The Nativity-- The Birth of a Classic?

posted by Ben Witherington @ http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

You know how it is when you really love a story. You want the adaptation on the screen to be right. I was holding my breath when I heard they were making the Lord of the Rings a few years ago and I was really holding my breath when I learned they were filming the nativity. This could be bad in so many ways-- think home movies of the birth of somebody else's first child. But in fact 'The Nativity' is not only not bad-- its actually pretty good.

I had some early clues, since my friend and fellow NT scholar Darrell Bock was consulted for this movie. I figured they would try hard to give it an authentic flavor. Well they did, and mostly to good effect. To be sure this movie is a bit melodramatic when it comes to the good vs. evil thing (Herod is of course the diabolical Lex Luthor of this movie), but if you look at a movie as a work of art rather than a documentary, then some poetic license has to be allowed. Think of the recurring Herod theme which frames the movie and intervenes from time to time as the dark backdrop to the light at the heart of the story which of course involves Mary, Joseph and Jesus. Think of this movie as like a Rembrandt painting where the extreme darkness around the edges highlights the light in the center of the frame.

The movie in the first place has only one actor or actress with a reasonably familiar name. Ms. Keisha Castle-Hughes who plays Mary has shown up before in a fine movie from down under (Whale-Rider). I was particularly pleased with her performance. She plays the young Mary who is both a person of faith and also quite naturally afraid of what has happened and is happening to her. But the young man who plays Joseph, Oscar Isaac does a fine job as well. It is good to see a good ensemble cast. In such a serious movie there is perhaps of course a bit of a need for some comic relief, and occasionally the wise men do their bit to produce some wry smiles in the audience. The gentleman who plays Herod is menacing and malevolent enough, but in fact the real Herod was himself a paranoid man who executed various of his own wives and offspring, so the portrayal here is believable, to the contrary of the recent scholarly attempts to rehaibilitate the man. He was a bad man, and there's no use in trying to say otherwise.

The movie is basically filmed in Italy and in Morocco (where Jesus of Nazareth was also filmed I believe-- or was it Tunisia?). There appear to have been a few scenes filmed at Nazareth village in Nazareth, a wonderful recreation village there, or at least there are scenes modeled on that village. In any case they got the scenes of daily life right. We see them grinding grain, stomping grapes, milking goats, making goat cheese, making olive paste and the like.

We have an issue as to what exactly was Joseph's trade. A teknis is a craftsman-- could be a stone mason, could be a carpenter. But wood was very scarce in ancient Israel, and so perhaps he did some of both. Homes were built of stone, and so were mangers-- which is a little gaff towards the end of the movie where we have a wooden manger. I was impressed with the scenes in the homes-- average families did indeed sleep together in one room (see Jesus' parable about the friend at midnight). I was also impressed with the Hebrew of Joseph-- he got the Kiddush prayer right, it even sounded right. It is clear that the director, Catherine Hardwicke cared about the details.

In regard to the CG (mainly of Jerusalem) this was something of a disappointment, as at points it did not look real, nor did the final scene of the pyramids look real either. But most of the effects including the light shining in the manger did not look hokey. The visual look of the film is about right. We get a sense of the arid regions around Galilee, and the rocky hill country of Judea, as well as the desert regions the Magi could have crossed if they came all the way from Persia. This brings me to the star-- or shall we say stars. This movie suggests the wise men followed a rare conjunction of three planets-- the conjunction climaxing when they reach Bethlehem. It is a possible theory, but of course Matthew says the star led them right to the manger. No stars or conjunctions of stars do that naturally. We may be meant to think it was an angel who led them to the locale, since the ancients believed the stars were beings, the heavenly host.

How then was Hardwicke to mesh the Matthean and Lukan very different story lines? Here she does a nice job of toggling back and forth, except at the point where we get both shepherds and wise men at the manger simultaneously in a nice little Christmas card tableau. This is not accurate. Mt. 2.1-2 tells us that "after Jesus was born in Bethlehem the Magi came to Herod in Jerusalem". We do not know how long after. And one more thing, Matthew says they were in a house when the Magi came to town, not in a cave (as is depicted in this movie). Now granted there were some houses built out front of some caves in Bethelehem, but 'oikos' means house which probably implies more than a cave. We could quibble as well about one of the wise men suddenly being as wise as the author of John 1-- he says "god has become flesh" when he sees Jesus.
This is a bit over the top.


One of the more interesting dimensions of this telling of the story is how once Mary hears from the angel that she is about to be pregnant, she goes to visit Elizabeth, and no one knows she is pregnant but Mary herself until she comes back several months later. Then we have the distraught parents, the non-plussed Joseph who has to be convinced by a dream to marry Mary and the rest. There are no major gaffs or omissions in the story line, only small missing bits like we do not have Mary's famous line 'I am the handmaiden of the Lord'. Joseph is portrayed as a good and gracious man who keeps trying to win Mary's heart, even though at first she is not happy about being betrothed by means of an arranged marriage to someone she hardly knows.

The soundtrack is interesting. It combines little snippets of Christmas carol phrases and vocals without words, with music much like what we heard in the Gospel of John film-- lutes and the like. It provides a nice undercurrent without becoming cheesy. Visually the film is fine and crisp, and it makes very clear the ordinariness and difficulties of life in that age in that world.

So what shall we say? It is a very difficult thing to tell the most familiar story in the world so well that most of those who know it are satisfied with the telling. But I for one was pleased, despite minor quibbles. Catherine Hardwicke obviously cared about getting the story right, and doing it in a way that did not offend the pious. Good for her. Where there was room for helpful embellishment or amplification, she used it, but it did not distort the pith of the story. Well done. We need more faithful movies like this one. The truth is, in a visually oriented generation of learners this may be the only Jesus, Mary and Joseph some people ever see. As such, at least it is a true to life portrait of 'How it All Began'. John Donne put it this way--- "'Twas much that man was made like God long before/ but that God should be made like man, much more."

Confront or Adapt

by Mark Dever @ http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/


Reading through recent mailouts of upcoming pastors conferences, knowing some of the speakers' books and churches, reading the topics to be addressed, I'm struck again by the carefulness with which a faithful pastor must consider the issue of adapting the unchanging Gospel to his current context. Of course contextualization always takes place, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged. To acknowledge it is better, because then we are more self-aware of choices we're making, and we are also better able to be examined by others on those choices. Such awareness of our contextualizing also encourages humility, and hinders us from claiming alone to be the "I am of Christ" kind of party that Paul warned the Corinthians about.



And yet, contextualization presumes either positive or at least neutral cultural images or ways of communication which can be used by the Gospel. Are there any cultural images or ways of communicating that can't be used for Gospel purposes? The answer would have to be "Yes", (though we might disagree about what those are).



And what happens when a certain image or mode of communicating is inextricably linked with an anti-Christian worldview? David Wells summarizes the issue: “To put the matter succinctly: those who see only the contemporaneity of this spirituality—and who, typically, yearn to be seen as being contemporary—usually make tactical maneuvers to win a hearing for their Christian views; those who see its underlying worldview will not. . . . When rival worldviews are in play, it is not adaptation that is called for but confrontation.” David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs (2005), pp. 155-156.

To find out more of what David specifically uses as an example, you'll need to turn to that section of his book. But in all our concern for evangelism and contextualization (excellent, Christ-like concerns) we should not be blind to implications of our decisions.



In a decision you're making right now about your own congregation, could you imagine a situation in which your intention is simply to adapt becoming a situation in which you would have no option but to confront? It's worth thinking about.

Pink Flamingos and Jesus T's Evangelism?

Josh Larsen and Jason Gardner, two pastor’s kids from Colorado, recently spent a day in downtown Denver trying to be “witnessing maniacs.”

Josh Larsen (left) is the youth pastor at Red Rocks Baptist Church (Lakewood, CO). He and his wife, Katie, moved there from Minneapolis in 2005. They have two children. Jason Gardner (right) lives in Denver and attends Red Rocks as well. He and his wife, Autumn, are expecting their first child. They have plans to be involved in Bible translation work overseas.

