Gather together for a dance ‘round the old humility tree, folks! It’s time for YeHaveHeard’s first

Correction and clarification!

It seems that the “Federal Vision” movement, while sometimes similar to views of “patriarchy,” is still different from said views. And some people, such as church elder and ministry leader R.C. Sproul Jr., say they uphold patriarchy views, but don’t support the Federal Vision.

However, a recent column here, An open letter to newbie homeschoolers, posted Dec. 2, included Sproul’s name along with Douglas Wilson’s as a supporter of “Federal Vision.”

Just yesterday, Sproul himself stopped by, and disavowed “Federal Vision” in a comment (viewable here). While saying he did support patriarchy and that it was fair to link his name to that, Sproul asked for a correction to the column’s link of his name to “Federal Vision.”

Naturally, your humble webslinger was gratified to stand alongside such “renowned saints” of church history, such as Martin Luther, and refuse to repent and recant.

No, seriously — while “recanting” may not be necessary because no Biblical doctrine was contradicted, it is important to make a correction for wrongful attribution. So, the wrongful reference to Sproul’s name is now gone from the column, replaced by a footnote.

As I noted in a comment earlier today, directed toward Sproul-as-commentator:

It is hard enough to defend what one actually believes, without having to answer for what does not  believe! Though I am not a pastor or “official” ministry leader (in quotes because all of a true Christian’s life is in effect ministry), this has happened to me enough in personal situations that I can empathize.

It can be very frustrating, especially if one has a better-known name, more-”official” ministries to lead, and the truth of the Proverb that “a good name is better than riches.”

Many others have evidently been mixing-and-matching “Federal Vision” and some views of patriarchy. That and your friendship with Douglas Wilson (whose views on many things I appreciate, along with especially his sense of humor that more Christian leaders could use!) have led many to wrongly conflate the two systems of thought and thus their advocates. Originally I did the same, in the above article, and it has now been changed.

More ‘Vision’ correction

In a magazine article apparently in 2007, Sproul explained more about how he disagrees with “Federal Vision” views and what that entails. That material was quoted online¹, and is reproduced here at Sproul’s request.

Not long ago two Southern Baptist scholars met to debate the sovereignty of God in election. Al Mohler fought on the side of the angels, and won. Paige Patterson fought on the side of, well, the Remonstrants, and lost. Along the way Patterson sought to score some points by pointing out the deadly trajectory of Calvinism, by quoting from my book Almighty Over All on God’s sovereignty and the fall. Trouble is, he thought he was quoting my father. While I am most certainly a Calvinist, I am not the Calvinist. Pinning something on me isn’t pinning something on the entire school of thought.

Because we share a name, someone confused my father and I. Because Doug Wilson and I share a friendship, and an ecclesiastical affiliation, and perhaps a conviction or two, some have confused the two of us. Some have assumed because Doug and I are friends, a reality I trust will continue after the publication of this brief essay, that I believe in what has come to be known as federal vision theology. I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. I do believe in paedocommunion, as did most of the church for the first millennium. I do believe, recognizing that we cannot read hearts, that we ought to treat our covenant children as believers unless or until they show otherwise, as has the great bulk of the Dutch Reformed tradition. I do not believe that this, nor being in the CREC (which welcomes Baptists into its midst), nor publishing men in Tabletalk who later came to be identified with federal vision, makes me federal vision.

I do not pretend to know exactly what defines federal vision. I certainly don’t know all the different convictions of all the different men associated with this movement, who sit at different places along the spectrum. I do not pretend to know everything the Westminster Standards have to say on the issues, far less all that Calvin had to say. I do know this. I believe that all those who have been given new hearts by the Holy Spirit, who trust in the finished work of Christ alone, will always so trust, and enter into eternal life. I believe that all such people will bear fruit in their lives, though that fruit is in no way the ground of their justification. I believe God justifies the ungodly, though the ungodly who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and respond in living faith. I believe that those who believe that some come to real trusting faith and then fall away into apostasy, even if they affirm that God ordained all this and brought it all to pass, have denied perseverance of the saints. I believe non-elect covenant members, whatever grace they receive along the way, are not given new hearts that trust in the finished work of Christ alone, and are never actually at peace with God. I believe I can’t say for sure what the men involved in this controversy actually believe about all this.

I believe that no one who has not been given a new heart, who has not trusted the finished work of Christ alone, will enter into eternal life. That’s almost universally true. It allows for no exceptions for unborn children, little babies who die or the feeble-minded. The only exception is Jesus. I believe this makes me more committed to the scope and purity of justification by faith alone than many federal vision critics. I am to their right on this issue. I believe that the death of Christ is why my sins are forgiven, and the life of Christ is why I receive a gracious reward, as our Father has promised. Or, to put it more theologically, I believe in double imputation and in the active obedience of Christ. And always have.

I take a southern Presbyterian view on Romish baptism, believing Rome to be apostate since the adoption of the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Just as I do not require others to submit to my views on paedocommunion (that is, no one at Saint Peter, where I serve, is required to practice it) so I do not require others to submit on this issue. My view on Rome is by no means the majority report. But once again, it is to the right of many federal vision critics. I am troubled by the relative sanguinity of federal vision toward Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I’m a cranky TR.

I have, since this controversy first came to the public eye, sought to be, as much as is possible, at peace with all men. I have had many conversations with men on both sides of the fence. I spoke against federal vision at Auburn Avenue II in 2003. I have also written, I pray graciously, about some of my concerns about this movement from time to time. You can find those brief essays at our website: www.highlandsstudycenter.org/journals/hsc/archive.html (Oct 30, Dec 30 2003, Jan 5, March 8, June 28, 2004). I have also, from the beginning, been decrying the rhetoric surrounding this controversy. This is the first great theological controversy to be played out in the age of the internet. The internet has been about as useful in encouraging thoughtful theological discourse, or even appropriate ecclesiastical judgments, as it has been in encouraging sexual fidelity. I have seen shameful rhetoric from both sides, and precious little effort by the more reasonable on both sides to silence the bomb-throwers.

I take the old perspective on Paul. I have not read N.T. Wright, nor Norman Shepherd. I believe that the animus behind all this animosity is not the defense of theological purity, nor a recovery of biblical language. I believe that behind it all is pride. I believe that the devil has his hooks in both sides, and that both sides could do much more for the kingdom of God if they would spend their time and energy heeding the wisdom of Luther who said, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), He willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

Sproul is a teaching elder at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church (SPPC) in Bristol, Virginia, and leads Highlands Ministries. We may disagree on “patriarchy,” and many others would disagree with his views, such as paedocommunion or paedobaptism (infant baptism, held more widely by conservative Presbyterians). Yet differences on such things don’t disqualify from the body of Christ. And doctrinal disagreements should not lead to deceptive statements — if it’s intentional, that requires repentance, and if unintentional, that still requires apology and correction.

