Archive for December, 2006

Coming Next Week — Top Ten News Stories!

December 29, 2006 at 4:22 pm · Filed under Announcements

Last year, I put together a little article which I entitled, “The Top Ten News Stories Impacting Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in 2005“. It took off like a rocket and evoked a lot of discussion, suggestions, debate and rumination. Some have asked if I’m crazy enough to do it again and the answer is “Yes” — times 2! I have indeed written not one, but two lists this year. One for the Top 10 Evangelical News Stories and a separate one for the Top 10 Fundamentalist News Stories of 2006. I’ve been working with the editors over at Sharper Iron and they have the first rights of publication on them. They will be going up on their front page on January 3 and 4 (or is it 4 and 5?) and after they are launched there, I’ll also post them here.

I’m sure that once again, debate and additional opinions will flourish around them, but that’s half the fun. So keep an eye open for these two lists and plan on joining in on the action.

Currently, I’m taking a brief break with my family and getting caught up on some work and spending time with my extended family in the Midwest. The weather is great. The boys and I have had fun doing a little shooting (Josh fired a shotgun for the first time, but really didn’t appreciate the kick. He much prefers paintballs.) We’ve been eating too much and we’ve got more planned. I even took Julie out for a little pre-Birthday shopping (she’s a New Year’s Day baby). All in all, we’re enjoying this holiday break and looking forward to being back, full-bore, in a few days.

Comments

Charles Wood: Simple Truths; Profound Implications

December 29, 2006 at 4:10 pm · Filed under Dr. Charles Wood

Once again, Dr. Charles Wood gives some great counsel and thought-provoking wisdom for his readers…

SIMPLE TRUTHS; PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS:
 The truly profound is often really quite simple. Whenever I think of that truth, I think of the preaching of Warren Wiersbe. I have often come away from hearing him with the impression that the message was so simple that it was hardly worth the time, only to find myself a week later still thinking through all the implications of what he had said. There are some simple truths in the Christian life that have profound implications, and the tragedy seems to be that these simply truths are seldom grasped by a significant portion of God’s people. The following forms just a little sampling of the phenomenon.

No one can make me do anything I choose not to do. Simple? Yes, but the issue at the heart of martyrdom. Everything I do or don’t do is a matter of personal choice. That choice may be subconscious, the result of habit or even reflexive, but it is a choice none-the-less. Children have a tendency to defend themselves on the basis of, “he/she made me do it.” It’s a nice ploy, but it is uniformly untrue. Unfortunately, we carry that same defective thinking into adulthood to our own detriment.

I am responsible for my own choices and actions. This statement arises out of the previous truth, but it goes down hard. The problem with it is that it establishes individual responsibility and strips one of all possible “blame-shifts” and excuses. Scripture is very clear that each of us will appear at the judgment seat of Christ to give account of his own performance, etc. It is also quite clear that none of us will answer for anyone else, nor will anyone else answer for us. We are responsible for the choices we make and the actions we take. If such is the case, then we also bear the full measure of responsibility for the consequences of those choices and actions. This is a tough truth in a victim-oriented world as it puts the blame squarely where it belongs - on each of us as an individual. It is also, however, a very liberating truth as it takes control of our lives away from others and places it in our own hands. For instance, I grew up in poverty caused by the “Great Depression” and in what was in some ways a rather dysfunctional family. It would have been easy to accept a “loser” role in life (victimized by the childhood poverty) and to replicate my own unhappy childhood family situation, saying that it’s just the way I am because that is the way I was raised, and there is nothing I can do about it. I didn’t chose to be born three years after the great stock market crash, and I didn’t chose a father to whom I was almost completely unable to relate, but choices regarding my response and reaction to those outwardly-imposed circumstances were entirely mine. My responses have been far from a model of such, but I have chosen to rise above the poverty and to structure a family far different from what was patterned to me as a child (my brother and late sister also made the same choices with essentially the same results). Without meaning to be arrogant or self-congratulatory, I grow tired of the whining excuse-makers and their endless wails of, “I can’t help it….” I often want to say - and sometimes have said - “If you can’t help it, exactly who can?” Tragically, so many of my own generation are living in self-imposed misery because of their unwillingness to take responsibility for the choices and responses that have led them to the situations in which they find themselves “trapped.” If it is someone else’s fault, then there is nothing I can do about it. If it is the result of my own choices, then I can change the choices and at least alter the outcomes (and this is true at any point in life - it is never “too late”).

No matter what anyone else does, I am responsible to do right. I am responsible to treat others in a Biblical manner no matter how they may treat me (the Bible tells us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; it does not say that we are to do unto others as they have done unto us). Fifty years of involvement in ministry have taught me that there is a “mean streak” in fundamentalism (likely related to the strong stress on separation, which is negative by nature). I have experienced my share of insults, false accusations, hypocrisy, “friendly fire,” and the like. I have even endured deliberate “black-balling” that has somewhat limited the scope of my ministry. Because of my own carnality in the flesh, I have not always responded well to such treatment, but I have always known in my heart that I was responsible to do right no matter what anyone else did or said. There is so much clear Biblical teaching on this subject that it shouldn’t be necessary to make specific citations, and Scripture also provides us special assistance with its frequent assurances that God will right the wrongs and settle the scores (”Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord”). I have lived long enough to know that “what goes around, comes around,” as I have seen it happen numerous times. Natural impulse pushes us to respond in kind, but succumbing to such inner drives only increases the amount of evil in the world. It also violates the Word of God at a variety of points.

