I think the ELCA vote to allow active homosexuals to become ministers was finally the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I will no longer identify with what is today called the Evangelical movement.
Lets face it Satan first came in with his wolves in sheep’s clothing and so corrupted the mainline denominations with the doctrines of humanism that most true Christian left. Now Satan is well on his way of accomplishing the very same thing with those that identified with the evangelicals that came out of those near dead Sardis mainline churches.
In reality I think over half of people who call themselves evangelicals today have gone off track and are now running on the road to Laodicea. Their worldviews are not from biblical doctrine because they are playing down Bible doctrine. They love to buy into the psychologies and philosophies of the age and more and more are going off into spiritualism influenced by leaders who knowingly or unknowingly are in the occult. It is getting so bad that you often cannot tell the difference between the teachings and practices of post-modern evangelicals, World Faith heretics and certain demonic cults.
Even many churches that were once well known as Bible churches have drunk the post-modern Kool-Aid. Are you aware of the conflicts within the Nazarene’s, Baptists, EFree’s, etc. on this issues? It seems to me that many leaders have totally lost their Christian minds or at least their Christian worldview reflects that they do not have the mind of Christ.
Christians that believe the Bible is the only infallible reliable guide for Christian faith and practice and believe that truths taught in the Bible are absolute and that they cannot be twisted so they can be politically correct with the world, cannot continue to identify with these leaders calling themselves “evangelicals”.
So here is my quandary. What do we whom once called ourselves evangelicals now call ourselves? The post-modern evangelicals have split the movement and have now made the term “evangelical” meaningless. Worse yet, these people are now becoming the majority among those who call themselves “Evangelicals.
I have not yet heard a good title to identify those you cannot abide the redefining of Christianity from evangelicals. Some might say just call yourself a Bible believing Christian but that really does not work because they also claim to be be Bible believing Christians even though they twist the words to mean what they want or they pick and chose what part of the Bible they want to believe to support humanistic wordviews.
- Calling oneself a Christian is not the answer since 90 percent of people that identify with Christianity seem to be Christians in name only.
- Saying you believe in Christ does not mean much these days since many believe in some concept of Christ make in their own image.
- Saying your a born again Christian has lost its meaning since most who claim to be born again Christians can not even explain the spiritual concept. Some just think being born again just means they were once baptized in a church. There is no spiritual change in most to indicate that were ever born again in a spiritual rebirth or that the Holy Spirit indwells them.
- If you call yourself one who believes in the absolute fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith you will be labeled a fundamentalist and you might also be labeled a simpleton who checks your brain at the door. Of course that is not true at all but it might not be wise to try to revive a vehicle that Christians already allowed the world to crash and burn.
- We could call ourselves “the elect” but many that are baptized as infants in liberal churches also claim they are the elect.
- We can say we are Wheaties, breakfast of champions, but the tares will claim we had a false start.
I know that if we do come up with a new name that Satan will soon try to ruin it. However, I think he may run out of time this time around. I see churches of many different denomination splitting into two camps. I think it will break down this way. There will be those that stay on solid biblical ground and there will be those who stand on the shaky ground of humanism, spiritualism, subjective theories of men and emotionalism.
So what do we call the people who stand on solid biblical doctrine and truth compared to the others? As far as I am concerned they can keep their “Evangelical” title if they want because they already corrupted that word. We know the correct name for these would be more like “Laodicean Harlot’s for Jesus” but if they are the Harlots for Jesus who are we? I might suggest that we are the Bride and Body of Christ through bethrothal to the King (The two will become one flesh – This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.)
I guess we could call ourselves the Body of Christ but pseudo Christians today also claim to be part of the Body of Christ although they have no blood relationship with Jesus. So I guess that title is not exclusive enough.
What to do? Who knows? I am waiting for someone like you to come up with something. We need a one or two word description that fits and that will catch on with true faithful Christians. Like perhaps “Latter Day Philadelphians“.
What say you?
While I generally agree with what you wrote, don’t forget that the “Evangelical” epithet has been used by Lutheran and other protestant/reformed churches long before the American Evangelical movement emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia are still referred to as “Evangelical” despite the fact that, like the ELCA in the United States, most of them have long forsaken their biblical foundations and the true Gospel Message. In this context, “Evangelical” has little to do with the American Evangelicalism. It is simply a title inherited from the Reformers, whose theology and critique of Roman Catholic doctrines was rooted in the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura), denying the primacy of the Roman Church and the infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal matters.
Even during the Reformation, the so-called “Protestant” faith of Luther and others, was referred to as the “Evangelical” faith. For instance, John Calvin said that he converted to the “Evangelical” faith. But most of what is known by Evangelicalism today, bears little resemblance to conservative Reformed or Presbyterian (calvinist) theology, let alone Lutheranism! So, in this context, “Evangelical” was (is) used in contrast with the Papist doctrines which have endured to this day in the Roman Catholic Church, and it is probably more synonymous with “Protestant” than with the movements that later became collectively known as Evangelicalism. The ELCA thus can still claim to be Evangelical, as it is not Roman Catholic, even though in practice their teachings are far removed from both the Gospel and the teachings and beliefs of Luther himself.
The ELCA is to American Lutheranism what the PCUSA is to American Presbyterianism. Both started off as largely biblical and Christian denominations that may rightfully have been called “Evangelical”, in that they were truly Christian and adhered to the Gospel despite the obvious differences between the two denominations. But today, both are largely liberal and universalist organizations which might be “churches” of Satan but are certainly not worthy of being considered Churches of Christ. So I think the real issue here is not whether they call themselves Evangelical or not. It is really a matter of whether the ELCA and other denominations who have taken the liberal path can still rightfully be considered to be truly Christian to begin with. If they are not Christian, then they are not true churches. Their Evangelical, Biblical or Protestant and anti-Papist roots are of no avail.
