I Thought They Believed This?

John MacArthur says this:

Now I believe that basically speaking, rock music in and of itself is problematic—period. And I believe that for many reasons. One is: rock music is a product of a disoriented, despairing, drug-related sex-mad generation. There’s no question about that. The first big rock singer was Elvis Presley, who killed himself with drugs and who went through women, you know, continuously. And he gave rise to the whole rock generation. He was the first, and his whole act was sexual, sensual, you know; it was terrible. Nowadays we think he was comical because we’ve come so far. But the vernacular of rock music at this particular point represents a generation that I have real trouble identifying with. And what happens is if you put a Christian message in that vernacular, I think Christianity suffers immensely because I don’t think you can take that kind of medium and use it to propagate a Christian message.

For example, in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, you have the Apostle Paul on his missionary journey, and he came to Philippi. And a demon-possessed girl came out and started following them around. And the demon-possessed girl said of Paul and his traveling companion, Barnabas, “These men have come to show us the way
of salvation.” Now, was that the truth? That was the truth. They did come to show the way of salvation. Paul turned around and rebuked that girl and cast the demon out of her, because God does not use demonic mediums even to propagate true doctrine. Do you understand? And basically the whole rock thing is tied in with drugs and sex, and the occult, the whole shootin’ match. And people who come out of that scene find it very difficult to listen, say to Christian “rock” without being pulled back into all that stuff that they had in their former life.

I don’t want to say that, you know, now you get into the fine line of what is rock music and what isn’t. I think that’s a decision each individual has to make in a sense. And the older you are, the easier that decision is. I understand that, but you want to be sure that you don’t identify Christ in a medium that is demonic or drug-related, sex-related, and so forth. You want to make sure that Christian music is distinct.

I’ll never forget two guys who walked in—I was speaking at a rally in San Diego for Youth for Christ—a couple thousand kids. I was sitting in the back row waiting to do my thing and there was this group up there, and they were just ripping the place up. And you know, I don’t know what they were saying. Nobody knows what they were saying. God would only know what they were saying. But it was just, you know, a din. And two guys walked in—I’ve never forgotten this—and sat down beside me. And they were pretty cool guys, just rollin’ in. They had the long hair and the whole
bit. And there was a bunch of kids there and they thought they’d come in and see what was going on . They sat down and they heard this stuff, and after about 10 minutes of this, the group finally stopped. And this one guy said, “Hey, man, I thought these Christians had something different. We could hear this anywhere; let’s split.” I never forgot that; they just took off. In the Old Testament, particularly, and you can compare the New as well, the word new is used more times with song than it is with any other noun, more than new birth, more than new life, more than new creation, more than new anything is new song. If there’s anything that identifies a Christian it’s a new song, something different. So I think we have to be very careful about that, all right?

He also said:

There are all kinds of tests that have been done on the various kinds of beat--what they call the "anapestic beat" where you have two longs and a short and all that. You have read about the things that kills the flowers; you know, you put flowers by a radio and play that stuff and they die and so forth. But I would say that there may be some inherent truth in that, but still it wouldn't be moral: killing the flowers isn't necessarily a moral issue. But I think cultures give to music their moral identification--I think they do that. I could hear a song on the radio and you can tell me that in and of itself that song is not a moral issue; those notes aren't moral, but that music makes me think of something sinful because that is the way the culture has portrayed that sinful act through that style of music.

It is like listening to a song that is on strings and violins and thinking of a blue sky and wind blowing through a meadow. Music can do that because of our cultural orientation. So I think that it is an over simplification to just say that rock music is so non-moral that any kind of rock music, if you stuck the right words in it, would honor the Lord. I don't believe that. I think there is a genre of music that has given such a cultural identification that it is impossible to cross the line of putting that into a Christian vernacular without bringing total confusion to what you are trying to communicate.

And:

I also think that the vehicle should be distinctly Christian in some sense. In other words, if we simply mimic the styles of the world in what we do, we have admitted that they have something we want. And, I’m not sure that’s true. . . .

I think, that the best thing to do is to have you listen to the series. There are physiological problems with a hard driving beat and stopped-anapestic rhythm. I went into all that kind of stuff when you have two longs and a short, and so forth. Literally, they planted flowers and they put that music in there and the flowers will die in a few days because it will destroy the cells of the flowers. It destroys the ears of young people. A lot of people even in our own church who play in the music, in the studio music thing, say that they’re losing their ability to hear tones and so forth over a period of time because it just destroys their inner ear. Anyway, I think, the best thing is to listen to that thing--that series of tapes, if you can, because I tried to give a full range to it. . . .

