Catch up on yesterday’s introduction to an idea that can be easily misunderstood: that “avoid the world,” as true as that is, becomes a half-truth when separated from the whole of Scripture.¹

A certain YouTube video has been making its rounds about my online friends, posted by the Wretched TV program and host Todd Friel. This organization is one of the best when it comes to Biblically based discernment, and that remains mostly true in this video.

However, view this video yourself and consider: is this letter writer perhaps accepting the error of asking only, “WWTWD?TDTO — what would The World do? then do the opposite”?

A flawed foundation

What does our culture celebrate on October 31st?

Is that where Christians should begin to build their cases? I contend that will lead to more wrong thinking than right thinking that keeps the Gospel in the center, along with the fact that Christians are, like it or not, still in this world and must sometimes deal personally with sinful people (1 Corinthians 5). The apostles did not give cautions about worldliness by encouraging Christians to be contrarian: figuring out what’s popular in the world, then doing the opposite.

Yet many Christians haven’t discerned that this is exactly what they’re doing — nor do they, or can they, do this consistently without giving up all media, technology, working, breathing, etc.

Without knowing this is a potential flawed and imbalanced way of thinking, might we fall into our old instincts — the “default setting” even Christians have of lapsing toward legalism — and neglect to fix our eyes, not first upon the world we should avoid, but first upon Christ?

Shunning made-up sins

The letter-writer, Aric, continues to base his argument mainly on What the World is Doing:

If we look around at the decorations and advertising, then it is clear that death, horror, evil, and occult symbolism is the focus of the holiday. Because the evil celebrated is general, perhaps it doesn’t offend our sense of holiness as much as it should. But what if the holiday celebrated a specific evil?

“I wonder if he’s onto something here,” Friel remarked. “Yeah, it’s kinda — ghosts and goblins, and yeah, we stay away from the dark stuff. But at its core is it possible that it is the very stuff that God says He hates in Deuteronomy 18? He gives a laundry list of sins.”

Yet does that list of sins include even scary creatures such as “ghosts” and “goblins”? None of these exist. Occult practices and “witchcraft,” as in trying to contact spirits, manipulate events or be At One With Nature, do exist, and these are displeasing to God. Yet can anyone prove Biblically that dressing up as a “goblin” (a mythical creature) is also sinful by association? It might be pointless, or the person may have sinful motives. He may be saying that an imaginary bad creature is actually good in its badness — that is a sin. But imagining such a creature is not a sin. Writing stories about goblins is not a sin. Even dressing up as a goblin may not be sin.

An imaginary parallel

The letter-writer next finds more imagination, asking what-if, and positing a nonexistent world:

What if Halloween was a celebration of, oh say, abortion. The country celebrated abortion by dressing up as doctors, nurses and pregnant women. Kids went door to door, knocked and shouted, “Roe v. Wade,” and were given candy. The stores were filled with pro-abortion decorations. Advertising was centered on abortion. If that were the case, would most Christians still have their kids dress up (as alternative characters of course: farmers, princesses, bible [sic] characters, etc.) and go seeking candy just like the rest of society?

Notice I’m not saying imagination is wrong, or that what-if scenarios are always flawed. But they’re tricky to suggest in a debate, if you do not, say, prevent all analogy loopholes or take into account the fact that your made-up parallel does not exist. For the same reason, Star Trek episodes that ask what-if, and then have a story about an actual biologically androgynous alien, fails to give any legitimate challenge to Christian morality about gender roles. If such a scenario occurred in the real world, Christian ethicists would surely struggle. But so far, it is imaginary.

The same is true of National Celebrate Abortion Day. Yes, if such an event actually occurred, Christians would be wise to avoid it entirely. But what if the occasion had actually begun as a celebration of life and health care, and it just so happened that 90 percent of people ran off with perverting it into a celebration of murdering children? If most of The World takes a good Thing, such as a hospital or doctor, and tries to corrupt that into only a representation of evil, should Christians simply go along with them? ²

“We don’t want to make something a sin that is not a sin,” Friel acknowledged, adding that of course Christians are under grace. “But I’m kind of wondering if Aric is maybe, just maybe, onto something, that we have been a little desensitized to evil. … We’ve lost sight that it is a category, if you will, that God absolutely hates.”

That may be true. And I certainly don’t want to contribute to the wrong notions many well-meaning Christians have: that it’s no problem, or even fun, to glory in things like purposeless violence and horror.³ What I’m showing here is the other side. Some Christians have surely become desensitized to evil, but others have become desensitized to the real sources of sin: not Things, especially imaginary Things, but their own sin-shrapnel in their own hearts. And getting that wrong will lead Christians right back to worldliness.

