How Could a Loving God also be Jealous?

The better question to ask is, "How could a loving God not be jealous?" It is the nature of love to be committed and faithful to its object. Love covenants - not under compulsion, but freely, spontaneously and lavishly. I have never yet see a bride resisting and crying out as she walks down the aisle. But is there any contract more binding, more absolute, more final than marriage? She is covenanting not only all of her finances and assets, but her body, her soul and the souls and bodies of her children to this man - and he to her. They covenant not until such and such a date, but with the ominous finality of, "'till death do us part."
But they weep not - or, if they weep, they weep for joy and not for sorrow - for who would have it any other way? What greater joy is there than to love, and also to be loved? And what true love is there which does not instantly and spontaneously long to spin for itself that cocoon of fidelity, built on bars of eternality, sealed with the iron chains of covenant?
Lovers do this joyously, gladly, exuberantly, foolishly. No one forces them: indeed, no one could stop them!
Why? Because they are in love.
But how can you say that love is not jealous? For what wife would tolerate a mistress? What husband would tolerate even a flirtatious smile to another man? How could a woman tolerate even a wandering eye of her husband? And who is not at times jealous of the very minds of their beloved?
"For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;Its flashes are flashes of fire,The very flame of the LORD." (Song of Solomon 8:6).
I have a test for you. Pick the one whom you love the most. Think about the unspoken (or spoken) covenant which is between you. What is it that you have promised to do freely, joyfully and faithfully for your beloved? Think carefully about all of the cords of love binding your hearts together in mutuality, harmony and joy. Think of your dreams together. Think of your courtship. Think of all the tenderest moments which have been between you.
Now imagine your beloved turning, pulling, snapping, and indifferentlypulling apart every covenant he has ever made with you, and rebinding his heart to another.
My belief is this: your anger at your betrayal will be directly proportionate to the love at your covenanting.
For love is inherently jealous.

Does God have the right to judge?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA],
In this video, Todd Friel attempts to use his standard Ray Comfort-evangelism logic-train on Christopher Hitchens. (For those unaware, it is supposed to goes like this: 1) Do you think you are a sinner? "No" 2) Would you like to know what God thinks sins are? "Sure" 3) He says lying is bad. Have you ever lied? "Yes." He says lust is bad, have you done that? "Yes" (etc.) 4) Well then, according to God's standards, do you think you are a sinner? "Yes." 5) Okay then. Based on what you just said, if you died right now, do you think God would judge you as worthy of heaven or hell? "Hell." 6) Would you like to know about how God made a way for you to receive mercy, and avoid this terrible judgment? "Sure...") On Todd's web-site, he has many examples of himself using this methodology to evangelize, with varying results.
However, it did not work at all with Hitchens. It all seems to have gone south because Friel could not offer a good answer to Hitchen's first and great objection, namely, "What right has God got to judge the human race?" Because Friel's whole train of logic as based on God as judge, the rest of the conversation didn't really make sense and one can understand - although not completely endorse - Hitchen's choice to simply start hurling obscenities at the end of it.
The question "Does God have a right to judge" is a central and important one. It is very clear that Hitchens believes that nobody has a right to judge him. But is this really consistent with his own reasoning?
To summarize, Hitchens feels that several of the commandments are insultingly obvious (e.g. don't lie, steal, murder). He then rejects several of the commandments (e.g. worship the Lord only, do not covet), and he notes with disapproval that several very important commandments (e.g. love your children) are not on this list at all.
Please take careful note: he does not say, "I believe it would be convenient if these changes were made to the Ten Commandments." Rather, he says, "These changes should be made." He states that it is unethical and downright wrongthat these additions and subtractions are not made. Now, what is Hitchens implying here? Statements of desire denote a personal preference: statements of necessity, or moral obligation denote some higher power to which Hitchens is appealing.
We say that one mathematical equation is wrong, another right, and (possibly) a third is close but slightly off. In so saying, we are implying that there is some absolute standard of "mathematical correctness" out there.
And I believe that Hitchens believes that there is such a moral standard. How could Hitchen's statement that some of the commandments are wrong, some are good, and some are insultingly obvious make sense unless there is some universal code of ethics, which we are all aware of, and to which we all must appeal as the higher authority.
In Christianity, there is a very minute amount of disagreement between those who believe that Justice is an ideal which is external to God (but to which He completely conforms) and those who believe that Justice is internal to God. Either way, the Christian belief is that God is the just one, who presides over the earth.
We could ask, "Does lady justice have the right to judge?" ...but this would be a logical fallacy. Justice judges. That's what she does. Saying that justice has no right to judge is like saying that logic has no right to think. None of us fully attains to pure justice, and so we need to walk humbly: but if justice did not exist, any notion of "right" and "wrong" would completely crumble. In such a case we would be down to nothing more than personal opinion - and then we would be down to "The caveman with the biggest club decides what is right."
In the simple statement, "Hey, that's not fair!" We are asserting our belief that there is a universal standard of "fairness," which we believe is external to us and morally binding on all people. We are angry when the laws of "fairness" are violated to our hurt: we feel guilty when we violate them.
Justice is personified and explained different ways in different religions. In Christianity, Justice is personified in the person of God Himself. Therefore, the question of "Does God have the right to judge" becomes absurd. Of course He does - He is justice itself. How could He do otherwise? As the good book says, "shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?"
If God is Justice, then He has the right to judge, and can do nothing other than judge justly. We must now, then, move to the next logical step - asking ourselves, "how will we fare under the judgment of pure Justice?"
At this point, we may get pack onto Ray Comfort's train. Rather than examining the Ten Commandments, however, we may ask Hitchens, "You have identified loving one's children as a virtue. Now, if you were before the absolute personifaction of justice, do you think you would be able to say that you have loved your children perfectly, and never hurt them unjustly?" We could then ask, "If we were imagining a place where only perfect people could go, do you think you would deserve to go there?" The answer, as Hitchens would likely admit, would be no." This would enable us to speak of the grace of Christ: although, of course, there are many other questions which would need to also be answered along the way.

Review of Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis"

