Translating the Gospel

It's always good for some healthy reflection of what works and what doesn't. I can personally attest to why many of the churches in NC are doing so well as my dad served on the staff of many of them as the worship pastor. Those churches are people oriented, and they have a commitment to sound biblical preaching and making clear the whole gospel of Christ.

As for the churches in other states, I have some insight into them, as do you, due to my previous workings with contacting them, and they primarily fit the same billing.

The good thing about this list you've put up, is that it just goes to show that it doesn't matter if you're a "mega-church" or very traditional church (as some of them are), if you make the church about reaching people, and preach God's word accurately, and faithfully, GOD GROWS THE CHURCH!, ....but then again, it seems to me that He promised He'd do just that didn't He? :-) Good stuff man.

You've made some excellent points that I would like to elaborate upon if I may.

Yes, the Gospel of Christ is exactly it, but both in word and deed as Christ himself taught.

Yes, contemporary and traditional is all relative and can only be verified by the culture, personality and needs of a local church and the community it’s supposed to be serving. If the church is overwhelmingly traditional and only a few people want a contemporary-type church, then a contemporary church would be a horrible idea. Furthermore, if the community a church is supposed to be serving is contemporary and the church is traditional, generally speaking, such a church cannot expect to have much of an affect. But such would only be the “horrible” for the church, if that church is attempting to have an affect. If the church doesn’t want to serve, then witness and evangelize their community, there is no real need to explain the gospel to their community.

I noticed that Saddleback was not one of the churches listed

The form and method of communicating the Word of God is also important if not vital to the message itself.

Generally, a sermon screamed in anger is not as affective as a sermon spoken in love (again, generally speaking).

Preaching God’s Word accurately is also about expressing it clearly; hence, it’s all about translation.

The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek and it was extremely effective in spreading the Word of God even among Gentiles.

The Bible as a whole was translated into Latin in order to communicate the Gospel in Europe.

The Roman Church held so much power over so many of the churches in Northern Africa, that they were able to prevent them from translating the Latin Bible into languages familiar to those people. Overtime, the gospel became foreign to the people of Northern Africa, and Islam became dominate.

The Roman Church continued to place the Latin Bible in prominence while the peoples of Europe began to speak non-Latin languages. Overtime, the gospel became almost as foreign to the people of Europe as those of Northern Africa. The people were ignorant and heresy spread thru the Roman Church unchecked.

However, the Renaissance brought a renewed interest in Hellenism and the Greek language. Wyclif was persecuted by the church for his English Bible translation as was Luther. But with Bibles being translated into common tongues and spread across Europe by Gutenberg’s printing press, the meaning of the Scriptures and the Word of God reached the common man.

Revival and reform followed.

In an increasingly un-churched and post-Christian world, we need to effectively communicate the Word of God both in word and action in a manner which the society can understand. We cannot afford to teach an unwilling and unsaved populace traditional Southern American Baptist culture as a means to communicate the Gospel. The Gospel is superior to Southern American Baptist culture and must come first.

Thus, if the community culture surrounding a church is traditional or the church has no interest in communicating the Gospel beyond their doors, tradition is the way to go. However, if we really want to see the Gospel transform people’s lives, if we really want to see Revival and Reform, if we really do not want to see America becoming another Palestine, Northern Africa, or Western Europe, people are going to have to abandon their selfish whims and comfort zones and sacrifice their cherished familiar for the salvation of the next generation.

It Was Good For Bach and Mozart ...

I’ve noticed that far too many critics of contemporary praise and worship music will dismiss such music as being far too repetitive. As someone who dislikes most of both traditional and contemporary Christian music, allow me to defend contemporary praise and worship music.

I suggest that you traditionalists read Psalms 136 and 150.

Also, I would recommend that you traditionalist critics of contemporary Christian music who argue that repetitive praise and worship songs are bad

Also the Baptist Hymnal standard song which continually repeats the word “Alleluia” as its lyrics.

