I Love Sufjan Stevens!

There, I said it. I have confessed, in public, my undying man-crush for Mr. Stevens. (To my wife’s undying dismay.)

As a bit of a music snob, I have long lamented the dearth of good Christian music. By “Christian” music, I don’t necessarily mean all the junk (and the occasional diamond in the rough - A.K.A Jars of Clay) the Christian Music Industry cranks out, but any music created by professing believers.

I remember listening to Radiohead’s OK Computer a decade ago (that’s right - ten years ago), thinking, “Man! If a Christian could make music this rad… that would be rad!”

Finally, one man fulfilled this musical longing in my soul. I started listening to Sufjan when he released the overtly Christian-themed Seven Swans. I liked it. I then picked up Greetings From Michigan. I really liked it. Then, like manna from heaven, my pre-ordered copy of Illinois arrived in my mailbox. I loved it. I continue to love it (all 22 tracks).

I wish I was a music critic. I know what I like, and what I don’t; and I think I have a pretty good ear. Yet, I have a hard time explaining why I like/don’t like a particular album/artist. My wife says Sufjan sounds like circus music. He plays the banjo. And the vibraphone. And the oboe. And a gajillion other instruments.

I don’t believe I have ever heard Total Depravity expressed in song as powerfully as Sufjan expresses it in “John Wayne Gacy, Jr.” After chronicling the serial molester/murderer’s grisly career, Sufan says:

And in my best behavior
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floorboards
For the secrets I have hid

(Take that, Wesley!)

Anyway, if you love good music, you should do whatever it takes to lay hold of a copy of Illinois. I promise you won’t be disappointed.

…

For a little sampling, you can listen to “Sister Winter” off of Sufjan’s recent Christmas album. (Don’t worry, the link is legit - it goes to Sufjan’s label.)

The Last Sin Eater & Unregenerate Guilt

My wife and I recently watched The Last Sin Eater. While most “Christian” movies are pretty awful (think Left Behind or any other end-times/rapture themed film), for whatever reason, I had vain hopes of mediocrity for this film. Alas, these lofty expectations were dashed before my eyes as I wasted another two hours of my life in front of the idiot box. While the cinematography was far superior to most “Christian” movies, everything else was… bad.

The movie centers on a mid-19th Century Appalachian Welsh village with a rather bizarre death ritual - the Sin Eater. When one of their villagers passes, they place a piece of bread and a wineskin on their chest. The Sin Eater (some dude in a silly, tattered, Grim Reaper robe) arrives, eats the elements (a little too obviously symbolic of Holy Communion) and cries something to the effect of, “I pawn my soul for you!” The stage is set for the introduction of the Last Sin Eater - Jesus Christ.

Undertaker would totally rock the Sin Eater in a cage match.

The theology of the movie isn’t terrible; but it isn’t good either. I have two problems with the film’s theology. First is the fact that all of the characters in the movie walk around with a tangible guilt. You can see it in their faces. You can hear it in their voices. More than a few villagers clumsily state how they wish their sins could be forgiven now rather than at their funeral. Again, this seamlessly sets the stage for the arrival of a Bible-waving stranger to proclaim the gospel…

…Sort of. Which leads into my second problem: The stranger seems to just quote random scriptures until the film’s protagonist asks him (this is a paraphrase), “How do I ask The Last Sin Eater to forgive my sins now?” The stranger weepily replies, “You just did!” Huh? The protagonist hasn’t yet even heard the name of Christ. She has no concept of God’s righteous demand for justice, the plenary nature of her sin and rebellion against this God (except that which she “naturally” feels - going back to my first gripe), the Incarnation, the Atonement, etc. This seemed to be a bit of inappropriate contextualization.

…

This notion of unregenerate guilt echoes a sentiment I once heard from a very prominent evangelist when he and his crusade descended on the Twin Cities a few years back. In an interview with a local media outlet, this evangelist said that he did not preach much sin, judgment, hell, wrath, etc. because he believed people already feel guilty. He stated that his aim is to preach the Good News. Sans Romans 1-3, apparently. (Because I can only paraphrase - I was unable to locate exact quotes - I will refrain from using this evangelist’s name.)