Letting Christ, not the world, lead the way

Moreover, our letter-writer isn’t only suggesting that in this imagined parallel world, Christians simply avoid trick-or-treating on Celebrate Abortion Day. In effect, he’s suggesting that no Christian should even consider Wholesome Alternatives that contradict the world’s celebration of death and violence. Thus, we’d not only focus first on the world, we allow it to set the agenda.

PS: just a parting shot at the “harvest parties” thrown by many churches: is it really an alternative, or just a way for us to tell our kids that participation in Halloween is so important that we should come up with a way to still celebrate something on that specific day rather than actually not participate.

Perhaps Aric has only ever seen megachurches falling all over themselves to be popular, or in their own way to let The World set the agenda to follow. Yet it does not follow that all churches have this motivation, or that Christians who enjoy a “harvest party” ought to feel self-doubt or guilt. To correct obsessive world-gazing with more of the same defeats Christians’ whole point.

Fortunately, rather than pushing this mindset completely, Friel suggested Christians simply wrestle with this issue afresh. That seems good counsel, and I hope I’ve done that here.

Many wise Christian theologians (and Todd) have remarked about the “pendulum swing” many Christians take, going first to one extreme, then overcorrecting for that one, then coming back again in the next generation, and so on. I write not to defend Halloween (which I don’t even particularly care for, any more than yoga-esque stretching!) but to question whether “what would the world do? then do the opposite” is a Biblical concept, and if it makes sense to drag imaginary creatures, such as goblins, and practices, such as flying on brooms, into the debate.

This Halloween, let’s not fix our eyes upon The World and all that professes to be creepy and scary, at which point we try not to look, and avoid it all with legalism or “harvest parties.” Let’s instead fix our eyes on Christ. He doesn’t change us by being the world’s opposite, as if it somehow sets the agenda and leaves Him and us to contradict it, but by being Himself.

Moreover, even a sinful world can reflect some truths, even by contrast. All this “celebration” of death and destruction is often the result of pure evil. But often it is also because people truly fear death — so they laugh at it, trying to shake the thought away with feigned carelessness. Deep inside they may be hurting and genuinely frightened. What a conversation starter! Christ has vanquished all power of death and openly shamed evil spiritual forces (Colossians 2). And continuing to fear darkness, either real or imagined, makes little sense in that glorious light.

Some months ago I — politely, I hope — replied to a Bible study question, not with an answer, but with another question. The question was something like, “How can we avoid the world?” And suddenly I realized something I had not previously considered so directly. ¹

“Could I instead question the question?” I asked. “Does Scripture encourage us to base how we believe, and what we do, on ‘avoid the world’?”

I’ve been hearing this a lot, especially this time of year. The recent resurgence of the Yoga Controversy — thanks to Al Mohler, who added some balance in a more-recent column — has also brought on more responses akin to: Christians should avoid the world.

This is not a myth. But it is a half-truth.

Similarly, these two statements are also not myths:

• You must repent of your sins.
• God’s love is what saves you.

But take either one of those, apart from other truths and the context of Scripture, and try to build beliefs out of it, and you’ll likely end up with a System that may be internally consistent, yet not consistent with all of God’s Word. So it is with “avoid the world” and misreadings of this:

Many Christians say this clearly indicates we must avoid anything “worldly.” Yet they can’t avoid applying this verse selectively. Christians on the internet who say everything about Halloween, including candy and costumes, is “of the world” and thus should be avoided, don’t consider if the same applies to their of-the-world internet use. Few Christians would go to the extremes of groups such as the Amish — yet even the Amish have concluded that practices like wearing clothes, as most of the world does, and farming, also a continually popular occupation in the world, don’t count as being “in the world.”

1 John 2: 15-17 is not talking about avoiding every Thing in the world. Instead John refers to Christians loving worldly things more than they love God. His specific phrases show actual sin: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions.”

Saying “Christians must avoid the world,” without Biblical balance, ends up ignoring 1) sin’s ultimate origin (Mark 7), and 2) the goodness God has left in the world, such as governments (Romans 13), kind parents (Matthew 7: 9-11) and God’s glory shown in nature, which even in a sin-cursed world reflects His love and creativity (the entire book of Psalms).

But because of sinful hearts, people use and abuse good things in the world for sin: costumes, food, media, travel, family, churches, even Christian doctrine. The sin comes from within. And it continually surprises me that some conservative Christians, often by accident, accept the liberal-theology idea that sin does not come from within, but without, from The Environment.

