As Christians, we read in the Hebrew Scriptures (which we refer to, somewhat incorrectly, as the Old Testament) that the children of Israel were God’s “chosen” people. This “chosen”-ness often accompanies confusion, as Christians read it. Chosen for what? Too often, I hear people assume that this “chosen”-ness means that, before Christ, all men apart from Israel were hell-bound. This is a sadly mistaken interpretation, as there is no emphasis on the afterlife in the sciptures, prior to the arrival of Christ.

So, then, what were the Israelites chosen for? Perhaps we should begin with the first usage of “chosen” in scripture for a clue:

Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him. Genesis 18:18-19

So here, we find that Abraham was chosen so that a) he and his descendants would keep to the way of the LORD; so that b) the LORD would bring about His promises. What were these promises (in relation to mission)?

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. Genesis 12:2-3

So here we have a double-statement of the same promise. God will bless Abraham and his descendants in order that they will be a blessing to all peoples on the earth. They are blessed to be a blessing. This is then reiterated as a promise after Abraham is tested in his willingness to give up his only son, Isaac.

I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me. Genesis 22:16-18

So, once again, Abraham’s descendants are promised to be numerous so that all nations on earth will be blessed. Here again, they are blessed so that they will be a blessing.

[More]

Here’s a little quiz, prompted by a resurgence of ODM activity around a particular topic currently on the “let’s blow this out of proportion” list.

The Quiz:

1. Should a Christian celebrate Christmas on December 25?
2. Should a Christian celebrate Easter on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox (as it is currently celebrated)?
3. Should a Christian run in a marathon?
4. Should a Christian take any part in skits/plays/theater in which they pretend to be someone other than who they are, or they observe someone else pretending to be someone other than who they are?
5. Should a Christian acknolwedge Valentine’s Day by doing something out of the ordinary in describing his/her love for their spouse?
6. Should a Christian drink tea?
7. Should a Christian play card-based games?
8. Should a Christian ever use the word “fortunately”?
9. Should a Christian refer to the first day of the week as “Sunday”?
10. Should a Christian refer to the second day of the week as “Monday”?
11. Should a Christian refer to the third day of the week as “Tuesday”?
12. Should a Christian refer to the fourth day of the week as “Wednesday”?
13. Should a Christian refer to the fifth day of the week as “Thursday”?
14. Should a Christian refer to the sixth day of the week as “Friday”?
15. Should a Christian refer to the seventh day of the week as “Saturday”?
16. Should a Christian use a Julian calendar?
17. Should a Christian enroll in a self-defense or martial-arts class?
18. Should a Christian family give out candy to children who come to their door on October 31?
19. Should a Christian participate in low-impact stretching exercises similar to those in Hindu yoga classes, while meditating upon scripture?
20. Should a Christian walk through a physical maze or in a maze-like pattern while praying or meditating upon scripture?

Discussion:

If you believe in the standard “if something was derived from pagan roots, then Christians should avoid it”, then your answers to all of these questions should be “no”.

Today’s example in inconsistency in belief and practice, has an ODM writer on a radio program creating a strawman out of Christians practicing stretching exercises derived from yoga as if it were the sum total of their Christian lives and as if it were their means of spiritual fulfilment. You can listen, but he doesn’t say anything all that new – or all that true, for that matter.

In reality, no body position is ontologically evil, and meditating upon the Word of God while exercising in any body position is not evil. Walking in a maze-pattern is no more evil than walking in a straight line. It comes down (as so many things do) to the heart. If you are searching for God, the scriptures are the best place to go first, and the community which demonstrates His Word second. If you are looking for low-impact exercize, going to a Christian “yoga” class is not entering the house of the devil, regardless of what a pseudo “pastor” might say on a radio program.

Why this is again a repetitive issue of the past couple of weeks is anyone’s guess, but most likely due to the need to rally around the modern-day idol of John MacArthur. Regardless, it is important to guard our hearts against the work of the evil one – who can be found most anywhere – rather than trying to superstitiously avoid anything and everything “with pagan roots”…

“Answer” Key

For those of you with analytical/geekish tendencies, here are the pagan references to the questions above:

1. In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations. Most of the most important gods in the religions of Ishtar and Mithra had their birthdays on December 25. Various Christmas traditions are considered to have been syncretised from winter festivals.

