For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:28-31

Who is following Rome? Who is following Billy Graham? Tonight 26 July 2008 I listened to Bob Coy give communion at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale. Bob Coy mentioned how by eating the bread and drinking the juice we would be eating and drinking of the grace and mercy of Jesus. He said this would be coursing through our bodies only moments after eating and that we would have Jesus in us. A bit confusing from a Roman Catholic perspective as to what the Gospel of Jesus is. Reminded me of the Billy Graham Gospel (BGG).

Wolves among us 1997.

Wolves at Yale 1982.

Wolves at Harvard 1982.

Wolves at CCFL 2008.

All-seeing of age fill coincide identical youngsters fade 15 golden younger. Kids are not imperative so freeze out.

In order to make assignments a spotlight draft call the Responsibility relative to Bowfin and Beasts at 1-800-858-1549.

Somewhat afford spots design come come-at-able respecting a ab initio-rear its head, preeminent-wait on apriorism the stretch concerning the harry.

Something that Brandon Hammonds prayed today got the ol’ wheels turning in my head and heart. He prayed that a missiology of signs and wonders would emerge in this generation. “Missiology”, for the uninitiated, is properly defined by the Oxford dictionary as the study of religious (typically Christian) missions and their methods and practices. Missiology and praxis (practice, as distinguished from theory) are two major buzz-words in the evangelical church in our day. The related term, of course, is missional - a term that captures the desire for the church to be relevant (or “contextual”) in its efforts to reach the hearts and lives of unbelievers. These efforts involve the message, morality, and methodology (thank you, Wikipedia…) of the believer who seeks to see the lost come to the saving knowledge of Jesus.

Brandon’s prayer stirred me again with appreciation for my missiology - as he so succinctly stated, a missiology of signs and wonders. I understand why cursing and drinking might help some in the emerging stream contextualize for unbelievers the aspects of the gospel that matter (winning the lost by not majoring on the minors - or what they might feel is a non-issue biblically). I can see why, in frustration, they would see the current expression of Christianity as one that is insufficient, irrelevant, and hopelessly unsuitable to present to an unbeliever in this hour. In many ways, I happen to agree.  Continue Reading....

Yahoo! had an interesting story about the top ten or so films that failed basic history. Mel Gibson was well represented with Braveheart, Apocolypto, and The Patriot.

Apocalypto

This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.

THE PATRIOT

Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.

One reviewer called the Patriot "as fascist a film as anything made in decades."

WORSHIP

Over the next few Sundays I will be preaching texts revolving and centered on worship. It’s amazing how worship is such a catch word these days and simply using it can cause such a raucous. I would be curious to see the statistics on churches that split up during the 80’s and 90’s and the involvement that “worship debates” played in those circumstances. The current situation is much the same with an added player in the game. The postmodern culture brings its own paradigm, or at least it is in the process of developing its own, to the table, which creates an interesting perspective. Now longer is the debate between the traditionalists and contempories, but now three sides play into the equation, unless of course you live in the south where the Southern Gospelites have their say. Let’s just say, I am glad I am not a worship leader!

This situation calls us to one specific conclusion; we desperately need the Bible. The Bible teaches us that worship is not about having what we like. Our consumer minded culture has invaded the church and Christians have accepted the Burger King slogan as our mantra, “We’ll have it our way!” God is calling us to surrender our way to him. Worship is not an hour block of the week where we come and have our predispositions about God further enforced, our agendas met, and/or our emotions tweaked. A church is not a worship shop where people peruse for what they want. It is this mindset which has landed us in this predicament. Worship is a lifestyle of daily surrender to the King which displays itself in actions of service, love, and humility that point people to the Messiah of Israel. What we do on Sunday morning should not be an entertainment show similar to a Night at the Apollo filled with commodities for consumers to devour, but it is an overflow of abundant joy exerted by grateful people of all kinds, types, song genres, races, generations, for the King of Kings. A worship service should magnify the name of Christ by using the gifts God has given to the people. In many ways a worship service should be bipolar and schizophrenic. I pray that as I preach this message over the course of the next month we here at Thorington Road Baptist Church will catch the wave of worship. Worship is so much more than what I have written in this entry! Over the next few days I will continue this discussion. Worship is that important! God demands and desires it!

this Saturday night, @ 7pm, @ 2970 Lorna Rd (@ Little Valley Rd), Birmingham, AL 35216, come early for good seats, hang late for coffee and peach pie, and bring some cash for a bottle of snake oil or a blessed hanky.

warning: by attending this event, you might get pigeonholed and stereotyped like my friends Adam and Kara in Columbus.

I've heard rumors for years that cell phones could possible be linked to cancer. According to this TIME ARTICLE I read yesterday, at least one doctor actually thinks they do!

The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. But just in case, I might start using my hands free device.

I'm not too worried about getting cancer from my phone, but I am focused on reducing the "noise" it creates in my life.

I'm very excited to announce that starting this weekend I will not be getting work emails on my phone for the first time in years! Planning on making this a habit from here on out. Just one more step toward reducing the noise so I can become the person I feel God is calling me to be.

While we are talking about cell phones, I've got a couple of questions.

1) What kind of cell do you have? (I have an iphone)

2) How many minutes a day (on average) do you spend on your cell? (I talk about 90 minutes a day, usually in the car)

Pope Poised To Revive Latin Mass, Official Says
By Alan Cooperman 10/13/2006

Old rite wins new Mass appeal July 30, 2007

Elements of Latin Mass

Tridentine Mass
The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar...

"Don't pray at Holy Mass, but pray the Holy Mass."
—Pope Saint Pius X

Listing of Latin Mass Churches and Communities

Mel Gibson and the Latin Mass
Exactly what type of Catholic is Mel Gibson?
"...Several years ago, Mel Gibson told the press: ''I go to an all-pre-Vatican II Latin mass..."

