Where does your chuch fall

I recently wrote a blog post about the emergent church and the problems that come from this newly growing church. In this post, I hope to make it a little clearer where this church is located in the big picture. Mark Driscoll divides all churches into four "lanes." The first lane he says are called Emerging Evangelicals. They believe in God's word but they are more of a "hip" church. Lane Two would be House Church Evangelicals. They believe the same way, in God's word but they tend to get rid of pastors and do little churches. Then Lane 3, the Emerging Reformers. They are in God's word and support famous evangelicals. Worship is free and is more charismatic. The last lane, Lane 4, the Emergent Liberal. They tend to question some of the teachings of the Bible.
My church, I believe, would most likely fall under Lane 3. I wouldn't say it aligns with all the same beliefs of the 3rd lane, but it is very similar. What lane would you say your church falls into?
This lead me to think, if I could create a perfect church, what would it look like? Well, I think it would look a lot like mine right now. A group of Christians coming together, worshiping the name of the Lord, and being taught to weekly from the Word of God. If I could change anything about my church, it would have to be the worship. My church is so big that the worship service has to be so organized. Sometimes I feel like it is too organized.

So again I ask you, where does your church fall?

Detecting the Lies

One of my great Bible teachers once told me to never believe something someone says about your faith or the Bible, unless you can prove it yourself. I grew up listening to the messages and teachings of Rob Bell. In my Bible classes, we would spend hours listening to this interesting man as his words went right over my head. Everything he said made since to a degree, but I hadn't really started to think about what he said about Christianity until now.

He does a great job presenting his opinions through his 10 minute long videos about different topics. He makes them personal and applicable which grabs the readers attention. When listening now to one of his videos, you can not really notice anything wrong with what he teaches because it is very similar to what most Christians believe. But, if you have learned to detect phrases or words, you will notice how different his beliefs are then for example, my beliefs.

This week I was challenged to really study Rob Bell and the way he teaches. I watched one of his videos, called Shells. It talked about how its not okay to be busy because Jesus was not busy. As he recounted many Bible stories, Bell came to the conclusion that if we are so busy with our lives, we will never be able to do what  God wants us to do or earn the prize at the end. Kind of makes since right? Well if you listen really closely, he makes a statement that made me feel weird. He said, "Jesus can't do everything for everyone." This statement believe it or not, was his big thought behind his video. There are just loads of things wrong with this statement, but the problem is, if you don't catch this, you might believe it. This is what is wrong with his teachings, he puts so much truth into his videos that when he slips a lie, you don't realize it. How sneaky is that?
Some might wonder why we can not just watch videos like this and be satisfied with our weekly intake of the gospel. Well what I just said proves why and because God calls us to fellowship with others.

So the thing I challenge you to do is really study what people tell you and not to just believe something because a fellow Christian does. Make it personal because in the end, that is what will save your life.

What Straying from the Bible can do to Churches Today

Anyone who has ever gone to multiple churches before has seen how different churches can be. It could be simply the music to what people wear or deeper like who people really worship to the traditions they practice based on their beliefs. I experience this all the time as I compare my home church to other churches I visit. Why is it that churches have to worship so differently? I think the answer to this questions rests on how people interpret the Bible and who the Bible calls us to worship. And today, lots of people have lots of different opinions on this issue and so they create lots of different kinds of churches based on these beliefs.

The one kind of church I want to discuss today is the "Emergent Church." For those of you who don't know what this is I will give you a brief descriptions to what kind of church they are and then go into more detail throughout the post. This new emerging church is described as a post-modern church. It is based on the idea that you can reach more people through a more "modern" way of having a service. Now let me set you a picture of this new church...

Imagine a group of people coming together in casual clothing, to a room full of couches and seats with one chair in the middle. The room is dark and music is playing via a DJ in the back. As people come in they can sing and have a discussion about the different things that bother them in a laid back situation. At first this sounds pretty good, comfy clothes, relaxed, everyone is equal kinda feel. It really sounds like a small group with Christians meeting together to talk about their problems together. Sounds pretty nice to me. Then I started to really focus and dive into what the church is really about, and that's when I realized what a trap this can be.