Right is its own reward. In fairy tales everyone “lived happily ever after.” In real life it frequently doesn’t work out that way. I have seen people do right and be rewarded with salary increases, bonuses, and heaps of praise. I have, however, seen others do equally as right and be rewarded with “a kick in the teeth,” job termination, slander, and other forms of great loss. Over the last few years I have watched someone repeatedly face choices and chose to do what is almost beyond right rather than even skirt the edges of ethical conduct. As the situation has digressed, there has been no tangible “reward” (although God has done someobvious internal”reconstruction”), but the commitment to right has remained firmly in place. Reward will come, but it may not be in the areas in which the losses have been suffered. Regardless, the individual involved has the very satisfying reward of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that right has been done. For the child of God, that knowledge, in itself, ought to be sufficient reward to keep one going until the time when the eternal reward will exponentially overshadow any possible earthly reward. How we need to teach our children and young people this simple truth as its implications are profound. Right is often - even usually - rewarded in some tangible way. When it is not, however, the very fact that right has been done must be seen as itself the reward.

Comments

Warren Smith on “The Christian-Industrial Complex”

December 29, 2006 at 4:05 pm · Filed under Warren Smith Editorials

My good friend, Warren Smith, of the Charlotte World Newspaper and owner of Evangelical Press News, has written a great editorial I’d like to share with my readers. I’ve occasionally expressed my disdain for “Christian Schlock” like “Jesus is my Homeboy” gear and the latest fad-driven sermon series (ala “The DaVinci Code”). (For a hilarious website that pokes at this kind of stuff, go to www.purgatorio1.com.) Warren nails this trend with some thought-provoking observations inan editorial he recently released. Take a few minutes and read what he has to say…

The Christian-Industrial Complex

by Warren Smith

COMMENTARY–In his farewell address to the nation, Dwight Eisenhower gave a
speech that became famous because it used the expression Military Industrial
Complex. In it, Eisenhower warned of great danger if the military preparedness
of our nation came to be seen as a mere market for private industrial
interests. Eisenhower feared we would expand our military and the size of our
government for all the wrong reasons. Eisenhower viewed the relationship
between the military and industry as not merely symbiotic, but parasitic and
pathological.

I use this historical example so that it might be easier to see a similar
pathological relationship emerging between the Christian retail industry and the
Christian church, what I call the Christian-Industrial Complex.

Examples of the Christian-Industrial Complex are easy to see. The Women of
Faith conferences, for example, rake in more than $50-million per year and are
part of a for-profit, publicly traded company. The Christian retail industry
topped $4.5-billion last year. (A bit of context: $30 per month can support
many pastors in developing countries. That means that Americans spend enough
annually on “Jesus Junk” to support 250-thousand Third World pastors — for 50
years!)

Another example that played out last month is the controversy over the usage of
the greeting Merry Christmas instead of the greeting Happy Holidays.

Beginning in the 1990s, some conservative Christian groups have decided that the
use of the phrase Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is a defeat of
Christian values by the forces of political correctness. These groups include
but are not limited to the Mississippi-based American Family Association and the
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal aid group.

If you ask me, Christmas needs reforming, not defending. Indeed, the early
church did not celebrate Christmas largely because they rightly predicted it
would become what it has become, a materialistic bacchanal. In the 17th
century, the Puritans attempted to eliminate the observance of Christmas
altogether, believing it an unholy combination of the pagan and the popish,
and because it resulted in much public drunkenness. For these reasons, in some
New England towns, the observance of Christmas was actually prohibited by law.
Indeed, such was Americas relationship with Christmas that Congress regularly
met on December 25 until the 1850s.

Most historians attribute the rise in popularity of Christmas to Charles
Dickens, who was no advocate of biblical Christianity. The celebration of
Christmas was almost non-existent in America when Dickens already the best
known writer in the world — wrote A Christmas Carol, one of his most popular
stories. But Dickens wrote the story more out of an impulse toward social
reform than out of any desire to promote Christianity.

This forgotten history of Christmas makes the current defense of it seem almost
ridiculous. Its hard to imagine humble Mary and Joseph being at all
comfortable with what Christmas has become, let alone the carpenter from
Nazareth, whose only real fit of anger was displayed by the overturning of the
moneychangers in the temple. In fact, you could make a case that the Christian
response to the December 25 holiday would be to keep Jesus as far away from it
as possible!

So what possible purpose could be served by keeping Christ in Christmas when
Christmas is what it is? The answer is money. The Mississippi-based American
Family Association says it has sold more than 500,000 buttons and 125,000 bumper
stickers bearing the slogan Merry Christmas: It’s Worth Saying. The Alliance
Defense Fund said it sold about 20,000 Christmas packs. The packs, available
for a suggested $29 donation, include a three-page legal memo and two lapel
pins. You can do your own math on this one.

This story goes beyond the ridiculous to the surreal when you learn that the
groups also publish a naughty and nice list that identifies major retailers
that use the words Merry Christmas in their Christmas advertising as nice
and those that use Happy Holidays as naughty as if identifying Jesus with
the worst aspects of the seasons materialism is something to be celebrated.

Its no surprise that it also made these groups an easy target for its enemies.
Its just a fund-raising scam, said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. And its a scam in
the worst sense its fighting something that doesnt even exist.