"According to various sources, Gibson shares many beliefs of the Traditionalist Catholic movement which rejects some or all reforms started by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

"...Mel Gibson funded the construction of a church not affiliated with the local Roman Catholic diocese, the Holy Family Chapel in Agoura, California. This church conducts a Latin mass and observes Traditionalist Catholic doctrine."

'The Passion'...for its author, is a Mass 2/18/2004
Vittorio Messori on Mel Gibson's Work

The Passion of Mel Gibson 02/20/04
Why evangelicals are cheering a movie with profoundly Catholic sensibilities. by David Neff

The Return of the Latin Mass October 12, 2006
By Jeff Israely/Rome and David Van Biema/New York


Anne Catherine Emmerich's, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" which inspired Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of Christ" is "replete with references to the 'Sacrifice of the Mass,' the 'Real Presence,' and the 'Blessed Eucharist.'—"The Passion and the Christ"—An Analysis by Roger Oakland and Jim Tetlow

Did the torture Jesus suffered pay for our sins?
"Trivializing His Sacrifice for Sin"

The Roman Church still believes the Eucharist is
Jesus' real body and real blood

John Paul 2 and the Eucharist
On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist
Promulgated by Pope John Paul II on February 24, 1980
"...Therefore in eucharistic Communion we receive Christ, Christ Himself; and our union with Him...brings it about that in Him we are also associated in the unity of His body which is the Church.

Only in this way...is there brought about that building up of the Church, which in the Eucharist truly finds its "source and summit," according to the well-known expression of the Second Vatican Council.[18]"

On the Way to Jesus Christ
by Joseph Ratzinger, Current Pope
This book...concludes with reflections on Jesus' Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church's presentation of the Christian mystery as seen through the Catechism's dynamic view of Sacred Scripture.

Chapter 6. Daily Bread and Eucharistic Bread:
A meditation for the Feast of Corpus Christi
Chapter 7. Eucharist--Communio--Solidarity:
Christ Present and Active in the Blessed Sacrament

On the Eucharist, "'Treasure' of the Church"
From Benedict XVI's address at Vatican City,
June 18, 2006.


"The Eucharist is, in fact, the "treasure" of the Church, the precious heritage that her Lord has left her. And the Church guards this heritage with the greatest care, celebrating it daily in the holy Mass, adoring it in churches and chapels, distributing it to the sick, and as viaticum to those on their last journey.

"...the Eucharist is the Lord Jesus...

"...the Eucharist also has cosmic value: The transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ constitutes, in fact, the principle of divinization of creation itself.

"This is why the feast of Corpus Christi is characterized particularly by the tradition of carrying the Blessed Sacrament in procession, a gesture full of meaning.

"By carrying the Eucharist through the streets and squares, we wish to submerge the bread descended from heaven in the everyday of our lives; we want Jesus to walk where we walk; to live where we live. Our world, our lives, must become his temple...

"Mary is the "Eucharistic woman...Let us pray to the Virgin that all Christians may deepen their faith in the Eucharistic mystery, so that they live in constant communion with Jesus..."

College Student steals "Jesus" (the consecrated host)
The Student That Stole The Body of Christ
University of Central Florida student, Webster Cook, took the Eucharist, a small wafer that represents the Body of Christ during communion, out of the church to show a friend a sample of the wafer. Now the student claims that he fears for his life, reporting that he has received death threats and other disturbing messages from Catholic enthusiasts...

Catholic League comments:
Florida Student Abuses Eucharist July 7, 2008
"...Catholic League president Bill Donohue offered the following remarks today:
“For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage—regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance—is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.”

"Body Of Christ' Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats: July 9, 2008 Orange County, FL

The Roman Catholic Church wants All, Everyone (that means YOU) to celebrate the Eucharist as "Jesus' Real blood and body"

Ecumenism ultimately points toward a common Eucharist,
Pope tells Christians Sydney, July 18, 2008 (CNA)
Fifteen leaders of the Australian Christian church met the Pope in an Ecumenical event held in the St. Mary's Cathedral Crypt on Friday morning. In his address to the church leaders, Benedict XVI called on them to not view doctrine as divisive since that view can prevent Christians from working to improve the world...

While Baptism is the starting point for ecumenical dialogue, the Pope said that, "The road of ecumenism ultimately points towards a common celebration of the Eucharist. We can be sure that a common Eucharist one day would only strengthen our resolve to love and serve one another in imitation of our Lord."

"...it seems impossible that accepting the Roman Catholic Jesus being present in a wafer could ever happen.

"It will. First, the separated brethren—Anglicans, Lutherans and then experience based emerging purpose-driven Christians—who are drawn by a strong delusion and refuse to accept the Scriptures. Following lying signs and wonders and supposed appearances of "Jesus" during Eucharistic adoration as well as "apparitional appearances of Mary", people of all religions will be drawn to the mother of all churches and become part of
a one world religion for peace."—Roger Oakland July 18, 2008:

God's WORD

"They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course."
—Psalm 82:5

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."—Psalm 14:3

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,"—Luke 4:18 (Isaiah 61:1)

"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."—Luke 19:10

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."—John 13:34

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."—Matthew 23:13

"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors."—Luke 22:25

Are the Council of Trent's anathemas still in force? Does the Roman Church still believe the Eucharist is Jesus' real blood and body?
The last post discussed the Council of Trent's anathemas and what happened to those who would not agree that the Eucharist was Jesus' body and blood. What about Now?

Because the church of Rome believes they are the only true church and salvation comes from them, not only are the anathema's still legal, but there is a push towards uniting the whole world through the Eucharist.

The anathema's have never been revoked

“I can find nothing in the Code [of 1983] now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.”
—Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition is now The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition" established in 1542, was staffed by Dominican cardinals and other officials whose task it was "to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines."

