This quote is from a sermon on heaven preached by Ted Donnelly:
There’s an almost universal idea that we can deserve Heaven. That’s what people think. It’s right for them to go to Heaven. They’re worthy of going to Heaven. That’s what all other religions are based on. That is the hope of the man or woman on the street. My friends, one glimpse of Heaven; one millisecond of Heaven; would render any such notion absolutely preposterous. If we could see for a fraction of a second, the glory of Heaven, we would realise our utter incapacity, and unworthiness, and inability, of ever reaching or being present in that place. Sooner could a worm aspire to be a brain surgeon, than a sinner, hope to work their own passage to glory.
I read this interesting article written by a professor in the RCA (Reformed Church in America). He is predicting its demise (it has been slowly dying as a denomination for many years) for, among other reasons, a lack of confessionalism. For instance, he writes:
In several studies of RCA members from 1976 through 2000, Roger Nemeth and I found that there was little knowledge of and support for the great creedal Standards of the Reformed Church. When asked about the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of the Synod of Dort, and Belgic Confession, laity largely responded with, “Huh? ” … Upon the advice of critics, we altered our more recent survey questions in order to assess levels of support for the tenets of the creeds, rather than for the creeds by name. Not surprisingly, we found that there was a rather high level of assent to such doctrinal verities as the sovereignty of God, the divinity of Christ, the importance of the Bible “for faith” and “for action,” the virgin birth of Jesus, and so forth. Equally popular, however, were Arminian heterodoxies, such as a widespread affirmation that our own actions and beliefs (and not divine election via “predestination”) are central to determining our eternal fates. Similarly, RCA folks generally affirm that all faiths are human efforts to comprehend divine glory and that Christianity is not the only route to eternal life.
That’s sad stuff, but it can happen to any denomination that loses its theological bearings. But as the article notes, it is not “liberalism” that is killing the denomination, but rather so-called “evangelicalism,” or as the article describes it, “a generic form of American evangelicalism with a thin Calvinist overlay.”
[Rev.] Eggebeen came up with a hair-raising idea: He would turn God’s house into a doghouse by offering a 30-minute service complete with individual doggie beds, canine prayers and an offering of dog treats. He hopes it will reinvigorate the church’s connection with the community, provide solace to elderly members and, possibly, attract new worshippers who are as crazy about God as they are about their four-legged friends.
No kidding. This is another reason for the Regulative Principle of Worship, imho. I also see that this church is Presbyterian. Want to guess the specific denomination? It ain’t ARP.
This was a troubling paragraph in the article — troubling because it speaks volumes about the theological confusion that exists today (in churches no less):
Traditionally, conventional Christians believe that only humans have redeemable souls, said Laura Hobgood-Oster, a religion professor at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. But a growing number of congregations from Massachusetts to Texas to California are challenging that assertion with regular pet blessings and, increasingly, pet-centric services, said Hobgood-Oster, who studies the role of animals in Christian tradition. She recently did a survey that found more than 500 blessings for animals at churches nationwide and has heard of a half-dozen congregations holding worship services like Eggebeen’s, including one in a Boston suburb called Woof ‘n Worship. “It’s the changing family structure, where pets are really central and religious communities are starting to recognize that people need various kinds of rituals that include their pets,” she said. “More and more people in mainline Christianity are considering them to have some kind of soul.”
Equally troubling is the pastor’s poor example of exegesis in justifying such a ceremony:
“The Bible says of God only two things in terms of an ‘is’: That God is light and God is love. And wherever there’s love, there’s God in some fashion,” said Eggebeen, himself a dog lover. “And when we love a dog and a dog loves us, that’s a part of God and God is a part of that. So we honor that.”
The pastor seems to have forgotten the “is” from John 4:24 — “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” And indeed, 1 John 1:5 says, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” But I fear there is much darkness at Covenant Presbyterian Church.
I thought this entry over at the Stand to Reason blogsite makes an interesting argument about Christian attitudes toward Halloween (compared to other issues). This is neither to condemn or promote such cultural observances, only to give a moment to pause and consider the things important to us.