One Punk Under God

By Tim Challies @ http://challies.com/

Though it seems amazing that it could have been so long ago, it has been 20 years since the Jim Bakker scandal made international headlines. Indicted on federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering, Bakker was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison. The sentence was later reduced and after spending less than 5 years behind bars, Bakker was released. But while he was free, his empire was shattered, his marriage over and his reputation forever tarnished. His family was devastated.

Jay Bakker is the son of Jim and Tammy Faye (now known as Tammy Faye Messner). Now in his early thirties, he was only a boy when his world fell apart. He reacted to his pain and embarrassment by rebelling, turning to drugs and alcohol. "The scandal exposed me to the pain and hurt that the church as well as the world can give," he writes. "But through all of that, I searched to find out who God really was. What I discovered is that God is a loving God. I experienced his grace firsthand through life and through the Bible. As a result of this discovery, I started a church for those who feel rejected by religion; this church is called Revolution." Heavily tattooed and pierced, sometimes foul-mouthed, and pastoring a church that meets in a bar, he does not fit the typical image of an American preacher and evangelist. With theology that often bears only a passing resemblance to the Christianity of the Bible, neither does his preaching fit the image of what we would expect from a Christian preacher and evangelist.

One Punk Under God is a six-part observational documentary series that will be broadcast on the Sundance Channel beginning on Wednesday, December 13th at 9:00 PM. Each of the episodes follows Bakker in his day-to-day activities which seem to revolve around preaching once a week at Revolution Church, meeting with his church leaders, visiting his mother who, sadly, is dying of cancer, and just generally hanging around.

I was able to watch the first three episodes of the series. The first of these introduces Bakker and the leaders of his church and follows him as he travels to the site of Heritage USA, the now-defunct Christian theme park that was built by his father in the 1980's. Now a decaying and monstrous wreck, the park was once America's third most popular vacation destination with almost six million visitors annually. In the second episode Jay preaches at a gay-affirming church called Open Door and soon begins to take a new stance on homosexuality, deciding, along with his wife and much of the church leadership, that they should also be a gay-friendly church. Unfortunately, the third episode was mysteriously missing from my screening copy of the DVD, but by the fourth episode Revolution Church is suffering from the fallout of the decision to be gay-friendly as many supporters have decided to withdraw their funds. Jay travels to Branson, Missouri to make a guest appearance on his father's show "The New Jim Bakker Show." Meanwhile his wife, who almost seems to admit that she is not a Christian at all, wants nothing more than for him to quit the ministry and to find another line of work. At the end of the episode he announces that his wife has been accepted to a pre-med program at New York University and that he will be moving there with her. I understand the the final two episodes of the series follow the Bakkers as they move to New York and settle into their new home in Brooklyn. Jay soon begins Revolution NYC.

One Punk Under God is another in a long line of shows (most of which play on TLC or A&E) that showcase a person most people otherwise could not possibly care less about. And yet the show somehow makes the viewer interested in the other person's life. Bakker's life is truly not too extraordinary, and yet because of the strangeness of his past, his ministry and his personality, it is intriguing. He looks like a punk, acts like a punk, and preaches to punks. If the short clips of his preaching are indicative of his skill, he is a very poor preacher, both in content and delivery, and must reach his small group of follows more through force of personality than through any other means. One reason I kept watching the episodes was to try to discover what it was that drew people to Bakker. After three episodes I still have no idea. Perhaps if I was part of a whole different subculture I might be able to understand.

Bakker's theology is all over the map. In the second episode, where he first discusses the issue of homosexuality with his wife and then with the church's leadership, there is little said that even hints at a Christian worldview. Jay studies his Bible, but only to show that Romans 2 ("For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself") overrules Romans 1 ("For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"), with God's overwhelming love for everyone overcoming His need for justice. He declares time and again to his congregation that God loves you "just as you are." Bakker's worldview may have some Christian influences, but it is clearly not consistently derived from Scripture.

The series is interesting, as much for background elements as for Jay Bakker. The trip to Heritage USA is sad--pathetic really--as cameras show the crumbling ruins of buildings, pools and amphitheatres. The shots of the inside of Tammy Faye's house will make every viewer cringe at the decor that is easily as garish (and possibly more so) as Faye's infamous makeup. Jim Bakker's words, echoing those of his son, about God loving every person just as he is, will make viewers realize that Jim has still not discovered such an important component of the gospel message.

This series, though often poignant and interesting, is a sad testament to a tragic situation. We might have hoped that the fall of Jim Bakker would help his son return to the Bible his father so clearly forsook. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. Jay Bakker seems to be wandering further and further from biblical Christianity, defining his ministry with theology that is far from what the Bible teaches.

If you are interested, you can watch the first episode for free through iTunes. In the future the entire series will be available for purchase through iTunes for $9.99.

Body Worship--The Latest Trend

Posted by Ingrid Schlueter @ http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/

Not long ago my husband and I were at a Christian high school talent show when six teenage girls in tight low-riders and even tighter t-shirts came out on stage and began dancing to a song called, "When the Spirit Moves". Let's just say that all that was moving that night were three immodest and extremely carnal young women, cheered on by the males in the audience, comprised of fathers, brothers and other male peers. At the time, I didn't realize I was witnessing an evangelical trend because our church doesn't feature pole dancers and such for worship of the Lord.

We attend a stodgy sort of church where worship is comprised of Scripture, hymns, preaching of the Word and prayer. It isn't The Church of What's Happening Now. In the last few months, I have been introduced to something rather aptly called, "body worship". I have several video clips to show you what churches are doing to keep the youth. They're essentially letting the MTV-discipled inmates run the asylum. Let me tell you, it isn't pretty.

Oh, but Ingrid, these young people are SINCERE. At least they aren't out carjacking somebody or using meth or getting an STD. Donkeys are sincere when they bray but they shouldn't bray in church. This is not worship of Almighty God, this is sensual display of the flesh. But these young people wouldn't know that because hireling shepherds, in some cases not much older than the kids, don't teach them about the difference between flesh and spirit and they don't teach the verse that says those who are in the flesh, cannot please God. Here are the clips.

Body worship 1
Truly Horrible Body Worship 2
Not only the young are affflicted...
Stay with this for some spontaneous moves in the audience
For those who go for this, here's a CD you can order, just in time for Christmas!

Church Vandals Score Xbox

Posted by Kevin D. Hendricks @ http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2006/12/church_vandals.html#more

Here's an odd little story: Three teenagers break into South Hills Evangelical Church in Missoula, Mont., steal money and smash windows and computers causing several thousand dollars in damage. In response, the following Sunday's sermon used the incident as an example to talk about mercy and forgiveness and the church gave the teens several hundred dollars worth of gifts, including an Xbox and a DVD player.

Church pastor Jason Reimer said the congregation wanted "to reach out and extend love and mercy to them".

"A lot of us, whether we're churchgoers or not, have been in their shoes before and have made some bad choices," Mr Reimer said. "But God forgives us."

Ah, love and mercy in the form of an Xbox. I love the idea and I love the gesture, but the practical side of me wonders what this accomplishes. Maybe this is one of those things where Christians are just supposed to act and let God sort it out, but I can't help but wonder if teens across the country will see this as a good way to score an Xbox. I can see it now: "Stupid Christians, let's trash their church and see if they turn the other cheek."

If the teenagers escape a jail sentence, the church hopes the gifts will help keep them off the streets and out of trouble.

If the gadgets are not enough, the SHEC also offers a skateboard park, a centre for teenagers, a weight room and an addiction recovery service.

Let's hope this section is just bad reporting--otherwise it sounds like actually ministering to the teens was the church's last course of action.

A church responding to vandalism in such a mind-blowing way is cool. That's faith in action (and consequently good marketing). But I think the specifics could use some help.

Strauch on Biblical Leadership

From Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com/

Alexander Strauch recently delivered a weekend seminar on biblical leadership:

• session 1
• session 2
• session 3
• session 4

Strauch is the author of the following books, which I would recommend:

• Biblical Eldership: Restoring the Eldership to Its Rightful Place in Church
• The New Testament Deacon: The Church's Minister of Mercy
• Meetings That Work: A Guide to Effective Elders' Meetings

Pastors Are Not Elders: An Egalitarian Suggestion?