Thanks to R.C. Sproul Jr. for being a good sport about it. Perhaps we can have a more honest and God-honoring discussion sometime about “patriarchy”? In the meantime I’d like to take this opportunity to reiterate two truths, truths that have been well-known throughout the history of this great institution Christ founded, the invisible and unified Church, His redeemed Bride:

1. It would be great to hear what “fall-through-the-cracks” Christian myths others have heard of and would enjoy graciously debunking — others such as, say, R.C. Sproul Jr.
2. Thanks to this situation, I had much less work to do today, writing an original column.

Next week, Christmas activities-permitting: Marketing moralism this holiday season. As a good Presbyterian would say, soli Deo Gloria.

(This was originally published under a slightly different title at my older site, FaithFusion.net¹. I’m reposting it here mostly because of “inspiration” — ha ha! — after seeing this, and referencing Challies’ earlier review of the “Your Best Life Now” Game. Yes, there really is one.)

So, Ralph Lee Laufenburger, The Weeping Pastor™! You’ve gone through Bible school, conferences on church growth, and finally have a ministerial position at Christian-Light Community Church in Kansas City, a middle-size congregation that you’ve made even larger during the time of 11 years. Your church, already on local television, is soon to go on syndication to many spiritually oriented cable networks, as well as TBN.

Now, you’ve written a proposal for a book. And we here at the public-relations and marketing firm of Rosenwald, Farnsworth, Sneed and Morningstar are certain that proposal has promise.

Here we have for you a list of proven marketing methods. They are sure to work, first in Christian bookstores nationwide, then eventually even the featured-items aisles and displays of real bookstores. We are sure the following steps will also bring about certain success!

1. Table of contents

We find your book proposal definitely impressive. Jesus Wept is a catchy title. It is based on a short, pithy Bible verse that is too often overlooked in today’s church. We believe your genteel writing style is appealing. The best marketing will match your book’s theme: everyone must see anew the value of weeping as Jesus once did. This of course is the “magic bullet” to everything that ails not only the Church, but people’s personal lives.

Here is our suggested text for the front inside-flap text. The back one will have a photo of you.

Have you ever wondered if a wise being, somewhere, is looking upon the state of his world, and crying?

What would happen if you met him? And you found not the angry God you imagined, but a tearful Father who only wants to lavish his love on you?

God is not angry with the world. In fact, he is sorrowful over the things so many people do to cheat themselves. They give up their dreams, they settle for less, and they fall for so many lesser things than the love and acceptance he has promised.

He weeps over you, just as he once did. Let Ralph Lee Laufenburger, The Weeping Pastor™, show you anew how to allow yourself healthful sorrow in your newfound love and hope.

When you, with help, write the book, its contents will be based on messages you’ve given, and a focus your church’s staff hopes to push in your new television program. It must be spiritual, but not too deep.

Please be sure to include some Bible verses in the book, here and there. We find taking them from different translations, at least 17, ensures the points are made most effectively.

Also helpful will be only single verses at the beginning of each chapter. Have the chapter’s contents have something to do with those, even if only one word ties them together. Other sources, including rare quotes from other bestseller authors, poets, filmmakers, mystics, and the Rev. Robert Schueller, will be cited in the back bibliography.

2. The book itself

The first printing will be in hardcover, of course. On the front, we will include a picture of you, Ralph Lee Laufenburger, The Weeping Pastor™, smiling. Our photographers will make sure your hair, tuxedo, tie and fingernails are done well. You will be looking your best, all nice and handsome and sweet. This will increase the book’s appeal to the members of your reading audience. Our research has narrowed them down into the following demographics:

1. People watching your television program.
2. Nominally churchgoing middle-aged women in secret-sisters book-of-the-month clubs.
3. Little old ladies who have come into the Christian bookstore to buy cool-neon-covered Bibles for their teen grandchildren, in their hope that the teens will, at minimum, stop necking in the backseats of cars.
4. People buying books for others, whom the gift-givers consider Spiritual, so the givers know the recipients will definitely enjoy the book because it is Spiritual too.

Ads in Christian periodicals, endorsements from church-growth experts and popular evangelicals who are forging new seeker-friendly outreaches, will also help give a jump on sales.

Here we are talking about American periodicals and Christian media. International marketing, such as the United Kingdom, and especially Russia and the People’s Republic of China, will prove more limited. We find Christians in China do not respond well to new material of such spiritual magnitude. Our staffers continue to study this phenomenon.

3. Book tour

Our campaign will certainly bring requests for interviews, likely beginning on local Christian programs. Here, you will show the value of your ministry’s theme by erupting in tears multiple times. Like God himself, you weep, instead of getting mad, over the plight of people who are not living their lives well and following their dreams. And you wish for so much better for them.

4. Reviews

This will lead to another jump in sales. Your Amazon.com rankings will increase and we will respond by negotiating with the publisher to purchase marquee shelf displays in Christian bookstores. Christian periodicals will review your book. For many in the target demographics (see section 2), the reviewers’ perspective doesn’t matter, so long as they have included a picture of the cover with you on there looking all handsome and smiling.

Statistically, about one out of nine reviews will likely prove negative. Our advice: take it in stride. They are simply mired in their theological traditions. In further TV interviews, now at the cable-network stage, you will weep over them also.

5. Merchandise

Increased sales numbers will lead to a coveted slot on the New York Times bestseller list. This will necessitate more advertising for the book. We are thinking here of licensed merchandise.

At first, your publisher will offer only Jesus Wept prayer devotionals. Next will come the essentials: Jesus Wept coffee mugs, commemorative bracelets (Mr. Farnsworth suggests teardrop-shaped beads), mantle collectibles, little lacy things, t-shirts, Bible verse pens, and live-a-weeping-life-themed dreamcatchers to hang on rear-view mirrors.

More books and prayer devotionals will be given through your television program, absolutely free, only after people send in their suggested donations.

6. More spinoff books

As your popularity increases, more books will become necessary. We will assemble a paid committee for you to determine which are the best options.

The Jesus Wept prayer devotional will be followed by age- and gender-specific new titles such as Jesus Wept for Women, Jesus Wept for Single Mothers, Jesus Wept for Extreme Teens, Jesus Wept for Kids!, Jesus Wept for Grandmothers, and Jesus Wept for Kids Grades 5 – 8.

More titles will include books of inspirational stories targeted toward specific groups of hobbyists. Our committee will handle this by enlisting the aid of several dozen other freelance writers and locking them all inside a dark room with non-internet-access computers and denying them (the writers) food and water until the task is complete.

This second line will include Jesus Wept for Hikers, Jesus Wept for Pet Lovers, Jesus Wept for Girlfriends, Jesus Wept for Teachers, Jesus Wept for Single Women, Jesus Wept for the Broken-Hearted, Jesus Wept for Poor Lost Circus Performers and Jesus Wept for Unicyclists.

