Are Mormons really Christians? Are Christians really Christians?

A Mormon friend said that Mormons were Christians and I chuckled because I thought he was kidding.  He wasn’t.  He is very active in his church and in evangelism, so I assumed that he knew the distinctions.  I pointed out that a foundation of Mormonism is that it is the true church and we are not a part of it. I said that I wasn’t offended that Mormonism says we’re different, so why is he?

Does Mormonism condemn other religions, including Christianity?  Yes.  Here’s just one of many examples:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . . (Joseph Smith, “History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

Got that?  He must “join none of them” [other sects of Christianity], “they were all wrong,” “all their creeds were an abomination in his [God's] sight” and “those professors were all corrupt.”  There are many other clear passages like this in the Book of Mormon and in other writings.

I encourage people to read the comment thread at this post about Mormonism relative to Christianity.  There was an extended dialogue between a Mormon and several Christians that highlighted many of the key issues. 

The Mormon would go in circles quite a bit, claiming that Mormons are Christians and that we are as well, even though he said we don’t have the same access to God and the founders of his faith completely disagreed with him.  It is the basic theme they usually come with: Mormons are Christians, but Christians aren’t Christians.  After all, if we are authentic Christians, why do we need to join their organization to be right with God?

The other commenters did a good job of pointing out how Mormonism and Christianity start with radically different views of Jesus (i.e., eternal creator God vs. a man who became God and is the spirit brother of Lucifer) and that we can’t both be right. 

The Mormon also said that “The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not another gospel. It is the same gospel of Jesus Christ that has been revealed from heaven and preached by holy men since the world began.”  But if it is the same Gospel preached since the world began then why does it need to be restored?

The Mormon would eventually fall back to the “I know Mormonism is right because God told me so” line, which of course could be used by any religion or cult.  Christianity, on the other hand, points to reason and historical evidence.  The Mormon ignored that whoever told him that might not have been God:

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

As always, if Mormonism is teaching the same Gospel as Christianity then it is redundant at best.  If it teaches a different Gospel then we must heed the warning from Galatians 1. 

Home churches

I’ve heard that home churches are gaining in popularity.  I’ve heard concerns that there could be doctrinal issues given the lack of seminary-educated leaders, but with so much bad doctrine being pumped out of so many churches it is hard to imagine the problem being worse!

What do you know about home churches, and what is your opinion of them?  What is the Biblical view of them?  Are there resources to help them be doctrinally sound and effective? 

And no, I’m not thinking of starting one.  I don’t have the energy or the expertise.

The Ultimate Christmas Tree

This will give you plenty of time to get ready for the holidays.

1. Get a Charlie Brown Christmas tree

2. Take pictures of all your ornaments and load them on a digital photo ornament.

You’ll never assemble / cut a tree again or have to take out your ornaments.  It will saves lots of time, space and frustration!  Environmentally friendly!

My wife has been buying loud, manly ornaments (think superheros, Godzilla, rock-n-roll and such) for our nephew (her godson) for 18 years.  She figured that a digital ornament with pictures of all those crazy ornaments would help make him more marketable marriage-wise.  (”There is no way those ornaments are going on our tree!”  “But my Aunt gave them to me, and she’s coming to visit!”)

Weekly roundup

Got work/life balance? - If not, you need to change some things starting now, because it doesn’t come without being very intentional about it.  All your money and all your success can’t buy your kids a second childhood. 

—

The Danny Velasco story - a great true story of redemption and salvation.  Again and again Jesus saves those who would be considered the least likely, and He uses his followers to be part of his plan.  “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  Amen!

—

The costs of political correctness - Black administrator suspended for challenging  - as a private citizen - the idea that the GLBTQ lobby is morally equivalent to the Civil Rights movement (friendly reminder: skin color is morally neutral, sexual behaviors are not).  I hope the newspaper prints this excellent response.

—

Gambler’s ruin is Darwin’s ruin - note to Darwinists - please read the whole article and comment at that site.

Darwin argued that “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by sort and sure, though slow steps.”  But that is complete nonsense mathematically speaking because of the problem of gambler’s ruin. It is not surprising that Darwin could not see the flaw in his argument because he could not even do high school algebra even after substantial effort. The lack of basic math and logic pervades his flawed theory.

The problem is that a selectively-advantaged traits are still subject to random events. The most basic random event is with whether a parent will even pass down a gene to a child in the first place! Added to that problem is the nature of random events in general. A genetically advantaged individual may die by accident, get consumed by a predator, etc.

—

More cat pics

United Methodist Conference wrap-up

The 2008 United Methodist General conference had generally good news for orthodox Christians along with some bad news.  The May 3 entry here has a good summary under the heading of Legislative Update.