I have taken a look at the website of the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod and they have issued a statement in response to the decision of the ELCA, which can be read here: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15620. Regardless of how anyone might think of certain Lutheran doctrines or practices, if any modern-day church in the Lutheran tradition deserves to be called “Evangelical” (i.e. Christian and true to the Gospel) today, it is the LCMS.
As for your suggestion to call true regenerate Christians “Latter-day Philadelphians”, I recall people in the “Evangelical” church I used to go claiming that they were so good and biblical that one of the elders called his church “Philadelphian”. And yet there was internal strife and disagreement on various issues, and many people (including yours truly) have left the church as it became ever more entrapped by the Seeker-sensitive postmodern neo-Evangelical movement.
I think we need to be very careful with labels. After all, who qualifies? There is no way for us to know who has true faith since we cannot look into the hearts of anyone. I’m afraid that labels such as “born-again Christian” and “Philadelphian” are misleading because they make it seem as if those who apply to these movements are undoubtedly regenerate Christians. In reality, there will always be wolves in sheep’s clothing in the visible Church, and even regenerate Christians can still stumble and sin.
The requirement for Church membership is that one professes genuine faith in Christ as the sole Redeemer of man and Son of God, and affirms the basics of the Christian faith (i.e. the Trinity, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ manhood and divinity, One Holy and Universal Church, the 2nd Coming of Christ, the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the resurrection of the body, etc.). Those who hold steadfast to the faith in Christ are to be considered Christians. Those who actively and fervently deny any of these truths are not Christians, regardless of their reverence of Jesus. Such people have no place in the Church and are not Christians since their rebellion is proof of their unbelief. People who profess true faith in Christ and live by His commandments are Christians, period. Those who reject the basics of the Christian faith are not Christians.
In sum, let us reclaim the word “Christian” by appealing to the Scriptures and by…
… and by debunking man’s secular perversions of what it means to be a Christian, so that they might become truly Christian.
Good insightful comment. Nonetheless, when we who really believe in the Bible are labeled evangelicals by the world but evangelicals are spoken for mostly by postmodern revisionists using our label, I think it is probably time to tell the world to use a different label for us or them.
Well said Don. Postmoderns and other liberal factions have hi-jacked the evangelical label. Anyone who holds to the Holy Scriptures and “sound doctrine” is going to be increasingly demonized as “intolerant”.
Unfortunately, gays and lesbians now have several versions of the Bible to condone their lifestyles. The MESSage is one off the top of my head. With churches not taking a stand for truth, it, enables a sinful lifestyle. I am not talking only about gays and lesbians here. The MESSage condones lasciviousness on a grand scale. Just pray that they will become true believers in Christ and not just “Christ-followers.”
In case anyone does not know, “The Message” is a very bad paraphrase of the Bible written by Eugene Peterson, he also endorsed the cover of the heretical and blasphemous “The Shack“. Both books are very popular with postmodern “evangelicals”.
Great insights. It is a relief to read the truth of God’s Word here. (I’m new to this site) Evangelical churches are in danger, I think, in part because they are trying to use worldly tools like marketing, strategizing and entertainment instead of prayer on their knees. Not all, mind you, but many.
I notice more all the time the tendancy to use rock and roll or pop music as the sole means of worship. We end up often looking like a rock concert. Shouldn’t the church look different from the world? Yes, we are joyful…yes, we are free…but is entertainment passing for worship now? We might even have great teaching from the pulpit, but what is the music saying and teaching? Jesus meets us where we are, but He doesn’t leave us there. Yet church leadership often ignores musical style and content and leaves us to our own devices. I think that this weakening of musical style and content in worship is an important element of why evangelical churches are declining in their preaching of the truth of God’s Word. We need intentional teaching about the history of Christian worship, what makes good music for worship, and a re-analysis of what we are trying to do in worship. We use worship as evangelism, but are worship and evangelism interchangeable? There is a correlation here and I’d like to hear from others as to what they think.
Read: Addicted To Mediocrity by Franky Schaeffer, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down by Marva Dawn and All God’s Children In Blue Suede Shoes by Kenneth Myers.
Welcome to the site. The worldly Madison avenue techniques are obvious in this country. It Seems to me many now think the Sunday Church gathering needs to appeal to those that are not saved and so they feel they must entertain them through worldly means. Actually the Church gathering is mainly meant to be a gathering of believers.
We should be playing the music that we would select if Jesus was in attendance. He is. That does not mean that Jesus does not appreciate modern music and different styles if it is exalting to Himself, his Father and His Church.
@ Concerned:
Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel, anyone? That’s what I call Christian music.
But seriously, that’s one of these issues that have long bugged me as well. Whatever happened to the regulative principle, right? I actually have to admit I prefer a more liturgical form of worship to the hectic services in most evangelical churches, although I tend to be in favor of the regulative principle. Sunday services should be all about strengthening believers by partaking in the Body of Christ through the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and by the preaching of the Word. The preaching from the Bible and the celebration of Christ’s death and ressurection should be the central focus of services. I think music should be restricted to the singing of psalms and hymns, as long as the lyrics of these hymns are in agreement with the Bible and further its divine message.
As for instruments, I think those should be limited during Sunday gatherings. I don’t think it is wrong at all times to have music in the Church, and I am not at all against music in general. But the problem is that music in the Church often draws away the attention from the Word, especially modern pop or rock music, which by their very nature are focused on distraction and entertainment rather than contemplation. Can you imagine 40s and 50s churches incorporating Bebop or Cool Jazz in their services, and singing hymns to a Count Basie tune? Or a 60s church singing to the tunes of the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?