Todd Friel, of Way of the Master fame, was a local radio guy at the time (and an excellent one, at that). Friel did a lot of street evangelism on his show (as he does now with WOTM). He almost always opened a conversation by asking, “Do you think you’re a good person?” I would venture to say that 90-95% of those he conversed with answered this question, unhesitatingly, in the affirmative.

Friel publicly challenged this evangelist for failing to give his audience the Bad News, so that they can fully understand and appreciate the Good News. And rightly so.

…

I don’t know where this idea comes from - that unregenerate folk live their daily lives consumed with guilt over sin. My brief experience in this world has proven the opposite. The world thinks they’re pretty great. The world dives headlong into sin without remorse. Any remorse or semblance of guilt experienced by the world is nothing more than a selfish regret of the negative consequences of bad behavior; it is no holy conviction of sin against Almighty God. Furthermore, the world hates those who dare defecate on their hallowed self-esteem by discussing the unpleasantries of sin and hell.

Anyway, that’s how I was.

Romans 1:29-32

 

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

I Corinthians 6:11

 

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Modesty in the Organ of Conviction

I have been reading John Piper’s Battling Unbelief for a small group Bible study. In the chapter on pride, Piper quotes G.K. Chesterton:

“What we suffer from… is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction.”

This was a great comfort to me. Those of us concerned with discernment and sound doctrine within the Church are often accused of being prideful, haughty, having a Jezebel spirit, etc. Because I recognize that I am not perfect, and do not have everything figured out, I occasionally wonder if they aren’t right. Am I just a self-righteous, know-it-all, prig?

While I have certainly been guilty of a youthful priggishness now and again, I do have a sincere concern about the state of Truth in the Church. It is neither immodest nor prideful to have strong convictions. We are to be “stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:23). This, I believe, implies that there will be those who attempt to shift us from that hope, and furthermore, that they should be resisted. And, of course, Jude urges us to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). John MacArthur recently wrote an entire book ( The Truth War) premised on this verse. He makes a very compelling argument that the Christian has an obligation to stand for truth and against error.

Modesty in the organ of conviction is not a virtue; it is willful ignorance. And a willful ignorance on matters of faith is, in my view, a sinful ignorance.

(I believe this misplaced modesty is very much related to the postmodernization of the Church. I will post something on this soon.)

 

Evolution is Not Stupid

Tim Challies recently wrote a very good post critiquing the logical conclusions of Darwinism as a comprehensive worldview. He discusses an article in Psychology Today on evolutionary psychology. Challies compellingly argues that the holistic worldview offered by Darwinsm is empty and often rather silly.

I would like to contrast this article with the very typical Christian responses to evolutionary theory: “That’s stupid! You must really be an idiot if you believe that humans evolved from monkeys!” This is not a good argument. It convinces no one, and makes the Christian look like an arrogant dope.

Exhibit 1: Dr. Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)

.

.

.

Yeah… I can see that.

A few years back, I was invited by an unbelieving friend to attend a Creationism/Evolution debate at a local church. (He had heard about the debate on a conservative talk radio program.) I attended the debate with my friend and his believing co-worker. There were three participants in the debate: Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) and an atheistic Darwinist. Hugh Hewitt was the moderator.

The OEC was a perfect gentleman. He asked many good questions of his fellow participants. The Darwinist came off a bit smug, though he was definitely in hostile territory. He also asked intelligent questions of the other participants.

The vast majority of the audience was with Hovind. They seemed more interested in seeing Hovind trounce his foes than in actually learning something. And Hovind was more than willing to oblige.

I cannot remember a time when I was more embarrassed to call myself a Christian. Hovind was a complete arse. He had this silly PowerPoint presentation that he blindly plowed through, completely disregarding the challenges of the other two. It seemed as though he had forgotten it was a debate, but instead believed it to be one of his conferences. He repeatedly referred to evolution, in his grating Dixie drawl, as “stupid”, “dumb”, etc. I can still hear him in my head: “Now, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard!”

