home | archives: April 2006

Welcome

FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion, politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about all seven.
 

Features
 



Tags
 

Archives
 



 

Search
 



Updates



Follow me on Twitter
 



Recently read:
Nonfiction
 


Recently read:
Fiction
 



Government- in-exile, Churchian- style — part 2

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:24 PM ET , Sunday, Apr 30, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings, Legalism, Life Applications



Have you read before of those unusual, ridiculous fights in typical American churches?

Or perhaps you’ve heard, anyway, of multiple anecdotes describing how entire congregations have evidently split asunder because of squabbles over where to put the organ, what color to paint the baptistery, or somewhat more-substantive issues such as church programs, worship formats and teaching styles.

You may laugh. I certainly have.

But those fights may actually make sense, compared to my recent tangle with a posse of Churchians. At least objectors to painting the baptistery in a nice shade of lilac rose may have at least glanced at the paint strip before pronouncing the color ugly.

As I described in Part 1, I had volunteered to help teaching the youth group of the church my family and I were attending. My intended focus was worldview fusion — the concept that following Christ isn’t limited to church and Sunday school. Instead, it’s a way of thinking that applies to all areas of life.

With discussions about origins beliefs and honoring the Creator through science, using materials from Answers in Genesis, some youth were beginning to show interest. Others were not; they were the types who were merely “dragged” to youth group. And that’s okay.

Then the trouble began, and not with the youths at all.

Instead, the opposition came from the youth’s parents and/or grandparents. Their pathetic, closed-minded “government-in-exile”-style insurrection was done in the shadows, without even talking with me first. They made, by comparison, even the most juvenile-acting of the youth groupies resemble the innocent hand-puppet residents of Mr. Rogers’ Land of Make-Believe.

Continued ...



Will truth-ignorant youth help kill 'old media'?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:08 AM ET , Saturday, Apr 29, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Media: Media, Version 2.0, War-cast



Columnist Jeff Jarvis with the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 23 gave his take on the dead-tree skins business versus Media Version 2.0:

Do we need newspapers? No. Do we need news and journalism and an informed democracy? Of course we do. But paper? Why? Too often, I hear editors pleading to save newspapers and newsrooms as their status quo is threatened by plummeting circulation, imploding advertising, impatient shareholders, multimedia youth and the Internet. Everyone is to blame for newspapers' pickle, it seems, but the newspapers themselves.

Yet perhaps the era of newspapers as we now know them is simply over. Especially since broadcast killed competitive newspapers, they have become one-size-fits-all vehicles that cannot possibly be all things to all people; they may be convenient, but they are also inefficient and shallow compared with the depth of the Internet. Newspapers are inevitably stale next to broadcast and online. They are inefficient advertising vehicles for highly targeted sales - classifieds and very local retail. Newspapers are terribly expensive to produce and distribute in a marketplace where your competition is free.


Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, however, while he lated quoted Jarvis, yesterday gave his verdict on the matter:

Will blogs replace the Old Media? Of course not.


The problem with Old Media is rooted not just in changed technology but changing national demographics and culture. One could argue that the fault lies with the failing public education system, but the fact is that most young people at present time do not like to read their news. If they keep up with current events at all, the Internet is by far the best source, albeit one full of questionable sources.

Yet countless surveys and other evidences show that most young people have no problem with questionable sources or lack of truth anyway. Note, for example, this quote from USA Today's rightfully skeptical coverage of a new Sept. 11 conspiracy film, Loose Change, whose makers insist that the military actually hit the Pentagon with a missile as an excuse for war:

Christian Pecaut, 25, a Stanford graduate who is promoting the film at the University of California, Berkeley campus, said the film is “catchy, hip,” with an “upbeat soundtrack.”


Thank you.



Josh Harris on discernment

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 03:01 PM ET , Friday, Apr 28, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Media, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings



Boundless.org has been running slightly late on its columns for the past two weeks, but today's piece by Josh Harris, Like to Watch, is excellent.



