Posts Tagged ‘God & Culture’


image via

I’ve been reading D.A. Carson’s book The Intolerance of Tolerance. It’s a very insightful book with a multitude if poignant examples of the agenda at work when “tolerance” is used as a club to beat dissent to death.

It wasn’t too many years ago that the secularists (who were in the minority), accused the religious communities of being intolerant. My how the fortunes have turned!

We’ve allowed the word tolerance to be redefined and turned in its ear. Instead of the historic definition of tolerate:

“Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:”

Or, to

“Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance:”

from the

“early 16th century (in the sense ‘endure (pain)’): from Latin tolerat- ‘endured’, from the verb tolerare.” (1)

Carson says that this definition is

“becoming obsolete, but it still surfaces today when we say that a patient has a remarkable ability to tolerate pain.” (2)

He gives another another older definition:

“Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary is similar: “1. to allow; permit; not interfere with.” (2)

Notice what happens when the subtleties of changing definitions creep in:

“This shift from “accepting the existence of different views” to “acceptance of different views,” from recognizing other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance. To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it…We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new.” (2)

Now, it seems, Christians are called intolerant for not accepting other views as equally valid. Do you see the irony of this redefinition of tolerance? This redefinition actually results in intolerance of any but the accepted belief that all religious or non-religious views are equally valid. It’s a self-refuting argument.

Carson quotes Terry Eagleton in The Illusions of Postmodernism:

“For all its vaunted openness to the Other, postmodernism can be quite as exclusive and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes. One may, by and large, speak of human culture but not human nature, gender but not class, the body but not biology, jouissance but not justice, post-colonialism but not the petty bourgeoisie. It is thoroughly orthodox heterodoxy, which like any imaginary form of identity needs its bogeyman and straw targets to stay in business.” (3)

He goes on to declare that

“In the name of inclusion (because, after all, we are tolerant), we may end up with exclusion (proving we are intolerant).” (4)

That’s the absurdity of where we are as a culture.

I leave you with one other quote from the Christian Mom Thoughts blog I found interesting:

“Tolerance is the most misused word today. By definition, tolerance simply means to bear with ideas other than your own. Most people who throw the word around, however, treat it as though it means to agree with or accept those other ideas. To agree with all ideas is the ultimate nod to relative truth. Christians, however, should treat all people with respect, but stand firm that we believe only Christianity is true. Believing in absolute truth is not intolerant.”

– Natasha Crain


1. “Definition of tolerate in English:.” tolerate: definition of tolerate in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US). Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

2. Carson, D. A.. “Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance.” The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2012. Loc. 44-56. Kindle file.

3. Carson, D. A.. “Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance.” The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2012. Loc. 923 of 2278. Kindle file.

4. Carson, D. A.. “Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance.” The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2012. Loc. 926 of 2278. Kindle file.

simul justus et peccator,

Eric Adams



A good piece by Matt Slick over at CARM:

“Unfortunately, many who assume that belief in God is a mental disorder assume that their own position, atheism, is automatically the right position to hold. They commit the fallacy of begging the question. That is, they assume their position is true and the argue from it without any defense of their position. Atheism cannot be shown to be the right intellectual position to hold regarding whether or not God exists. Even when an atheist hides behind the intellectually vacuous “I lack belief in God” position, atheism, along with his materialistic worldview, cannot account for our existence, absolute morality, or information structures found in DNA.”– Matt Slick, CARM

via Is Belief in God a Mental Disorder?

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “crazy-nutso” Adams

We Want God To Be Our Mascot - Thoughts - Tom Graffagnino

“The search was on for a god more suited to the “felt needs” of the population, a god more in line with and attuned to the fast-changing, progressive lifestyles of the people….a friendlier god much more willing and able to cater to each individual’s tastes and fancies. The search was on for a perpetually smiling cheerleader deity dedicated and committed to approving each and every moral and ethical leaning no matter what, a tolerant god of good will and good intentions whose sole purpose would be to boost everyone’s Self-Esteem. The search was on for an non-threatening, always-affirming, psychotherapeutic-god who would listen quietly to our wants and needs, nod and jot down notes from time to time and settle our disturbed emotions until everything was “all better”.”

via We Want God To Be Our Mascot – Thoughts – Tom Graffagnino.

Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad

It would be refreshing indeed, if these folks would apply the same logic to Dawkins’ hatred of Christianity… but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

IMHO, they’re just afraid of Islamic retaliation. After all, vengeance and jihad are not the norm for your average Baptist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian, they’re fair game…but not Islam.