Moreover, Christians who say only “avoid the world” have a wrong foundation: figure out what’s wrong with the world, then avoid it. This mindset turns our focus off God as our positive, and to “avoid the world” as our negative. That’s a sure way to get both truths wrong.

Grace prevents that. Instead of fixing our eyes upon “the world,” however that is defined, and trying to deduce how we must avoid worldly things, we should fix our eyes on Jesus Himself.

Only then can be discern Biblically what counts as un-Godly worldliness, and avoid it. But our reasons should not be based on reaction, emotions or mere “logical” deductions of what may or may not be sinful, based on possible associations with bad guys or actual bad things. Our reasons should be based on glorifying God, delighting in Him and seeking Biblical balance.

(Tomorrow: why do Christians, in boycotting Halloween, label as “evil” things that don’t exist?)

Today I must cross-post, referring to my column about a column over at my favorite Christian-fiction site, Speculative Faith.

Subbing for author and contributor Kaci Hill (Lunatic and Elyon, with Ted Dekker), I found the perfect chance to reference a 2007 column about Harry Potter, Boggarts, Christians, Halloween, and Satan’s scariness — whether real or, sometimes imagined. Once again, it seems a near-perfect crossover between the “nonfiction” of Christian doctrine and practice and the “fiction” of stories.

A certain “holiday” is coming up, and recently I read one of the best columns I’ve ever found on the subject. This comes from alastair.adveraria and its three-year-old column to which an online friend had linked, and disarmingly titled, Of Boggarts.

I wish I could reprint the whole column here, and not just because of the Prisoner of Azkaban screencap showing Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) in a dress.

The author’s suggestion: the Harry Potter series, by virtue of its created-world and with its third book’s specific subplot about fighting against certain magical creatures, can help Christians react better to some evils.

When it comes to the accusation of witchcraft, I actually believe that Rowling can help us arrive at a more Christian view of witchcraft. The world that Rowling writes of is a world of Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes, self-shuffling cards, flying cars, wands hidden in umbrellas, bat bogey hexes, Whomping Willows, Quidditch, owls who deliver the mail, wizards who wear the most ridiculous garments to pass themselves off as Muggles, and the like. It is a delightfully humourous and playful portrayal of a magical world. It is not intended to be taken seriously. The fact that many Christians do take it seriously is a sign that something is badly wrong with us.

Read the rest at Speculative Faith; and read the original 2007 alastair.adversaria column here.

Changes are on the way for YeHaveHeard, which since it started on Oct. 31, 2009 has already seen one slight graphics redesign and almost 120 posts and columns.

For weeks I’ve had these changes in mind, having learned much from another certain site I helped relaunch this summer. Implementing them has been part of the reason I didn’t have new material last week. That process may actually bring more new material this week.

Any suggestions? In a couple of weeks readers should see:

Coming “concordances.”

Because I have sometimes lost track of what is where, I’m sure readers have. That will be limited when I revise the tags and use them in several indexes, which will make it easier to find articles and links on specific Bible books, topics and verses.

Improved searching.

I like WordPress, but it needs a better search engine: search by keyword, exact phrase, etc. Lord willing, this site will soon feature that.

Redesigned graphics.

Because I can be visually nitpicky and like to change things, yet not for only changes’ sake.

Guest columnists.

Though I’m already helping with one team blog (Speculative Faith), and have sometimes published some guest columnists here, I’d like to do more. Perhaps you know of a Biblical myth — within Christian orthodoxy — that’s badly in need of busting.

Better sidebar.

You’ll be able to find what you want and more effectively stay in touch with YeHaveHeard.

Enhanced commenting.

Talking theology isn’t usually as fun or edifying if only one person is talking. So adding options to this site’s comment forms — integration with Facebook, etc. — should help.

More Biblical myth-busting.

Many myths are still un-busted, not necessarily compromising people’s salvation but certainly keeping them from “small” Biblical truths, which often lead to big problems. That’s been the case in my life, when I’ve subtly accepted notions such as “Christians are supposed to avoid everything about the world” or, “have nothing at all to do with anything that even looks evil,” or, “if you’re not being persecuted, you aren’t doing enough.”

So the coming weeks should see pithier, readable, well-sourced columns that call into question those myths — still hoping to do that logically, lovingly and Biblically.

Also I still hope to come up with items purely for fun and frivolity, such as a second list (complete with actual photos) of spiritual superheroes in current Christianity. What good is doctrine discussion without Godward delight?

America’s Pastor is all over the place.