C.S. Lewis on Evolution

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:21 AM ET , Friday, Apr 28, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Science: Genesis



This topic arose via another discussion in NarniaWeb's Narnia and Christianity forum. I had casually referenced a C.S. Lewis letter quote I had recalled reading, in which Lewis had written something about wishing he had written more about supposedly scientific evolution.

At the time, of course, the present-day form of the Biblical creation movement hadn't yet begun to coalesce. That arguably happened later in 1961 with the publication of the book The Genesis Flood by the late hydrologist Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, and Dr. John Whitcomb.

Another NarniaWeb member wrote to ask about the source of the quote, and now, thanks to what I like to call the Deep Discussion Magic that she brought about, I'm now a little more informed about Lewis' views on creation/evolution:

After further research and reading, I found the verbatim quotes, and a whole apologetics webpage describing Lewis's evident support for some form of “theistic evolution” and later apparent shift away from that. In the mid-1940s Lewis corresponded with a Captain Bernard Acworth about the topic. Evidently Capt. Acworth was a former journalist and World War II opponent who later became interested in Christianity and debunking evolution (perhaps with some questionable arguments).

Continued ...



'Godless' by Ann Coulter — release date: 06.06.2006

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 11:27 AM ET , Thursday, Apr 27, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Media, Politics: Get A-CLU!

Godless: The Church of Liberalism Recommended
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
by Ann Coulter


Human Events Online finally presents the description, via email subscription, about conservative commentator Ann Coulter's forthcoming book — information that Fox News host Neil Cavuto couldn't extract from Coulter last week:

Ann Coulter is set to release her most controversial book ever.

In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she shows convincingly that liberal hostility to traditional religion stems from the fact that liberalism is itself a religion — a godless one. And, she shows how, thanks to the liberals who dominate our courts, our government bureaucracies, our schools, and our media, liberalism is now the established religion of our country.

Continued ...



Joel Osteen, this could mean you

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 08:46 AM ET , Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings



Al Mohler begins a promised three-part series on “The witness of the Church” with The Foolishness of the Cross, Part One. This is his very apt warning for those who expect an easy job preaching God's word:

“If you are looking for a non-scandalous life, if you hope to preach a non-scandalous message, then the Christian ministry is the wrong place for you. You have heard the wrong call.”


This seems applicable to all of us, of course, but here I was specifically thinking of someone else, namely a certain Joel Osteen, who of course would not last for 32 hours in the People's Republic of China. His “message” as expressed in Your Best Life Now and at least once on the Larry King show, is so completely un-Biblical and simperingly sappy as to be completely pathetic and, in the long run, ineffective for truly changed lives and focus on God rather than self.

Unfortunately, Osteen's and others' brands of foolishness is not the kind about which the Apostle Paul wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 1: 18-25 (NIV)


And, as Mohler notes later on:

In verse 21, Paul reminds us of an essential gospel understanding: God did not save the world through its own wisdom. It was not through cleverness or wisdom or intelligence that anyone has come to Christ, including any of us. It is often tempting to think that we were simply smart enough to understand this gospel. When the gospel was preached, we were intelligent enough to grasp it, smart enough to recognize it for what it was. As tempting as such thoughts may be, however, none of us came to the gospel by intelligence. We came because of God's power working in “the foolishness of the message preached.”



World magazine: Claiming the name

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 07:03 PM ET , Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings



World Magazine has this on the continuing phenomena, evidently new to our age, of people who call themselves Christians but aren't really. (Ignore sarcasm in preceding sentence.)

“A new Barna study shows that while close to 3/4 of Americans claim to be a Christian, many show no signs of their claim. Less than half of Americans attend religious services on a weekly basis and 66% of those identify themselves as Christian. George Barna concluded, "These figures emphasize how soft people's commitment to God is. ...when it comes time to truly establishing their priorities and making a tangible commitment to knowing and loving God, most people stop short."”


And one of the age-old questions of theologians trained and untrained, of course, is: are they “backslidden” believers or merely unredeemed people who are deceived into thinking they are Christians?

Based on much observation and common sense informed by Biblical truth, I'm forced to conclude the latter.

