Few of you probably know that in my first two years of college I actually wanted to go into politics. I was planning on getting a prelaw degree, and moving on to whatever law school would take me, and work my way to eventually become a Senator. Thank God I was called out of that and received a heart-change to instead go into ministry.
However, if I ever change my mind and decide to run for office, this year has given me plenty of lessons to tuck away for that. I mean, Donald Trump keeps winning all of these Evangelical voters; obviously, he must be a man of God!
I decided to set up a list of ten points I should emulate in order to win the Evangelical vote in a Presidential Primary. These points hardly need any elaboration:
1) Have multiple affairs.
2) Use nasty, sexist terms in referring to women who disagree with me.
3) Boast about taking advantage of corrupt politicians for my own financial gain.
4) Be pro-partial birth abortion.
5) Mock disabled people's disabilities when they disagree with me.
6) Demean the service of a war hero who was tortured for years in Vietnam, saying, "He's not a war hero; he got caught. I like people who don't get caught".
7) Tell a group of Christians that I've never asked God to forgive me (and this is after all of those affairs).
8) Advocate for targeting the families of terrorists.
9) Advocate for Eminent Domain for private businesses; where private businesses can use the government to take your property by force in order to build their strip clubs and casinos.
10) Make millions in said strip clubs and casinos.
I mean, this stuff is straight out of the Gospels, am I right? When I ask, "What Would Jesus Do", I immediately think of at least three of these ten things!
Thank you, Evangelicals, for voting for such a godly, respectable, conservative man like Donald Trump. You've given me hope for a bright, Spirit-led future for the Church in these United States.
(In case you're a typical Trump supporter, this is called sarcasm.)
One of the major focuses this generation has is a desire to be "authentic" or "genuine" or "real", especially in matters of faith. The desire for true religion, although many of these people may prefer the term "spirituality" to "religion", is most certainly a noble one; we all should strive for an authentic expression of our Faith. Many times, this desire is conjoined with the proclamation of going "back to the Scriptures" and "back to the Early Church".
I see so much good in the non-denominational movement: their love for ministering to the poor, their passion for overseas missions; and no, not simply to Paris or Venice for "missions trips" that are actually just paid vacations that score brownie points. We are talking going to third world countries to spread the love of God to the uttermost parts of the earth--all of these things and more make me glad to call them my brothers and sisters in the Faith.
Unfortunately, in many of these churches I see a very different form of theology and worship from that of the Early Church. The differences aren't necessarily game-changers--these aren't all essentials to the Faith--but they certainly aren't the way that the Early Church ran things. If your desire is to emulate them, then pay heed to these four particular differences from that nice mega-church down the road with the coffee shop in the auditorium and the hipsters vaping outside between services...
1) The Early Church was Hierarchical.
When the Apostles were still alive, they led the Church and spread it throughout the Roman empire. The epistles we have in Scripture are almost all responses to questions sent to the Apostles from local churches; the local churches were asking them, because these men were their leaders.
After the death of the Apostles, the Bishops took their role as leaders of various parts of the Church. The Bishops were placed in charge of multiple church homes, and while they were not given the same amount of power and authority as the Apostles, they were still considered the leaders of the Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch was one such Bishop; trained by St. John the Evangelist, author of five books of the New Testament; it might be worth something to hear what he had to say about the office of Bishop:
"It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality. For it is not the being called so, but the being really so, that renders a man blessed. To those who indeed talk of the Bishop, but do all things without him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by nature, declare, 'Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say?' (Luke 6:46). For such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience, but to be simply dissemblers and hypocrites."--Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 4 (longer version)
Or, if you're one of the more skeptical types, the shorter version of the same passage along with the previous chapter:
"Now it becomes you also not to treat your Bishop too familiarly on the account of his youth (literally, "to use the age of your Bishop") but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the Power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters (local pastors) do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance (of their Bishop), but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey (your Bishop) in honour of Him Who has willed us (so to do), since he that does not so deceives not (by such conduct) the Bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, Who knows all secrets. "It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed hive one the title of Bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment."--Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapters 3-4 (shorter version)
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote this and other letters while on his way to his martyrdom in Rome, in A.D. 107. Some people point to St. Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians (likely his only extant epistle to the Corinthians) as a counter to the claim that the Christians after the Apostles had a Bishop ruling over multiple local churches, but that is mainly an argument from silence. Even if that were granted, it is incredibly difficult to argue against a hierarchical structure within the vast majority of Christianity by the end of the 2nd century.