This really all starts back to when the Bible was first put together. In those days, the Bible was the supreme authority and everyone was judged according to the Bible. Then in the middle ages, it became the Bible and the Church together. So the church had the same authority as the Bible. This started to lead people to think, well is it really necessary to have the Bible if we can reach "truth" without it? That's when people started to wonder away from biblical teachings and started to teach what they thought.
Think about how with that mentality, you could come up with a church like that. If someone is not in the word and preaching out of the word, you can come up with thousands of interpretations of what they believe is the truth. This leads to theological chaos. The emergent church is responding to this by making it feel real to people in their own way. They make teachings 3D and mystical so you can touch and feel your faith. One man said that to these churches, "...it is more important to feel like we are representing a beautiful expression of our relationship with God then to be right about everything." He is sort of right about one thing, we don't need to know or be right about everything, but we have to be right about the truth in the Bible and knowing the truth embedded in the scriptures. Because of this, the emerging church does not believe a minister is necessary to preach the gospels because you can just discuss it.  Disagreeing with this kind of preaching, a man stated, "The gospel is something to be taught and to believe, not just to experience." This explains why the emergents don't like the regular church, because it teaches about what to believe and how to apply it, instead of how to experience it. Someone else said, "Many of them want to ask good questions, but for things to follow the beliefs of Christians means there are answers and there are limits to what those answers can be." He is saying, you can't just discuss things. You have to have someone preaching from the Word because that's what the gospel is all about. With all of their beliefs so different too, their can be no judgment or absolute truth. 

This type of church is not what Jesus wanted for us. He wants a church founded and rooted in his word because that is where the real truth is found. Because of this we as Christians have to be on guard and really study the foundations of the churches we go to.

From: a poet To: The Great Poet

The Apologist's Evening Prayer

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

My thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

                                    - C.S Lewis

This is such a beautiful poem because of the imagery used that makes you think. I think some of the best poems are the ones that don't describe everything or explain everything so you have to think about what it means to the author and what it means to you. One line that when I read the poem stuck out to me was the first and second one. "From all my lame defeats and oh! much more, From all the victories that I seemed to score..." The way I understood it was applying it to my life. I am a sports player and am very competitive with almost everything. My lame defeats... not only my defeats in competition but it life. Things that I failed at that don't matter at all. All the victories I seemed to score... I looked at this two ways. Victories I seemed to score. Yes it was me that scored them but it was God who gave me that ability to win. Once again, victories i seemed to score, seemed, it doesn't really matter, does it? Deliver me...deliver me from my sins and my human ways. O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free...

TBN...good or bad?

This week I was challenged to look and research the Trinity Broadcasting Network. When I heard this name, I had no idea what this organization was about or who they are. After looking at their website, I recognized their crest. This organization has been known for their movies, television stations, and programs. They have made a big impact on our culture.

As I started my research of this organization, I decided to listen and watch some of the programs they have filmed over the years. I thought it was interesting because a lot of what they said I agreed with. A lot of it was glorifying  the name of Jesus with their voices and their words. They would sit and discuss issues and topics through a biblical prospective as they interviewed many ministers and important people. Over all, it felt like a good organization but before I went too far, I wanted to research its beginnings.

The Trinity Broadcasting Network was founded by Jan Crouch, Paul Crouch, and Tammy Bakker in 1973. Its main mission was to be the largest Christian Network to spread Christianity throughout the whole world. After years of ups and downs with finical issues and other setbacks along the way, they are now broadcasting their programs over hundreds of channels. The interesting thing is the network allows protestants, catholics, and messianic Jews to all talk on their programs. This could lead to a lot of different views on different subjects because of the vast difference in the beliefs of some of these men and women.

As I was reading through some of the information I found, I read something about the TBN being accused of prosperity gospel. For those of you who do not know what this means, it is when someone encourages others to give money to the church in order to get a reward later on. Now I believe part of this is true because God says that if you do good works for others in His name, you will be rewarded eternal life with him. I disagree with this if it means if you do good now, you will get a noneternal  thing in return. That is what I don't agree with.

I challenge anyone who reads this to post their thoughts on this network. I believe TBN has done lots of good in spreading the gospel but I do not know all of specifics and would love to know more. If anyone has any other information they would like to share please comment.

Further information on TBN-
Home Website
History of TBN
Shows broadcasted (Praise the Lord)

The Purpose and Destiny of Man 101

(Ideas and information based off A Clear View, by Keith Ogorek, Chapter 5)

Anyone could look around at our world today, and tell me that the issue of the creation of man is present. People are writing articles about creation and others are setting up museum displays on the evolution of man. There are cases arguing about what to teach in schools, people losing their jobs to what they believe, and books being written about how we were created everywhere. The constant argument about how we came about is obvious in our culture today.

 In his book A Clear View, Keith Ogorek, says, “In most cases, what a person believes about the origin of man is influenced by his view on other matters such as the nature of the universe and the existence of God.” So this tells you that this issue of where we came from is a lot more important then what most people think. In his book, Ogorek gives the example that if a person believed in the big bang theory, they wouldn’t believe that God had created Man. If they didn’t believe that God created man, they wouldn’t believe that man was created in God’s image. This is how our belief in the existence in man effects our other beliefs.

