Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author, and book reviewer.

Tim Challies

Challies on FacebookChallies on Twitter

Articles

April 17, 2006

As you may know, immediately prior to the Together for the Gospel Conference, there will be a meeting by and for bloggers. Timmy Brister, who has served as the organizer for this event, has called it “T4G: Band of Bloggers.” While the topic has not yet been finalized, it will be revolve around blogging, the gospel, and the intersection of the two.

The formal part of the meeting, which will be followed by a time of fellowship, will be a one hour Q&A discussion panel which will go from 3:00-4:00 p.m. I have been asked to participate in this panel, along with Dr. Al Mohler, Dr. Russell Moore and Justin Taylor. Here is a list of the participants which I have unapologetically stolen borrowed from Timmy’s site:


Tim Challies

Tim Challies is a web designer by trade. Although he is not in vocational ministry, his blog has proved to minister and impact a large section of the evangelical world. Tim graduated with a degree in history from McMaster University, and soon thereafter, Tim moved from being an aspiring historian to a web designer and started Websonix. Tim is also known for his numerous book reviews which can be found at Ex Libris, World Magazine’s book review blog of which Tim is the editor. Tim also owns and operates the Diet of {Book} Worms, an online collection of discerning reviews of Christian books. In the past, Tim has live-blogged several conferences including the 2005 Desiring God National Conference and the recent 2006 Shepherds’ Conference. He will be live-blogging the Together for the Gospel Conference this year as well. Commonly known as “The World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger,” Tim is a great success story of how he used blogging and his gifts for the glory of God.


Justin Taylor

Justin Taylor is the ESV Bible Project Manager for Crossway Books in Wheaton, IL. and has edited four collections of essays:. Beyond the Bounds, Reclaiming the Center, Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, and A God-Entranced Vision of All Things. Forthcoming are two more collections edited by Justin (Suffering and the Supremacy of God and Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen). Justin previously served as Director of Theology and Executive Editor at Desiring God. Furthermore, Justin also operates johnowen.org, a website dedicated to the life and works of John Owen. His blog, Between Two Worlds, is a mix of theology, philosophy, politics, and culture, and is one of the most widely read blogs in the blogosphere.


Dr. Albert Mohler

Albert Mohler serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. In addition to his presidential duties, Dr. Mohler hosts a daily radio program for the Salem Radio Network, writes a popular daily commentary on moral, cultural and theological issues, and keeps up a daily blog. Dr. Mohler is considered both in and outside the evangelical world as “the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the United States.” He has contributed to several books including Hell Under Fire, Whatever Happened to the Truth?, Here We Stand, Feed My Sheep, and The Coming Evangelical Crisis.


Dr. Russell Moore

Russell D. Moore, Dean of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, serves as executive director of The Henry Institute. Moore has edited and authored two books: Why I Am a Baptist and The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. Moore is the senior editor of Touchstone magazine and executive editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Dr. Moore’s blogs at both The Henry Institute and Mere Comments (the blog of Touchstone magazine).

I am looking forward to participating in this event and hope that it will prove to be a blessing for all involved, whether by participating or by simply listening in. My strategy, if asked a question, will be this: “Hmm. You know, that’s a very good question. I know the answer to that, but I think I’d like to hear what Dr. Mohler has to say. Dr. Mohler?”

So if you are Louisville for the conference, why not come on by the Seminary on Wednesday afternoon and hang out with the blogging crowd!

April 14, 2006

Every Friday morning, before the sun rises, I get together with a couple of friends for a time of fellowship. We have been reading through and discussing Os Guinness’ book The Call. We are currently nine chapters in and are finding that, even if the book is a little frustrating at times as it seems to take a long time to develop, it has given us much food for thought. In the chapter we discussed this morning, Guinness discussed the importance of living life for an audience of One. He begins the chapter by reflecting on Andrew Carnegie and his lifelong desire to be able to parade through the streets of the city of his birth to prove to them that he had been able to become fantastically wealthy. He desired to be seen and known by a human audience.

Guinness talks about other examples of people who have been obsessed with the praise of men. He mentions Marlene Dietrich who would record the applause given at the end of her performances and would then play the recordings for visitors to her home. She would gather friends such as Judy Garland and Noel Coward and play them both sides of a record filled with applause, telling them solemnly what city each round of applause was from. Guinness quotes Mozart who wrote to his father, “I am never in a good humor when I am in a town where I am quite unknown.” He quotes an old French story which tells of a revolutionary who, when sitting in a Paris cafe, hears a disturbance outside. Jumping to his feet he cries, “There goes the mob. I am their leader. I must follow them!”

Such narcissism is shocking, yet is all too common. Just recently someone forwarded me a link to a copy of Sharon Stone’s rider, the document that describes her requirements when she accepts a role in a film. Reading the document is almost nauseating, yet is no doubt not uncommon for Hollywood standards. She demands, among other things, $3500 per week in unaccountable “per diem” funds, three nannies, two assistants, presidential suites, first-class travel, a deluxe motorhome, and the rights to keep all of the jewelery and wardrobe items she uses in the film. Even more shocking, to myself anyways, were the requirements dealing with publicity of the film. The rider insists that her name is given first position in the credits for the film and that her name be at least as big as the movie’s title. Her picture, if it appears in advertising, must be at least as big as, if not bigger, than any other person’s likeness. It goes on and on. As I read this I thought of a friend who used to work in the special events industry. She tells of a particular musician who insisted that no one turn their back on him. People serving him had to, quite literally, walk backwards when they left the room lest they turn their back on him. Reading this is enough to turn one’s stomach.

Guinness discusses narcissim in the context of audience. Christians are to be motivated to serve and to please an audience of One. We are to seek the pleasure of God. Guinness finds it odd that in a century which began with some of the strongest leaders the world has known—Churchill, Roosevelt, Lenin and Stalin—has ended with a “weak style of leadership codependent on followership: the leader as panderer.” He quotes Winston Churchill, a man who had an amazing way of cutting to the heart of issues. “I hear it said that leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.” At another time he said, “Nothing is more dangerous…than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll—always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature.” Violet Bonham Carter once said of Churchill that he was “as impervious to atmosphere as a diver in his bell.” Why was this? Because Churchill knew his mandate and sought to fill it to the best of his abilities. He was far from perfect. In many ways he was a troubled, rude individual. Yet he led the British nation through a dark hour and his name lives in history as the name of a great leader.

The application to the church is obvious. In our day we have leader after leader, teacher after teacher, telling us that the leaders of the church must take their cues from the people. Leadership is seen ever more as leading the people where they want to go, not necessarily where they need to go. Leadership is shaped by fleeting public opinion more than objective standards.