I must say that I have seen first hand how caught up a lot of young people in the Church are in so-called “Christian” contemporary music. They end up conforming to these worldly pseudo-Chrisitan subcultures, and think that in doing so, they are actually being good Christians. So all of a sudden, being a Christian is about outward apparent “good works” again. Very few of them have any interest in the Word and in Christ at all, apart from the pseudo-Christian imagery and lyrics of these worship and Christian “punk”, “metal” (etc) bands. There’s a word for it: idolatry.
I also think that a lot of Evangelical churches tend to overemphasize evangelization and church planting at the expense of sound teaching and strengthening the local church members. Evangelization is important but it is only part of the story.
How about One-Way literalists (:
Unless I’m mistaken the NewTestament word for the Church was “ekklesia’ or “out called ones” Moreover I believe early believers were known to follow “the way” i.e. “that’s the way he is” a colloquialism. I’m unsure as to whether or not this would not get you branded in todays climate by the media or even most christian denominations as a cult. I’m not concerned by what they think of me though they will not judge me.
However I do empathize with Don’s quandry. I was raised until age 18 in a Wienbrenner First Church of God where I learned to ACT like a christian before I became one. Was married in a Assemblies of God….well. Send my son to a Brethren in Christ private school. Left every church I was ever in but never left my love for the truth in the Word of God. Now whenever I’m asked “what are you?” I reply “I’m a free man in Christ”.
I’ve searched my entire adult life for the truth. Even a blind man can recognize one straight stick amongst 100 crooked ones. Keep the faith Don. You will be rewarded.
Ken, I believe not to long ago some used the label “The Way” but then they got off track and they got labeled a cult. So I guess that dog won’t hunt.
Sharon, How about ” Uncompromising Christians” (UP)?
Christian reader, I really think the local church has freedom to choose its own music and its worship style as long as the local elders think it is all in good taste.
I also am a little confused by you claiming the Lord’s supper is a Sacrament. The world Sacrament implies there is special grace given to those who participate. I think the Lord’s supper is an observance and a directive for remembrance until He comes. It is not a sacrament by any usual meaning of the word. We really strengthen other believers by using our God given spiritual gifts for building up the Body of Christ.
I think the gathering of Christians as often as possible should be much more of a celebration with our family than just some dry wooden liturgy. Of course there is a time and place for different expressions. The gathering of Christians should include teaching of the word but the gathering of the Saints is about much more than that.
In general I agree with what you had to say about some Christian contemporary music and those participating. However, many of our songs came from the cultural of the day written. I am sure the early Church because of its Jewish roots had more Psalms, the medieval Church liked their chants, later we have the songs from the King James written in King James English. Today there is nothing wrong with songs of our own culture as long as it gives honor and glory to God. There are many songs out of our generation like “Majesty” Awesome God” “Put your hand in the hand” “He is Lord”‘ ‘Through it all” “Turn your eyes upon Jesus” etc,. I am sure this will be true about some of the even more contemporary music so let’s not broad bush this so that only the music that appeals to you becomes the standard for Christians or it may just become a stumbling block.
Don, hope you are getting settled in your new home and have found a
church in the area.
I enjoy a lot of the new praise and worhip music, but at times feel
like an old foggie when it comes to singing them in church. I just find
it irritating to sing the same chorus repeat 5 or 6 times.
Wasn’t sure how to ask you or where to post this question, but was wondering
in your spare time if you could share your thoughts on the history and
political Jesuit movement.
It seems like when doing research, I get so much conflicting information.
Thanks so much for your site, glad I found it.
I’m not going to get in long arguments on this, but yes, I do believe the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament. It is a sacrament because it is an outward sign of inner grace. The Lord’s Supper was meant for Christians to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice and to unite and strengthen the Church. Sunday services without a proper celebration of Lord’s Supper are quite pointless to me. Surely it cannot have been meant for everyone to be consumed or in any setting. Now on the actual topic of music, I mentioned the regulative principle which developed during the Reformation but it would appear you have not looked it up and have ended up drawing the wrong conclusions from what I wrote as a result. I have heard and seen your argument so many times now and I am not impressed by it. In fact I largely disagree with it. Every evangelical church I have seen has adopted modern-day worship music and if you happen not to particularly like this style of music (after all, there are so many different modern and popular music genres – there’s a lot more than just rock, punk, country or rap out there – just so you know), then you are considered to be a heretic or at any rate some sort of an old-fashioned nut. Also, the arrogance of those who support this modern music is truly astounding. In the church I used to go, even Psalms were hardly ever sung. The adults had no problem singing superficial children’s songs or “religious” worship songs to Bob Dylan tunes (or whatever it was), but to suggest singing one of those good old profound Protestant hymns was considered the ultimate lunacy and people openly mocked those who did not conform to the majority in matters of worship style and music. So honestly I think that while the local church has freedom, worship should be centered around the Word itself and should avoid whatever there is disagreement upon in worship, and avoid any sort of wordliness. Cultural differences do exist, but to extend this to support the use of pagan or popular music in the church as it happens today is a position I cannot agree with. And it does not add up anyway since supposedly European “evangelical” churches are incorporating Australian and American popular/Christian contemporary music in their worship. Moreover, where did I suggest churches must play MY prefered music? I do listen to modern music also, not just classical. I have never been so arrogant as to want of anyone to like what I listen to, nor have I ever demanded that the church incorporates my music in worship. All I was trying to point out is the vast difference between much of Western Classical worship music (and yes, I find it clearly superior) and modern-day Western music that is now used in worship. Should Afro-American gang youth be reached through Hip Hop, or through the preaching of Scriptures? Should churches of former gang members or former drug users use Hip Hop tunes in their worship rather than Psalms? Heaven forbid! One holy and universal Church thus ends up looking more like five hundred thousand sects where membership is restricted and accessible only to some groups of people. To me this is nothing but postmodern relativistic thinking infesting the Church. I also do not agree that all liturgical tradition is dry and wooden and totally boring. At least there is some respect for order and unity in these churches. Did the preachers of the first Awakening go in the field playing Hillsong to attract the crowd? No, they brought the two-edged Sword of the Gospel with them. The Puritan immigrants to the U.S. enjoyed music but out of principle they did not use instruments or music in the Church. So now guess what, they were dry, wooden, and boring. (??) I’d rather sit in one of these wooden traditional churches where they actually still preach from the Bible instead of tormenting myself in one fo these modern-day Evangelical Hallelujah-shouting congregations where acceptance is based on your fondness of Hillsong and Rock-inspired fluff. Not to mention Rick Warren, but that’s another topic.