Several weeks ago, I preached a sermon entitled, "What is the Gospel? A Resonse to Liberalism and the Emergent Church." (Note: I should have somehow entitled it in a way which made it clear that not ALL people who call themselves "liberal" or "emergent" have the gospel wrong, but such is the way with concise titles..) In it, I briefly mentioned Brian MacLaren and Rob Bell as people with whom I disagree. I then spent most of my time refuting their views with the historic Christian position, which is clearly evident in Scriptures, and also (although I didn't know it at the time) the clear teaching of the early church. (In Justin Martyr's "Dialogues with Trypho," for example, he said exactly the same thing as I did, although at much greater length.)
I hope to have this sermon posted soon.
In the mean time, however, I thought that since I mentioned Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren in passing, it is only fair for me to deal specifically with their works - meeting them on their own terms, and seeing what they have to say. I have done this with Brian MacLaren in a previous post: here, I have carefully listened to and reviewed Rob Bell's theology in Velvet Elvis, so as to provide a summary of my thoughts on him.
Maybe I should preface this with a few small disclaimers. The first is this: unaware that I could simply download this book for free (see here), I purchased the audio version of Rob Bell's book. Thus, while I tried to get my quotes as close as possible, I don't have many page numbers noted, and the wording may be off slightly. I had to say, "Rob bell says somewhere..." a lot, unfortunately. The second disclaimer is that it has been nearly a month since I read/listened to this book. I actually think this is somewhat advantageous, however, since I kept good notes and also because the core of Bell's message has had some time to peculate. The final disclaimer is that since Bell charges $10.00 per sermon (which, I don't mind telling you, I think is just ridicules!) for his Nooma series, I was in no way willing to either steal or dish out that money to watch it all. Thus, my impressions of Rob Bell are formed almost entirely by his main and most popular book, "Velvet Elvis." I think this is fair enough, since this really is Bell's foundational book, in which he lays out his theology. (Similarly, I don't need to read everything that John Calvin ever wrote to know what he thought - I could just read the Institutes!)
OVERVIEW
The core of Rob Bell's message is this: like a painting of Elvis, the Christian faith is a work of art - a product of human imagination, of human self-expression. However, humans of every generation express themselves very differently. Therefore, it is necessary that every generation re-imagine, or repaint the Christian faith for themselves. He clarifies that, "By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained." (p. 12) In this book, Rob Bell provides the framework for such a re-invention, then constructs a new version of Christianity and, in the epilogue, provides an impassioned plea for conversion to his faith.
IN-DEPTH OVERVIEW
"Velvet Elvis" is part systematic theology, part missionary tract. In it, Bell presents a complete, coherent system of theology. Fascinatingly, he proceeds exactly as any theologian would, in laying out their theological works:
Jump - the Prolegomenon, or "how I think you should think about theology"
Yoke - on Hermeneutics, or how to read the Bible (also touching on morality)
True - on what is the essence, or most important thing in theology
(Tassels - the gospel that doesn't fit or, the reason some people think Bell is orthodox)
Dust: Christology, or "how to think about Christ"
New: Sin, Redemption and Salvation
Good: On Morality
JUMP: ON THEOLOGY
Rob Bell begins his book by discussing a trampoline. What is important about a trampoline, he asserts, is that you can jump on it. It is the springs which allow you to jump. By "jumping" he means that they help people feel close to God, love one another and live moral lives. By "springs," he means doctrines. The doctrines themselves are more useful than true. He specifically names the Trinity, saying something to the effect of, "People have been using this particular 'spring' to jump for years. But does that mean that it is essential? Couldn't we change it for something else? I am not saying that we should - but certainly we could. If we did so, couldn't we still love God, live moral lives, etc.?" Famously, he also mentions the virgin birth in another place. If Jesus was actually found to have a human father - say, a man named "Bob," then nothing significant would change. We could still "jump" on Christianity, whether or not Jesus is born of a virgin (thus, of God), or not.
YOKE: ON HERMENEUTICS
Bell brings three items of evidence to bear, on the topic of hermeneutics. First of all, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of brutality and violence. (Especially named is the slaughtering of the "innocent" people in Jericho). As mentioned in a previous post, Bell also uses such difficult passages as Psalm 137:9 to "prove" that the Bible is a conflicted book, which has no real message of its own. Third, Bell reminds the readers that Scriptures can and indeedhave been used to justify slavery and the abuse of women, among other atrocities. Fourth, he states that since every person comes to the Bible with their own perspective, it is impossible for the Bible to have a real voice of its own.
Thus, the perspective that a person, "can simply read the Bible and do what it says – unaffected by any outside influences," is "warped and toxic, to say the least" (p. 53).
He thus concludes, "It is possible to make the Bible say anything we want to, isn't it?"
Bell is not, however, saying that the Bible has nothing to say to us, or that just anybody can make it say what they want.
Rather, the idea of "a family story" is very important. Story gives meaning and direction to a community. However, he makes it clear that, "The Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted." Who, then, will make the decisions about interpretation? Here he invokes Jesus' words "I give you the keys of the kingdom/whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" and the fact the early church made binding decisions on various rules (e.g. circumcision) to prove that the community of Christians has the right to decide what Scriptures to keep, and which to ignore. As he says, "The Bible is a communal book. Most of the 'yous' are plural. It was written by people to people, who read it, evaluated it, accepted and rejected parts. We must see oursevles as part of this story, making decisions as a group." Committing the sin which C.S. Lewis has famously named "chronological snobbery," Rob Bell's discussion seems to sweep all of the great saints of old casually aside. Those who are now alive, and who have been welcomed into Bell's inner circle of friends are all welcome to help him "bind and loose" Scriptures, based on the authority they feel they have received from God through Jesus. As he says, "we must see ourselves and those around us as taking part in a huge discussion which has been going on for thousands of years. Because God has spoken, and everything else is commentary." Those who have gone on before, who have suffered hard and learned hard lessons about false teaching and truth are - due to their being deceased - excluded from the conversation.
Bell also mentions some of his thoughts on morality here. Because he more fully unpacks this in "New," I will leave his thoughts on that until then.
TRUE: ON THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
For those of you who have been reading along in my posts, you will be noticing a very marked similarity between Bell's theology so far and classical liberalism, (as summarized very briefly here, or written of at length here). On this point, however, Bell becomes almost stereo-typically a follower of Schleiermacher. What is the essence of Christianity?
Two quotes are highly illuminating:
"You have to understand that I started out playing in bands, back when alternative music was 'alternative' I understood music to be the raw art form that comes from your guts. Do it yourself. Strip it down. Bare bones. Take away all the fluff and the hype. This ethos heavily shaped my understandings of what church should be like: strip everything away and get down to the most basic elements. (98)"
For Schleiermacher, religion was about the "feeling of absolute dependence:" for Bell, it is about digging deep into the human soul and "keeping it real" - which is just about the same thing.
A second quote is also helpful: "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who's living rightly?" (p. 21.)
In this subtle turn of phrase, Bell underscores his basic theological premise: getting right with God is not about believing something, but about doingsomething.
Bell's religion, then, is about looking deep within one's self for religious feelings, and about doing good things by which to win God's favor.
TASSELS: THE CHAPTER THAT DOESN'T FIT
I found "Tassels" to be a highly confusing chapter. In it, Bell says something to the effect of, "Yes, of course, I know that Jesus died for my sins, and that I must trust in Him for my salvation..." He then goes on to discuss many very helpful ministry tips on burnout and "shooting your super-whatever" (in context - not taking one's self too seriously), on taking sabbath rests, and many other helpful points. If this chapter was all that Bell had written, one would certainly not find anything wrong with him. However, in the following chapters, we quickly see how he is able, on the one hand, to affirm that he holds orthodox Christian doctrine and on the other to state that people can be saved outside of Christianity, and that Christianity is all about works.
DUST: CHRISTOLOGY
To me, the most surprising aspect of Bell's book is that he seems to be rolling back Christianity to a pre-Christian stage, that is, to Judaism. He writes, "Before all the big language and grand claims, the story of Jesus was about a Jewish man, living in a Jewish village, among Jewish people, calling them back to the way of the Jewish God." He says later, "Remember, Jesus was a Torah-observing Jew who obeys the TANAK (that's fancy-talk for the Old Testament) word for word..." He says also, "Remember that Jesus said, 'Everything that I have learned I passed on to you.' Did Jesus go to school and learn like the other kids his age? [Thus - isn't he here saying that "all I received" refers only to his instruction in a Jewish synagogue?]" In summary, then, Bell seems to think that Jesus did not "fulfill" (Mat. 5:17) the Old Covenant and in this way make it "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13): rather, he called people back into it.
Here would be a good place to link up with thoughts which were omitted from "Yoke." Bell explains that Rabbi's would each produce their own unique commentaries on how to apply the TANAK to their lives. They would themselves live by these lengthy sets of rules, and would eventually amass followers. Those who wished to follow a certain Rabbi would "take on the yoke" of that rabbi. Thus, Jesus was actually teaching a set of rules, a new way of living, just like all the other rabbis were. The mere fact that a rabbi selected a person, however, is highly significant. The rabbi selected people because hereally believed those individuals could bear his distinctive yoke. Thus, when Jesus called His disciples - and, by extension, you and I - to follow Him, he was in effect proclaiming "you are able to do everything I will tell you to do, and to live perfectly by my standards." Bell elsewhere comments on the story of Peter walking on the water. Peter did not fall because he stopped trusting in Jesus - after all, Jesus wasn't sinking! He fell because he doubted himself.
Jesus has faith in our ability to work our way to perfection, as good Jews: we must have confidence in our abilities too.
In the most famous portion of his book, Bell questions what difference it would have made whether Jesus had really been born of a virgin, or had been begotten by some guy named "Bob." One wonders why Bell does not just come out and say that he does not think that Jesus is really God, the only begotten of the Father, the Second Member of the Trinity? For one thing, because in Bell's theological system, it does not really matter whether Jesus was God or not: we are saved by our own efforts, by (in some way) being good Jews, not by anything which Jesus may or may not have done.
