Is it live or is it Memorex? Or is it a Christian gathering or a worldly gathering?

In the 1970’s Memorex ran TV commercials promoting their high quality audio cassettes by having a singer break a crystal glass with her singing and then asking the question; “Is it live or is it Memorex?” Implying that their cassettes were so good that you could record such singing and then by playing just the tape a glass could be broken.

Much ink has been spilled recently concerning worldliness, some good some not so good. It is not my intention to spill more but to pose my own comparison and get us thinking. If you will go to Don Johnson’s blog, you will find a well written series of blogs critiquing C. J. Mahaney’s book on Worldliness (start the series here). You can also go to Lou Martuneac’s blog and find more information in regards to Peter Master’s cry against worldliness in Evangelicalism several years ago (click here).

Below are two photos. Here is my question I pose to you, which is a Christian gathering and which is the lost world gathering? No cheating, by going to Lou Martuneac's site first.

So, which is which?

 
Christ in His prayer recorded for us in John 17 our relationship as believers to the world. Especially, verses 11 through 21 which read as follows;

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (emphasis mine)

Christ so clearly teaches us that as believers we are in the world, yes, but we are not of the world, that we have been sanctified (set apart) by truth, THE WORD OF GOD.

We also, have James’s teaching in James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”;  and John’s in I John 2:15-17 “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

Bob Hayton, at his blog (click here) has recently written a blog encouraging this continued romance of the church with the world’s music by following the common line that music is amoral (his statement, “In my opinion, and I’ve read a lot on this issue but don’t confess to being an expert, there is no objective standard by which you can judge music as to its morality.” The blindness, lack of discernment, disregard for those older, qualified men who have written on the subject of music is just amazing to me. For those of us who grew up immersed in rock n roll and later came out, it is nightmarish to think that there exist people who think that they can bring that music into the church without any problems. Hayton’s argument, “Just hearing Tchaikovsky or music like that, doesn’t bring sensuous thoughts into my mind or most other people’s. Neither does listening to most rock and roll that’s played in the dentist’s office, either.” Thankfully, he (Bob Hayton) had a family that kept him from being in immersed and thereby being adversely affected by rock music. I do agree, a casual encounter with some things that are wrong does not necessitate that we have been greatly tainted. However, that initial contact, if not isolated and placed in check, would lead to a harmful relationship between the believer and the world through the music. To bring this music into the church, even in moderation, starts the believer down the road toward acceptance of what the world offers. Indeed, that desire for loosening of constraints which is inherent in the rock n roll genre and its offshoots is already evident in the ministries that are seeking the world’s stuff to promote God and His church. This is just outrageous!

For those who desire some information about music, I encourage you to find copies of, The Battle for Christian Music, by Tim Fisher, published by Sacred Music Services and the booklet, Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight?, by Evangelist Ken Lynch. The principles that constitute good music do not change over time.

Sadly, today there is less and less difference between believers and the lost world around us. More and more believers are blending into the world. The light is being dimmed and the salt is losing its saltiness. In Luke 18:8, Christ poses a question, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The implied answer is NO. The moods, efforts, pushing we are seeing today are hastening the fulfillment of this passage.

Believer, read again these words from Paul to the believers at Colosse, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins”

For those still curious about the pictures; the left one is a rock concert in Brazil, the right one is of a Passion conference in Atlanta. Just can’t tell the difference, sad, utterly sad.

Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?

Alex Guggenheim has been commenting at SI and his own blog concerning the debacle that is ongoing at SGM. He, that is Alex, has written recently about the need for critical, independent thinking that is for our own spiritual development and maturity. His articulation of the need is well put (you will find his article here).

 
This begs the question that is the title to my article, can this kind of thinking exist in the Reformed arena? I answer with a no. I will explain why I answer negatively.

In a book titled, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Dr. Mal Couch does an excellent job researching and expounding a literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures (i.e. Dispensationalism). I would encourage you to find a copy and add it to your library. In chapter 8, titled, The Allegorists Who Undermined the Normal Interpretation of Scripture (pp. 96, 97), he writes,

“With allegory the antics of the gods were purified, but who determined the allegorical interpretations? By whose authority were words and concepts changed? If there were no ‘guidelines’ as to the meaning of the ‘new’ message, how did readers know the authors’ intentions? These problems consistently overshadow allegorical interpretation…

The personality most cited for the change to allegorical interpretation is Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 54), ‘A philosophical Jew who possessed both reverence for the Mosaic revelation and fondness for Grecian metaphysics, [who] aimed to explore the mystical depths of significances allegedly concealed beneath the Old Testament Scripture.