The Bible lists greed, envy, gossip, slander, lust, gluttony, coveting, jealousy and more as sins (everybody squiriming now?).  It also notes that homosexual behavior is a sin.  The difference is that we don’t have groups in favor of the first list of things disrupting the General Conference and tarnishing the denomination. 

The pro-GLBTQ (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/questioning) theology groups disrupted the conference as usual with help from some conference leaders who failed to perform their duties.  Here’s some background from news releases:

In an act of witness in front of delegates to the 2008 United Methodist General Conference, more than 200 people declared that the denomination’s policies and practices against homosexuality are “sinful” and that “sexuality is a gift from God.”

To say that “sexuality is a gift from God” and use it to support behaviors the Bible clearly describes as sinful is simply wrong.  Using that reasoning one could support every perversion known to man. 

And to say the UMC policy is “sinful” seems rather odd to me.  What is their standard for sin?  If they claim it is the Bible, how could upholding the word of God be a sin as defined by the word of God?  The burden of proof is on them to prove from the Bible  that the behavior they are encouraging is truly a “gift from God.”

The 15-minute demonstration was in reaction to the April 30 decision to retain the denomination’s decades-old proscription in the Social Principles and other parts of the Discipline describing homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Delegates voted 501-417 to keep the stance and also passed a resolution against homophobia and heterosexism, saying the church opposes “all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.”

One witness, speaking on behalf of the protesters, told the General Conference that when The United Methodist Church refuses to accept and honor everyone’s call to professional ministry, it refuses to abide by the rules of Methodism’s founder John Wesley: do no harm, do good and stay in love with God.

That is a non-sequitor.  There are all sorts of people whose “call to professional ministry” shouldn’t be honored.  These enemies of the Gospel speak in generalities, but if you just peel back a layer and fill in some specifics it is easy to show where their reasoning fails.  To claim that those adhering to the Book of Discipline on matters of sexuality are refusing to abide by the rules is morbidly ironic.

Krumbach declared that the “anti-gay policies of The United Methodist Church are wrong and sinful in the sight of God” and in the act of witnessing “we reject the lie that homosexuality is a sin and that by standing, we affirm that sexuality is a good gift of God.”

That is a lie.  Our policies aren’t anti-gay, they affirm gay people as having worth and decry violence against them.  The policies just line up with the Bible, which is kinda clear about homosexual behavior being sinful.  After all:

• 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
• 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
• 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
• 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

So if you want to have a “church” based on pro-gay theology then that is your right.  Just don’t pretend to be intellectually honest and claim that you are in concert with the clear teachings of the Bible.  Part of the problem is that so many people haven’t studied the passages in question.  This is really not a difficult thing to prove.

Our pastor, Chappell Temple, was quoted at length in various articles about the conference.  He is the brilliant, loving leader of Lakewood United Methodist Church who has studied this issue extensively and has had the courage to speak the truth about it.  I pray that the apostate Bishops and leaders in our denomination will be convicted by his words and that orthodox Bishops and leaders will be encouraged to speak the truth in love as well.  Too many of our denominational leaders love the world more than the love God, and the behavior at the conference was exhibit A.  I praise God for people like my pastor.

The Rev. Chappell Temple of the Texas Conference said there were numerous delegates who were “dismayed, saddened and outraged” at the act of witness. People are questioning whether such action would have occurred if the General Conference would have changed its stance on homosexuality, he said.

Bishop J. Lawrence McCleskey, the presiding bishop prior to the action, halted the legislative assembly and recessed the conference. Chappell said, “He should have said those wishing to leave can do so. We were held captive. The altar was desecrated; the singing was presumptuous, self-righteous and accusatory.”

While noting the pain resulting from the church’s decision and stance, Temple also said it was wrong to lay guilt on those trying to follow Christ and listen to Christ. “I understand that the (act of witness) was a compromise, and what was allowed was simply blackmail, it was extortion” and was disrespectful to people of different views.

“For a person to give a long, one-sided speech, and for a bishop to speak and call for reconsideration, goes against everything that we hold together and as holy covenant,” he said.

During the witness, Krumbach said the voices of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer people have not been heard, but Chappell disagrees. “They have made witness the entire week,” he said. “No one is happy about where we are, and their demonstration implied that somehow we’ve heaped burning coals on them.”

Delegates, he said, are trying to hold the church together “not for artificial unity, but for a unity of heart that strikes at the very root of Christian conference.”

I couldn’t be more proud of my pastor, and I pray that God will lift up other courageous and orthodox pastors as well.  I know that will impact his popularity with many people in positions of power.