Yet what the church needs is leaders who serve the audience of One—leaders who, like Churchill, are sure of their calling and their mandate. They care nothing for the whims of their followers or potential followers, but only for pleasing the one who has called them to be leaders.

April 12, 2006

Why is it that when a person is looking for a house, driving slowly down a darkened street straining to see the numbers on the fronts of the homes or on the mailboxes at the end of the driveways, he automatically turns down the car radio? He does so because he instinctively knows that music or voices are a distraction. A person cannot focus as well on the task at-hand when there is noise in the background. Noise is a distraction.

I find that when I am writing, and especially writing something that requires deep thought and consistent logic, I need to remove background distractions, whether that means I turn down the music playing from my computer or close the door to my office to drown out the sounds of squabbling or playing children. I do this without thinking about it. As I strain to collect my thoughts and to put words to them, I automatically turn down the music. I am often surprised, when I have finished my writing, to find that the music has been turned off or the door has been closed. I may have no recollection of doing so. It is a natural reaction.

Many years ago I heard a sermon, one of the few I remember from my younger days, where the pastor suggested that we try turning off the stereos in our cars, especially when we are driving alone, and spend the time thinking or praying. He had apparently developed the practice of praying aloud when driving alone. It earned him some bemused looks from other drivers who saw him talking, apparently to himself, but because he found it a beneficial practice he swallowed his pride and continued to talk to God. I often make a decision—and it has to be a deliberate decision for I am accustomed to pressing the “play” button immediately after starting the car—to turn off the radio or CD player when I drive and find this time to be extremely valuable. My mind can process things and mull things over far better where there is silence. This is particularly true if the song I might be listening to is one that is familiar to me as then, whether I am aware of it or not, I tend to sing along. It is hard to think deeply when singing!

In our culture we have allowed ourselves to become notoriously busy. And all the time, while we are busily going through life, there is a great deal of “noise” in the background of our lives. It may be music that plays when we drive, when we work and when we play. It may be a television that is always turned on whenever we have a few minutes of downtime. Perhaps when we find fifteen spare minutes between picking the kids up from school and beginning to cook dinner we watch an episode of Judge Judy or catch a re-run of The Simpsons. The background noise may be a Blackberry that constantly beeps and buzzes as it receives emails or stock quotes, even when we are far away from the office. It may be a cell phone that keeps customers or employees in contact with us even on weekends and holidays.

It seems to me that, as society continues to move in its current direction, and as we become ever more “wired,” Christians will have to be deliberate about moderating and perhaps removing some of this ever-present background noise. If we are to be thinking people, people who think deeply and deliberately about spiritual matters, we simply cannot allow our lives to be overshadowed by the noise of technology.

I wonder how much we miss because of our busyness. I am often challenged to think just how much of life I miss while I check my email for the seventh time in a given evening or while I follow along online with a football game that I really don’t care about. Technology, it seems, is a great distractor. Technology sticks its foot in the door of so many areas of my life. When I sit down to read to my children we may be interrupted by a phone call. As we head outdoors to play, I may do a quick check of my email and spend fifteen minutes typing out a reply that could easily wait until the next day; and then, while I play with the children, I am distracted, mulling over what I might have or should have said. Maybe we duck out of church before the time of fellowship is complete so we will have time to get home, make a sandwich and fluff the cushions on the couch before kickoff time.

Truthfully, I cannot think of anything that distracts us so fully and completely and consistently as technology. For too many of us, technology is a master and not a servant. It is our owner, not our possession. We let it run and rule our lives. We allow technology to determine the course of our lives, taking us where it leads. We determine our schedules with TV Guide in one hand, a Blackberry calendar in the other. We invest countless hours in online friendships, many of which are shallow and insignificant, while ignoring people in our local churches and communities. Perhaps while ignoring even our own families.

Technology is a great servant but an evil master. Technology is proof of the greatness of God and something we ought to be thankful for. But why, then, have so many of us allowed it to rule and govern our lives? Why do we allow it to play such an important, transcendent role in our lives and in our families?

It may be as simple as escapism. Technology, and especially its many applications to entertainment, provide unparalleled opportunities to escape from reality, even if only for a few minutes. Through technology we can leave the drudgery of our lives to listen to music that glorifies freedom or to watch television or film where what happens is far more thrilling than what we experience at home and in the office. The purpose of much of modern technology is to allow us to take our entertainment with us no matter where we go. MP3 players allow us to take thousands or tens of thousands of songs with us in the car or on the train. Video iPods allow us to escape from work or school for a few minutes by watching (ironically enough) The Office or unlimited amounts of pornography. Portable DVD players allow us to keep the children quiet in the car while we take a vacation. No matter who or where we are, we can use technology as a brief escape.

Perhaps we use technology to hide. Maybe we hate to be alone with our thoughts. We have become so accustomed to constant noise that, like a baby who can only sleep in a room with a white noise machine softly humming, we can barely stand the sound of silence. Maybe we have lost the ability to think or even the desire to think, and so we anesthetize our intellects, we lull them into inactivity, by replacing them with noise.

Maybe we need constant noise from the cell phone or Blackberry or laptop so we feel like we are accomplishing anything. Perhaps we have bought into the lie that we need to be accomplishing something significant—something that either pays the bills or leaves us with another bill to pay—at all times. And so we take phone calls during dinner and answer emails in church. We check email compulsively and work while we should be resting.

Or it could be that we prefer the anonymity and safety of online relationships, relationships that allow us to be almost exhibitionist in what we reveal about ourselves, all the while hiding behind a mask of secrecy. We would rather tell our deepest secrets to strangers on the other side of the continent, strangers we know only by their online personas, than find and nurture deep and lasting friendships close to home.

We are busy. We are distracted. Too often we hide behind the noise. As Christians we need to ensure that we are mastering the noise, not allowing it to master us. We need to be in control of our cell phones, Blackberries, laptops and inboxes. We can and often should use this technology, but we must now allow it to control us.

April 11, 2006

Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading is the second of a five-part series of books being written by Eugene Peterson who is best known as the translator of The Message. This series of books comes in the twilight years of Peterson’s career as author, pastor and translator, and it allows him to reflect on his many years of ministry. It is a rather strange and wandering book in which Peterson meanders through a wide variety of topics having to do with the theme of Scripture. At heart, though, the book is an attempt to convince the reader of the importance of reading Scripture in order to promote life change. Peterson feels this is best done through the ancient practice of lectio divina. In many respects, then, this book is a beginner’s guide to that practice. The book also contains a great deal of information about Peterson’s philosophy of Bible translation and it is to this topic that I will turn my attention today.

