Apprising Ministries
PRETENDING THAT BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY IS THE CHURCH - Wed, 08 Sep 2010
For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. (Psalm 59:12) A Christianity To Please The World This serves as the second part of the Apprising Ministries article Big Tent Christianity Pretending To Be The Church where I began to take you through Big Tent conference in Raleigh [...]
BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY - Tue, 07 Sep 2010
BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY PRETENDING TO BE THE CHURCH - Tue, 07 Sep 2010
“For my eyes are on all their ways. They are not hidden from me, nor is their iniquity concealed from my eyes. But first I will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled my inheritance with their abominations.” (Jeremiah [...]
CHARLES SPURGEON: A STRONG HEART - Mon, 06 Sep 2010
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord. (Psalm 27:14) Wait! Wait! Let your waiting be on the Lord! He is worth waiting for. He never disappoints the waiting soul. While waiting keep up your spirits, Expect a great deliverance, and be ready [...]
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK PEDDLING CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY - Mon, 06 Sep 2010
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, [...]
Slaughter of the Sheep
Evangelicals and their New Revival Leader – Glenn Beck - Fri, 03 Sep 2010
Sometimes it amuses me when evangelical leaders try to pin the tail on their new hero. Remember the Carrie Prejean fiasco? Evangelical leaders began to champion her when she voiced her belief in traditional marriage (between a man and a … Continue reading 
The Jesus of Glenn Beck and Mormonism - Sat, 28 Aug 2010
The following is from Ken Silva of Apprising Ministry. I will post his commentary in part, but please take the time to hop over to Apprising and read it in its entirety. Silva’s post shows how the Jesus of the … Continue reading 
FYI – Bud Press to be Interviewed on Blog Talk Radio - Sat, 28 Aug 2010
Good friend and fellow researcher, Bud Press of Christian Research Service, will be the featured guest on Blog Talk Radio today at 1:00 p.m eastern time. He will be interviewed by Susan Pruzio. If you have time, please tune in … Continue reading 
Evangelicals and Glenn Beck - Sat, 28 Aug 2010
Psalm 86:11-12: (NASB) Teach me Thy way, O LORD; I will walk in Thy truth; Unite my heart to fear Thy name. I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And will glorify Thy name … Continue reading 
Rick Joyner “Releases” Todd Bentley Back Into Ministry - Wed, 18 Aug 2010
Well, I guess the “restoration” of Todd Bentley is complete, because Rick Joyner is “releasing” him back into ministry. Here are a couple of observations: Rick Joyner restored Bentley, not God. Rick Joyner didn’t truly “restore” Bentley…only God can do … Continue reading 
Lighthouse Trails
“Servant Leadership” – A Christian Concept? Not Exactly - Sun, 05 Sep 2010
by Warren B. Smith LTRP Note: Today, there is much talk about teaching people to become good leaders. In reality, what is happening is people are being taught to be “good” followers. The term (and the concept) Servant Leadership, used by many of the most prolific Christian authors and teachers today, did not originate with [...]
U.N. legalizes child porn, prostitution - Sat, 04 Sep 2010
LTRP Note: The following article is written by child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman. Dr. Reisman is one of the featured speakers in the DVD we carry, The Kinsey Syndrome. Exclusive: Judith Reisman compares UNICEF to ‘fox guarding chicken coop’ By Judith Reisman Consider the recent WND report on Scotland’s opening up internet pornography to school [...]
A Warning and A Plea - Fri, 03 Sep 2010
by Ray Yungen It is very true that God loves mankind, so much so He sent His Son to save all who receive Him by faith. The Lord is very patient with man, and as “the day of the Lord” draws nearer and nearer, He continues beckoning humanity to Himself. However, while God’s love, mercy, [...]
List of Authors and Books NOT Recommended - Thu, 02 Sep 2010
LTRP Note: Lighthouse Trails has been linking to Bud Press’ (Christian Research Service) “Master List” for several years. Press has been building on this list of books and authors who are promoting and involved with the New Spirituality. The following is an introduction to his list, with a link following to the entire list. It’s a [...]