I am no fan of Americans United, and normally Im on the same side as the AFA
and the ADF. But Barry Lynn got this one right. This is one more example of
the Christian-Industrial Complex at work. I do not want the politically correct
thought police telling me I must say Happy Holidays instead Merry Christmas.
But neither do I want the titans of the Christian-Industrial Complex telling me
I must send them money so they can fight battles that are either not worth
fighting, or that put us on the wrong side of the true Gospel message.

I pray that God would deliver us from both evils.

—-

Warren Smith is the publisher of The Charlotte World. He can be reached at
warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com

Comments

An American Hero’s Story at Christmas

December 24, 2006 at 9:21 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

Several weeks ago, I used this blog to ask you to pray for Andrew Kinard, a young Marine who was severely injured in Iraq. For Northsiders, our connection with him is that he is Charles Gouch’s brother-in-law. Andrew lost both of his legs and had severe injuries across his body. Many have left him messages on those blog entries and I have forward them to him at his CaringBridge.com site.

The Spartenburg (SC) Newspaper did an incredible section on Andrew in their Christmas eve edition and also on their website with video, audio and an incredible slideshow. Get a box of kleenex and go take a look at his story. It will make you thankful for our soldiers in harm’s way as we enjoy this holiday with our loved ones. You will also be impressed with one American Hero’s story of courage and recovery and faith.

You’ll find the story HERE.

Comments

Christmas Greetings from the Burrells

December 22, 2006 at 1:44 pm · Filed under Misc. Musings

The Burrell's - 2007

Christmas - 2006

Dear Friends,

As a family, this has been a year of transition and growth. Nathan (18) graduated from Northside Christian Academy in May and is now a freshman at Liberty University. We were quite surprised that Nathan ended up at LU as I had been pushing Cedarville University and he had been leaning toward the architectural program at the University of NC/Charlotte. After a campus visit early last summer during which we met some wonderful, Godly professors and received a taste of the college campus atmosphere (which was quite different than what we had expected in a positive way), we agreed that hed be joining a couple dozen of his classmates and friends at LU in the fall. Having our first one leave home was emotional for all of us, but seeing Nate flourish and enjoy campus life so much helped us with the transition. Hes found a sound, smaller church that is quite conservative to call home, but makes it back to Charlotte every few weeks as well. Hes very active in intramural sports and found a job in Lynchburg as well. Dan was able to chaperone Nates senior trip to California last spring and the picture is of him and Nathan on a whale-watching boat off the coast of San Diego.

DBnNB.gif

Megan (15) is a sophomore at NCA and continues to develop her singing and writing talents. Shes anticipating getting her drivers permit soon and stays busy with a gaggle of really great friends. Dad has to diligently work to keep all the starry-eyed boys away and shes really turned into a pretty young lady. Katie (10) and Josh (9) are in 4th grade and have a great time wherever they go. Katie is our worker bee who loves helping mom and Josh is our warrior in waiting and interested in anything military. Katie loves to cook and she enjoys listening to her music. Josh enjoys playing in the woods, making weapons from any available tool and is all boy. Our nice big backyard gives them lots of space to explore and create and theres never a dull moment around the house. They both now have the responsibility of caring for our flock of chickens and are active in AWANAs and the church recreation leagues. They are looking forward hopefully to going to camp for the first time this summer.

FamEast.gif

Julie injured the major tendon in her foot in early July while at our lake house and was in a wheelchair for two full months, crutches for nearly three and has been in a boot ever since. Its amazing what all she could actually accomplish from her wheel throne and apart from being able to leave the house much and driving, she amazed us all with how she coped. The doctors tell her it will take almost another year before shes back to 100%, so its been an interesting year for her. We are so grateful for all the wonderful ladies in her studies who provided meals and prayer support! She continues to lead her three Bible studies a week and has over 100 ladies attending them.

Dan remains hyper-busy with his myriad interests and projects. He just hired a great guy to come on staff to serve as Executive Pastor which should allow him to put his attention on more pastoral ministry and less administrative responsibility in the coming year. Apart from missions trips to Brazil and Albania this year, hes stayed fairly close to home. He still does a week of adjunct teaching at Boston Baptist College in January and began teaching for Liberty Theological Seminarys online program this fall which he really enjoys. He serves on 4 college boards, but is gradually rotating off of most of those as his terms expire so that he can focus on local interests more.

GBing.gif

We broke ground on a $4.5 million parking lot and road construction property on our church campus this year which is the culmination of five years of planning and proposing and he is trying to raise another $1 million in the coming year. The church and the school are both doing well and many of the first wave of goals have now been implemented and hes working on the second wave. Its hard to believe weve been in Charlotte for seven years!

We only took one six-day break this year, joining Dans sister and her family in Orlando for a breakneck week of amusement parks to celebrate a couple of graduations. This year, Dan is planning on heading to Cuba and/orChina on personal missions tripsandas a church leaderhe’s hoping to take a Northside team to Antigua and/or Albania and/or India on a missions trip. Megan is going to the Bahamas with the youth team. Nathan will be taking a missions trip somewhere. Next year, we hope to do a week of family missions somewhere for the first time.

DBNBgolf.gif

Any spare time is taken up with school work, music lessons, rec leagues or the like. We did not get to spend nearly as much time at our Lake Lure home this year as in past years, but we plan on fixing that this coming year. Over the Fourth of July holiday, Dan and Nate went golfing with some friends and Nathan got his first hole-in-one on the 4th. Were not going to discuss Dans golf score. The lake house is a great place for us to reconnect as a family away from the bustle of living on the church campus. Dan continues to write for Evangelical Press News, his blog Whirled Views (www.danburrell.com), assorted other periodicals and internet sites and is bound and determined to finish writing another book this year.

