In Christianity like most thing you have a conservative group, a liberal wing, a moderate wing, and all points in between. The conservatives and liberals do not get along. The conservatives wish that the liberals would be more orthodox and believe in the fundamentals of the faith. The liberals wish conservatives would modernize the faith and realize that we need a Christianity more in tune with the culture. I am a conservative who believes that doctrine is important. Is there anything we can learn from liberals? I am going to look at a few topics that are not quite as black and white as some say they are.
War and Peace
Many liberal Christians are pacifist. They interpret "blessed are the peacemakers" to be people who work to stop wars. They believe God hates wars and that all wars can be avoided. Some view war as a heinous sin. Many evangelicals believe that some wars are absolutely necessary. Like WW2, the War on Terror and some Christians even say that the war in Iraq was necessary. Jehovah's witnesses and liberals believe that Christians should not serve in the military. Most early Christians did not serve in the military but some did like Cornelius who was saved while a soldier. Most early Christians were non citizens or saves and were not required or allowed to serve. I believe that some wars are necessary, like the WW2 and the War on Terror. I do believe that the War in Iraq was unnecessary. While peace is a noble goal, it is foolish to pursue it at all costs. This was proven by Nevile Chamberlains' attempt to negotiate with Hitler. We should not go to war over everything. I believe we should be discriminating when deciding if to go to war or not. War should be defensive, not offensive.
Poverty
Liberal Christians believe that the primary missions of the church should be to care for the poor. They site Jesus' words on the sermon on the mount that says "blessed are the poor in spirit." They see the poor as literally poor people. They believe we must feed and clothe the poor all over the world. Some believe that it should be our primary responsibility as Christians. While as a fundamentalist I do not believe that feeding of the poor should be the end all and be all of the faith, but I don't believe that it should be excluded. We are called to feed the poor and will be judged on whether or not we have fed and clothed the poor. Can Christian ministries focus on the poor and not go liberal? Several reformed theologians, such as Tim Keller, D A Carson and John Piper concluded that you can and should feed the poor and can do it without becoming a liberal. It involves keeping the gospel the main thing. Feeding the poor and giving the gospel must have equal weight. The gospel must be preached as well as the people fed.
Environment
As Christians we believe that our planet was created by God. We believe that God was an intricate designer who made a marvelous creation. Even with the effects of sin, the earth is still a marvel. We are called to take care of the planet. We know that the planet will pass away. (1 Peter 3:12) That does not mean we should needlessly use up resources in an irresponsible way. Liberal Christians believe we should abandon the pro life cause and the pro family cause and focus on stopping global warming. I disagree with that. What bothers me is that when president George W. Bush was in office, Christians went along with almost everything he did. We went along with his pro-business and energy policy that included drilling in the United States. Everyone agrees that the ANWR oil reserves are limited and will not give much oil. Some argue that maybe there is more than they thought. I believe that we should take care of our planet. I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe that we should be careful with God's creation. I believe we need a middle ground on the issue of environment.
I do not believe the church should go liberal. I believe we should consider some of what they say. I disagree with the tendency to always do the exact opposite of what liberals teach. Just because the liberals believe we should go extreme and care for the environment, that does not mean that conservatives should pollute and drill, drill, drill. I want us to be responsible. We should carefully consider every issue calmly and not just to group think. We should seek the best course of action with prayer and meditation of scripture.
Lorship Salvation
Steven Andersen is the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Many of his sermons are available on YouTube. He is a fundamentalist preacher who is opposed to lordship salvation. He says if you lead someone to Christ, and tell him he must leave his live in girlfriend, that is works. I find that funny because most fundamentalist preachers would never allow that kind of behaviour to continue and I agree with that assessment. It is odd that he would make that statement. Is repentance really a work?
Anti Lordship salvation proponents claim that lordship camp believer believe ion works after salvation. Some refer to is as back loading works. This is not true. Lordship salvation believes that a person who is truly converted will live a life consistent with that claim. It is not a work because it just happens. Will a person stumble? Yes. When they fall on the ground, they will not stay on the ground. A new convert may not stop living with his girlfriend right away but in five years if he has still not moved out and they are not married, it is a problem. True Christians are not perfect but are consistent. God did not save us for the fun of it. The Christian life is more than fire insurance. God wants us to find fulfilment in him alone. We are commanded to be holy. (1 Peter 1:6) Romans 6:11 says, "likewise reckon yourself dead to sin and alive unto God. 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "but I keep under my body and bring it unto subjection." A christian lives like it.