In a section entitled “Caveat Lector” (or “let the reader beware”), Peterson shows concern with the response that the Scriptures are to evoke in us. “The words printed on the pages of my Bible give witness to the living and active revelation of the God of creation and salvation, the God of love who became the Word made flesh in Jesus, and I had better not forget it. If in my Bible reading I lose touch with this livingness, if I fail to listen to this living Jesus, submit to this sovereignty, and respond to this love, I become arrogant in my knowing and impersonal in my behavior. An enormous amount of damage is done in the name of Christian living by bad Bible reading” (page 82). This shows, I think, that Peterson is genuinely concerned with how Christians read the Bible. He realizes that, when read with an impure heart or out of poor motives, the Bible can be used to cause all manner of harm. Great damage has been done by those who know the words of the Bible best. Satan himself knows and quotes the Bible. But is the problem with the Bible or with the reader?

Peterson further voices this concern in a metaphor. “The Christian community is as concerned with how we read the Bible as that we read it. It is not sufficient to place a Bible in a person’s hands with the command, ‘Read it.’ That is as foolish as putting a set of car keys in an adolescent’s hands, giving him a Honda, and saying, ‘Drive it.’ And just as dangerous. The danger is that in having our hands on a piece of technology, we will use it ignorantly, endangering our lives and the lives of those around us; or that, intoxicated with the power that the technology gives us, we will use it ruthlessly and violently” (page 81). I do not feel that this is a fair parallel. I know of people, and you probably do as well, who have been simply handed a Bible and been told to read it. They read and were changed. They read and were saved. There is a vast difference between an adolescent who takes the wheel of a car and a man or woman who is given a Bible. While I appreciate Peterson’s concern, what he fails to take into account is the fact that the Holy Spirit works through Scripture as the primary means of changing lives. The metaphor that compares a Bible to a car and an adolescent to a reader is simply not fair or accurate. It gives far too little credit to the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is possible that Peterson feels that the Scriptures are somehow a little bit deficient? That they are not the best way that God could have revealed Himself to us? “There is a sense in which the Scriptures are the word of God dehydrated, with all the originating context removed—living voices, city sounds, camels carrying spices from Seba and gold from Ophir snoring down in the bazaar, fragrance from lentil stew simmering in the kitchen—all now reduced to marks on thin onion-skin paper” (page 88). While this is true, at least to some extent, what Peterson fails to mention is that this is exactly how God intended to give us the Scriptures. God never refers to His Word as “dehydrated” or in any way deficient. Yes, we need to invest time and effort in knowing, studying and understanding them, but we do so knowing that the Scriptures, exactly as they are, are just what God desired that we have. Any fault we perceive in them is a fault within us.

In these three quotations, three of a number I could have referred to, I think we see an important piece of the puzzle that led to The Message. Eugene Peterson feels that the equation of person plus Bible can lead to all manner of hurt and pain and destruction. This is, in many cases, true. Yet it seems, as we will see, that Peterson’s solution is to change the Bible rather than to focus on the people. The Bible is good and perfect and true. It is the people who cause the trouble.

In a chapter entitled “God’s Secretaries,” Peterson examines Nehemiah 8 where the Israelites, having just rediscovered the Scriptures, stand before Ezra as he reads them to the assembly. And as he reads, select Levites “give the sense” of the passages. “ ‘Gave the sense,’” he says, “did more than merely provide dictionary equivalents to the words that were being read that day. The Levites’ interpretive translation work engaged the lives, the hearts and souls, not just the minds, of the people: at first they wept and then they rejoiced ‘because they had understood the words that were declared to them’ (Neh. 8:9-12). This is the intended end of true translation, to bring about the kind of understanding that involves the whole person in tears and laughter, heart and soul, in what is written, what is said” (page 125). It is interesting and helpful, I think, to compare Peterson’s philosophy of translation to that of the English Standard Version. In the preface to the ESV we read, “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on ‘word-for-word’ correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.” Note the difference. The ESV seeks, in so far as possible, to bring the original text before the reader. Peterson seeks to bring about the understanding and response of the original reader. The ESV values words while Peterson values response.

We continue with words found almost at the end of the book. Peterson has continued to discuss The Message. He now sets his sights on essentially literal translations, suggesting why he feels they are less useful than a more dynamic translation. “Translation is a complex activity that takes place between a polarity of two questions. The question asked from one pole is, ‘What did she mean?’ ‘What did he say?’ answered strictly on its own terms yields a literal translation. Find the German word equivalent to the English word and that’s it. ‘What did she mean?’ requires an imagination, often a poetic imagination, that brings the ‘world’ of the German text into the ‘world’ of American English…” He quotes Sebastian Brock: “In the case of free translation, it could be said that the original reader is forced to go to the original; or, to put it another way, in the first it is the reader who is stationary, but in the second it is the original” (page 169).

His distaste for literal translation soon becomes more apparent. “In my work as a pastor and writer, teacher and preacher, I began to gather observations and witnesses on the nature of translation, noticing how unsatisfactory ‘literal’ turns out to be and how conveniently it serves as a cover for avoiding the obvious intent of words spoken or written” (page 170). And again, “Preference for the literal has a long life. But I have come to believe that it is an unthinking preference…The language [in a literal translation] is lobotomized—the very quality that gives language its genius, its capacity to reveal what we otherwise would not know, is excised. Extreme literalism insists on forcing each work into a fixed immovable position, all the sentences strapped in a straightjacket” (page 171).

And then, finally, we see exactly what Peterson presented in The Message and why he did so. “[T]he most important question is not ‘What does it say?’ but ‘What does it mean and how can I live it?’ I wanted to gather a company of people together who read personally, not impersonally, who learned to read the Bible in order to live their true selves, not just get information that they could use to raise their standard of living” (page 176).

I found it an interesting and worthwhile pursuit to piece together this information and to try to understand what lies behind The Message (and behind other dynamic or paraphrastic translations). What it led me to see is that this type of translation relies on a particular class of person—the rare person who can both interpret and translate the Bible. Peterson believes that the Bible should already be interpreted before it is read, so that interpretation and translation are one and the same. The reader is then left in a position whereby once he reads the Bible, he can immediately respond correctly to it. Peterson sees himself and other translators as standing in the role of the Levites of Nehemiah 8, giving the sense of the Scriptures in order to evoke the right response.

This philosophy differs substantially from the more literal translations, where emphasis is placed primarily on words, not meaning. With a literal translation we are given, in as much as is possible, access to the original words of Scripture. It is then up to the individual Christian, not a particular class of “translator-interpreters”, to interpret Scripture and to apply it to our lives.