A likely sequel called He Still Weeps For You, with imitation leather-bound gift editions.

7. Dealing with criticism

At this point, some Christian organizations and their leaders will get mad at you. They will conduct broadcasts and write articles in which they will say so. They make their living causing controversy and ensuring people are too concerned about believing exactly as they do.

You may be pressed about your beliefs, say on the Larry King Live show, or asked for your views on religious issues such as gay marriage, the Ten Commandments in courthouses and border control. Do not comment heavily on these topics. Don’t try to articulate your ideas about how to solve the problems. In fact, it is best if you do not speak at all. Just cry — not for those who believe wrongly, but for those who are too dogmatic one way or the other at all.

More criticism may come from representatives of other faiths. (Make sure your church is partnering with others in order to cure AIDS, eliminate poverty in Africa and all sorts of things that up until your arrival in the world the church hasn’t given a rip about.) Remind those critics that the leaders of their faiths also wept a lot.

(Mr. Sneed suggests another spinoff product for Judaism: Jeremiah Wept, Too.)

8. More merchandise

Our marketing plan for spinoff books will lead to a whole new realm of merchandise: Jesus Wept devotionals for teens, women and waitresses, coffee mug coasters, wall plaques, handbags, Bible covers (or covers for other books), cell phone cases, PDA-library software and special pens with verses and slogans on them, will prove valuable and essential to customers.

(Mr. Sneed and Mr. Rosenwald have also begun drawing up plans for a new board-game product. It will take players through this life, from failure to accepting love and the weeping realization that God loves us all and wants us to cry with him over our unfulfilled potentials.)

9. Time

Ralph Lee Laufenburger, The Weeping Pastor™, we believe that this will give you fame, fortunate and time on the bestseller lists for at least 1.3 years.

After that it will likely end. It will be replaced by an even newer line of amazing and never-before-known truths for spiritual people. (Mr. Morningstar just this morning informed us that we have received a proposal from a Frances K. McVeigh, pastor of Brown Hill Community Church in Sacramento, for a book entitled Jesus Slept^®.)

But you must also be assured that Jesus Wept and its assorted products, devotionals, coffee coasters, toilet seat covers, etc., will provide you and your church with unprecedented growth, long after your own bright light fades from the relevant radar screens. The momentum from your popularity will continue for at least six more years. It will be aided by your preaching of pretty much the same sermon in your church, without notes, and also helped later by your available-on-TV-only release of various artists’ inspirational inspired-by Jesus Wept CDs.

Long after the books have faded and even the paperback devotionals have been discounted for $.34 apiece, you’ll know that you, Ralph Lee Laufenburger, The Weeping Pastor™, have made a permanent mark on culture, and spirituality. People will remember you, for the rest of their lives, because of their newfound capacity to weep.

Therefore we encourage you here at the public-relations and marketing offices of Rosenwald, Farnsworth, Sneed and Morningstar to sign the enclosed contracts and waivers. We must begin our efforts at once. We will expect you to complete the book, with the help of your staff, in about two weeks. Meanwhile we will work through our schedules and lay out the ads to be released in magazines.

Memorize these steps. Learn them, know them, live them; bind them about your heart. We know they will work every time they are tried and that only these steps, at long last released upon the world, will solve everything. And finally the world will be a better, albeit weepier, place in which to live, and earn.

Today I’m postponing a more-substantive post for a very substantive, and seasonal, reason: I’m helping my wife bake Christmas cookies this evening!

Tomorrow’s post will be either about marketing moralism for Christmas, or a redux of instructions on how to sell a Christian-culture success. I haven’t yet decided which.

Meanwhile, if you by chance aren’t sure that a Christmas tree, as-is, can be a means of giving glory to God at Christmas, there is always this option. It’s brought to you by an outfit called Boss Creations¹.

Because nothing is so pagan as a fake evergreen tree in your living room. But a fake evergreen tree in your living room with two pieces of wood up the middle of it — now that is sanctified.²

Christmas time is here again! Hurray! This makes for wonderful memories and gifts, both past and present, time spent with family and friends, all while celebrating Christ’s birth. And, of course, Christmas makes for some interesting issues to discuss here.

Christmas has been a part of my life for as long as I’ve been able to remember anything. There has never been a time that I don’t recall those shining lights, gifts, potpourri, red and green, Advent candles, Nativity scenes, the Christmas tree, and yes, even the anticipation of gifts left overnight Christmas Eve by some magical mythical figure in a red furry suit.

All of it was happy. It brought my family together with traditions and memories, whether past or being created. Altogether, it was so good, and such a picture of God’s grace.

Then came an annoying Phase of mine, in my early teens. It was a Phase of Snarkiness.

I’m not sure how long it lasted, maybe less than a few weeks. But I think it started when I found out the Truth About Santa Claus.¹ Based on that, along with my being sort-of, er, subconsciously impressed by all those Spiritual homeschooling families who didn’t have Santa come to the house, I began to wonder: was it really right and Spiritual to have a Christmas tree? And wasn’t Santa Claus a lie?

Sigh. If time travel were ever invented, I would go back and probably be just as obnoxious now as I was then, while lecturing my obnoxious self. Some of what I would say would be based on this week’s Wednesday column, about a Bible passage being misused about Christmas trees.

Yet I wonder if even those assumptions derive from broader, worse views about the nature of objects, as compared to the nature of humans.

Robbing Paul to pay Pelagius

Naturally, after that column, I got to thinking about the connection between Christmas trees and Pelagianism. (I would like to stress that I don’t normally do this. Maybe it’s just that I have a lot of pent-up amateur-theologian-style energy that would otherwise be spent on, say, seminary.²)

That connection also has to do with two separate reactions to this column’s title. Is this a good title, or a bad title — by which I mean sinful? If I were saying it angrily, using God’s name in vain, it would be bad. But the way I mean it now is literal, and in a right context: Hug a Christmas tree, for God’s sake! And I’m using His Name, for God’s sake, literally — not in vain.

Similarly, is a Christmas tree good, or bad? Answer: it depends on how you’re using it. Are you using it as a vain thing, or with Godward purpose? That depends on one’s heart.

That’s where Pelagianism can interfere. That way of thinking, originated by a British layman in the fourth century, claims that humans aren’t afflicted with a sin nature from Adam’s and Eve’s sin. Instead, we must almost repeat their decision in our choices, with a neutral nature.

The most extreme view of this isn’t much different from a non-Christian who would claim people aren’t basically good or evil, but neutral: what causes sins is our environment.