NEW: ON SIN, REDEMPTION & SALVATION
In a very Kantian statement, Bell subtly dismisses the idea of original sin by questioning, "Did the story of Adam and Eve happen, or is it happening?" After all, we all feel temptations, and we all sin many times: the story of Adam and the snake is "our story" too.
If there is no such thing as original sin, in which all died, can there be an atonement, in which many were made alive? (See Romans 5)
Utilizing Bartian (that is, based on Karl Barth) theology, Bell writes that when Jesus said, "I will draw all men unto me," he really meant all men. In other words, His work was effective to save all, whether they have heard of His free gift or not. He uses the analogy of eating supper, and having the waitress come and announce to your table that your tab has been paid for. One can either live in the reality that their supper is paid for, or they can live in the reality that it is not paid for - the choice is yours. How is this decision made? Bell explains that, "Heaven is full of people whom God love and died for. Hell is full of people whom Jesus loved and died for. The difference is how they lived their lives."
Bell recounts with frustration a counseling session with a new Christian, racked with guilt. Doesn't he realize, Bell quires, that guilt and self-condemnation is out of place for a Christian or (to be consistent) with any human being? After all - the price has already been paid! We must now live as though we are redeemed people. When we mess up, we must admit it, confess it, make amends when and where we can, and move on to try to live a Godly life. What does this life look like?
As a guiding light, Bell presents the image of God within us all. Bell recounts that a very significant milestone occurred for him in a counseling office, where the counselor told him that his one goal in life was, "the relentless pursuit of who God made him to be. Everything else is sin, which must be repented of." Not being true to one's self (that is, to the image of God within, or to what God made a person to be) is sin: being really true to one's self is righteousness.
This is the essence of Bell's morality: understanding that all people, everywhere, are made in the image of God. Although there is sin in the world, Jesus died to defeat sin. Therefore, by simply living moral lives, every human may earn their way to God. This begs the question: what is morality for Bell?
GOOD: ON MORALITY
Considering Bell's insistence on Jesus as a Jew, one would think that he would call people in this chapter to eat kosher, to meet on Saturdays, etc. However, this is not consistent with his evolving model. Those were commands which have relevance for "back then." Today, we have other pressing needs - specifically, environmentalism, world compassion initiatives, and giving to the poor at home. In Bell's final chapter, then, he hammers hard on these issues. This is likely a very good way to conclude the book, because his ethics are very relevant and important, and few would disagree with him on what he says in this chapter.
Historic Christianity would only object (and object very strongly) that good works are to be the fruit of a new life, not the grounds of one's salvation, which is what Bell seems to make it.
Interestingly, though, in another chapter Bell talks about officiating the wedding of a non-Christian couple who were living together and "now wanted to make it official." He never condemned their sin of fornication, and called their wedding - officiated in the sacred space of nature and followed by a lengthy dance, including much alcohol - "the most sacred event I have ever experienced." Personal morality, especially on sexual ethics, does not seem to be a priority for Bell - and on this too historic Christianity would strongly disagree with him.
(THE MISSING CHAPTER: ON WHO IS GOD?)
To write a really consistent systematic theology, Bell should have written a chapter on "Theology Proper," or who is God. Bell's conception of God is vague partially, I suppose, because he doesn't think that doctrine is important. Perhaps he is also aware that to clearly and distinctly express his opinions about God would once and for all prove that he is presenting a non-Christian set of beliefs. Whether fairly or not, the image of God which I kept coming up with was "the health-and-wealth-god of the indie-rocker." Like a health-and-wealth God, the God of Rob Bell is a god who makes no demands, has no vantage-point of absolute truth, and demands no worship or obedience. For that matter, Bell's God even has trouble with basic communication. Rather than orienting the cosmos around Himself, Bell's god is a god who lives to serve. He does not bring endless riches in his wings, however, but endless poetic and artistic self-expression: as I said, this is the god of the indie-rocker, not the god of the yuppie.
This may be a caricature - but, to be fair, Bell doesn't present his views concretely, so the reader is left to piece them together for themselves. This is what I have gotten out of his work.
DOES ROB BELL GRASP THE GOSPEL?
This question seems redundant, but it is always helpful to provide clear statements in communication. No, I do not believe that Rob Bell grasps the gospel. The Gospel - just so that we are not in any way confused - is this:
1. Our first parents sinned, and in so doing doomed the human race (Gen. 1, Rom. 5)
2. Jesus came to die in our place, so that we could have new life through Him (Rom. 6)
3. After receiving this new life, God equips us to live a new life in His strength (the book of James)
4. After death, we are saved by God's grace and our perseverance in it (see the end of Revelations, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)
Christianity, rightly understood, is a religion of grace. We get to heaven not because of what we have done, but because of what he has done for us.Because we live in the knowledge of our totally undeserved redemption, we live new lives.
By contrast, all the other religions of the world - as well as false Christianity - relies on legalism.
1. We are not very bad sinners.
2. Jesus came to give us an example of how to live.
3. We must try really hard to follow Jesus' example
4. Jesus will probably give us a break and let us into heaven.
This approach leads to despair or pride. Pride when we think we are "making it," despair when we know we are not. There is also no real way of dealing with "really bad sins," and people tend to super-emphasize one or two "religious works" to try to counter-balance all of their sins. In Pharisaic Judaism, the emphasis was on Kosher: so long as one lived and ate clean, people were free to be full of all sorts of evil thoughts, lusts, etc. in their hearts. For Rob Bell, the emphasis seems to be on environmentalism, and some compassion initiatives. So long as one recycles and gives a bit, it seems, one need not worry about the internal state of their heart, whether their sexual lives are "moral," or where they will spend eternity.
To put it concretely: This is not the gospel.
WHY IS ROB BELL SO POPULAR?
Like many, I saw a Nooma video by Rob Bell long before I read this book. I thought that the message itself was kind of weak, but the graphics were very flashy. I liked the concept of putting so much visual-arts into a sermon and, since I didn't find anything really objectionable in the material, I decided that Rob Bell was a decent pastor, who only had one off-video. I figured he was trying to make a real difference in the world by presenting the age-old gospel in a relevant new way (as opposed to presenting a new faith, with the trappings and vocabulary of the old gospel, which is what he actually does). I think this is the experience of a lot of people. They just haven't bitten dipped deep enough to know that the apple is rotten.
I think Bell is also popular because Evangelical teaching is so very weak. Pastors don't confront serious issues like the relation of the Old Testament to the new, on cults and why the gospel is so very important, and how to read the Bible accurately. On the other side, individual Christians don't do any work either, and complain when a sermon goes over twenty minutes, and actually makes them think or (horror or horrors!) gives them some meaty homework. In the words of John Piper, many people never grow beyond a sunday-school faith. When they find their sunday-school faith is unable to come up with answers to their university-level mind, they abandon the faith or listen to someone like Bell who at least has SOME answer to their questions. Even if they are the wrong ones, he is the only one who is speaking on these topics, so who is to say the different?
"My people are destroyed for want of knowledge."
IS EVERYTHING THAT ROB BELL SAYS BAD?
It is always the half-lies which are hardest to distinguish from the truth: the full-lies are easy.
Many things which Rob Bell says are good, and they fill a void which evangelicals are missing (this is especially true of environmentalism). If you read only TASSELS and GOOD, you would probably actually benefit from this book. There are some helpful tips on pastoral ministry, and some good encouragements to environmentalism and compassion initiatives. It is good to respect what is right in the sight of all men (Rom. 12:17): however, believing that we will be saved from the wrath of God by our own efforts is both foolish and dangerous.
SHOULD I BE WORRIED ABOUT MY FRIEND? I HEARD HE/SHE ACTUALLYLIKES ROB BELL!!
In a conversation related by Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson mentions why Bell seems to have such an appeal to young evangelicals. It is because (to summarize) many people listen to him without really buying into his system, but only taking his moral exhortations (for example, to be environmentally friendly, etc.) to heart. This has been my experience: I think this is how I would have read Bell's book a couple years ago, before doing more research on Liberalism. (Note: my research on Liberalism has been exceedinglyhelpful in understanding Rob Bell. For an overview of my findings and links to more in-depth materials, see here)
I also think that a lot of people listen to one or two sermons, decide they like a person, and then (when that person is said to be a heretic) will defend that person to the death, without ever really looking into what that person believes, or what the charges are. These are people who bring a pail of whiteout to the Bible, and erase every verse which has to do with avoiding false teachers, then highlight and underline "thou shalt not judge" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" - as though not confronting sin in one's friend was the kindest thing which could be done.
However, I would warn the reader against heretic-hunting anybody who has Bell on their shelf. In my experience, someone who is into Bell has been turned off to normal church: they probably need a loving example of brotherly/sisterly companionship and encouragement in the faith more than they need to be directed to an article such as this.
DOES ROB BELL WORRY YOU?
In the 1920's a large portion of the church was carved away by Liberalism into what I would now describe as a non-Christian manifestation of the Christian faith. (Read more about that especially in my post, The Man Who Wrote Christianity and Liberalism). Many bitter battles were fought between the "Fundamentalists" and "Liberals" over the essentials of the faith, but in the end the Liberals took over most of the major denominations and seminaries. In the writings and workings of Rob Bell, Brian MacLaren and others like him, I believe that this same spirit of Liberalism is making a deep and bold cut deep into the territory of Evangelicalism. Although Satan could not have their fathers, he is content to steal away the children of Fundamentalism through the words of people like Rob Bell.
I am not sure whether to "worry" or not, since I am only a servant, and God is in charge. However, I definitely think that the issue of Liberal Emergent teaching is far more toxic and dangerous to true faith than many people give it credit for. It is worth some really serious investigation, and worth humble bloggers like myself taking a few minutes aside to review, critique and reject false teachers such as Rob Bell.