The problems with Peterson’s approach are numerous, but are too varied to discuss in this article. Perhaps I can discuss them at another time, though I have written about Bible translation enough times that it may not be necessary.

April 10, 2006

Yesterday morning in church we sang a song I knew from the album “Songs For The Cross Centered Life” but had never had the privilege of singing during a worship service. The song was “I Come By The Blood” by Steve and Vikki Cook. It is quite a recent song, but one whose expression of theology is easily equal to many of the old hymns. It proves, as do many of the songs recorded on the albums released by Sovereign Grace Music, that modern music can be as full of meaning and depth as songs that were written long before. Here are the lyrics:

You are the perfect and righteous God whose presence bears no sin
You bid me come to Your Holy place, how can I enter in
When Your presence bears no sin
Through Him who poured out His life for me, the atoning Lamb of God
Through Him and His work alone, I boldly come

The chorus has some wonderful lyrics, but all I heard or understood was this:

Bold bold bold bold bold, bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold.

To be honest, I heard little of the rest of the song. I was just overwhelmed by that one word: bold. I was moved almost to tears. No, let’s be honest. I was moved to tears by that simple word. I stopped singing and just thanked and praised God for the boldness He gives. I stopped and thanked Jesus for the boldness He won for me through His sacrifice. It was a blessed moment.

I think the significance of the moment was brought about, at least in part, by what I experienced the previous evening. Brian McLaren had been in town the night before. Having read many of his books and having invested a fair amount of time in studying what he teaches, both as a Christian author and as an apparently reluctant leader in this strange movement conversation known as emergent, I thought it would be both interesting and useful to hear him speak. The event was held in Richview Baptist Church and the setting was informal. McLaren sat in the front of the auditorium with the audience arrayed around him, grouped around small tables. It was a small gathering of probably only forty or fifty people which made it a good setting to ask questions and to hear from McLaren in a reasonably “safe” environment. I asked no questions, choosing instead just to listen.

McLaren, as we have come to expect, never really answered a question. At one point one of the men in attendance, who clearly had a great deal of respect for McLaren, asked him whether this was natural or whether it was deliberate and something he had had to work at to perfect. McLaren, in as lucid an answer as we got all night, responded that it is something he does deliberatly. I have no doubt that this is the case, but unfortunately, I found it exceedingly frustrating, though certainly not surprising. One might expect that, when attending a Question and Answer session, one might hear some answers. But this was not, unfortunately, the case. Instead, we were subjected to long, rambling discourses that seemed to do anything but address the actual question.

Of course while McLaren was not always lucid in answering questions, in a sense he answered questions simply by not answering. He made statements throughout. In fact, he made a statement by not bringing a Bible with him to the event. And really there did not appear to be any Bibles at the event (and, conspicuous by its absense, was any type of prayer). When asked questions, there was only one occasion where McLaren referred to Scripture as the foundation for his answer, and even then he took a verse far out of context (in an attempt to show that God is, essentially, unknowable). I do not recall a single time that he answered a question by recommending a verse or passage of Scripture. While he widely quoted or recommended the works of other authors and mystics, he did not seem to show any real knowledge of the Bible or trust in and affection for Scripture. For an evening led by a man who is considered one of the world’s most important and influential evangelical leaders, it was certainly surprising that Scripture played no role.

Throughout the evening, boldness was absent. The faith of the emergents, the postmodern faith, is a faith that is devoid of boldness before God. It is timid, angry, tentative, questioning. It is not a faith of assurance and boldness. It emphasizes the unknowability of God more than what God has revealed to us about Himself. The faith McLaren commends is a faith that always questions, always doubts. It seems that the only faith McLaren hates is the faith of a person who knows what he believes and is convicted by Scripture and by plain reason that what God has revealed is truth—true truth. As others have observed, the real enemy of the Emerging Church is conservative, biblical Protestantism. McLaren will commend anything or anybody, it seems, except those who have a faith built upon the truths revealed in the New Testament epistles.

I think that last sentence is important. It struck me while driving home from church yesterday afternoon. McLaren mentioned at one point how many times he has studied and read the gospels since he professed Christ many years ago. But when he spoke of the book of Romans, he did so without the same reverence. When I examined the evening and pieced it together with what McLaren has revealed of himself in his books I was led to conclude something that startled me. Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere. He can reconcile Jesus with his faith, but he is stopped short by Paul. Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but does he love God in the same way?

This postmodern faith, a faith that seeks to emulate Jesus but without the explanation and application taught by Paul and the other apostles, has no certainty, no boldness. This was brewing in my mind as I reflected on the evening. It was brewing in my mind as I drove to church on Sunday morning. And it brought tears to my eyes on Sunday morning as I worshipped and thanked God for the boldness He provides and makes available to those within whom He has done His work.

“…Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him.” (Ephesians 3:12)

Jesus Christ gives boldness to His people. It is not a rash and arrogant boldness that takes refuge in our own intellectual capacities, but a boldness that what God reveals of Himself through Scripture is real and right and true and knowable. It is a confidence that we, simple human beings, can know and understand God. This is what Paul celebrates in the final verses of Romans 11. Having spent 11 chapters discussing the greatness of God, he bursts forth in a song of praise for all that God has revealed of Himself. “Oh the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” This is an expression of wonder for all God has chosen to reveal about Himself to mere sinful, hate-filled human beings. It is an expression not of timidity but of boldness! Not of tenativeness, but of confidence!

We can share in this expression of praise, and so should we, for knowledge of God is a gift of God. Confidence is our privilege, boldness our birthright. We can know God and we can have confidence in what we know, as long as it accords with the words of Scripture—not merely the red words, but the black words too.

April 07, 2006

Until yesterday it had been quite a while since I had written about worship. I had forgotten what a difficult and even contentious issue it is within the church. I guess, at least to some extent, it has always been this way. The issue of music brings out both the best and the worst in Christians. While I had another article ready for posting today, I thought I would put it off for a day and dedicate one more article to worship while my mind and the minds of those reading this site are tuned in to this topic. This is a topic I have written about before in an article I originally titled “Songs of Procrastination.”

I had recently read (and enjoyed) a book edited by Carson entitled, Worship by the Book. Carson suggested that some Christians have come to worship worship instead of worshipping God through worship. He says, “This point is acknowledged in a praise chorus like ‘Let’s forget about ourselves, and magnify the Lord, and worship him.’ The trouble is that after you have sung this repetitious chorus three of four times, you are no farther ahead. The way you forget about yourself is by focusing on God—not by singing about doing it, but by doing it.”