2. The English name, “Easter”, and the German, “Ostern”, derive from the name of a putative Anglo-Saxon Goddess of the Dawn (thus, of spring, as the dawn of the year) — called Ä’aster, Ä’astre, and Ä’ostre in various dialects of Old English and Ostara in German. About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill …Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis (the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection.

3. The god Pan was credited with the Athenian victory at Marathon, and the re-running of the “Marathon” became a means of glorifying Pan.

4. The theatre was born of pagan origins as a way of honoring the gods in the retelling of their stories – often in the nude. Additionally, the word ‘hypocrite’ is derived from the word hypokrites, which specifically described actors.

5. Every February the Romans celebrated a feast called Lupercalia to honor the god Lupercus so that no harm would come to the shepherds and their flocks. Also during Lupercalia, but in honor of the goddess Juno Februata, the names of young women were put into a box and names were drawn by lot. The boys and girls who were matched would be considered partners for the year, which began in March. As Christianity became prevalent, priests attempted to replace old heathen practices. To Christianize the ancient pagan celebration of the Feast of Lubercus, the church officials changed the name to St. Valentine’s Day.

6. The origins of the usage of tea come from China, possibly 2000+ years before Christ, and was considered to be a component of Zen Buddhist ritual.

7. Playing cards came from pagan Chinese practice, and are primarily associated with games of chance.

8. “Fortunately” is a word derived from the Roman goddess Fortuna, the goddess of luck. The word came about in giving homage to Fortuna, or “lady luck”, when something good happened to a person.

9. The name “Sunday” (Day of the Sun) apparently originated in pre-Christian Egyptian culture. In Ptolemaic Egyptian astrology, the seven planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, had an hour of the day assigned to each, and the planet which was “regent” during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day.

10. Monday gets its name from the Moon, which in turn gets its name from Mani (Old English Mona), the Germanic Moon god.

11. The name Tuesday comes from Middle English Twisday, from Old English Tiwes dæg, named after the Nordic god Tyr, who was the equivalent of the Roman war god Mars.

12. The name Wednesday comes from the Middle English Wednes dei, which is from Old English Wodnes dæg, meaning the day of the Germanic god Woden (Wodan) who was a god of the Anglo-Saxons in England until about the 7th century. Wodnes dæg is like the Old Norse Oðinsdagr (”Odin’s day”), which is an early translation of the Latin dies Mercurii (”Mercury’s day”). Although Mercury (the messenger of the gods) and Woden (the king of the Germanic gods) are not equivalent in most regards, both gods guided the souls of the dead to the underworld.

13. The name Thursday comes from the Old English Þunresdæg, meaning “Day of Thunor”, this being a rough Germanic equivalent to the Latin Iovis Dies, “Jupiter’s Day”.

14. The name Friday comes from the Old English frigedæg, meaning the day of Frige the Anglo-Saxon form of Frigg, the Germanic goddess of beauty.

15. Saturday retains its Roman origin in English which is of the Roman god of agriculture Saturn. It has been called dies Saturni (”Saturn’s Day”), through which form it entered into Old English as Sæternesdæg and gradually evolved into the word “Saturday”.

16. The names of the months in the Julian calendar all derive their names from Roman gods and Roman Emprerors worshipped as gods.

17. Martial arts were derived from ancient pagan religious practices in multiple Eastern cultures, and still include breathing and focus techniques.

18. Halloween originated under the name of Samhain as a Pagan festival among the Celts of Ireland and Great Britain. Irish and Scottish immigrants carried versions of the tradition to North America in the nineteenth century.

19. Yoga, as developed by Hindus, may include “emptying the mind” and Eastern religious transcendental meditation, and came from pagan origins.

20. Labyrinths came from Greek mythology and were used by both pagans and the Catholic church in meditation.

Sovereignty. The dictionary defines it as the “freedom from outside interference and the right to self-government”. Now of course that refers to earthly nations and rulers and is completely limited in its scope. Limited by the mind of man and the measurable operations in this world. But the sovereignty about which I will be dealing is the sovereignty of Almighty God, an eternal and complete sovereignty that is separate from any and all examples of what we consider sovereignty upon this three dimensional planet called earth. It is basically defined as God does whatever He pleases without any consultation from any outside sources. He sees all, knows all, does all, directs all, and the greater revelation about sovereignty is beyond human definition and understanding, it will always remain within the Godhead. God is all in all forever.