By James M. Hamilton Jr.

Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Houston Park Place Campus

At the recent ETS meetings (November 2006) Dr. Harold Hoehner presented a paper asking, “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?” Dr. Hoehner argued that Ephesians 4:11 indicates that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift and not an office in the church. This is consistent with what he had earlier written in his commentary on Ephesians. In the commentary he writes,

“Some may question the validity of women pastors or pastor-teachers, but it must be remembered that these are gifts and not offices. Surely, women who pastor-shepherd among women should cause no problem at all (Titus 2:3–4). But in fact, Priscilla, along with Aquila, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:25–26) which would indicate that a woman may not be limited to teaching only women” (Ephesians, 546).

It is shocking to me that Dr. Hoehner here expressly affirms that women can do what Paul expressly forbids them from doing in 1 Timothy 2:12. On the basis of an example recorded in the narrative of Acts, Dr. Hoehner is prepared to overturn a direct apostolic prohibition.

Aside from the hermeneutical issue of reading the narrative in a way that contradicts an apostolic prohibition, is this example in the narrative even analogous to the situation Paul addresses in 1 Timothy 2:12? For all we know, this conversation with Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened only once, whereas Paul is surely addressing teaching that happens in the regular gathering of the congregation in 1 Timothy 2:12. The incident with Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened in private, whereas Paul is addressing the public gathering of the assembly in 1 Timothy 2:12. Moreover, Luke doesn’t tell us who did the instructing in Acts 18:25–26. Priscilla’s husband may have done most—or even all—of the talking. Yet Dr. Hoehner takes this incident as evidence that “a women may not be limited to teaching only women.”

What’s more, the answer to the question posed by Dr. Hoehner’s paper (can a woman be a pastor-teacher?) is clearly yes!

There may be a word study fallacy in Dr. Hoehner’s interpretation, which seems to limit its consideration of “pastors” to the noun that means “shepherd” rather than also considering the related verbal forms that refer to the act of shepherding. If the verbal forms are considered, the texts that indicate that “elders” are “to shepherd” incline the interpretation away Dr. Hoehner’s conclusion. What I mean is this: Dr. Hoehner can only maintain that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift and not an office if a pastor is not the same thing as an elder, since “elder” is an office in the church and not just a spiritual gift.

But are elders distinct from pastors? In Acts 20:17 Paul summons the “elders” of the church in Ephesus. He then tells them, “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God” in Acts 20:28. The word “overseers” can also be rendered “bishops,” and the infinitive “to shepherd” is the verbal form of the noun translated “pastor.” Thus, in Acts 20, Paul tells the “elders” that they are “bishops/overseers,” and he tells them that they are “to pastor.”

Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:1–2, Peter exhorts the “elders” that they are to “shepherd the flock of God” by “exercising oversight.” Here again, an elder is to do what a shepherd (pastor) does, shepherd, and he is to do what an overseer does, exercise oversight.

Dr. Hoehner’s novel conclusion that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift to the exclusion of it being an office can only be maintained by committing what looks like a word study fallacy of insisting that the particular noun, “pastor,” is not related to the cognate verbal forms “to pastor” which are used to describe what elders are to do.

The suggestion that “a women may not be limited to teaching only women” with the citation of the incident where Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside is standard egalitarian fare. Could this point to a drift toward the egalitarian position? Or if, as Dr. Hoehner argues, a woman can be a pastor, and if women are not “limited to teaching only women” is the slide toward egalitarianism already complete?

A simple, five-part story

If you're interested in understanding the broad scope of the Scriptures, you might be interested in Eddie Arthur's series on the purpose of the Bible: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Latest Canadian Divorce Numbers

posted by Kirk M. Wellum @ http://redeemingthetime.blogspot.com/

Some very disappointing statistics came across my computer screen today regarding the divorce rate among Canadians 55-64 years of age. According to Statistics Canada between 1993 and 2003 there was an overall decline in the divorce rate which fell by more than 11% from previous years. The decline was led by a decrease of more than 40% among those in their 20s and 30% among those in their 30s. However, this good news was offset by an increase of 47.9% in the divorce rate among those in the 55-59 age group, followed by an 31.7% by those in their early 60's!

While it is wonderful to hear that the overall divorce rate has declined, the increase among those in their 50s and 60s is sad to say the least. In trying to understand the numbers, those who study such trends point to marital dissatisfaction that is tolerated until the children are self-sufficient and then couples go their own separate ways; the affluence of this particular demographic group and the general feeling that exists in our society that people need to look out for themselves above all else. It is as though people in this age group feel that they have done the "responsible thing" long enough and now it is time for them to do what they want.

Whatever the exact cause, this is a telling commentary on a generation that has enjoyed so much in terms of material blessings and that has heard so much in terms of the gospel. Instead of providing leadership and setting an example for those coming up behind them, too many of them are flitting from cruise to cruise, meal to meal, and pleasure to pleasure as if the world now owes them a living because they have hit 55! From a biblical point of view they need to be reminded that only "those who stand firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13); "and we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory"; and "we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold firmly till the end our original conviction" (Hebrews 3:6, 14). It is not how we start or how we run for a while, but how we finish in the end that matters. These numbers show us that not only are there spiritual needs among the young but seniors can be just as needy if they have never committed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ in a way that truly transforms their lives to the very end of their days.

The Mommy Wars Revisited

By Albert Mohler @ http://albertmohler.com//blog.php

Beliefnet.com has published a debate of sorts on the "mommy wars." Linda Hirshman, author of Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World, returns in a lengthy interview to her argument that women who stay home to care for children are "letting down the team."

I was invited to write an article in response to Hirshman. Both articles are available at Beliefnet.com.

In her interview, Linda Hirshman is as strident and radical as ever. After explaining that she had determined what "the standards of secular Western goodness" might be, she applied these to stay-at-home moms and found them morally wanting:

I applied those standards to the decision to stay home and tend children and the household, and I found that they were, in fact, lacking. These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm.

So stay-at-home moms are doing more harm than good? She doesn't stop there. They are also delusional.

I think they're making a mistake. The most frustrating thing about the whole business is the nonsensical stories that they tell themselves and me about what they think they're doing. The delusional quality of it is a little weird. . . .

I'm not sure what is going on. If they, in fact, believe the things that they tell me, then they are incredibly stupid and foolish. I'm hoping that they're reciting it like a mantra: "choice, choice, choice, choice," or "I never met a man who wished on his deathbed he spent more time at work." These are mantras that these women recite; they send them to me in e-mails. And so, when the whole society is telling you a set of things, it becomes very easy to just recite it. The interesting question is why they are unwilling to think through what they're doing. And I think it's because what they're doing is destructive and dangerous and they're afraid to face it.

The essence of Linda Hirshman's argument is that what she calls "choice" feminism has led to disaster, because so many women are giving up promising professional lives and money (the very things Hirshman says they should most value) in order to stay at home and care for children -- a task she infamously described as unfit "for a complicated, educated person."

She calls for feminists to return to their "judgmental roots," refusing to accept women who choose motherhood over career as morally responsible. In her book, she calls for women to go on a "reproductive strike" until they are freed, as a sex, from any imbalance in responsibilities for child-rearing.

She presents herself as surprised that her radical vision is attracting opposition. Take a look at this:

I got a flood of really rabid e-mail--very personal, very harsh. And unlike the usual e-mails, they also were notable for their bad grammar and spelling. So I couldn't figure where this flood of e-mails was coming from, and then someone sent me a speech by Albert Mohler, the head of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said, "This woman is the instrumentality of the devil." He lied about what I said, and then he told everybody that I was the end of civilization as we know it. That was my first clue that the forces of organized religion in America were going to be aiming at me.

Well, a little truth-telling will help here. I never said that Linda Hirshman "is the instrumentality of the devil." As a matter of fact, I have not said that of anyone. Then she says that I identified her as "the end of civilization as we know it." She flatters herself. I do believe that her ideas--if taken seriously by many persons--would be the end of civilization as we know it. There would be no one left to care for the children.