Reflections on an Interview where Jennifer Knapp "Comes out of the Closet"

I had really intended on spending only a few minutes at the computer, then "turning in." However, in my online travels (trying to make good on a promise to Don to hear the other side of the homosexuality debate), I came across the following YouTube vid, in which a popular Christian singer, Jennifer Knapp recently announced that she is a lesbian. The interview which I saw has got my mind rolling, and I can't sleep 'till I get my thoughts out!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Pm_pPYkYA]
Without meaning to (no, I have no desire whatsoever to be in this person's seat!! I absolutely cannot think on the spot, and dread situations like this) I placed myself in the position of "pastor Bob." As my sleepless mind rolled, I thought of answers I would give to the thorny questions hurled his direction.
Larry King: Do you think this woman is going to hell?
(A good answer): I don't know who is going to hell. God is the judge of that. And God is a God of justice, but also a God of great grace and mercy. He showed mercy to me even though I have done some very terrible things, and am still very imperfect. I do not know whether Jennifer Knapp is going to hell. I do know, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sinful action.
Larry King: So you are judging her.
(A good answer): Let's pretend we are all children for a moment, and we have the same father. It would be wrong for me, as a child, to set myself up as the judge, to say "you have done such and this, and these are the consequences of your actions." My judging would not be wrong because the act of judging is wrong - we believe in justice, we believe in right and wrong, we believe in judges - but because this is not my job. I am only a fellow sibling - I have no higher status. I have no right to judge. However, if we all know that our father is coming home soon, and that he has certain expectations and instructions, it is the duty of children to remind one another of their father's rules before he comes home. It is not "judging" to remind someone of the rules of the true Judge, so that they may avoid the consequences of disobedience.
Larry King: And you think one of those rules is that homosexuality is wrong?
(A good answer): Yes.
Larry King: And for that God would send a person to hell?
(A good answer): As I said, God is the judge. It's not for me to make that call - it never will be. However, God has revealed to us that there will be many surprised people in the judgment day. Many will say, "Lord lord, I have many wonderful things in Your name," and He will say, "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:23) So part of this not entering into heaven is practicing lawlessness. I think Scriptures are quite clear that homosexuality is one example of lawlessness.
Jennifer Knapp: But why are you judging me for my homosexuality? Don't you ever lie, cheat, steal? Don't you do bad things too? What makes you think you are going to heaven, and I am not?
(A good answer): All of my hope is in the righteousness of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ..
Jennifer Knapp: ...So is mine!
(A good answer): Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments," (John 14:15). In Romans 6, and in Hebrews 6 and 10, it talks about abusing the cross and blood of Christ in order to continue sinning. This is not possible for a Christian! The issue here is not about homosexuality being a big sin, and lying being a small sin. (I recognize that there are political and social interests at work which have unfortunately blown this particular issue out of proportions, so that we are having this conversation on national television instead of someplace more appropriate. Nevertheless, this issue isnot about homosexuality being a bigger sin.) The issue is about theunrepentant attitude. I recently confronted a man on his stubborn unwillingness to forgive a certain person. I showed him the Scriptures, and I told him, "Don't you realize that Jesus said, 'If you do not forgive, I will not forgive you'? (Matthew 6:14-15) Don't you realize that by not giving grace to others, you are blocking grace for yourself?" I believe that this person was just as much - if not more so - in danger of hell as you yourself are. We all stumble, we all fail, we all make mistakes - but when we resolutely declare, "I have decided that this is right, and I am going to do this no matter what the Bible says," this is when we put ourselves in great danger.
Jennifer Knapp: I have spiritual accountability. I am under spiritual authority - and that is not you. You have no right to speak to me about this issue...
(A good answer): If you do not want me to talk to you about this, I will not bother you anymore. I will continue praying for you, and I hope you know I believe every word that I said, and I truly am concerned for you!
Larry King: Concerned? Concerned because you think she is going to hell?
(A good answer): Yes, that is where the evidence seems to lead.
Larry King: This God of yours seems very exclusivist. I thought God was a God of love?
(A good answer): God is a God of justice and of love. In His justice, He has recognized that we all deserve eternal consequences for our actions. In His grace, He made a way of escape. Love and truth have kissed at the cross (Psalm 85:10) However, He said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14) Part of entering that narrow gate is doing our very best to follow the commandments written in the Bible, even though they are at times very hard.
In all fairness, I did not write this book: however, it is my job - as it is of everyone who calls themselves a Christian - to be as faithful to it as we can. I hope that is what I have done here today.
Larry King: Do you think I am going to hell?
(A good answer): Mr. King, in all honesty I don't watch very much TV and I haven't watched your show very much. If this is a serious question, and you would like to examine your life in the light of Scriptures I would very much like to take the time to do that, at whatever time is convenient for yourself.