Over the years, people have narrowed down into four different beliefs, how a person views man’s purpose and destiny. The first one is that man is fated and subject to the forces of nature. This belief originated in Greek mythology with the gods and forces around them.  The second one, that man is the center of the universe and can determine his own destiny. In other words, man is now the master and not the subject. The third one is that man is subject to chance, and that nothing is sure, predictable, or controllable. It also means that man is simply subject to chance. The fourth and last belief is that man was created by God for a specific purpose and destiny but can at the same time, make choices. This is what Christians believe about man and our purpose.

Man is fated and is subject to the forces of nature

Like I said before, this way of thinking started in Greek mythology. The consequences of this position are that a person feels like they are not in control of anything and that everything just happens because of “fate.” There is nothing personal about it; your life is just kind of “falls on you.” This makes someone believe they are not important and that no one really cares about who they are. In society this would mean that if you were rich, it was not given to you or worked for, it just “fell on you.” This way of thinking, like I said, is not personal at all.

                Man is the center of the Universe and can determine his own destiny

This view is very personal but in a different way. A person believes that everything is

about them and that the world revolves around them. Man is his own god and can determine his future. This belief has consequences because everything becomes about that person and not about others.  If you had a whole society believing they were their own gods, you would have utter chaos.

Man is subject to chance, and nothing is sure, predictable, or controllable

                This way of believing is what you would today classify as existentialism. Everything is by chance because we have no idea what is going to happen. A famous quote that sums up this view is from Forest Gump, “Momma always said life is like a box of chocolates. You ever know what you’re gonna get.” Meaning, sometimes you would  have good things happen and other times bad things happen, but you never know. This way of thinking has consequences because you just live life with no purpose. This creates a world of people who believe they don’t matter.

Man is created by God with purpose and destiny but can also make choices

                Like I said before, this is the way most Christians believe because it follows the teachings of God’s word. Now with all of the other beliefs, I have listed the consequences of believing this way. Because this is what man was created for and is the truth, it has no error. But I am not saying that Christians have not struggled with this idea and because of that, I will go into this more. The issues are that some people struggle with destiny by comparing it to fate. Fate and destiny are two different things, but can sometimes be used as the same word. This view of man is sometimes hard to understand because we have a destiny, but we also have freewill. How does that work? Well the best I can explain it to you is that God has a plan for us but at the same time gives us a choice to decide, already knowing what we will decide. Does that make sense?

As you look at these beliefs, you might recognize some of them. This is because our culture has so many different views on the purpose of man. One way people choose to share their ideas is through the media. If you look at one movie, most of the time, due to the mood, theme, and purpose of the movie, you can tell the worldview of the producers. This is because we as humans show what we believe through our actions and our words.

It is important as a Christian to know and understand other people’s beliefs because they will work to your benefit in the end. What I mean by this is if you can tell something about what a person believes, usually you can figure out everything else they believe. Now this doesn’t always work but it helps when you are trying to witness to people. This knowledge does come in handy though because you can detect people’s worldviews. I am blessed to be surrounded by Christians who for the most part believe what I believe. The bad thing about this is I cannot witness to people as much as I want to.

Going back to the different views on man, you start to wonder who is in authority in these different views of man. Your authority can change over time due to what you believe in, but one thing is always true, “…we are all ruled by something or someone when making decisions.” (A Clear View, Keith Ogorek, pg 61) This could mean that you are ruled by yourself, others, gods, or God.  Now I believe what Ogorek means by this statement is that something is always influencing your decisions, whether it’s yourself or God. I also think he is saying that how you view authority lays your foundation for what you believe. Sometimes people don’t want someone else to have power over them so they rely on themselves. With this belief comes consequences because we are human and are imperfect. We cannot rely on ourselves because of our imperfection. This is why it is sometimes hard for nonbelievers to give all of themselves to God because they want to be in control.  This is why where you place your authority is so important.

The last thing I want to talk about is the statement man is free. This is a tricky statement and I don’t know if I agree with it or not. For one, man is free, free to do what he wants because he has freewill. God does have a plan for us but we have a choice to follow him or not. The reason why I don’t agree with this statement is man is not “free” necessarily. We have an authority and things we need to do and we are held accountable to those things. So we are not necessarily free. If you have any opinions on this statement please comment because I would love to get different views on it.