Philo taught that the milk of Scripture was the literal but the meat was allegory. Thus, there was hidden meaning. The Word of God had two levels: the literal was on the surface, but the allegorical represented the deeper, more spiritual meaning. Therefore, anyone who simply interpreted the Bible on its most natural, normal way was simple and missing the great meanings of the Scriptures. Ramm writes,

Philo did not think that the literal meaning was useless, but it represented the immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the allegorical sense its soul. Accordingly the literal was for the immature, and the allegorical for the mature.

To reiterate, allegorical interpretation creates meaning through the interpreter. Accordingly, allegorist believes the average person may be reading and interpreting wrongly without the help of a scholar or, in the case of Scripture, a wise, well-trained theologian. Often, even today, allegorists look down their noses at those who take the Bible at face value with a normal, literal hermeneutic.” (emphasis mine)

Since this system of interpretation (which is the basis for Reformed theology) requires “a wise, well-trained theologian” to give the fuller, deeper understanding of the Scriptures, then those who are confessedly not a theologian must locate someone who they believe is and place themselves at his or her feet for further instruction. This leaves them at the mercy of the “theologian” for spiritual growth/maturity rather than where the Scriptures places that responsibility which is on the individual (II Peter 3:18 for starters). I think we can see part of the “why” for the problems within SGM.

History is replete with these independent, critical thinkers who then found themselves on the adversarial side of various reformed men. Take Felix Manz, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmaer, who at one time were friends and co-workers with Ulrich Zwingli. However, as they continued their study of the Word of God found themselves removed from that fellowship and eventually hunted down and persecuted. Manz was drowned in Lake Zurich for his beliefs. Hubmaer and Blaurock were burned at the stake. Grebel may have died from the plague.

Our own American history is full of others who sought to be independent, critical thinkers and wound up persecuted by those of the Reformed persuasion. Roger Williams comes to mind, who was let go in the dead of winter banished from the Massachusetts Bay colony. The list goes on, just pick up the three volumes of, This Day in Baptist History and you can read for yourself of those men and women of bygone days who sought for their own spiritual maturity in the Book of books only to be persecuted by others who held to different religious views.

No, I don’t believe it is possible to be an independent, critical thinker and remain Reformed. These are two mutually exclusive concepts that cannot peacefully coexist, our Baptist history, I believe confirms this.

Is there a “good old boys club" outside of fundamentalism land after all?

Many have blasted fundamentalists as being a “good old boys” club and allowing, excusing, covering up each other’s sins. Well, I would agree that in pockets of fundamentalism this is true but it is not indicative of all fundamentalists. There have been those who have said they left fundamentalism because of the abuses that this kind of club produced. Again, no disagreement here; abuses, when known should be exposed, confronted and corrected. If there are those who are unrepentant and unwilling to change then, sure, it’s time to move on. Now many have moved on to the more conservative segment of evangelicalism and have touted their “openness,” their “biblicalness” in addressing those wrongs that they saw in fundamentalism. Now we have the revelation that C. J. Mahaney and others within the hierarchy of SGM had created their own “good old boys” club and had operated this way for decades. In the midst of this demagoguery C. J. Mahaney writes a book about humility. Something which, we now know, he was not even being exhibiting in his own life during the writing of the book.
Immediately below are comments made by fellow evangelicals, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan about Mahaney and his book on humility (these comments are found in the book). Farther down are links to comments these same men have made in recent days about the revelations of C. J. Mahaney’s conduct which have brought about his stepping down from SGM. There is also an excerpt from Mahaney’s statement about what led to his stepping down.

 “This is the right book from the right man at the right time. More than any other man I have known , C. J. Mahaney has taught me what humility really is. This a man whose humility is a gift to the entire church. He knows that humility is strength, and that God uses the humble in a powerful way. He understands the danger of pride and calls all to aspire to a legacy of greatness—a greatness that shows the entire world the glory of God. He points us to a cross-centered worldview that will transform every dimension of life”  R. Albert Mohler Jr. Pres. SBTS

 “In Humility: True Greatness, C. J. Mahaney provides a clear and helpful battlefield manual for the believer’s ongoing growth, the fight against pride, and the cultivation of humility. C. J. is no dry-land sailor in this conflict. He and his dear congregation manifest the Spirit’s sovereign grace-work in both their personal and corporate humility and in their seriousness about dealing with pride. A ‘proud Christian’ is an oxymoron. May the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself unto death, use this book to slay pride in you, and to form in you the true greatness of servanthood and self-denial.” J. Ligon Duncan senior minister, First Presbyterian Church

Mahaney’s book, Humility was copyrighted in 2005.