Seeking to understand what he’s getting at in his Oct. 1 sermon-by-video at the Desiring God conference, I’ve continued listening. And it’s nearly impossible to tell what his point is. As many others who’ve heard the message have said, Warren is all over the place, issuing platitudes rapid-fire. First he’s talking about you-do-this, then do that, here’s a verse to support whatever, now here’s another one that sort of applies from another translation, then over here …

Quoth the immortal (as a character) Captain Jean-Luc Picard, from Star Trek: The Next Generation: “He just kept — talking-in-one-long-incredibly-unbroken-sentence-moving-from-topic-to-topic-so-that-no-one-had-a-chance-to-interrupt-it-was-really-quite-hypnotic.”

Perhaps I’ve previously left unclear why this bothers me so much. Let me summarize what may be two underlying issues with what Warren said. First, Warren’s kind of topical preaching rushes over or ignores foundational truths of Scripture verses, and equally problematic, assumes the Gospel. Second, and closely related, that results in more than imbalance, but legalism and lies.

1. Warren doesn’t follow basic Biblical hermeneutics.

Though I enjoy and learn so much of God’s Word through verse-by-verse exegetical preaching, sometimes I do like a topical sermon. More often I enjoy reading doctrine-intensive books that focus on a particular issue, such as Christ’s atonement, or Christian vocation, or predestination.

For example, recently I ordered and received a new book by Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. Systematic theology on any Scriptural subject, by definition, tends to be topical. You collect all the Biblical texts you can find about a particular topic, such as how God uses civil governments to keep some order in a fallen world, and try to understand them all together.

Yet such understanding must be according to the Bible. And reading the Bible, exegetically or topically, requires certain “rules” of engagement. For example, you don’t take poetry and try to read it “literally.” That would actually be reading it nonliterally, like a liberal, for the Author (and authors) meant the text to be poetic, expressing truths in artistic forms that sometimes include metaphors. Another example: you don’t take a narrative meant to describe a historical event, and turn it into a “metaphor” for moral living, or a simple moral instruction for all Christians.

In his topic-surveying, Warren did not adhere to these rules of Scriptural engagement. That was probably the root problem of his talk: not that it wasn’t exegesis of a single Bible passage, but because despite appearances, his summary of verses and thoughts was not mindful of context. This includes the context of immediate verses, and Scripture’s main story-of-stories …

2. Warren did not even give passing reference to the Gospel.

Contrasting Warren with other pastors, whether they’re preaching topically or exegetically, will help to show and not just tell the difference more clearly. While other pastors, including those at the Desiring God conference, would constantly show how thinking about God constantly ties back to the Gospel — that Jesus, the perfect God-man, died for rebel sinners for His glory — Warren just assumed that.

Thus everything Warren said about discernment, ministry, bearing fruit, etc., became by default not a means of drawing closer to God for help, but a simple mantra to do-do-do more, try harder, here’s how I do it and you should too.

Perhaps without intending to be that way, Warren had lapsed into preaching legalism.

Without having inside information (thank God) about what the Devil is up to, it would seem one of his greatest successes is Christians assigning a certain image to Legalism, and then doing all they can to avoid that. In this view, the sin of Legalism is in behaviors or appearances: refusing to go to movies, “courting” instead of “dating,” wearing suits or dresses in church while also insisting every other Christian do this, preaching only Hell and damnation and not enough about God’s love, shunning non-Christians, homeschooling, and Pharisees (or Puritans) with beards, furrowed brows and hoods over their heads.

Avoid all those things, or looking like that, comes the assumption, and you won’t be a Legalist.

If I were the Devil, I’d be cackling and snorting sulfur at that. For without me even having to try, I’ve just seen a Christian, in the very name of “avoiding legalism,” act just like a legalist!

Author Michael Horton refers to Legalism is the “default setting” of any person. Even a Christian can fall back into this attitude. “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” Paul rhetorically asks the Galatians (Galatians 3:3). Treating the Gospel as assumed, or back in the past somewhere, after which point we can take over now and work, work, work to think better about God, ignore lies or even avoid legalism — all will lead right back to legalism.

And because the attitude of legalism is so inherent in our hearts, Christians in Christ must fight it constantly. I don’t think we’ll ever be free of it in this life. It’s like pride: constantly there, and annoyingly ready to claim one’s own awesomeness even at the thought of achieving humility!