I don’t think anything is wrong with rhythm. God gave us that. Right? I mean, we walk with rhythm. That’s why we walk. I mean, everything in our life is rhythm. My heart beats with rhythm. People say, “Well, you shouldn’t have any rhythm.” You know, they sing stuffy, stodgy things. No, I think, rhythm is part of life, and, I think playing a rhythm is a very normal thing. I mean, when you were a baby, your mother rocked you to sleep with rhythm. You know, that constant rocking. That’s rhythm. And, she sang you a lullaby. I mean, there is rhythm. And, rhythm is a good thing. And, there’s nothing wrong with that, but what when you have a hard constant, driving forcing beat which has sexual connotations or whatever, that’s when you get into trouble.

And John MacArthur said this too:

I don’t ever want to use a style that will drag down the content. It’s highly unlikely that I can put the gospel, for example, in a very contemporary musical genre, and elevate the genre, you understand? The tendency is going to be to pull the gospel down to that level. This isn’t new. There was a song--and I’ve used this illustration before, I’ll use it again--there was a song that came out in the schmaltzy 40s, when everything was sleazy barroom kind of crooning. The pop music, the big time music was all the crooners. And, songs were written for the church like that. And one of them that was very popular, and I remember it even a kid: “I’m in love, deeply in love with the lover of my soul”--yuck!! That is terrible! Because now what you’ve got is you’ve reduced loving God to such schmaltzy sort of sexy relationship that you put in a song sung in a barroom! So, the church isn’t new at doing that. So, what I’m saying is you have to be very careful because musical style can communicate so much culture that all it does is take profound gospel truth and pull it down, rather than the truth elevating the music--it usually works the other way.

He also said this:

Those who don't know God have tried to come up with their own music but it only mirrors their evil. The pulsating rhythms of some native African music mimics the restless, superstitious passions of their culture and pagan religion. Much of the music in the Orient is dissonant and unresolved, going from nowhere to nowhere, with no beginning and no end--just as their religions go from cycle to cycle in endless repetitions of meaningless existence. Their music, like their destiny, is without resolution.

The music of much of the Western world is seductive and suggestive, reflecting the immoral, lustful society that produces, sings, and enjoys it. And a good percentage of rock music, with its bombastic atonality and dissonance, mirrors people who reject both God and reason and float without orientation in a sea of relativity and unrestrained self-expression.

Many of the physical and emotional effects of modern music have allegedly been demonstrated scientifically. Dr. Howard Hansen, director of the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester has stated that "music can be soothing or invigorating, ennobling or vulgarizing, philosophical or orgiastic. It has the powers for evil as well as for good" (The American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 99, p. 317). He notes that the further the tempo of the music is accelerated, the greater becomes the emotional tension, concluding that rhythmic tension is heightened by the increase in dynamic power.

I remember reading several years ago about a study of the effects of music on plants. The experiment was done on identical plants in an identical environment. Plants exposed to beautiful, soothing music thrived and turned toward the speaker. Plants exposed to hard rock music turned away from the speaker and within three days shriveled and died! Further experimentation indicated that the sound waves of the rock music had actually destroyed the plants' cells.

Whether rock music therefore has the ability to damage the human body or not, things of infinitely greater value have the potential of being destroyed--the hearts and souls of men and women who allow Satan an open door because of what things they put their affections in. When music--regardless of what style it is--is coupled with blasphemous, lewd lyrics, and suggestive body movements, the brain is bypassed, emotions are mangled, and the conscience is hardened. The Greek philosopher Aristotle wisely observed that represents the passions of the soul, and if one listens to the wrong music he will become the wrong kind of person (Problemato, book xix).

The man who organized and set-up the Resolved meeting for which this trailer was made and from which it comes, Rick Holland, writes this in the book generally edited by MacArthur, Fools Gold?:

In other words, the fundamental presupposition is that the gospel is best packaged in a culturally relevant way. But the Bible and its message are fundamentally countercultural.

Earlier, Holland chides a new version of the "Bible," called Revolve:

It is an edition of the New Testament that uses as much camouflage as a Stealth B-2 bomber in its efforts to disguise itself. Looking nothing like any other Bible, Revolve was designed to spare teenage girls the embarrassment of being caught with a traditional copy of the Scriptures.