I am not advocating we be fruit inspectors. At the same time we should not blindly accept everyone who professes to be a Christian. If someone blatantly defies God's law, lives like the world and claims to be a believer, we are legitimately questioning him.We should not use discernment as a weapon but to edify. Everything we should do should be out of love and truth. If someone dies who did not live like a Christian, but made a profession 15 years ago, it is wrong to preach them into heaven. Those who believe in lordship salvation believe in salvation by faith alone. We believe works prove salvation, not that they make a person saved.
Anti Lordship salvation proponents claim that lordship camp believer believe ion works after salvation. Some refer to is as back loading works. This is not true. Lordship salvation believes that a person who is truly converted will live a life consistent with that claim. It is not a work because it just happens. Will a person stumble? Yes. When they fall on the ground, they will not stay on the ground. A new convert may not stop living with his girlfriend right away but in five years if he has still not moved out and they are not married, it is a problem. True Christians are not perfect but are consistent. God did not save us for the fun of it. The Christian life is more than fire insurance. God wants us to find fulfilment in him alone. We are commanded to be holy. (1 Peter 1:6) Romans 6:11 says, "likewise reckon yourself dead to sin and alive unto God. 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "but I keep under my body and bring it unto subjection." A christian lives like it.
I am not advocating we be fruit inspectors. At the same time we should not blindly accept everyone who professes to be a Christian. If someone blatantly defies God's law, lives like the world and claims to be a believer, we are legitimately questioning him.We should not use discernment as a weapon but to edify. Everything we should do should be out of love and truth. If someone dies who did not live like a Christian, but made a profession 15 years ago, it is wrong to preach them into heaven. Those who believe in lordship salvation believe in salvation by faith alone. We believe works prove salvation, not that they make a person saved.
Abuse in the Church
I want to start out this post with a declaration. I was physically abused as a child. My father was a Sunday school teacher, deacon, chairman of the business meeting, Sunday School superintendent, you name it, he did it. He was even an ordained minister. He also had a problem with using foul language and inappropriate conversation with teenagers. He was not disciplined until he clashed with a lady in the church. Even then, he was not fully kicked out of the church until he threatened a lawsuit. They never went to the authorities. This is not an uncommon problem. In both Catholic and Protestant churches children have been abused physically, sexually and emotionally, and the church has done nothing. This has given fuel to people like Bill Mahr who already have an anti Christian bias. We say, "oh, it's rare," but is it?
The church has a problem. Why does abuse happen in the church? Jesus answered that question when he said, "Not everyone that sayeth unto me, 'Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. but he that doeth the will of him that sent me." It is difficult to spot pretend believers among true believers. That is not my story. My father was a horrible pretender. The clues were there. People refused to see those clues until he crossed the wrong person. She went after him because he would not do what she wanted. In my case, people for whatever reason, just did not care. Usually people think it can't happen here. They bury their heads in the sand. They just don't want to believe it. Sometimes they say the victim is lying. Other times they say, just suck it up.
One of the things that you often hear is that you need to forgive. That's true; Christians need to forgive. Jesus said to forgive seventy ties seven. We are called to forgive. The church has interpreted that to mean that we should not report the offender to the authorities. The victim needs to forgive and forget. The Bible says we need to obey the law as long as it does not interfere with God's law. The government exists to prosecute evil doers. (Romans 13:1-5)Crime should be reported. The church should not participate in cover ups of abuse crimes. Yes, we should forgive. That does not mean to shove it under the rug. Those who fail to report abuse cases are co-conspirators and criminals. They should go to jail as much as the offender.
The church needs to care. They need to take accusations of abuse seriously. I know that there are fake victims, however, it is not for us to decide. We should report it and let the police sort it out. We need to not help those who help the church hurt us more. Let's not legitimize their hatred. We need to be a force for good. We serve the living God, the only way to salvation. We need to act like it. We need to not be a club that protects its own. We need to change.
I write this hoping that people will get serious about this topic. I've heard so many stories of abuse in the church that have not been dealt with. Churches need to examine past actions. Sins of the past need to be confessed. We need to have clear policies of reporting and investigating allegations. We need to have clear checks and balances within the church. I do not support a McCarthyist witch hunt system. I've seen that, too. do want to truth to come out, because after all, that's what we're about, isn't it.