What does this mean, in laymen's terms? It means that for most of the Early Church, each local church community was under the authority of a regional leader. That means that if your non-denominational church named "The Impact" or "Exciting New Awesome Christ Follower Community Center Place" were transported back in time to the 2nd century, the Christians surrounding you would expect you to be under the authority of the region's Bishop...who'd hopefully then make you change your church's hideously annoying name (it's a joke, guys; laugh a little!).
2) The Early Church Used the Deuterocanon (a.k.a, "The Apocrypha").
GASP!!!! OH NO!!!!!! The Apocrypha is that there Devil's book collection!!!!!
...or, that's what I was told, growing up.
Friends don't let friends believe what's written in Chick Tracts.
If the Deuterocanon (that's the better name for it than "Apocrypha") is Satanic, or even just not a good collection of writings helpful for the Church, then why did...
The Didache (second half of the 1st century)
St. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107)
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (first half of the 2nd century)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 180)
St. Clement of Alexandria (mid 2nd-early 3rd centuries)
Tertullian (mid 2nd-early 3rd centuries)
St. Hippolytus of Rome (late 2nd-early 3rd centuries)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (early 3rd century)
and a whole host of other Early Church Fathers use it, even authoritatively?
Even more important; the version of the Old Testament overwhelmingly used by the writers of the New Testament was the version of the Old Testament that utilized deuterocanonical books. The vast majority of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In fact, when the Septuagint and what becomes known as the Masoretic text (sorry if I'm nerding too much on you all: for simplicity's sake, think of the Masoretic text as the "no Deuterocanon/Apocrypha" Old Testament and the Septuagint as the "Deuterocanon/Apocrypha" Old Testament. I could delve into the history of the two major streams of the Old Testament, but that'd take a long time and would probably bore you to death) say different things in the same passage, the New Testament authors tend to side with the Septuagint.
Now, why is this important? Because, as stated in the previous paragraph, the Septuagint utilizes the Deuterocanon. Granted, there is no uniform canon for the Septuagint, but the copies we have all make use of a variety of the books generally considered "apocryphal" to the majority of Protestants.
Now, to be fair, I must quickly add that the Early Church was not uniform in its understanding of the Deuterocanonical books. While the Church Fathers mentioned above, and many more, utilized it authoritatively, many within the Church were not so readily accepting of them. One example is St. Jerome, while others exist in addition to him. However, few if any of the Early Church Fathers would have entirely rejected them, and absolutely none to my knowledge considered them Satanic (sorry, Chick Tracts...).
So what should be done with them?
Well, the consensus of the Church Fathers throughout history seems to be that they should be considered incredibly important to Christians at the very least, not simply rejected. What the Anglican Communion does is consider them as a "lesser" canon; still to be used in readings during church services and as part of one's studies, but not with the same level of authority as the New Testament or the more universally accepted books of the Old Testament. What that means, for example, is that we can't read the Book of Tobit and find some claim in it that can only be found in that Book (and not in the universally accepted Canon), then teach that point as an authoritative doctrine for the whole Church or as necessary for salvation. Roman Catholicism considers the Deuterocanon to be fully canonical, and the Eastern Churches have a variety of canon lists for the Deuterocanon, as well as varying degrees of canonicity for them.
Protestant churches would do well to utilize these precious texts for teaching, if for no reason other than to help better understand the Scriptures and the Early Church. While specific views differed on the canonicity of these texts, it was universally recognized as at least important for the growth of the Church, and certainly not Satanic books to be avoided.
3) The Early Church Worshiped Liturgically.
Sorry, guys; the Early Church was not some free-for-all worship-however-you-want music fest. Contrary to popular Protestant belief, the structure of Church worship was pretty high.
And they didn't wear crap like this, thank God (courtesy of the Facebook group "Christian Memes").
"But didn't they worship in homes? Doesn't that strongly imply that they worshiped in a more free-style form?"
Yes, the Early Church generally did meet in homes for their worship services. However, as far as we can see historically, they maintained a pretty high form of liturgical worship. The oldest liturgy still used today is the Liturgy of St. James, which at absolute latest was finalized in the 4th century. Below are a few pictures of the liturgy, taken from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume VII:
That's pretty different from your modern worship service today, isn't it?
