Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, August 17, 2012
Discussion link of the week: “5 Things God Never Said”
Just wanted to get some of your feedback on this article at
ChurchLeaders.com, “5 Things God Never Said.” I found the article thought-provoking. You may not agree with everything
R. Larry Moyer says in the article, but it should prompt us to examine whether popularly
held beliefs in our churches are biblically based, or are merely traditions or
misconceptions we only thought were
in the Bible. Give the article a read and let me know what you think.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Coming to a town near you? British youth riots and why "good without God" isn't good
I’ve heard countless times how the church in America was one generation from extinction; how, in my denomination, 90 percent of children walk away from the faith by the time they leave college. I’ve wondered about these statements in light of the riots in Britain. Articles I’ve read have pointed out the lack of a moral foundation among British youths, how the attempt to be good without God has come crashing down. Are the same things coming here, with American youth also lacking the moral compass of God’s Word?
The church in Britain should have seen this coming decades ago. Back in 1966, John Lennon was raked over the coals in the U.S., after being quoted as saying in a British paper that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Ironically, in the context of the British youth at the time, he was right: the Beatles WERE more influential among youth than Jesus (and the blame for that can be laid at the door of the church). It’s even more true today among youth here: many teens who couldn’t name a book in the Bible can probably sing every lyric of a Lady Gaga song. And music isn’t the only influence over youth: even TV shows on "children’s" networks can greatly influence their thinking more than we realize.
This should give Christians an urgency to teach our children the Ten Commandments, as well as the other foundations of the Christian faith. We can’t just leave it to the church, and many years ago, it WASN’T. Sunday School was first developed in England in the 1800s for poor children whose parents weren’t teaching them the Bible. No self-respecting Christian parent would DARE send their children there, for it was an admission that they weren’t instructing their children in the Bible at home. Over time, however, fathers got lazy about teaching the Bible at home--when the Bible seems to put the instruction of children in the faith squarely on the parents (Deuteronomy 6:7; Ephesians 6:4).
We can’t expect our children to respect us as parents if we don’t take the time to pray with them and instruct them on God’s Word. Help us Jesus never to shirk from this great responsibility! I pray more Christian parents take the time to teach their children God’s Word, so that our youth can once again have a moral compass.
The church in Britain should have seen this coming decades ago. Back in 1966, John Lennon was raked over the coals in the U.S., after being quoted as saying in a British paper that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Ironically, in the context of the British youth at the time, he was right: the Beatles WERE more influential among youth than Jesus (and the blame for that can be laid at the door of the church). It’s even more true today among youth here: many teens who couldn’t name a book in the Bible can probably sing every lyric of a Lady Gaga song. And music isn’t the only influence over youth: even TV shows on "children’s" networks can greatly influence their thinking more than we realize.
This should give Christians an urgency to teach our children the Ten Commandments, as well as the other foundations of the Christian faith. We can’t just leave it to the church, and many years ago, it WASN’T. Sunday School was first developed in England in the 1800s for poor children whose parents weren’t teaching them the Bible. No self-respecting Christian parent would DARE send their children there, for it was an admission that they weren’t instructing their children in the Bible at home. Over time, however, fathers got lazy about teaching the Bible at home--when the Bible seems to put the instruction of children in the faith squarely on the parents (Deuteronomy 6:7; Ephesians 6:4).
We can’t expect our children to respect us as parents if we don’t take the time to pray with them and instruct them on God’s Word. Help us Jesus never to shirk from this great responsibility! I pray more Christian parents take the time to teach their children God’s Word, so that our youth can once again have a moral compass.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Adventures in Reading ... "Pagan Christianity" by Viola and Barna (more thoughts)
A note to Brothers Viola and Barna, on returning to a "first century organic church":
So when do we turn in our Bibles?
The New Testament tells us that Paul's letters were read aloud in the church meetings (for example, 1 Timothy 4:13). As you surely know, it was very difficult for individual believers in those times to possess any type of manuscripts (for starters, paper manufacturing would not be imported from China until centuries later). Even when paper and movable printing became available to print books, Bibles had to be chained to the front of English sanctuaries in the 1500s (even then, a problem arose when believers, overjoyed at having a Bible to read, would read them aloud during the church services!).
So if you REALLY want to go back to the "organic" church, you should only have ONE PERSON reading out of the ONE Bible available in those meetings.
A side note: underground churches around the world may only get a page or two at a time of God's precious Word to read. Guess they are not reading the NT "panoramically" enough?