Sybil, I have the Church search narrowed down to three and I am leaning toward one but I still need more information.
I like a mixture of chorus songs and hymns but that is my preference, obviously others have their own preference.
What spare time? Briefly I think the Jesuits have little to do with the cause of Christ and everything to do with supporting the Pope, if the Roman Catholic Jesuits are even what you are referring to.
Christian Reader, On music you make so many strawmen arguments filled with your own personal preferences that I am not even going to bother responding to all your examples and specifics. You make some good points about certain music but music in most of our churches today is not as you see it. I just want to point out that the people are the Church not the building that you go into. If you do not like the music in the building or are one of those who think music should not be in the building then don’t go in that building.
I did not say that all liturgical tradition is dry and wooden and totally boring, if that is what you want then go where they have that kind of worship service but do not expect everyone in the Church to have your preferences.
It really seem to me that you have an axe to grind about certain practices that you found where you once attended. I think you might need to expand your horizons. Just because people in the Church like and have different forms of worship expressions does not make us look like 500,000 different sects. Worship is really done in Spirit and truth by God’s people the outward appearances to the world in any form will never be pleasing to them.
On the issue of the Lord’s supper. You still have me confused, you sound like a Lutheran unless you are putting your own meaning on what a Sacrament is. How do you get inward grace from an outward observance and if get special grace from that then why not from many other church observances? I also suggest that the rituals today know as the Lord’s supper is hardly what was practiced in the early Church and that is why people no longer do it as often as them meet.
Dear all:
If you look at most comments, we all talk about what we ‘prefer’ in music. What about what God prefers? What honors Him? Is our opinion greater than God? Many churches and a lot of church music has become about opinions, and the majority gets what they want. Why is it that churches allow polling to determine what kind of music is utilized?
And why do we often hire music leaders who are untrained either as musicians or in the history of Christian worship, so that little is taught about the 1500 years of music expressly devoted to God and the Church? If the Church has this rich music, shouldn’t we use it even if we look different than the world? Why can’t eh Church have its’ own music that is decidely different from the world’s music? It’s gotten so twisted that people will say, “Oh, this person can’t read music so they are led by the Holy Spirit more than someone who can read. ” I’m not talking about ‘classical’ vs. ‘contemporary’, which are misnomers anyway, but I’m talking about the lack of intentional teaching about historical worship from our pulpits and classrooms. This may be due to increasing lack of study on the subject at seminaries…I don’t know. There is so much music out there to be used as worship, but we limit ourselves to one small, teensy part of it when we use pop music. How God-honoring is that?
And none of this about how Martin Luther used pop music of his time….he used minstrel music, which is far different that our rock-and-roll. There really is no comparison with the market-driven music of our age to what he had at his disposal. He was very concerned about the emotional direction music took in the life of the believer as well as the words. We today seem more concerned about experiential worship that is centered on how we feel afterwards, than a true, humble worship of God.
And that leads me to my next point: for those of you who have contemporary music played at your churches, did you know that your church pays a fee (to CCLI) each time those tunes are played? That is why the musical notation never appears, either, for the composers would need remuneration, too. While I am in favor of supporting composers and artists financially, most of that money does not go to them…it goes to other coffers. So don’t forget that the contemporary music industry is decidely NOT Christian-run. It is a marketing business.
I would encourage you all to read one of the books I mentioned, or here is one more: it’s not an intellectual read, but rather a personal view, of a humble guy who led CCM worship and now has had second thoughts. It’s called “Why I Left The CCM”, and it’s poignant. One point he makes is that it isn’t the ‘traditionalists’ who cause dissention in the church, it’s the people who want to push their opinions about using contemporary music who become rude. Sadly, our churches not only have become opinion-driven, but they have become youth-driven as well. This is reflected in how often churches neglect the worship needs of our elderly, who are wiser than youth and often have a deeper sense of what quality worship is. They are left out in the cold, and I believe this displeases God.
To end all my rantings, I leave you with this: where in Scripture does God equate worship with evangelism? I cannot find one Scripture to support this…neither can Marva Dawn or a host of others…I believe the church has bought a lie! We have bought the lie that our worship is only for the visitor, so we must make our worship hip, or palitable, or loud, or whatever…. I think the enemy has taken a real foot-hold in the area of worship music. I think we need to be on our knees and ask God what needs to be done, for I see this emotionally-driven, repetitive, musically shallow music as a powerful force behind the weakening of our evangelical churches. It isn’t the MAIN reason, but it is part of the problem. Thank you for listening, and I look forward to hearing your responses, whatever they may be!