Since I read that, these words have often played in my mind, causing me to examine many of the worship songs I have encountered. I listened to some of the worship albums I have accumulated over the past years and was struck by how true Carson’s words are. Carson also writes, “Despite the protestations, one sometimes wonders if we are beginning to worship worship rather than worship God. As a brother put it to me, it’s a bit like those who begin by admiring the sunset and soon begin to admire themselves admiring the sunset.” It is all too easy for us to engage in “worship” which does not worship God.

This morning I thought of Sonicflood’s self-titled debut album. This one rocked the Christian music scene when it arrived a few years ago and immediately many of these songs went from nearly-unknown to exceedingly popular. Take a look at the lyrics for “I Want to Know You” (In the Secret):

In the secret, in the quiet place
In the stillness You are there
In the secret, in the quiet hour I wait only for You
‘Cause I want to know You more

I want to know You
I want to hear Your voice
I want to know You more
I want to touch You
I want to see Your face
I want to know You more

I am reaching for the highest goal
That I might receive the prize
Pressing ownward, pushing every hindrance aside, out of my way
‘Cause I want to know You more

I was led to conclude that song really says nothing of great substance about God. As the Christian sings this song he pleads to know God more, to hear His voice and to see His face, yet all this time he probably has the Bible sitting on the pew beside him! As Carson says, after you have sung this song through a few times you are no farther ahead. This song will not help you know Him, hear Him, touch Him or see Him. Consider another favorite from the same album:

Open the eyes of my heart, Lord
Open the eyes of my heart
I want to see you, I want to see you

To see you high and lifted up,
Shining in the light of your glory.
Pour out your power and love,
as we sing holy, holy, holy.

Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
I want to see you

I want to see you
I want to see you

For sake of brevity I removed the portions of the lyric that are repetitive. This song is similar to the last in that it pleads what the songwriter wants to do (he wants to see God), yet it brings him no closer to doing so. Granted this song has at least somewhat more depth of theology to it than the first example, but it still does not bring the person any closer to what he desires. We can tell God that we want to see Him, but that does not make it happen!

Despite the risk of belaboring this point, allow me to provide one final example. Here are the lyrics for “You Are Worthy of My Praise” by David Ruis.

I will worship (I will worship)
With all of my heart (with all of my heart)
I will praise You (I will praise You)
With all of my strength (all my strength)
I will seek You (I will seek You)
All of my days (all of my days)
And I will follow (I will follow)
All of Your ways (all Your ways)

I will give You all my worship
I will give You all my praise
You alone I long to worship
You alone are worthy of my praise

I will bow down (I will bow down)
Hail You as king (hail You as king)
And I will serve You (I will serve You)
Give You everything (give You everything)
I will lift up (I will lift up)
My eyes to Your throne (my eyes to Your throne)
And I will trust You (I will trust You)
I will trust You alone (trust You alone)

Once more, the lyrics of the song do not express any substantial worship to God. The words talk about all the things the songwriter (and thus the person singing the song) intends to do, but does not actually do it. We do not worship God by telling Him that we will, at some point in the future, worship Him. It is akin to a husband heading to work and instead of telling his wife that he loves her, telling her that he will express his love for her at some other time. That is not an expression of love!

I do not wish to denigrate any and all songs that are written in a future tense or that anticipate future actions, blessings or rewards. There are some songs that anticipate the future and are built around passionate, biblical, soul-stirring truths. But too many songs really do not do this. They speak about worship without actually allowing us or encouraging us to engage in worship. A song that is merely about worship is no more worthwhile in corporate worship than a song about making a peanut butter sandwich. I wonder if we shouldn’t term these “songs of procrastination.” After all, by singing them we are procrastinating the very thing we claim to desire. Why not forget “In the Secret” and instead sing a song that will tell us about God and how we may know Him? If we want to know Him so badly, perhaps we should just end the song and open the Scriptures. Instead of telling God “I will worship you” and “I will bow down,” why don’t we just do it! Worship Him and bow before Him instead of just expressing the desire.

Thankfully, there are many songs that do this. One hymn, a favorite of mine, came to mind—“God, Be Merciful to Me” which was penned by Jo­seph P. Hol­brook. It is an adaptation of Psalm 51. I can hardly imagine a better song to lead an album or a worship service. Please, do not skip casually over the words, but read them, consciously looking for expressions of true worship.

God, be merciful to me,
On Thy grace I rest my plea;
Plenteous in compassion Thou,
Blot out my transgressions now;
Wash me, make me pure within,
Cleanse, O cleanse me from my sin.

My transgressions I confess,
Grief and guilt my soul oppress;
I have sinned against Thy grace
And provoked Thee to Thy face;
I confess Thy judgment just,
Speechless, I Thy mercy trust.

I am evil, born in sin;
Thou desirest truth within.
Thou alone my Savior art,
Teach Thy wisdom to my heart;
Make me pure, Thy grace bestow,
Wash me whiter than the snow.

Broken, humbled to the dust
By Thy wrath and judgment just,
Let my contrite heart rejoice
And in gladness hear Thy voice;
From my sins O hide Thy face,
Blot them out in boundless grace.

Gracious God, my heart renew,
Make my spirit right and true;
Cast me not away from Thee,
Let Thy Spirit dwell in me;
Thy salvation’s joy impart,
Steadfast make my willing heart.

Now this songwriter accomplishes what he sets out to do. He does not merely tell God that he is sorry for his sin, but he asks God to cleanse and forgive him. He admits his sinfulness and his brokenness and acknowledges that God’s judgment is just. He expresses confidence in God’s grace and forgiveness. It is a powerful and moving song. It is a fitting song to begin a worship service so the believer can acknowledge his unworthiness, plead God’s mercy, and rest in the acknowledgement of God’s pardon. Do not think that I am denigrating contemporary music in favor of hymns. There are many contemporary songs that likewise express depth and go far beyond mere suggestions. Here is a modern worship song which wonderfully expresses heartfelt worship, and not just the intention to engage in worship. This is “The Glory of the Cross” by Bob Kauflin.

What wisdom once devised the plan
Where all our sin and pride
Was placed upon the perfect Lamb
Who suffered, bled, and died?
The wisdom of a Sovereign God
Whose greatness will be shown
When those who crucified Your Son
Rejoice around Your throne

And, oh, the glory of the cross
That You would send Your Son for us
I gladly count my life as loss
That I might come to know
The glory of, the glory of the cross

What righteousness was there revealed
That sets the guilty free
That justifies ungodly men
And calls the filthy clean?
A righteousness that proved to all
Your justice has been met
And holy wrath is satisfied
Through one atoning death

Returning to Worship by the Book, Carson makes an analogy between a person who watches a sunset and another person who stands before the same sunset but becomes fixated on watching himself watch the sunset. The first person delights in the beauty of Creation, while the second person can see no further than the act of watching it. In this way he misses the sunset altogether. What folly it is to miss the beauty of the sunset by fixating on ourselves. And what a tragedy it is if we go no further than asking God to touch us or speak to us, but do not use what He has given us to accomplish that end. We would be better off not singing at all than engaging in “worship” that unintentionally focuses on us and commends us for our act of worship.