I am convinced that Hovind persuaded no one that evening. Personally, my conviction in the YEC position was temporarily weakened, because Hovind failed to even attempt an answer at several very good challenges.

…

Evolution is not stupid. Evolutionists are not stupid. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists have a far better mechanical knowledge and understanding of how this universe operates than I can ever hope to attain. Does this mean they are right about the Big Bang and macro-evolution? No. I am a YEC. However, it is sinfully arrogant and thoughtless to dismiss these people as fools. And this is precisely what Hovind did, and what many Christians do when confronted with evolutionary theory.

Here’s some advice: If you are having a spiritual conversation with an unbeliever, and the topic of evolution arises, DON’T dismiss the theory and its adherents out of hand. Feel free to offer the watchmaker argument. If you must, try the banana argument. (On second thought, don’t. It’s a terrible argument.) If those fail, and you have nothing left - don’t sweat it. It is possible to accept Darwinism and be saved. It’s not a deal-killer. Darwinism is not the unforgivable sin.

I have seen too many evangelists get hung up on this issue. I have seen too many Christians get in way over their head and look foolish. Darwinism does not keep sinners out of heaven. Sin, rebellion, pride… a hard heart does that.

…

I recently found this YouTube clip of Hovind and Ali G. I soiled myself.

How Not to Read the Bible

 

 

 

As a big Sign of Jonah fan, it will likely come as no surprise that I am not real hip on the International House of Prayer (IHOP) or very impressed with the teaching of their Apostle-In-Chief, Mike Bickle. However, because I have family members tangentially associated with IHOP, and because I am oddly drawn to all of its attendant goofinesses, I occasionally peek at Bickle’s teaching notes. Typically, it is an object lesson on how not to handle the Bible.

Example: Positive Trends, People and Events in the End Times - Bickle’s teaching notes from February 17, 2007.

I will only address (I.) of Bickle’s outline. He quotes Joel 2:11 and Malachi 4:5, both of which refer to the “great” and “terrible” (or “dreadful”, or “awesome” - depending on the translation) Day of the Lord.

The LORD thunders
at the head of his army;
his forces are beyond number,
and mighty are those who obey his command.
The day of the LORD is great;
it is dreadful.
Who can endure it?

Joel 2:11 (NIV)

See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.

Malachi 4:5-6 (NIV)

 

Now, it seems to me that your average fifth-grader would be able to deduce from these kinds of passages that the words “great” and “dreadful” are used in conjunction to emphasize the terrible gravity of the Day of the Lord. That they are expressing the same thing; namely, that the Day of the Lord will be an awesome (not synonymous with “cool”, but that which inspires admiration and wonder) and dreadful display of God’s power and wrath against His enemies.

But, no. Bickle teaches that these two words signify a dichotomous blessing/curse for those living at the end of this age - believers will be blessed, while sinners will be cursed.

The 2-fold nature of the day of the Lord is seen in the great blessing it releases for those who call on Jesus and it is terrible in judgment for those who refuse Him.

Mike Bickle (I., C.)

 

WHAT!? There is no conceivable way one could pull this meaning from these texts without some preconceived paradigm (perhaps of the Bridal variety?) being forced onto them. Of course, there is a sense in which the above is true: believers will ultimately be blessed and vindicated on the Day of the Lord. Contrariwise, sinners will be exposed to God’s terrible and eternal wrath. However, Bickle appears to be peddling a soft dominionism which anticipates a victorious Church dominating the world scene (and all of its seven spheres/mountains of influence).

First, the End-Time Church will be victorious and full of God’s glory (Eph. 4:13; 5:26-27; Mt. 16:18; Jn. 17:21-26; Acts 2:17-21; Rev. 7:9; 12:11; 15:2; 19:7-8; 22:17). The Church will live in purity or without spot (compromise) as they walk out Sermon on the Mount lifestyles (Mt. 5-7).