Actually I don’t know why I should not be thinking or reconsidering the role of the church or the nature of worship based on my experiences at the church I went to. I have been in other churches of different denominations as well, not just this one local evangelical church I was referring to, and I have read various viewpoints from diverse denominations, even those of non-protestant denominations. Why is it that if the local church should have freedom, all of the Evangelical churches (yes, they comprise various denominations) in much of Europe, Asia and Latin America in particular, incorporate practices mainly from English-speaking countries? If you consider most of what I said to be strawmen arguments, then I’m sorry but I’m not going to continue this discussion about music. I also hope that the poster who goes by the name of “Concerned” does not think I was arguing in favor of classical over modern. I have referred to the regulative principle several times but if nobody bothers to even look it up (check Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing or whatever you prefer) and keeps claiming this is about imposing my own preferences in music on others, then I give up.
As for the issue of sacraments, I hold the view shared by most of the Reformers. I gave the most ordinary definition of what a sacrament is. I actually believe a sacrament works quite the opposite of what you said, which is why I disagree with paedocommunion, for instance. In other words, I do not say that Baptism or the Lord’s Supper save a person.
Funnily, this discussion reminds me of why I have recently rejected the “Evangelical” label myself.
Concerned, More excellent points but another broad brush in my opinion.
Let me explain. I have attended and belonged to many different churches. I Probably have visited more churches than anyone commenting on this blog. (Mainly because I have moved about thirty times since I became a Christian and every time I move I check out the best churches in the area in an assortment of denominations). I admit there are some denominations that I will not check out but in the ones that I do check I have yet to see the flagrant abuses that you are talking about in the Sunday worship service. I also admit that I do not attend youth groups so I cannot speak about what goes on there. Most of the churches I have visited either have a mixture of old and new hymns and choruses or just old hymns of the Church in their worship services. If there is contemporary music it is very selective and it has been approved by the minister of music and the head pastor. They would not hold their jobs long if most of the Church members were against the form of worship.
I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. The last major posts seem to be comparing what often takes place in “some” emergent churches and in “some” seeker friendly churches and are attributing what happens there to what happen in most evangelical churches in America. That is not the case.
You ask why the majority of Christians get want they want in many Churches? Simply because they are the majority. If the majority did not get what they want they want they either would not attend or they would vote in new leaders. I think many if not most churches do use worship songs that were written in the distant past. Check the hymnal in the back of any pew and you will see that it is filled with these songs. In fact, many churches totally limit themselves to songs in these old hymnals and ignore anything written since the twenty century. Did God stop working in gifted people to produce new songs? Would you consider the many new songs that are based on Psalms today to be worldly?
I think everyone is required by law to pay a fee for public use of any music if it is not in the public domain. That law is so artists and those who support artists can make a living. You also pay a fee every time you buy a translations of the Bible that is not in the public domain. So the fact that you pay a fee for the use of copyrighted material says nothing in itself. Non Christians in the publishing loop should also be able to make a living at it or there would soon be no new Christian Music.
You also say that our churches are youth driven. That may be true in the Emergent churches where the vast majority are under thirty but I do not see how that is possible in traditional or even seeker churches where the average person is well over forty. In fact we are losing so many young people in our churches that in many churches all you see is white hair. I would say the average age on most Church boards is about 60. So no, the younger Pastor does not usually get a contemporary service even if he wants it. Where you are seeing these all contemporary services are more in the independent Charismatic Churches, Word Churches and now Emergant churches where a pastor comes out of Bible school, starts their own new church and then hand picks a board. My advise is don’t go to a Church where the pastor is treated like he is God and answers to know one. In most churches if you neglect the worship needs of the elderly you are going to be in big trouble. It happens but it is not as common a problem as some have make it out to be
I agree that our worship service is mainly for the Church not the visitor. Worship is not evangelism but our songs of worship do evangelize. Many have been saved through the words of a Christian song. I agree that the music in postmodern churches is part of the problem in certain “evangelical” churches, but like you, I do not see it as the main problem. The main problem is their redefining of God’s word to mean most anything that they want it to mean.
Christian Reader, You said the church you were involved in turned seeker friendly and postmodern. This is not the norm in Christianity. Perhaps it is the norm in your area since in parts of Europe you have only one extreme or the other.
You Christians in foreign nations need to ask yourselves why your local churches incorporate the practices of mainly English Speaking countries. Perhaps it is because the English speaking countries still do most of the Evangelism. The mainline state churches in these areas certainly are not. I might ask why true Christians in the countries you name do not take the bull by the horns themselves if they do not like the English Model? Even so, I think you really are broad brushing the issue again. I think many in Evangelical Churches in Latin America would disagree with your assessment.
I know that you do not think that Baptism or the Lord’s supper saves anyone. Yet, you say observing the Lord’s supper gives “grace”. How is that belief different from the Roman Catholic who think that their seven sacraments gives grace? How is it different from those who claim they get grace from wearing a scapula around their neck that makes them remember Christ? How is your grace any different then the grace people claim from praying the rosary or doing a pilgrimage for an indulgence of grace from the Church?
Inquiring minds want to know 😕
The Emergent church is a false church. Calling them a church is laughable. Especially with Brian Mclaren coming out and saying that his church is going to honor the Muslim month of Ramadan as a “God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.” You can’t honor God by celebrating a festival to another god who is no god at all! 1 Cor. 8:4. We’re going to now lock arms with Allah like he is the same as God! Has anyone forgotten what Galatians 1:9 has to say – not to be harsh, but the Apostle Paul said it!