But Warren did not focus his sermon on the Gospel. Overcorrecting, perhaps, for Christians who wrongly sit back and fatalistically wait for God to change them, Warren committed the opposite error. He pushed for work, work, work, succeed, bear fruit — all of the “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” parts but without Paul’s immediate reminder (in Philippians 2: 12-13) that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

If Warren could somehow be assured that his audience had so completely mastered the Holy-Spirit-works-in-you-because-of-Christ’s-salvation part, and they only needed to hear the you-must-do-this stuff, he could be excused for simply emphasizing one truth over another.

But as with talking about subjects like Law and Gospel, or God’s wrath and love, showing only one “side” doesn’t become just an imbalance. It becomes a lie.

Yesterday commentator Kaci Hill, in reply to a previous column about Warren, remarked:

Either he’s spinning half truths or he isn’t, I suppose. And half truths are lies.

Reluctantly, I would say Warren was preaching half-truths, which can too quickly become lies.

Next week I hope to go through more of what he said, particularly about the topics of what God expects of Christian leaders, and how we ought to practice media discernment. Does God really expect more than simple “faithfulness” from Christians? And for those who watch TV shows that show violence— are they really sinning and giving the Devil free reign over the brain?

Yes, I’m sorry to say that those are among the notions Warren repeats. And they leave me curious, not about why Warren is so popular, but why this impression exists that he’s one of those “nice” loving guys, a more-enlightened Christian leader who isn’t into legalism.

(Read Monday’s column Purpose-driven ignorance of sin’s main source?)

One may wish John Piper had said more in response to Rick Warren’s address at the recent Desiring God conference. But in fact Piper did have some reactions, and seemed to question whether Warren’s strong emphasis on “here’s what you do” was necessary.

Yes, I wish he’d said something like: it can be worse than not necessary when you ignore man’s sin nature and assume someone already knows the Gospel.

But thank God Piper did say something.

And conversely, Piper simply acted as though the main issue with Warren’s talk is that listeners should remember different pastors do things differently. I don’t think his comparison of Warren with C.J. Mahaney was very fitting — Mahaney may be more application-heavy than Piper, but each pastor ties his topic back to the Gospel. Warren did not. As noted yesterday, he said many true things, but the whole theme of discernment, as well as many Scripture texts, were taken horribly out of context: the context of the verses’ full meanings, and the context of the Gospel.

Here’s my partial transcription of the Oct. 1 panel discussion audio/video (both available here).

Moderator David Mathis: So guys, let me dive in right away with the message that we just saw.

(Very noticeable audience laughter, joined by chuckles onstage. A few onstage look to Piper, who simply smiles and nods.)

Mathis: (Pauses for more laughter, then asks John Piper and Buck Parsons for reactions.

Buck Parsons: Well, David, um — I’m almost afraid to say what I think I should say, because I’m afraid of, uh, what people I love will think highly of me when I say that I was actually just amazed by how much, you know, Biblical content, and just helpful, simple straightforward, um, admonition and challenge we received from Rick this evening. I’d never heard Rick preach before. I don’t know if I’d ever heard him speak.

[…] I was blown away by a man and just on his simple, childlike faith and dependence on Christ. It was beautiful to see. […] That meant a lot to me as a young pastor.

(He describes more positive reactions, before the mic is handed to John Piper.)

John Piper: Oh my, um. It was a remarkable message in many ways. But I think the one thing I’ll say is how intimidating this must feel, to all of us. The guy is unbelievable communicator. Right? What he means by application is something he does like nobody else. He’s got everything broken down — just five steps here, and three steps here, and five steps here, and they’re all insightful, and rooted in the Bible. And they make me feel utterly unable to do it.

So I think that what I should say to — he thought you were all pastors, you could tell he was talking that way. But a lot of you are. But what I want to say is: nobody believes that you should be you more than Rick Warren, and that you shouldn’t be him. And so if you come away from that feeling, “That was at ten o’clock last night, at a desk, quoting fifty Scriptures from memory, and having alliteration and having lists? I’m quittin’. I’m just quittin’.” Then just take heart, because that’s the way I felt.

[…] Let me go at a little theological piece that might just explain that a little bit.

You know the part where he talked about application, and there were fourteen life applications in my week, and I can only manage one? And so — teach your people less, and work the application piece more.

Um — there is a certain approach towards application there, that isn’t me. Meaning: you give the message, give the doctrine, you give the content, and then you turn towards, “now, let’s make a covenant with each other, let’s get five things, and we’re gonna check on you next week.” And he builds an unbelievable effective ministry that way.

There is another way to think about transformation and it is that — if roots go down deep, and a tree gets healthy, it bears fruit. And that you might, week in and week out, so feed your people, so thrill your people, so deepen your people, that they’re bearing fruit in thirty years when the person who did the thing each week doesn’t.