As of 1983, the name is "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (CDF). The current pope was the head of the Congregation
(as it is sometimes called) before becoming Pope Benedict.

“From "grand inquisitor” to pope: Peter Schwarz 4/21/2005
"...In 1981, three years after his appointment as pope, John Paul called upon Ratzinger to take up the position of supreme guardian
of the faith in Rome..."

The Roman Church has never disowned it's right to persecute

[The Congregation of Inquisition] served as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy...[and] remained one of the most feared offices in 16th century Europe, and elsewhere in the Catholic world, due especially to its use of torture and execution, including immolation.

"...In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. On the whole, the Inquisition was humanely conducted..."—Inquisition

"The duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence."
—Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II on June 28, 1988

"...for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."—Directorium Inquisitorum

Infallible Rome

The Roman Catholic Church, their dogma, the pope (including his ex cathedra declarations), the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See, the magisterium (the teaching body) and ecumenical councils are all infallible according to RCC doctrine.
Infallibility, Infallibility of the Church, Papal Inallibility,
Magisterium, Roman Catholic Dogma

The RC Church says salvation comes only from them, the true and universal church; others are separated brethren because of their stance on the Eucharist

The Dominus Iesus declaration says there is "No Salvation outside the church." It was declared and approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger and then secretary Archbishop Bertone and aproved by John Paul II, Published August 6, 2000.

"...Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation...The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation..."—The official text of the document from the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith #20

Catholicism is only path to salvation, says pope
By Nicole Winfield Associated Press writer, July 11, 2007
"Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.

"...The new document—formulated as five questions and answers—restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did
not have the "means of salvation."

Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established
‘only one church.’—MSNBC News Services July 10, 2007

Encyclical Letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" of His Holiness Pope
John Paul II...On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church
(April 17, 2003)

30. ..."The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and
we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament
of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality
of the Eucharistic mystery...

The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist...

Vatican II presented Roman Catholic beliefs in more eccumenical terms, but did not change the teachings of the church

Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II
Vatican II, (the twenty-first Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church), opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965. Four future popes were present:
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini—Paul VI
Bishop Albino Luciani—John Paul I
Bishop Karol Wojtyła—John Paul II
Joseph Ratzinger (35), present as a theological consultant—current Pope Benedict XVI.

"...The Second Vatican Council...presented the basic elements of the Catholic faith in a more understandable, pastoral language, without changing the teachings of the Church."
—Wolfgang Beinert Lexikon der katholischen Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1988 p. 89

Pope condemned pentecostals and other sects as rapacious wolves

Pope to Visit 'Pentecostalized' Brazil
...In his opening address to the fourth general conference of Latin American bishops, which was held in the Dominican Republic in 1992, the normally ecumenical Pope John Paul II condemned pentecostal and other sects as "rapacious wolves" who are devouring Latin American Catholics and "causing division and discord in our communities."—by Luis Lugo, May 9, 2007

John Paul cries 'wolf:' misreading the Pentecostals
Edward L. Cleary 1992

Hispanics turn evangelical, Christian Century, December 14, 1994

The “Real Presence” in the Eucharist Part 5 B cont’d: Council of Trent’s Anathemas—Now

With churches largely mapping out their local mission around what they identify to be an "unchurched" population, a research firm set out to paint a clearer picture of who unchurched Americans really are.

“There’s a whole industry seeking to help clergy reach the unchurched, with seminars, books, videos, training centers, and consultants,” Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, noted. “However, many people don’t really have a basic notion even of just what it means to be ‘unchurched.’ There’s often an assumption that people either do attend worship services, or they don’t."

"But what we find in this study is that up to one out of every five Americans is attending worship services at least occasionally during the year, even though they are not regularly involved. That has huge implications for local congregations who are trying to attract new people," Sellers added.

Traditionally, people who attend worship service at least once a month and on a regular basis have been considered "churched" while those who don't attend frequently enough have often been labeled "unchurched," according to the Phoenix-based research firm. continue reading

I ask you, could there be an easier way to identify these people in order to minister the "truth" unto salvation? Yes! Is it necessary to catorgorize them into time tables of church attendance? No! Then how? READ YOUR BIBLE!

God has already indentified these people. According to the Word of God they are the "lost". He describes them as follows:

Adulterers, Fornicators, Unclean, Idolaters, Witches, Contentious, Indignant, Full of Jealousy, Sedition and Division, Heretics, Murderers, Drunkards, Rioters, Liars, Thieves;

They are Faithless, Unbelieving, and Sorcerers – (drug addicts). All are Abominable (disgusting in the eyes of God).

Lovers of their Own Selves, Covetous, Boasters, Proud, Blasphemers, Disobedient to Parents, Unholy, Unthankful.

They are without Natural Affection, Trucebreakers, False Accusers, Incontinent, Fierce (savages), Despisers of those that are good.

The lost are Traitors, Heady (rash), High-minded (lifted up in pride), Lovers of Pleasure more than lovers of God.

They have a Form of Godliness but Deny the Power Thereof.

Their end is an Eternal Punishment in the Lake of Fire.

Their only hope is the Christ of the Bible – the “ancient of days” who can not be redefined, reinvented or reconstructed. Only through Christ and the preaching of the truth of His Word can salvation be received; the uncompromised, unsettling, unapologetic WORD OF GOD.

My advice to all who want to meet the unchurched LOST on their level is SIMPLE. Preach TRUTH, without compromise, without fear of man and without apology!

Even after the recent flap about the New Yorker cover, even post-Jesse Jackson's "nut cutting" comment, and well after Rev. Wright & the debunking of those "Obama is a Muslim" myths that got emailed around the world, it seems there are still millions of people in America (on both ends of the political spectrum) who don't "get" Barack Obama.