Okay...REALLY quick lesson, here: Sacramental theology is the belief that the Sacraments (specifically Baptism and the Eucharist) mediate Grace to us. When we are Baptized, according to Sacramental theology, we are literally in some mysterious way ("Sacrament" means "mystery") united to the death of Christ (read Romans 6; yes, the entire chapter). When we partake in the Eucharist or what you might call Communion, according to Sacramental theology, we are in some mysterious way taking part in the Body and Blood of Jesus (read John 6:22-71, or more concisely, John 6:52-58; as well, 1 Corinthians 10:16 and a whole host of other passages, but that's enough for now) which saves us. There are other Sacraments in the Western Church, but I want to focus on these two for now.
The Early Church was incredibly Sacramental. Here are a few quotes confessing both the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the power of it for the Christian:
"Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His Blood; one altar; as there is one Bishop, along with the Presbytery and Deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to (the will of) God."--Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Philadelphians, chapter IV (shorter version)
"But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the Grace of Christ which has come to us (that part's important), how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphans, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
"They abstain from the Eucharist (Communion) and from prayer, (here it comes...)because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this Gift of God(the Eucharist), incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it is better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again."--Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrneans, chapters VI-VII (shorter version)
"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made Flesh by the Word of God, had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made Flesh."--St. Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapter 66 (middle of the 2nd century)
Here, we see both the Real Presence and the power of the Eucharist proclaimed in the Early Fathers; there are plenty of other passages that can be used to demonstrate this (as well, I wrote an article last year giving a Scriptural defense of it), but we will move on to Baptism.
Both Baptismal Regeneration (Sacramental theology) and Infant Baptism are taught in the Early Church.
"Now this is what Faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it has admonished us to remember that we have received Baptism for the remission of sins in the Name of God the Father, and in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who became Incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this Baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God; and that the eternal and everlasting One is God, and is above all creatures, and that all things whatsoever are subject to Him; and that what is subject to Him was all made by Him; so that God is not ruler and Lord of what is another's, but of His Own, and all things are God's; that God, therefore, is the Almighty, and all things whatsoever are from God."--St. Irenaeus' The Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, (written approximately A.D. 180)
"For He (Jesus) came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."--St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book II, 22:4 (written approximately A.D. 180)
"And again, giving to the Disciples the power of regeneration into God, He (Jesus) said to them, 'Go and teach all nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'"--St. Irenaeus' Against Heresis, Book III, 17:1 (written approximately A.D. 180)
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you (Fidus) say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day(in other words, Fidus is wanting to not Baptize infants until the 8th day, due to Jewish Law making it 8 days before circumcision), we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man."--The Epistles of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter LVIII, 2 (written approximately A.D. 253)
Most of these aren't necessarily essential to the Faith; however, they are important. If we reject these points of doctrine, what is our reasoning? Because they don't fit into our already maintained belief system? Because they would require us to reexamine our church and see if it is one that is consistent with the rest of Christianity? Because we are already too comfortable?
If those are the reasons, it is time for a serious reflection on how your Faith works out in your life. If you have other objections, then seek wisdom on the subject; don't just immediately reject the Fathers because of those objections. See why you disagree with them, and try to work it all out. Ask men and women far more knowledgeable in the Faith than you, including those who are in different denominations. Perhaps, read the Church Fathers themselves.
After all, many of them died for the Faith. Many died so that we could have the Faith passed down to us and the Scriptures to help lead us. The least we can do in thanks is read what they thought, and listen to what they had to say.
Pretty direct, isn't it? Kinda like Donald Trump himself, eh?
I'd be lying if I claimed I understood why people like Trump so much. Because he's a straight talker? Really? The guy's a salesman; the only feeling I get from him when he talks is, well, the oily salesman feel. Because he's an "outsider", and not part of the "establishment"? He may not be the political "establishment", but he's certainly not an "outsider". When I think of outsiders, I think of people who genuinely do have grassroots campaigns, not largely self-financed campaigns.
But none of that is as important as what I'm about to bring up.
I'm not going to talk about policy proposals, or how "conservative" or "liberal" he is, or anything like that. What I'm bringing up, here, is his status as a Christian.
Fellow Christians, if you want a godly man to be the President of the United States, then Donald Trump isn't for you. No, not because of his many marriages and divorces. No, not because of any shady business practices in his past. I don't know much about any of that.