Pelagian assumptions are rampant in some Christians. Among those would seem a spinoff notion that things in the world can be evil. That skews the Bible’s teaching that it is not humans who are neutral; objects are. And objects are not naturally evil; humans are. Jesus said that putting something into one’s body, such as food, doesn’t cause evil or defilement; real evil comes from within (Mark 7: 14-23). Paul told the Corinthians that meat cooked in honor of idols is neutral, because God is the only real God; an idol doesn’t exist and is a nonissue.³

So I have started to wonder: how many Christians have this kind of objects-as-evil view when it comes to movies? Or music? Or Santa Claus, or Christmas trees, or celebrating Christmas at all?

Did I have that view in other ways when I was growing up? Absolutely I did. I even made little self-righteous lists of things that were Good and things that were Bad.⁴ The Bad things included Batman, Barbie dolls, and Ninja Turtles.⁵ The list of Good things included — included —

Hmm, come to think of it, I never had a list of things that were Good. That might have helped.

I wish I had known better at the time — I think even a child could understand this — that things by themselves are neither good nor bad. This week I thought about this even more because of a little word study about the Hebrew term hebel. It means “vanity,” something pointless, useless. All is hebel, the author of Ecclesiastes would have said. And in Deuteronomy 32:21, God doesn’t just say that idols are vain, He says they are vanities. It’s the same word.

It is not the statues, poles, trees, whatever, that cause evil. People cause evil, misusing things.

If I had known that more when I had my little I-wonder-if-Christmas-things-are-evil Phase, it would have saved me a lot of trouble. Instead of letting other Christians send those guilt vibes my way (even if they didn’t mean to, they didn’t do much to prevent that from happening), I would have felt sorry for them, that they couldn’t enjoy these symbols of grace.

Christ is born, hug a tree

Still, it turns out that without creating a time-paradox of trying to grow myself up in retrospect, I grew up (at least in that way) anyway. Thank God, I matured past those faux-adult, faux-spiritual, should-I-be-“holier”-than-thou attempts — at least in this specific respect.

Years later, one of the first things I planned to ask my special friend, during our dating⁶, was how she and her family had celebrated Christmas.

And I couldn’t help but be thrilled at her responses. They put up lights outside. They sang carols and played Christmas CDs real loud, decorating indoors. Even Santa Claus had come to her house. They had a Christmas tree, and loved it all, while celebrating the birth of the newborn King Who does, and will, bring His people joy.

Like my family, they had enjoyed these symbols of God’s grace, so different from subtle views of performance-driven Christianity. And they learned even more later about His specific grace.

Two years after that discussion, we’re married and celebrating our first Christmas together. Joyously we began playing Christmas music on the Saturday before Thanksgiving. We budgeted for decoration items, including outside lights, indoor candles, ornaments, tinsel, garlands. At the local megastore we found the perfect artificial Christmas tree on sale. Elated, we bought it.

On the Friday after Thanksgiving, with Christmas music playing and instant French-vanilla cappuccino steaming, we unpacked that first tree and put it together. We strung lights, hung ornaments, enjoyed the time together. We rejoiced in Christ’s birth and His gifts in our lives — even while not thinking specifically about the Christmas story. We shared in that experience and, no doubt, made memories for years to come, to share with family, present and future.

And yes, when we’d finally put it together, and turned all other lights off and the tree on, with its colorful glows sparkling, I even hugged that Christmas tree — for God’s sake.

Thank Him for making objects, even Christmas trees, that by themselves are worthless and vain, but with His grace can be used for His glory. And thank Him even more for turning me, a worthless object of His wrath (Ephesians 2: 1-10), into someone who can show His glory too.

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Some of you are now squinting and maybe laughing at the thought. Others are nodding, having heard this belief from someone or somewhere. Maybe other readers are agreeing soberly and very seriously that yes, the Bible does have a verse that forbids dressing up a tree indoors.

My hope is not to offend anyone, especially those in the third group. Also, God forbid I should actually tempt you to do something that truly would violate your conscience. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 keep me from doing that.¹

What this piece won’t address is two things:

• Whether Christians or the Romans truly started Christmas.
• Whether a Christmas tree or other traditions are pagan in origin.

Perhaps a future column could address these issues, from historical and personal perspectives. Rather, the specific question is: does the Bible actually condemn decorating a Christmas tree?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

Figure A:

A Christian family, citing concerns about acting or appearing like the world, decides not to have a Christmas tree with their annual December tradition. They may give gifts, sing carols, or even have an Advent wreath or Nativity scene, but the Christmas tree is out. We don’t want to base things around an object that is like an idol, they explain. Jesus is the reason for the season.

Figure B:

One wonders what Jeremiah, if he were alive today, would say about all the Christmas trees that now decorate our Christian homes and Christian churches? Would he sound a similar alarm like he did among the ancient Jewish population in Jerusalem? He probably would.²

What’s the truth in this?

Materialism, stress, shoppers rushing home with their treasures, silver bells, etc., are definitely not the reason for the season. Jesus is. It would be wrong to assure people that holiday traditions are fine and good without also saying they can be corrupted. Surely for some people, a Christmas tree can be something that distracts from His incarnation as a human baby.

What’s the lie in this?

But is Jesus only the reason for the season? Isn’t He also the reason for everything? Could everything include an evergreen tree decorated with bright lights, bows, ornaments? Is such a thing a “creation” of the devil or the world? Or can they only twist good things God has made?

Many people in effect “worships” things like cars, food, a job, a marriage, family members and friends, even a church. Should Christians give up on all such good things, created by God? Yes, they can be twisted. But we know humans themselves are twisted — though created as good, human nature is corrupted by sin (Romans 2-3) and even Christians still struggle with remnants of their sinful nature (Romans 6, 1 John 1:8). Christians aren’t told to avoid all other humans.

But all that may not matter if Jeremiah really and specifically condemned Christmas trees. . . .

What’s the Word?

The writer: Jeremiah, a specially appointed prophet of God to Israel.

His audience: people of God’s original covenant who, true to form, had wandered away again, tempted by idolatry and other rejections of God’s law. In short, “They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my [God’s] words” (Jeremiah 11:10).

“Silver and gold”? Yes, it sounds like part of a Christmas song. But was Jeremiah really addressing Christians of about 2,500 years later who, as part of celebrating Christ’s birth, might bring an evergreen tree indoors to decorate? Rather, who was Jeremiah’s audience? They were citizens of Israel, who were wandering blindly after dumb customs of other nations.

Without reading further, we might even see he doesn’t even say this is part of an idol-worship tradition. God only proclaims such customs as “vanity.” One could say that’s a sin too, but this is more the sort of “vanity” that means useless.³ God is describing their custom as just dumb.

Real idols are next. His thought continues: these objects are worthless. They can’t even do evil.

The “they cannot do evil” part is key here. Items used for idol worship are not themselves evil. They may be stupid, vain and useless.⁴ But what is evil is how the people treat them.