FREEDOM AT RISK: 64-year-old tased by California police thrice in own home - Thu, 02 Sep 2010
By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily A lawsuit has been launched against the sheriff’s office in Marin County, Calif., over an episode in which deputies barged uninvited into a 64-year-old man’s home and shot him three times with a Taser, screaming “stop resisting” at him while the incapacitated victim writhed in pain on the floor. The sheriff’s version of the episode was that watching “selected” [...]
Sola Dei Gloria
Pastor Behind ‘Burn A Quran Day’ Responds To General Petraeus - Tue, 07 Sep 2010
Been following this story the last few weeks. What a totally disgusting AND unChrist-like mess this Pastor has instigated. Do these nuts really think actions, such as publicly burning the quran is presenting a correct, biblical example of Christ, the … Continue reading 
WHAT IS HEAVEN? - Sat, 04 Sep 2010
Beloved, what is heaven? What is the final glory of the saints? Is it not the best place, the richest inheritance provided by the Father for the people ransomed and brought home to glory by His Son? Heaven is a … Continue reading 
Mormons Say Beck Achieved 200 Year Goal of Getting Evangelicals to Declare That Mormons Are Christians - Thu, 02 Sep 2010
If time permits, read this latest article written by Brannon Howse. “I believe what happen(ed) over the weekend was a seismic shift within evangelicalism; an historic event that will go unnoticed by most Christian leaders. ”
Things that make you go hmmmm…. - Thu, 02 Sep 2010
2008; Todd Bentley, Lakeland revival: Eagles flying over stadium seen as miracle from God Revival stadium, Todd Bentley three eagles with fish 2010; Today’s first Mormon/political commentator/ TV ‘evangelist’: Washington DC: Beck sees “miracle” in geese flying over mall during … Continue reading 
Mormonism, “The Fourth Abrahamic Faith”? - Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against … Continue reading 
Defending Contending
Pyromaniacs
Walking the Dog - Wed, 08 Sep 2010
by Frank Turk
After much waiting and a very severe lack of time for me in the last two weeks, finally we get to Pastor Tim Keller's paper, available at the BioLogos website, regarding "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople." Let me say this clearly: I think the people who run BioLogos didn't actually read this paper. In fact, I think a lot of people who have criticized this paper have not read this paper, so have a synopsis of the work itself with some analysis, and then come closing remarks.
Keller wisely breaks the paper up into clear subheadings:
1. What's the Problem?
2. Pastors and people
3. Three Questions of Laypeople
4. Concluding Thoughts
Keller defines the problem as he sees it precisely:
Many believers in western culture see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then, can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs?And as I blogged last week, there's no reason to think it's either science or religion -- it's entirely right-minded to see science as a tool which man uses in his God-ordained place to be in dominion over the world.
In his second section, Keller also wisely sees the problem as having four main points of difficulty for orthodox protestants: Biblical authority; the confusion of biology and philosophy (I would say the problem is "conflation", but let Keller have his own say here); the historicity of Adam and Eve; and the problem of evil. And the reason for his lining out of these problems is explicitly pastoral -- that is, these are the questions real people have when they come to their pastors because we live in a world where science is seen as somehow prophetic, somehow authoritative and able to speak to all things when in fact it only speaks to a few. But as he moves to the three main questions these four points of difficulty make obvious, Pastor Keller says this:
if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it? This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors. We are to be a bridge between the know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging. Nevertheless, I believe this is our calling.And he's right: it is actually part of the pastoral calling to be a voice of discernment for the people he is shepherding -- and sometimes that's going to including knowing more than what's printed on the page of the English Bible. We call that "apologetics" in most church circles -- and it's a godly pursuit when followed for pastoral reasons.
1. If God used evolution to create, then we can't take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can't do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?
2. If biological evolution is true, does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes, and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
3. If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve how can we know where sin and suffering came from?
Before covering his answers to these questions, let me suggest something: the first significant error in this paper is that Pastor Keller is being too simplistic in the answers he gives to these questions. For example, his answer to question 1 doesn't address at all that, in spite of the alleged "genre" Genesis, the most time-honored and ancient reading of Genesis 1 is that this is the history of creation and not some other liturgical/poetic section of Scripture intended to convey "Truth" but not actually describe any true things.
What Pastor Keller does in answering these questions has a pastoral motive -- but it also has another motive which I would suggest is competing with his better angel, and that's the motive to speak to the fears inherent in unbelief.