Next piece taken from SGM website, 7.13.11 (here)

In it Mahaney states:

“A few years ago I started to realize that there were a number of former SGM pastors who had offenses with SGM and/or me. So I began to pursue some of them for the purpose of reconciliation. In January of 2010 I sent Brent Detwiler an email asking if he had any offense with me, communicating my desire to meet with him and hear him out. In 2009 Brent had been pastoring a church in North Carolina and left SGM.

When Brent responded to my email, he informed me that he was not willing to meet with me but that he would interact with me through email and written documents. Two months later I received a 130-page document from him outlining his perspective about my sins and failures as a leader in SGM.

I need to tell you up front that after reading this document and ones that followed, I don’t agree with a number of Brent’s charges and conclusions, nor the manner with which he has presented his offenses. However, my purpose this evening is not to criticize Brent or defend myself, but to inform you about various ways I have sinned and failed at different points in my ministry.

The central focus of Brent’s initial document was how I processed, responded to, and led through a relational conflict we had in 2003-2004. This conflict began when Brent and Dave Harvey brought to me correction related to certain character deficiencies and deficiencies in my leadership of the team. Rather than humbly listening to their critique and examining my heart, I reacted sinfully to what I perceived as their deficient manner of presentation, and this began a season where I was resistant to their correction.

Here is what they experienced from me:

·         I was difficult to entreat.

·         I sinfully judged their motives.
·         I was arrogantly confident in my perception.
·         I compared myself favorably to them.
·         I was offended by what I thought to be a lack of appreciation from them for all I had done for them, and a lack of care for me in a season of trials.

And though we continued to work together, I gradually withdrew from them in my soul. And added to this I arrogantly dismissed their critique and did not inform others of their critique even after I agreed to do so. So I was in effect confirming the accuracy of their correction by how I was behaving.”

Here is what Ligon Duncan has to say (here) 

Here is what Al Mohler has to say (here)

I trust that the glowing inconsistency is evident to you with these aforementioned statements. Were Mohler and Duncan blind to all this in Mahaney when cooperating together with him through those years? Were they aware but unwilling to confront their friend and fellow believer?

Why bring this up? Why bring out dirty laundry for all to see? Because we must objectively examine men, messages, methods, etc. by the lens of the Word of God. If you scan the internet you will see hypocrisy running rampant amongst those who are willing to allow for a circling of the wagons around Mahaney and trying to make him out to be a victim or better yet a hero for having the humility and courage to come forward in light of these revelations. What nonsense! Many of these same people who are favorable to Mahaney were/are quick to judge, condemn this very same kind of behavior when found in fundamentalism (again, I am not condoning such unbiblical behavior with my statements here, just highlighting the inconsistency of some). This is hypocrisy. This is partiality, both of which are condemned by God. The darlings of evangelicalism are not so darling after all.

Hopefully, some are starting to understand, all (“all” means “all, everyone, no one excluded” here) Christians have retained their old, sinful nature and it doesn’t matter where you live, where you go to church, it has the potential rear its ugly head in any and all of us, regardless of our position.

As we live by God’s Word, with its Author residing within, “he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), we will be changed, molded into Christ-likeness (Rom. 8:28, 29). There is ever within the nature of things today to push for a man centered world. Whether we look at lost mankind and its headlong push toward what we have described for us in the book of the Revelation and the rise of a one-world system, or whether it be within “Christianity” with its push of men to be listened to for one reason or another. We lift up different men and show them off and say, “follow him,” “he’s got the answers you need.” No, God’s Book has the answers you need and men are only as good as they echo what God says in His Book.

As I have already noted in an earlier article, we need to get back to reading the Bible for ourselves and stop this eating of regurgitated food from other men who have supposed read the Bible and then write about it. I am not saying get rid of your books, please read that article, I will not repost it here, but our energies must be expended in the reading OF the Book rather than the reading ABOUT the Book.