No; this video is why you should not vote for Donald Trump in the primaries or the general election:
Okay. Wow. Please rewatch that if you are still liking Trump.
So...he's never asked God to forgive him.
No: first, he's way too busy trying to prove that he's a Christian. He gives "details" about this in the fact that he's a 1) Protestant, 2) Presbyterian, and 3) was under Pastor Norman Vincent Peale...who retired in 1984 and died in 1993. Oh. And Pastor Peale wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking". That's about all of the details he could give to sideline the question.
Really? You can't name your current pastor? You have to name a pastor who retired before I was born? Over 30 years ago? Who died in the early 90's? Really?
Oh it gets better, because he's still not answered the question of whether he's ever asked God to forgive him.
Answer? No. He's not. He just tries to "make it right"...
A Presbyterian said that.
Excuse me: a "Presbyterian".
Presbyterians are the most Calvinistic denomination we have today (sorry, Reformed Baptists). John Calvin. The Total Depravity Guy. But let's leave aside that. He doesn't ask God to forgive him when he sins.
Which I'm assuming means that he's never prayed the Lord's Prayer? "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who've trespassed against us..."
I'm pretty sure that that is one of the few things that absolutely all Christians believe one must do: repent.
And he doesn't repent.
And he is apparently not even aware of how much of a jaw-dropping statement that is to make as a "Christian".
What?
What?
There is no excuse for this. There is no explaining this away. Not only pandering, but demonstrably showing that he is unaware of the very core of the Christian Faith; how can he call himself a Christian?
Oh, and the video wraps up with that wonderful little statement at the end that he made about John McCain, an actual war hero who was captured and tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam:
"He's not a war hero...He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, okay?"
If I need to explain the horror of that quote, I'm not talking with a rational person.
On Super Tuesday, please do not vote for Donald Trump.
If becomes the GOP nominee, then on election day do not vote for Donald Trump.
Okay...wow. Praise God; I'd been praying that whole week that God would not let our Communion split. I sincerely believed that the Archbishop of Canterbury would do nothing about the Episcopal Church (and the Anglican Church in Canada; more on that, later), leaving the conservative Primates to simply walk out on the Communion. That would mean about 80% of the Communion, the ACNA included, would leave.
Instead, we had the Primates vote to "not sanction" but face "consequences" (read: "sanction") the Episcopal Church for its formal endorsement of gay marriage.
For those who do not know, the Episcopal Church has been in a downward spiral, spiritually, for the past three or four decades. It first began with the ordination of women into the priesthood (or...did it begin with the allowance of contraception? Yes, I just went there.), and continued with the ordination of women to the bishopric, then with the allowance of an actively gay man into the bishopric in 2003 (an alcoholic who eventually had to resign, and also "divorced" his "husband", the one he was living with for seventeen years after divorcing his wife in 1986...but yeah, he fit St. Paul's requrements to become a bishop; sure. Oh! And he's totes legit wildly conservative!!!!) and the promotion of gay "marriage" in the Church, then finally had the marriage rite changed last year (2015) to include gay couples.
So this downward spiral has been pointed out repeatedly throughout the years, with little consequential action done. It has caused many divisions within the Communion, most notably the formation of the ACNA. It's also caused an international alliance of conservative Anglicans, known as GAFCON, to push for more conservative reforms and discipline against those who've pushed for fundamental changes within the doctrines of the Church.
On the week of January 11th, 2016, the Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered together in Canterbury for a meeting on what to do to maintain unity within the Church. Somewhat surprisingly, my Archbishop Foley Beach was invited to the gathering as well by Archbishop Justin Welby. Why is that surprising? Because we split from the Episcopal Church, and are not considered "fully Anglican" by the Archbishop of Canterbury, although 80% of the Communion recognizes us as fully Anglican. Initially, my Archbishop was only going to be observing the talks, with no ability to vote for any decisions to be made. We'll get to that part soon enough.
Our church parish had been praying for the gathering ever since it was first announced last year. Many of us were concerned that the Primates gathering would be unable to come to a solution, which would cause many of the conservatives to simply leave the Communion. Thankfully, that did not happen; far from it. Instead, the Communion decided, by a 3/4's majority, that the Episcopal Church needed to "have consequences" (read: "be sanctioned") for its actions in unilaterally changing the understanding of marriage. For the next three years, the Episcopal Church is not allowed to represent the Anglican Communion in any official capacity, nor is it allowed to vote in matters of doctrine or polity. Archbishop Foley Beach was not only invited to the talks, but was given full allowance to vote on the issues at hand!