April 06, 2006

The most recent issue of Christianity Today features a short article by Chuck Colson entitled “Soothing Ourselves to Death” which, if you are so inclined, you could read by clicking here. Colson contends that “much of the music being written for the church today reflects an unfortunate trend—slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book.” Colson singles out a particular song, “Draw Me Close to You,” which he was forced to sing repeatedly at a recent church service. This song, he says, “has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub.”

Here are the lyrics of the song in question:

Draw me close to you, never let me go.
I lay it all down again, to hear you say that I’m your friend.
You are my desire, no one else will do.
No one else can take your place, to feel the warmth of your embrace.
Help me find the way, bring me back to you.
You’re all I want. You’re all I’ve ever needed.
You’re all I want. Help me know you are near.

Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries, respectfully disagrees with Colson (click here for the article). Storms writes:

I happen to love “Draw Me Close to You”! Colson calls it a “meaningless ditty” with “zero theological content.” That’s a pretty serious charge, even if he’s using hyperbole to make a point (which I doubt that he is). Personally, I’d be thrilled if it were sung in ‘nightclubs.’ Maybe then the inebriated and self-indulgent patrons would see an unashamed and extravagant passion for Jesus that would lead them to ask, ‘Who is it that inspires such love and devotion? Clearly people courageous and committed enough to sing in a nightclub of their personal yearning for this God and their intimate relationship with him have discovered something I have yet to find.’

While Storms affirms his love for hymns, he contends that “many of them, for lack of a better way of putting it, enable the soul to ‘keep God at arm’s length.’ One can sing ‘about’ God with theological precision and yet never engage the heart.” “Singing descriptively is all well and good, even essential, but it isn’t the same as singing ‘to’ God in personal confession. In the latter we express our desire for him, our yearning for him, our thirst and longing and love and delight and joy in all that he is for us in Jesus.” He feels that the appeal of contemporary music is that it allows the Christian not only to stimulate the mind, but also to awaken the spirit, stir the affections, and intensify the expression of our hunger for God.

About the song, Storms suggests that “there isn’t a sentiment or syllable in the song that isn’t found somewhere in the Psalms as an expression of legitimate, biblical, heartfelt worship.” “The song is intentionally written to be an intercessory cry for the awareness of God’s presence, a plea that his loving embrace (spiritually speaking, of course) and the security of his affection never end. It is an expression of personal consecration and commitment. It is a declaration of the all-satisfying love of God and the soul’s delight in it.”

Justin Taylor, who drew my attention to this disagreement with his short article, agrees with Storms.

A couple of years ago I spent some time reflecting on the question of “What is Christian music?” What is it that makes one song Christian and another mainstream? What makes an artist Christian while another is mainstream? What makes one song suitable as an expression of love to God and another unsuitable? This seems to be the point of disagreement between Storms and Colson. Colson feels that “Draw Me Close To You” is inappropriate for worship while Storms disagrees.

At the time I first began to reflect on this issue the American Music Awards had just been handed out. This organization distributes awards based on genres. They give out awards for rap music, jazz, pop, heavy metal and other categories. Each of these forms its own musical genre. Though the lines dividing the genres may not be perfectly clear, there is usually little doubt as to what constitutes a jazz album versus what constitutes a blues album. But then there is the award for Christian music (or, as they call it, Contemporary Inspirational Music). This one is not awarded based on a style of music, but on lyrical content, or further, on the beliefs of the artist. Is it not strange that Christian music forms the sole exception to the rule? Is it not strange that in a system divided by genre, a hard rock Christian album can be considered in the same category as an adult contemporary album?

I have no answers except to suggest that according to the American Music Awards, a Christian album is probably one that has been distributed by a Christian label. How those labels define a Christian album or song is anyone’s guess, though I’m sure it varies greatly from company to company. I know the Gospel Music Association holds to the following definition. A Christian song is one:

  • substantially based upon historically orthodox Christian truth contained in or derived from the Holy Bible
  • and/or apparently prompted and informed by a Christian world view.

I began to think of songs in the mainstream that could pass as Christian songs. One of the songs that I thought of was that once-famous Bryan Adams song, “Everything I Do.” I noticed that it does not have any words in it explicit enough to tell the listener for whom it was written. The only object he refers to is “you,” with no reference to the usual “baby,” “girl,” or “lover.” Therefore, it could be a song sung from a woman to a man or a man to a woman. Fair enough. I’m sure we can all think of examples of songs that are written in such a vague fashion. As I listened to it I began to wonder what would happen if we were to sing that song in our church. Couldn’t we just direct the song towards God? Listen to these words:

Look into my heart - you will find
There’s nothin’ there to hide
Take me as I am - take my life
I would give it all - I would sacrifice
Don’t tell me it’s not worth fightin’ for
I can’t help it - there’s nothin’ I want more
You know it’s true
Everything I do - I do it for you
There’s no love - like your love
And no other - could give more love
There’s nowhere - unless you’re there
All the time - all the way

There are songs we sing in church that are little different than that. Consider Sonicflood’s “I Want To Know You,” a song you may well have sung during a worship service.

In the secret, in the quiet place
In the stillness You are there
In the secret, in the quiet hour I wait only for You
Cause, I want to know You more
I want to know You more
I want to hear Your voice
I want to know You more
I want to touch You
I want to see Your face
I want to know You more

Surely if heard outside a Christian context no one would guess that “I Want To Know You” is directed to God. Similarly, inside a Christian context I doubt if anyone would guess that “Everything I Do” is just another mainstream love song. Evidently this further complicates the matter. So again I ask, what constitutes a Christian song? Though certainly not an exhaustive list, here are some options. Perhaps a Christian song is:

  • A song written by a Christian. This speaks of the songs’s authorship.
  • A song written to be a Christian song. This speaks of the motive of the song’s author.
  • A song sung as a Christian song. This speaks of the motives of the individuals singing the song.
  • A song with explicitly or obviously Christian lyrics. This speaks of the song’s content.

Does any one of these, taken alone, provide a definition of Christian music? I don’t think so, as each of them seems to have an obvious flaw. What we find is that no song can truly be said to be Christian. The term Christian speaks of people, not of songs or t-shirts or bumper stickers. So there is a sense in which “Amazing Grace” is no more or less Christian than “Everything I Do.”

