathan Pitchford

Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/deconstructing.html

Answer to Yesterday's Question

Now, the answer to yesterday's question, Who is this? (see the picture here.

It is the original St. Nicholas. No, not the American Santa Claus or even the Dutch guy, but the Greek guy from the 4th century. He was the Bishop of Myra (located in today's Turkey) and many miracles are attributed to him (whether true or not, we don't know). The "Santa Claus" attribution came about because he secretly gave a man some gold coins three times, enough to pay for his three daughters' dowry so they wouldn't become prostitutes as the man was very poor. Nicholas was also involved in the Arian controversy, the one where Arius was teaching that Jesus was not exactly from the same substance as God the Father but was created by God. The Nicene Creed (forerunner of the Apostles Creed) was formulated at that time to solidfy the Church's position against the Arian teaching. Nicholas was a participant at the Council of Nicea in 325 taking an anti-Arian position.

So, where does this picture come from as they didn't have cameras in teh fourth century or the sophistificated artistic techniques shown here. His skull has been preserved intact over all of these centuries. Scientists have formulated from the skull how he probably looked, and that is where the picture comes from. And what about the hair? That comes from the style worn in that day and the white-grey color comes from his age in his most productive years.

Who is this?

The answer is here.

The Error of Church "Youth" Programs

I've brought up many times here at Crossroads the problem of age segregation in our churches. Well, I am always happy when someone else brings up my concerns too. Here is an address by Scott T. Brown, an elder in a Baptist church in North Carolina and also director for The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches to the recently-held Sufficiency of Scripture convention. He made statements that make me very happy indeed. Among them were:

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

""This age segregation allows for the real possibility that children and adults can be completely 'socialized' by the greater culture in which they live instead of through parental discipleship and be void of any firm foundational understanding of truth of the world around them."

And listen to this one,

"I hope that we are now at the end of this 50-year failed experiment," he stated. "We now have almost three generations of children who had no father who walked beside them but a youth group instead. It is obvious that half a decade of youth group does not produce young people who are passionate about the church."


Here is the link that describes his message:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091212/modern-youth-ministry-unbiblical-ministry-leader-claims/index.

Barna's Poll Themes for the Year

Geroge Barna, the Christian pollster, has put out the four main themes found in their polls this year. First up was that Americans are more interested in faith and spirituality than in Christianity. Second, faith, in the American context, is now individual and customized and they want to participate in the shaping of that faith experience. Third, Biblical literacy is neither a current reality nor a goal in the U.S. And, fourth, effective and periodic measurement of spirituality – conducted personally or through a church – is not common at this time and it is not likely to become common in the near future.

I realize the first three, especially, look bad for Christianity, but actually this same thing has happend at least three to four times before in our history from around 1700 to the present. Then, at the crucial times, God sends a revival and the country shapes up a little. Hopefully, that will happen here too, although it better happen soon, agreed?

For the whole article from Barna.org, which goes into more detail about the above four themes, go to this site.

A Must Read

This post, by Jared Wilson, has to be probably the best summation of everything that was wrong with the Christian Right. Notice I said "was." It looks to me as the Christian Right is finally crumbling. Sadly, we now have the Christian Left to contend with and IMO will be twice as bad as the Christian Right was.

More on the Brave Little Episcopalian Church

Just a follow up to the story about the Episcopalian church that had to move because they changed to an African diocese. I read in our paper today that they are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court and hope to hear by next summer if that court will take the case to get back their churhc building from the Los Angeles diocese. I hope the court takes it because it will be interesting to see the reaction of the ECUSA.