Satan has a foothold in the UMC, as evidenced by the support of so many national leaders who stood in solidarity with both the disruptive pro-gay theology groups and the pro-abortion groups.  Weak church discipline has allowed these false teachers to gain positions of authority, but it isn’t too late to save the UMC. 

I also appreciate Bishops such as Lindsey Davis:

I think the church is right. I think we are very much in sync with historic Christianity and very much in sync with 99.9 percent of Christians in the world,” he said. “I make no apology for our position. It is biblical, and it is in keeping with 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The U.S. church continues to shrink but it is growing around the world.  Praise God that the growing African churches, for example, tend to be much more orthodox.  My trips to Kenya confirmed this for me.  We had the opportunity to worship and interact with countless Kenyan Christians and they are much more orthodox and evangelistic than the average U.S. congregation.

We need to remember that God wins in the end and our duty is to be faithful to his word today.

Additional information

Responding to pro-gay theology - the best piece I’ve read on the topic.  Very thorough, readable and compassionate.

Problems with pro-gay theology - a series I did last year on the various ways these groups misuse and/or misinterpret the Bible.

Bible study tips / 1 John 5

Cross posted from the Bible Study Blog.

Greetings!

When teaching some Bible study tips to an adult Sunday School class I had them pick a chapter at random.  Then we performed the following exercise I had picked up from a sermon by James MacDonald on Walk in the Word.  The chapter was 1 John 5, and it was a perfect example.

• Read 1-3 chapters at a time (less for doctrinal passages, more for history)
• Question it 
  • What portion stands out to me? Why?
  • Is there an example for me to follow?
  • Is there an error for me to avoid?
  • Is there a duty for me to perform?
  • Is there a promise for me to claim?
  • Is there a sin for me to confess?
• Plan it - make a plan for how you will use it
• Pray it - pray scripture back to God
• Share it - helps others, and helps us to remember it

There are lots of ways to study the Bible, but when in doubt try the plan above.  No matter how well you know the Bible you can get a lot out of this exercise.  Sometimes we focus too much on the things we don’t understand and not enough on the things we do understand and can work on today.

Whenever I addressed one of the items above I noted it in bold.

5     Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

This is just one of the many passages noting that Jesus is the only way.  Those who truly love God will love Jesus.  If you believe Jesus is the Messiah then you are born of God.  Otherwise, you are not.  That stood out to me, and it highlights an error to avoid: the type of religious pluralism that says all paths to God are equally valid.

 ² This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. ³ This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, ⁴ for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. ⁵ Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

This was another passage that stood out to me showing the exclusivity of Jesus.  And note how we show love for God: By obeying his commands.  This is our duty.  Do we do it perfectly?  No.  But it is much easier when we don’t quench or grieve the Holy Spirit.  We aren’t saved because of our obedience, but we aim for obedience because we are saved.

⁶ This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. ⁹ We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. ¹⁰ Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Again, notice how direct the teaching is: If you have the Son you have life.  if you do not have the Son you do not have life.  It is carefully written to note both possibilities, so we can’t read it as, “Well, if you have the Son you have life but you can get that life other ways as well . . .”  And if we don’t believe God we make him out to be a liar!  That is certainly an error to avoid.

Concluding Remarks

¹³ I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

Consider the wonderful promises of assurance and access noted in verses 13-15.  How much better does it get than that?  We have assurance of eternal life and that God hears us.  We can hear from him whenever we open his word.

¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

¹⁸ We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. ¹⁹ We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. ²⁰ We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

²¹ Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

This book seems to end abruptly.  It might have had more literal meaning to the original readers who lived in cultures where literal idols were worshiped - or those who live in cultures like that today - whereas our idols are more figurative but no less destructive (money, fame, etc.).  Putting anything before God is an error to avoid and we should confess our sins of doing that daily.

John is often considered the “love” Apostle but he certainly isn’t soft on sin.  He is a great example to follow, because he risked everything for his faith and lived it out authentically.  In fact, in reading 1 John he comes across much more strongly on sin than even Paul seems to.  It is useful to read the whole book so you get the proper context.  John seems to make some broad and strong statements that must be considered together to get the full meaning. 

So how do I plan to use this?  To remind myself of the importance of obeying God’s commands to love him and my neighbors.

I prayed it back to God, thanking him for his salvation, promises and access. 

And I shared it with you!

Blessings to you on your study and enjoyment of God’s word.

Sickening

As the United Methodist General conference proceeds, one of the inititatives is to end an alliance with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, one of the most sickening organizations I’ve ever seen.  I mean, I’m not surprised with secular organizations like Planned Parenthood being pro-abortion, but the religious types in favor of abortion really bother me. 