Honestly, I do not know how you traditionalists can stand those old gospel hymns. The music and lyrics are so dull, somber and simplistic. It speaks to the world of a uncomplicated God, a creator with little imagination and an unsophisticated manner by which to worship him.

Do you not think that God deserves better worship music than Southern American gospel hymns? Or is any old music good enough so long as you like it?

Aren’t the classical pieces by Bach, Mozart and Handel better than those of George Beverly Shea, Cliff Barrow, and Bill Gaither? Of course it is. But if you don’t think it is right to give God your best then that is between you and hell.

Here’s another one:

Why do we in traditional churches sing 150 year old gospel hymns? Because people 150 years ago did not want to sing 200 year old songs.

Therefore, those of you in the traditionalist worship crowd who are mad that your musical movement is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo should take comfort. In 20 to 30 years, today’s contemporary worship promoters will be just as mad that their traditionally “contemporary” music is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo.

"Welcome To My Life, Tattoo"

The other day while I was waiting in line at the Post Office to buy eighty 2 cent stamps, I observed a gruff and muscled man in front of me. He was wearing a tank top and sandals. While he had toe nails that resembled Fritos, it was the tattoo on his upper arm that sustained my attention.

His tattoo was a large depiction of the shaggy head of a panther. The design itself was of no great interest, expect that the panther’s nose was drawn around what looked like an indention in the man’s skin. As I studied the tattoo more closely, I discovered that it was apparently designed and drawn to hide a scar on the man’s upper arm.

The man had a tattoo applied to upper arm to hide a scar on his skin!

How brilliant! I must be quite honest; I have never heard of such a thing before. I’m actually surprised that I haven’t! The idea seems so logically simple.

I think I might start studying other tattoos when given the chance and see how many other people have had this idea.

Recommended Religious Reading List

XXXXX,

You asked a few weeks ago for a recommended religious reading list. Here's mine. I'll also post these on my blog. Thanks. PC


Dogmatics (vol. 1 and 2) – Emil Brunner
Mere Christianity – C. S. Lewis
Transforming Mission – David Bosch
Philosophical Fragments – Soren Kierkegaard
Message and Mission – Eugene Nida
Customs and Culture – Eugene Nida
Cost of Discipleship – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Word of Truth – Dale Moody
Either/Or – Soren Kierkegaard
Nature and Destiny of Man – Reinhold Niebuhr
Understanding Genesis – Nahum Sarna
The Concept of Anxiety – Soren Kierkegaard
Concluding Unscientific Postscript - Soren Kierkegaard
Axioms of Religion – E.Y. Mullins
The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression – E.Y. Mullins
The Sickness Unto Death – Soren Kierkegaard
On Being Christian – Hans Kung
The Baptist Heritage – Leon McBeth
Fear and Trembling – Soren Kierkegaard
Works of Love – Soren Kierkegaard
The Epistle to the Romans – Karl Barth
The Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspective – Frank Stagg
New Testament Theology - Frank Stagg
The Book of Daniel (ABC) – Alexander A. Di Lella and Louis F. Hartman
I and Thou – Martin Buber
The Message of Genesis – Ralph Elliott
The Divine Imperative – Emil Brunner
The Mediator – Emil Brunner
The Theology of Hope – Jurgen Moltmann
A Literary Approach to the New Testament – John Paul Pritchard
Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Soren Kierkegaard
Apostasy – Dale Moody
Sexual Ethics – Stanley Grenz
Christian Theology – Millard Erickson
The Book of J – Harold Bloom
Genesis: A Living Conversation – Bill Moyers
Christ and Culture and Culture – H. Richard Niebuhr
Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally – David Hesselgrave
Baptist Confessions of Faith – William Lumpkin


Here are some “religious” works of fiction. Not all “Christian” and not all explicitly “religious”:

Before the Law – Franz Kafka
Waiting for Godot – Samuel Beckett
The Chronicles of Narnia – C.S. Lewis
The Wasteland - T. S. Elliot
Meditation XVII - John Donne
The Second Coming – W.B. Yeats
Four Quartets - T. S. Elliot
The Brothers Karamazov - Dostoyevsky
The Divine Comedy – Alighieri Dante
Paradise Lost – John Milton
The Last Temptation - Nikos Kazantzakis
Moby Dick – Herman Melville
The Castle - Franz Kafka
The Trial – Franz Kafka
Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Head Coverings During Prayer: Applying 1 Corinthian 11:4 at Graduation