KidsCR.gif

Thanksgiving was spent at Lake Lure with the gang. Our fifth child Rene came home for a week from Florida where he graduates from college this spring. We had a great time relaxing, eating too much and playing games. Dan and all the kids except Katie (who stayed at home to keep an eye on mom), went hiking in Chimney Rock Park one day. We are looking forward to going home to Missouri for the first time since mid-2005 after Christmas to spend some time with Mom and Dans sisters and their families. The kids would rather go to Missouri than about anywhere else as they love hanging out with their cousins.

Thats about it for the Burrell family this year. We are thankful for Gods incredible goodness on us and we look forward to a another great year of ministry and family activity in 2007 as the Lord allows.

With our Love,
Dan, Julie, Nathan, Megan, Katie and Josh

Comments

Christmas Carols for the Unbalanced

December 15, 2006 at 12:11 am · Filed under Uncategorized

My good friend, Bob Byers, over at Watchman’s Words has posted a hilarious little piece on Christmas Carols you won’t want to miss. Click HERE for a good laugh.

Comments

Hollywood wants Preachers to Pimp

December 14, 2006 at 1:18 pm · Filed under Misc. Musings, Rants

This week, I received an interesting box in the mail. It was stamped on the outside in a way that almost made it look like a Christmas present until I read it. It said, Rocky Balboa Leader Resource Kit. I almost chucked it, but it sounded unusual when I shook it and Im always looking for something to sell on EBay. So thinking maybe it had a book or a DVD inside, I opened it. To my surprise, inside was a single boxing glove (in addition to a bunch of brochures, ads, promotional materials and order blanks.)

What I received was probably sent to thousands of pastors across the country and it represents a new and disturbing trend in marketing. In effect, Pastors are being asked to Pimp for Hollywood. In the last year, Ive received similar (though not as creative) packets trying to get me to either a) send my church members to a theatre to see a particular movie or b) develop a line of sermons or lessons around a certain movie (which would obviously incite my church members to attend said certain movie.)

With subtle and alluring promises of family values and spiritual messages, Ive been encouraged to partner (their term) with Hollywood to promote movies running the gamut from The Nativity to Facing the Giants to Charlottes Web to The DaVinci Code to Flicka to Jesus Camp and multiple others. The only one I actually saw was Facing the Giants and it was actually half-way decent and ironically (or not) the least associated with Hollywood.

I will admit that I got seduced into this a couple of years ago with Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ. After having been given an exclusive, pre-release viewing limited to a few personally invited and selected guests, I was convinced enough that it had evangelistic value that I bought out five screens at a local theatre before its public release and we invited scores of non-believers to join us in watching the movie and discussing it afterwards. I recall one decision, but no conversions after all the effort and I learned my lesson. From that point forward, Ive been immunized against partnering with the Hollywood industry. Upon further reflection, Ive reached the decision that pastors are being asked to pimp for the Hollywood industry.

Im not trying to be crude or outrageous by using the term, but I think what is now occurring really is pimpin for Hollywood. The media moguls of tinsel town have discovered that evangelicals are a potential cash cow long overlooked. Whereas many of us (myself included) didnt darken the door of a theatre for the better part of a quarter of a century or more, a lot of us have rethought that standard which had (at least for me) become rather mindless. Instead, Ive tried to preach, teach and live a different standard that applies to every form of visual entertainment from TV to DVDs to movies and to be more accountable than simply saying, this type of entertainment is wrong for the believer. That said, Hollywood seems bent on exploiting us for those long pocketed Baptist bucks which we previously held in keeping until it was released on video or came on free TV.

So.while I think the boxing glove was a neat and clever marketing idea (and I intend on giving it to my 9-year-old son until he uses it against a sibling at which point I will give it to the dog for a chew toy), I do NOT plan on building a series, a sermon or a set of lessons on Sly, Rocky or any other Hollywood symbol. I can think of any good reason for pastors to serve as front-menfor the heavily-painted faces of an industry that is nearly completely corrupt. Call the advertising wizards and promotional gurus who send me the movie schlock Hollywood whores or simply good business folks, this pastor isnt going to serve them as a pimp nor as a promoter.

Comments (4)

More from the “Wittenberg Door”

December 11, 2006 at 11:50 am · Filed under Fundamentalism

Last week, I posted 25 of a list of 58 theses written by a professor at a large, well-known fundamentalist school of higher learning. If you missed the initial list, you can find it by clicking HERE. It’s been receiving boatloads of hits, so apparently it’s hit a topic of interest.

Today, I post the second half without additional commentary…

58 Theses
Regarding Christian Liberty and Legalism

(Remember: A thesis is not an article for doctrinal confession, but rather a proposition for debate.)