I have never given "a speech" about Linda Hirshman, so I must assume that she refers instead to my commentary on her and her ideas [found here]. The article is a straightforward analysis of her writings and media appearances. Judge for yourself. The problem is her ideas. It is virtually impossible to present her proposals as more radical than they are.

In my Beliefnet.com article, I responded to her book and proposals. She says that she fears "the forces of organized religion" in opposition to her. She can let go of that fear. It's America's moms who are in an uproar. As I wrote in the article: "Hirshman has little to fear from conservative Christian men–it's the moms she had better look out for."

Further:

The actual work of motherhood disgusts her. After reading the diaries of mothers, she notes: "their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated person, for a complicated, educated person." Being herself a complicated, educated person, she cannot understand why a woman would, for example, wipe the soiled bottom of her baby. Complicated, educated women just must not do such things, she insists–or they are letting down the team. She even compared mothers to the "untouchables" of India–a caste consigned to sweep bodily wastes and care for the bodily needs of others. "Get to Work" will attract attention, of course. The book is so radical and strident in its tone that the media will not be able to resist its allure. Nevertheless, a half-century after the feminist revolution was launched, women simply aren't buying its message–not if it means that women who love motherhood are "letting down the team." The persistence of motherhood is a sign that women really do know what they want.

Let's all be very thankful for that fact -- and honor those women who take up the complicated and educated task of raising the next generation, starting at the cradle.

We discussed this controversy on Tuesday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here]. We also discussed the issue on editions that aired February 23, 2006 and June 30, 2006.

New Perspective or Just Another Distortion

posted by Kirk M. Wellum @ http://redeemingthetime.blogspot.com/

The so-called New Perspective on Paul is a pernicious misreading of the Bible that needs so be debunked once for all. Those who have imbibed this error tend to carry on as though they have discovered some new truth and has evaded the Christian church for thousands of years, or at least from the time of Luther. They carry on as if the Holy Spirit has led so many of God's people in the wrong direction and blessed the preaching of justification by grace through faith alone in spite of it being a misrepresentation of Paul. The fact of that matter is that the Holy Spirit has not blessed the preaching of the New Perspective in any kind of revival. It is a doctrine that has emerged out of liberal theological institutions and from the writings of men whose on standing in the gospel and possession of the Holy Spirit is questionable based on their stubborn refusal to hold to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Closely tied to the New Perspective on Paul is a New Hermeneutic which does not interpret Scripture by Scripture but instead pursues novel understandings of the biblical text based on extra-biblical documents which they use as a grid and through which they read the Bible. In practice, this is the same error as the traditional Roman Catholic insistence putting the official teachings of the church on a par with the Scriptures. Or Islam, when it regards the Koran as a revelation of God alongside the Bible. Or the Mormons, or any other cult, who puts the writings of their founder on a par with Scripture. The New Perspective with its New Hermeneutic elevates ancient extra-biblical writings too high when they use them to re-interpret the Bible in ways that are not consistent with interpretations that are derived from the Old and New Testaments alone. The end result is the tyranny of a new priesthood of academic specialists who claim to know what the Bible really teaches based on their understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism. My own conviction is that this re-interpretation for all of its scholarly bravado will prove to be far too simplistic in the end. The Bible is more profound than unbelieving scholars realize and more than they are equipped to handle no matter how intelligent they might be.

All of this to say... that I came across a very helpful article by John Piper on Jesus, Islam, Pharisees and the New Perspective on Paul . It is definitely worth reading and taking to heart.

NT illumination of the OT

Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield on the Trinity in the Old Testament:

Although there isn't explicit revelation about the Trinity in the Old Testament, we can see this foundational truth clearly by the light of the New Testament:
"This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged."

(Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 141-142.

What Are the World's Religions?

posted by Wayne Shih @ http://acts18910.blogspot.com/

According to the website ReligiousTolerance.org there are twelve major world religions (each with over three million followers): Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Vodun (Voodoo). Of these, the five largest North American religions are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism.

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, in their Handbook of Today's Religions, deal with Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism in their list of non-Christians religions.

They define religion as "that aspect of one's experience in which he attempts to live harmoniously with the power or powers he believes are controlling the world" (p. 11).

Santa Loves Jesus/Jesus-loves-Santa?

His Claim @ http://www.santa-loves-jesus.com

His hair is real...his beard is real...and his love for the Lord Jesus Christ is real.

Santa will come to minister to children and their parents as he always does; with laughter, and joy, and gifts, and goodwill; but he will also come with the greatest gift of all:

God's Love.

Santa will come to tell the real story of Christmas...about the coming of Jesus, whose death on the cross and glorious resurrection gives eternal life to everyone who believes in Him and repents of their sin. The Baby in the manger, fully God and fully man, came to seek and save us!

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.

Consider the evangelistic outreach possibilities.

Make the Christmas season extra special with a visit from Santa...you might even host a breakfast, lunch, or dinner with him!

"Santa-vangelism" is a great way to reach people in your neighborhood or community with the greatest free gift of all: the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!

What's Wrong with the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement?

By Phil Johnson @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/06/introducing-the-ecm-part-7/#more-324

This is a continuation of Phil’s seminar-transcript from the 2006 Shepherds’ Conference.

My three main concerns

What else could possibly be wrong with the “emerging church movement”? (I’m not going to try for an exhaustive list. I wish you could see the stack of books I had to read over the past year as I prepared for this seminar. It’s literally a two-and-a-half-foot-high stack, and fully half of them are recent products of the Zondervan imprint called Emergent-YS, indicating the involvement of Emergent (Brian McLaren’s organization) and Youth Specialties, an organization that for years published the infamous evangelical satire magazine Wittenburg Door. Youth Specialties is also well known for publishing books of activities—outrageous games and grotesque or messy contests—for youth groups. Their literature has been a major influence in evangelical youth work for almost three decades now, and if you have ever been in youth ministry, you are probably familiar with them. These days, they are one of the main cheerleaders for the Emergent idea.)

I have friends who have suggested that the emerging church idea is the predictable fruit of churches that tailor their youth ministries to whatever style is currently fashionable, hold alternative church services for the youth in a separate building (”the youth building”) and never incorporate them into the actual life of the church itself. They’ve grown into adulthood while their styles and preferences were catered to in a special “church” service all their own. The actual church service was something they weren’t expected to like. Many of them were never really exposed to worship in the context of the actual church, with real adults. They were deliberately entertained instead, and thus they were conditioned to think that way. They grew old, but they never grew up, and now even as adults, they want to continue to play at church, but outside the mainstream of the historic church. (My friend characterized the emerging church worship style as “Church services for the ADHD generation.” Read the Christianity Today account of Emergent’s national convention and you will understand why he said that.)

And while that is not the background of everyone in the emerging subculture, I’m sure there area lot of people who fit that profile, including some of the key leaders in the movement. You’ll see what I mean if you read the Christianity Today article on the emerging church in the November 2004 issue.

Anyway, I could probably come up with a very long list of issues that concern me about the “emerging church movement,” but since we have so little time to pursue this, I have decided to boil it down and give you a short list of my top three current concerns about the “emerging church movement.” We can cover these very quickly, because I think you’ll understand my rationale for these concerns just based on what I have already said.

So here are the three things that disturb me most about the general drift of the movement:

1. It fosters contempt for authority. The New Testament idea of church government is not anarchy. It’s not even democracy or mobocracy. The church is certainly not supposed to be the sort of populist organization where everyone has an equal voice in everything that happens.

The contempt for structure in the “emerging church movement” is a thinly-veiled aversion to authority. You will see that if you simply examine the angry comments that were posted at the Emergent-US blog when it was announced that the new organization would have a “director.” Blogs and discussion forums associated with the movement were assaulted with complaints and angry criticisms. One member of the movement said, “A director?!! Nobody’s going to direct me! That’s why I left the traditional church.” Another guy wrote: “I think we are going in a horribly dangerous direction. We aren’t becoming a ‘conversation,’ we’re becoming an institution. A ‘National Director?’ for a conversation? Give me a break . . .. I have a feeling we’re going down the Anakin Skywalker path here, folks.”