You should see this interview with Archbishop Foley Beach:
You should also see this (much longer) press conference with Archbishop Justin Welby and some other Primates:
This has been nothing but an amazing sign of God's Hand on our Communion; people don't know this, but the Anglican Communion is the third largest group of Christians in the world. We are also strongly conservative, despite the image that the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and a few other groups have presented us as. There are some minor (and I want to stress, minor) problems with some of the decisions made, but I don't want to focus on those at all right now. This gathering demonstrated that the conservatives are still the majority in the Communion, that Archbishop Welby is not going to make the same mistakes as his predecessor, and that there is a real possibility for the ACNA to take the place of the Episcopal Church, if TEC does not repent of its sins (all signs indicate that it will not).
Who knows? We'll find out more within three years. For now, let's praise God for keeping our Communion together.
Alright, it's time I came clean. I've been living a duplicitous life for a long time. I kept acting like I loved Jesus and was following His commands, but in reality I wasn't.
So, I've decided to no longer live a life of lies; I'm giving up my relationship with Jesus.
This revelation might disappoint some of you, while others might be happy about it. Hopefully, you all can appreciate and still love me after making this decision...
...oh, wait: you think I'm saying I'm no longer a Christian?! Well, how silly of you: of COURSE I'm a Christian still! I'm just getting rid of my former BAD relationship with Christ; that's all I was saying! Of course, EVERYONE has a relationship with God, whether it's a good or a bad one. Mine was bad. Like, I was periodically falling into the sins of lust and procrastination; because of that, my relationship with Jesus was bad, so I had to get rid of it and start having a GOOD relationship with Jesus. That's all I'm saying, guys!
Last night I went to a college group that meets once a week at a church near where I live. It's a non-denominational group; the people there are good-hearted and many of them genuinely love God. I'm a cranky Anglo-Catholic, so part of my reason for going to it (as well as other church places, periodically) is to remind myself that people can genuinely worship God with low-church (read: rock n' roll Jesus concert) worship services. I may disagree with the form of worship, but I don't think it's necessarily unbiblical.
However, when I got there last night I walked to one of the seats and remained standing for the song (I was a bit late). The song was one I'd never heard before, so I couldn't sing the words to it very well. Thankfully, like any good modern worship service, there was a screen with the words to the song on it. When we got to the chorus, I read these words:
"I'm laying down all my religion
I'm laying down
I want to know you, Lord
I'm laying down all my religion
I'm laying down
I want to know you, Lord
I want to know you, Lord"
When I saw those lyrics, I had to leave the service. Part of it was anger, because (besides the fact that rejection of the Christian religion is both incredibly stupid and wrong) one of my pet peeves is the whole "spiritual but not religious" foolishness. I was going to have to talk to people about that song if I remained there, so rather than remain and cause contention during and immediately after a worship service, I decided to quietly and peacefully remove myself from the situation.
Yay for self-control! ^_^ .
Now, for people who sing this song or songs like it, I'm sure many of you don't really mean, "I'm laying down my belief in God, the Deity of Christ, Jesus' death paying for my sins, the physical Resurrection of Jesus, our future physical Resurrection, the Church as the Bride of Christ, the authority of Scripture, belief that abortion is murder, understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman for life, etc.", when you say "I'm laying down my religion".
But guess what? When we tell people that we're "spiritual but not religious", or "laying down my religion", there's a really good chance that that's what they think we mean.
This is one of the many problems with my generation (myself included): we think that because we use a word in a certain way, everyone understands exactly what we mean by it. Perhaps it's a problem for every generation, but it seems much more pronounced today among my peers (once again, myself included).
United Pursuit performs the song "Simple Gospel", the one that I have a major problem with. I'm sure they mean well, but good intentions don't mean anything when your words lead people to reject Christ's teachings in favor of a do-nothing feel-goodism. Songs like this can lead people to a false faith that collapses the moment tribulation comes, leading them to hate God Himself.
(photo obtained from http://www.worshiptogether.com/worship-leaders/united-pursuit/ )
Words are important; when we use words like "religion" to talk about, well, "only bad, man-made, divisive religion", we run a terrible risk of coming across as meaning, "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you have a good feeling when you sing songs about Jesus." to young Christians or to those interested in possibly becoming Christian.