Presbyterians (PCUSA) and the "Gay" Question

Well, about 20 years ago I predicted that it wouldn't be too long before the PCUSA (the more liberal Presbyterian denomination as compared to the PCA, EPC, OPC, etc.) would ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians to the ministry pastorate. My timing was off as the denomination has actually fended off this question for that long. But I don't think it will be long until it passes. Conservative Presbyerians chew their fingernails during each summer General Assembly meeting wondering if THIS will be the year. Actually, the Presbyterians must be the one liberal denomination that has held out almost the longest. That might be because there are many very conservative evangelical churches in its fold. OVer 30 churches have already left the denomination in recent years, most of them in the south. Many, if not most of them, have joined a denomination called the EPC that stands for Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I suspect if this passes that more will flee, but not as many as wish to because of a pesky problem. This problem is one that many of the renegrade Episcopalian churches just went through--who owns the church building? Does the congregation that built it with their money own it? Or, does the denomination own it? Sadly, it usually is the denomination that owns the building in almost every denomination (but not all).

Mark D. Roberts, a more conservative PCUSA pastor, cites the Book of Order, G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust, section,

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But Roberts (no relation to me--I don't think) also says that some presbyteries do allow the church to retain their property if they leave or to make some payment to keep it. My church, as recent as 10 years ago, seemed to have the position that if the General Assembly voted to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians, we would absolutely, without a doubt pull out no matter what. Sadly, today, I don't believe for a moment that my church even cares that much. And, I wonder if there are other churches that once had that will, but now for some reason, have lost it. Within a few miles from me is an Episcopalian church, one of three in Southern California that went to court to retain their property. They wanted to withdraw from the ECUSA and join an African diocese. But their outcome depended on the partucular court they were in. Some churches won but the one near me lost. It's kind of interesting that the our local paper is reporting that the Seventh Day Adventists opened up their church on Sunday (since they meet on Saturday) to the Episcopalians. I would imagine they pay some sort of rent but I thought that gesture was really nice. Many in our community and nearby are rooting and cheering for this small Episcopalian church that stood up to the large Los Angeles Diocese and the National EPUCA leaders. And they didn't lose that many members. Meanwhile, the diocese has started another Episcopalian church in the old building and they hardly have ten people.

Note: Please no comments about me being anti-gay. First, it is laughable if you've read my pieces on it, and second, this piece is about keeping churches that wish to be more evangelical to have their building, instead of becoming liberal Protestants.

Comparisons

There was an interesting Letter to the Editor of my hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, yesterday (Sat. Dec. 12, 2009) from the former head of the American Humanist Association. He says he's embarrassed "by the organization’s rather purile ‘good without God’ campaign." He wants the message to be more positive; that is, what humanists actually believe, instead of what they're against. At the end of his letter he says this. I've put some of the words in bold print for a reason, as I want to say something about those words after his quote.


He says,

In essence, humanism is about ethics, compassion, civil liberties, religious freedom, separation of church and state, peace, women’s rights, protecting the environment, social justice, reason and science, and democracy. Importantly, humanists are all for cooperating and working with Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others who share these concerns and values

Look at the words that I've put into bold print. Do they remind you of any group in evangelicalism?

Conversion Necessary?

I just never think in a million years I would see this stuff during my lifetime in the evangelical movement. And, I'm not talking about a fringe movement, but main ministries, churches and leaders.

From an article by D. G. Hart in Modern Reforamation magazine this month:

"Do Good Presbyterians need to be born again?"

My answer: Absolutely!!

Why would anyone ask this question? The author gives the example of someone who is a good person, goes to chruch, believes in God and the Bible. He makes the interesting point that if someone like this were to repent and convert, what would they repent and convert from? Well, as someone who fit this description perfectly at 19, I think I'm in a good position to answer. At no point does the article talk about the inner self. In other words, an inner change and repentence. At 19 I got born again after trying to come up with some sin to confess for two weeks (after hearing how to get born again). Sadly, confessing sins isn't in the Bible for non-believers (I John 1:9 is for Christians). I should have been told to repent, but my Christian friend did the best she knew how and I ain't complainin' since it "took." I finally found a sin and so could proceed to the next step she told me to do---inviting Christ into my heart. That also isn't Scriptural but I was sincere so it also got the job done. There was a definite change in my heart and understanding of truth within two days of my conversion.

Oh, did I mention that I had grown up as a Presbyterian, and a sincere one at that?