The whole movement’s approach to Scripture is another major reflection of the widespread tendency within the movement, to show contempt for every kind of authority in the church. Brian McLaren insists that Scripture does not actually claim authority for itself. It claims to be profitable, he says, but not “authoritative.”

As a matter of fact, the whole movement seems devoted to dialectical approach to truth. This, I think, explains the movement’s aversion to the idea of preaching and its preference for the idea of “conversation.” There’s an underlying assumption that this is the best way to arrive at the truth: You have a thesis, and then an antithesis, and the truth is supposed to lie in a synthesis of those two contradictory ideas. That synthesis becomes the new thesis. It’s answered by a new antithesis, and the synthesis of those ideas becomes the new thought. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It’s a never-ending cycle.

That’s the perspective of truth and epistemology proposed by the German philosopher Hegel: the dialectical method. All truth is ultimately determined that way. So it’s fluid; never absolute. Truth changes all the time.

The dialectical method may indeed be a fairly accurate description of how public opinion develops. But we ought to know as Christians: That’s no way to discover truth. Right?

Scot Mcknight (who is an apologist for a number of the movements that are currently trying to expand the whole concept of evangelical Christianity) has written a sympathetic analysis of the “emerging church movement” that is worth reading if you want a decent description of the movement from a sympathetic perspective.

Scot McKnight says this: “[People in the “emerging church movement”] want to open up questions. They’re asking questions about how we should understand our relationship to scripture: Is it inerrant? Is it true? And many of the emergent people are saying that [Scripture may not be absolute and authoritative and inerrant, but] it is the “senior partner” in the conversation.” McKnight calls that “a healthy category.” I don’t think it is. I think it’s just more evidence of how the “emerging church movement” fosters a contempt for authority.

Here’s a second major concern I have:

2. It breeds doubt about the perspicuity of Scripture. You understand the principle of perspicuity? It speaks of the clarity—the “understandability”—of the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith says it like this: “All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, [so] that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” Perspicuity. The Bible is not too hard for us to understand.

The entire postmodern epistemology (their view of how we acquire knowledge of the truth) deliberately glorifies uncertainty. I already gave you some quotations about this from Brian McLaren, but you can read almost any writer in the movement and you will find this theme is relentlessly pressed.

The article in Christianity Today last year about the emerging church, for example, is a classic example of this. One of the central themes running through that article is the message that people in the “emerging church movement” have abandoned certainty, assurance, and strong convictions. They aren’t dogmatic about what they believe, because they aren’t really sure of what they believe.

The obvious implication here is that Scripture just isn’t clear enough for us to say what it means with any kind of confidence.

In fact, that’s more than an implication of the article. It’s pretty much what these folks are expressly saying. Listen to this paragraph about the husband-and-wife pastoral team of one of the leading emergent-style churches in the country. This is about Rob and Kristen Bell, who founded Mars Hill in Grand Rapids:

They found themselves increasingly uncomfortable with church. “Life in the church had become so small,” Kristen says. “It had worked for me for a long time. Then it stopped working.” The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself-”discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. “The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.”

“I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible,” Kristen says, “that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again-like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”

Ultimately, the emerging church message begins to sound like an echo of the voice of Satan in the garden: “Hath God said?”

This is a huge issue—in some ways the pivotal issue. The overwhelming message coming from the “emerging church movement” often sounds like a flat denial of the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. That is a denial of one of the basic tenets of biblical Christianity, Protestant history, and evangelical conviction.

Yes, parts of Scripture are “hard to be understood.” The apostle Peter acknowledges that in 2 Peter 3:16. But the essential message is simple and clear. The wayfaring man, though he be a fool, doesn’t have to be confused by it, according to Isaiah 35:8. God has made Himself plain enough that there is much more than merely mystery to the Christian faith.

Quickly, here’s a third thing that disturbs me about the “emerging church movement”:

3. It sows confusion about the mission of the church. I’ll just sum up my final point with this one observation: The “missional” emphasis in the “emerging church movement” seems to be entirely focused on an effort to adapt the church to the culture, with very little stress on the church’s duty to proclaim a message of repentance and faith in Christ that calls men and women to forsake the world.

In other words, the “emerging church movement” seems to be all about the conversion of the church, rather than the conversion of the sinner.

In fact, I found little or no emphasis on conversion in any of more than a dozen books I read about the “emerging church movement”. (Sometimes, emerging church writers adopt the language of postmodern narcissism and talk about “recovery,” but that’s as close as they usually get to discussing conversion.) It is simply not a major theme of discussion in the emerging conversation.

This is a glaring flaw in a movement that calls itself “missional.”

The true mission of the church is embodied in the gospel message and the Great Commission. It is truth that demands to be proclaimed with clarity, and authority and conviction, and if you refuse to do that, even if you insist you are being “missional,” you are not fulfilling the mission of the church at all.

Those are some of my main concerns about the “emerging church movement.” Can I make one of those absolute statements that make postmodernists grind their teeth? There is absolutely no sense in which I would commend this movement to you, encourage you to join the so-called “conversation,” or wade through the mounds of trendy literature in search of valuable helps and insights that might help your church.

Spiritually speaking, that literature points down a dead-end street into a blind alley on the bad side of town. I am convinced that this movement is going to be a serious detriment to the testimony of the church as a whole, a source of great confusion for many Christians, and another in a long series of movements that will surely undermine the work of the gospel rather than advance it. And I have no doubt whatsoever that those predictions will be proven correct within the next 10-20 years, if not sooner.

Broken Boughs and Falling Cradles: The Christian Home

By Pastor David Deets @ http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/12/02/broken-boughs-and-falling-cradles/#more-698

Most all of us know the lyrics to the well-known nursery rhyme of “Rock a Bye Baby.” However, most of us probably do not know its origin or meaning. It is commonly held that this lullaby actually came from a young pilgrim boy. He had spent much time observing the Native American practice of suspending children from tree branches in cloth and basket cradles. This practice enabled the baby to be rocked while freeing the mother to attend to other matters. While this lullaby is an observation, it also gives us a warning! Be careful what kind of tree branch you hang your child from. As can be seen from this lullaby, there are drastic consequences for hanging your baby from the wrong bough. In modern America today, we have a lot of broken boughs (homes), and we have lots of falling cradles (casualties among children and teens). The problem is that the child does not get to decide which bough he is hung from. He has no choice as to which home he is given to or which parents he has. He simply has to do the best he can with where he is. So the great problem faced by a lot of teens and children today is, “How will I respond to my home situation?”

When we think of “broken homes” today, there are myriads of situations that kids may or may not encounter. Abusive homes (both physically and emotionally) are rampant in America today. Divorced homes are as common as non-divorced homes. Homes today, however, go beyond just the visible and tangible problems. Many things take place in homes that are “good, solid” homes. I can remember one time as a teenager that I was trying to get a job and thought I had found one in the paper. As I was leaving for the interview, my dad said to me something that I have never forgotten. He said, “All that glitters isn’t gold.” At the time, I did the typical teen thing of thinking that my dad did not know what he was talking about. I have now realized that my dad was right on with his observation. We have a lot of teens who are part of “good, solid, faithful church attending” homes who are suffering from the same dysfunctionality as other homes. How does a teenager or a child deal with and handle a situation where there is arguing, fighting, abuse, inconsistency, and the list could go on and on? As with all things, the Bible has the answer to this problem that so many teens are facing today in our Bible-believing churches.

In 1 Samuel 2 and 3, we see an example of a child and young person who was placed into a situation that resembles many homes and situations faced by so many young people today. Most of you would be familiar with the story of Samuel from your days in Sunday school, but let me give you just a little background on this story. Elkanah and his wife, Hannah, greatly desired to have a child. Elkanah’s other wife, Peninnah, had sons and daughters, but Hannah had none. The Bible says that Hannah was worried and troubled by this situation. Elkanah especially loved Hannah and the two of them really wanted to have a child. Hannah wanted a child so badly that she made a vow to God. Her vow was that if God would give her a child, she would return the child back to the Lord for a lifetime of service. As the story goes, Hannah eventually became pregnant and gave birth to a little boy named Samuel. Once Samuel was weaned (probably two to three years old), Hannah took him to the temple to offer him for a lifetime of service to God. As a parent, I cannot imagine what this was like to have to give up your young son to the High Priest. The anguish and emotion that was involved must have been incredible.