Based on my reading and viewing of various news stories, blogs, forums & discussions over the course of the year, I'd say most people only want to use the present political moment to dig further down into their own ideological foxholes and take a few potshots, while they can. Obama's candidacy is being treated by many like some public bathroom stall, upon which to scrawl whatever self-involved, out-of-date, sometimes overly idealistic, sometimes hate-filled, usually uninformed and amateurish (and often poorly spelled and using TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS) opinions/graffiti they have picked up or passed along in the course of their lives. And God forbid anyone should listen instead of spouting, or have an ORIGINAL thought, or become convinced enough to change their mind in some way.

A blog and debate at the L.A. Times is just one small smattering of the wide-ranging forms that anger, fear, hurt, ignorance, illogical contradiction and xenophobia have taken in the past six months.  [Must be something about L.A. that attracts the nutjobs.] And if some of those words I used above are just too big for you, you shouldn't be here, because I'm just an overeducated elitist like Barack, which means you're not interested in my opinion anyway...

Whatever one thinks (or, more accurately in this peculiar American popularity contest, whatever one feels) about the world and one's own place in it (and by association, about the changing role of one's country and its leaders), it seems the Obam@verse has become the "go to" paradigm.

I'm probably as guilty as the rest, too. He's like a living bulletin board, though few people are actually listening closely to what he himself says through Senate voting, interviews, platform speeches or his overall style (with Obama, style & substance seem inseparable, for better or worse). Instead, it's all discussed at a remove of one or more "surrogates", cartoonists, bloggers, reverends, pundits, or Klansman crackpots. We buzz about the buzz, and soon the voice and ideas of the man himself get lost amid all the white noise (or black noise… if you'll indulge my penchant for puns one more time).

Yeah, maybe the buzz is more fun. Nobody likes a policy wonk, right? They're boring. And sometimes confusing, with all those facts and statistics. But if we leave the governing to the vague, pork-prone, lobbied-to-death, ill-informed, party-line morons, we'll only have ourselves to blame. Healthcare reform IS boring, frankly. Peace IS boring. But aren't they preferable to the alternative?

And now here I am, doing it too: talking about what others are saying instead of the ideas of the man himself. So I'll stop now, and point y'all toward an oldish interview with Obama on Belief.net about his religious and political positions. Here he carefully distanced himself from some parts of what Rev. Wright is all about, and remarkably he did so long before the inflammatory YouTube videos and Wright's more recent retirement shenanigans hit the big stage.

This non-radicalized, forward-thinking, black but not "racialized", aspect of Obama --for example the part that can recognize that the spirit of Bush's faith-based initiatives is coming from a decent and reasonable place (Jackson's nut-cutting knife and old political demonizing b.s. notwithstanding)-- is precisely the part that keeps Obama out of Jesse Jackson's, or anyone else's, political pocket.

But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself, not just at beliefnet, but at Obama's own website, or in speech transcripts and interviews. I know they're out there.

Ultimately (and because I like to end on a joke usually),  Obama will be the perfect "bridge" president to lead us into the Age of the Machines, in which the computers and robots will rule over all the nations of the earth with an iron fist, clad in a velvet glove. That era will be bad, for sure. But the machines' reign and rules will be organized, logical, and clear – and thus certainly no worse than the disgustingly hollow, overly emotional, race-baiting, fearmongering, dishonest and deeply flawed human election process we're in the grips of now.

McLaren has identified an attitude that is a hindrance to everything from effective persuasion to loving fellowship. The attitude is the us v. them, chip-on-the-shoulder, we're-right-they're-wrong impatience with which evangelicals tend to deal with the wide surrounding world. From his writings, one gathers that McLaren has had enough.

The problem with evangelical pomposity is that it has preempted learning. If we're right and they're wrong, then all we have to do is stay right. Tell the unbelievers one more time why their views on abortion, education, government, and values are heinous. Our fidelity to the truth can reduce to repeated talking points -- say it again, this time with feeling! -- a tactic that shuts out feedback and degrades relationships to mere exchanges of rhetorical bullets.

McLaren wants to change this attitude, and he is right. I have devoted many posts to the cultural backwater that is evangelical populism, where applications of truth are stagnant.

But McLaren's desire for greater openness seems to have led him to oversimplifications of his own, and ultimately to a redefinition of truth itself. The book is, of course, A Generous Orthodoxy.

His now-famous modification of orthodoxy with generous suggests that orthodoxy by itself is petty. When he comes to defining what orthodoxy is, McLaren starts this way (p 28): "For most people, orthodoxy means right thinking or right opinions, or in other words, ‘what we think,' as opposed to ‘what they think.'" For McLaren, orthodoxy tends to be petty because most people view it in adversarial terms.

The sentence is an early bit of slippage. I know many self-satisfied Christians who like few things better than to hear the us v. them story again and call it Christianity. But their pettiness does not determine what orthodoxy is. McLaren is building up to his redefinition by implying a simple choice between orthodoxy alone (petty) and orthodoxy plus generosity (loving).

His alternative definition comes in the next sentence. "In contrast, orthodoxy in this book may mean something like ‘what God knows, some of which we believe a little, some of which they believe a little, and about which we all have a whole lot to learn.'" The truth is beyond our reach, in God's mind, and the various factions of human spirituality each have pieces of it. To follow orthodoxy, according to this definition, is to be generous to the other factions and to learn from them.

Orthodoxy may mean that. It may mean something like that. In this book.

The care with which McLaren poses as tentative and playful is necessary to disguise the enormity of what he puts over in that definition. Orthodoxy is inaccessible. It's "what God knows." This is a romanticist punt, even transcendentalist. Emerson could've written it, irony and all. Intellectuals may feed on such continually evolving knowledge, but the gruel is too thin for simple believers.