Excellent Article on Postmodernism from a Christian Viewpoint

Again, I need to pull an article from this current issue of Modern Reformation magazine (November/December 2009). Even if you aren't a die-hard Calvinist (I'm not), this magazine will bless you. Usually the articles are written by pastors or theologians, but this one is by a plain guy like you or me (well, I'm not a guy but you know what I mean). It is the best description of postmodernism that I think I've read yet--and as you know, I've read plenty about this subject. The article is written by Doug Powell and I want to simply share some of the fantastic phrases he uses.

*Powell clues into the universal vs. [postmodern] local truth problem,

An illusion has no independence existence. It is like what dark is to light, or cold is to heat. Postmodernism has that same kind of dependence; it is not a thing itself, but a rejection of something. And the thing it rejects is any thinking that there is a view of the world that is universally valid and that we can have knowledge of the world rather than just our interpretation.....This poses an interesting problem for anyone who wants to defend the truths of the historic Christian faith.

*The map of postmoidernism is a blank page where each person ascribes to it an origin, destination, purpose, and process. Where the Christian uses the map of Christianity as a guide, the map of the postmodern is not a guide, but is itself guided by each person's beliefs.


*Next, he tells about a new program in Quebec requiring one religious education for all students. This replaces the former program where students could choose which religious class, Catholic or Protestant (or others), they wanted to be in. He writes about this program and his views on it's obvious postmodern approach,

First, the emphasis of the program is on the knowledge of a diverse range of beliefs, while carefully avoiding the idea that any of the beliefs could actually be true. Second, it contains the same fatal contradiction that all postmodern claims have: although it treats all views of the world as if they are of equal value, by doing so it tacitly claims that the only correct view of the world is the postmodern one

He goes on to draw the obvious conclusion,

This leaves only two possibilities regarding their truthfulness; either all the views are false or one of them is correct. They can't all be correct. To claim they they are of all equal value is to misunderstand or misrepresent them....it's like saying 'some things are more equal than others."

But then, we hear this continually in academia, don't we? We are to treat all peoples and beliefs equally. But that really isn't true. It turns out what they're really saying is that as long as middle-class (or above) white males aren't anywhere near the top, it's OK. Therefore, what ishappening here is what in postmodern structuralism is called a "hierarchy." In other words, postmoderns really beleive that:

All others
white males

In another post a few months back, discussing postmodern structuralism I explained that postmoderns feel that certain people (like white males) have been on top of the hierarchy for too long and now it's time to equalize everybody. The problem is--the postmoderns are NOT equalizing, they are doing what is called, 'reversing the hierarchy,' so that now the "others" are on top, and the "formers" are on the bottom, as in the above example.

Powell exhorts us not to boycott or abandon the conversation, but rather to offer an apologetic. He gives an example of how one could do this when seeing a movie with a non-Christian friend. Near the end of his article he writes,

If we understand the parasitic nature of postmodernism, we can exploit its weakness by asking questions until the view collapses under its own weight. At that point we can give them the good news and provide a Biblical worldview as the solution that makes sense of their world and their place in it.


Usually, the magazine puts articles of the previous issue online the next month. So, hopefully you can read this entire article in January.
The website is: www.modernreformation.org

The name of the article is: Illusion, Confusion, and Solution; Apologetics in a Postmodern World by Doug Powell

My Favorite Books Read

Well, I am reading a few bloggers who are telling us the books they've read this year that are their favorites. So since I don't wish to be left behind, here are mine.

Before I list them, there are two things I need to say. First, I almost never buy books. I get them from the library. Since the library doesn't have all of them, especially the Christian ones, I've found this wonderful service they have called Inter-library Loan. I've gotten books from BIOLA, Azusa Pacific, Masters College, Appalachian Bible College and all sorts of public and non-Christian university libraries across the country. Second, not all of these books are Christian although the vast majority of them are non-fiction since I don't care that much for fiction and only read it for my book club and when a Sue Grafton or Michael Connelley mystery comes out.