During my graduation rehearsal, we were told that during prayers the men must take off their hats while women were to keep their hats on. [pardon the preposition]

I myself think that such a by-gone tradition and unscriptural sexist discrimination is foolish. I considered keeping my own hat on in solidarity with the female ministers in my class. However, after quick consideration, I decided to honor these two “traditions” out of due respect of my position as a guest at this church (Travis Avenue Baptist).

Oddly enough, a lovely Korean lady sitting near me asked me why she and other women must keep their hats on while the men were required to take their hats off during prayers. I explained to her that this practice is due to the traditional misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” (1 Corinthian 11:4f.)

Incidentally, 1 Corinthians is probably the most ironically misinterpreted book of the NT. I say “ironically” because there are several passages in this book so misinterpreted by evangelicals that they end up practicing these teachings in the very manner against which Paul teaches (i.e., “speaking in tongues”, women and authority, Christian liberty, communion and divisions, etc.) How odd.

But her question struck a thought.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” (1 Corinthian 11:4)

“Having his head covered?” Are we to take this commandment by God thru Paul literally? If that be the case, then shouldn’t men take off their toupees and hairpieces when praying at church? That’s what the Bible says, right?

Of course, we take the English word “covered” to refer to “hats” of some sort and not simply “covering”.

But if toupees and hairpieces were referred to as “hair hats” (ala the Seinfeld episode titled “The Beard”) would we then deem toupees to be hats and thus a covering which 1 Corinthians prohibits?

I do not know. I suspect it depends upon who in power among those who decide how we are to interpret Scripture has a toupee or not.

So Far ... What is it about Mormonism that prevents its followers from having salvation in Christ?

1) I have been reading the numerous books written by evangelicals about Mormonism. While these books are mentioning the various bad teachings of the Mormon Church, so far I am not reading any author that states why Mormons are not in a saving relationship with Christ.

2) Many of the apologetic books that deal with the false teachings of Mormonism are somewhat selective in their identification. Typically, the authors will take a fundamental Mormon teaching which is taken from the Biblical Scriptures and then attempt to explain why this teaching is taken in the wrong way by Mormons. The problem with this approach is that the authors present their case on the basis of individual interpretations of the Christian Faith which may or may not represent the teachings of the entire community. This is sort of like accusing all of today’s Southern Baptists of Landmarkism based upon the teachings of James Robinson Graves.

That such a problem of interpretation exists among many apologetic authors attempting to explain and repute Mormonism is evident in the frequent references to that most contemporary ignorance to such teachings. The apologetic authors often find modern and contemporary leaders of the Mormon Church who are frequently embarrassed and bewildered by the teachings of Smith and other Mormon Church founders. Thus, these apologetic authors readily admit that most members of the Mormon Church do not know of these old teachings. Indeed, these apologetic authors argue that most Mormons hold to the orthodox Christian teachings on most of the fundamentals and would be shocked to know that Joseph Smith and others taught differently than what they now believe.

So my question is this: if the contemporary leaders hold to the orthodox teachings and the vast majority of the Mormon Church members hold to these teachings, isn’t then the current teachings of the Mormon Church different from what they are currently being accused?


2) Many of the false teachings of the Mormon Church that derive from their misinterpretation of Scripture are false teachings that I see all the time in conservative evangelical churches. Usually, such misinterpretations stem from an overly-literal hermeneutic. No real surprise I suppose. There is a distinctly American form of religion that developed in the 19th century with highly eschatological and separatist tendencies. Such groups and movements include Fundamentalism, Landmarkism, Pentacostalism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Campbellites, Millerites and Dispensationalism. Of course, many of these movements have distanced themselves from the beliefs of their founders. We shouldn’t assume that the 19th century views of William Miller are still the 21st century views of 7th Day Adventists. How would we like it if other believers assumed that today’s Southern Baptists affirm slavery simply because our denomination began over that issue?