Let’s imagine for a minute that you are Samuel. Here you have been given up by your family and placed into a “home” that is constantly bustling with people. You have basically been adopted by an old man who has two very wicked sons. Think of what Samuel could have thought. He could have felt bitterness because of his situation. He could have been resentful against his other siblings because they got to grow up in their house with a mom and dad. He could have justified any kind of behavior based upon Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phineas. He basically could have been as wicked, resentful, bitter, and angry a person as there ever was and probably, in some people’s mind, could have been justified in feeling that way. Samuel had every opportunity to rebel, and he could have had plenty of reason to do so. But that is not the way that Samuel responded to the circumstances that faced him. Instead, we read later on in 1 Samuel that he went on to be a great man of God. He followed God and served God and used his life in profitable service to God. How in the world could he do that, considering the situation he grew up in? The answer is that he couldn’t without the help of God. This is exactly what is true of you as well. You will never be able to survive your home situation apart from the help of God.

This may not seem very comforting to hear. It is one thing to say, “Rely on God’s strength”; it is entirely different to live it. How exactly do we trust in God’s strength, and how exactly do we make it through a home situation that so many in our churches face? The answer is again found in the Bible in the life of Samuel. There are three different aspects to the response we see of Samuel. Samuel survived this situation with the following: trust in the sovereignty of God, service to God, and relationship with God.

The first thing that Samuel had to do was to trust in the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God states that God is in complete and absolute control of all things. Samuel had to come to the realization that God had put him into this position and that God had his best interest in mind. If Samuel could not trust in the sovereignty of God and could not trust that God was in control, there was no way that he was going to believe that God could use him in His service. Samuel had to realize that God was truly working all things according to His perfect will. This is the first thing that a teenager or a child who is in a rough home situation must do–trust God. A young person who does not trust God will never be able to allow God to work His perfect plan in his life. Examples of Joseph and others should flood our minds as we realize that life does not always go the way we think it should, but if we allow God to work all things together, we will soon see that God has our best interest in mind and that all things truly do work together for good.

The second thing that Samuel did that enabled him to survive the situation he was faced with was to stay in faithful service to God. The Bible records in the book of 1 Samuel that Samuel was a faithful follower and servant to God. He remained faithful to God even in the midst of a “trying” situation. Two different times we are told that Samuel remained faithful in service to God. In verse 11 of chapter 2, we see that Samuel ministered faithfully after his parents had left him at the temple with Eli. Also, in verse 18 of chapter 2, we see again that Samuel was a faithful servant of God. Even at a young age, Samuel was faithful to God’s service.

If you are faced with a “difficult” home situation, one of the things that will help you tremendously is to stay faithful in service to God. I know of many teenagers who come from “rough” homes. They have parents who do not encourage them, and some are even abusive in some ways, yet these teens stay faithful to God by being involved. The Bible tells us that God’s grace is sufficient for us. When we allow God to do a wonderful work of grace in our lives, we will be a shining testimony of what God can do. One thing we must realize is that when we are faced with adversity, often times it prepares us for ministry later on in our lives. We see this principle in 2 Corinthians 1:4. This is probably one of the more difficult things to do, but God desires us to stay faithful in our service to Him so He might use us and work through us.

The last thing we see about how Samuel dealt with the situation he was in is found in verse 26 of chapter 2. The Bible says that Samuel grew on and was in favor both with the Lord and also with men. Samuel maintained right relationships with God and others. So often, when people are faced with a difficult home situation, they become “out of control.” They are bitter and enraged and have an attitude that indicates that they really don’t care. They become troublemakers and hostile to any type of structure or authority. This does not have to be the case. In fact, this should not be a response someone has. Samuel stayed faithful to God first and foremost, and he also maintained good relationships with other people as well. If he had not done that, God could not have been able to use him as He wanted to. However, because Samuel had a right relationship with God, stayed faithful in His service, and trusted in God, God was able to make him a great man of God. If you are faced with a difficult home situation, one of the best things that you can do is to maintain right relationships with God and with others. God has put other people into your life to help you and to encourage you. You should thank God for the godly influences that He has put into your lives and remain faithful to God so that He may wonderfully use you in His service.

When we think of the life of Samuel, we think about all of the good that he accomplished for the cause of God. We often do not think about how bad he had it. This is because Samuel took a potentially bad situation and allowed God to work in his life. He trusted in the sovereignty of God, he stayed faithful in service to God, and he maintained right relationships with God and others. What a testimony to the grace of God. Samuel was a great man of God, but had he not responded correctly, the story could have been a lot different for him. How will you respond to the difficulty that you face in your home? Will you become bitter, angry, and resentful, or will you trust in God, stay faithful to Him in service, and maintain a right relationship with Him and others? How we respond tells a lot about what we think of God. The problem is that there are many teenagers and young people who are in “rough” situations. The hope, though, is that they do not have to be a statistic. They can respond, with God’s help, in the right way and trust God and allow Him to use them mightily.

______

^{Dave Deets and his wife, Kimberly, are currently on full-time deputation with Baptist World Mission to the country of Italy. Dave spent the last four years as the Assistant Pastor of Grace Baptist Church (Farmington, NM). They left in mid-August to begin deputation.}

I Just Love Rules, Don’t You? Part Two

^{This chapter is from Damsels in Distress and is reprinted by permission from P&R Publishing (Phillipsburg, NJ). This chapter is being reprinted in two parts. This is part two.}

by Martha Peace

Legalism

What Legalism Does

There are many problems with legalism. Consider the following list:

1. Legalism takes our attention off Jesus Christ by focusing on our own efforts rather than what He has done for us.
2. Legalism takes away the believer’s freedom by substituting conformity for control by the Spirit.
3. Legalism attempts to put God in the position of being a debtor. It thinks God owes us something when we do good.
4. Legalism results in regression in the Christian life.
5. Legalism is performance-oriented. It focuses more on what one does than on who one is.
6. Legalism brings about harshness and conflict in one’s relationships. The reason for this is because legalism creates an elitist attitude in which conformity is demanded and failure is not tolerated.
7. Legalism will rob a Christian of joy, for he will never know the “rest” that faith brings. A legalist is so intent on doing that he does not know how to enjoy God’s acceptance.
8. Legalists are very zealous. This is why legalism brings results, but the results are counterfeits.
9. Legalism is selective in the matters it chooses and promotes. It will take parts of God’s Law but ignore the rest. It is never consistent. An interesting aspect is not what legalism forbids but what it overlooks.
10. Legalism will affect everything if unchecked. Given time it will control everything—individual churches, schools, and denominations.
11. Legalism attacks grace. Legalists will accuse those who preach grace of being antinomian (lawless). But this cannot be true because what grace really does is strip away any pretense of spiritual achievement. Grace promotes obedience to God because of His blessings to us. Grace is a license to serve, not a license to sin.
12. Legalism is inflexible and condemnatory. It refuses to see many, if any, gray areas in the Christian life. Legalists have rules for almost every area of life and have a negative judgmental attitude toward those who do not comply with their standards. This can result in a very tense environment.
13. Legalism promotes pride and self-righteousness. Of course the legalist denies this, but it is true nevertheless.
14. Legalism opts for a lower standard than God’s. The kind of legalism that emphasizes many man-made rules becomes satisfied with what is really an inferior standard. Consider the following vivid contrast between man-made rules and God’s high and holy law. Man-made rules: don’t wear jewelry or makeup or denim clothing, burn your secular music because it has demons in it, don’t practice any birth control, insist that men’s hair must be above their ears. God’s Law: love God and love others.

Why Is Scripture So against Legalism?