Read more…

Seems our usual watchdoggies like what Mark Driscoll had to say.

Of course what they don’t post is that Driscoll praised Dan Kimball, and Donald Miller as orthodox.

And what they failed to mention was that Driscoll blamed people like the watchdoggies for the decline of churches in the US due to their obtuseness in reaching an entire generation.

While we’re on the subject let me just say that the attitude of the watchdoggies is sin (and this is much bigger than just the watchdoggies, they’re just the leftover dregs of a generation that abandoned a whole lot of people to hell because they turned their particular church’s culture into an idol). While they whine and complain about individuals distorting the gospel, they’ve been busy burying it in the attitudes and cultures of yesteryear. I used to think that this was essentially a matter of Christian freedom that watchdoggies were pushing as required. I’ve revised that thought. There is no freedom in Christ to hide the gospel, not even if, for whatever reason, you want to preserve the non-Biblical aspects of the church your grandparents took you to when you grew up. The attitudes of the watchdoggies that were perpetuated by Christian leaders of the last generation that have resulted in the church hiding the gospel from our culture is every bit as much a deliberate lifestyle of sin as the guy who was sexing up his (hopefully step) mother in 1 Corinthians 5.

I don’t know why picking and choosing which part of Driscoll’s message they agree with would surprise me. They already do it with scripture. The only difference is that when they did it with scripture they lost an entire generation because of style.

Given that AM has published a poster child of this fallacy today, I have added to the “Appeal to Authority” logical fallacy to our section on “The Use of Logic”.

Enjoy.

Ok, so last year it was Our Lady of the Pizza Pan, and last year Jesus in the Ultrasound to go with other things like cheese sandwiches, panes of glass and underpasses.

Now, they’re selling pieces of a dead Pope’s robe as ‘holy relics’? Perhaps there is some jealousy that environmentalists are starting to sell indulgences, and the Catholic church thought it had a corner on that market? What is it with these people?

In the comments there’s been a lot of talk about Driscoll’s speech in which he criticizes several recognizable names in the e/e movement. I just wanted to crack open a new topic to centralize the topics, as well as to make some observations of my own.

Me on Driscoll
Driscoll rubs a lot of folks the wrong way. He comes across to a lot of people as crude, and overly macho, and in this particular incident as stabbing people in the back. While I think the first two assemssments may be fair, the third is not. He came across as really not wanting to say these things, but feeling that he had to. From his speech this is certainly not the first time he’s said these things, and (perhaps other than Bell) he’s said them before to these individuals.

Driscoll on Bell
This was by far his weakest point. He re-hashed Bell’s handling of “what if the Virgin Birth isn’t true”. While I disagree with Bell over the implications of that, Bell teaches the virgin birth, and believes the virgin birth. I don’t see this as the crisis that Driscoll does.

Driscoll also brought up Bell’s reliance on first century Rabbinical teachings. His argument was that all teachings about Christ should start with the love of Christ and these Rabbis didn’t have that love. Bell does refer to Rabbinical teachings quite a bit, but Jesus was a Rabbi, and came out of a culture in which Rabbis were, to say the least, influential. While it is possible to become overly reliant on Rabbinical teachings, its also an error to ignore them completely. Again, I don’t see this as a crisis (or even problematic).

The rest of Driscoll’s condemnation of Bell comes from a guilt by association style of argument, largely fisking footnoted and referential works.

Driscoll on McLaren
Most of the serious questions Driscoll raises about McLaren again come from bringing out the weaknesses in works McLaren refers to.

I agree with Driscoll that McLaren has made some questionable comments. Mostly on the subject of homosexuality. Driscoll did bring some of that up, and I do tend to agree. Rarely, what is brought up critics though is that McLaren’s influence has waned since he stepped down from working at his church and took his current advocacy position.