What we need to determine, then, is not whether a particular song is Christian or pagan, but whether a particular song is suitable for worshipping our God, especially in a corporate setting. A tool I have found useful in this was provided by Elmer Towns and Ed Stetzer in their book Perimeters of Light. They propose a seven-part test which will “focus on biblical principles that we should apply to our music to determine if it is Christian.” To that list I append an eighth test.

The Message Test - Does this song express the word of God? Is there a strong message and one that appeals to the new man or to the old man?

The Purpose Test - What is the purpose of this music? Was it written to lift you up or to bring you down? To make you joyful or to make you sad? Different types of song may be appropriate at different times. Obviously the very nature of music dictates that certain patterns in music have the ability to stir emotion independent of the song’s lyrical content.

The Association Test - Does the song unnecessarily identify with things, actions or people that are contrary to Scripture? An otherwise good song may have to be rejected simply because people will make inappropriate associations with it in their minds. The authors provide the example of singing “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “The Rising Sun” which is a song about drinking and gambling. As people were singing worship to the Lord they would also be thinking of the song’s original words, leading their minds to think of things that are inappropriate for a worship setting.

The Memory Test - Does the song bring back things from your past that you have left? The purpose of this test is not to guard against music that people may dislike, but to guard against music that may cause them to sin, heeding the biblical warning about not offending one’s brother. So it has less to do with taste and more to do with leading people to sin.

The Proper Emotions Test - Does the music stir our negative or lustful feelings? Amazingly enough, music does have the power, once again independently of lyric, to stir emotions to sin. If you don’t believe this, watch a room full of young people during a hard, driving rap beat, even before the words begin.

The Understanding Test - Will the listeners have a hard time understanding the message or finding the melody. Different people know and understand different types of music. People will have an easier time worshiping to a type of music that they understand. Those new believers in Papua New Guinea may have a difficult time worshiping to contemporary Christian music as they would simply not understand it. The same principle holds true with the lyrics, though I would suggest to a lesser extent, because unlike music, words are objectively true or false. If a song is strong in its theology, the people should eventually understand it, even if they do not now. With music this is not the case. Those natives will be no farther ahead if they learn to appreciate church-rock (and many would suggest, perhaps correctly, that they would actually be farther behind!).

The Music Test - This test asks if there is really “a song within the song”? Is the song singable? Does it flow from verse to verse? Does it stir the listener’s heart to join in the song? A song with beautiful words may quickly disappear from the hymn books simply because it is not singable.

So there are the seven tests suggested by the authors. Conspicuous by its absence is one I would like to add, which is:

The Excellence Test - Does the song provide God with the best music and lyrics? We should strive for excellence in all we give to God. If our giving to Him should not be half-hearted, how much less our worship?

In a previous article, which you can read here, I ran several popular songs through this test. Let’s briefly run “Draw Me Close To You” through this test. Do realize that the test is somewhat subjective. There will be differences in regards to understanding, excellence and other factors.

  1. The Message Test - Fail. Colson would clearly fail this song on the basis of the message and so would I. Storms and Taylor would pass it. It seems to me that the song is trite, void of meaningful content and too man-focused.
  2. The Purpose Test - Pass. The song was written to honor God.
  3. The Association Test - Pass. I don’t know that people would associate this song with much of anything.
  4. The Memory Test - Pass. See above.
  5. The Proper Emotions Test - Pass. The music is consistent with the lyric.
  6. The Understanding Test - Fail. The song is schmaltzy in its lyric and many people, especially men, will object to the romantic overtones.
  7. The Music Test - Pass. While it is not inspired music (see the next point), it is singable.
  8. The Excellence Test - Fail. Neither the music, nor the lyric is an expression of excellence.

I would encourage you to test the song against those criteria and decide if you feel it is appropriate for a worship service. Feel free to post a comment with your assessment.

As I wrap this up, I would like to make one further comment. Even if a song is not inappropriate, this does not necessarily mean that we ought to sing it. Most worship services (for good or for ill) allow time for only five or six songs. Should we not seek to sing excellent songs rather than marginal ones? With the massive body of musical works available to us, could we not find songs that are better than this one and sing them instead? If we focused on songs which were excellent in their music and lyrics, I would suggest that many of these discussions would never need to arise.

April 05, 2006

King for a Week is an honor I bestow on blogs that I feel are making a valuable contribution to my faith and the faith of other believers. Every week (or so) I select a blog, link to it from my site, and add that site’s most recent headlines to my left sidebar. While this is really not much, I do feel that it allows me to encourage and support other bloggers while making my readers aware of other good sites.

This week’s King for a Week is the blog of Dr. Albert Mohler. While there is a good chance that you already read this site, that does not preclude me from presenting it with this award. Dr. Mohler, as you may know, wears many hats. He is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a columnist and commentator, an author, the host of a radio program, and a husband and father. And I’m sure this is not all! Dr. Mohler is one of the four men that have organized the Together for the Gospel conference which will be held later this month. Seperate from his blog, Dr. Mohler posts daily commentaries which I highly recommend as they are always worth the read.

For the next few days you will be able to see the most recent headlines from Dr. Mohler’s Blog in the sidebar of my site. I hope you will make your way over to the site and look around.

I continue to accept nominations for King of the Week. If you have a site you would like to nominate, feel free to do so by clicking on the “suggest” button below the King of the Week box. Thanks to those of you who nominated this week’s honoree.

April 03, 2006

There’s a sucker born every minute. Bob Ross thinks I’m one of them. Last week I posted an article defending the need for Christians to prepare themselves for the Da Vinci Code movie, but for their own sake and for the sake of their neighbors. Bob responded to this:

There is some dispute about whether P. T. Barnum or someone else said “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but there seems to be little doubt as to the validity of the remark.

And those men and women out there who refer to themselves as “Apologists” are glad to have the suckers keep coming, for they “make a good living” off of them. I like to refer to the “apologists” as the “APPALLINGISTS,” for most of them are godawful appalling and need to make some apologies.

He goes on to draw a rather ridiculous parallel between Da Vinci Code and Y2K before turning to the “Bible Code.”

Awhile back it was the hidden, secret “Bible Code.” Now it is the “Da Vinci Code” that the Appallingists are using to take advantage of the naive suckers.

These entrepreneurs thrive off of selling products to those whom they persuade need to be “equipped” and “prepared.” Or, if they themselves don’t need to be “equipped” and “prepared,” surely they know some needy believer who is apt to be terribly deceived — so they can be a Good Samaritan and order the cassettes, videos, booklets, books, and other useful “tools” to help arm the weaker brethren to offset and overcome the horrible Da Vinci Code — especially the movie.