So in answering the question of whether we can take any of the Bible "literally" if Gen 1 is not "literal", Pastor Keller forgets to include the copious references from the rest of the Bible to Genesis 1 which make it clear that God created in days, and that these days formed our concept of the week, and that his rest at the end of it created the sabbath. He forgets the copious references in OT and NT to Adam as a person who lives in a lineage which leads to Jesus. He forgets that the Serpent in the garden is the father of all lies, and was a murderer from the beginning. Instead he gives an alternative explanation for Genesis 1-3 which is meant to allay fear in the supernatural aspect of the events, and to appeal to people who have other intellectual commitments. I find this interesting from a fellow who speaks so vibrantly elsewhere on the subject of the Gospel destroying our idols.
In the second question, he then turns to the problem which his first question actually creates: that is, doesn't factual evolution trump literary or poetical conceit? Doesn't the fact that man is an animal like all the other animals (rather than the special creation who was given to name all the animals) make man morally just another animal? Keller's answer here is not very convincing -- even if its pastoral stripes show.
His answer is that it's actually only a prior commitment to naturalism which makes this logic necessarily true. He references Plantinga on this point, and says that "Christian pastors, theologians, and scientists who want to argue for an [evolutionary process] account of origins must put a great deal of emphasis at the same time on arguing against [grand evolutionary theory]." But the question he leaves unanswered then is "why?" Why argue for the evolutionary process as the one which produces both chimps and Pastor Kellers only to say, "but that doesn't mean anything metaphysically?"
Does natural selection (alone) give us cognitive faculties (sense perception, rational intuition about those perceptions, and our memory of them) that produce true beliefs about the real world? In as far as true belief produces survival behavior, yes. But who can say how far that is? If a theory makes it impossible to trust our minds, then it also makes it impossible to be sure about anything our minds tell us-‐-‐including macro-‐evolution itself-‐-‐ and everything else. Any theory that makes it impossible to trust our minds is self-‐defeating.It's one of those arguments, as they say, which destroys the village in order to capture the village. Sure: it's sort of a classic presuppositional argument which may be logically flawless, but it is also one of those arguments too smart by half which leaves most people feeling like you're trying way too hard.
What if you said instead, "well, it seems to me that if I have to posit the supernatural anyway to be epistemologically-sure that my perceptions of my personhood are true, I'll trust the whole shootin' match for meaning to what God has said -- and then science can then be my servant rather than a competing master."
The reason to say that, btw, is to avoid having to say what Pastor Keller says in his third Q & A. But before we get to his third answer, we should read carefully his disclaimer:
I find the concerns of this question much more well-‐grounded. Indeed, I must disclose, I share them. Many orthodox Christians who believe God used EBP to bring about human life not only do not take Genesis 1 as history, but also deny that Genesis 2 is an account of real events. Adam and Eve, in their view, were not historical figures but an allegory or symbol of the human race. Genesis 2, then, is a symbolic story or myth which conveys the truth that human beings all have and do turn away from God and are sinners.See: this is perhaps the key reason I think that maybe the folks at BioLogos didn't read this paper very carefully: Tim Keller believes that Adam was a real guy, the first man after which the race was named.
And his concern here is for exactly the right reasons: he fears that discounting the historicity of Adam will impact our belief in the trustworthiness of Scripture. He fears that the problem of sin and the solution of salvation in Christ will be ruined into mythology and not real and present facts of human existence.
Isn't that a bizarre thing to say after answering as he did his Q#1? Why lay the groundwork for the antithesis of a belief in a historical Adam if in fact you see Adam and his sin as the lynch pin of the theology of human fallenness and a need for a savior?
But that objection aside regarding Q1 and Q2, Pastor Keller is exactly right in his answer to Q3 -- and in that, the curators of BioLogos need to think hard about the solution to the problem he is posing. Tim Keller is not posing the same problem they are -- because he doesn't see Gen 2-3 as myth but as "high history". So the solution He is posing does not work for the problem BioLogos is posing.
Now: to overcome all the baggage Keller has essentially stipulated to in Q1 and Q2, he resorts to the theological hypotheses of Derek Kidner to reconcile evolution to the fall of Adam. But does this actually buy either of them more credibility in the world of process evolution advocates? In Kidner's view, Adam was taken from among the "tool users" who has evolved and given the gift of imago die, and then God uses special creation to make Eve! That is, God makes Even from Adam as it says, but Adam was not made from the red clay but from a lesser primate.