It’s fair to be concerned and think carefully about how we participate in the culture and Halloween. It’s important to evaluate how cultural practices influence us. It’s essential to use wisdom and discernment how we participate in Halloween, if we do. It’s, obviously, a duty to avoid any occultic involvement. What I’m talking about is the level of energy and attention given to it and the contrasting lack of it given to arguable more central issues of Christianity. Christians can be shocked that another Christian will go trick or treating, but not blink an eye of awareness or concern when another Christian distorts the doctrine of the Trinity.
I recently listened to an excellent sermon by John Fesko on a difficult passage from Deuteronomy 21:18-23. It is well worth your time. Rev. Fesko does a great job of showing Christ from an often ignored/rejected text. Here’s the link.
A couple of weeks ago, the Missus and I watched an episode of Law and Order where the case centered on the topic of abortion. It was a great episode, and involved a “ripped from the headlines” (or “ripped-off from the headlines” as I always like to say) story of an abortion doctor who was slain at his church during a service. The interesting thing about the episode is that several of the main characters were portrayed (favorably) as being pro-life. One of the police detectives was very frank about his pro-life stance, so much that his partner objected openly (and was portrayed very negatively when he did so). One of the Assistant D.A.s was also very much pro-life (even arguing with his boss that Roe v. Wade needed to be re-examined because of advances in medical technology since 1973), and his assistant, who was pro-choice at the beginning of the episode, changed her mind near the end after hearing the testimony of a witness who gave birth to a child (a baby who would have been otherwise aborted because of severe birth defects — the mother gave birth and enjoyed the few hours of her child’s life). Here’s a clip of a very powerful scene. NBC needs to be applauded for such a powerful episode.
The Missus pointed me to this story today. It involves a woman who worked as a director at a branch of Planned Parenthood. She resigned after she was forced to watch an ultrasound of an abortion being performed (I cannot imagine how horrible that must have been). She describes the change of heart in terms of a spiritual conversion.
God is certainly capable of striking a straight blow with a crooked stick. May He be praised!
It was on October 31, 1517, that an obscure young monk named Martin Luther nailed 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg church, setting in motion a series of events that became known as the Protestant Reformation. In honor of this day, I present a great clip from the 2003 movie Luther (Luther’s “Here I Stand” speech at the Diet of Worms):
Also, if you have not already done so, I would like to encourage readers of this blog to peruse my Reformation Day entry from last year: The Audacity of Pope.
The Westminster Larger Catechism states that “Man’s chief end [purpose] is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy Him forever.” Johannes Vos’ The Larger Catechism: A Commentary has a couple of interesting thoughts on this fundamental statement about the true meaning of life.
Could a consistent evolutionist agree with the catechism’s answer to question 1? No. A consistent evolutionist could not agree that man’s chief and highest end is to glorify and enjoy God, for he must hold that the human race has evolved from a brute ancestry by a process which originated in blind chance. Therefore he must hold that the human race cannot exist for any purpose outside of itself. There are ‘theistic evolutionists’ who believe that evolution was God’s method of creation, but they are not consistent, for creation concerns the origin of things, while evolution starts by assuming that things already exist and seeks to show their development to other forms. The consistent evolutionist cannot believe in creation by the sheer power of God, and therefore he cannot believe that the human race exists not for itself but for God.
What is wrong with the following statement: “Man’s chief and highest end is to seek happiness?” This statement makes the purpose of human life something within man himself. This cannot be reconciled with the Scripture teaching that all things exist for God because they were created by God for His own glory. To say that man’s chief end is to seek happiness is contrary to belief in the God of the Bible.”
This interesting post over at the Gospel Coalition includes some interesting statistics on what really attracts people to a church. It might not be what you think:
Thom Rainer did a study a number of years ago asking formerly unchurched people the open ended question “What factors led you to choose this church?” A lot of surveys had been done asking the unchurched what they would like in a church. But this study asked the formerly unchurched why they actually were now in a church. The results were surprising. 11% said worship style led them to their church. 25% said children’s/youth ministry. 37% said that sensed God’s presence at their church. 41% said someone had witnessed to them from the church, and 49% mentioned friendliness as the reason for choosing their church. Can you guess the top two responses? Doctrine and preaching—88% said the doctrine led them to their church and 90% said the preaching led them there, in particular, pastor who preached with certitude and conviction.
Lord, send us more men like that! No more Osteens!