Interestingly, one great commonality among these 19th century American apocalyptic separatist Christian traditions was an overly-literal hermeneutic. Indeed, it was from this literal hermeneutic that their distinctive beliefs grew and which enabled them to separate themselves from other Christian traditions.

So I do find it interesting that so many false Mormon doctrines are not only held here and there by various “acceptable” conservative Christian traditions but that these false teachings derive from taking the Bible literally in places where they probably should not. In essence, they are often heretical by believing the Bible literally. Too much fun.

These are just some of my observations. No finality to any of them. I have not reached any decision about which Mormon beliefs separate them from salvation. I have been reading up on their beliefs and practices concerning “salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ” and both Mormon and non-Mormon interpretations of what Mormons believe about this doctrine. We shall see.

What is it about Mormonism that prevents its followers from having salvation in Christ?

Last night I watched a little bit of the PBS documentary on Mormonism. I say “little” because the amount of time I took to watch television last night amounted to about 20 minutes.

A thought came to me later in the evening: what is it about Mormonism that prevents its followers from having salvation in Christ?

This is not a trick question. It is sincere. I myself really do not know; I am quite ignorant of the subject. When one is an evangelical child, one automatically accepts the proposition that Mormons are not true believers and are thus not truly saved. One accepts this without question but, as time and curiosity progresses, one begins to question this assumption and seeks proof. “Mormons claim to be Christians and followers of God in Christ. Why are they not? Prove it.”

So if we as orthodox Christians believe that Mormons are not truly saved, why do we say this? What reason? I want to know.

Allow me to reject a few possible replies as untenable:

1) Mormons doctrines are heretical.

This is undoubtedly true but that in of itself does constitute a separation from salvation. Every Christian group has some false teachings, as does every person. Who then could be saved? Therefore, the general principle of having heretical views must be specific for particular teachings in order to objectively verifiable. And Mormons may have a specific teaching or more that separates them from salvation. But what is it?

2) Mormons use a false scripture along with the orthodox Bible.

Again, this is undoubtedly true. However, this again in of itself does not constitute a separation from salvation. Roman Catholics hold the Apocryphal writings to be Scriptural. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians hold John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 to be authoritative Scripture. However, both of these passages are in none of the earliest manuscripts. This is a fact which evangelical scholars know to be true. These passages are additions to the Scriptures and are neither authoritative nor binding upon the orthodox believer. Yet, most people mistakenly hold these passages to be Scripture. Therefore, the fact that Mormons use a false scripture along with the orthodox Bible does not automatically constitute a separation from salvation.

3) The lofty reverence given to Joseph Smith and his teachings.

A few points:

A) Joseph Smith is considered a prophet but he is not worshipped.

B) That Mormons follow his false teachings does not necessarily constitute a separation from salvation. Most Christians follow one or more of the false teachings of Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Schleiermacher, Graves and Norris.

C) Along with this last point, evangelicals will often attempt to discredit Mormonism by finding false statements made by its leaders. We must be careful about this; the statements of leaders do not always reflect the views of followers. If that were so, then we would not have needed a Conservative Resurgence. Indeed, John Calvin held to infant baptism but this does not mean that all the professors at Southern Seminary are apostates! We can go through our own SBC records and find numerous sayings made by convention leaders and professors that are absurdly false (especially in the last 25 years). Indeed, there are many Fundamentalist Baptist groups who believe that TODAY’S SBC and its leadership are apostate and going to hell. And let’s not even get started on Bob Jones University.

Thus, we need to be careful about the arguments we make if such arguments can be made.

A place I would begin is a general summary of “Mormon Fundamentals”, comparing them with whatever Christian fundamentals exist.

Also, I think the area of primary focus needs to be on the central Christian teaching (so says I): “salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.”

Again, I am only interested in the subject of the salvation of Mormons and not their false beliefs unless such beliefs are responsible for their separation from salvation in Jesus Christ.