It is especially bad if we simply make it a song and refuse to elaborate what we mean in the lyrics.
I'm sorry, but when we let go of Christian religion, "Simple Gospel" can very easily be confused with "watered-down gospel".
"Simple Faith" can turn into, "dumbed down blind and feel-good faith".
A watered-down "gospel" has no power.
A dumbed down poor excuse for "faith" that only works when things go well is worse than useless: it creates angry former Christians who've been let down by the lies a dumbed down blind faith promises. I know many people who fit that story, as I'm sure you do. Good Lord, I almost became that story a few years ago.
Our words are important.
Treat our words with the utmost care and respect.
Let's pick our worship songs carefully. Let's drop this one.
I'm in my friend's house one Sunday afternoon, when I hear some cheering, followed by ecstatic giggling, coming from one of the rooms. The room belongs to my friend's roommate.
What? I wonder, then think it might be better not to know. However, curiosity gets the better of me, as it always does, and I decide to ask.
"Hey," I call out his name. "What the heck are you giggling like some little girl for?" (I'm blunt like that.)
"Oh, the Passion Conference is livestreaming right now, and I'm watching it."
"Oh, um...okay. Did you go to church this morning?" I knew the answer.
"No, but I'm watching the Passion Conference, so it's basically the same thing."
Seeing that he goes to a non-denominational church, one that I've been to, I could not disagree much with his logic.
For those of you so (un)fortunate (take your pick) to not know what the Passion Conference is, it's a conference (duh) that happens once a year in Atlanta, Georgia. Here's the promotional for this year's event, which happened just a few days ago:
Now, I've never been to Passion Conference, and I never plan on going to it. At all. Ever. I'm too old now, anyway.
I'm sure it's got good preaching; in fact, I know it's got some great preachers. Francis Chan is one of my favorite preachers, despite my disagreements with him on parts of theology, and he's preached at this conference.
While I've not been to the conference, I've seen enough clips from the sermons and music to get what it's about. I've also been to Passion City Church, which was...less than thrilling for me. Call me a cranky Anglo-Catholic, but I kinda got ticked when a bunch of teens and college students started "Christian mosh-pitting" in front of the stage for the Sunday night church service; that's what I called it, anyway. It's sort of like a mosh pit, without the actual moshing. It's like when people want to go crazy at a party, but not REALLY, so they kinda just waddle around.
Anyways, I'm getting off-point.
My reason for writing this article is not so much to critique Passion Conference itself, although I might do that for a variety of reasons, but to point out the problem that that friend's roommate has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate, along with a great many others in cultural Christianity: the infatuating of the love we are to have towards God.
I am NOT saying that our love for God should be without emotion; far from it. I've cried at services, both contemporary and liturgical. Nor am I saying that the people I am talking about are somehow not Christians. NOR am I saying that modern musical instruments or even modern genres of music are bad. I am saying that there is a real problem in how we, as Christians in the United States, often find ourselves whittling down the Faith to a feeling. A strong feeling, perhaps, but one with no substance.
I don't say this as a person who was never caught up in that mentality. I went through my own "relationship not a religion" "Jesus is my homeboy" stage not five years ago. I went to one of the big mega-churches in my town, and got caught up in the whole emotional-manipulation scheme, which is all it really was. For the moment it "feels right"...but it doesn't ever actually lead to repentance and a deeper faith.
Taken from http://terryivy.com/
That being said, this is what I have to say:
Stop it.
God is not your girlfriend.
God is the creator of the universe.
You should not have a feeling towards God that is pretty much the same feeling you had when you went to your Hannah Montana concert in 5th grade.
You should not ignore the intellectual part of Christianity, because you've confused the Holy Spirit with emotional manipulation.
You should not confuse an emotional high with spirituality.
Stop getting high on an entertainment atmosphere, thinking you're somehow closer to Jesus because of it.
The hyper-emotionalism of modern American Christianity has no roots. It creates Matthew 13:20 Christians, nothing more.
God doesn't deserve infatuation.
God doesn't deserve a one-night stand.
God deserves your devotion in its entirety, not just in momentary emotional highs, but in your intellect and spirit and body as well. And if you're a pragmatist who "doesn't have time for that theological mumbo-jumbo", I have news for you: theology is INCREDIBLY practical, and affects your beliefs far more than you realize.