I wonder if someone who accepts the biological explanation for evolution will find that more credible than what it actually says in the Bible -- or if any of the BioLogos advocates would buy Kidner/Keller's exegesis here as more compelling than what Al Mohler would have to say about these passages. And in that, I wonder if someone who has accepted Pastor Keller's answers to Q1 and Q2 wouldn't feel somewhat put upon to accept the answer to Q3 -- because the question of God's supernatural power has only been shifted from Day 1 to Day 6.
So what are Pastor Keller's concluding thoughts? He says it plainly: "We must interpret the book of nature by the book of God." However, he also states plainly "Christians who are seeking to correlate Scripture and science must be a 'bigger tent' than either the anti‐scientific religionists or the anti-‐religious scientists."If we are serious to do what Tim Keller says to do -- and use Scripture as the governing authority over what we observe in the world, especially when we are talking about the fundamental metaphysicaland ethical conditions man finds himself in -- then the potential solutions he poses here are not really sufficient to meet the task. But the interesting thing is that they are supported by the tribe at BioLogos as somehow compatible with their view of science and religion.
Do you think they read this paper? I don't think they did. But if they did, I think their motives are an interesting case study. We'll talk about that next week. You probably won't wait that long and will unload your conspiracy theories in the comments.
Have at it.
Sister... show mercy! (Annual repost #3) - Tue, 07 Sep 2010
[I'm very grateful for the use God has made of this post. Many pastors, leaders, and others have requested permission to print this and hand it out; and many sisters have said they were going to share it around. Originallyposted in 2006, italways receives a mixture of gracious and bizarre response. Let me add this one word to husbands: you too. Attractive wife, right? Praise God. Soremember what it was like to be single. You know how guys are. You used to be one! So you show some mercy to your brothers. Sensitize your wife about showing love for her brothers in this important way. Read this with her. Help her to dress helpfullyand mercifully.Or am I assuming too well of you? Do you know what's going on, how your wife is affecting your brothers, and do you derive pleasure from the thought? In that case, do you really need me to tell you to repent?]
Preface: "What are you? Nuts?!" Just thought I'd lead with t
he question you'll be wondering in a few minutes. I am about to stick my finger in the fan, about up to my elbow, and I know it. But I really think someone needs to say this — and why not me? I have less to lose than many who've thought the same thing, but daren't say it.
So here we go.
What will change, and what won't. Spring's sprung, and summer looms. Mercury rises, fashions change. But one thing that won't change, unless I'm happily mistaken: some good Christian sisters will not dress as helpfully as they could.
I chose that word with care: "helpfully." I am not talking about sin, shame, indecency, wantonness, or the like. Perhaps I could, with some justification. But that's for another time — and probably another writer. At this point, I just want to talk about being helpful.
Sister, if there's one thing you and I can certainly agree on, it's this: I don't know what it's like to be a woman, and you don't know what it's like to be a man. We're both probably wrong where we're sure we're right, try as we might. So let me try to dart a telegram from my camp over to the distaff side.
"Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, and never satisfied are the eyes of man" (Proverbs 27:20). Solomon doesn't use the Hebrew words that would indicate males exclusively, so this and Ecclesiastes 1:8 may apply across the gender-board. Libbie pointed out very ably that we men wrongly assume that we alone battle with temptations entering through the eye-gate.
But. But if men aren't alone in the battle, they may have a particular weakness for this aspect of it. Consider passionately-godly King David, whose psalms express aspirations after God beside which our own are pale, bloodless things. One day King David is in the wrong place, at the wrong time; sees a naked woman bathing next door, and boom! — he's gone (2 Samuel 11). Family, kingdom, God — all forgotten, consumed in the flash-flame of a lust that was only visual in its inception.
And what of that Israelite Philistine Samson and his own "eye trouble?" He sees a fetching young pagan, and bellows at his dad, "Get her for me, for she looks good to me" (Judges 14:3 NAS). Where did Samson's passions take him? How did his course end?