And Dr. D. James Kennedy has long said that the majority of people in American churches are not Christian. Though I don't want to say it, I base that on years of experience working in the church, he said.

A question could be asked regarding Barna. Did he not in some ways i>start the “seeker-friendly movement” that now seems to be producing so many false converts and noninvolved Churchians?



Government- in-exile, Churchian- style — part 1

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:41 PM ET , Monday, Apr 24, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism, Legalism, Life Applications, Ransom Notes



Last week, I finally finished the third installment of a three-part series about “Churchianity.” That is, the tendency of some (often smaller) American-Southern churches to uphold their own Churchese jargon, unwritten traditions and antique evangelism methods — supporting them above not only natural, timeless relevancy to the “real world,” but often Scripture itself.

The first two installments, Part 1: Speaking the Language of Churchese, and Part 2: The Unwritten Rules of God’s House, were written in late January. I didn’t get around to Part 3: Antique Evangelism until months later.

That’s partly because I was waiting for my own experiences with one church’s mutant strain of Antique Evangelism to run their course.

All the better, unfortunately, was to let the mess finish and then write about any lessons learned.

Yet nothing that happened in my situation seemed to yield any insight. I experienced almost exactly what I could have expected from such a church, whose entrenched, government-in-exile-style leadership sought to avoid not only new ideas, but public conflict altogether, at whatever cost.

That meant they instead resorted to “underground” opposition, a drive-by-shooting form of indirect attack. And of course it proved they were too cowardly to let their positions be known and thus open for discussion.

So it wasn’t “disillusioning.” I wasn’t much shocked to find that Churchians could behave so badly.

And yet I’ve found there’s still much to be learned from seeing such disgusting events happen personally.

It’s like a building implosion: you may know some of how it’s done, you may have even seen it happen in TV news clips. But it’s still even more impressive to see it happen in front of you. Perhaps for the first time, the enormity of the event — or problem — truly impacts you.

And yes. A figurative structural implosion is exactly what was happening at this church.

Continued ...



Churchianity, part 3: Antique Evangelism

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 02:06 PM ET , Monday, Apr 17, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism



Two months ago, I began writing my three-part series about “Churchianity.” I use that term here to describe the Church’s (at least the American Church’s) tendency to remain steeped in its own methods of doing things, so much that it fails to adapt its approaches where it needs to, to remain timeless and naturally relevant to a changing world.

Part 1 covered how Churchians are often “Speaking in the Language of Churchese,” which most non-Christian people don’t know — or only think they know.

Part 2 focused on The Unwritten Rules of God’s House that are set up by many churches — the often-subtle codes of conduct that church participants must obey. They aren’t found in the Bible, of course, yet “Churchians” often act very dogmatic about these rules, elevating them to the level of Sacrosanct. (And meanwhile, they would likely be among those rightfully critical of the Roman Catholic Church for officially doing the same thing with its extra-Biblical traditions).

Both columns, and sets of problems, find their climax here in Part 3: Antique Evangelism.

Sure, many Megachurches are wrecking true Christendom from within by concentrating on reaching the unredeemed masses. Either they crave popularity and attendance numbers, or sincerely hope to draw them to God — and therefore they openly cater to people’s “felt needs” and entertainment cravings.

But American Churchianity commits the polar-opposite error: that of withdrawing far beyond Christ’s admonition to “be in the world and not of it.” In place of the real world, Churchianity makes its own little world, with its own language and customs. Yet many of them, especially the American Southern churches I’ve mentioned in earlier columns, still hope to seek the unredeemed, who remain Out There.

Such churches thus place much emphasis on preaching the Gospel, often using traditional methods with long heritages. I’m referring mainly to Revival Services and their close cousin, Altar Calls.

Continued ...