Doesn't it sound like MacArthur and Holland and others believe there is something to the packaging, the means of communication, associating something holy with profane? They do. So why do they do keep doing it themselves, especially when they also claim to have the high view of the sovereignty of God?

I'll write more about this to explain what it is.

Crossing Over: Proving the Resolve Trailer

John MacArthur recently wrote this:

Let’s face it: Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descends further in its spiritual death-spiral. It’s like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.

I agreed, but I said he was inconsistent. I brought up the trailer for the Resolved youth conference marketed on his website, a gathering at which he would speak. Someone asked me to say what was wrong with it. Well, here’s my review. I want to know where I am wrong on this. You let me know. Here goes.

Cake is more than its individual parts—salt, baking soda, flour, etc.—but a mixture of many parts that make up a whole. One could start breaking the trailer into pieces and conclude nothing wrong—guitars are OK, darkness is OK, casual dress is OK, spotlights are OK, etc. That is not how anyone evaluates anything. It would be like looking at a Maplethorpe exhibit and saying, "Sculptures are OK. Dung is OK. Urine is OK. Etc." Do you understand? People are not arguing honestly when they do it that way. If I did a restaurant review and said—"Cold is OK. Food is OK. Sadness is OK. Dirt is OK."—and then concluded that a stinky pit of a restaurant was good when evaluating its individual components, you wouldn’t consider that a good review. If the medium does not affect the message, then the famous Salvador Dali painting of the crucifixion is fine. I don’t think you would agree on Dali. When I critique this trailer, I believe it is an honest evaluation. I don’t want to argue with dishonest takes on the trailer.

The look of the entire trailer is dark, dim, nightclub-like lighting. The first picture of a youth is a young man with a trendy stocking cap on his head indoors, part of the stereotypical American hip-hop fashion of baggy jeans and a stocking cap. The sound is a rock concert-like bass reverb characteristic of the beginning of so many rock songs that directly target the flesh. The youth culture is obviously being catered to with the casual dress on the teens, but also with the speakers. After the initial speech comes a strong bass guitar rift, then a sensual African drum beat. There is nothing wrong with guitars, but the fuzzy, deco zoom onto an electric guitar says: "You will be hearing rock music here, count on it." It also has nothing to do with what is being said unless God’s sovereign grace tends toward being in darkly lit rooms where rock music is going to be played with a sensual, dominating beat. The fuzzy, deco graphics with the Hollywood-apropos appearing and disappearing letters (ala Da Vinci Code), that say—"Go Deep"—are followed by a long look at a rock trap set, as if the key to going deep for God is to involve in rock music. We get more and more dimly lit rooms, dark rooms, theater-like—message: "You’re going to be entertained, count on it." We get a long look at an usher that looks again just like a theater usher opening the door up to a theater. The stage with the transecting spotlights, looks like a rock concert again. We get a man in a long-sleeve t-shirt with his eyes closed and hands out, nothing wrong specifically, except that this is what one sees at a Charismatic meeting, making spirituality this sort of existential, feeling-oriented, get-on-the-right-frequency experience. We see a boy rifting like Eric Clapton on an electric guitar, rock beat, and then a girl swaying rhythmically right after—choreographed sensuality posing as spirituality. We get a rock beat on rock drums with John MacArthur saying "the blazing glory of God," associating the two. We get a unisex-dressed girl playing a violin in a rock style, using it again as a rhythmic instrument rather than melodic, again with the dim lights, spotlights, and screens—theater, entertainment, and rock music. The boy playing the drums has on the trendy hip-hop konga hat. Then comes a fuzzy, psychedelic, drug-trip type of screen fading in and out. The names toward the end use a very worldly technique reminiscent of a modern horror movie, that kids into slasher movies will definitely associate with. At the finish is a curious, monastic chant sound, somehow attempting to make the thing, I believe, "religious."

IS THE TRAILER WORLDLY? DOES IT BLASPHEME GOD? DOES IT DEPEND ON FLESHLY MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH SOME SUPPOSED GODLY TASK? DOES IT DISTORT THE GOSPEL BY MIXING WORLDLY FLESHLY COMPONENTS WITH A SCRIPTURAL MESSAGE? DOES IT HARM OR DULL BIBLICAL DISCERNMENT? DOES IT CONTAMINATE GODLY WORSHIP? IS THIS CARNAL WEAPONRY?