Legalists can appear to others (and certainly to themselves) to be so godly. Their emphasis is on minor, little things, but they miss the heart and real intention of God’s law such as hospitality, love, caring for widows and orphans, generosity, kindness, justice, and mercy. No wonder the Lord Jesus admonished them strongly, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness . . .” (Matt. 23:23).

Legalism also creates a proud person: “I’m keeping the rules so I must be spiritual.” The Lord Jesus shocked the people who thought there were none more righteous than the Pharisees, “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). In other words, they had to have perfect righteousness, which, of course, only God could do for them.

Legalism creates self-righteousness. It looks down on those not as spiritual as we are. We see this example in the Scriptures when the Lord Jesus ate with the tax collectors and sinners, and the Pharisees questioned His disciples. When Jesus heard about what was being said, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:12–13). The Pharisees should have been glad that the “sinners” could spend time with our Lord.

Legalism emphasizes outward show. Remember the Pharisee who stood on the street corner praying out loud thanking God that he was not like the sinner standing nearby? The Lord Jesus said that legalists were like tombstones that were whitewashed and gleaming on the outside but were full of dead men’s bones on the inside. He told them, “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28). Just about anyone can manage to put on an outward show at least for a little while, but the true believer wants the attention called to God not himself.

Legalism can become very rigid and crowd out love. Legalistic homes will often lack love because they have a lot of rules and rigidity. One legalistic rule they might have, for example, is that a girl should not marry a man who has been a Christian for less time than she has. Parents can exasperate children because the parents see their rules as “thus saith the Lord,” instead of recognizing areas where their children have freedom in the Lord to differ with others.

Legalism can create a dependence on human leaders. It is common for Christians to follow a man (or a movement) because he provides a new set of regulations for given situations. People turn to this kind of leader rather than turn to the Word of God through personal study. People can be held in emotional bondage to such leaders because they will sometimes say, “It’s OK for you to do that but if you really want God’s best then. . . .” Well, who wouldn’t want God’s best? Even though it may appear to be the legalist who desires God’s best, it is not. What legalists really desire is making themselves look good.

Remember that you should not automatically label someone a legalist just because he or she has different rules or follows a more rigid lifestyle. Legalists have a wrong attitude toward their rules. They add rules to the gospel or to how we grow as Christians. They tend to be rigid, angry, harsh, and often self-righteous instead of loving, kind, and gentle. Churches and Christian schools must have rules. Rules help us live together and they protect us. So, do not automatically write off a church or school because they have rules. The question to consider is: What is their attitude toward their rules?

Scripture soundly condemns those who have external, lipservice religion but whose hearts are far away from God. The strong believer (the one who understands his liberty in Christ and knows how to exercise it responsibly) has an obligation to the weaker brother (the legalistic kind). He must love him and seek to help him understand his freedom in Christ and the relationship between law and grace. We are to exemplify true biblical Christianity, not just criticize legalists. Our lives should model God’s grace at work in our hearts.

A Model of God’s Grace

Read the following list and see if in your heart you are a model of God’s grace or a Pharisee: [4]

• Do you take seriously the total corruption of your human nature? This does not mean that every person will be as bad as they could possibly be, but it does mean that all of your nature has been affected by sin (your will, intellect, affections, and conscience). (Gen. 6:5)
• Do you believe that the Bible alone is the inspired Word of God and authoritative over your life? (2 Tim. 3:16–17)
• Do you have a right respect for the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, understanding that you cannot add anything to His work? Not even baptism, communion, ceremonial acts of worship, or perfect church attendance? (Eph. 2:1–10)
• Do you give God credit for any fruit in your life, knowing that it is the Holy Spirit who produces such fruit? (Gal. 5:13–23)
• Do you view life through the lens of loving God and loving others? (Matt. 22:35–40)
• Would you patiently teach younger Christians, or would you try to impose standards on them in areas where God has given us freedom?
• Are you discerning between “thus saith the Lord” and your own personal standards? For example: women are to be modest in dress versus women cannot wear eye shadow.
• Are you more likely to think, I’m glad I’m not like so-and so . . . or to think, It is only by God’s grace that I am not worse than so-and-so. I will pray for her.
• Do you have disdain for others, thinking, I would never do what she did, or do you have compassion and think, Because of my sin nature, I am capable of doing something worse. How can I help her?
• Would you be horrified if you saw your friend’s daughter at church and she had on a toe ring? Or would you think, Well, that’s not me, but it is not a sin to wear a toe ring. This is an area where we both have freedom, me not to wear one and she to wear one.
• Would your first reaction to a church’s music that you did not approve of be, “That music is awful. They must not be Christians!” or would it be, “Just because I do not like their music certainly does not mean they are not Christians.”
• Do you believe that if you wear makeup you are out of God’s will, or do you think that makeup is a matter of “freedom in the Lord,” and you can enjoy that freedom?
• Have you been discouraged, thinking, If I don’t read my Bible every day, I must not be a Christian, or if you miss a day reading the Bible, do you think, Certainly God wants me to read my Bible every day, but He accomplished the work of my salvation on the cross. I cannot add to or keep my salvation by reading the Bible.
• Have you found yourself suspicious of another woman’s spirituality or salvation if her hair is short? Or do you realize that hair styles are cultural and this is an area where she has freedom in the Lord?
• Have you ever thought or said, “My child would never do what her child just did”? or would you be quick to think, As far as I know, my child has never done what her child did, but that does not mean that he won’t do it or something worse in the future.
• Are you drawn toward systems that are full of rules, such as “courtship,” thinking that if you follow the rules just right, God will have to bless your children’s marriages? Or do you realize that courtship is not a “thus saith the Lord” issue, but is based on man-made rules drawn from Old Testament stories. What is biblical is wisdom, discernment, marrying only a Christian, chastity before marriage, and knowing that both your child and his or her spouse will sin—but there are biblical ways to deal with it.
• Have you ever thought, If I overeat (or any other sin), God will be mad at me, and I must not be saved, or would you think, My salvation does not now nor did it ever depend on what I eat. I must believe God when His Word says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Conclusion

The legalist thinks that her outward religious activities will cause God to be obligated to save her or, if not that, then at least she will be more pleasing to God if she keeps her rules and regulations. We have seen that instead of having disdain for those who do not follow our rules, we must put up with non-sinful differences; instead of having a sense of superiority over others, we must have humble compassion, understanding that we could be worse than they; instead of holding to an unbiblical view of God’s grace, our lives should be a model of God’s grace; and instead of fearing the consequences if we do not do everything just right, we should enjoy the freedoms the Lord has given us and be grateful for the forgiveness we have in Christ.

Do not too quickly label people as legalists just because they have stricter or different personal standards than you. Legalism is not what you or they do but what you or they think about what you do. The legalistic heart is in bondage to a sinful system of spirituality. If this is a problem in your heart, you must repent and come out of the darkness of self-righteousness and into the light of God’s glorious grace.

___________

^{4. The first four on this list were adapted from J. C. Ryles’s book Warnings to the Churches (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 62–66. This material was originally published in Home Truths and later in Knots United (first published in 1877).}

—————-
^{Martha Peace is a gifted teacher and exhorter. She worked for eight years as a biblical counselor at the Atlanta Biblical Counseling Center, where she counseled women, children, and teenagers. She also instructed for 6 years at Carver Bible Institute and College in Atlanta where she taught women’s classes including “The Excellent Wife,” “Raising Kids Without Raising Cain,” “Introduction to Biblical Counseling,” “Advanced Biblical Counseling,” “Personal Purity,” and “The Book of Esther.” Martha has authored a workbook, Raising Kids Without Raising Cain, and books entitled The Excellent Wife, The Study Guide to The Excellent Wife, and Becoming a Titus 2 Woman.}

I Just Love Rules, Don’t You? Part One

^{From Damsels in Distress and is reprinted by permission from P&R Publishing (Phillipsburg, NJ). This chapter is being reprinted in two parts.}

by Martha Peace

Legalism

Our daughter, Anna, attended a well-known Bible college back in the 1980s. At that school they had a rather thick rule book. To her dismay, she broke four of the rules before she even had time to read the book! Not being a rebel in her heart, Anna had no problem keeping the rules once she knew what they were, but what she did have a problem with were those students who loved the rules so much that they became like self-appointed, private investigators looking to trap and turn in students who broke or appeared to break the slightest rule. These students became like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were religious in a bad sense. The students and the Pharisees became amazingly creative in their ability to make up religious rules that they thought saved them or made them more pleasing to God. Usually accompanying those self-imposed standards was a disdain for those who did not follow their rules, a sense of superiority over others, an unbiblical view of grace, and fear of consequences if they did not do everything just right.