Dr. (Name Redacted)

Part - The Second

  1. The solution in dealing with sin is not to demolish everything that might be used to sin. The logic is: some people get drunk, some movies are bad, therefore, we will avoid them altogether. See the principle in Luthers words when he was responding to the iconoclasts who sought to demolish abused objects: Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?….See how much He has been able to accomplish through me, though I did not more than pray and preach. The Word did it all [may I add, by itself].But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow (Jim West, MR, 42, March/April 2000)
  2. Encouraging growth and prudence. I think Aristotle would tell a mother who is worried about her children seeing any movies, reading any fiction, or hanging out with the wrong crowd, give them an alternative prize. In other words, it is at least in part up to parents to provide an environment where truth, goodness, and beauty are known and experienced in depth. If children are gripped by the truth, they will less likely believe the latest lie. If they become intimate with that which is good, noble, and worthy of respect, they will be less inclined toward the shallow narcissism that feeds immorality in the first place. Familiar with lives of great men and women who were shaped by integrity and wisdom, they will at least have something to contrast with the trivial characters they see promoted in the culture. And they will only come to recognize the inferiority of that which is ugly by being familiar with that which is beautiful. Prudence is thereby molding character in such a manner that even where there is not a specific rule or defined expectation in a given situation, they will be able to size things up and make a mature decision. A rule-oriented existence usually stunts the moral growth of people and communities.Once familiar with nobler things, we find ourselves becoming increasingly bored with error, evil, and ugliness (Horton, 15, 16)
  3. There is nothing wrong with churches or schools having standards of conduct. After all, secular institutions do the same thing. Evening news anchors wear suits and ties. This is fine until an institution says that mature, godly Christians wear suits and ties.
  4. The biblical logic, I believe, is that if Scripture has not commanded it, neither can you. God gives the believer the freedom to do anything the Bible does not declare sinful. This does not apply to rules at work concerning dress codes or other matters. It doesnt mean that a college cannot prohibit consumption of alcohol on the part of its students. But it does mean that the moment such a rule is justified because it supposedly distinguishes earnest Christians who are concerned with biblical principles which can strengthen ones witness, then it is improper. Only Scripture binds the conscience. If you want to have rules of conduct, fine. But the moment that they are justified as being biblical (and therefore necessary), as distinguishing earnest Christians from the rest, and as evidence of Christian maturity, they are no longer mere house rules that, although in themselves indifferent, reflect a particular constituency. When rules concerning things indifferent (not commanded or prohibited in Scripture) are made to be binding on the conscience, they must be rejected. It is no longer a thing indifferent (Horton, 46)
  5. Cultural Association. Issues or practices deemed wrong for culturally associated reasons may change over time. For example, Christians may have chosen to abstain from a practice (like long hair in the 60s or wearing an earring in the 80s) because it associated them with certain groups which were known to promote antibiblical ideas. This is legitimate. However, decades later the practice may no longer carry those associations which they once did. Therefore, no one has the right to forbid a practice decades later when the association is no longer valid. For example, a man wearing hair over his ears in the year 2000 does not have the association it had in the 60s. By the year 2030, it may be common fashion for men to wear earrings. If that is the masculine image, then it is inappropriate to forbid it because of an association with homosexuality in the 80s. In OT times, men wore robes (dresses) but they dont today. The masculine ideal has changed. In OT times, women wore nose rings which was an amoral, cultural practice. Cultural dictums are not necessarily sinful and there is no reason to always attempt to be living in another generation. Is this point relevant for Halloween? While Halloween may have had Satanic origins (and certainly is continued by witches today), does the culture associate Christian children with witchcraft as they would have centuries ago? If yes, then consistency would demand discarding the dreaded harvest celebration in many churches. If something is being done on Halloween night in the church, how is that any better? If yes, then we may have to rethink our celebration of Christmas since it had pagan, not Christian origins.
  6. Usurping Gods place. Only God as God has the right of legislation. One of the fun things about being God is that you get to do this.
  7. Legalism and Gods immensity. Gods immensity means that he is and always has been outside of time. This means that God is not faddish. It also means that he is not nostalgic. There is not a particular era of history which is more sacred to God or for which God longs to be emulated again.
  8. Those who are legalistic tend to view a chain of authority as one of the most critical facets of the Christian life. Their authoritarian demands are usually under the guise of protection. Ironically, they are typically accountable to no one.
  9. Legalists typically will not respond well to criticism. They will liken this to bitterness, rebellion, or gossip. As the Wizard of Oz thundered: do you presume to criticize the Great Oz?
  10. Legalists build dependence. As Dorothy and her friends journeyed to Oz, the lack which they perceived in their lives, was actually possessed by them. They were convinced that they needed an expert (the wizard) to help them (Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles, 91).
  11. Legalists will tend to interpret the Bible through what the Holy Spirit shows them rather than through grammatical/historical/contextual methods. This forms a convenient barrier so that they cannot be questioned, and gives them a basis to reject any view which disagrees with them, labeling it mans interpretation, or a man-made system of theology.
  12. Legalists tend to discourage independent thinking.
  13. Legalists tend to use Scripture verses and phrases as proof texts quite apart from exegesis. This is not to say that we all have not been guilty of this from time to time, but this is their way to advance their agenda.
  14. Legalists tend to adopt a parent/child mentality in dealing with people. This model dominates in legalistic churches and institutions. The leadership knows what is right for everyone much like a parent would for a child; rather than being servant-leaders where all are treated as equal in Christ
  15. The legalist relies on moralism to get people to do the right thing. However, moralism does not deal with the reason we struggle to do the right thing, namely, sin. Moralism is an external appeal much akin to the Mosaic Law.
  16. Legalism is the first step to atheism. No one can measure up perfectly and is always focused on failure and reprimand. Eventually, frustration can set in and ultimately rebellion, especially with younger people who are not mature enough to see what is happening. If one sticks it out, the frustration will lead to a joyless, bland existence.
  17. Legalists are afraid that Christians cant handle freedom. They are afraid they might make mistakes. But God is big enough to deal with this, and we must realize that we are all in a process in growing in living the Christian life which may include mistakes, much like children growing up. Remember Squealers words in animal farm? No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your own decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
  18. Legalists tend to see everything as black or white. While there are absolutes in the Scripture, many times there are several choices, none of which are wrong.
  19. Legalists tend to be wary of dispensationalists.
  20. Legalists tend to play on peoples fears as to what might happen if numerous rules are not in place.
  21. Legalists evidently believe that people will know we are Christians by our rules rather than by our love.
  22. Legalists will want to assimilate people into their groups not being content to merely have them in their groups. This breaks down independent thinking and eventually convinces people that their leader speaks for God on virtually everything.
  23. Legalists believe it is their job to make Gods commands less easily broken by building fences around them. For example, the rabbis taught that a woman should not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. Why? Well, God had said that the Sabbath was to be holy and free from ones normal work. That is fine because God said it. In order to make it harder for one to break the Sabbath law, a woman shouldnt look into a mirror lest she see a gray hair, pluck it, and thereby work on the Sabbath thus breaking it. They erected an extra law to protect Gods law. A current example: Christians should never go into a movie theater. Any Christian serious about holiness would have to acknowledge that much of what is in theaters is inappropriate for Christians. These things would violate Scripture. The legalist though erects an extra law, his own law, to protect Gods law by saying that a Christian should never attend any movie. Now a Christian may have a legitimate conviction that he shouldnt go to a movie theater for various reasons. That is fine. But to make that a law for everybody is to erect an extra law. God saw fit to leave it where he has left it. Rather than telling people what not to do, lets have a rational discussion about the dangers which could be present, the power of the sin nature, etc.
  24. Legalists tend to confuse suffering for righteousness sake with suffering for their own belligerence.
  25. Rather than having discussions with those with whom they disagree, legalists will more likely simply cut themselves off from them, or others from themselves.
  26. Legalists will tend to be interested in the private areas of ones personal life.
  27. Legalists will tend to emphasize confession of sin to unbiblical proportions.
  28. Legalism tends to represent a certain slice of American culture in the standards that are put forth. Women wearing dresses, men not having facial hair, etc. will represent a white, middle-class ideal in the United States. Most legalists would not need to go to wardrobe to go onto the set of Leave it to Beaver. The center of Gods dealings in history is Israel, not America.
  29. Legalism tends to have an ugly American mentality. Think of the folly of imposing superfluous standards on people in other cultures around the world. More than once we have laughed at converts in India, Mexico, Africa wearing dresses and suits on Sunday morning singing Christian praise choruses.
  30. Many times legalism is an over-reaction to soft living. Similarly, lordship salvation is an over-reaction to easy-believism.
  31. Legalists tend to go into areas which are not areas of expertise.
  32. Legalists tend to repeat the same things over and over so that people become comfortable believing it. When they hear differently, then the different view appears odd and out of step.
  33. Many legalists appear so nice and as if God is blessing their lives, therefore, many think they must be on the right track.