The top picture above is actually from the Resolved Conference. The picture below it is an actual nightclub and the bottom picture is an actual rock concert. I give these three for comparison for the imagination impaired.

How Did Jesus Motivate?

I'm not a fan of the WWJD movement because it is the wrong question. The right question is: What Did Jesus Do? That we know. Anything we think He would do should be based upon what we know He did do. In other words, WDJD. In today's space, I will consider How Jesus Motivated? HDJM, that is, how did Jesus motivate?

In the article before last, I examined the consistency of MacArthur attacking the practice of Driscoll, focusing especially on a promotional video for a youth conference. In the comments, a Tom defended the video with what he thought was an assumption that pastors should motivate teens by offering them the temporal stuff of the youth culture. Are we going to be judged by how we motivate people? Did Jesus leave us an example of how to do that? Does it matter if we follow His example? Is how we motivate people up to judgment? Could the motivation we provide harm the growth of Christian young people and impede the salvation of unbelieving ones? Could the motivation we provide be wood, hay, and stubble, and then cause more wood, hay, and stubble for the ones we motivate? Does it even matter if we do the right thing for the wrong reason?

Tom plainly intimated that giving young people temporal motivation was acceptable and beyond criticism. Of course, we are talking about church here, not what motivates someone to eat at Burger King instead of McDonalds. When someone told the Lord that he wanted to follow Him, the Lord didn't make it easier for him. He said things like: "the Son of Man hath nowhere to lay his head," "let the dead bury the dead," "deny self, take up your cross, and follow me," "lose your life for my sake," "I come not to bring peace but a sword," and "will ye also go away?" In other words, Jesus purposefully attempted to take away the wrong motivation. When people are fed the wrong motivation, they get the wrong idea about Jesus and the life He gives and calls upon men to live. It is not a good thing to give a wrong description of Jesus Christ by associating Him with an unscriptural motive.

Jesus never motivated with fun, frivolity, self-gratification, and temporal attractions. He motivated with Divine truth. He motivated with a patient waiting for His coming. He motivated with His own character or attributes. We don't edify Christians by offering them the temporal crown when the Christian life is about an eternal one. We don't want them giving up their birthrights for a mess of pottage or their identity as the people of God to become the son of Pharoah's daughter.

It would seem that a group that declares their allegiance to the sovereignty of God would depend, well, on the sovereignty of God. The wisdom of this world glorifies man, not God. If the Gospel and Jesus and His Word are not enough, we elevate these worldly things, exalting the creature above the Creator. Is that blasphemous? You tell me. For now, I'll let you decide. I think it is very serious, indicative certainly of a lack of both a reverence for the Lord Jesus Christ and a dependence on the sufficiency of the Word of God. If the Bible is superior to a visitor from Hell, as we see in the rich man and Lazarus, and even above the experience of Peter on the Mt. of Transfiguration, as we see in 2 Peter 1, then how can we possibly be righteous in luring young people with the fads of the youth culture?

Gift Cards, Decorative Soaps, and Other Observations

Before my treadmill to nowhere pins the needle, I like gift cards. I like cash. I like a new tie. I like little baby ducks, centipedes that eat bats, and shoe goo. But am I wrong when I say that gift cards are simply cash with a limitation? For instance, two people exchange gift cards. I receive Home Depot and give a Borders. What have we done? We've taken over each other's budgets. I'll trade you my Target for your Walmart. How about we act like we gave cash and don't? How about we act like we gave gift cards and we don't? Were we going to spend $25 dollars at Home Depot anyway? Now we've done it by way of a Borders gift card and both of us have salved that gland deep in our brain and we don't do that guilt thing. Must be prudent. What can a man get at Home Depot for $25, while I'm thinking about it? I know. Lots. Especially screw drivers made in Southeast Asia. Do you want a screwdriver anywhere you can reach? Philips or flathead? Enough of these exchanges and you can tape them on the bottom of your kitchen counter like you're Bob Villa in the witness protection program.