The only reason the partnership wasn’t killed at the 2004 conference was due to some serious lying about the RCRC’s views.

(By the way, the picture to the right is not RCRC related and is actually pro-life.  It says Now that I’m safe I’m pro-choice and points out how no one inside the womb is pro-legalized-abortion.)

The RCRC site has deceptive slogans such as “Trust women”  and “Abortion is between a woman and her God” followed by “What does your religion say?”  Mine says that regardless of how much you trust someone she should not have her unborn children killed, and that if you ask God if you should have an abortion He’ll say, “No.”  (Unless your own life is at stake.) 

Then there is the picture with a lady holding a toddler and a “prayerfully pro-choice” sign.  Some things you just don’t need to pray about.  It seems weird to say, “Dear Jesus, I don’t want to be pregnant.  Should I pay a stranger to crush and dismember this living human being inside of me?  Amen.”  Do these people seriously think God answered their prayers in the affirmative?  (”Yes, I created the universe and everything in it and I created you and your unborn child.  But I’m all out of ideas on how to help you in your current situation, so by all means, go ahead and have the abortion.”)

The most morbidly ironic picture says, “All life is sacred.  What does your religion say?”  I guess they have never seen an ultrasound before, because those human beings look really, really alive to me. 

One UMC Bishop, Beverly Shamana, who is a disgrace to Methodism, Christianity and rational thinking, had this to say, among other nonsense (emphasis added):

Basic to the values we hold as United Methodists is the belief that women are capable decision makers regarding their bodies and the gift of childbirth. For Christians, choice is a central tenet of our faith and a gift of God. From Genesis onward, God offers the freedom of choice to the human family.

Sure, lady.  The Bible is all about giving you the choice to destroy your family members.  That bit of “reasoning” supports infanticide, gender selection abortions, euthanasia and who knows what else (although mercifully they usually use anesthesia for the elderly). 

GBCS [the General Board of Church and Society] serves, in part, “to bring the whole of human life … into conformity with the will of God” (¶1002, 2004 Book of Discipline). While no one can presume to fully know God’s will, as Christians, we believe the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ teaches us that God honors and values each person as worthy of an intimate relationship with God.

As with most pro-legalized-abortionists she begs the question and assumes that the unborn aren’t human beings worthy of protection.  It is the typical anti-science view.

And while we don’t know God’s detailed sovereign will, He went to great lengths to share his moral will with us.  Here’s part of it: Don’t murder.

This passage comes to mind when thinking of the pro-abortion religious folks such as this Bishop:

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. 

The RCRC has special programs for the black church, which is not surprising given that the rate of abortion in the black community is 3x that of whites.  But it seems to me that black churches would realize that the RCRC is the enemy who is helping to destroy their folks at a faster pace than the KKK ever dreamed of.

Side note: Interestingly, the pro-abortion and pro-gay theology protestors at the conference seem to be well united.  Go figure.

Weekly roundup

Some blogging on the 2008 United Methodist General Conference.  I appreciate how the IRD folks are calm and reasoned with dealing with the hate from the apostates.

—

I’ve really enjoyed the pieces over at the Scripture Student blog.  Very authentic and thought provoking.

— 

Twenty annoying things about Christians - only twenty?  I agreed with some of those and could add some to the list.  The Gospel offends people with its call to repentance, but we should try not to add to the offense. 

—

The Supreme Court gets it right!  It is hard to believe anyone would object to voters having to show a photo ID.  Well, hard for anyone but Obama types.  I realize that voter fraud is harder to commit with ID requirements, but arguing against it really shows one’s motives.

—

Ethanol was a bad idea even before it caused high food prices and food shortages.  Now is the time to kill it once and for all.

—

Richard Dawkins is a staunch Darwinian who thinks living under Darwinian principles is bad.

My own view, frequently expressed . . . is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

It is pretty clear that the only thing he really likes about his Darwinian worldview is that it helps him rationalize away God.  He misses the point that he derives his “oughts” from . . . nothing!  He has no foundation to appeal to.  He brings his own morality in the back door again and again, with no rationale as to why we should agree with him.  His worldview simply can’t explain why things are the way they are. 

If Darwinian natural selection explains “our own existence and that of all life,” then wouldn’t it be rather foolish to try and fight it?  In the same way, if God is real then wouldn’t it be foolish to try to fight him?

Best thank-you ever

I taught an economics lesson for a 4th grade class at the school where my wife is a librarian.  I combined some old Junior Achievement lessons and did a chocolate chip cookie taste test.  I explained a lot of financial and decision making principles along the way, and we discussed how advertising works and what we can do to avoid being tricked. 