Here then is my list of favorite books read this year (and maybe last too..cannot remember exact dates of reading)

These are in no particualr order.

People of the Lie
I got this book free at the senior's center as they have books people don't want anymore. Although it was written a while ago, it is utterly fascinating and I think brings up really interesting theological discussions pertaining to people who are truly evil. I am reading it now and am about half-way through it.

The Making of American Liberal Theology
I feel I need to bone up on my liberal Protestant history as this is once again flooding into the evangelical churches through the guise of seeker-sensitive and emergent. I got a hold on interlibrary loan of Volume 2 of this excellent 3
three-volume series by Gary Dorrien. I read a review that said this is one of the best series around for this history and I believe it as I'm 2/3 through vol. 2. I hope to get vol. 3 which will cover the important 20th century. Vol. 1 covers mostly the 18th century and the volume 2 I'm currently reading covers the 19th century.

The Ladies #1 Detective Series of Books
Although I'm not wild about fiction, this series is really good. The TV series is taken from these books and are set in Botswana. When I usually would think of Botswana I would think of a very poor and backwards country but these books have changed my mind. Iv'e read two int eh series so far.

Act Like a Lady Think Like a Man
I really don't know why I got this book but I'm gald I did. Comedian Steve Harvey is a very morally centered person it turns out and really tells men what they've got to do in order to measure up to the kind of man a woman wants and deserves. He even throws God and church into the book at times--in a veyr positive way.


The Last Best Hope
Conservative talk host and former Congressman, Joe Scarborough, wrote this book which I think is the best book on TRUE conservatism in the vein of Goldwater and Pat Buchanan that I've read for years. I am a real conservative--not a phony Reagan/Bush neo-con and Buchanan, Scarborough, John Dean and afew others--although very few--are articualting the REAL conservative message. Read it and weep Rush.

Dear Church
I think I read this in 2008 but it is the one book I recommend for every pastor, elder and church/denominational leader in America. Sarah Cunningham isn't snarky liek so many of her evangelical generation but tries to really help us older folks understand why as Geore Barna said in a poll a few years ago, only 9% of 18-30 year old evagngelicals attend church. Sarah Cunningham wrote the book and each chapter is very short in the form of a letter to the church.

The Battle for the American Mind


I know there were other books I read this year that I really liked a lot but I cannot remember them now. This is what happens when you reach 65 folks....

Sick Science

I usually don't write about political matters here and never about scientific ones,, but today is the exception. Here is the skinny on this subject. The liberals should drop this controversy about global warming that is dividing us and talk about pollution. That subject would be one that most Americans would agree with. Then we could all hopefully begin to agree as to how we are going to clean things up and keep the air, water, ground, etc. clean. But the liberals aren't doing that. They keep insisting on global warming. Whether or not global warming is true isn't my point here. My point is the agenda of politicians and certain scientists. What is this agenda? If it was to clean up the planet, they would do what I suggested above. So, why aren't they? Some conservative talk show hosts have suggested it isn't about global warming or even pollution, but about control. They cite the same liberal politicians that keep carping on this but then use an extraordinary amount of fuel, not cutting back at all. To "make up for this," they buy carbon credits which in my opinion are a complete fraud. It's interesting that some of them, most notably Al Gore, either own, partially own, or have stock in these same carbon credit companies. Interesting. Perhaps it's about money AND control?

Then, we have the scientific-academic-political persecution of valid scientists who disagree with the global warming enthusiasts. The politicians and non-scientific academicians (i.e. university heads) need to butt out and allow the scientists to do what they have always done. And that is, to battle out among themselves with challenges and discussions; more experiments and debates. In the early 20th century Albert Einstein had trouble reconciling quantum mechanics theories with his overall belief system. His famous declaration was, "God doesn't play dice with the universe." His protagonist, Niels Bohr, didn't shoot him down and call him a "flat-earther." The academies didn't make fun of Einstein and call him dumb and fossilized. Bohr, to his credit, did what scientists have done all along. He went back to the lab and his experimentation to answer Einstein. He successfully did that, and Einstein had the grace to agree that he had to change his view, although it was difficult to do.