I have repeatedly referred to the regulative principle as a possible solution to the controversies surrounding music and excesses in modern Evangelical “worship” but it seems it is being ignored. Why do many Evangelical churches adopt practices of modern 20th and 21st century English-speaking Evangelical churches (which excludes conservative Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian/Anglican or Reformed Baptist churches but includes general Baptist, Pentecostal and so-called “Non-Denominational” churches) ? Because they lack a uniform view on church order and do not have any serious standards for worship. Everything is centered around a celebration of one’s own personal relationship with God and to evangelize others or worship God, it seems they have adopted the view that the supposed end justifies the means.
It is easy to claim that all this is because they are all postmodern and Emergent, but that is not the case. The common view I have encountered in real life and through Internet contacts with Evangelicals has been one similar to what I described earlier. It is not merely the youth but the older generations as well who hold these views, and not all of them can be said to be flat-out Emergent in matters of faith at all. I’m afraid that the problem is that a lot of modern Evangelicals (and I’m not talking of the Emergents here) have some Roman-Catholic-O-Meter that goes off as soon as they hear the words liturgy, tradition, ordination, church order, and, well, “sacraments.”
As far as the topic of the Sacraments is concerned, I challenge you to look into sacramentology yourself and read up on the various positions that exist in the major Christian denominations, because from what you wrote I can only conclude that the information you have on the subject is one-sided and fundamentalistic. Besides, that is not what this topic was about and it is pointless for me to spend my time arguing about sacraments if you do not even know what a sacrament in its most basic definition is. Some call them “ordinances” just to avoid sounding too Roman Catholic. Some of these people do still regard them as Sacraments, i.e. outward signs of inward grace. Others like yourself hold the rather novel view that says that these ordinances are outward symbols only, i.e. not sacraments.
The Sacraments were actually a major issue during the Reformation and to suggest that the traditional Protestant view is essentially Roman Catholic is therefore absurd. It testifies of Fundamentalist Evangelicalism’s lack of knowledge of Church history or in any case a profound lack of intellectual honesty. The Roman doctrines of transubstantiation was outright rejected by all Reformers, including Luther (who was actually one of the first if not THE first to reject it), and they also denied that the five additional “sacraments” in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (holy orders, chrismation, holy matrimony, etc) are sacramental at all. Only certain Anabaptist sects held that the two Sacraments were not Sacraments but mere symbols, and yet even Zwingli, whose view was closest to theirs, repudiated their claims. It would seem that the Anabaptist view on this issue has nonetheless become the standard within Evangelicalism since the 20th century.
I’m not going to write anything more on this subject because it is irrelevant to the original topic and there are enough websites out there that deal with this issue.
Right Doug,
Christians need to label the Emergent Church leaders as they really are. They are heretics not evangelicals. Allah never existed and does not exist. He cannot represent God because those who do not acknowledge the Son cannot know the Father.
Christian Reader,
I do not know why you would expect people to follow your links and comment on issues like the “regulative principle” especially if they do not agree with the principle. I cannot even get most people to read the articles that I comment on which is why I now usually do more writing about the issues myself these days rather than just quoting someone else.
For those that do not know about the regulative principle this is quoted from the Wikepedia
“The regulative principle of worship is a 20th century term used for a teaching shared by Calvinists and Anabaptists on how the second commandment and other parts of the Bible orders public worship. The substance of the doctrine regarding worship is that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited. The term “regulative principle” is less frequently broadened to apply to other areas such as church government (Thornwell, 1841-2), but in this sense it becomes synonymous with the principle of sola scriptura.
The regulative principle is often contrasted with the normative principle of worship which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.
The normative principle of worship is the generally accepted approach to worship practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, and Methodists. The regulative principle of worship is generally practiced by the conservative Reformed churches, Restoration Movement, and in other conservative Protestant denominations, and it finds expression in confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith.”
In other words the principle that Christian Reader proposes as a solution to the controversies is no solution at all since most denominations do not hold to such staunch Calvinistic views.
Christian reader seems to think that unless it is spoken about in the scripture it is wrong for the Church to do it. That is not the way I see it. I think that unless it is expressly forbidden in the scripture we have freedom in Christ to worship or do any other non sinful activity. Here is just one guide for music worship from scripture itself.
Psalm 150:
1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
I for one reject your rigid Calvinistic views because that nature was not shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ. I think your views are coming from human intellect. Five point Calvinism is a very well thought out intellectual theology but you cannot find all truth about God through pure intellect. For some reason you seem to be looking backward to ideas that many astute Christians have now rejected.
I do not want to start that debate here but that is what you are really bringing into these discussions by introducing Calvinist reformed views as the solution.
I do have a Roman-Catholic-O-Meter that goes off because I was a Roman Catholic. I also was a card carrying Presbyterian and I also attended Lutheran and Methodist Churches as well as several other major denominations.. My meter goes off because I know from experience that almost all that are into following their traditional liturgy and such things of their church denomination are into religion not Christ. But, how would you even know that if you have not been among them?
I never said the idea of sacraments were essentially Roman Catholic. But of course they were the root since all traditions since 600 AD came as part of the package. Protestant denominations did not just throw out all Catholic doctrine after the Reformation. It was only after the Bible got in the hands of common people that traditions started to be replace for what was really supported by the scriptures. You can have strange logic sometimes because you keep saying sola scriptura but then you argue from positions of Church tradition?
I know more about the positions and the meaning of sacraments in the various denominations then you might think. There are two ordinances given to the church, Baptism and Communion but people should not get mixed up by identifying ordinances with the word sacrament since in several large denominations it conveys that if you partake that you will receive special grace. But I will admit that some do interchange the words.