Actual Christian orthodoxy teaches that God himself is incomprehensible, but that he has given us a revelation of his nature and will by which he is knowable. Orthodoxy is not in God's mind. It's in his Word, both written and incarnate. It's accessible. The distinction between the living God and the doctrines about him --the distinction that ought to keep us humble -- already thrives where theology is a scholarly discipline rather than a grass-roots rallying point.

But I just ran smack into another sentence closing McLaren's paragraph on orthodoxy. McLaren says, "Most people are too serious, knowledgeable, and busy for such an unorthodox definition of orthodoxy." So he makes an intriguing definition tentatively and then bluffs his way out of being examined, an escape-hatch from accountability that he seems to open pretty often.

The definition I've analyzed comes in a chapter titled, "For Mature Audiences Only." How would McLaren define mature? I'll venture a definition for him: "For most people, maturity means being accountable for what you say. In contrast, maturity in this book may mean something like being comfortable with irony."

I hope we can learn and grow as human beings without intellectual games.

We pause here with the "emerging then, emering now" series to respond to a friend’s comment on Barton Stone and his intersection with Emergent/emerging church sensibilities.

Here is the section of Jomato’s comment that I interact with:

now if i may offer an observation on your post: it appears that barton w. stone would stand out in stark contrast to much of what passes as postmodern christianity—emergent or otherwise. he was a preacher with strong convictions and clear doctrinal standards. these are admirable qualities which i hope more post-everythings learn to appreciate and emulate.

I have a difficult time seeing the stark contrast that Jomato bespeaks of. If anything, Stone seems to have been at odds with what I would call “modern Christianity.” Henceforth Stone had serious hang-ups with Calvinism, the control systems of clerical hierarchies, and long-held theological assumptions. And Stone displayed an epistemology that seemed starkly humble to that of Cambell’s.

Stone’s practice of theological questioning (as opposed to an unflinching dogmatism) is most clearly seen in his problems with his Presbyterian heritage, especially the concepts of the Trinity, Calvinism, and limited atonement. I could offer numerous other examples that would call into question the supposed “strong convictions and clear doctrinal standards” of Stone (See Newell Williams’ spiritual biography of Stone for more). Stone went through several stages of theological liminality and never declared himself to have arrived. Instead, he said things like the following:

“There is still light to break forth” (in regard to the Scriptures).[1]

Believing mankind to be fallible creatures, we therefore feel a spirit of toleration, and union for all those Christians, who…walk humbly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, and who live by faith in his name, though they hold opinions contrary to ours.[2]

It would do us good to hear the above words of Stone in regards to the Emergent/emerging rift that has unsettled many folks on both sides of the "fence," myself included.

To assume that emergent folks do not have doctrinal standards is to deny the doctrinal standard of questioning faulty doctrines. This is what some call the prophetic hermeneutic of Jesus that many emergent folk embody (see Caputo's What Would Jesus Deconstruct?). In other words, many emergent folks are committed to the doctrine of uprooting theologically dead doctrine to make space for emerging theological trees to spring up. This is what Jesus did in his interaction with the religious conservatives of his day. He laid the axe at the roots of fruitless trees.

Did Barton Warren Stone ever put forth a static, constrictive, and reductionistic “statement of faith” void of respect to any context? My research did not come across any such document. Unfortunately, modern Christianity has taught its adherents only to find solace in once-and-for-all pronouncements of the Christian faith that align precisely with the safe and stale documents from the past 4-500 years. We have come to equate clear doctrinal standards with, for example, just one particular view of the atonement rather than an embodiment of the way of Christ that moves beyond immobile print. Clear doctrinal standards are not merely the stuff of ink and paper and statements of faith, but of a way of living.

It is this “way of life” that Stone truly exemplified. His good treatment of and work toward freeing his own slaves (as well as supporting the nation of Liberia) probably smacked of a “social gospel,” another mark against the Emergent folks.

I could go on here, but I think the point is made. Stone was a post-Calvinist, a post-Presby (would he have been Presbymergent were he around today?), post-lots-of-things. He emerged from a broken system and pioneered a way forward for believers in his day. Emergent or not, it's this picture of Stone that is worth emulating.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] D. Newell Williams, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Autobiography (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), 155.

[2] Ibid, 154.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."—Galatians 1:8, 9

"Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing."—1 Peter 3:9

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."—Matthew 10:28

Note: This list is very abbreviated as are the biographies. There is much more to the story of these godly men who believed God's Word and did not render evil for evil.

A few who were killed because they would not believe Jesus' real body and blood were in the Eucharist

John Badby, a tailor and layman March 1409
"...they demanded of him what he believed about the bread. John answered that it was hallowed bread, and not God's body. A tun (beer cask) was put over him, and a fire set.

And when he felt the fire, he cried, Mercy! calling belike upon the Lord. The prince immediately commanded to take away the tun, and quench the fire and asked him if he would forsake heresy, to take him to the faith of holy church...

When Mr. Badby refused, the prince commanded him straight to be put again into the pipe or tun...

Illustration of the horrible burning of John Badby.

John Oldcastle, Lollard leader 1417
"...Oldcastle...insisted the bread was still bread (did not become the literal body of Christ)...

[Oldcastle was] condemned as heretic for denying transubstantiation and "hung and burnt hanging" in St Giles's Fields, London, 1417. Wood engraving.

Six Articles Act of 1539 in England revived death by burning as a penalty for denying transubstantiation.
Because of this act many, often quite humble folk were tried by Church courts and tried according to whether they believed the wafer used in the Mass was changed in substance at its consecration into Christ Himself bodily. If they said the host and wine were NOT the real Jesus, they were burnt alive...

John Rogers 1555
“I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Savior, Christ, that was born of the Virgin Mary and hanged on the cross really and substantially.