Zeitgeist Debunked!

Most of you will have no idea what "Zeitgeist" is. However, it is an internet phenomenon youtube documentary which (supposedly) completely disproves Christianity and especially the existence of Jesus Christ.
You can view this video here:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw]
You can hear Bruxy Cavey respond to this clip and also to Dan Brown's "Davinci Code" in a more quick, sound-bite way in the following clips:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LT40LtmPgM]
After years of responding to e-mails on this topic, Bruxy Cavey preached two sermons specifically on Zeitgeist. You can access them by subscribing to theMeetingHouse Audiocast, or the MeetingHouse VideoCast. The sermons are in the series "Duped," and are the two sermons entitled "Did Jesus Exist" and "Jesus - Christ or Copycat?". These sermons are also available from the MeetingHouse homepage. (Note: if you watch the video, be sure to also get the audio version, which has the so-called "drive-home" section. This is where Bruxy talks about everything he didn't have time to say in the sermon. In this case, it is a lot of very interesting material!)
In litsening to these two sermons, I was reminded again of how often Christanity has expressed its core identity most concisely and clearly in the face of detractors. In the first few centuries, this was certainly the case. There were many occasions when Greeks would write malicious misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Christianity, and Christians would respond by debunking the false accounts, and writing "Apologies" of their true, core identity. From these documents we now have a clear understanding of how the early Christians saw themselves. In Bruxy's response also, we get a very clear and well-formulated understanding of how Christianity sees itself, especially in relation to the essential questions of Jesus' life, his originality, and the authenticity of Scriptures.
I would really recommend accessing these two sermons, as they provide a beautifully concise but exceedingly compact and well-researched defense of Christianity, against those who still - in spite of all of the facts - cling desperately to the fictions of the Davinci Code or Zeitgeist. Against the notion that Christianity is only a borrowed religion which grew out of paganism, Bruxy presents the truth that a real Jewish person, living in the first century A.D. actually taught something which has literally changed the world.