The church has a problem. Why does abuse happen in the church? Jesus answered that question when he said, "Not everyone that sayeth unto me, 'Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. but he that doeth the will of him that sent me." It is difficult to spot pretend believers among true believers. That is not my story. My father was a horrible pretender. The clues were there. People refused to see those clues until he crossed the wrong person. She went after him because he would not do what she wanted. In my case, people for whatever reason, just did not care. Usually people think it can't happen here. They bury their heads in the sand. They just don't want to believe it. Sometimes they say the victim is lying. Other times they say, just suck it up.
One of the things that you often hear is that you need to forgive. That's true; Christians need to forgive. Jesus said to forgive seventy ties seven. We are called to forgive. The church has interpreted that to mean that we should not report the offender to the authorities. The victim needs to forgive and forget. The Bible says we need to obey the law as long as it does not interfere with God's law. The government exists to prosecute evil doers. (Romans 13:1-5)Crime should be reported. The church should not participate in cover ups of abuse crimes. Yes, we should forgive. That does not mean to shove it under the rug. Those who fail to report abuse cases are co-conspirators and criminals. They should go to jail as much as the offender.
The church needs to care. They need to take accusations of abuse seriously. I know that there are fake victims, however, it is not for us to decide. We should report it and let the police sort it out. We need to not help those who help the church hurt us more. Let's not legitimize their hatred. We need to be a force for good. We serve the living God, the only way to salvation. We need to act like it. We need to not be a club that protects its own. We need to change.
I write this hoping that people will get serious about this topic. I've heard so many stories of abuse in the church that have not been dealt with. Churches need to examine past actions. Sins of the past need to be confessed. We need to have clear policies of reporting and investigating allegations. We need to have clear checks and balances within the church. I do not support a McCarthyist witch hunt system. I've seen that, too. do want to truth to come out, because after all, that's what we're about, isn't it.
Sugar and Philosophy
Recently our family's diet has changed. We researched food and how it was made. We have discovered how bad sugar is. Not that thought it was good, but we realize just how bad it is. We made the decisions as a family to stop eating foods with sugar. This has been a difficult transition for me. Far more for me than for my wife. I am not really a sweet tooth, but do like candy chips and cupcakes on occasion. The hardest was giving up soda. According to one of the health experts online, a love of sugar is often your parasite's need to have sugar. I'm not sure I fully buy this. I began to think if my love of sweet things is just a chemical reaction, is it really limited to food.
Everyone has hobbies. They have interests, things they enjoy. But do they really enjoy those things, or is it just a chemical reaction? C.S. Lewis had a club or intellectuals that included J.R.R Tolkien and others. Their cub believed that a person was not defined by their interests. Our interests are so much a part of how we live. They are the things that we enjoy doing. Are they us? If we are a product of the things we are used, things that chemicals respond to who are we really? The atomist believed that events were determined by particles that make up the galaxy. Some believe these atoms were fixed, while others believed they swerved and that swerving caused free will. Could it be that people are different only because they are wired differently.
Do chemical reactions determine how we do things or do we influence the chemical reactions by our choices. Are we slaves to these choices or are the choices our slaves. Who controls who? This reminds me of the nineties song, "Walking in Memphis." The last line of the chorus says, "Do I really feel the way I do?" You could ask, do I feel at all? Is it just chemicals. I believe we are created by God with an intellect. Though we have these chemical reactions, we have choices. I believe we determine what we do. I also believe that God is in control of everything. Anything we do is ultimately controlled by God. God puts limits on our actions. Anything we do is allowed by God, even though he knows another way many be better. Yes, I do really feel the way I do.
Everyone has hobbies. They have interests, things they enjoy. But do they really enjoy those things, or is it just a chemical reaction? C.S. Lewis had a club or intellectuals that included J.R.R Tolkien and others. Their cub believed that a person was not defined by their interests. Our interests are so much a part of how we live. They are the things that we enjoy doing. Are they us? If we are a product of the things we are used, things that chemicals respond to who are we really? The atomist believed that events were determined by particles that make up the galaxy. Some believe these atoms were fixed, while others believed they swerved and that swerving caused free will. Could it be that people are different only because they are wired differently.
Do chemical reactions determine how we do things or do we influence the chemical reactions by our choices. Are we slaves to these choices or are the choices our slaves. Who controls who? This reminds me of the nineties song, "Walking in Memphis." The last line of the chorus says, "Do I really feel the way I do?" You could ask, do I feel at all? Is it just chemicals. I believe we are created by God with an intellect. Though we have these chemical reactions, we have choices. I believe we determine what we do. I also believe that God is in control of everything. Anything we do is ultimately controlled by God. God puts limits on our actions. Anything we do is allowed by God, even though he knows another way many be better. Yes, I do really feel the way I do.