Selah (for now)

Editor’s Note: Should I receive numbers 59-95, I will post them as well. dlb

Comments (13)

Another Knock on Wittenberg’s Door

December 7, 2006 at 2:41 pm · Filed under Fundamentalism

There are a few debates that seem to be fodder for constant attention and input among evangelicals and fundamentalists and which never want for lack of opinion. There’s the ol’ “Calvinism vs. Armenianism” issue. We have the less doctrinal, but still passionate conversations regarding theatre attendance. Let’s not forget the whole Bible Version thing. And of course, wherewould webe were it not for the “Worship Wars”?

Perhaps my personal favorite is the one that deals with the topic of “Legalism”. Now here’s a topic that can be debated from so many angles. There’s the Biblical angle and also cultural issues and perspectives and don’t forget tradition, degrees, definitions and context which can also be included in the debate.

And as with most things that are debated, I find myself somewhere in the middle of the extremes often shouted by any two sides of an issue. But, from that perspective, I truly enjoy watching the interaction much like one watches a tennis match. I see lobs and faults and occasionally someone rushes the net for a thrilling smash. There’s often grunts and groans replete with flying sweat and saliva. It’s really quite entertaining.

So with that, I’ve decided to post something that I recently received which will surely rile some folks up. Before I post it here (and it will require at least two separate posts due to its length), I want to offer some background.

I received this post from a friend who received it from a somewhat well-known professor at a very well-known fundamentalist school of higher learning. It is my understanding thatwhatI now have in my possession is 58 of an eventual 95 “Theses” which, when completed andat the conclusion of this gentleman’s tenure at said “fundamentalist school of higher learning”, will be posted in a prominent location somewhere on campus ina re-enactmentreminiscent of Luther’s posting on the famed door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Whether or not this will ever occur, I have no way of knowing, but I find the initial 58 of the 95 topics for debate to be most interesting and on several of them I believe I could be found debating on either side of the propositions. The fact that the “fundamentalist school of higher learning” where at these theses have been penned is renowned for the accusations of legalism often assigned to it only deepens my intrigue with this list as it would appear to come from a unique, “front-line” perspective. Somehow, I doubt that this list will ever approach Luther’s in either noteriety or import, but I think you will find it interesting, nonetheless.

Please don’t ask me to identify the professor, I will never tell anyone, I will not entertain guesses and I will not encourage you to try and guess. But, if you should find yourself bored during some dreary wintery day, perhaps you might find it stimulating to develop your own list, complete this one or even chose one or two and debate them for yourself. I will note here that I do publish these with permission of the author.