The Campolos on Homosexuality

In the discussions following a recent post (The Homosexuality issue as a litmus test of orthodoxy), I foolishly questioned whether Don J. had done enough research on the topic at hand to back his claims. In response, he questioned whether I had done enough? This was an embarrassing moment for me, because to be honest, I have digested virtually none of the materials produced by Christians who endorse homosexuality.
In my own defense, the reason which I have not spent time looking at the other side of the discussion is because Scriptures seem absolutely clear, as I mentioned previously. Unlike others, I actually think that you can really find truth just by reading the Bible in your own language. You don't need to debate for hours, read all the scholars in the world and throughout history, and learn the original languages to know about sin and hell and righteousness. You can also know that some things are sins, and some things are not. If you did, what would the point of the Bible be? Of course, additional research is helpful and even essential for obscure and difficult passages. However, when the Bible is very clear and plain, and people go to the original languages, or bring out some obscure ancient fact which supposedly changes everything,one cannot help but wonder if they are really just trying to avoid God's revealed intentions...?
But I digress. I said I would take in more of "the other side," and, although time is limited I have done so by listening to the Campolo's take on the homosexuality issue, (available here). There are a few more resources here I would like to listen to, but I will respond to this one while it is fresh.
When I saw the Campolos' audio available on this topic, I was instantly interested. It was Tony Campolo who has influenced my beliefs on this topic several years ago. In one of the first "emergent" books which I read  (entitled, "Letters to a Young Evangelical"), Tony spends a lot of time encouraging the next generation to not get on the political band-wagon of their parents. Older Evangelicals, he complains, are concerned about nothing other than abortion and homosexuality. Are they unaware that there is more to Christianity than this? In this book, I thought Tony provided a good and probably needed counter-point to the over-emphasis on these topics, and especially how they are pursued in politics. However, the application which I took away from this book was, "Homosexuality and abortion are not important. Don't think about them or focus on them at all." Was this what he was saying? No. Was this his intended result? I don't know. However, this is the impact it had on me. (Note: the post "My Stand On Abortion" represents my pendulum-swing back, away from Campolo's influence on abortion).
In Letters to a Young Evangelical, Campolo mentions that although he holds a traditional Christian view of homosexuality, his wife does not. At the time they were attending separate churches due to this issue, although he claimed it did not affect their marriage. I had since heard that Tony now affirms homosexuality and was saddened to hear that. I was saddened because the overall impression I got was that this was an example of a man convinced in his conscience on an issue, who was then swayed against his better judgment to hold something different. Such an inconsistency would have been tragic. I brightened considerably, then, when the audio here was advertised as representing both sides of the debate - Tony still on the conservative side, Peggy on the liberal side.
When I actually got into the content, however, it sure sounded for all the world like the two believe and were teaching the same thing, and operated like a tag-team, to convince their audience of their one belief: that homosexuality should be accepted as an ethical option, and that Christians should not "condemn" (aka. state the conservative Biblical teaching) those who practice homosexuality.
SUMMARY OF CONTENT
Note: This is a series of talks delivered at a gay-Christian event.
Tony begins his talk by mentioning hours and hours spent interviewing gay men. After over a hundred interviews, he concluded - in harmony with the prevailing scientific consensus on the issue - that homosexuality is not a choice. Some people do not "choose" to be homosexuals, while others choose to be straight. Later, Peggy mentions that Christians often teach that people "choose" homosexuality (in opposition to "the facts") simply because that lends credence to their idea that homosexuality is a sin.
I will freely admit that my experience is limited. I have very close relationships with two men who struggled for a time with homosexual urges, which they overcame and became heterosexual. I know of another person (as I mentioned, a fellow-class-mate) who was a functioning heterosextual, before becoming homosexual. In school I heard several taped testimonies from homosexual men (including "the Sy Rogers Story"), and I sat in on a lengthy in-person interview with one person who had come out of homosexuality and now assisted in a gay-recovery program out in Vancouver BC. All of the people whom I have known well, or seen interviewed had "chosen" homosexuality: some "chose" to get out of it, although not all have "chosen" to enter into heterosexual relationships. Granted I have not done all of the research which Tony has, but I just have a hard time believing him when he says, "it is a scientific fact that nobody chooses to become homosexual" - especially when the Bible so clearly seems to imply that homosexuality is a choice.
1. Dismissing the Old Testament (Levitucus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.")
Using phrases we are all familiar with, such as "I don't think many of us eat kosher in here, do we? And look - I see you there wearing clothes with mixed threads!" Tony draws attention to the fact that we do not follow all of the Old Testament laws. He explains (following Calvin) that some of the laws in the Old Testament are ceremonial, some are legal, and some are ethical. He then places homosexuality into the "legal" category, and dismisses it along with excommunication of lepers., and other legal teachings
My response: 1) why would Tony remove homosexuality from the list of "ethical" teachings? Isn't ethics about basic human morality? And is there anything more basic than human sexuality? Tony's choice to call homosexuality a "legal" commandment seems arbitrary and exceedingly strange. Laws change with technology, philosophy, politics, education and the shifting sands of time: however, the human body has always "worked" the same way.
Furthermore, my Old Testament professor - as well as some other recent sources I have read - have rejected Calvin's "legal, ceremonial, ethical" distinction. Rather, they state that we do not dismiss any of the Old Testament. All of the laws - including the Kosher laws, and the laws about not mixing the threads in one's clothes - teach us something about God's character. For example, many of these laws spoke of keeping God's people clean from sin and separate from the gentiles. The principles of Kosher and separation live on in passages such as James 4:8, "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded," and 2 Corinthians 6:14, "¹⁴Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" We follow the spirit of the law, if not the literal manifestations of it. But how can one be "spiritually" heterosexual, while being in practice homosexual? This just doesn't make sense.
2. Dismissing 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor adulterers...nor homosexuals shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Tony: the Greek word here translated "homosexual" is an exceedingly obscure word, occurring only once in the entire Bible. During the middle ages, the Roman Catholic church interpreted this verse as "masturbators," making masturbation an unpardonable sin. Because this word has been abused and, at any rate, is confusing, this verse should not be used.
Answer: okay, granted - this is not the strongest verse. However, it is far from the only verse on this topic. Because: 1) Scriptures interpret Scriptures, and 2) neither Leviticus 18:22, nor Romans 1 have adequately been cast into doubt, shouldn't "homosexuality" be at least one acceptable option for this word? More importantly, however, all of the major translations (NIV, NASB, NKJV, CEV, ESV, etc.) agree on this translation. Should we accept the translation of one very vocal sociologist, against the combined intellectual resources of the best linguists the past century of scholarship has to offer?
3. Unable to get around Romans 1
Tony admits defeat when it comes to Romans 1. Although he admits that he would like to dispense with the teaching in Romans 1 that homosexuality is condemned by God, he says that he believes it is very important to honor the traditions of the church. From ancient times, no Christian has everinterpreted Romans 1 in such a way as to allow homosexuality as a possible lifestyle for Christians. Still desperate for some ambiguity, however, Tony told his research assistants to re-read the early church fathers entirely - scouring it for any signs of weakening on this point. They drew a blank.
Tony concludes hopefully, however: the Early Church Fathers did not speakvery much on this point. Tony concludes by saying that he is weakening on this point, towards allowing homosexuality.
Answer: Does this one even need an answer? Tony just said that, 1) Scriptures are clear, 2) tradition is iron-clad, and yet 3) he desperately, against the evidence, is "weakening" in favor of endorsing homosexuality. Where does the pressure towards ambiguity on this one come from? From his wife? From culture? From some unseen spiritual force? At any rate, it obviously does not come from Scriptures themselves, or tradition.
4. Peggy on Romans 1
Having thus admitted defeat in regards to Romans 1, Tony sits down and lets his wife say what he cannot in good conscience say. She speaks of an ancient shrine to a certain deity (who was a hermaphrodite) in which the worshipers engaged in all manner of sodomy, homosexuality and self-mutilation. She notes the many ways in which the worship of this deity very closely fits the words in Romans 1. Therefore, she concludes, this passage is referring to worship of an ancient deity, and doesn't apply to monogamous homosexuality, as practiced today.
Answer: For one thing, one wonders why Tony is silent on this point? In his words and actions, he has implied that he finds Peggy's arguments unsatisfactory. If he doesn't think his wife's words are correct, why does he encourage her to follow up his arguments with arguments which he knows are false? Why does he not even mention his reservations on this topic when it is again his turn to speak? Don't his actions prove that he is just getting his wife to say that which he wishes he could say, but is unable to due to conscience and right reason? But the line seems incredibly small between saying a thing one's self, and encouraging one's wife to say it.
In regards to Peggy herself, I would offer these points of argument: 1) the other passages of Scripture, which Tony was unable to silence, provide a good context for this passage, 2) just because Paul may have had a certain templeespecially in mind, this does not mean that he did not condemn the actions themselves. In addition to homosexuality, Paul also here condemns, "greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;" (Romans 1:29-31). Let's just say that everyone who participated in the worship of this certain temple had all of these spiritual characteristics. Would that then mean that disobedience and boastfulness (etc.) is acceptable for Christians? Would it not be better to say that Paul may have been holding up a certain temple as an example of the extremes to which lawlessness can go? In this case, even much lesser forms of these evils would be condemned.
4. Personal Experiences.
The Campolos relate numerous experiences of real-life homosexual men who were very cruelly treated. Both of them had formative events in their childhood when a homosexual man close to them was treated very cruelly (in one case, he was so degraded by his abuse that he went home and hung himself.) They also relate frustration at the "Evangelical right" which rails against homosexuality as a "plague" and "sign of the times" without realizing that these are real people who have hearts, and who are hurting.
Answer: This was one portion which I really benefited from. My wife often reminds me that I have somewhat of a sheltered perspective which I need to work against: this was one instance of that. As a Canadian in a small town, I have never witnessed any form of homophobia. I have never heard a sermon "condemning homosexuality as a sign of the times," and on the government-sponsored radio (which I listen to fairly often), homosexuality is a sign of the times in a positive way - our acceptance of it (is everyone aware that Canada allows same-gendered marriage?) proves our forward-thinking and liberal values. Growing up in public school, there was one very prominent class-mate who came out of the closet. I was not aware of any sort of abuse towards him, and he seemed to be a very popular kid who - if anything - got preferential treatment from teachers and staff. And so when I speak out against this topic, I am (in my own context) a tiny squirt-gun shooting against the mighty torrent of Canadian culture. I think there is actually a law on the books which could get me into legal trouble for even posting on this issue - although I am not sure whether that motion has passed yet, or is still in deliberations.
However, I need to recognize that my post may be read by people who are living in a very different contexts. Many homosexual people are very cruelly treated and discriminated against. Although I feel like the minority when I hold the conservative position on this topic, I need to recognize that many of my readers may feel like they are the minority. There needs to be a delicate line walked here. Also, since so many homosexuals have lived almost their entire lives with insults hurled at them, I need to be careful because even stating the truth in a not very loving way can be hurtful.
5. An Offensive Remark
Near the end of their talk, Tony made a remark which drew applause from his audience, but which I found very offensive. He said, "Most homosexual people feel that evangelicals despise them. And this is because most evangelicals despise them."
What? REALLY? Tony, do you really believe this? I have listened to several sermons on this topic, and I know quite a few Evangelicals. None of them "despise" homosexuals. They all - as the saying goes - do their best to "hate the sin, love the sinner." As I said in a previous post, it is very similar to fornication. In our day and age everybody sleeps together before they get married. The Bible says this is wrong. Does that mean that we Christians hate anybody who doesn't live God's way? No! Certainly not! We love and we do our best to serve, even while standing up for truth on certain issues.
Tony here makes the great mistake which secular culture has been making against us Christians: equating our non-acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle with our condemnation of individual homosexual persons, or hatred of anybody who is not "straight." Maybe this is an acceptable misunderstanding for someone who is unfamiliar with our beliefs. But from someone who claims to be a Christian leader? Even someone who claims to believe as we do?
This comment is just very much out of place and not right.
6. A few interesting remarks
In another place, Tony again makes a comparison between divorce and homosexuality. He cites the well-known statistic that divorce rates among Christians are slightly higher than among non-Christians. He they asks why the churches can disregard such a clear teaching of Jesus on the point of heterosexual divorce, while emphasizing a teaching which Jesus did not address directly, on homosexual marriage? I would agree wholeheartedly with Tony that there needs to be more emphasis on the permanence of marriage in our churches. However, does two wrongs make a right? Does the fact that many churches fail to teach truth on one issue mean that we should be deliberately lax on another topic? I may be unfair in saying this, but it seems like Tony just likes to point out where Evangelicals are "wrong," whether it is helpful or not. If the tables were turned - say, for example, the Evangelical church embraced homosexuality, but condemned divorce and remarriage - would Tony be going on record as saying, "The Evangelical church embraces homosexuality - which is clearly condemned in Scriptures - but then they condemn those who remarry. How can they be so cruel!? Why, take the highly emotional case of my third cousin once removed, who not allowed to remarry...." With his treatment of this topic, one wonders whether Tony is trying to push the church back to center, or whether he just likes "pushing"?
Tony recalls speaking to a group of Episcopalians/Anglicans. He said (something to the effect of), "I don't understand you Anglicans. You have a pastor over in Ohio (or somewhere) that denies the virgin birth, and you say, 'we have to be accommodating.' You have a pastor over in California that denies the authority of Scriptures, and you say, 'we need to be pluralistic.' You have a pastor over in Seattle (or somewhere - don't remember the details) who doesn't even believe in God anymore, and you say, 'we need to accept people where they are.' But then when you have a pastor who decides they are gay, you all rise up and say, 'we've got to draw the line somewhere!'" In response I would say, "Yes, we do need to draw the line somewhere. The line should have been drawn long ago in that denomination - but the fact that they have gone that far down the slippery slope does not mean that they should go on indefinitely without taking a stand." Christianity is about a certain set of beliefs: it is not a sin to state one's beliefs and even to cause divisions because of faithfulness to one's conscience. That is, after all, how we got the Reformation and - if we had but memory to recall it - how we preserved the Christian doctrine from the great in-flooding of heresy in the second and third centuries, and all through the ages.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I did learn some things from listening to this audio. For one thing, as I mentioned, I realized again that this is one point where being a Canadian versus being an American is a very significant difference in context. I need to be conscious of that in the future. Furthermore, I heard some very heart-wrenching stories about homosexual people being hurt, hated-on and abused. This makes me think that I need to be super-careful about this issue at times, so that I do not sound like I secretly have those same desires to, for example, spit on someone in a gay pride parade and call them names.
I don't hate anybody, least of all somebody who has such a hard lot in life as a homosexual. However, I do believe that Scriptures have the answers for the thorny questions of life. I believe it is love to present truth to people hurt and struggling with sin and its effects.
The other thing that I learned was that I was basically right, in my thesis "homosexuality is a good litmus test of orthodoxy." That thesis should have been explained better in my previous post. I was not saying that a Christian endorsing homosexuality could not be a Christian. What I meant was that when a Christian leader, church, denomination or seminary publicly declares that they endorse homosexuality, it is a very telling sign. I said this in my previous post simply because Scriptures are so very clear on the topic, that I assumed people would have to do exegetical gymnastics to get around them. After listening to the Campolo's, I would consider my thesis "confirmed" - at least in their case.