If I really tried, I could treat a Christmas tree as my idol, even worshiping it likeunto a god, and claim that passage doesn’t apply to me. Why? I could say I haven’t cut down my tree with an axe (it’s artificial!) and I didn’t use silver and gold decorations (I used green and red) and didn’t need nails to fasten it (a Christmas tree stand works just as well). But still it would be an idol.

Remember part of what Jesus told His hearers, after more debates over true and false moral laws with the Pharisees, “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him” (Mark 7: 14-23).

Further in

Heart check: do you treat your Christmas tree like an idol? Does cutting it down — or putting it together from a box — and putting up lights, ornaments and more draw you away from God? Do you value a tree too highly? For you, would it even be a worthless practice?

If so, then yes, you may have something in common with the pagan practitioners whom Jeremiah (speaking for the Lord) condemned. You shouldn’t have a Christmas tree.⁵

But such sin isn’t a tree’s fault — any more that it’s the Bible’s fault when, ahem, its verses like this are wrongly thought to be specifically about modern practices, which ignores the (human) author, his (and His) audience, and the reason for the writing.

Again, it would Biblically be wrong to insist someone must have a Christmas tree for whatever reason, or even celebrate Christmas at all, to be a truly spiritual person.

Yet people who are worried about acting worldly should consider questions like these:

• Would it really violate your conscience to have a Christmas tree? Or would it only seem to resemble a compromise with the world?
• Perhaps some parents believe a tree (or giving gifts, etc.) is something they must avoid for the sake of their children, so they will remember that Christians must have different standards. Yet should that truth be balanced also with the truth that objects are not evil, but how they are treated can be evil?
• What message does this show non-Christians about where we believe sin comes from?
• Depending on your motivations, could not having a Christmas tree be a kind of idol?
• Would you personally be sinning against God in your heart by having a Christmas tree?

Even if a Christmas tree, or another tradition, does have pagan origins (which itself is disputable anyway, according to Gene Veith and many others⁶), maybe the children of some Christians need to learn in this way that God can take “pagan” things and redeem them from sin for His glory.

A Christmas tree can be an example of this. Jesus is the reason for the season, but He is also the reason for everything. And Christmas trees, gift-giving, even stories of Santa Claus, can be included, in context, serving as teaching moments, with both showing and telling, as ways to glorify God to Christian children and their parents. That works even better than acting (in deed, even if not saying so openly), that it is a tree with lights, and not human nature, that brings sin.

After all, a prime example of a dirty pagan thing redeemed for the service of the Savior: you.

Soon I hope to write more about the last column’s subject of un-Biblical patriarchy, especially contrasted with more-Biblical views of male/female roles.

Spiritual Superheroes! still needs a sequel. But the prospect of Photoshopping Dave Hunt into The Hulk frightens me a bit, and not just on a technical level. Still, it’s coming.

How about another game? For the job of trying to learn Biblical discernment for God’s glory and our growth, I’ve found recently one way of simplifying the task: the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, adapted for an even more spiritual purpose.

Christian camp counselors, start your note-taking! This is sure to be a hit at campfire discussions everywhere, when the kids are all spiritually high and ready to learn.

Rules of the game

True to this little game’s purpose, I think I can back up how it works with Scripture.

Let’s call the new form Anecdote, Christian Teaching, Scripture. Shout it out like a game-show audience: “AN-EC-DOTE! CHRIST-IANNN TEEEACH-INNNG! SCRIPTURRRRE! Yayyyy!”

(Grinning game-show host bounds happily on the stage, thrilled to be there)

Yes, that’s right, it’s Anecdote, Christian Teaching, Scripture! While the contestants enter, let’s go over the rules! In the original game, scissors can cut paper. Rocks can damage scissors. Paper can cover rock. Each item can be beaten by something else.

But in Anecdote, Christian Teaching, Scripture, a personal Anecdote and Christian Teaching can beat each other — and Scripture, the revealed Word beats both previous items. Sometimes Anecdote beats Anecdote, but only if it’s backed up by Teaching which in turn is backed up by Scripture. And if Teaching contradicts Scripture, guess which one of those wins.

That’s right, studio audience! Scripture wins again.

Shall we see if these rules are supported by Scripture itself? Wait, what’s that? Someone in the audience is shouting, claiming something about a circular argument. While the game-show security staff remove him, let’s go over one reason why Christians do in fact seem to say “Scripture itself proves Scripture is the highest authority.” Heeeeeeeere’s Wayne to explain.

Someone may object that to say Scripture proves itself to be God’s words is to use a circular argument: We believe that Scripture is God’s Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is God’s Word. And we believe that it is God’s Word because it claims to be that, and so forth.

It should be admitted that this is a kind of circular argument. However, that does not make its use invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof; otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.

A few simple examples will illustrate the types of circular arguments people use to support the basis for their beliefs:

“My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.”

“Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so.”

“The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: Thus, human experience tells me that my principle is true.”

Each of these arguments utilizes circular reasoning to establish its ultimate standard for truth.¹

Thanks, Wayne! Now let’s see if Scripture beating Anecdote and Teaching, every time, is a way of thinking and living supported by Scripture itself.

Scripture beats Teaching

Scripture beats Anecdote; Scripture beats Teaching; Teaching beats Anecdote (but only if supported by Scripture)

Recall that the Galatian church has bought into un-Biblical ideas about how to be and/or stay saved. They treated supposedly essential lifestyle rules as equal to the Gospel of God’s grace.

In response, Paul wrote a passionate, firm and wonderful letter that includes this near the start:

Anecdote beats Teaching (but only if supported by Scripture)

To the same audience, the Apostle Paul goes on to defend himself by citing his life experiences. But he backs up his experiences with the truth, against teaching that personally attacks him.

Anecdote beats Teaching (but only if supported by Scripture); Scripture beats Anecdote, Scripture beats Teaching

To believers, the apostle Peter wrote:

Scripture beats Everything

To Timothy, a young pastor, the apostle Paul wrote:

Time to play!

Contestants, do you understand the rules? Do you? Exccccellent! Then finally it’s time to play:

“AN-EC-DOTE! CHRIST-IANNN TEEEACH-INNNG! SCRIPTURRRRE! Yayyyy!”

Scenarios will be suggested by virtue of whoever can get there first to suggest one! Because I, your humble host, am here first, I shall begin, and with a very easy one.

Scenario One! You’re a Christian pastor, married, with three children, working in a Ministry™. You also happen to be hitting on one of the Ministry™ secretaries. You tell her you’re sure it’s God’s will for you to be together. Anecdote!

(Host looks around in silence) Wwwell, all right then! If you have a harder one, give it a whirl!