The kids were great.  They enjoyed the cookies and asked lots of good questions.  I’ve taken a couple years off after teaching JA classes for various grades for about 12 years.  It was a lot of fun, and I’m thinking about starting it up again.  JA classes are proven to reduce drop-outs.

The teacher had the students write thank-yous, and they were all sweet.  But this one was the best (emphasis added):

Dear Mr. Simpson,

Thank you so much!  You are the best!  You saved me probably more than $100!

Now I know that Mrs. Simpson is very lucky to live with you.

With care,

John

That’s what I’ve been saying all along!  Finally, someone agrees with me.  Be sure to tell Mrs. Simpson (actually, she read the note before I did and was equally amused).

Evil

I think the existence of evil in the world does more to prove God’s existence than to disprove it (see this for more on that idea).

Some consider the existence of evil as proof that a loving God doesn’t exist.  But while such philosophical discussions are important, there is an element of silliness to it.  If I created a model universe with all the complexity of ours, and one of my little sentient creatures on my model earth determined that since he couldn’t fully understand everything about me and the universe I created and concluded that I must not exist - even after I wrote my moral code on their hearts and clearly revealed myself to them- I would find it amusing and irritating. 

The end of the book of Job is there for a reason (as well as other passages). 

Job 42:1-6 Then Job replied to the Lord: “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”

The question of evil is typically offered as a challenge to Christians, as if it is only a problem for us to explain.  But how does the atheist explain it?  It is an even more difficult question for them to answer.  They can’t provide a foundation for the morality that they constantly reference.  There is no redemption of evil in their worldview.  That isn’t what makes their view wrong, of course, it just shows how the problem of evil isn’t the trump card against Christianity that many make it to be.

God permits evil, restrains evil and will ultimately redeem evil.  He already defeated sin and death at the cross.

Here are some terrific YouTube videos on the issue of evil.

Buddhists make lousy postmoderns

Buddhism has an eightfold path which should be followed when trying to avoid and reduce suffering.

• Right View
• Right Thinking
• Right Mindfulness
• Right Speech
• Right Action
• Right Diligence
• Right Concentration
• Right Livelihood

Sounds kinda dogmatic and preachy to me.  There are a whole lot of truth claims there. 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  It just shows that Christians aren’t the only ones making truth claims, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with making truth claims.  There is something self-refuting about making truth claims about why it is bad to make truth claims. 

The worst church growth program ever?

A comment on the Yoko Ono post referred to this portion of Acts, and I wanted to clarify a few things.  It relates to how believers treated their possessions in the early church.  It could be called “the worst church growth program ever.” (I’m kidding, of course.  The church grew dramatically even with this not-so-seeker-sensitive approach.)

Acts 4:32-5:11

The Believers Share Their Possessions

³² All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. ³³ With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales ³⁵ and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

³⁶ Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), ³⁷ sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Ananias and Sapphira

5     Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ² With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

³ Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴ Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

⁵ When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. ⁶ Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

⁷ About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

⁹ Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

¹⁰ At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹ Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

In the midst of the dramatic church growth we read this cautionary tale.  Some people read it as the early Christians being communistic, but that isn’t the point at all.  As always, we must read carefully and in context.

The passage describes the general behavior of believers but it doesn’t say God commanded this (”No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.”). 

Peter didn’t say that Ananias and Sapphira were obligated to donate anything at all: ”Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”

The sin wasn’t in not giving enough, it was lying to God.   This was a serious thing, especially when the church was forming.  They needed purity and honesty, just like we do today.  Just because we are in the age of grace doesn’t mean that God doesn’t take sin seriously. 

We don’t need deception to spread the Gospel.  We need the truth.

Satan was defeated at the cross in an ultimate sense, but he was and is still active in tempting Christians and non-Christians. 

Despite this event, the church continued to grow.  Consider how lax church discipline is in the U.S. today.  I’m not wishing for judgments like those again Ananias and Sapphira, but the lack of discipline has let all kinds of false teachers in the church and corrupted our witness. 

Again, this passage was not a Biblical command to be property-less.  Saying your possessions aren’t your own doesn’t mean anyone can come take them.  It is recognizing that ultimately they all come from God.  We aren’t giving him anything He didn’t give us in the first place.

Other passages round out the New Testament guidance on giving, notably 2 Corinthians 9:6-7:

Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.  Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

If you live in the NW Houston and like fine arts . . .