You don't have to be a theologian contemplating the mysteries of the Divine in ways that would make St. Thomas Aquinas' (for my Reformed friends, insert "John Calvin"; for my "Jesus Hippie Movement" friends, put...I don't know, John Piper or Joel Osteen or whoever) head spin.
But you do have to be a theologian.
Just as you would chastise me--and rightly!--if I were to say we should worship without emotion, you should consider yourself a theologian and worship God in THAT respect as well.
I will close this article with a very good quote I recently came across; it's attributed to Warren and David Wiersbe:
"When ministry becomes
performance, then sanctuary becomes a theater, the congregation becomes an
audience, worship becomes entertainment, and man's applause and approval become
the measure of success. But when ministry is for the glory of God, His presence
moves into the sanctuary."
Wow, this year has been something for me!!! So many things have happened in 2015, both personal and public. I want to reflect on a few of them:
Two new nephews!
Okay, one of them was born late last December, but I didn't get to see either of them until this Thanksgiving. Both are adorable, and I love them to death. Now I have five nephews and one niece!!! They all live in Florida, and I live about fourteen hours away in Tennessee, so I don't get to see them nearly as often as I wish.
I became a Benedictine Monk!
This August I made my vows of Obedience, Stability, and Conversatio Morum ("conversion of manners" or "conversion of life"). I and my brothers at my parish pray and help our church with whatever is necessary for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
I'm...almost done with my undergrad degree!
Okay, I was supposed to graduate this past spring, but work wouldn't allow me to. Unless there are any unforseen problems, I'm graduating the summer of 2016, finishing my degree by taking two classes overseas in the U.K.; of course, I'm VERY excited about that! I just hope I have the finances for it. Prayers would be appreciated!
I launched a new Facebook page!
Yes, this year I decided that I should have a Facebook page dedicated to theology from an Anglo-Catholic perspective, so I started the "Barely Protestant" page. I've made new friends with it, and have had interesting conversations. The page keeps track of how many people view my articles, memes, posts, etc., and I am humbled by just how many people have read what I have to say. My articles have been read in the thousands, now, and my posts have on more than a few occasions reached in the tens of thousands of viewing per week.
There have been some setbacks, as well. I had to quit my job because of how much it impeded my ability to do school, opting instead for another job that is more willing to work with my schedule, but at a significant wage cut. That's not been easy, but God has provided time after time for me, bringing in money at the very last second. He is faithful.
I also had some relationship problems, specifically with three people in my life. Thank God that one of them reached out to me this Christmas Eve to make amends. That relationship may take time to restore, but I am confident that he and I will work it out. Another relationship, related to that situation, is still on shaky ground; pray for that one, that we both do what is right. The third one I see not being resolved, as the other person involved refuses to reconcile.
These three hurdles have retaught me the importance of forgiveness, letting go of bitterness, and admitting my own faults. Do not let pride get in the way of your relationships.
I also had to deal, most importantly, with three close friends who attempted suicide. Thankfully, all three are alive today, but for one I thought he was dead for two or three days. Those days were horrific. It's taught me that I need to be there for my friends even more, and not brush aside any concerns I have about their well-being. Two of the three are doing better now; I've not heard from one of them for about three or four months, unfortunately.
I'm continuing my journey through the Christian life, making progress each day. Thanks to my Benedictine Vows, I'm becoming more accustomed to daily prayer. My prayer is to still become a priest, but I want to make sure that I finish my undergraduate degree; this has become my priority.
I plan on blogging a lot more, and possibly starting a Youtube channel (I technically already have: check it out). All in all, I plan on doing a lot more with this, as I find time to; thankfully, I only have two classes this spring, and the two classes overseas this summer. Some of the ideas I have are:
Reviews of books
Critiques of horrible viral videos ("Why Jesus is totes legit okay with, like, just having sex with whoever you want or whatevs"-type videos; or any Buzzfeed videos that even mention Christianity, for that matter.)
Explanations of certain points of theology (Sacramental theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc.)
Answering your questions!!!
I've done a horrible job of that this year; my apologies. I was supposed to do a few articles, one specifically on the belief of Annihilation (as opposed to eternal conscious torment). I plan on making a series of that one, as it will take a while to explain and a few angles from which to do. Anyways, that's what I'm planning on for the coming year.