If he were here, he’d get all over me about that, you know? And he’d say, “Oh oh no, no, I’m not excluding that! It’s both/and, it’s either/or.” And that’s right. But I’m saying, I’m on the or side here. And if C.J. Mahaney were here, he’d get on my case too. He’d say, “Piper, you need to apply more. Give another ten minutes of your sermon to application.” And I say: “Okay, that’s right, C.J., okay.” And I’d try, and I just never have time.

So, I just want you to be encouraged that if it feels like Saul’s armor, to try to imitate that, he probably is. He is him. He is him. And one of the big issues with any big shot that you put up, people tend to feel like, “Okay, to have a successful church, we’ve got to do it this way.” And I just want to say: it ain’t necessarily so. Just relax with who you are and just give it all to Jesus, and learn, learn, learn as much as you can from Rick.

I can’t help doubting the thoughts of most attendees were, “gee, I wish I could communicate as easily as that spiritual giant with all his lists and alliterations, Rick Warren.”

Warren has gotten way popular by assuming the Gospel — often doing the easier work of faulting the church for past ills (actual and otherwise), and talking about Gospel fruits in social justice and such, while leaving other Christians with the less-popular task of preaching about repentance, God’s holiness, Hell, etc. Why can’t Warren play bad cop for a while, for a change?

What little myths did Rick Warren, in his address at a certain conference, let slip through the cracks?

Many others, including Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio, have already pointed out the biggest problems. Warren is a Pelagian, Rosebrough noted, and thus that assumption about human nature underlies all Warren teaches. His sermons, deeds, ministry, anything, assume the notion that humans can simply learn a truth and thus change their moral behavior.

But while listening to Rosebrough’s rundown of Warren’s message, I kept also hearing more little lies. It seems that even while trying to talk about the battle for Christians’ minds, Warren is allowing several wrong beliefs to influence his moral behavior and judgment.

What follows are some more errors, often very subtle, in Warren’s assumptions and quotations.

For the sake of time, I’ll mostly limit them to those I haven’t yet heard specifically rebutted.

Warren started with descriptions of difficulties in his life — the most recent of which was a family’s member’s illness, which prevented him from attending the conference live.

I’m confident that God has given me a message. I believe that Satan didn’t want me to teach it to you, and I believe that Satan didn’t want you to hear it.

Myth 1: We can make a good guess that the Devil is causing specific bad things.

It’s already hard enough to figure out what God’s up to, and He’s revealed so much about Himself. But we do know He is working despite whatever the Devil does, and even through what the Devil does. It is very risky to say “the Devil is doing this.” Why not cut out the middle man and try to discern why God is allowing difficulties to happen?

Myth 2: If it’s bad, hurting me, preventing ministry, etc., the Devil must be doing it.

The Devil is not even equally as powerful as God. Even if he is behind a difficult circumstance, shouldn’t we disclaim that God is more sovereign and not even partly endorse the subtle suspicion that God only causes good things to happen?

I have seen the face of mental illness. I have seen what it’s like to see people not able to hear God because their minds are broken and aren’t connecting to God even when they want to connect to God.

Myth 3: God often speaks directly to our minds.

This isn’t stated, but heavily implied. I hope Warren is not endorsing the belief that in addition to the final revelation of Scripture, God directs His people by use of inner “nudges” or subtle directions about His will. Warren could have easily said that it’s tragic when people undergo mental illness and aren’t able to study God’s Word or pray to Him in response.

I know that whatever gets your mind gets you. …

Myth 4: Our battle is primarily against evil’s assault from outside, not from inside.

“Jesus said, by the way, that sin comes out of a person,” Rosebrough cut in. “It develops inside of his heart. It comes from within” (Mark 7).

The battle for sin always starts in the mind. […] Every one of us has a mental illness.

This leaves out the truth that nonbelievers have sinful hearts, and even Christians fight most of the battle in their own hearts. (Even posters for the film Spider-Man 3 echoed this truth.)

Yes, the Devil is a liar and he causes temptations. Scripture is clear that much of our battle is external (cf. Eph. 6). But without understanding what’s in our hearts, sin, people will go around swatting at demons and imagining only external sources of sin, while the worst source festers inside. That applies to Christians, who still fight against sin-shrapnel, but even more so to non-Christians who must be first raised from spiritual death and resurrected to life in Christ (Eph. 2).

Why not at least distinguish between non-Christians whose chief problem is mainly in the heart, and Christians who are saved but who still fight wrong thinking? That would have been helpful.