OK, this might qualify as a niche post, but the Houston Repertoire Ballet is performing a variety of pieces at the Tomball High School auditorium on Saturday, April 26.  It is a mix of a classical ballet, a few contemporary pieces and a storybook piece that little ones will love.

My daughters have various roles and two of the best dancers in the world will be visiting from New York’s American Ballet Theatre (one of them used to dance with this company).  No, I’m not in this production . . . you’ll have to wait for the Nutcracker for my crowd scene role.

Guys, it will impress your wife/girlfiend if you take her.  Go out for some culture!  It is your best fine arts value. 

Order tickets here and pick ‘em up at the door.

Imagine no possessions . . . except hyper-strictly enforced copyrights

First she ruins the Beatles, and now this. 

I am starting to wonder if the EXPELLED producers are some kind of evil-super geniuses a la President Bush.  How else could they provoke people to give them all this free publicity?  Seriously, the fair use doctrine is not that complicated.

EXPELLED Producers to Yoko Ono: Let it Be

(Dallas, TX) - A new front has been opened in the culture wars. Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed stunned detractors by opening as the nation’s #10 movie last weekend. Out for less than one week, it has already become one of the top 25 documentaries of all time.

Opponents of the film have attacked everyone and everything in it. They have attacked the producers, the star, the music, and film itself. They have even attacked those who have seen it. Now they want to change the Constitution.

Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film’s use and critique of John Lennon’s song Imagine. One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief which essentially means that they are trying to expel EXPELLED as it is now being shown in theaters.

“If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. ‘Imagine there’s no Heaven…No hell below us…Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too…’ That’s exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion. And that’s what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen,” said Walt Ruloff Executive Producer and CEO of Premise Media.

Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft explained, “The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years.”

Premise did not pursue a license for the song and had no obligation to do so. Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip - consisting of a mere 10 words - was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED.

But the irony of this lawsuit was not lost on the film’s star Ben Stein, “So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to ‘Imagine no possessions’? Maybe instead of wasting everyone’s time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ‘imagine all the people sharing all the world…You may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And the World can live as one.’”

For more information or to book an interview, please contact Megan Erhardt (ext. 136) or Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105) at 703.683.5004.

Weekly roundup

 The debate Richard Dawkins would like to forget.

—

Nancy Pelosi promised that the Democrats had a common sense plan to reduce gas prices.  They have gone up $1.18 since then.  McCain and the Congressional Republicans should send her a thank-you note.

She has also been running around with fake Bible quotes.  I’m used to politicians misquoting it, but making something up from scratch is less common.

—

A thorough review of Eckhart Tolle’s book (Oprah’s new religion)

According to Tolle, Jesus, like the Buddha, was an “early flower” in the evolution of human consciousness whose message was misunderstood and distorted (6). . . . Where Tolle got his “inside information” about a non-distorted version of Jesus’ message that predates this he unfortunately does not tell.

Yes, live in the now! But do it in loving relationship with God rather than by believing you are God.

—

10 ways Darwinists help Intelligent Design.  Thanks, guys!

—

Chelsea and the Red Dress Party - gotta read it to believe it.

—

 

Hyperbole gone mad

I realize that part of the New Atheist approach is to crank up the volume on old arguments, so some of what we hear from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. is not a big surprise.  But some of their arguments, and those of their followers, are so over the top that they lose credibility. 

At an atheist blog one of the commenters insisted that the evidence we offer for the existence of God was equivalent to that for pink unicorns (I have no idea why they are always pink), even though I pointed out cosmological (”first cause”), teleological, moral and other reasoning.  Then there is this jewel of a comment: 

God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc.

Richard Dawkins, from Expelled

Now I don’t adhere to materialist arguments, but I wouldn’t be smug and dismiss their questions by saying they had no more reasoning behind them than there is for pink unicorns or hobgoblins.

And keep in mind that Dawkins is the fellow who thinks it is possible that aliens came into being on another planet and evolved faster than we did, then seeded human beings here.  If Mr. Science Person has empirical evidence for this view then he is holding out on us.  The irony that he sees the need for an Intelligent Designer, albeit an alien one, speaks volumes.

The blogging on Expelled is a great example.  Virtually every commentary I’ve seen - usually from those who haven’t seen the movie - is just a series of personal attacks and poor reasoning.  Saying that ID is just “creationism in disguise” isn’t an argument.  Calling people liars because you disagree with their points while simultaneously encouraging people to pirate the DVDs and pay for a ticket to a different movie while sneaking into Expelled is incongruous at best. 

And watch how the New Atheists treat someone like Antony Flew, a famous scientist who “converted” from atheism to deism (almost there!) based on his extensive research.  He wrote There is a God - How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc.  If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.