So when do we turn in our Bibles?
The New Testament tells us that Paul's letters were read aloud in the church meetings (for example, 1 Timothy 4:13). As you surely know, it was very difficult for individual believers in those times to possess any type of manuscripts (for starters, paper manufacturing would not be imported from China until centuries later). Even when paper and movable printing became available to print books, Bibles had to be chained to the front of English sanctuaries in the 1500s (even then, a problem arose when believers, overjoyed at having a Bible to read, would read them aloud during the church services!).
So if you REALLY want to go back to the "organic" church, you should only have ONE PERSON reading out of the ONE Bible available in those meetings.
A side note: underground churches around the world may only get a page or two at a time of God's precious Word to read. Guess they are not reading the NT "panoramically" enough?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Elijah or Daniel?
Do we need new Elijahs … or new Daniels?
I came across this message on YouTube the other day from Bishop Frank Duprée of Living Water Church in North Arlington, NJ (I know of Bishop Frank, because he was my pastor while I was a teenager on Long Island). What intrigued me was his insight on how Christians should reach out to our nation. Many Christians want Elijahs raised up by God, he says, when we really need Daniels—the difference is whether our nation is backslidden or totally pagan. Give Bishop Frank a listen here and tell me what you think.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Slanted history
On my library shelf I have a book called The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael Hart. I dive into it once in a while for historical research or even anecdotes for sermons (for example, Alexander the Great, unlike nearly all other generals, led his forces into battles instead of staying in the back. While he did suffer many wounds, he was demonstrating to his troops that he would not ask them to do something he was not willing to do himself—a good principle of leadership).
The reason I’m discussing this book here is because it demonstrates how modern historians tend to whitewash the history of Islam, while giving no quarter to the Bible as a historical record (let alone as being the inspired Word of God).
Many Christians won’t like this book for the mere fact that, in terms of influence on world history, Hart places Muhammad at No. 1 on the list, with Jesus only at No. 3 (Sir Isaac Newton, by the way, was No. 2). Hart argues that Muhammad was influential in both religious and political realms; plus, Hart splits the credit for Christianity’s spread between Jesus and the Apostle Paul (No. 6 on the list).
Hart’s entitled to his (wrong) opinion I guess, and anyway, I always felt deep down that Jesus shouldn’t be on the list in any event—Jesus is the God of the universe with the Father and Holy Spirit, so how could one put our Lord and Creator on a list to compare Him with mere mortals anyway?
Still, Hart’s observations about Jesus and Muhammad (made in 1978, by the way) are instructive, so far as they prove my above point. Hart’s comments on Muhammad’s rise to power and the violent spread of Islam seem like they are in a tone of wonderment: “…in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the Word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean—the largest empire the world has yet seen. And everywhere the armies conquered, large-scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed” (p. 35). Nothing here in Hart’s narrative speaks of these being FORCED conversions—you and your family converted, unless you chose death, slavery or permanent, oppressed second-class status.
Hart also makes completely ignorant claims on p. 39 while discussing the Koran: “Most of (Muhammad’s) utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran, therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived” (emphasis mine). Has Hart not heard of the Gospel accounts? Well, he has: “Unfortunately, the Gospels contradict each other on various points. For example, Matthew and Luke give completely different versions of Jesus’ last words …” (p. 49). There’s no consideration that the “contradictory” statements could have BOTH been made by Jesus, or that the varying perspectives given be each gospel writing (far from being “contradictory”) actually show the gospel accounts to be VERY historically reliable. No one seems to question eyewitness accounts by Muhammad’s followers, or those of Socrates for that matter. Only the Bible (including the Gospels) is God’s inspired Word, making it a prime target of “downgrading” by “scholars.” Let’s put it this way: don’t expect a “Muhammad Seminar” questioning the authenticity of the Koran anytime soon.
Hart also takes a swipe at Paul for allegedly being oppressive toward women (taking verses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy out of context) on p. 64, while ignoring Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”), and his work with the husband and wife apostolic team of Priscilla and Aquila in the Book of Acts. For that matter, Hart doesn’t DARE touch the Koran’s oppressive view of women: a women’s testimony is half of that of a man (Koran 2:282); is entitled to half an inheritance that a man would receive (4:11); compares women to fields to be tilled by men (2:223); and orders men to beat disobedient wives (4:34). But surely, these verses are not taken seriously in today’s Muslim world, right? “The Pakistani Institute of Medical Science has determined that over 90 percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten or abused sexually—for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child” (from Amnesty International, April 17, 2002 news briefing, cited in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, p. 70).