But after so much damage done by Christians who assume if you aren’t a Christian, you must have simply not heard the right information! or even, non-Christians are basically good and just need to have their thinking corrected, it’s sad to hear Warren repeating these errors.

The reason we have so many ineffective Christians today is because they don’t know how to fight the battle of the mind.

Myth 5: We have so many ineffective Christians today.

That many people claim to be “Christians” and are ineffective is undisputed. Many others would dispute their claim to be Christians. Why not at least make allowance for false believers?

Myth 6: We must address battle-of-mind issues based on (a) perceived Problem(s).

Several times Warren goes on to talk about how Christians are failing, what the church is doing wrong, how we too often learn all this stuff but don’t apply it, etc. His rhetoric is all based on generalizations; he doesn’t even back up his claim with Barna surveys. Either way, this could be the result of Ministry Myopia. Here are the Problems I’ve seen in my ministry (views that often lead to more exposure only to these problems, because of a leader’s specific focus) so therefore they must be the same all over. Furthermore, we must do all we can to Fix the Problems.

Warren floats over several Scripture texts, emphasizing obedience, an implicit goal not of fixing our eyes on Christ, but Fixing the Problem. This leads to Law, either God’s true Law — which is fulfilled in Christ — or manmade Law, not the fact of dead hearts and our need for the Gospel.

Now the old cliché from the computer early days, GIGO, “garbage in, garbage out,” is still true today. The amount of garbage you put in is what you’re gonna get out.

Myth 7: Wrong thinking comes primarily from external sources.

This is very similar to myth 4. Warren has some good things to say about discernment, but citing this catchphrase without a foundation of humans’ sinful nature repeats a myth promoted by conservative and liberal professing Christians: if you put sin inside you, it will come out from you. Its implication: your main job is to avoid sinful Stuff. Its refutation: same as above, Mark 7. Jesus did not endorse that notion. He said garbage inside your heart comes out.

Warren even sounds like a dreaded “fundamentalist” when he talks about Christians needing to avoid junk in movies and on TV. He doesn’t say Christians do this mainly to honor God, but to Avoid Bad Stuff. Again it’s an emphasis on Fixing the Problem, not on glorifying God — and ignores the true source of sin, which doesn’t come from a Thing, but from the heart.

And here we thought it was only big bad Al Mohler and other “fundamentalists” who say this.

(Likely continued on Wednesday. …)

Today my church’s co-op blog, ProvPress, gets my original column — a review of Gene Edward Veith’s God at Work.

I couldn’t resist more geeking-out over Wayne Grudem’s new work Politics According to the Bible and another book, City of Man by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Both of those are now on my desk, having arrived much earlier than I had expected from a certain major online retailer. It will be a little while since I read them, partly because I’m trying to kick the mostly-reading-nonfiction habit (as a fiction writer!) and partly because I’m still reading Dave Harvey’s book Rescuing Ambition.

Like Gene Veith himself, I likely once assumed I already knew the truth that God is glorified in the different roles He gives Christians. Sure, “worldly” work isn’t any less spiritual than church work, I might have said. But I doubt I sincerely believed that, which can lead to doubts and even mistrust in God — as if a “spiritual” task glorifies God more than a “secular” career.

Veith says that when a friend gave him a copy of Gustaf Wingren’s book Luther on Vocation:

I had assumed that I knew what the doctrine of vocation was; that, yes, one can do every occupation to the glory of God. […] But both Luther and Wingren said so much more. For Luther, vocation, as with everything else in his theology, is not so much a matter of what we do; rather, it is a matter of what God does in and through us. (9)

Much of Veith’s work is a condensation of both scholars’ works, bringing their truths to the lay level. “After all,” Veith notes, “it is we laypeople who most need to understand the nature of our callings in the world.”

Throughout several short chapters, Veith overviews how Christians have taught vocation in the past. Though Scripture says the world has been corrupted by sin, he says, God’s creation is still running in many ways as it should. Even those who are not saved are under a “common grace,” and God’s people find precedent in Scripture for understanding their varying callings in at least four areas: as a worker, a family member, a citizen of one’s country and a Kingdom citizen.

All the while, Veith repeats the theme of God at work through us as we fulfill our callings.

Read the rest of my review at ProvPress. …

Here’s a sequel to my column from last tax day. But this time Rick Warren has come and gone (by video) at the Desiring God conference this weekend, leaving attenders and bloggers alike to discern — one might hope with grace — what he said, or didn’t say.