Here are a few arguments for the existence of God.   Also see the apologetics links in the blogroll in the right-hand column.

Theism

Existence of God

Cosmological Evidence

In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Craig

Adler’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God- John Cramer

A New Cosmological Argument - Richard Gale

A New Look at the Cosmological Argument- Robert Koons

Aquinas’ Third Way Modalized - Robert Maydole

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Neither Bloodied nor Bowed- David S. Oderberg

Some Recent Progress on the Cosmological Argument- Alexander Pruss

A Scotistic Cosmological Argument Remixed - Joshua Rasmussen

Mind, Cosmology, and Sufficient Reason as a Vindication of Rational Theism - James Sennett

The Cosmological Argument: A Defense - Richard Taylor

.

Axiological Evidence

Two Kinds of Moral Arguments Concerning the Existence of God - Anthony Anderson

Robert Adams’ Demoralization Argument - Anthony Anderson

Why Be Moral? Social Contract Theory vs. Kantian-Christian Morality - Kelly James Clark

The Indispensibility of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality - William Craig

Do We Need God To Be Moral? - John Frame

Can We Be Good Without God? - John Hare

The Argument from Conscience- Peter Kreeft

Does Ethics Require Theism? - Michael Murray

The Argument from Inalienable Rights- Victor Reppert

q

Noölogical Evidence

Arguments from Reason for the Existence of God- John DePoe

An Argument From Consciousness and Free Will- Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro

Sentiments of Reason and Aspirations of the Soul - John Haldane

Does the Argument from Mind Provide Evidence for God?- JP Moreland

The Argument from Persons - Joshua Rasmussen

The Argument from Reason- Victor Reppert

.

Fine-Tuning Evidence

The Fine-Tuning Argument - Robin Collins

Does the Many-Universes Hypothesis Really Explain the Fine-Tuning? - Robin Collins

Universes Galore: Where Will it All End? - Paul Davies

Post-agnostic Science: How Physics is Reviving the Argument from Design- Robert Koons

Our Place in the Cosmos - John Leslie

Toward a Rational Reconstruction of Design Inferences- Timothy McGrew

The Cosmos as a Work of Art- Alexander Pruss

Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe- Holmes Rolston

The Universe, Design, and Fine-Tuning- Michael Sudduth

A Design Argument from Cognitive Reliability- William Vallicella

.

Experiential Evidence

The Experiential Basis of Theism - William Alston

The Intuitive Conception and Knowledge of God - William Alston

Re-Identifying God in Experience- Jerome Gellman

Epistemic Virtue, Religious Experience, and Belief- James Montmarquet

A Religious Experience Argument for the Existence of a Transcendent Holy Being- Alexander Pruss

.

A Priori Evidence

Conceivability, Defeasibility, and Possibility: A Defense of the Modal Ontological Argument- Trent Dougherty

The Ontological Argument- Alvin Plantinga

Samkara’s Principle and Two Ontomystical Arguments- Alexander Pruss

Reflections on Godel’s Ontological Argument - Christopher Small

The Conceptualist Argument for God’s Existence - Quentin Smith

.

General

Evidence for the Existence of God- Shandon Guthrie

Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God- Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli

Hume, Kant, and Rational Theism- Hugo Meynell

Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments- Alvin Plantinga

The Existence of God - Richard Swinburne

Response to Dawkins - Richard Swinburne

Language, Being, God, and the Three Stages of Theistic Evidence - Dallas Willard

.

The Nature of God

Omnipotence

On Two Alleged Conflicts Between Divine Attributes- Torin Atler

Maximal Power - Thomas Flint

Omnipotence and God’s Existence - Gregory Rich

Omnipotence- Edward Wierenga

Omniscience

Middle Knowledge, Truth Makers, and the Grounding Objection - William Craig

Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments - Alvin Plantinga and Patrick Grimm
.

Omnibenevolence

Is it Coherent to Suppose that God is Both Morally Good and ‘Above Morality’?- Michael Sudduth

God and Time

Divine Timelessness and Personhood - William Craig

Is Timeless Divine Action Coherent?- Michael Sudduth

God Inside Time and Before Creation - Dean Zimmerman

General

Divine Responsibility Without Divine Freedom- Michael Bergmann

The Coherence of Theism - Part I - William Craig

The Coherence of Theism - Part II - William Craig

God’s General Concurrence with Secondary Causes: Pitfalls and Prospects- Alfred Freddoso