But today, politicians and "politically correct" heads of universities are pitting scientists against each other in a new way. Those not espousing the "government view" are laughed at and discounted. The other side never has to prove much of anything. For example, those against the global warming position aren't even given a chance to present their proof. Worse, eminent scientists that are either skeptical of global warming or outright against it, are never mentioned or acknowledged. And, you can bet, none of those scientists will win a Nobel prize for their work. It's the same with scientists that don't believe in a complete Darwinian view of evolution. Recently, a friend's son attended a scientific convention in Europe for those scientists and university science professors that are creationists. It was sad to hear the rule of the convention--that no one mentions outside the convention who attended. Why? Many of those attending reported that if their labs/schools ever found out they attended a convention of this sort, their job might be in jeopardy, or at the very least, their work in any field would be discounted.

I want to stress here that I don't care if it is liberal politicians/academicians or conservative politicians/academicians that are doing this stuff. It's bad science. In fact, it's Sick Science.

The Two Historical Extremes

I thought this was an excellent synopsis of the continual problem in evangelical Christianity for at least the past three centuries in America, and certainly describes the conflict today.

There are dangerous errors on either side, which sit equally uncomfortably with the New Testament model of church. One the one side, the church might discourage her members from being socially or politically active, reasoning either that the material world is transient and unimportant or that the Christian should forsake involvement with it for fear of its contamination.

On the other side, the visible church may redefine her own mission in social and political terms, eclipsing the gospel message by giving up preaching the Word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2).

Source: "Zion Made Manifest," an article in the November/December issue of Modern Reformation magazine by Reginald C. Quirk, chair of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England as well as being the preceptor of Westfield House of Theological Studies

Final Words on the Manhattan Declaration (Hopefully)

I'm really trying to finish this Manhattan Declaration thing, but I found some really intriguing sites for you to read. Here they are:

*In the middle of this post is a very interesting quote about those who abstained from signing the document which I bet you haven't heard,

There have also been several prominent voices, such as Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, Mike Horton, James White (here, here and here), Tim Challies, Dave Doran, and John Stackhouse who have conscientiously raised objections to the nature of the document. It is also interesting to note that R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Mark Dever, and Mark Driscoll did not sign. The men who have expressed concern have, in a humble manner, articulated their reasons for abstaining from signing it. It is not because they believe that the causes set forth in it are unworthy of our immediate prayers or actions. Nor are they simply theological kill-joys, who love opposing any significant movement outside of their own congregations. They are men deeply committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the Manhattan Document reduces Christianity to mere Trinitarianism, thus denigrating the heart of Christianity, namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They understand that there is no Christianity without Jesus, and that to speak of the Jesus of Scripture is to speak of His Person and His Work. You cannot lay aside the saving work of Christ and reduce Christianity to a set of ethical standards.

*It seems that the Declaration has a reading list as a reference point. Wait until you see the books listed there. As usual The Lighthouse Trails has been on the underground trail (sorry for the bad pun). It seems that some of these "reference books" in the evangelical side might be a bit spurious about the usual Christian doctrines.

* And finally, guess who is also weighing in on this. I was surprised. Go here to see who it is and what he said (Hint: A leading emergent).

Last Word on the Manhattan Declaration--I Promise

There is no new thing under the sun
.....Ecclesiastes 1:9


I have to thank Kim Riddlebarger in an article in the current Modern Reformation magazine for thinking of this. The brougha-ha over the Manhattan Declaration reminds me of the point in this article which mentions the centuries old battle between what we first saw in Augustine's City of God-"while on earth let's do what we can to improve it" vs. Jerome's "let's all hide and be 'spiritual'" approaches.

Perhaps we could do both?


We could be spiritual, hide at times when needed, AND follow the Holy Spirit in what we do in the world (and I do stress following the Holy Spirit instead of our "good" ideas).

Now, that's a new idea