There is, isn't there, always something to get at Home Depot? Gorilla Glue. Wide masking tape. A new utility knife. One of those new toilet tank kits. Imagine wrapping one of those up for Christmas. Men do that to their wives. Well, maybe we don't anymore, since someone wrote that it could cool your marriage. What were they talking about? What can warm the deep corners of the heart like a new non-stick-fry-spatula. I'm going to close this thread with the one gift card that works: Starbucks. The Starbucks card takes away the guilt of purchasing a $4 coffee product in a new-age paper cup. It is a pass to spend time in the French embassy that is Starbucks with the normally Euro-looking pierced Goth girl who asks if you want yours with whipped cream (or is it creme?). You can spend time drinking that cup on a table the size of a manhole cover on a little chair with enough room for one bun (and I'm not talking about a biscotti bun). Some could do a McDonalds-hot-beverage-like-lawsuit for tipping in one of the weany leg chairs. Whiplash and luke warm Cafe Mocha softened by a bed of whipped cream. I have to admit, as I think about it: How can I retain manhood and remain in a Starbucks?

At least one more thing as I digress. Decorative Soaps. Why soap? Have you ever tried to lather up with a soap decoration? Sculptured soap should come with a warning for carpel tunnel. They defy the physics of efficient soap use. And then the thought of wearing down the actual decorative quality of the soap to get real usage from it. You know, to get clean, the thing soap is to be, well, for. But some people squeal with delight upon unwrapping, yes, soap on a....rope. Sorry. Give me a bar with some sort of thermodynamics---one that will go round and round in my hand without impersonating a greased pig.

I just imagined giving a psychiatrist a Christmas gift of a soap pocket watch to practice hypnosis. Of course, I don't know any psychiatrists. Some people wish I did, but it would be the perfect gag gift from someone with a hand-washing addiction. "Thank you for this gift and I think it means we are really seeing some progress." I've been in other people's homes, asked to use their bathroom, and looked at their decorative soap displays, usually going with the theme of the bathroom. I wondered what they would think if I took one of them off the little decorative (yes, decorative) platter and used it to wash up afterwards. More than a few times, I've noticed dust on decorative soap. Most people don't think you have to clean soap. It seems redundant. Soap cleans; it must not need to be cleaned. Just an observation, but I think people who dust their soap need a psychiatrist. Can you get a gift card for that?

Enjoy.

The Pot and the Kettle: MacArthur and Driscoll

John MacArthur, popular radio speaker, Christian author, and pastor of the Grace Church in Southern California, along with his associate Phil Johnson, have written a series of enlightening articles at their online magazine, Pulpit Live, on the "emerging church movement" (ECM). The latest article features a sharp criticism of Mark Driscoll (I would link him, but his website is too much garbage), a leading figure in the ECM. I agree with everything that MacArthur says in his expose. I'm not even going to quote him. However, I will say that he takes a stand against worldliness and references James 4:4. I applaud stands against worldliness.

I wonder this though: What about the worldliness of John MacArthur and Grace Church? He has long disrespected men who preached and took stands of personal separation. I talked to a pastor who went to a MacArthur meeting in Michigan. Right before MacArthur stood to preach on the holiness of God, an ensemble from his Master's College publically swayed to the seductive rhythm of their contemporary music. I ask you to consider what MacArthur says and then view this trailer for their upcoming youth conference, called Resolved (click on the link for the trailer to watch). John Piper, the featured speaker at the beginning of this trailer, just prominently endorsed Mark Driscoll at his own church in a national conference. Doesn't it seem clear, plainly evident, that these guys are clueless on the doctrine of separation? Where is the discernment? MacArthur warns about Driscoll but he has Piper who endorses Driscoll. Hmmmm. They aren't really that serious about helping people against worldliness, in part because a church like Grace Church got where they are through compromise.

And then you look at the trailer itself. Teens watch this. Lots of guys and girls getting together in the dark, a movie-theater-like environment; the very fuzzy, LSD trip camera shots on the rock guitar and trap set. The low, rumbling rock bass, like something at the beginning of a grunge concert. Here are two concepts that came to my mind: youth culture and drug culture. It is all, to use MacArthur's word---faddish. He dresses everything up just like the world. Young people know this. The trailer finds a common denominator with the world. It says "straddle the fence" all over it, blurring dangerously the lines between theology and self-gratification. If he wants to motivate with godliness and preaching and the Word of God, why does he do it the way he does? Carnal weaponry! Of course, all of this is the pot and kettle metaphor.