Divine Transcendence- Jonathan Kvanvig

.
Philosophical Theology

Divine and Human Dialogue - William Alston

Abba, Father: Inclusive Language and Theological Salience- Harriet Baber

Feminism and Christian Ethics- Harriet Baber

God and Counterpossibles - Richard Davis

Haecceities, Individuation, and the Trinity - Richard Davis

Logic, Ontology, and Ockham’s Christology - Alfred Freddoso

Human Nature, Potency, and the Incarnation- Alfred Freddoso

What Difference Does Heaven Make?- Peter Kreeft

Hell- Jonathan Kvanvig

Heaven and Hell - Jonathan Kvanvig

Split Brains and the Godhead- Trenton Merricks

Does Prayer Change Things? - Michael Murray

Simplicity and Creation - Timothy O’Connor

Prophecy without Middle Knowledge- Alexander Pruss

Love and Obedience- Alexander Pruss

The Metaphysics of Original Sin - Michael Rea

Understanding the Trinity - Michael Rea

Is Divine Immutability Compatible with the Practice of Petitionary Prayer?- Michael Sudduth

Is Human Language Adequate to Talk about God?- Michael Sudduth

I Look for the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life of the World to Come- Peter van Inwagen

Will the Methodists learn from the Episcopals?

I really hope they do.

Kudos to the local church that is leaving the Episcopal denomination.

From an “orthodox” point of view, [Rev.] Gerber said, “The culture has begun to influence the church, rather than the church influencing the culture.”

I wish them well and hope they thrive in their new surroundings.

Now if the Methodists could just learn from that.  In an interesting juxtaposition, the Houston Chronicle religion section highlighted the expected debates on homosexuality and abortion at the upcoming General conference on the same day they reported on the Episcopals. 

There won’t be consensus at the conference in the sense of harmony, but hopefully they will continue to have a large majority on the Biblical sides of these issues.  There are literally hundreds of petitions that propose to keep the stance on homosexual behavior and to get back to a Biblical model on abortion (including stopping all support for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). 

The Methodist stance on homosexual behavior is quite sound and balanced, but it is constantly attacked.  The protestors will be out in force again this year, making a nuisance of themselves and selfishly disrupting the procedures instead of following the proper process.  They are always trying to get themselves arrested so they can play the martyr card.

The denomination’s position on abortion is something only a committee could love. 

I’m really hoping that the attendees learn from the Episcopals and get more firm with this.  By extending the dialogue it gives false credibility to the bankrupt pro-gay theology.  We’d be doing everyone a favor by telling them to just move on and quit trying to destroy the denomination.  Or at least let them know that we’re tired of the bullying.  Either follow the established change process, or get arrested.  Yes, it will give them their TV sound bites but we can at least let the convention proceed in an orderly manner.

Honduras!

I was disappointed that my oldest daughter and I couldn’t go on a mission trip to Kenya this year because of the political instability there.  We’re praying that things will settle down and that we can go next year. 

I’ve been looking for other possibilities but with summer ballet camps (uh, for the girls, not me) and all it is very hard to find dates that work.  My wife is keen on going on a mission trip as well, but having to start school a week or so before the kids get there complicates things for now.

The good news is that my youngest daughter and I will be going on a trip to Tegucigalpa, Honduras!  She loves to speak Spanish and may get to to assist with some medical-mission activities that interest her. 

I’ve had a heart for Kenya in part because we’ve been corresponding with one of our World Vision sponsor children there for almost 10 years.  Visiting Dennis and his family in person has been one of the great joys of my life. 

We also have a sponsor child in Honduras, so we’re hoping that we can arrange a meeting with her and her family.  Details are currently a bit murky.  One letter said they were 10 hours from where we’ll be staying, which would make the visit unrealistically long.  I’m hoping they meant 10 hours of walking and that with a vehicle we can get there and back in a day.  I’d really like for my daughter to be able to meet Sindy.

Here’s a little background:

A few of our activities will be a daily feeding program, house construction/dedication, children’s Bible class, women’s class, youth class and loving on people.

Tegucigalpa is the capital city of 1.2 million people located in the mountains at 3250′ above sea level. The weather in August will be in the mid 80’s during the day.

Why: Even though Honduras’ official religion is Catholic, there are few people who actually practice or attend church at all. After fleeing Hurricane Mitch in 1998, many people were forced up the mountainside where they built homes with whatever materials they could find.

We will be working along side missionaries, Ron and Shelley Jones, in the small colonia of Mogote, where we will get the opportunity to be the hands and feet of Jesus. We will be reaching out to a community where the average weekly wage is $5. Jesus calls all of us to go.

Isaiah 52:7 says, “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messenger who brings good news, the good news of peace and salvation, the news that the God of Israel reigns!”

Also see Hope for Honduras.