Unless all the men I've known personally or at a distance are completely unrepresentative, it's a lifelong struggle, a lifelong weakness. As I recall from a Proverbs lecture on mp3, Bruce Waltke says that his dad, at around age 100, told him, "Bruce, I still have the same struggles I did when I was 50." It was sobering for Dr. Waltke to hear; sobering for any man! (In fact, put me down for "disheartening.")
Where am I going with this? Oh, don't try to look so innocent. You know exactly where I'm going.
This is... church? So here comes this brother into the assembly of the saints, hoping for a rest from the battles of the week, a moment to regroup, sing, pray, get the Word, fellowship. He looks up to the choir, or to his left or his right — and in a tick of the clock, he's facing the same struggle he faced every time he turned on his TV, opened a magazine, or went down a city street. He's seeing things that make it far too easy for him not to keep his mind focused where it needs to be focused.
And he's not in a nightclub, he's not at a singles' bar, he's not at the beach. He's in church.
Now, some very direct disclaimers:
- Every man's sin is his own, and every man's struggle is his own (Proverbs 14:10)
- No one makes a man think or feel anything (Proverbs 4:23)
- It is each individual's responsibility to guard his own heart (Proverbs 4:23)
- Beauty is a wonderful gift of God (cf. Exodus 28:2; Song of Solomon 1:8, 15, etc.)
you pile twigs all around my feet and douse them with lighter fluid. To be a little more specific: if you know I've had trouble with drunkenness, you won't wave a glass of wine in front of me tauntingly. If you know I battle covetousness, you won't take me window-shopping in high-end stores I've no business frequenting.That is, you won't do those things if you love, if you care for me at all.
So I put this question: what are some sisters thinking, in how they dress?
"Attractive"? As the ladies pick clothes, they'll consider what's pretty, what's flattering, what's attractive. Who could blame them? But, "attractive" to whom? In what way? To what end? With what focus?
I want my lure to attract trout so they will bite and get hooked, and I can kill them and eat them.
A business wants to attract buyers so they will spend money and acquire their product or service and make them rich.
By that blouse, those pants, that skirt — what are you trying to attract? Attract to what, so that they will focus on what and feel what, and want to do what?
Consider the questions again. "Is it pretty?" Fine question, no evil in it. "Is it comfortable, is it complimentary, is it fun?" No problem. I'd just suggest you add one more question: "Is it helpful, or is it hurtful, to my brothers in Christ? Will this unintentionally contribute to their having a focus that is harmful to their holy walk?"
Now, lookie here:
In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; 19 the pendants, the bracelets, andWhat it isn't. Immediately we'll swing in, as we always do, and say, "Now, the writer's not saying that women can't dress nicely, or wear jewelry, or blah blah blah." And we'll all disown our Fundie forebears who focused on nylons and lipstick, and came up with precise hemline measurements. We'll want to make sure that we're not advocating a new line of Bible Burqaware™ for evangelical women. All that will be true and valid enough.the scarves; 20 the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; 21 the signet rings and nose rings; 22 the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; 23 the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils (Isaiah 3:18-23)
...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-- 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious (1 Peter 3:3-4)
But... what is it? But I'm concerned that, in our anxiety to be sure to prevent the wrong interpretation, we effectively cut off all interpretation. We have swung from making the passages say silly things, to not letting them say anything. These passages have to mean something! They must have some application! What is it?Surely the passages warn against vanity, externality, sensuality; and promote a focus on a godly character as true beauty. Who you are; not just what you look like. Remember: "As a ring of gold in a swine's snout, So is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion" (Proverbs 11:22 NAS).
Oh boy, I'm going to make it worse now. Deep breath....
Say what? What are your clothes saying about you, sister? What are they supposed to say to your brothers? "Hey, look at this?" Well, they actually are trying to look at the Lord; it's not good for them, not helpful for them, to be looking at that. No, it's not your fault that they have a problem. We established that. And it's really great that God has made you beautiful. May your husband (present or future) celebrate your beauty.
But, please hear me: you can help the brothers who aren't your husband, or you can not-help them. Which are you doing? If you're not married, and a man looks at you, is he thinking, "What a great character"? Or are you giving him reason to think something else about you is "great"?