MacArthur has written a lot against pragmatism---preached tons against it---from Ashamed of the Gospel to Our Sufficiency in Christ to Reckless Faith. He opines to everybody in several volumes about this kind of stuff, but he won't give it up himself. He himself seems enslaved to it. What's the difference? In his case, he has "liberty," of course, but Driscoll crosses the line into antinomianism. What line? MacArthur's line. This kind of inconsistency in practice results in reckless faith and a lack of discernment, as well as a defiled conscience, things MacArthur regularly goes on and on about (and rightly so---they're good topics....for a separatist). Separation becomes completely subjective, guided by feelings, in MacArthur's world. It all comes across like Driscoll goes beyond MacArthur's comfort zone; that's all. MacArthur is the older school pragmatist, the pot, putting down Driscoll, the newer school pragmatist, the kettle.

I'm interested in your comments.

Do You Pray for an Outpouring of the Spirit?

Recently over at Sharper Iron, Pastor Joe Roof posted this statement:

When I used the term revival, I am speaking of a needed outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the people of God. Evidences of genunine revival are found in places like Acts 2 and Ezra. What happened in the days of Josiah was refreshing as well.

I read through the posts after he made this statement to see if anyone corrected him, and no one did. Neither Bruce, Greg, Stephen, Dave, Bill, Jay, Jim, Ellis, Bob M., Bob T., Ed, Rick, Christian, nor Cindy nor Michelle (women correct theology too at SI) laid a finger on him. Maybe he is just someone no one really takes seriously or that he is off-limits because he fits the SI profile too closely. Do you see anything wrong with the statement?

I wish it was obvious to most. I guess it isn't, though. Peter explained the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Jesus prophesied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in every Gospel and in Acts 1. Peter said that the Acts 2 experience was a fulfillment of Joel 2. He quoted that OT prophecy in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Here's the quote from verses 28-32:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

We know that Acts 2 fulfilled Joel 2, but it could not be more than a partial or pre- fulfillment. The sun to darkness and the moon to blood were missing on the Day of Pentecost. The ultimate fulfillment for which Acts 2 was a sample will occur in the tribulation period when the Holy Spirit is outpoured on the Jews.

So this is the outpouring of the Spirit passage. The Spirit was poured out on saved, immersed believers, accompanied by signs and wonders. Pastor Roof says:

Evidences of genunine revival are found in places like Acts 2.

What were the evidences in Acts 2? Pastor Joe says that we are to look for evidences of revival there, proof of genuine Holy Spirit outpouring. Look at verses 2-4:

And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Even if we don't get the blood and the darkness, according to Pastor Joe, we should at least hear the sound of "rushing mighty wind," see "cloven tongues like as of fire," and "begin to speak with other tongues" (languages).

Joe says we need to be praying for this. Were the saints of that first church at Jerusalem praying for it? Yes. They were praying for the Holy Spirit to come. Do you know why? Because He hadn't come to all of them yet. I pray for the kingdom to come like the Lord told us in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, but I know that it will still not be coming until after the tribulation time on the earth.

The Holy Spirit will not be outpoured upon us because we don't need an outpouring. We already have the Person of the Holy Spirit. That One Person indwells each believer. I can't have another one of Him because He is only One, and I can't have more of Him because He is a Person. You either have a Person or you don't.

When we pray to God for something that He has already given us, that isn't a prayer in God's will. It is at least an ignorant prayer, if not worse. It is a faithless prayer that refuses to recognize what God has already done. He already poured out the Holy Spirit in answer to the prayers of that Jerusalem church that they offered to God between the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. It could be unthankful to keep praying for the Holy Spirit. If we already have the Holy Spirit, we should be thanking God for Him, instead of continuing to ask for Him. If you keep praying that prayer from now on, it will be a rebellious one too. It also has a crazy quality to it. If my wife is in the room, then I don't keep asking her to be in the room. She's already there. It would be borderline insanity to keep asking her to be in the room. She would rather have me acknowledge her presence and then take advantage of the benefits of it. The Holy Spirit as a Person would not be different than this.

What people want is an experience. Of course, Jesus repudiated seeking for these types of experiences. He said that a "wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matthew 16:4). People may deny it, but reaching for these kinds of extrascriptural events fits into a false view of sanctification.[1] God wants us to yield to His Spirit, the One we already possess (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20). We are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). Instead of passing off the responsibility for "revival" on the need for a "fresh outpouring," we should just obey the Holy Spirit who is already here. If revival doesn't come, it won't be because we don't have what it takes, but because we were not willing to take advantage of what God has already given us.

I might say more about this in my next post.
[1]This fits into the Keswick or higher life view of sanctification and second blessing theology, which does not represent historic, orthodox doctrine.