Nevertheless, It is a Church sacrament and not just an ordnance if one thinks that special grace is acquired. You claimed this when you said it was “an outward sign of inner grace”. You get down on the Emergents but many of them are going back to finding mysticism in the Lord’s supper. You may have more in common with the postmodern’s than you might think. 😯
1. I’m not any more psychic than you are. I respond to what you write, nothing more. And based on what you continue to write about the sacraments, it seems that you are not that well aware of the positions that various denominations have on the nature, the number, the administration and the purpose of the sacraments or ordinances.
2. I live in a predominantly Roman Catholic country and I used to know as much about their doctrines as the average person that was baptized into the RCC as an infant and had received confirmation there. Being a card-carrying member of a denomination does not mean you actually know all about their theology, though it certainly does increase your awareness of the diversity of practices (and heresies) within Christianity.
3. Mysticism? I am talking about sacraments and partaking in the Body of Christ and you say I am into Mysticism? What’s next, are you going to acuse me of being a heretic for saying what so many before me have taught and without whom there would not have been any American Evangelicalism in the first place? How about the secret Rapture that you fervently teach? Not to mention the basic Christian concepts of the Trinity and the Virgin Birth? These cannot be comprehended by mere human reason, so using your definition Christianity itself is a religion of Mysticism.
4. A word is not wrong in itself because some misinterpret it. Neither is a doctrine wrong in itself because some draw the wrong conclusions from it. The Bible is still the infallible Word of God regardless of the fact that heretics, cults and false religions quote from it and that professing Christians have abused it.
5. My basic beliefs and convictions are 100 percent in agreement with historic Christianity and my views on the two sacraments are really nothing unusual. They are only unusual to the plastic religion of American-style Fundamentalist Evangelicalism.
6. The Christian faith is the one true and undefiled Religion. I am a Christian, hence I am religious. In some other Germanic languages, there are words for religion that translate in English as “God-serving”. If religion means serving God, then I am all in favor of religion, as one can only truly serve God through the Christian faith.
7. I never said I am absolutely in favor of the Regulative principle. I do think there is a lot of merit in the principle. To suggest that it is self-imposed religion is absurd and once again it shows a profound misunderstanding of the times in which this principle emerged. In fact, this principle was seen as a liberation from the self-imposed religion and superstitious inventions of the Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodoxy by extention), i.e. in its veneration of statues, icons, and the veneration of hosts used to administer the Lord’s Supper. The entrapment of a lot of Evangelical churches to emotionalist “fire-me-up” worship music that draws on popular music can in some cases be considered to be self-imposed religion and idolatry.
8. While I’m at it, I thought I might as well post a few links that will explain those rigid Calvinist heresies:
http://www.the-highway.com/supper_Clark.html
http://www.the-highway.com/summary.html
http://www.the-highway.com/regulative-principle_Cunningham.html
More rigid Calvinist ‘distortions’ can be found on the OPC website. For Conservative Lutheran ‘distortions’, consult the website of the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod. Please direct your comments and criticism to their founders.
9. Last time I checked, Christians were not 900 B.C. Jews. The various liturgical traditions among ancient Christian peoples (including persecuted ones) are also an expression of the cultural differences that exist between different ethnicities, but somehow that is looked down upon by Evangelicals. They should sing Hillsong instead. That might not be what you are saying but it is what it usually comes down to in reality. Of course you can always blame the excesses of Evangelicalism on the Emergents and claim that they are not Christian to begin with.
9. I did not actually bring up the issue of music myself. Enough said.
Christian reader,This will be the last comment posted from you on this issue.
1. What I wrote on the sacraments and what you said about receiving grace from the Lord’s supper is quite clear. You say I am not aware of the various positions on this in the main denominations but you are wrong. I do not have to explain all the positions of all denominations to tell you that you do not receive special grace from the observance of an ordnance about the Lord’s death and resurrection.
2. You know that I was a Roman Catholic and you also know that I have been in many denominations. To insinuate I know nothing about the denominations I was in after being a Christian for over 35 years is just plain insulting. You really should know better.
3. When you make the communion service that is an observance to remember the Lord’s death and resurrection until He comes a ritual to obtain grace it is mysticism. If you continue on your path to extreme Calvinism who knows what label people will put on you in the future. I already know churches that I attended where if your were the pastor you would have already been fired as a heretic for your five point Calvinism theology. Christianity is a mystery that is not revealed to all. That is not the same as a Christian making an observance something mystic by expecting to receive special grace from a ritual. From what I read you are rabidly anti-Pentecostal because of their mysticism. Yet, you also are into a form of mysticism. Or is this once again just one of these things that you present for argument but not sure you believe yourself?
4. It is not the word “sacrament” that is important. It is the meaning you put on the word sacrament. You claimed grace from a observance and that means you believe it is a sacrament in the sense of denominations that believe that fulfilling sacraments brings special grace.
5. Nobody’s basic beliefs and convictions are 100 percent in agreement with historic Christianity. What historic Christian era would you even be talking about? Are you a Roman Catholic or pre-Roman? Are you talking about after the reformation? Was there doctrine once so perfect that Protestants did not split into denominations over doctrinal differences? Your view on the sacraments are not unusual for what are now mainline near dead churches. I Guess they could not get enough grace in their daily communion services to keep their own members. Now American-style Fundamentalist Evangelicalism is called plastic by you? I have news, those that believe the fundamentals of the only true faith (evangelical Fundamentalists) is true Christianity.