Yesterday I was referred to the CHILLIES.COM blogstie by one of my readers where they were trying to “fry” me over what I had said about the item on James White’s website pertaining to being “prepared” for the Da Vincd Code movie – a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction based on a Roman Catholic fictional painting of a few hundred years ago.

The email goes on for a while. The one thing Ross forgets to do is to interact with what I wrote. His thesis (and I use that term loosely, as most rants are devoid of any clear thesis) seems to be that preparing for Da Vinci will only put money in the hands of Christian hucksters and send even more Christians to the cinemas to watch the film.

“Now, if you want to join the suckers and “spend your money for that which is not bread,” you are free to do so. It’s still a free country. Otherwise, I suggest you keep your hand on your billfold when you hear some of the Appallingists palabberating about all the evils, dangers, and other devilish attributes of which you are in danger if you don’t get ‘eqipped’ and ‘prepared’ by sending for whatever the Appallingist has to sell you for a ‘gift donation.’”

It seems to me that this is a terribly naive attitude. I wonder if Ross would also object to Scripture’s admonition to “be prepared (uh oh, there’s that word) to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” One does not have to look far within Scripture to find great emphasis on both equipping and preparation.

You will note that my article said nothing about supporting Purpose Driven or any of the other ministries that are releasing books and DVDs and other material dealing with the film. Nor did I suggest that we go and view the movie in order to be able to dialogue with our friends about it. I merely suggested that we be able to have an answer to the lies that this movie puts forth as truth. Doing this will guard our hearts but may also make us more effective witnesses to those who have serious questions about the Bible’s claims. Bob’s rant has failed to convince me that this is a bad thing.

March 31, 2006

A few months ago I signed up for Bob Ross’ email updates. I don’t know much about the guy, but I believe it was Phil Johnson who recommended his writings. Phil wrote, “He’s a prolific writer of passionate commentary on just about everything, ranging from serious theological aberrations to little things that just get under his skin. He’s a kind of fundamentalist Andy Rooney.” But rather than complaining about the ingredients in Girl Guide cookies, Bob Ross complains about James White. A lot. He also complains about just about anything else under the banner of Calvinism. It gets old pretty quickly. Still, he seems like a nice enough guy and I think that he and I would see eye-to-eye on most matters.

Today he sent out a little missive mocking, once again, James White.

I got a chuckle from James White’s blog today where he says the following;

Da Vinci Debunked in Tabletalk

This month’s Tabletalk magazine from Ligonier Ministries focuses on preparing believers to handle the release of The Da Vinci Code film this month. In order as they appear, the first feature article is by R.C. Sproul, “The Da Vinci Conspiracy.” Then my article appears, titled, “The Fool’s Folly Uncovered.” Then R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s article “Historical Propaganda,” followed by Peter R. Jones’ work, “The Pagan Agenda of the Code.” If you don’t subscribe to Tabletalk, you may still want to pick up this issue, or better yet, subscribe!

What sort of “believer” needs to be “prepared” for a movie tale relating to a Roman Catholic painting by a 15th - 16th century Roman Catholic painter which supposedly has a significant “code” in it?

Give me a good ole “Charlie Chan” black-and-white movie mystery any day over this! Or even an old Don Adams’ “Get Smart” TV program — or better still, a Three Stooges “Horse Collars” or “Restless Knights” movie short. If we need to be “prepared” for comedy, then at least let’s have something worthwhile in the field of comedy!

“Tabletalk” is Presbyterian pedobaptist R. C. Sproul’s magazine, and I can think of several things more significant for “preparing” believers than this movie — such as, for instance, Dr. Sproul’s Hybrid Calvinism theory which fantasizes that one is “born again before faith.” Also, the pedobaptist idea that the infants born to pedobaptists are “regenerated” either before, at, or shortly after baptism.

I think those erroneous teachings are much more important to believers than their being “prepared” for the Da Vinci code movie. If believers need that kind of preparation about a fictional tale, it may be a result of their having been told that they were “regenerated” as babies or “before” they believed on Christ for salvation. — Bob L. Ross

I have to assume that his final sentence is really meant to be a lighthearted slap at paedobaptists. Bob somehow wanders from White to Sproul and then to strange beliefs about paedobaptism. I suppose he is Rooney-like in that way. Anyways, Ross’ article got me a little hot under the collar because I happen to believe that Christians ought to be prepared for the Da Vinci Code movie. Here is why:

First, many who attend evangelical churches are woefully poorly taught when it comes to matters dealing with the believer’s confidence in the Scriptures. The Da Vinci Code is a direct, frontal attack on this confidence. While the book will be found in the fiction section of a bookstore, many people are only too willing to believe that it is built around a solid core of truth that calls into question the very fundamentals of the faith. I have met people who believe it all, and unlike Bob, they do not feel that it is a comedy. The author, Dan Brown, has been anything but forthcoming with what he feels is truth and what is merely the product of his imagination. He clearly believes that much of what lies behind the fictional story is true. And so this movie, like the book, will undoubtedly cause a lot of Christians, and a lot of people who consider themselves Christian, to doubt the authenticity of the Scriptural account of Jesus and the intentions of those who worked to define and protect the canon of Scripture.

Second, this film will have a very wide reach. While the book has sold millions of copies, far more people will watch the film than have read the book. Dan Brown’s outright lies will be presented to tens of millions of people in a whole new format. Teenagers who may not have cared to read the book will swarm to the theatres to see what promises to be an exciting, fast-paced movie.

In short, the lies of this film, which are presented as truth to a gullible culture, will spread far and wide.

What does this mean? It means that Christians must be prepared. They must have confidence in their understanding of Scripture so that they are not left grasping and stuttering when challenged by their friends, family members or co-workers who have embraced the lies. They must have confidence in the Bible and confidence in the biblical account of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. They must know that there is far more proof for the biblical account of Jesus’ life than for anything Dan Brown has imagined.

Also, Christians should be prepared to challenge their friends with facts and questions. “What do you think is fact and what is fiction?” “Is there any evidence that Jesus was never crucified?” “How do we know that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had an affair?” “Is it true that Jesus’ followers did not understand Him to be God?” Just as when The Passion of the Christ was released, Jesus’ name will be everywhere in conversation and his face will be on the news and in magazines. Christians will have the opportunity to talk about Him and to challenge others with what is true and what is false.

It seems to me, then, that a little bit of preparation would be very helpful as Christians prepare to deal with a film that seeks to undermine our faith.

Pages