“And here’s whats really awful: he’s failing as a scientist. It might be true that Islam is holding back scientific and other achievement among Muslims. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if it were. But you don’t get to simply assert it, because there are far too many other variables. Islamic countries are themselves usually poorer than Western ones and far poorer than the average Trinity alumnus. Their standards of public health are lower, nutrition, education, everything. Does the average Muslim do worse in the Nobel prize stakes than the average similarly deprived Christian or atheist or Hindu? I don’t know. You need to do proper analysis, statistical regression, to work that out. Whats worse, Dawkins knows that Dawkins may believe that he is criticizing only the religion, and its effects on the people who hold it, rather than the people themselves “don’t hate the player, hate the game”, but his gleeful hurling of rhetorical stick-bombs doesn’t make that sort of distinction. Is he being racist? Maybe not, depending on how narrowly you define it. But whatever he’s being, it’s not nice, and it certainly isn’t advancing the various causes of secularism, atheism or everyone just bloody getting along.”

via Please be quiet, Richard Dawkins, Im begging, as a fan – Telegraph Blogs.

On the bright side, it is just a little gratifying to see Islam take it on the chin, and not be treated with kid gloves. Yet the hypocrisy of this author just smells of fear.


simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA

It is amazing to me, when someone else articulates your feelings better than you can accomplish yourself. The following is one of those times…

We Just Don’t Agree

January 22, 2013 By John Mark Reynolds

Postmodernism1Modernity came and many of us said: “Good. We like some of that, but don’t like other bits.”

We rejected the idea that natural science (“Science!”) was the only means to know, though we appreciated the help it gave us in forming questions.

We thought the idea that man was fundamentally economic was wrongheaded.

We were unpersuaded that the new morality wasn’t just the old decadence.

And we refused to get along with the Soviet Union . . . insisting it was an Evil Empire.

Post-modernity came and, when we could get people to tell us what it was, we were also unpersuaded.

We were told it had new insights, but could not find much we could not gain from other forms of philosophy.

We agreed with the critique of modernity, but pointed out that we had never embraced modernity wholesale.

We were told to be multicultural, but then informed our morals should be those of people overwhelming educated in post-modern Western values.

And we  have been told the “kids” would leave us so many times (“Christianity must change or die!” he shrieked in four hundred AD) in the Enlightenment, the Revolutionary Age, Modernity, and Post-Modernity, that we have stopped worrying too much about it. Nothing is so dated as the up to date. My great-grand if she is Orthodox is bound to read: “The findings of our time doom traditional Christianity. We must give up on . . . or die!”

She will be doomed! Unless of course she listens, thinks, learns what is good, and then ignores the rest.

So millions of Americans continue to believe the Christian message as it has been believed in most places by most people at most times. Just as we refused to condemn interracial marriage, never illegal in many states of the Union, to follow a parochial (and wicked) trend of racism, so we refuse to expand marriage to include those living in sin.

We do not think “love” or “desire” or “not hurting anyone” is the best means for deciding morality. We continue to believe that divine Revelation, as understood by the universal church, is the best standard.

For some reason, this leads Christians who reject the “old ways” (as some have done in every generation) to try to understand us. We must be afraid of change. We must be reacting to an uncertain world. We must hate someone or dislike difference.

This makes us chuckle, because this is so wrong. We don’t fear post-modernism, we disagree with some of its ideas. We don’t shudder to think old ideas might be wrong, we just don’t assume new ideas are right. No Christian should hate anybody and we don’t dislike difference: we dislike sin. When young adults tell us that no saint of any Church, East or West, has ever had a right view on some moral issue, we don’t know they are wrong for sure, but we suspect they are.

When it comes to politics, most of us in America prefer limited government, but know we can live under any government that will leave us alone, let us educate our children, and run our lives as we see fit. We have endured six hundred years in Syria as a minority and know what to do.

When we examine the arguments of the new and more trendy Christians, we are not persuaded. Of course, Christians, traditional Christians, might lose this culture and the majority of people now alive in North America and Western Europe, but that does not concern us too much. We will count on our African and Asian brothers and sisters, where most of the Christian Church is, to help.

I look forward to the missionaries. They will have sanctuary in my home.

As for the future, we are confident that a nation that can tolerate the Amish will put up with us. And in one hundred years, I predict that traditional Christian morals will still have adherents, but the particular deviations from orthodoxy will be gone. Why? It is always so. This present crop of revisions are as certain of their rectitude as the lost crop and I predict any Evangelical school, denomination, or program they take will be as thriving as the groups the revisionists took in the Nineteenth century.