 

That He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish (compromise). (Eph. 5:27)

Mike Bickle (II. B.)

 

(A side note: Notice how Bickle turns Ephesians 5:27 from a description of Christ’s purchase of His Church/Bride into a perfectionistic legalism.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Ephesians 5:25-27

How does/did Christ sanctify, cleanse and wash the Church? The Cross. The Church does not earn this in the eschaton by finally achieving an uncompromised and pure ethos. (Does Bickle really believe that the end-times Church will be “holy and without blemish” - sinless?)

Not everything Bickle teaches here is wrong. Unfortunately, he launches this particular endeavor with an embarrassing mangling of scripture. It is never justifiable to alter the meaning of a text in order to fit it into your message. Let the text alter your message.

 

“My Life Verse is Jeremiah 29:11…”

I stumbled on to this post by Mark Jr. at Hand Me A Scalpel on the frequent misuse of Jeremiah 29:11.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV)

“I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Amen! I have never been a huge fan of “life verses” in general, but Jer. 29:11 has always particularly aggravated me. As Mark Jr. explains, the context of this verse destroys its usefulness as a health, wealth and prosperity proof-text.

Interestingly, this verse is always quoted in the NIV. Notice the difference in the superior ESV translation:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Fluffy, yes, but not quite as feel-good as the NIV translation. I’ve always suspected that the word “prosper” in the NIV has a lot to do with this verse’s popularity.

Thanks, Mark, for venting a frustration I’ve been bottling up for far too long.

 

The Prosperity Gospel in the Dark Continent

Christianity Today has a very interesting (and disheartening) article on the influence of the so-called prosperity, or “health and wealth”, gospel in Africa. Apparently, Paul Crouch and Kenneth Copeland don’t believe the Dark Continent is dark enough.

I have a friend who is a missionary in Kenya. He has said that it is a very difficult and frustrating task explaining to those he meets there that Benny Hinn is not representative of American Christianity.

(John Piper recently wrote a brief, but excellent, critique of this movement/theology.)

Totally Depraved

I recently read this news item at FoxNews.com. (WARNING: Do not link to this item if you are a sensitive soul. Do link to it if you believe that people are essentially good.) I won’t soil this blog with the sordid details. Suffice it to say that I cannot recall having read or heard of any persons (juveniles, nonetheless) violating other persons in a more horrific manner. I can’t stop thinking about it. I can’t stop ruminating on the reality that this actually happened. A group of human beings did this to other human beings.

A few observations:

1.) If I were king (and one day I will be…) these boys would already be dead. The notion that it is “pro-life” to allow humans who violate life in this way to continue to draw breath is, on its face, absurd.

2.) To all the charismatic spiritists out there: there is NO reason for us to believe that these perpetrators are, or were, demon possessed. It drives me crazy when Christians immediately presume that those who commit these kinds of grisly crimes must have been motivated by an evil spirit. (E.g. The Virginia Tech shooter is alleged to have been demon possessed or oppressed here.) People are bad - they do not need to be acted upon by some outside evil force to make them that way. Which leads me to my main point:

3.) People are bad. Totally depraved. I have been asking myself, “Self, what should the Christian learn from these kinds of horrible crimes?” My answer: This unfathomable evil lies in the hearts of all men. Deep down, I am that evil. The reason I don’t rape, steal and kill is not that I am a really good guy. I don’t rape, steal and kill (much), because of God’s undeserved grace in my life. I didn’t deserve godly parents. I didn’t deserve good churches and good communities. I didn’t deserve the relative safety and comfort of an American, suburban, middle-class childhood. This is all grace.

Had I been born into the same circumstances as these perpetrators, there is no reason to believe that I would have mustered from my own flesh the requisite goodness to resist this evil. Before God saved me, I was His enemy. I was at war with God Almighty. Every impulse of my being was directed at resisting Him. This rebellious resistance may not have fleshed itself out in the kind of headline-making brutality that we see with our perpetrators here. Rather, it worked itself out as a quiet, respectable pride. It bottled itself up in a seething, unspoken anger.