A church 'body' of only speaking tongues?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:12 PM ET , Thursday, Apr 13, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Charismaticism, Cross Firings



The following was posted by BJR in response to Churchianity, part 2: The Unwritten Rules of God’s House. After that comes my response, which I also added beneath that entry as a comment:

Dear Dr. Ransom:
Thank you for your much- needed article re Churchianity. I have been attending a fundamentalist church and am being told by one of the “church elders” that I MUST:
a-Speak and pray in “tongues.”
b-Hear from God in a clear and audible voice.
c-If these two above-mentioned things are not happening to me then it means that all of my prayers, church attendance, Bible reading, etc., are “for nothing” because “I have not gotten it.”

I have spent over five years reading the Bible and even though I understand that there is much I still have to learn, I cannot find anywhere in it that I MUST do these things in order to qualify as a “true Christian.”

What are your thoughts regarding this?

BJR, you’re in my prayers.

I think you could approach this two ways.

The first way is unique because it works Biblically even if one accepts the notion that tongues-speaking and physically hearing God are Biblical (but more on that in a moment). The most often-cited passage regarding wisdom, teaching, and other spiritual gifts is 1 Corinthians 12. Read through and recognize a common thought that Paul repeats: that there are “different kinds of service, but the same Lord.” (1 Corinthians 12: 4 [NIV]) Later he is even more clear about the diversity of roles and gifts within the body:

“Now the body is not made up of one part but many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be a part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?”

1 Corinthians 12: 14-17 (NIV)

Similarly, if the whole body were forced to be a speaking tongue, what about all those who may have the other gifts? Wisdom? Discernment? Faith?

For example, let’s say you’ve found you enjoy studying church history, doctrines, discerning false beliefs from Biblical ones. That may be a gift of knowledge. You’re more of a “head” in the body. Would it be right for you to demand that all the hands, feet, ears, even “tongues,” be heads like you? Not at all! The same is true for the “tongues” — they are Biblically wrong to demand that everyone be like them.

“But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

“The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’”

1 Corinthians 12: 21 (NIV)

Therefore the “tongues” cannot say to other parts, ‘We don’t need you!’

The second issue is the assumption that tongues-speaking in that form is Biblical anyway. Paul elaborates more on the subject two chapters later. Christians may disagree over whether tongues-speaking is still in effect anyway, but the simplest route to take may be that Paul is very clear that tongues-speaking is not helpful unless others are present to “interpret” what is being said.

“If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.”

1 Corinthians 14: 27-28 (NIV)

On two counts, then, these church members are upholding their own traditions above actual Scripture.

First, your gifts may lie in other areas. A Biblically based church should not deny Christ-given diversity of gifts and attempt to make everyone the same.

Second, tongues-speaking itself may be un-Biblical. It certainly is if it ignores the orderly worship Paul discusses later in chapter 14, and is void of actual interpretation of the “tongues.” That issue alone, along with the even-more-anti-Biblical expectation that God should speak audibly, may be enough that you may want to look into other churches. Though they are unfortunately rare, I think other churches might have more respect for growth in studying the Scriptures, orderly worship and working with diverse parts and gifts contributing in the Body.

Remember, it’s by Grace we have saved — un-merited favor given by God — and not through our own works. Bible reading, prayer and church attendance won’t do anything to redeem from human sin unless Christ’s free gift of redemption comes first. Too many Churchians, blindly continuing in their own extra-Biblical and even anti-Biblical religious traditions, fail to understand that.

God go with you, and post again anytime if the situation changes. …



Churchianity, part 2: The Unwritten Rules of God's House

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 07:50 AM ET , Saturday, Apr 08, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Legalism



There are certain things you cannot do in church. Strip naked, for example. Or take money from the offering plate, or shout an Amen (in some churches), or fail to shout an Amen (in other churches). Or raffle a Hummer on the front lawn to raise money for charity. Well, actually, that last one seems to have become optional at some churches during the past several years. That’s because of the problem of “Megachurchianity,” an issue on which I’ve written before.

Megachurchianity isn’t a problem just because it often contains building complexes the size of Reno casinos — for some churches, bigger is indeed better. Instead, I define the term as a particular, anti-Biblical emphasis on changing the Church too much, to more accurately reflect the culture. That faction of Christendom is often desperate to show non-Christians that yes, Christians are extremely relevant to the culture! — by means of building bigger and more expensive churches with entertainment equipment and calculated pop-culture references.