A Case Study in Fake Tolerance Part 2

Since this is part 2, perhaps I should assume that you know that part 1 would be good to read to get a head start. I am breaking-down an article written about me related to a tract I wrote and passed out in El Sobrante, CA. I will italicize the source and comment in regular type again.

Nowadays, there are many different perceptions of Jesus, some think he was a reincarnation of John the Baptist or one of the prophets like Elijah or Jeremiah while other thing he was God’s Son. I probably don't need to tell you that the word "perceptions" is very ambiguous. People who reject Jesus Christ will form an opinion about Him different from the truth. They must do so if they are going to hang on to their own and contradictory view of the world. The author here could have been referring to a passage actually in the New Testament, which, of course, isn't "nowadays." Let me quote it from Mark 6:14-16. It is a very fitting text. The one who composed this article reminds me of Herod in the story:

And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

Herod Antipas, a person living in an incestuous relationship, theorized that Jesus was a resurrection of John the Baptist, despite the fact that it was he himself that had ordered John decapitated and his head placed on a platter. The chances of Jesus being John the Baptist then, almost 2000 years ago---zero---are the same "nowadays."

Within Christendom, there are wide variations in terms of the understanding of who Jesus is. The mysterious Sikh writer is correct in this statement. Of course, we don't care what the opinion of so-called "Christendom" is, but we are interested in what the Bible says. It says this about Jesus:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Acts 4:12 (speaking of Jesus) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Colossians 1:16-18 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Pastor Kent Brandenburg’s Perception of Sikhs. So, given all confusion about who was Jesus, it would be really foolish to consider Jesus as one-way ticket to haven (sic) as Pastor Kent Brandenburg would like for Sikhs to believe in his “Please Consider These Words of Love My Sikh Friend” Gospel presentation which is designed to convert Sikhs into Christianity. It would be foolish not to consider Jesus as the only way to heaven. The Lord Jesus Christ was God, God in the flesh, Who came to this earth to provide a way of salvation to a sinful world.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

One particular section directly attacks Sikhism and reads, "Without believing in Jesus Christ, you, my Sikh friend, will die in your sins, and in so doing, will be condemned to Hell forever" When Sikhism contradicts the Bible, Sikhism or any other ism, is wrong. Anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ will be condemned to Hell forever. John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

In this presentation Kent goes on to rant about how Sikh gurus "died and stayed dead," whereas Jesus Christ defeated death. This particular comment is great insult to the founders of Sikh religion and serves as an ideal example of Christian supremacy movement at work in our own back yard. The Bible is God's Word, and God and His Word are supreme over everyone and everything. Jesus did defeat death.

Matthew 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

John 21:14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:55-57 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pastor Kent Brandenburg: A Catalyst for Christian Supremacy. Traces of more Christian supremacy actions are found on Kent’s web blog. I like to encourage all the readers to read Kent’s blog entries and also posted comments by his followers. On his blog, he is shielding his acts of Christian supremacy under the good old Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." He is using this quote as license to spread Christian supremacy. Whatever contradicts the truth must be error. The Bible is the truth. Christianity is only true if it is Biblical Christianity, made up of a people who believe and practice the Bible. The Bible is God's Word. Jesus is the only way for eternal life.

Furthermore, in one of his blog entries, he goes on talking about Christianity and states, “…It is also something that has been preached here in this country since the first Pilgrims got off the Mayflower.” This remark is clear indication that Kent’s perception is that The United States is a Christian nation. I haven't said that the U. S. is a Christian nation. I believe that the Bible message of salvation has been preached just like we preach it since the Pilgrims came shore. This is true. Consider just a sampling:

Benjamin Rush (signer of Declaration of Independence): "My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!"

Roger Sherman (signer of Dec. of Indep. and Constitution): "I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer."

John Witherspoon (signer of Declaration of Independence): "I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish."

John Hancock (signer of Declaration of Independence): "I. . . appoint . . . a day of public thanksgiving and praise . . . to render to God the tribute of praise for His unmerited goodness towards us . . . by giving to us . . . the Holy Scriptures which are able to enlighten and make us wise to eternal salvation. . . . And to pray that He would forgive our sins and . . . cause the religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the people of the earth."