6. Who cares what the world calls religion in their dictionary? You just want to play with words. World Religions are Satanic and you well know that true Christianity is not called a religion because religion implies something you have to do to earn God. Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ because of what He did. That is why astute Christians shun being identified with a religion. Even the religion of Christianity is for the most part not Christianity. If you want to call your new birth a religion fine, but according to God pure religion that is undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world. How does one keep themselves unspotted from the world without a spiritual rebirth and personal relationship with Jesus Christ? They cannot. Therefore, we are not a religious people we are members of the Body of Christ.
7. You kept bringing the “Regulative principle” up as some solution to those that are destroying the music of Evangelicals and whined that nobody was taking about it. The “Regulative principle” speaks for itself and I for one totally reject that principle. We have freedom in Christ. Calvin was wrong about many things. He was quite the control freak. I do not think you can broad bush Christian music and churches the way that you do.
8. No doubt you want to post the links where you get all this. You are quite the Internet researcher for pushing five point Calvinism.
9. Another broad brush statement that is not worth the print. Seem you have a deep rooted hatred for American Evangelicals.
9. Again. You might not have brought the issue of music up but you sure know how to attack the music and practices of Evangelicals. I sincerely doubt that you will come up with something better then the Evangelical movement out of the European reformed churches and Calvinism.
God said, “all who WILL, come”. And, “as I live, saith the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he will turn from his ways..”
Blows Calvin’s beliefs out of the water. Salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ is the only way AND it is a choice of the will. God doesn’t pick and choose who believes and who does not.
Calvin’s “predestination” refers to Christians once they are saved being predestinated to conform to the image of Jesus Christ.
About the question Don asked: What do we whom once called ourselves evangelicals now call ourselves? I think it is difficult to answer because Christianity has been around for about 2000 years and many names are already in use. I do not like “Latter Day Philadelphians” because it sounds more like the Mormons. I propose: The Disciples of Jesus Christ. A little bit long but remember that is the most common name given to the saints in the 4 Gospel and Acts. What do you think about that?
Nah, There is already a denomination called “Disciples of Christ” and they have some issue of their own.
What about “True Faithful Christians”? Chist in His 2nd Coming is called that way: Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Yeah, but how do you define a “True faithful Christian”? They will all claim to be part of this group and there we go again?
The thing that did it for me, was finding out that so many of our churches are lumped in with the Charismatic movement. Which took up with the RCC in the early 60’s. “Beware the yeast of the Pharisees.”
Condoning the RCC counterfeit gospel, makes us party to the counterfeit. That is NOT love for our neighbour..!. That is indifference…
Thank you for your post
Angela
Don, I may be going out on a limb here, but knowing the nature of humans, I fear whatever label we may use will soon be tainted. I have personally decided to remain calling myself a “Christian” as it identifies me as one of His. Many will call themselves Christians and yet hear from Him that He never knew them.
So that settles it for me at least.
God Bless
We know that we have come to know him if we obey His commands. The man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God’s love[a] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did. 1 John 2:3-6
Betty, that is quite a limb you climbed on I hope you do not get stuck in a tree 😕 . I hope your not suggesting the proof of being a Christians is keeping God’s commandments in the flesh? Those were only kept by Jesus Christ, we keep them simply by being part of His Body. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment 1Jo 3:23 . In other words we are to love God and love the brethren in Christ.
The passage also literally says we ought to walk as Jesus walked, it does not say we must walk as Jesus walked. Jesus walked in faith and that is how we ought to walk because without faith it is impossible to please God but how many Christian can walk in faith like Jesus?. However, we ought to.
1st and 2nd John are very difficult studies and it will lead to wrong assumptions about salvation if one does not discern them correctly. Later chapters in these books help explain but before being dogmatic on any interpretation of what John said read some good commentaries on these books from gifted teachers given to the Church.
I suggest true believes should start calling themselves “sons of God”. That should make the world go nuts and the “Latter Rain” people will just love it.
God, I pray my words make sense. I often know what I am trying to say yet lack the words. I am thinking I might be able to explain it by relating something I do as a wife. I bring my husband coffee every morning, and I have since we got married. When I first did it, I followed a belief that this was the “right” thing to do as I saw my mother do similar things for my father. I thought it was what a “good wife” does for her husband. Then I got busy and sometimes forgot to bring my husband coffee, or simply did not have time. But my husband came to enjoy this treat, and it made him feel good and cherished, and I did my best to do it all the time because I knew it blessed and pleased him, and the days I missed I felt genuinely sorry for. Then there were the inevitable times I had absolutely no desire to bring my husband coffee for some infraction large or small but I did it anyway. Sometimes I thought this made me the better spouse (or righteous) but there were also times it became and opportunity to express love even when words failed me and my emotions were raw. I know there are many good wives who never bring their husbands coffee. I know there are many husbands who bring their wives coffee. I know good wives and husbands who fend each for them self. This act does not make me a good wife, nor does it make me better than my husband when I do it somewhat grudgingly. This has become a simple act of love that matters to us on an intimate level. Very little would keep me from doing this act today, one that originally started as a misguided belief system, and turned into a secret act of love. I do not bring my husband coffee everyday, nor do I always do it with a right heart. But this act has grown into something beyond anything I can explain to anyone outside our marriage. And I think following His commandments is like this. It may not always be right, but it grows as I grow in knowledge of Him, and who he is. This is only possible by intimacy. And others may not know my motives – but He sure will. I believe that is what the author was attempting to convey.
BTW, I do not go out on a limb to do this for my husband, but I do climb 2 flights of steps:-)
If you still believe I misused the verses, I accept your reproof.
I still believe “Christian” is the best identity…they will know “us” by our love.
It seems to me “Overcomers” is an accurate description.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than He that is in the world. 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.