The elephant in the room
Driscoll spoke highly of certain emergents, and the “new reformers” who he says are needed for the sake of orthodoxy and for the sake of maintaining the church. He then quotes several statistics (including that 80% of churches out there are dying) and speaks highly of the “new reformers” because they’re willing to sit at the feet of older theologians like Piper.

We’ve got an entire cottage industry that has sprung up to absolutely crush both the e/e movements and younger Christian leaders who are determined to abandon the failed techniques of the past in favor of something that actually works. What I never hear though is a condemnation of the leaders of the previous generation. You know, the guys who are directly responsible for 80% of churches out there dying. The guys who have lead 3600 churches a year to fail (both statistics Driscoll cites and states is a shame, but apparently just happened on its own, no one actually caused this to happen since Driscoll never acknowledges that it might be someone’s fault) . When is the church going to stand up and say that an entire generation of churches preferred to preserve their style of church over being faithful to the gospel. This is reprehensible, and shameful, and instead of acknowledging it and moving forward we’ve got a lot of the church not just justifying it, but holding it up as an example to pursue in the future.

In this episode we review Little Miss Sunshine and Stranger than Fiction and bring out some of the themes found in them. And then eventually get around to discussing Christians and movies. This one’s a bit longer, because its our only one this week.

Click here to subscribe to the podcast in Itunes.

Here’s the feed for every other podcast client.

Download it here or listen to it in the browser.

 

 Justice and Mercy #5: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

From here:

The reason why I engage in these discussions is very simple: I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or” teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.

Creationism (generally of the young earth variety) is one of those issues that has assumed center stage for many Christians. If we believe that the gospel is the center of Christiantiy, and is that which saves, and reconciles the sinner with God then the gospel should be the primary focus of our churches, ministries, and lives.

In this latest post at CRN / Apprising, Ken Silva attacks Mars Hill Bible Church (Rob Bell) for allowing Doug Pagitt to fill in as a guest speaker while Rob Bell was sick. First off, Ken often makes insignificant jabs at churches for really ridiculous reasons. For example, he writes:

…was asked to preach yesterday at Mars Hill Bible Church. This is from a member in covenant relation with MHBC; ah, that’s a member for those of us who speak English

It really isn’t that hard to understand what a member in covenant relationship with MHBC implies and means. But I digress. Ken presents the idea that because MHBC allowed an emergent leader to preach, that somehow Rob Bell is emergent. He writes

As I have said before: If it looks Emergent, and it does; if it acts like Emergent, and it does; and if it sounds like Emergent, and it does…then know it’s just as Emergent as Brian McLaren

I am confused as to how Brian McLaren got into the conversation. But I digress yet again. So, I am wondering if Ken actually heard what was preached at MHBC, or is he just assuming that what Pagitt preached was heresy? Is everything that comes out of an emergent leader’s moth heresy just because it comes from an emergent leader? I am sure that a well researched theologian and author like Ken Silva would not make accusations about someone before actually hearing what they said in a given setting.

Also, I do not understand how allowing an emergent leader to speak at your church makes you emergent. If a democrat preaches at my church, does that then dictate my political views? If someone with a literal 6-day creation theory comes and preaches on sin, does that dictate my views on the foundation of the world? Of course not. The problem here is that the staff at CRN is generally unable to differentiate between labels, insignificant theological differences and the truth. They see everyone in different boxes with labels on them. It is impossible to run in emergent circles and yet be a reformed thinker. It is impossible to be reformed and actually believe that non-reformed thinkers are not heretics. And at the core: if you are not like me and my friends, then you are man-loving heathen. Are there essential doctrines should divide? Yes. I just think that CRN often chooses the wrong ones to divide over.

Lastly, the logic in the article flows like this:

• Bell allowed Pagitt to preach for him
• Pagitt is emergent, therefore Bell is emergent
• Brian McLaren is emergent, therefore Bell is too
• Pagitt actually gets along with Dan Kimball
• Dan Kimball is therefore emergent
• Pagitt would then agree with Ken that Kimball preaches a “perverted gospel”

What? Guilt by association is no good here. If that was the case, Jesus would be considered a whore, a drunk and a thief. I would also like to point out that 6 of the 7 reference links go back to Ken’s website for reference. The other link is from Team Pyro. I am not too sure, but I am pretty certain that using yourself as a reference is not good research.