One in-depth summary of Warren’s address comes from a friendly source: The Gospel Coalition. Contributor Owen Strachan overviewed what Warren said, then offered some reflections. Based on those, it unfortunately seems that everyone who faulted Warren not for compromising or rejecting the Gospel, but merely assuming the Gospel, was close to correct.

[T]he talk would have been benefited from a stronger organizing principle, namely, the gospel.  The word was rarely mentioned.  Jesus Christ was quoted and noted, but His centrality in all things had less place in the talk.  This is not to say by any stretch that Warren does not love Jesus Christ and preach His death and resurrection.  It is to say, however, that greater connection to the gospel as the foundation of Christian thinking and spiritual effort might have been made in this particular talk.¹

For a crowd of pastors and theologians, Warren emphasized the need to battle for one’s mind. Yet some have noted Warren’s penchant for trying to find a way to agree with almost everyone — at the expense of ignoring disagreements. As Michael Horton noted in April:

Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience.  To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the “solas” of the Reformation.  Yet he tells prosperity evangelist David Yonggi Cho, “I’ve read your books on Vision and Dreams – speak to pastors about how you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?…What advice would you give to a brand new minister?…Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?” (“Breakfast With David Yonggi Cho And Rick Warren,” Pastors.com).

[…] When USA Today asked him why Mormon and Jewish leaders are involved in his pastoral training programs, Rick Warren reportedly said, “I’m not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials.  I won’t try to change other denominations.  Why be divisive?” (USA Today, July 21, 2003).

But if Satan is really after our minds, as Warren said, wouldn’t some “divisiveness” be fitting?

Near Strachan’s end, he concludes that still no one knows why Warren is so inconsistent — and perhaps even (I am saying this, not Strachan) hypocritical, switching between modes so easily.

The talk also failed to settle questions, some of them weighty, about Warren’s ministry.  Clearly, the pastor felt no need to pull his punches on such controversial matters as his church’s massive baptismal numbers, preaching to “felt needs,” and the Saddleback approach to ministry and the church more broadly.  It would be fair to say that many attendees would want to hear Piper and Warren cover some of the motivations of Warren’s ministry and the more noteworthy concerns of the neo-reformed community related to it.  For example, why, if Warren reads rich, largely gospel-driven theology does it seem, at least in some places and times, that his ministry eschews this kind of theology?

I need to listen to Warren’s message myself. I imagine that, per many people’s predictions, he will be engaging and indeed even Biblical. For someone who already assumes the Gospel, there will be plenty of positive points. But for me, it will be very hard to separate what I hear from Warren in Talking-to-Christians-at-a-Conference-about-Thinking Mode from Warren’s other modes that depend on his audience — and which assume audience members know the Gospel.

Who doesn’t want to comment on U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent campaign-trail assertions that he is “a Christian by choice” who follows “the precepts of Jesus Christ”?

I do, though I hope to write most of that next week.

Meanwhile, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today” feature wonders about Obama’s “Golden Rule” version.

President Obama, not as part of a deliberate strategy to counter the false impression that he’s a Muslim, talked at some length during one of his back-yard shindigs about his ostensible Christian faith. Among things, the president said that “the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead–being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

Reader Steven Muchmore writes that he was “struck” by “the subtle misquoting of the Golden Rule”:

The most succinct statement of the Golden Rule in the Bible is Luke 6:31: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

There is a subtle, but rather significant, difference between saying “[I treat] others the way they would treat me” and “[I treat] others the way I would want them to treat me.”

The second is the Golden Rule. The first sounds more like the pagans and tax collectors from Matthew 5:43-47:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

Probably what Obama meant to say was: Do to others as you would have them to do you, unless they make over $250,000 a year.¹

Regardless, I can’t help observing that the “Golden Rule” is not unique to Christianity. Even atheists are among those who claim to follow the “Rule” (and they rush to assure Christians that you don’t need to be “religious” to be “moral”). But people seem to misunderstand that in raising the moral bar, Jesus was not merely setting a standard for someone to reach. Rather, following the “Golden Rule’s” one commandment 100 percent of the time is just as difficult as following the Ten Commandments perfectly enough to please God.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

James 2:10

In fairness, Obama later mentioned a stronger version of the Gospel that’s better than that offered by many professing Christians:

“I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.” ²

This may seem unfair, but for me Obama’s statement causes not reassurance about his faith but a cognitive dissonance. It’s like hearing similar confessions from the gossipy old lady, the fornicating youth-group member, the greedy businessman or the false-teacher televangelist who are not repentant for their un-Biblical beliefs and behavior.

So perhaps next week will bring more observations about that.