I answered, ‘I think it could be false. I cannot understand really and substantially to signify otherwise then corporeally, but corporeally Christ is only in heaven and so Christ cannot be corporeally in your sacrament.’ And therefore he was condemned and burned.”—John Rogers, from Foxe's book of Martyrs.

Dr. Rowland Taylor, a pastor 1555
"My second cause why I was condemned an heretic is, that I denied Transubstantiation and Concomitation (meaning-that the bread/wine body/blood of Christ literally coexist together with one another at the
same time),

"two juggling words of the papists, by the which they do believe, and will compel all other to believe, that Christ’s natural body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereunto;

"so that immediately after the words called ‘the words of consecration,’ there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament, but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ together with his Godhead...

"This matter was not long debated in words: but because I denied the aforesaid papistical doctrine (yea rather, plain, most wicked, idolatry, blasphemy and heresy), I was judged a heretic.

"I did also affirm the pope to be antichrist, and popery antichristianity. And
I confessed the doctrine of the Bible to be sufficient doctrine, touching all and singular matters of Christian religion, and of salvation."—Dr. Taylor

Dr. Rowland Taylor was convicted and burned at the stake for heresy.

Derek Carver of Brighton July 22, 1555
"Ye think ye can make a God. Ye make a pudding." He said this at his trial in St Mary's Church-Over-the-Water. Derek was burnt at Lewes on 22nd July 1555.

William Wolsey and Robert Piggot, October 16, 1555
"The sacrament of the altar was an idol and the natural body and blood of Christ were not present in the said sacrament and to this opinion they said they would stick, believing the same to be no heresy, that they had affirmed but the very truth, whereupon they would stand."

They were burnt at Ely, Cambridgeshire on 16th October 1555.

Nicholas Ridley, English clergyman, died 1555
"White told Ridley that he had been condemned as a heretic...for denying the Real Presence, that there could be no further argument about this, and that unless Ridley recanted he would be condemned and burned as a heretic; but he urged Ridley to acknowledge Papal Supremacy and the Real Presence, and told him that the queen would pardon him if he recanted.

"Ridley refused to recant, denounced both Papal Supremacy and the Real Presence, and asked to be allowed to address the court and justify his attitude."

"Ridley spoke a bit, but then was forced to quit speaking and White condemned Ridley as a heretic...

"Ridley...denied that the sacrament of the altar (Eucharist) was the true and natural body and blood of Christ, and said that after the words of consecration, it was really bread and wine which remained. For this, Ridley was condemned and burned."—Bloody Mary's Martyrs: The Story of England's Terror
by Jasper Ridley p. 113

Maerten Janss, Corn Porter,
Jan Hendrickss of Swartewael, Steersman, February 5, 1572
"Both men were condemned to death with fire by the judges of the city of Delft...

"They also hold very evil views concerning the mass, despising and utterly rejecting the holy sacrament of the altar..."

Maerten and Jan were "to be led upon the scaffold erected in the marketplace of this city, and there to be tied to a stake and burned till death ensues...

"We furthermore declare all their property confiscated and forfeited for the benefit of his royal majesty...

"Done the fifth of February, A. D. 1572, Delft Style."
—Extracted from the first book of criminal sentences, fol. 195, preserved in the archives of the city of Delft, 23d of August, A. D. 1659.

George Bucker, also called Adam Damlip,
was drawn, hanged and quartered for his preaching against transubstantiation and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass.

God's WORD

"O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee."
—Psalm 84:12

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."—Romans 12:19

"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.—Isaiah 55:6, 7

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."—John 12:46

The Real Presence in the Eucharist Part 5 B: Council of Trent’s Anathemas—Now

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."—John 14:15

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."—John 15:12

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words..."—John 14:23

Council of Trent and Anathemas against unbelief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist
Between December 1545 and December 1563, the Council of Trent (the 19th Ecumenical Council) defined Roman Church Doctrine and then listed Anathemas—judgment and condemnation against anyone who did not agree.

An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council is considered definitive and binding and usually has an accompanying anathema (formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church), stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church...

Anathema pronouncement ceremony
The Pope in a purple cope, held a lighted candle, and was joined by twelve priests, each with a lighted candle. The anathema concluded with these words:

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter...

we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord,

we separate him from the society of all Christians,

we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth,

we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate,

so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

The priests respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat" (Let it be done), and all, including the pontiff, cast their lighted candles on the ground.

Notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been thus excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him.

Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent.

On the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist; Excerpts from the Text of the Council of Trent

Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the Most Holy Eucharist or its Adoration

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”—Thirteenth Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship...neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions...or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.”—Thirteenth Session CANON VI

Anathema condemning anyone who does not believe in Transubstantiation

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood—the species Only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. Thirteenth Session CANON II
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html
and http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/CoucilofTrent.html

The Roman Catholic Church justifies repressive measures against those who did not believe the Eucharist is Christ's real blood and real body
Basing their beliefs on "infallible" church doctrine, popes, church fathers, tradition, and scripture they have twisted, the Roman Catholic church's leaders and councils, completely disregarded Jesus command to love one another and ones enemies, and justified their torturing and burning to death of fathers, mothers, children, even annihilating whole groups of people because they
would not agree with Roman Church doctrine.

"... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."—Directorium Inquisitorum, edition of 1578, Book 3, page 137, (translated from Latin)

There is no room in the constitution of the Roman church "for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials." It is
seen as "revolt against a Divinely constituted authority."
—from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

"All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort...But they are not therefore cruel...Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is
less regard for the purity of faith..."
—from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

"...all those are damned who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ which is consecrated on the altar in the form of bread and wine by the words of our Lord in the hands of the priest, and do not see or believe in spirit and in God that this is really the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."—Francis of Assisi

"...It is the spiritual mystery that unites the Eucharist to us...Yet some heretics disclaim the truth of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To some, it appears scandalous to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ... The body of Christ is not related to place...It is not divided into parts, but is entire in every single one...Every consecrated bread is converted into the entire Body of Christ."—Aquinas, From Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapters 61 to 69

In the next post (5A continued) I am going to list just a very few of the people killed for the "heresy" of not believing the Eucharist was Jesus' real body and blood. Often, there was more than one "heresy" charge, such as believing salvation was by faith alone, believing the Bible was the only authority or not baptizing babies.

Is it reasonable to kill or torture people, even wiping out whole groups because they do not agree that the host and wine become Jesus' real body and real blood? That is not Jesus' way.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"—Matthew 5:44

Part 5A Continued

However I won't.

I grew up in Christianity that was legalistic. There were a certain set of rules that were supposed to be followed. When I started college I went to a public college, were I was a part of Young Life and attend some campus ministries events and was a part of the college group at church. I was a even part of a Bible study that some friends and I started. It was during that time that I thought if I read enough and prayed enough Jesus would love me. I even timed my prayers, at night I made sure that I at least prayed for 15 minutes. Somehow I thought that this would save me or fulfill me. If I had enough verses memorized, knew enough theology, did enough church stuff, if I had the right morals then somehow I would be a better person.

Then I moved on to the emergent style of Christianity.  This happened after I started to go to Cornerstone.  It was a movement that was seemed freeing.  I attended a emergent church in Grand Rapids for a while thinking wow this is a place where I can be free from religion.  The problem is that it was freeing, in fact it was just another religion.  It is amazing looking back on it how the children of legalism just created another religion where there were rules to follow.  In order to be a good Christian you had to be concerned about social justice.  If you aren't green, feeding the poor. if you aren't politically liberal, if you aren't overly tolerant, if you don't say this is absolute truth then you are a good Christian.

The problem is that these both are religions, they both are moralistic.  They killed me, they had a set of rules that I had to follow to measure up.

Then through a series of events the I experienced the grace of Jesus, the healing of Jesus, the power of Jesus.  Jesus gave me life, I now can live free from the bounds of religion and live to glorify Him alone.  The ironic thing is that I now am free to do the things that used to bind me.  I am free to read the Bible, to pray, to be concerned about justice, it is just that now I don't have to do these things to please God.  I get to do them because Jesus has set me free to do them.  I can find joy in them because I can do them to glorify Jesus.

Now I get to tell others about Jesus and about the freedom and life that is found in Him alone.  So that is where I have been, I hope that you see the Jesus alone in my story.

graduation '67

Can you imagine having the National Guard called in on one of our college campuses today because of a war protest and having students killed. Kent State May 1970. Neil Young’s song “Ohio” commemorated and memorialized one of many low points in the “boomer” revolution. Martin Luther King tried to bring justified change in peaceful ways, but there were also very violent groups in those days, the SDS & the Black Panthers, robbing banks, organizing riots in many, many cities across our nation, destroying whole downtowns and torching buildings for miles, terrorizing the “silent majority.” The centuries old foundations of our society that had kept it a much safer place to live were targeted, attacked, pulled down and destroyed by the boomers’ revolution. The people of the former generation and Christians in general were shocked. It was the reason for the rise in Christian political activism. Out of the “silent majority”, men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, called up the “moral majority.” I don’t know about Falwell, but Pat Robertson actually came from a very political family. And there were other Christians, churches, groups and parachurch ministries that rose up to repair and rebuild the foundations, to “lift a standard” against the flood of sin that had been unleashed, the waves of which our world continues to fall to new lows under:  AIDS, the rampant STD’s epidemic, the return of TB, millions of single parented children, child abuse and murder, child kidnappings, child sex slavery, and rampant child pornography, etc. To somehow stop this tsunami of hedonism was the just cause for political action in the wake of the 60-70’s revolution for end of the modernity era. Not realized by the majority of Christians at its height, the Christian Right movement was based on an eschatological theology.  Rarely explained, the belief was that the Church must first transform the world, virtually bring the Kingdom of God into existence in the earth by establishing a righteous government, before Jesus would return. It was called by several names, most commonly Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Now_theology

Was it justified? At the time it was. In my opinion, the Christian Right was a huge distraction from the Church’s true mission of preaching the gospel to change individual lives and thus bringing the Kingdom of God His prescribed way which transforms society one life at a time. Jesus’ return, like His coming, will not be based on our righteousness but on the Father’s plans which were established before the foundations of the world. We have only to look at the state of politics today to realize this was a major failed effort. We had great momentum in God’s answer to the “revolution” which was the charismatic revival, where millions were delivered from “sex, drugs and rock n roll” and witnessed to the new Life Christ brings. But we sold out to trickle down salvation thinking: if only we get a Christian president and a saved congress into office, we could pass enough laws and curb the tide of evil, and save our nation. Sounds good but someone forgot to read Paul’s insight in Romans 5:20 that “the Law was added that the trespass might increase." But after seven “Christian” presidents and hundreds of other senators and congressmen promising change, our nation is in its lowest moral state. The question for the EC is: what fears in the EC movement are being propped up today by underlying doctrine that again depends upon man’s efforts to right our world? You too have voices and a movement that one day will be scrutinized by the next generation following you. Nothing is new under the sun. 

Diversity
One of the things you hear a lot is "The emerging church believes..." as if everyone who remotely identifies themselves as emerging believes the same thing.  You can say "they" don't believe in absolute truth, but you can't possibly mean everyone believes that.  It's like saying "Baptists believe drinking alcohol is a sin."  Really?  Every Baptist does?  Understand there is diversity in the emerging church just as there is in Protestantism, evangelicalism, and Reformed Christianity.