In which the Author, Being of Sound Mind and Body, shall Endeavor to execute Flawless Feats of Peril and Risk and moreover Defy Stereotypes

To all newbie homeschoolers,

Congratulations! You have made an excellent choice in choosing to homeschool your children. Whether that decision was recently, or five years and four children ago, I can say from experience: homeschooling is great. You have more time with your children. You don’t need to face as much atheism, pagan sex education, ungodly peer pressures and other garbage. Homeschooling seems to fit closely with the Bible’s ideal.

I’m a homeschooled graduate myself.

Where you are in the early Hundreds, newbies, my parents once were in the late Eighties, back during the homeschooling “pioneer” days. Ask them.

Been there, done that. Lifepac English, Saxon¹ math, Bob Jones history. Paperback books by Mary Pride, large family, public comments (some positive) or stares (most negative), and becoming an oldest brother all over again at age 17. Along with that, a snarky stage of aren’t-I-the-fine-decent-homeschooled-kid that I blame only myself for having, and which I hope I’m mostly through with today.

In 2001 I finished homeschool and started college. About ten years later, I have a print journalism degree, a job at a small-town community newspaper, a young wife, bills to pay, and everything.

So in 15 to 20 years, your young children may resemble me. By then they may have the same challenges, reactions, struggles and positive development as I can report now.

This brings me to the fact that I don’t find myself in the position of hating homeschooling or my Christian upbringing. In fact, my wife and I hope to homeschool our own children when we have them. Even when we began courting², I recall, one of our first discussions was what we liked and what we would do differently.

From your perspective, I suppose, all this brave new homeschooling world looks very new and shiny, revolutionary, exciting and more than a little scary. Especially if you were not homeschooled yourself, you are following in the footsteps of the original homeschooling pioneers.

Yet these same pioneers, looking back now, would surely do things differently, not just with teaching methods, but in many assumptions they had at the first.

My suggestion: learn from their mistakes and negative experiences, and carry forth the lessons into future generations. But were there negative experiences? Can you place yourselves in that frame of reference, and ask this question:

What are the unique pitfalls of homeschooling?

This has an inherent pre-question: Are there any pitfalls?

The reason I ask is because most newbie homeschoolers, in their it’s-all-so-shiny-and-amazing stage, may see only the good reasons, and fewer pitfalls.

That’s understandable! Compared with public schools, the pitfalls may seem shallow.

Of course, everything has pitfalls, but that’s not reason enough to avoid doing something. Christianity itself has pitfalls (such as losing your life for Christ’s sake to save it). Homeschooling has pitfalls, too — lots of them.

But before considering them, and especially the main one I’ll describe here, the above question and frame of reference is vital. Without recognizing these homeschooling pitfalls exist, you’ll have blind spots. You may repeat the errors of previous generations.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of that happening in the modern homeschooling movement.

So much could be said here. But if I tried to cover all the pitfalls, without balance on the other side, it would likely look like a long screed against homeschooling altogether. Instead I will focus on what I consider the number 1 pitfall in homeschooling today.

It’s an annoyance at least, and at the most, it’s hideously dangerous.

In the worst cases, it flatly contradicts the Gospel.

Pitfall no. 1: un-Biblical “patriarchalism”

This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles.

Without that insistence in mind, anything here will seem like it’s advocating feminism!

For years, organizations such as Vision Forum have been pushing “patriarchy” as the essential component of homeschooling family structure. Doug Phillips is one such leader; others, such as Douglas Wilson³, comprise a growing movement known as “federal vision.” Women such as the Botkins form the female side.

Again, by patriarchy I don’t mean merely husband-leadership, wife-submission, or children-obey-your-parents. All of those are Biblical concepts. Rather, the word denotes a father-ruled system, in which wife and children, especially daughters, are meant to submit to the father and support his vision for the family. This includes not just spiritual growth, but his career, likely a home-based business, and keeping the family stable.

Another term is patriocentric, or father-centered. For many, these are interchangeable.

And they are un-Biblical, for they equate all kinds of notions about what submission should and should not mean, with legitimate Biblically defined husband/wife roles.

Rather than upholding Biblical guidelines for a husband/father’s spiritual guidance, this view turns him into a default “high priest,” between God and his family. That includes his wife. That includes his children — no matter how old they are. It overextends the metaphor of Ephesians 5, and considers the father as in charge, not just a means of, his wife’s and children’s sanctification. And what his “vision” is, theirs should be too.

In these circles, a father is also said to have a special role in the lives of their daughters, being the main man in their lives until such time as he gives them to actual husbands of their own. Daughters in turn serve as their father’s “help-meets.” This includes a lifestyle beyond normal learning of home-making skills; daughters should supposedly serve their father in ways like their own mother. And the most vocal of patriarchalist leaders, male and female, insist that anything otherwise is rebellion.

A young woman once asked me how, if the daughters-as-helpmeets view is wrong, the Bible says daughters should be interacting with their fathers. The answer is that the Bible is completely silent about daughters specifically! “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1) and related verses about children, sons and daughters, are as close as you get. Daughters don’t get specific instructions about getting along with Dad, any more than sons get specific instructions about Mom.⁴

Clearly, fathers should serve as examples of Godly men to their daughters. But patriarchalist teachings, specifically those of Vision Forum and “Visionary Daughters,” go too far — beyond what is right, beyond grace-based living, beyond Biblical balance.

Encouragements for newbies

Again, this is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. Read John Piper’s and Wayne Grudem’s big book on the subject, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, with essays from many writers. Piper also has excellent sermons on roles, based in the Bible and on grace. Complementarianism is Biblical. Neither feminism nor patriocentrism are.

So what does all this have to do with brand-new homeschoolers?

Many of you grew up with wrong or un-Biblical assumptions going the other way. Maybe to you, hearing about a movement that puts men front and center is such a refreshing change. There’s much that’s good about that. But as described above, so much of it is not good. Rather than a return to Biblical balance, it’s an overcorrection.

A related question then becomes: can someone react from feminism too much?

In so many situations, I have seen the answer is yes.

My advice is then, as a homeschooled graduate who hopes to stay Scriptural in the way a home is run and children raised: test everything with the Word. Patriocentrism doesn’t pass the test. But so many newbie homeschoolers don’t know that, because it all looks so shiny — and better than feminism and secularism.

But both of those are un-Biblical. Don’t overcorrect for one and slide to the other extreme. Be vigilant! And maybe someday, you’ll have a family whom God has ultimately raised and guided, as their only Mediator, to thank Him for giving you.

More to come on homeschooling pitfalls, depending on reactions from readers.

Your thoughts?

Decisions, decisions — which superhero cliché to use first?

How about none. Instead, we’ll forgo an introduction and just “take off.” Oops.

So here they are, the first of I’m-guessing-20 comparisons¹: modern spiritual superheroes² in trivia-slideshow style, along with some very amateur Photoshopping. ³

Superman — John Piper

Superman

Mild-mannered by day, and passionate and powerful — also by day. Surely the first and most popular of superheroes could not be assigned to any other modern-day author/teacher.