However, that’s fully opposite the problem of “Churchianity,” at issue in this three-part series. Both seem to be dual errors among God’s people, at least in America. But “Churchianity” still poses a unique threat to the living, dynamic Christ and His Grace.

The term is used here to denote certain unchanging, oldie-traditional modes of Christianity, which can include the following extra-Biblical “doctrines”:

  1. Speaking the Language of Churchese;
  2. Following and expecting others to follow the Unwritten Rules of God’s House, in addition to Christ;
  3. Antique Evangelism: that is, preaching to people as if we’re still in the 1940s and more people believe in the Biblical God and morality, or even universal standards of Right and Wrong altogether.

Churchianity, part 1 — Speaking the Language of Churchese dealt with Christians’ failure to speak plainly of Biblical truths to non-Christians. Instead, some Churchians favor naïve use of Churchese words — and that could result in others’ incorrect assumptions about the meanings of the words “mercy,” “sin,” “God” or even the word “Christian.” (For example, the term “Christian,” according to many, could mean a non-Jew; someone really, really good; or a churchgoer who believes in God.)

Yet this column will focus on the next of those “Churchian” aspects: The Unwritten Rules of God’s House. Like speaking Churchese and performing Antique Evangelism, those Rules tend to keep traditional Christians — genuine and otherwise — too comfortable and unchallenged, and put off those who could otherwise be drawn to Christ.

Continued ...



Peretti’s and Dekker’s ‘House’ is left hunting for meaning

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 07:42 AM ET , Saturday, Apr 08, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Media: Books, Deep Doctrine Magic: Christian Novels

House Recommended
House
by Frank Peretti, Ted Dekker


House by Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker, two of the biggest names in Christ-centered novel-dom, doesn’t take long to look through. Prolific readers can polish it off in a day — unlike previous novels by either author that were longer-lasting. With morbid cover art, a bizarre premise typical for both writers, and all the big-publisher treatment tricks, House certainly offers an impressive façade.

The premise seems great: four people are trapped inside a building in the backwoods, where a psychopathic killer gives them until dawn to kill one of their own, or be killed. What follows is indeed a house of horrors in Twilight Zone-style, freakish but Christian-clean levels, as the house and its demonic occupants indeed come alive and anticipate the foursome’s every move. It’s what one would expect from authors who blazed trails writing about demons, parallel worlds and redemptive horror.

Unfortunately, Peretti’s and Dekker’s joint construction seems to fail. Based on three novel building inspection flaws, the novel is:

  1. A House of cardboard characters;
  2. A House lacking thoughtful plot construction;
  3. A House with a shallow foundation.

Continued ...



Judging 'Judas'

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:12 AM ET , Friday, Apr 07, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Gnosticism, Media



The Mohler-nator, Albert Mohler, takes a look at this whole “Gospel of Judas” juggernaut, one of the many old Gnostic tricks yanked out of the Devil's old hat to coincide with the whole Da Vinci Code silliness.

The National Geographic Society had announced last week that indeed, the disciple didn't actually die, and instead went on to write somewhat of an early Da Vinci Code predecessor.

Perhaps “Judas's ” relatives should sue Dan Brown for plagiarism ...

The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as “aeons” and an “eternal realm.” Judas is identified as the “thirteenth spirit” who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.

When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: “Judas, your star has led you astray.” Jesus continues: “No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and . . . sent it . . . on the twelve aeons.”

The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. The Gospel of Judas purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.

The Gnostics are one of the few heretical groups to gain specific mention in Scripture. But recall Paul's general message to the Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Galatians 1: 6-9 (NIV)


Mohler continues:

Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of The Gospel of Judas records Jesus saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”

In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The Gospel of Judas indicate in a footnote, “The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within.”

Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners--willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

This redemptive action is completely missing from The Gospel of Judas. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as The Gospel of Judas as heretical. In his foreword to The Lost Gospel, Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, “This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn't actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated.”