Inspiring Martyr Stories

I found this story of Polycarp's Martyrdom very inspiring:
Greeting

The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place...

We have written to you, brethren, as to what relates to the martyrs, and especially to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the persecution, having, as it were, set a seal upon it by his martyrdom. ...

All the martyrdoms, then, were blessed and noble which took place according to the will of God. For it becomes us who profess greater piety than others, to ascribe the authority over all things to God. And truly, who can fail to admire their nobleness of mind, and their patience, with that love towards their Lord which they displayed?— who, when they were so torn with scourges, that the frame of their bodies, even to the very inward veins and arteries, was laid open, still patiently endured, while even those that stood by pitied and bewailed them. But they reached such a pitch of magnanimity, that not one of them let a sigh or a groan escape them; thus proving to us all that those holy martyrs of Christ, at the very time when they suffered such torments, were absent from the body, or rather, that the Lord then stood by them, and communed with them. And, looking to the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by [the suffering of] a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched, and looked forward with the eyes of their heart to those good things which are laid up for such as endure; things which ear has not heard, nor eye seen, neither have entered into the heart of man, 1 Corinthians 2:9 but were revealed by the Lord to them, inasmuch as they were no longer men, but had already become angels. And, in like manner, those who were condemned to the wild beasts endured dreadful tortures, being stretched out upon beds full of spikes, and subjected to various other kinds of torments, in order that, if it were possible, the tyrant might, by their lingering tortures, lead them to a denial [of Christ].