Like the Man of Steel, Piper’s care for humanity is easily seen. God-given fervor for seeing, savoring and delighting in doctrinal truth help him soar. He can bend Scriptural steel with his bare hands, shoot heat rays from his eyes. And Piper even lives and works in Minneapolis, preaching at a great metropolitan church, weekly.

Members of that church and others who’ve read Desiring God or heard his many online sermons would agree that he genuinely cares about doing good. A Boy-Scout hero. His only weakness? Many kinds of Kryptonite, such as too-frequent Twittering and TV-watching. We can all identify.

Yes, as with the Last Son of Krypton, some people think Piper is too serious about his job. But confronting evil, not to mention superficiality in the Church, is serious business. Besides, at the right moment he’s just as quick with a quip as any of the “flightier” heroes. Catch him in civilian mode: quirky as Clark Kent, with a contagious grin. All that’s missing is the eyeglass-shove.

Fighting for truth, justice and Christian Hedonism, in a world that so needs all three — that’s Pastor Piper. You’ll believe a man can cry.

Batman — John MacArthur

The Batman

Some may question his methods. Some may even call him too serious. But you can’t question his almost cheerful commitment to rid Christianity of bad teaching. That’s John MacArthur, author, dark knight of Gotham City (Los Angeles) and pastor at his own Batcave, Grace Community Church.

Possessing no superpowers, Johnny-Mac (his alter-ego) is still a man of stealth, strength and many other talents. When he’s not writing books about holy living or particular religious crimes against truth, he’s applying his detective skills to Scriptural study and finding forensic evidence from the worst abuses of the Bible. Supervillains such as The Joelker (Joel Osteen) may try their doctrinal crimes, but one pellet of Bat-prosperity-preacher repellant makes them flee.

He may be dark and brooding, and even sometimes work against other spiritual superheroes. He and Superman (John Piper) may have some disagreements, but they’re on the same side. However, grittier heroes like Wolverine (Mark Driscoll) definitely get on Bats’ nocturnal nerves.

Wonder Woman — Beth Moore

Wonder Woman

Some may have thought superheroing was strictly man’s work. Then from a mysterious island came a new kind of hero. Deep-South drawl. Great hair. Flashy duds. Let’s not picture any more wardrobe descriptions that lead to unfortunate mental images.

Beth Moore wards off almost all criticism with her magic Baptist-woman arm bracelets. Many truths in the Bible are lassoed by her golden lariat. Yet some would argue that really, most other heroes already had her same powers, such as flight, strength and durability. So there’s some overlap. But when you’re in the thick of battle, even the redundant heroes are helpful.

Sure, more-complementarian superheroes, male or female, would prefer she work better under the leadership of male heroes. But you can’t deny her positive effects, especially if your church has an unfortunate absence of male heroes. If Wonder Woman arrives, you had best watch out.

Beware especially if it’s the day of her new small-group curriculum’s release, and you’re caught between a Christian bookstore and a stampeding horde of her fans, the Blue-Haired Amazons. And if you’re actually the quasi-Christian husband of one of those fans, Hera help you.

Mr. Fantastic — Al Mohler

Mr. Fantastic

Is anyone as flexible as the author/speaker/talk-radio host/blogger/husband/father/chronic reader/president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? How does he do it?

Clearly, Al Mohler as Mr. Fantastic is blessed by some cosmic storm with powers of extreme flexibility. He can stretch his body and limbs amazing distances to do superhero work. He’s able to wrap around multiple projects simultaneously.

Meanwhile, he’s very much a leader of other heroes. Since assuming the presidency of the largest seminary of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, Mr. Fantastic has led a team of at least Fantastic Four, and many other heroes with many diverse callings and powers. Only Professor Charles Xavier (C.J. Mahaney) could perhaps boast an equally large training academy for young heroes just developing their abilities.

And while Mr. Fantastic is quite a public presence with impressive speaking gifts, he’s equally at home in the lab, perhaps working on a few more Fantasticar-style vehicles for Biblical worldview messages to the masses. We can only hope and pray this leader and super-stretchy spiritual star doesn’t stretch himself too far.

Iron Man — James White

Iron Man

With all his technical expertise and charisma (though we would doubt the multibillionaire parts, not to mention the skirt-chasing), James White could have chosen a different life. Instead, perhaps after an attack by enemies of the Church that changed his life, he did something few others do. He studied the mechanisms of apologetics, built himself a suit of armor made from right exegesis and Biblically based logic, and became a hero who is made, not born.

He’s sarcastic, with indestructible arguments proving Jesus’ divinity, Reformed grace doctrines, justification through faith and more. Very often you’ll find him firing repulsor-blasts from his hands in debates with members of the Mandarin (the Mormons) Iron Monger (Bart Ehrman) and of course Whiplash (Dan Barker).

Iron Man’s battles over the Bible have led him even into conflicts with other heroes, most notably The Hulk (Dave Hunt). Some may wonder whether such force against The Hulk is necessary, but others point out it wasn’t Iron Man who started that fight. And let’s face it, very often you need even a man with inner flaws like us all, to swoop in with his high-tech suit, save the day, and blast false teachers to smithereens. That’s a — ahem — stark reality.

(Continued from Christian myths, part 1: Cautions before busting and Christian myths, part 2: To bust or not to bust.)

What do you do if someone says music with a beat is evil? Or that anything except music with a beat is evil? What if you hear someone quote a verse and interpret it in a way that you know isn’t what the verse means at all? Or maybe a Christian friend keeps telling you (I hope gently) that you’re views are against the Bible. Is it always wrong to bring this up? Divisive? Unloving?¹

What I’ve found is that sometimes it can be, if love is not the main motive. Yet love doesn’t automatically mean you look past lies. Scripture presents both sides: love, and uphold truth.

As promised, to end this little series: three reasons, Biblically based, to bust Christian myths.

1. Much of Scripture specifically refutes wrong beliefs with the truth.

This is especially true in the epistles. With few exceptions (Romans, Philippians), most of them were written in direct response to falsities. They didn’t just write the truth and ignore the lies.

Paul penned Galatians because they were dealing with Jewish legalistic leaders, the Judaizers, who sought to add to the Gospel with new rules and regulations.

The Corinthian church got Paul’s scorchers (especially 1 Corinthians) because they were compromising with culture and buying into false beliefs about the body.

Jude’s short book would have been written only about what Christians had in common — salvation (verse 3) — but he switched and wrote about lies.

I could even suggest that God allowed humans to sin so that His perfection would be magnified even more. Though Scripture doesn’t say this exactly, I’m guessing that in the New Earth we’ll find the truth (if we ever do) is close to that, anyway. At the very least I can say this: for me, learning to debunk the lies makes the truth, and the God of truth, seem even more glorious.