Again, Hart’s book in general is very good for concise history and good anecdotes—but it isn’t hard to see the “scholarly” slant towards Islam and against Christianity in his book—a slant that has sadly permeated much of modern American scholarship and the media.
The reason I’m discussing this book here is because it demonstrates how modern historians tend to whitewash the history of Islam, while giving no quarter to the Bible as a historical record (let alone as being the inspired Word of God).
Many Christians won’t like this book for the mere fact that, in terms of influence on world history, Hart places Muhammad at No. 1 on the list, with Jesus only at No. 3 (Sir Isaac Newton, by the way, was No. 2). Hart argues that Muhammad was influential in both religious and political realms; plus, Hart splits the credit for Christianity’s spread between Jesus and the Apostle Paul (No. 6 on the list).
Hart’s entitled to his (wrong) opinion I guess, and anyway, I always felt deep down that Jesus shouldn’t be on the list in any event—Jesus is the God of the universe with the Father and Holy Spirit, so how could one put our Lord and Creator on a list to compare Him with mere mortals anyway?
Still, Hart’s observations about Jesus and Muhammad (made in 1978, by the way) are instructive, so far as they prove my above point. Hart’s comments on Muhammad’s rise to power and the violent spread of Islam seem like they are in a tone of wonderment: “…in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the Word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean—the largest empire the world has yet seen. And everywhere the armies conquered, large-scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed” (p. 35). Nothing here in Hart’s narrative speaks of these being FORCED conversions—you and your family converted, unless you chose death, slavery or permanent, oppressed second-class status.
Hart also makes completely ignorant claims on p. 39 while discussing the Koran: “Most of (Muhammad’s) utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran, therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived” (emphasis mine). Has Hart not heard of the Gospel accounts? Well, he has: “Unfortunately, the Gospels contradict each other on various points. For example, Matthew and Luke give completely different versions of Jesus’ last words …” (p. 49). There’s no consideration that the “contradictory” statements could have BOTH been made by Jesus, or that the varying perspectives given be each gospel writing (far from being “contradictory”) actually show the gospel accounts to be VERY historically reliable. No one seems to question eyewitness accounts by Muhammad’s followers, or those of Socrates for that matter. Only the Bible (including the Gospels) is God’s inspired Word, making it a prime target of “downgrading” by “scholars.” Let’s put it this way: don’t expect a “Muhammad Seminar” questioning the authenticity of the Koran anytime soon.
Hart also takes a swipe at Paul for allegedly being oppressive toward women (taking verses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy out of context) on p. 64, while ignoring Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”), and his work with the husband and wife apostolic team of Priscilla and Aquila in the Book of Acts. For that matter, Hart doesn’t DARE touch the Koran’s oppressive view of women: a women’s testimony is half of that of a man (Koran 2:282); is entitled to half an inheritance that a man would receive (4:11); compares women to fields to be tilled by men (2:223); and orders men to beat disobedient wives (4:34). But surely, these verses are not taken seriously in today’s Muslim world, right? “The Pakistani Institute of Medical Science has determined that over 90 percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten or abused sexually—for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child” (from Amnesty International, April 17, 2002 news briefing, cited in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, p. 70).
Again, Hart’s book in general is very good for concise history and good anecdotes—but it isn’t hard to see the “scholarly” slant towards Islam and against Christianity in his book—a slant that has sadly permeated much of modern American scholarship and the media.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Matthew 16:3
My blog is inspired by Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:3: “…you know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” I have a private e-mail newsletter I send out, but this site gives me room between those newsletters (which are infrequent anyway) to “vent” about some of these “signs” we are seeing in today’s world.
If you’re looking for news on whether the nutty president of Iran is the Antichrist, you may want to try another blog. I’m basically going to address news items, especially less than well reported ones, that give a good glimpse into the times we’re living in. Of course, I’ll probably throw in some unrelated stuff along the way while I’m at it.
If you’re looking for news on whether the nutty president of Iran is the Antichrist, you may want to try another blog. I’m basically going to address news items, especially less than well reported ones, that give a good glimpse into the times we’re living in. Of course, I’ll probably throw in some unrelated stuff along the way while I’m at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