Honesty
In critiquing any movement, make sure you've actually read at least something by someone representing that movement.  It never ceases to amaze me how Calvinists on the one hand get so angry at Arminians who have only read Dave Hunt's critique of the doctrines of grace while on the other hand critique the emerging church having only read John MacArthur.  Read some of their stuff and engage with that, don't take someone else's word for it, even if you respect that person completely. 

Along the same lines, if you read a critique of the emerging church by someone who has not actually conversed with the people he is calling out, be suspicious.  It's all about being honest when you make a critique, something I hope people would be towards me.

Charity
One of the things I've observed is people making the worst possible assumptions when an emerging church does something or a leader says something.  Imagine if everything you said was taken to an extreme end, making you seem as if you're a nutball (assuming of course that aren't a nutball).  Extend some charity to those with whom you disagree, the same charity you would extend to someone like John Piper, who has been known to say some pretty outrageous things.  It does not mean you have to agree with them, only that you don't have to assume the worst until you are certain.

As I said before, I have no stake in this.  I'm not emerging, and I really don't know anyone who is (in real life), so I don't have a need to defend anyone.  What bothers me is when people I love, people who are my family, people who are godly Christians behave in a way that is unseemly towards other Christians.  This bothers me because in it I see the way I have treated other traditions and how un-Christlike I have been toward other members of the family of God.

Read about A. W. Tozer

The Church: The Old Cross and the New Cross

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. --Galatians 6:14

The old cross slew men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it. The old cross brought tears and blood; the new cross brings laughter. The flesh, smiling and confident, preaches and sings about the cross; before that cross it bows and toward that cross it points with carefully staged histrionics--but upon that cross it will not die, and the reproach of that cross it stubbornly refuses to bear.

I well know how many smooth arguments can be marshalled in support of the new cross. Does not the new cross win converts and make many followers and so carry the advantage of numerical success? Should we not adjust ourselves to the changing times? Have we not heard the slogan, "New days, new ways"? And who but someone very old and very conservative would insist upon death as the appointed way to life? And who today is interested in a gloomy mysticism that would sentence its flesh to a cross and recommend self-effacing humility as a virtue actually to be practiced by modern Christians? These are the arguments, along with many more flippant still, which are brought forward to give an appearance of wisdom to the hollow and meaningless cross of popular Christianity. The Pursuit of Man, 53,54.

"Lord, it's not popular today to be 'old-fashioned.' But I commit myself today to the old cross. Help me today to deny myself, to take up my cross, and to follow You. Amen."

Do people go to the Grand Canyon to increase their self-esteem? Probably not. This is, at least, a hint that the deepest joys in life come not from savoring the self, but from seeing splendor. And in the end even the Grand Canyon will not do. We were made to enjoy God.

We are all bent to believe that we are central in the universe. How shall we be cured of this joy-destroying disease? Perhaps by hearing afresh how radically God-centered reality is according to the Bible.

Both the Old and New Testament tell us that God's loving us is a means to our glorifying him. "Christ became a servant ... in order that the nations might glorify God for his mercy" (Romans 15:8-9). God has been merciful to us so that we would magnify him. We see it again in the words, "In love [God] destined us to adoption ... to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Ephesians 1:4-6). In other words, the goal of God's loving us is that we might praise him. One more illustration from Psalm 86:12-13: "I will glorify your name forever. For your lovingkindness toward me is great." God's love is the ground. His glory is the goal.

This is shocking. The love of God is not God's making much of us, but God's saving us from self-centeredness so that we can enjoy making much of him forever. And our love to others is not our making much of them, but helping them to find satisfaction in making much of God. True love aims at satisfying people in the glory of God. Any love that terminates on man is eventually destructive. It does not lead people to the only lasting joy, namely, God. Love must be God-centered, or it is not true love; it leaves people without their final hope of joy.

Take the cross of Christ, for example. The death of Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of divine love: "God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Yet the Bible also says that the aim of the death of Christ was "to demonstrate [God's] righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins previously committed" (Romans 3:25). Passing over sins creates a huge problem for the righteousness of God. It makes him look like a judge who lets criminals go free without punishment. In other words, the mercy of God puts the justice of God in jeopardy.

So to vindicate his justice he does the unthinkable – he puts his Son to death as the substitute penalty for our sins. The cross makes it plain to everyone that God does not sweep evil under the rug of the universe. He punishes it in Jesus for those who believe.

But notice that this ultimately loving act has at the center of it the vindication of the righteousness of God. Good Friday love is God-glorifying love. God exalts God at the cross. If he didn't, he could not be just and rescue us from sin. But it is a mistake to say, "Well, if the aim was to rescue us, then we were the ultimate goal of the cross." No, we were rescued from sin in order that we might see and savor the glory of God. This is the ultimately loving aim of Christ's death. He did not die to make much of us, but to free us to enjoy making much of God forever.

It is profoundly wrong to turn the cross into a proof that self-esteem is the root of mental health. If I stand before the love of God and do not feel a healthy, satisfying, freeing joy unless I turn that love into an echo of my self-esteem, then I am like a man who stands before the Grand Canyon and feels no satisfying wonder until he translates the canyon into a case for his own significance. That is not the presence of mental health, but bondage to self.

The cure for this bondage is to see that God is the one being in the universe for whom self-exaltation is the most loving act. In exalting himself – Grand Canyon-like – he gets the glory and we get the joy. The greatest news in all the world is that there is no final conflict between my passion for joy and God's passion for his glory. The knot that ties these together is the truth that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Jesus Christ died and rose again to forgive the treason of our souls, which have turned from savoring God to savoring self. In the cross of Christ, God rescues us from the house of mirrors and leads us out to the mountains and canyons of his majesty. Nothing satisfies us – or magnifies him – more.

Originally published in Dallas Morning News.