The Foundations of the Knowledge of Man

(Ideas and information based off A Clear View, by Keith Ogorek, Chapter 2)

When someone is searching for the answers to life, they come across questions that when answered, will set the foundations for everything else. In the book, The Clear View, by Keith Ogorek, he says these two questions are, “how do we know what we know?” and “what can we know?” Philosophers call the studying of the answers to these questions epistemology or “the branch philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.” (A Clear View, Keith Ogorek, pg. 13)

The first question the book talked about was “how do we know what we know?” This is a difficult question if you do not have a strong Christian faith in God and his word. As Christians, we believe we know things by three means; cognitively, empirical, and by revelation. The first mean, cognitively, refers to things we know without any help or outside resources, something we knew when we were born. The example from the book is of a baby knowing how to cry and when it is hungry. It wasn’t taught this, it was already instilled in the baby’s mind. The second mean is empirical or knowledge we have learned from experiences and observations. The example in the book is that a baby doesn’t need to learn hunger, but it needs to learn how to feed itself. Empirical knowledge usually comes from trial and error and experimentation and repetition. The third and final means of knowing what we believe is by revelation. The example Ogorek uses in the book is if we want to know about God, he has to revel truth to us.

The second question addressed in this book is “what can we know?” For centuries this question has been debated by many famous philosophers. Some of the most famous were Herodotus, Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle. Each one of these men came up with their own view on what we as humans can know. Because of these views, the culture and arts of the time changed with the views of the different philosophers.

In the fifth and sixth century, Herodotus and Parmenides possessed complete opposite views on what we can know. Herodotus believed the world is in constant change or a “flux” and because of this we can never have true knowledge of it. This constant flux kept us from understanding the “real” world around us. Parmenides on the other hand believed the world was unchanging and because of that we could understand the world. Because we could understand the world, we as humans couldn’t get that knowledge through our senses but through reason. For years the question was senses or reason? No one could figure out.

Hundreds of years before, around 430 B.C, Plato came up with a theory that influenced these two philosophers. He believed that the world was divided into two layers. One of these layers was revealed to humans by their senses and the other world was constantly changing. In the world where humans use their senses, Plato believed that that world showed what was real, while the other world was fake and was only an illusion. One of his students, Aristotle (384-322 B.C) agreed with Plato about the different worlds or “forms” where things did not change. He disagreed with Plato when it came to being able to know something, though. Aristotle believed that through the particulars, there were things we could know.

Because of his great influence in philosophy, Plato’s ideas stuck for seven hundred years, 500 to 1200 A.D. This time is now known as the “Platonic Period.” With the help of Thomas Aquinas, Plato’s way of thinking faded and Aristotle’s views rose to the top for about three hundred years (1200-1500 A.D). Aquinas helped people start to think more about “Grace” and “Nature.” This relationship is centered on what is seen and unseen in the world around us. He argued that the world had an upper story and a lower story. The Upper Story contained Heaven, God, Grace, and the Unseen while the Lower Story contained Man, Earth, the Seen, and Nature. He said that what separated these two stories was a line known as the “Line of Despair.” This theory started many worldviews based on where a person’s beliefs are on the diagram.

During the Platonic Period, the Upper Story was given superiority and the Lower Story was forgotten. As a result, art and architecture reflected more on heavenly things not God’s creation. Humans were looked at as flat and meaningless. With the turning of ideas from Plato to Aristotle, a new century formed called the Aristotelian Revolution or the Renaissance. During this time, people started to merge the Upper and Lower “stories” together and everything changed. Art, music, and literature blossomed and people began to see things differently. With the intentions originally good, the change of “stories” went a little too far. People started to base their views more on the Lower story and not both. They thought that man was Truth and not God as they had before. This change is still present in our world today.

Now with all of this history, you might be getting a little confused. While I was reading these ideas from Ogorek’s book, I had to stop and wonder what as Christians we should believe. In his book, Ogorek says that Christians want a happy median of both. Even though man is not equal with God, God’s creation is important too. God and his grace are the most important but without his creation, we wouldn’t be here. This is what the Reformers during the Reformation did to restore grace to its proper place. In 1500 A.D, men like Luther and Calvin, helped bring the world back to a good balance of the “stories.” They brought back harmony to nature and grace. During this time, learning, education, art, music, and the government flourished. Everyone felt the new wave of ideas during the Reformation.

It was clear to Reformation thinkers that answering the questions “how do we know?” and “what can we know?” must be informed by both grace and nature as well as revelation and reason. The material and immaterial worlds were knowable and objective truth did exist. However, it wouldn’t be long before the answers to those questions changed and once again all of culture would be impacted....
                                                  -Keith Ogorek, A Clear View