2. We must know more about how to pick out Christian lies in our own lives.

Any Christian’s growth to be more like God comes from God. Yet we don’t just sit there like fatalists and wait for this to happen. The Bible still encourages us to try, though we know it is actually God working in us (Philippians 2: 12-13). God works His will through what we do.

Understanding about spiritual truth also comes from the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2: 14-15). Yet we’re still encouraged to fight for it. Paul’s encouragement to Timothy does say not to argue about mere words, and avoid “irreverent babble.” But the apostle also says to him, rightly handle the word of truth (1 Timothy 2: 14-16)! ² The apostle’s advice to him surely applies not just to young Christian pastors, for we find similar admonitions to all believers. Avoiding “irreverent babble,” including false doctrines, and seeking the truth takes action — action God enables.

Have you seen what I’ve come to see — that many Christians are very capable of knowing, receiving and loving God’s truth, even while carrying on in beliefs that are contradictory? Might it be God’s grace that enables them not to see the contradiction and be mostly okay anyway?

But it might also be God’s grace that brings a caring friend, a firm correction from a pastor, a well-placed book, or a web-article that happens by, to show what Scripture really says.

Sometimes it takes a direct word about a specific belief to show how it doesn’t match the Bible.

Figure A:

When I was younger, I had the default view many Christians have about following God’s will. I thought that very likely the most “spiritual” thing to do in seeking God’s will was to get a Still Small Voice in my head that would say so. Or there would be a sign to confirm that a decision was the right one. Or it would somehow be so spiritually obvious what school major to choose, which job was the right one, whom God wanted me to marry, that sort of thing.

The difference was, I actually never followed that method exactly! I just thought something like this: well, if I did live that way, that would be so much more Spiritual, wouldn’t it?

I was not a false Christian. I believed the Gospel. I loved Jesus. But still I had the wrong ideas, buried deep down in my head. I don’t even remember anyone teaching them to me. And I had not read some book about it. They were just floating around, in church culture, unchallenged.

It took specific debunking of those ideas — including a bold little book by John MacArthur called Found: God’s Will — to show me how these subtle notions didn’t match the Gospel at all.³

3. We are better able to help Christian friends who still believe the lies.

Surely this isn’t just me whose afternoon can be ruined by hearing that someone I know — or a friend or acquaintance of someone I know — is getting deeper into some anti-Biblical belief.

• Based on what she has said, a young woman is very likely sure, based on church teachings or lack thereof, that suffering and trouble are almost always from the Devil.
• A young man without a father figure in his life is drawn to “patriocentrist” circles. By that I mean a false system of safety, family structure, culture influence and personal holiness at least as long as you follow the rules and become a “man” in the patriocentrist leaders’ way.
• Another teenage boy, raised in a strongly Christian homeschooled environment, brilliant and gifted, is kept from attending any college because he is convinced it might corrupt him.
• A woman on an internet forum is convinced there can be something called “Christian Deism” that denies the whole point of Jesus’ mission.

This site was partly started as a resource to reach out to such people. Whether it’s seemingly little lies like looking for God’s will in wrong ways, or bigger errors like Jesus-taught-a-“social-Gospel,” believing myths doesn’t just make as wrong academically. False belief hurts people. It ruins lives. In the worst cases, it leads to someone not having been a Christian at all.

So go myth-bust. Let’s labor to locate, target, and systematically destroy the lies, mostly in ourselves — errors and myths that don’t honor God and can hurt either us or others. It’s not just good for goodness’ sake. It’s to grow in God’s truth and glorify Him above all else.

(Continued from Christian myths, part 1: Cautions before busting.)

On Monday afternoon I came home from work, and about tore out several of my personal hairs.

It was because of my wife. Yet let me quickly say I was not being mean; my frustration wasn’t because of anything she said. It was because of a Friday Wretched Radio broadcast that she played for me.

“Let me ‘splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.”

A woman called in to this Christian talk-radio program, hosted by Todd Friel. She didn’t pick much on Todd, but on one of his friends, a guy named Justin Peters. This teacher/speaker has a ministry particularly geared toward pointing out the wrong teachings and heresies of “Word Faith” leaders, such as Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn and (everyone’s favorite) Joel Osteen. A victim of mild cerebral palsy, Peters’ purpose is to show video clips of the “prosperity” preachers at churches, then carefully, Biblically explain why their teachings are anti-Biblical.

Well, this myth-busting of people who had made Such a Difference in this dear lady’s life didn’t sit well with her. She started off by condemning Peters for being so mean and for condemning other Christians … uh, yeah. Think about that last sentence from a logical-fallacy perspective. Todd brought up that little inconsistency, very graciously yet clearly.

Bing went one hair from my head.

Then she went on into general admonitions that Peters should be more “loving.”

Boink. Bing. Out went a few more hairs, along with a howl — loving, but lamenting.

Toward the last, the woman even brought up the “judge not lest ye be judged” notion. By that point she was just hurling clichés, leading by her own feelings, arguing from emotions, not a lot of Biblically informed thought. And I had pulled out at least a few more clumps of hair.

Finally she parted with a gushing blessing on Todd Friel, but without willingness to see her inconsistencies or even lack of concern for those who have been deceived by false teachers.

Even if God had worked through the false teachers to convey some truth to her, it didn’t matter that almost all of what they said otherwise was heresy. All that seemed to matter to her was her own experience. So regretfully classic. “Bless her heart.”

What would she say if she met the young man I heard interviewed, who had been “healed” by Benny Hinn yet was still partially blind?

What about a man who has worked for years to honor God and provide for his family, yet doesn’t have enough “faith” to get a ministry empire like Joel Osteen?

What if she had bought steak from a grocery and had no problems herself — would it matter much to her if almost all the other packages were putrid and gave people salmonella poisoning?

Please, before moving on to this post, pray for this woman — and for many like her! Such persons, even if they are true Christians, have adopted the belief that it’s almost always wrong (except for them) to myth-bust other Christians, even directly and in public. It will hurt people.

You have met them. Maybe you are one of them yourself — or maybe just a little.

Either way, I hope you’ll read the rest with a spirit of Christ-honoring open-mindedness. If this is the case, might you for a moment dismiss whatever experiences you’ve had with abuses of Christian myth-busting, or God using a particular teacher for you despite his un-Biblical beliefs, and consider: is myth-busting, when done right, Biblical? ¹

Starting on Saturday, I’ll list at least three reasons why it is.

Maybe you can think of a few more reasons. Or maybe you’ll think of rebuttals.² Regardless, please post your thoughts. “Discernment” can be done wrong, that’s for sure! Yet done right, with love and Biblical balance, busting Christian myths honors God and points people toward His truth and His love — and most of all, His glory.