I know many of the responses. I've heard them. "You don't know what it's like to buy women's clothes, you ignorant man!" Mostly true. My first just-for-fun purchase of (what I thought was) a pretty blue dress for my wife was... well, it was appalling. What a good sport my wife was. I took it back to the store immediately, and made a much better choice.
"I caaaan't." But this: "I can't find anything modest! It's all too revealing! It's impossible to get something
that looks nice, yet isn't too tight, or too short, or too-something / not-something-enough!"Sorry, but baloney.
I put modest women's clothing Christian in Google, and 63,500 pages come up. (Up from 43,200, last year.) Yes, some are funny and quaint at best. But are they all Amishwear? "Can't find?"
More fundamentally: I do not accept that anyone has to wear clothes that are too tight or too sheer or too short — unless you are the largest and tallest woman living in the hottest part of the planet. Because I see larger, taller women than you walking around in hot weather, and they're all wearing clothes, every last one of them. They got those clothes somewhere, I reason. You could too.
"But — but they won't look good on me! The shoulders will be wrong!"
Need-to-not-know. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but let's accept it and pose a counter-question. You tell me. Which is worse: your shoulders hanging a half-inch too low? Or a blouse/skirt that simply (shifting into turbo-delicate) provides need-to-know information to those with a need-to-not-know?
I'm sure we all agree that there are clothes that show off what others have no helpful business seeing. Here's what to show, in clothes-selection: show a Godward focus, discretion, a godly character.
And show mercy.
Parting thought. Darlene pointed me to a statement by Arthur Pink, which makes everything I've just said look awfully mild. But there's no denying that Pink has a point. I'll close with it:
Again, if lustful looking be so grievous a sin, thenNow, note, Pink and I speak to different audiences. I speak to those whom I charitably assume are inadvertently dressing in an unhelpful manner. Pink speaks to those whose intent is to allure. Between the two of us, I can pray we've provided food for thought, prayer, reconsideration, and needed change.those who dress and expose themselves with desires to be looked at and lusted after-as Jezebel, who painted her face, tired her head, and looked out of the window (2 Kings 9:30)-are not less, but even more guilty. In this matter it is only too often the case that men sin, but women tempt them so to do. How great, then, must be the guilt of the great majority of the modern misses who deliberately seek to arouse the sexual passions of our young men? And how much greater still is the guilt of most of their mothers for allowing them to become lascivious temptresses?
One last thought: it is a mistake to think I exclusively have church-attire in mind. That is lifted as a particularly egregious example of what-are-you-thinking? In what I say, I have in mind any place where both sexes are present.
The Worst of All Evils - Mon, 06 Sep 2010
by Phil Johnson
othing is more offensive to God than false religion. The first two of the Ten Commandments underscore that truth. The order of the Commandments is significant. By ruling out false religion before forbidding murder, adultery, or stealing, Moses' Law made clear that that false religion is the vilest of sins.
We have a tendency to regard all religion as inherently noble and honorable. We tend to think that a non-Christian who is devout in his or her religion is somehow morally superior to the wanton sinner who openly traffics in drugs or pornography or some other notorious sin.
But let's be honest: that is not a proper biblical perspective. False religion is gross sin. The person who worships a false god is as abhorrent to the true God as a publican or a prostitute. And the person who worships YHWH in a false or hypocritical way is engaging in wanton sin just as surely as the thief or murderer. Pharisees always think they are morally superior to publicans and sinners, but the ministry of Christ gave ample proof that they are not.
So you can be a religious person and devote your whole life to a broadly inclusive style of gentle piety and altruistic good works in a way that will gain you the respect of all society, but if you worship the wrong god—or even if you worship the true God in a wrong way—you might be worse off, and your life might be even more of an offense to God, than the lowest criminal or most degenerate social outcast. That is the very truth Christ stressed again and again with the Pharisees.
No sinner is more lost than the religious sinner. If you have ever done much personal evangelism, or if you have unbelieving family members who are in bondage to some religious tradition, you know what I am talking about. There is no salvation for the person who thinks his religion can earn him a righteous standing before God. Jesus said in Mark 2:17, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." False religion lures people into a sense of self-righteousness where they see no need for salvation. That's why it is so wicked.
We need to view false religion from a more biblical perspective. The reality is, of all the gross wickedness that runs rampant in this fallen world, nothing is quite as evil as religion that departs from the truth.
Recent Comments