The modern-day legalist is a lot like those students and the Pharisees. The legalist is drawn toward unbiblical thinking—so much so that there are strong Scriptural warnings against such man-made religion:

“Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. . . .” (Mark 8:15, NASB)

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. (Heb. 13:9)

The life of legalists is not the joyous Christian walk that God intends. It is a life of burden for themselves and the others they influence. Martin Luther vividly described the mindset of the legalist: “Christ’s a fine Master. He makes the beginning, but Moses [the Old Testament Law] must complete the structure. The devil’s nature shows itself therein: [if] he cannot ruin people by wronging and persecuting them, he will do it by improving them.”[1] In this chapter we want to cover what the Bible teaches about legalism, typical legalistic thoughts and actions, and how to overcome the sinful bent to add to God’s standard of righteousness.

What the Bible Teaches about Legalism

The Pharisees were a Jewish religious sect that evolved into very rigid, self-righteous, letter of (their) law group. They were thought to be the epitome of righteousness. They hated the Lord Jesus because He saw through their façade and knew their hearts. The Pharisees made up hundreds of new laws that they were comfortable keeping. In order to justify observing certain laws and not others, they divided God’s Law into greater laws (that they kept) and lesser laws (that were in their opinion optional). The laws that they arbitrarily decided were the “greater” laws were, of course, the ones they would not have broken anyway.

The Old Testament Pharisee and the modern-day legalist are a lot alike. They are both sinfully proud. They think they can earn God’s favor or that they deserve it in some way, and they look down on those who are not as “spiritual” as they think they are. Legalism is a vivid example of not trusting in the Lord, but instead leaning on your own understanding (see Prov. 3:5).

Biblical Principles Concerning Legalism [2]

To understand legalism, let’s look at twelve biblical principles:

1. Legalism aims to attain spirituality by means of what one does or does not do. A legalist establishes an external standard of spirituality and then judges everyone by that standard. Since the individual has established the standard, normally that person always achieves it: [3]

For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. (Rom. 10:3)

2. The Law is a divine rule or commandment. Often when people say the Law, they are referring to the Ten Commandments or to the entire Mosaic Law located in the first five books of the Bible:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven. You shall not make other gods besides Me. . . .’ ” (Ex. 20:22–23)

3. The Law has three aspects:

a. The sacrificial system: The Jews would bring animals for sacrifice and the priests would carry out the sacrifice. There were varying reasons for the different sacrifices, but the main reason was as a guilt offering to atone for Israel’s sin. This is no longer necessary because the sacrifice was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Heb. 7:26–27)

b. The civil law: The civil law was given to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. There were many civil laws, including dietary laws, laws dictating which years to let the land rest from planting crops, and laws telling how many days after a male baby’s birth he was to be circumcised. We are no longer under the civil laws:

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate Peter stood up and said to them . . . “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:5–7, 11)

c. The moral law: We, like those in the Old Testament times, are under the moral law of God. For example, we are told not to commit adultery in the Old Testament, and the New Testament standard is the same. In fact, the Lord Jesus further explained that we are not even to lust in our hearts. The moral law of God convicts us, restrains sin in society, and is the rule of life for the believer:

Then God spoke all these words saying, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. . . . You shall not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:1, 14)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I [the Lord] say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27–28)

4. God has provided all the resources for man’s salvation from sin. The Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, is the only provision for sinful man’s salvation that is acceptable to God. Christ obeyed God’s Law perfectly by living the sinless life that we should live but cannot. God’s provision for salvation is undeserved by man. Because of sin, man deserves condemnation. Because of God’s gracious provision, man can be saved but only through faith in Christ alone:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3–4)

5. Liberty is the life of the Christian under the control of the Holy Spirit. In Christ the believer is free to live a life pleasing to God no longer under the penalty and power of sin.

For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Rom. 6:5–7)

6. Legalism is an unbiblical response to the law of God. The unbiblical response to God’s law is man’s attempt to add his own good works to God’s grace. In so doing man seeks to conform to a code for the purpose of glorifying self:

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Gal. 3:11)

7. The problem with legalism is in man’s heart (what he thinks) . The natural heart is a legalistic heart; man thinks he can help God or make God a debtor to him, or that he deserves what God has done for him. It is pride that keeps us from seeing our sin and how utterly dependent we are on God to do the work of our salvation:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor. 2:14)

8. Because of man’s nature and his propensity to sin, he wants to make the Christian life workable in the flesh. The legalist looks for techniques and formulas (step one, step two . . .). Commands are too general. He thinks he needs more organization concerning the answer to the complexities of life. Some modern-day examples are “steps to find God’s will” or “witness to X number of people each day” or “clothing must be a certain style” or “abstain from certain foods”:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. . . . (Rom. 14:20)

9. Legalism is any attempt to change people through conformity to rules. Churches that are unbiblically authoritarian often do this.

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1–3)

10. Legalism is manifested in a variety of ways: men think their acts should gain God’s favor because God is somehow obligated to them; men outwardly go through the motions of vain, repetitious religion; men commit acts based only on human wisdom and strength without regard to the Word of God or the Holy Spirit:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

11. Legalism is an unbiblical response to the Old Testament narrative stories. This code may be biblical or man-made. Legalists often go to Old Testament narrative stories, miss the point, and make their rules in relation to the story. Examples are dietary rules, courtship rules, and promises made because of parental “blessings.”

So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham.” (Gen. 28:1–4)

All Scripture is “profitable for teaching” us, but not all Scripture is written about us or to us (see 2 Tim. 3:16). Thus, parents who make up certain rules or special promised “blessings” for their child based on Old Testament narrative stories such as Isaac’s blessings to Jacob are missing the point of the passage. The point is what God is doing to fulfill His covenant promises to the children of Israel. Sometimes parents unintentionally misuse the passage and place an unbiblical burden of man-made rules or false expectations on their child.

Another example would be courtship rules. Having personal standards and family traditions such as the young man asking the father’s permission before asking the young lady out is fine. Not dating in a frivolous way is fine. What is not fine is thinking that these personal standards are a God-mandated rule that guarantees success in the marriage. Instead of hard-and-fast rules, the biblical standard is wisdom, discernment, marrying only a Christian, chastity before marriage, and knowing that both the child and his or her spouse will sin—but there are biblical ways to deal with their sin. So, have standards and base them on biblical principles. [sic] but do not elevate them to a “thus said the Lord” level.

12. Legalism seeks to exalt self and gain merit rather than to glorify God because of what He has done. The power source is self not the Holy Spirit. Israel fell into this kind of legalism:

“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Matt. 6:5–7)

_______________

<sup>1. Timothy George, The New American Commentary, Galatians (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 96.
2. This material was adapted with permission from material by Howard Dial, pastor of Berachah Bible Church, Fayetteville, Georgia.
3. John MacArthur and Wayne Mack, Introduction to Biblical Counseling (Dallas: Word, 1994), 381–82.</sup>

^{—————-
Martha Peace is a gifted teacher and exhorter. She worked for eight years as a biblical counselor at the Atlanta Biblical Counseling Center, where she counseled women, children, and teenagers. She also instructed for 6 years at Carver Bible Institute and College in Atlanta where she taught women’s classes including “The Excellent Wife,” “Raising Kids Without Raising Cain,” “Introduction to Biblical Counseling,” “Advanced Biblical Counseling,” “Personal Purity,” and “The Book of Esther.” Martha has authored a workbook, Raising Kids Without Raising Cain, and books entitled The Excellent Wife, The Study Guide to The Excellent Wife, and Becoming a Titus 2 Woman.}