Rating The Bible Versions
I want to briefly look at several Bible versions that are out there. We will analyze their accuracy and motivations for their creation. This will not be an excessive list, but will look at some of the more popular versions.
King James Versions
There had been English versions before the KJV but they were not readily accessible. The Geneva Bible, for example, was bolted to a church, and could not be removed. King James objected to the fact that people would write notes on the margins, These notes were usually critical of his administration. King James commissioned a group of scholars to put together a new translation. These men had very diverse backgrounds. Some of them were men of questionable morals. But there were also learned men who loved the Bible. While King James had a questionable character himself, he had almost noting to do with the translation. The King James Bible we have is not the 1611, but the third rewrite. The king James Bible is the standard Bible for many years. It is very poetic and easy to memorize. Some object to the archaic words it uses. It used the majority text and did not have access to some of the later finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls or the NA27. For that reason, many believe it is inferior. KJV proponents would say that the newer texts are inferior. The KJV believe that the majority text is better than the oldest. Those who believe in the KJB believe that God has preserved his word. Some of the proponents of the newer translations believe that man must judge the worth of a text. They sometimes listen to non Christian scholars or non orthodox scholars who may dismiss miracles, for instance. I believe KJV is the best English text.
New King James
The New King James uses the same text information as the King James. It take out most of the thees and thous. It does not quite have the same poetic nature of the KJV. It can be bland at times. It has never really taken off. The Evangelicals view it as being boring, kind of like New Coke. The KJV only believe that it is unnecessary. The believe you can't improve on perfection. Several of the translator were known for being anti-Semitic. Some of their words were quoted by Nazis to justify their persecution of the Jews.
New International Version
The most popular version of the evangelical world, the NIV does not translate word for word, but uses dynamic equivalence. SOme versions are totally different from the NASB and KJV. The NIV i printed exclusively by Zondervan. The word of God should not be controlled by one business. The fact that it is called the New International Version implies globalism. This could very well be the global bible used by the false prophet of the apostate system of the tribulation. The Today's NIV has just been scrapped. That version used inclusive language. A new edition of the NIV is forth coming.
The New American Standard Version
The NASB came out a few years before the NIV. It ever really took off. It is too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. It is referred by conservative evangelicals but is seen as sub-par. Many have abandoned it for the English Standard Version. An Update, called the NASB Update, came out in the late 1990's. It was very close to being dynamic equivalent but still considered word for word.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV is the standard version used in liturgical and liberal churches. It is known for it's inclusive language. The textual information it uses is very good. I do not recommend it for new believers but more seasoned believers can read between the lines and find it valuable. A New Revised Standard Version has been translated. Some things have been improved in this version and others have turned for the worst.
English Standard Version
The translators, many of whom were from the reformed tradition, wanted to improve the NASB and establish a conservative text friendly to the reformed viewpoint. The ESV is a conservative rewrite of the RSV. It has become very popular with more conservative evangelicals. It is recommended by Mark Driskoll, John Piper, J. I Packer and Joni Erickson Tada.
The New Living
The Living Bible was written by a conservative and was not meant to be a version but a paraphrase. There were several objectionable sections. Because the standards fro translations was dumbed down, it was able to be classified as a version. The New Living translation has been made into a full fledged version. It is marketed to a more conservative audience.
Contemporary English Version
This is a paraphrase. It is very dumbed down. In 1 Timothy, it does not separate bishop and deacons. It refers as bishops as church officers and deacons as church officials. It is very over simplified. I would not recommend it be used for devotions.
The Message
The Message was written by Eugene Petersen. The Message does have beautiful language. Petersen puts his own thoughts into the work. If you compare it to other versions, you may pause and say, "Wait a minute." It was not meant to be a full fledged version but many use it as such.
I would recommend the KJV, NASB or ESV. I still prefer the King James, but the ESV is very good. I have preached from the NIV and somewhat recommend it. I would view the Message as a paraphrase and not an actual Bible. For more information, read How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.
King James Versions
There had been English versions before the KJV but they were not readily accessible. The Geneva Bible, for example, was bolted to a church, and could not be removed. King James objected to the fact that people would write notes on the margins, These notes were usually critical of his administration. King James commissioned a group of scholars to put together a new translation. These men had very diverse backgrounds. Some of them were men of questionable morals. But there were also learned men who loved the Bible. While King James had a questionable character himself, he had almost noting to do with the translation. The King James Bible we have is not the 1611, but the third rewrite. The king James Bible is the standard Bible for many years. It is very poetic and easy to memorize. Some object to the archaic words it uses. It used the majority text and did not have access to some of the later finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls or the NA27. For that reason, many believe it is inferior. KJV proponents would say that the newer texts are inferior. The KJV believe that the majority text is better than the oldest. Those who believe in the KJB believe that God has preserved his word. Some of the proponents of the newer translations believe that man must judge the worth of a text. They sometimes listen to non Christian scholars or non orthodox scholars who may dismiss miracles, for instance. I believe KJV is the best English text.