Enjoy.

Ladies and Gentleman, I present….

58 Theses
Regarding Christian Liberty and Legalism

(Remember: A thesis is not an article for doctrinal confession, but rather a proposition for debate.)

Dr. (Name Redacted)

  1. There is always somebody who is offended by anything we do. There is a big difference between a weaker brother mentioned by Paul in Romans 14 and a prideful, ignorant, and spiritually bigoted person. There are some Christians who refuse to grow, refuse to love, refuse to change, and are joined to their uninformed opinions. Paul is not talking about these kinds of people here. While we should be civil toward these kinds of people, we should not allow them to control our lives.
  2. The weaker brother is a reference to a believer who is immature in the faith and whose conscience has not been strengthened yet by the truth. A weak brother is not weak because he is easily irritable, but because he has an uninformed conscience. This weaker brother is to be lovingly guided into the truth. As we minister to him, we should not flaunt a freedom we have, because at this stage of his Christian experience, that will bother him and retard his spiritual growth.
  3. The two extremes: on one extreme you have those who have their own inspired list of what Christians should not do in their personal life and in the church as well as things that Christians should do. The majority of these things are opinions, Christian ghetto conditioning, or conditioning from ones rearing which cannot be substantiated from properly exegeted passages of Scripture. On the other extreme are those who have come out of these situations who react by saying there should be no kind of list or standard for Christians. This group tends to equate liberty with this mentality (which biblically, of course, it is not). Christian liberty or freedom alludes back to our sinful condition in Adam. In Adam we were bound in sin incapable of serving God. At regeneration the disposition to serve God is restored to us. We are now free to serve Him. If Christian freedom relates to things as petty as having a glass of wine with a meal, for example, then we have not gained anything. We could do that before regeneration. A corollary to this is a dispensational one. Being free in Christ means that we are no longer bound by the requirements of previous dispensations. To be in Christ involves living in a new administration. Thus we are free from all requirements of the Law (including the stipulations related to dress, diet, and worship). Having come out of the cage phase of their early Christian lives, they are determined not to go back.
  4. Offending in the texts does not refer to someone who is upset by something we did because they disagree with us. For example, I wont ever go to a movie because Mrs. So and So might be offended (which being translated: will be mad at me). Offending means to make a person sin. Offend does not mean to displease or irritate a brother.
  5. The key texts for Christian liberty are Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2.
  6. Definition of legalism. Legalism is not the presence of rules, standards, and convictions. If so, then God is the biggest legalist in the universe. This would then make legalism good. Even the New Testament epistles are replete with commands and exhortations. During the Kingdom Age there will be plenty of rules tooeven involving how worship is to be conducted.
  7. Definition contd. There are two ways to look at legalism. One is to say that legalism is the wrong use of rules. The Law, for example, was good regarding the purposes for which God instituted it. The Jews were legalists in that they used a good thing for a wrong purpose. The Law was issued primarily for a sanctifying purpose, but they used it primarily for a justifying purpose. Thus, they were legalists. They misused the Law.
  8. Definition contd. A second way to look at legalism is to make a parallel with the legalism of Jesus day. The Mosaic Law covered vast areas of life. Where it spoke to an issue, it was sin to disregard its teaching. However, the rabbis believed that the people needed specific applications in cases where the Law was not clear. There emerged from these applications the Talmud which was considered as authoritative as Scripture, because, according to them, these applications were implied in the Law. By imposing the Talmud on people, they were legalists because they made their interpretation and application as authoritative as the Law. They set themselves up as lawmakers. God is the only lawgiver. If one wants to exercise his scruples in a personal area, that is ones choice. But to add ones scruples to the list of sins already stated in Scripture is inappropriate.
  9. Dangers of legalism (among many): 1) it can engender a false humility and spiritual pride (the converse is true as well). If we produce this in people by enforcing our code on them, then we have caused them to lose rewardthe very thing they are attempting to achieve (Col. 2:18); 2) legalism encourages rebellion. This is much different than the approach in #23 in which people are taught to think biblically; 3) legalism offers an unbiblical substitute for Gods way of dealing with sin. Gods way places on us the responsibility of setting up limits on what may be lawful; 4) it elevates ones legalist interpretation/application of Scripture to be equal with Scripture; 5) it burdens the believer with so many restrictions that the Christian life focuses on what ought not to be done and what has to be done. It takes the joy out of being a Christian. It leads to disillusionment because it is discovered that Christs yoke is not easy nor his burden light; 6) it teaches that self-imposed restrictions make one spiritually superior (the asceticism of monkery; Col. 2; 1 Tim. 4; 1 Cor. 7); 7) it denies biblical doctrinegrace, the goodness of creation, freedom, etc.
  10. The issues in this debate, according to the text, are amoral practices. An amoral practice is in itself neither right or wrong (e.g., how one spends Sunday [and Wednesday for that matter!], men wearing earrings or pony tails, women wearing pants or cosmetics, practicing birth control, ones relationship to celluloid, smoking a pipe, listening to different types of music, pursuing the secular as a gift from God, etc.). However, what often happens (especially by the second group mentioned in #3) is that people introduce moral issues into a debate which deals with amoral issues. They try to pass off the moral as amoral. If something is objectively sinful according to Scripture, then it is not open for debate in the Christian liberty squall.
  11. In this whole issue we must understand that the entire Mosaic Code has been done away. It is not biblically legitimate to divide the Mosaic Law into civil, moral, and cultic divisions as is often done. The entire Law as a unit was done away by Christs death. If this point could be grasped then many of the areas debated would dissipate (see my notes on Acts and 1 Timothy).