Mohler summarizes:

The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and “rediscovered” even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.

Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.



Taken from context: Christ or Jefferson?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 05:00 PM ET , Thursday, Apr 06, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Politics: History



C.J. Mahaney at Boundless kicks off a great column about Cravings, Lust and Boasting with a hearkening back to history:

Hunched over his desk, penknife in hand, Thomas Jefferson sliced carefully at the pages of Holy Scripture, excising everything that did not fit his personal world view. Hell? It can't be. The supernatural? Not even worth considering. God's wrath against sin? I don't think so....

Today, Jefferson's handiwork is on display at his home in Monticello: a copy of the King James version of the New Testament, full of holes.


However, and at the risk of unnecessarily whitewashing the Founding Fathers, David Barton of WallBuilders defends Jefferson's actions, explaining:

Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.


A most interesting debate. But one could argue Jefferson had no business taking out even the narrative of Scripture, regardless of the purpose. Would a series of Jeffersons' quotes, separated on purpose from context and description, help people understand him?



A glimpse into the wondrous 'Wardrobe': redux

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 10:50 AM ET , Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Media: "Narnia: AWAKE", Film and DVD



As of yesterday, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe two-disc special edition DVD is now within my house. What follows is a reprise of my review, originally written for NarniaWeb.com:


A glimpse inside the wondrous ‘Wardrobe’

Much was not as I expected. Much was. And much exceeded my expectations, and yes, even the splendor of the book.

I had been enraptured.

Banish most preconceptions you may have formed. Not even the two trailers are reliable; many of their scenes have been cut or reworked. These disrupt, only briefly, the suspension of disbelief — “verisimilitude” — that you will have as you first behold this masterpiece.

Also slightly disrupting is the final “Easter egg” scene that you’ll not risk missing, unless you leave the theater within 15 seconds as the credits begin to roll. I’m sure the credits should begin only when the film was truly finished.

Perhaps most bothersome, though, were the duo of too-modern songs during the credits; you will not miss much by leaving before they begin.

Yet who can describe the wonder, the splendor, the majesty? Everyone is perfectly cast; the glory of Narnia, both in bleak winter and in lush landscapes bursting with color, shines over them all. Creatures are pictured wonderfully. Small touches will surprise or stun you: Lucy’s footwear choice; Father Christmas; the stone lioness and its facial features; the heartbreaking, midflight fate of a stone Griffin; the brief appearances by Dryads; a Talking Horse, the blossoming of trees.

Later you may contemplate other small touches you had expected — perhaps cut for time, but maybe effects concerns also. More of Giant Rumblebuffin? Susan dancing with the restored Fox? And when exactly did the White Witch, her slave and her prisoner abandon the mud-mired sleigh and reindeer?

Expect not the epic sweep or lingering visuals of Lord of the Rings. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe moves more quickly. Just when you are ready to take in a wondrous camera view, its angle will change. Will the producers release an extended edition DVD, with integrated scenes? I believe children in particular — for whom, I must keep reminding myself, the film must also be geared — have greater attention spans than is given credit.

Aslan is exactly as portrayed in the book — no more, no less, it seems. He is very real and very much the wild/tame seeming paradox, although we do see more of his “tame” side than wild. He is gentle, he is comforting; he knows the children’s names and even where they are from. And yes, those yearning for the symbolism behind his death and resurrection will find not only such messages translated directly into film, but actually enhanced.

Is Aslan too small in the film? I am unsure. Recall that as the Great Lion once told Lucy, the older you become, the bigger he seems to you. Older viewers may have wished Aslan was indeed the size of an elephant, or at least as big as the rhinoceros in his army. But upon retrospect, his size is probably just right, and certainly appropriate given the medium of film and the necessity of having him interact with the children while literally being on their level.