About this, the Sikh author writes: This is narrow-minded statement and again it helps to prove that Kent is brain washing his followers (blog readers) to adopt his views and support spread of Christian supremacy while disrespecting other religions of world. In light of the above quotes and dozens of others, who really is doing the brainwashing? The respect afforded all religion in the U. S. is freedom to believe and practice it. That does not necessitate equality to all religion. Sikhs have come to this country from a predominantly Sikh country. Why could Sikhism not do for Punjab what Scripture and Biblical Christianity has done for the United States? I think it is a legitimate question.

He continues: The Sikhs What Can I do? As American Sikh Citizens, Let us defend our religious rights and stop ill minded pastors like Kent from bullying Sikhs. No one has even hinted that Sikhs lose religious rights. And I guarantee you that I am not ill-minded, but of sound mind and body by the grace of God. And we in no way have bullied any Sikh by producing a pamphlet that expresses what Scripture teaches about Sikh doctrine.

What do you think?

A Case Study in Fake Tolerance

I need to use this space to argue. Stick with me. A new wave of Sikh mail has come to me in response to a second round of articles written by one of them to keep alive something certain Sikhs protest that they want to abolish. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much." This issue could die without its continual resuscitation. At least let me be offensive first. I haven't even done anything since my 7 minute bout of handing out pamphlets at a Sikh parade. They were the ones with the loudspeakers and chants. I was the quiet one with sheets of paper.

Here's the headline of a link that was sent to me. I'm going to take the article, written by the mysterious editor of MyGurdwara.com, who states that he or she represents a faction within the Sikh temple here in El Sobrante, California.

The headline reads: Pastor Kent Brandenburg Attacks Sikh Religion. It could read: "Pastor Kent Brandenburg Preaches Gospel to the Sikhs" or "Pastor Kent Brandenburg Offers Biblical Way of Salvation to Sikh People," all depending upon your perspective. We live in a pluralistic society, not a relativistic society. In a pluralistic society, competition exists in the marketplace of ideas. Coke might be intolerant of Pepsi, but Coke can't shut down Pepsi. I believe the Bible. Sikhism contradicts the Bible. It is obvious I can't tolerate the doctrine of Sikhism if I believe the Bible.

Incidentally, I'm exposing Sikh doctrine. That's all. I love the Sikh people. I love the Punjab Indians who have chosen to immigrate to this very pluralistic country. They are free to worship here as they choose. However, I don't love any false doctrine. I hate it. I hate what it does to the people who believe and accept it. I can't accept any doctrine that contradicts Scripture. The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Sikhism and the Bible cannot both be true. Tolerating both doctrines disrespects the whole realm of theology. It places theology below movies, restaurants, and paper-or-plastic that are worth making a fuss about. I can't legitimately claim Biblical truth and also tolerate Sikh doctrine. I think this is easy for a person to understand, but the Sikhs are simply taking advantage of a very sentimental, mushy thinking culture that prioritizes feelings above everything.

After the bombastic title, the author goes on (I will put his material in italics, and my comments in regular print): Brief History Of Jesus In The Context Of Christianity: It is a general fact that the story of Jesus as presented in the four gospels of the New Testament is essentially a piece of fiction because there are not authentic references to such a figure in the works of any historians of the early 1st century. This statement alone is far worse than anything that I have written. I haven't attempted to revise what the Sikhs say that they believe. I take what they say at face value. This statement, however, does not do that. It repudiates the veracity of the Bible and Jesus Christ. On top of that, it contradicts everything these Sikhs are telling me to do or that they say that they believe. How can you say that your religion is all about a certain kind of tolerance and then have it actually be about that very kind of intolerance? I mean, I don't care if the Sikhs state disagreements with what I believe, but they are the ones that have a problem with it when other people do it, so it smacks of total hypocrisy.

With regards to the statement. It is so patently false that it should ruin the credibility of the article and its author right from the start. A lot of historic evidence of Jesus Christ exists outside of the Bible. One of a few I'll quote is Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded information pertaining to Jesus. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In The Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James:

[H]e brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

These historical writings predated the completion of the New Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Then the Sikh apologist continues: The pre-gospel writings of the early Christians also make no reference to the life and teachings of a recent historical Jesus. Here's an important point on this: There were no pre-gospel writings of early Christians. Pre-Gospel writings would have been the intertestamental books. The Gospels were the earliest Christian writings. However, even the false gospels, not part of Scripture, include many writings concerning Jesus Christ.

I'll post the rest of his letter and answers tomorrow, but you can see that he doesn't start very well. I'll let you know in advance that his work doesn't go up hill from here.