What’s the difference, really? Circumstance. God’s sovereign grace. It’s quite humbling. Maybe that’s what we should take from this - a grateful humility.

…

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them… For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened…

 

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

 

Romans 1

Brothers and Sisters, that is all of us apart from divine grace.

 

Fit (Unvaccinated) Bodies, Fat Minds?

There is a growing segment of the population that questions the usefulness of vaccinations/immunizations. (A frighteningly large number flat-out deny it and, furthermore, claim vaccinations to be the hidden cause of innumerable modern maladies.) I first encountered this movement a few years back and, because the Mrs. and I were very near the conception of our first child, conducted a fair amount of web-research on the matter.

The anti-vaccination organizations (e.g. National Vaccine Information Center and Vaccine Liberation) are ubiquitous on the world-wide-web. It is actually a very impressive on-line network. Unfortunately, they make statements like, “It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease declines.” And, “Vaccines Kill and Maim Regularly…” Or, even more shockingly stupid, “Many infants who suffer the so-called ’shaken baby syndrome’ may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage.“

My aim here is not to debate the usefulness of vaccinations. This seems to me about as worthwhile a debate as this one. I don’t have the time or patience to persuade all the General Jack D. Rippers out there that fluoridation (or, in this instance, vaccination) is not a Commie plot to mess with their precious bodily fluids.

(An example of how bizarre and irrational some of the “thinking” on this subject is, see this site. The authors claim that vaccination is the “Vatican’s Medical Inquisition”. They also believe the universe is geocentric.)

While seeping myself in the nonsense of this movement, I noticed many of its adherents were professing believers. Since then, I have met a number of seemingly reasonable, decent, godly Christians who, to varying degrees, accept this hokum. My question for this post is: Why? We are all prone to believing certain silly things. But what causes 21^st Century Christians to be particularly susceptible to these kinds of anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, sillinesses?

…

A few years ago, I read Os Guinness’ Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It. He confirmed and put to words what I had sensed for some time: many Christians seem to have abdicated all responsibility (and desire) to think deeply and rationally about… everything.

I believe the seeming prevalence of anti-vaccinationism among Christians is related to this broader anti-intellectualism. Many of us have become accustomed to viewing science as the modern enemy of Christian faith. We tend to prejudice ourselves in favor of any claim that appears to contradict the scientific/medical establishment. To an extent, I understand and sympathize with this bias - this is the same establishment that has given us evolution and global warming.

However, in the case of vaccinations, these matters are entirely provable. While scientists will never be able to reproduce the Big Bang, or definitively demonstrate that your Excursion is warming the planet, they can and have tested the effectiveness of vaccinations. Modern immunization programs are truly a medical miracle - I thank God for the undeserved mercies that have been brought to us by diligent scientists and medical professionals all around the world. To refuse to see this is, in my opinion, a stupendous ingratitude.

…

Interestingly, some Christians seem to view vaccination as a Sovereignty of God issue. If God holds every molecule of the universe together, then I shouldn’t fret about measles or polio. Within this view, there seems also to be the notion that pain avoidance is bad, or at least immature. God uses suffering to mold and shape us; therefore suffering should not be avoided. As a Reformed Baptist, I agree that God is sovereign and that He allows suffering into our lives for good purposes. However, I don’t follow the logic here regarding vaccination. Sanitation and modern hygienic practices alleviate untold sufferings. Though, I don’t see anyone forgoing toilets or hand-washing.

There is nothing ungodly in allowing oneself to benefit from technology. God, in His omnipotent sovereignty, will not be hindered in bringing hardship to us by running water and vaccinations.

…

I know this post will likely peeve a lot of folks out there. Honestly, my intention is not to offend or injure. I mean to ask a sincere question and challenge believers to think critically and rationally about these matters. I believe the name and fame of Christ are blemished when professing Christians uncritically embrace irrationality with a near religious zeal.

- Jim B.