For the devil did indeed invent many things against them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all. For the most noble Germanicus strengthened the timidity of others by his own patience, and fought heroically with the wild beasts. For, when the proconsul sought to persuade him, and urged him to take pity upon his age, he attracted the wild beast towards himself, and provoked it, being desirous to escape all the more quickly from an unrighteous and impious world. But upon this the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, Away with the Atheists; let Polycarp be sought out!

But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard [that he was sought for], was in no measure disturbed, but resolved to continue in the city. However, in deference to the wish of many, he was persuaded to leave it. He departed, therefore, to a country house not far distant from the city. There he stayed with a few [friends], engaged in nothing else night and day than praying for all men, and for the Churches throughout the world, according to his usual custom. And while he was praying, a vision presented itself to him three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed to him on fire. Upon this, turning to those that were with him, he said to them prophetically, I must be burnt alive.

And when those who sought for him were at hand, he departed to another dwelling, whither his pursuers immediately came after him. And when they found him not, they seized upon two youths [that were there], one of whom, being subjected to torture, confessed. It was thus impossible that he should continue hid, since those that betrayed him were of his own household. The Irenarch then (whose office is the same as that of the Cleronomus ), by name Herod, hastened to bring him into the stadium. [This all happened] that he might fulfil his special lot, being made a partaker of Christ, and that they who betrayed him might undergo the punishment of Judas himself.

His pursuers then, along with horsemen, and taking the youth with them, went forth at supper-time on the day of the preparation with their usual weapons, as if going out against a robber. Matthew 26:55 And having come about evening [to the place where he was], they found him lying down in the upper room of a certain little house, from which he might have escaped into another place; but he refused, saying, The will of God be done. Matthew 6:10; Acts 21:14 So when he heard that they had come, he went down and spoke with them. And as those that were present marvelled at his age and constancy, some of them said. Was so much effort made to capture such a venerable man? Immediately then, in that very hour, he ordered that something to eat and drink should be set before them, as much indeed as they cared for, while he besought them to allow him an hour to pray without disturbance. And on their giving him leave, he stood and prayed, being full of the grace of God, so that he could not cease for two full hours, to the astonishment of those who heard him, insomuch that many began to repent that they had come forth against so godly and venerable an old man.

Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath. And the Irenarch Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes (both riding in a chariot ), met him, and taking him up into the chariot, they seated themselves beside him, and endeavoured to persuade him, saying, What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety? But he at first gave them no answer; and when they continued to urge him, he said, I shall not do as you advise me. So they, having no hope of persuading him, began to speak bitter words unto him, and cast him with violence out of the chariot, insomuch that, in getting down from the carriage, he dislocated his leg [by the fall]. But without being disturbed, and as if suffering nothing, he went eagerly forward with all haste, and was conducted to the stadium, where the tumult was so great, that there was no possibility of being heard.

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp! No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, Have respect to your old age, and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, Away with the Atheists. Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ; Polycarp declared, Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?

And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, Swear by the fortune of Cæsar, he answered,

Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them.

The proconsul replied, Persuade the people. But Polycarp said,

To you I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1 But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.

The proconsul then said to him, I have wild beasts at hand; to these will I cast you, unless you repent.

But he answered, Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; and it is well for me to be changed from what is evil to what is righteous.

But again the proconsul said to him, I will cause you to be consumed by fire, seeing you despise the wild beasts, if you will not repent.

But Polycarp said, You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why do you tarry? Bring forth what you will.

While he spoke these and many other like things, he was filled with confidence and joy, and his countenance was full of grace, so that not merely did it not fall as if troubled by the things said to him, but, on the contrary, the proconsul was astonished, and sent his herald to proclaim in the midst of the stadium thrice, Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian. This proclamation having been made by the herald, the whole multitude both of the heathen and Jews, who dwelt at Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable fury, and in a loud voice, This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, and the overthrower of our gods, he who has been teaching many not to sacrifice, or to worship the gods. Speaking thus, they cried out, and besought Philip the Asiarch to let loose a lion upon Polycarp. But Philip answered that it was not lawful for him to do so, seeing the shows of wild beasts were already finished. Then it seemed good to them to cry out with one consent, that Polycarp should be burnt alive. For thus it behooved the vision which was revealed to him in regard to his pillow to be fulfilled, when, seeing it on fire as he was praying, he turned about and said prophetically to the faithful that were with him, I must be burnt alive.

This, then, was carried into effect with greater speed than it was spoken, the multitudes immediately gathering together wood and fagots out of the shops and baths; the Jews especially, according to custom, eagerly assisting them in it. And when the funeral pile was ready, Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,— a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin. For, on account of his holy life, he was, even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good. Immediately then they surrounded him with those substances which had been prepared for the funeral pile. But when they were about also to fix him with nails, he said, Leave me as I am; for He that gives me strength to endure the fire, will also enable me, without your securing me by nails, to remain without moving in the pile.

They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before you, I give You thanks that You have counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Your martyrs, in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before You as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the ever-truthful God, have foreordained, have revealed beforehand to me, and now have fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.

When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a sweet odour [coming from the pile], as if frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.

At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished...

(Read more from this work here)

Sermon: "What is Love?"

One of the advantages of being technologically impaired is that while I have recorded almost all of the sermons I have preached, I haven't been able to get them all uploaded. This has given me the ability to critique my own self from a distance, and decide which sermons actually deserve to be heard again. The first sermon in this series on Psalm 36 definitely did not make the cut. However, I learned some things all over again and was very blessed by this sermon, entitled, "What is Love?" (Subtitle: "This sermon is not as boring as it sounds!!")
You can watch it below:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KGl0kNuP5E]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZSZuqJuweI]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtUPh6q6Iwc]
Or listen to the uncut audio at God is Love.
I think I only made one mistake in this sermon. My final point is that "love is wise." I go to great lengths to explain what wisdom looks like in an authority figure (that is, they modify their judgments to various situations). I should have seen that in the passage being studied, God's "righteousness" is like a mountain (that is, it is firm and doesn't move) while His "judgments" are like a great deep (that is, they are fluid, situational and profound). The way I said it towards the end of the sermon could be taken to say that God's ethics change with each changing person and situation (situational ethics) and this is not what the passage is saying. Probably a more accurate direction to take it (although it would have been awkward in this particular sermon) would be to apply it directly to the judgment-seat of Christ (Gen. 18:25, Psalm 58:11, Daniel 7:10, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelations 20:12, etc.). At that one, post-life judgment (Heb. 9:27), we can rest assured that God's judgments will be particularly adapted to the situation, the knowledge, the advantages and disadvantages of each individual person. This is different, however, than saying that His sense of right and wrong (or, His "moral compass") changes from situation to situation on issues He has spoken out on.
I also said some derogatory things towards younger people in authority (I was saying this against myself, as a recognition that I have much to learn from older people) but someone who heard this interpreted it as "you're right. So-and-so, who is a young pastor, just doesn't have much wisdom!" This was not what I was getting at. Young people can do a good job too, as Paul says, "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:12)
Other than these corrections, though, I think the rest of the sermon is quite sound and should be a blessing to those who hear it.
Enjoy and God bless!