New King James
The New King James uses the same text information as the King James. It take out most of the thees and thous. It does not quite have the same poetic nature of the KJV. It can be bland at times. It has never really taken off. The Evangelicals view it as being boring, kind of like New Coke. The KJV only believe that it is unnecessary. The believe you can't improve on perfection. Several of the translator were known for being anti-Semitic. Some of their words were quoted by Nazis to justify their persecution of the Jews.
New International Version
The most popular version of the evangelical world, the NIV does not translate word for word, but uses dynamic equivalence. SOme versions are totally different from the NASB and KJV. The NIV i printed exclusively by Zondervan. The word of God should not be controlled by one business. The fact that it is called the New International Version implies globalism. This could very well be the global bible used by the false prophet of the apostate system of the tribulation. The Today's NIV has just been scrapped. That version used inclusive language. A new edition of the NIV is forth coming.
The New American Standard Version
The NASB came out a few years before the NIV. It ever really took off. It is too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. It is referred by conservative evangelicals but is seen as sub-par. Many have abandoned it for the English Standard Version. An Update, called the NASB Update, came out in the late 1990's. It was very close to being dynamic equivalent but still considered word for word.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV is the standard version used in liturgical and liberal churches. It is known for it's inclusive language. The textual information it uses is very good. I do not recommend it for new believers but more seasoned believers can read between the lines and find it valuable. A New Revised Standard Version has been translated. Some things have been improved in this version and others have turned for the worst.
English Standard Version
The translators, many of whom were from the reformed tradition, wanted to improve the NASB and establish a conservative text friendly to the reformed viewpoint. The ESV is a conservative rewrite of the RSV. It has become very popular with more conservative evangelicals. It is recommended by Mark Driskoll, John Piper, J. I Packer and Joni Erickson Tada.
The New Living
The Living Bible was written by a conservative and was not meant to be a version but a paraphrase. There were several objectionable sections. Because the standards fro translations was dumbed down, it was able to be classified as a version. The New Living translation has been made into a full fledged version. It is marketed to a more conservative audience.
Contemporary English Version
This is a paraphrase. It is very dumbed down. In 1 Timothy, it does not separate bishop and deacons. It refers as bishops as church officers and deacons as church officials. It is very over simplified. I would not recommend it be used for devotions.
The Message
The Message was written by Eugene Petersen. The Message does have beautiful language. Petersen puts his own thoughts into the work. If you compare it to other versions, you may pause and say, "Wait a minute." It was not meant to be a full fledged version but many use it as such.
I would recommend the KJV, NASB or ESV. I still prefer the King James, but the ESV is very good. I have preached from the NIV and somewhat recommend it. I would view the Message as a paraphrase and not an actual Bible. For more information, read How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.
What Standards of Music Should Christians Use
Music is a very touchy subject for Christians. Should Christians only listen to Christian music? If you say yes, then you're faced with another question. Should that music only be hymns, or can Christians listen to Christian rock? If you believe that you can listen to some secular music, what should be the standards for music? If we believe that there are standards for music, what should those standards be? As Christians our source of authority must always be the Bible. I suggest Philippians 4:8 for a start. Many have called it the litmus test for Christians.
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
Were the Good Old Days Really That Good
Mankind is obsessed with the good old days. The Beatles sung the song "Yesterday" about how they longed for yesterday. Bob Seiger sang these famous lyrics, "Still like that old time rock'n'roll, that kind of music just soothes the soul, reminiscing about the days of old, still like that old time rock'n'roll." This has even come into the church. The people's Gospel Hour theme song says, "Oh how well I remember in the old fashioned days when some old fashioned people had some old fashioned ways, in those old fashioned meetings how we tarried there, in the old fashioned manner how God answered their prayer." There is an attitude of "If we could only go back." We long for the days in the state of Maine when there was no shopping on Sunday. We commiserate how Psalm 23 is not longer read in schools. We hate that they've banned prayer in schools. We act as if it was so much better in the past. Was the good old days really that good?
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