  12. The key issue in living the Christian life is the state of the heart. This is not to say actions are unimportant. Nor is it to deny that sometimes we must make ourselves do the right thing even when we do not want to. The point is: the goal should be the transformation of the inner man, not the outer man. When this is reversed change will not be lasting and will lead to ones falling away from the Christian life.
  13. We must make a distinction between preferences (as tenaciously as we might want to cling to them. And, by the way, this is why it is a good thing to have different denominations and churches. We can go where we are most comfortable. This should be encouraged.) and what is right/wrong.
  14. Believe it or not, one of the main reasons for this debate, is a faulty bibliology. While we are willing to go to the stake for inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation of Scripture, we fail to deduce from these doctrines the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. If we are correct as to the nature of Scripture, then it necessarily follows, that what it does clearly say will be enough for us to have a healthy Christian life. In addition, though not often thought of like this, preservation should be considered negatively as well as positively. God not only retained in the Bible what he wanted to be there, but also kept out of the Bible what he did not want to be there. To add to the Scripture is as much condemned as removing from the Scripture. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit took care of the inspiration event for us.
  15. If we are going to be dogmatic about our convictions, then we must have reasoned Scriptural support. What I think, my church thinks, or my pastor thinks, is in a sense, irrelevant (though I am a firm believer in the succession of the office of elder from the apostles). Dancing was a sin. When pressed for a biblical justification, defenders of these codes would often back down a bit and reply that although there isnt a direct verse saying thou shalt not dance, the character of such events justified blanket prohibition. We didnt have to check out each particular environment to discern whether it would be wise to dance in one but not in another. Just dont dance (Michael Horton, MR, 14, March/April 2000).
  16. The weak should not be judgmental. The weak need to learn to relax and trust God to run his universe. The weak also need to have a more serious grasp of the gravity of the judgment seat. If it is true that one of the worst things a Christian can do is smoke a cigar, then God will severely discipline the person who does at the day of judgment
  17. The strong may have to forego certain practices, not from his life entirely, but in the presence of a weaker brother. His goal is to love his brother and show the utmost concern for his spiritual growth. Whereas champagne is a thing indifferent, actively seeking to offend someone for the purposes of putting oneself on a pedestal is sinfuland, ironically, engages in the very self-righteousness that characterizes legalism (Michael Horton, MR, 14, Mar/Apr 2000). Love requires us not to do anything that induces another believer to act contrary to conscience. That is, these passages do not teach that we must agree with the scruples of anothers conscience nor even that we must act consistently with the scruples of anothers conscience. Rather, the texts teach that we must not say or do anything that we believe will have the effect of inducing another to act inconsistently with conscience (David Gordon, MR, March/April 2000, 34). If, however, the weaker brother is not progressing in his Christian life, refuses to be instructed, and has become embittered in his position, then my opinion is to just leave him alone and live as is deemed appropriate
  18. Whatever we feel to be okay for our lives must be in concert with our conscience. However, we need to be careful here. Our consciences are affected by the Fall just as the other parts of our personalities. They can be conditioned by upbringing, dominant personalities, culture, worldliness, and lack of Scriptural understanding. We should follow our consciences with the awareness that it may have to be renewed by Scriptural truth
  19. Our goal in life should be to glorify God in everything we do. We must understand that we can glorify God through the nonspiritual aspects of life with which he has blessed us. However, beware of the subtleties of sin. We want to glorify God not see how close we can come to sin
  20. In all that we do we must remember our continuing depravity. We carry gunpowder about us, take heed of sparks. The Christian life is not a game. There is much at stake. Our decisions on earth will affect forever our degree of glory in heaven
  21. God will be the judge
  22. Enjoy the creation. There is nothing unclean in itself
  23. Legalism is an extremely slippery slope. Legalists are horribly inconsistent. Once one invents a standard which is binding on all Christians, there are always numerous inconsistencies. For example, if one is forbidden to go to a movie theater, then consistency would demand not having a television (after all, if the issue is testimony, then people might think I could be watching something inappropriate; or, horror of horrors, I might be watching football on the Christian Sabbath). If Christians are not to listen to secular music, then that eliminates Irving Berlin as much as it eliminates Eric Clapton. When this inconsistency is spotted, then the legalist is forced to create even more rules and caveats. Thus, the same individual can exhort a fellow believer to refuse to join coworkers for a beer (I am not advocating this, but relaying Michael Hortons quote for the main point) under the rubric of avoiding the very appearance of evil, (though, this is not what this verse means!) while passionately embracing the worldliness of popular culture in worship and church growth strategies (Horton, 15)
  24. Avoiding the appearance of evil. The word appearance in the Thessalonians passage does not mean what is commonly suggested: If something might look evil then dont do it just to be safe. Rather, the word refers to forms or manifestations of evil. Thus, the point is that the Christian should not engage in anything sinful in whatever way or form sin may manifest itself. A Living Bible type paraphrase would be dont sin.
  25. Christian living and growth involves a process of prudence and decision-making. They have replaced prudence with their own will-worship, dispensing with the difficult, lifelong process of developing characterdecision by decision in context after context (Horton, 15)

Part 2 will be published at a later date….

Comments (7)