I was anticipating a central music “theme” for Aslan, much like that of the divine theme by Prince of Egypt composer Hans Zimmer. Yet composer comrade Harry Greggson-Williams has indeed woven a wondrous mixture orchestral sweeps, vocals and meaning-imbued cues for the film, although no theme leaped out to me upon first viewing. My guess is the soundtrack disc itself, along with repeated viewings, will further reveal to me any musical themes; yet I recall no such moments as occurred in Lord of the Rings when all action or interaction would lapse and let the camera pull back, permitting the landscape and the music to star momentarily.

Music wonderful, visuals superb, acting grand, characterization and plotting, well done. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will be a classic.

Close your eyes at midnight, or Friday evening, or whenever it is you first experience it. Let the darkness close around you as the music begins, relax and inhale deeply as you hear the voice of Aslan whisper in your mind, “Narnia ... AWAKE!"



Churchianity, part 1: Speaking the Language of Churchese

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:27 AM ET , Saturday, Apr 01, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity



I’ve written frequently about the doctrinal and cultural dangers of the modern Megachurches. Their service styles and ministry programs often cater to entertaining non-Christ-followers, rather than discipling already-redeemed residents — and they usually try so hard to be original and relevant that not only do they fail miserably, but it lets the “culture” set the standards for the Church to follow.

(By this, of course, I mean the holistic, Christ-established Church proper, not limited to any building or denomination. It’s based in mere Christianity, adherence to core Biblical truth and faith in the Creator/Savior Jesus Christ to redeem from the rebellious nature inherent in every human.)

Yet meanwhile, the opposite extreme remains: churches that are stuck on pseudo-ignorant, backward mentalities of yesteryear.

These lovers of Christ, bless their often-older souls, are most often in the “Bible Belt” regions especially in the American South. They are quite comfortable with the Way Things Have Always Been Done in their churches. And they are unwilling to update — or permit updating — of ministry styles, programs or traditions in favor of actually catching up to genuine cultural changes.

This happens most often in three areas:

  1. Speaking the Language of Churchese;
  2. Following and expecting others to follow the Unwritten Rules of God’s House, in addition to Christ;
  3. Antique Evangelism: that is, preaching to people as if we’re still in the 1940s and more people believe in the Biblical God and morality, or even universal standards of Right and Wrong altogether.

Continued ...



'I Slap Floor'

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 08:50 AM ET , Saturday, Apr 01, 2006

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Subculture Shop, Storytelling



Just written for the continuing NarniaWeb discussion about Predestination versus Free Will:

I've done a bit more research into this issue now. The Bible, at least the verses cited, does seem to imply strongly that God is sovereign and He's chosen people to drag away from the consequences of their own pathetic free-will decisions. Recently I sought out new books I'd hoped would clarify the debate ...

So I went to the Inspirational shelf at my local Wal-Mart and started browsing. It was, indeed, inspiring. Right then I felt like going home and writing a musical composition from scratch. Then I saw a couple of books that had been written by very nice people about God. I knew the people who wrote them were nice, because they had very large pictures of themselves, looking very nice and glossy, on the front covers, and they were smiling at me. Again I was inspired; I decided to buy the books.

I've now found out several things. Debating over silly doctrinal issues like Predestination and Free Will, for example, makes Christians just like the Pharisees. They were so concerned about getting their doctrine straight that they never were in touch with their feelings. They also did not understand the true goal of the church, as Jesus said: to go therefore and preach to the world, and be all things to all people if necessary, and feed the poor, and stop greenhouse gas emissions if those were to happen.

It was so nice to read a book by someone who actually wrote about God, in a world that's gone so nasty, with people who don't believe in God, and Fascists, and Evil Hollywood hurting so many people.

Perhaps if more people began to feel God, rather than think about Him, we could stop all of these ills and finally achieve world peace.

Religion was never meant to be for thinking people. Very often it flies in the face of all reasoning and that, brothers and sisters, is what makes it so true, if you believe it very truly in your heart, that is. And if someone else doesn't believe it, well, they are still seeking after their God in their own ways, and they will eventually find Him, because God is Love and wouldn't nuke anyone. (from page 36)

So I think I will remove myself from this discussion for a time, and go try to feel God's presence myself. Blessings to all, in the name of the Supreme Architect(s).