The “growth” of the Episcopal Church USA does not bode well for their experiment!

Meanwhile, we can consider where we might be wrong and learn even from those we think wicked, live good lives, and love our neighbors, even the wrongheaded ones, as we would be loved.

via We Just Don’t Agree.

I couldn’t have put it any better myself.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA

Rave WorshipIdeas have consequences, especially in the way we worship. There is always a danger of two extremes:

  1. Dead orthodoxy that offers no emotion at all in our services.
  2. Hyper-emotionalism, where experience of an imminent God devolves into the idolatry and debauchery of a “golden calf”.

The following is an example of the latter. Having come from the Charismatic/Pentecostal side of the aisle, I have the experience, and right to call my like-minded brethren to use some discernment and self-control. On the other hand, having sat in some really life-less churches, I say to my brethren on the other side of the aisle to not let extremes dictate a pendulum response.

We are to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”- Matthew 22:37

Extremists on either side need to balance the “all your soul”, with the “all your mind”.

Never-the-less, it has been my experience that the greatest danger to expressive worshippers is not stoicism, but ecstatic loss of control. Heed this article by Larry DeBruyn.

Written by Larry DeBruyn

Thursday, 29 November 2012 05:18

Opiates and the “Experience” of Rave Worship

Do not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Giving thanks always for all things to God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God – Ephesians 5:18-21.


Scores of architecturally significant churches dot the landscape of the Australian city of Adelaide, structures that were built to last and perhaps bear testimony to a Christian influence in that part of the world. Upon visiting that city last year (September 24-25, 2011), my initial impression was perhaps like that of the Apostle Paul when he was in Athens and said, Men of Athens [of Adelaide], I observe that you are very religious in all respects – Acts 17:22.

Under the auspices of Christian Witness Ministries (CWM) and with Philip Powell the director of CWM, the Lord gave me the opportunity of ministry with The Street Church, a small Bible fellowship of committed Christians in Adelaide. The church is led by the Corneloup brothers, Sam and Caleb, the former who came to the Lord out of a life of crime. In many ways the fellowship encouraged my spirit with the presence of many young people. For the seminars, the church rented The German Club in the downtown area in that city.

With some of the members of The Street Church, I had my first opportunity at “street preaching” at Rundle Mall, an open air shopping area in the heart of Adelaide.[1] As an American with a distinct “Michigander” accent, people passed by, briefly stopped to listen, and then went their way. Because The Street Church regularly engaged in the activity, secular authorities tried to muzzle the preachers by passing laws against them; but in the name of “free speech,” and because of the legal knowledge of Caleb Corneloup, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the street preachers. After all, if other secular groups espousing radical ideologies were allotted the legal right of public assembly to express their views, why not The Street Church?[2]

The whirlwind weekend of ministry passed by quickly, and before I knew it, the time arrived for me to get to the airport on Saturday evening in order to catch a flight to Melbourne so that I could connect to another flight to Wellington, New Zealand, the next morning. (For a week, I was scheduled to preach in various locations throughout the North Island.)


My driver, a young man from The Street Church, drove me to the Adelaide airport. During that ride and upon leaving the city proper, we drove by one of the beautiful church structures in that city. From the outside, the church appeared no different from the other church buildings with the exception of a large banner that brazenly hung across the steeple and over the entrance of the historic building. On that banner was painted one word: HEAVEN. I turned to my driver and asked him, “Is the name of that church HEAVEN? He answered, “Yes!” and then proceeded to inform me that the church was the one he used to attend before he became a believer in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I asked him what kind of church it was. He informed me it was a “rave” church. Well, not knowing what a rave church was for, not ever having heard of one before, I questioned him further about what kind of church it was. He told me that in their gatherings the worshippers played loud and raucous music, danced, did drugs and partied (and who knows what else?).

Craving for Rave

After his description of “rave” worship, I thought to myself—is this where adapting worship in order to give seeker audiences thrills and chills, where constantly tweaking the worship style to fit the mood of the culture and the insatiable cravings of congregants will lead? Worship that resembles the atmosphere of Israel’s partying before the “Golden Bull” when, “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play”, clamorous worship that to Joshua sounded like war was going on in the camp – Exodus 32:6, 17. Is this what results when so-called worship becomes sourced in “the wants” of peoples’ bodies and brains, in what the Bible calls “lusts of the flesh”, (Greek, epithumias sarkos) – 2 Peter 2:18?

Ravings in the Nave

Apparently, rave worship originated amongst young Anglicans in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom, where Matthew Fox, the defrocked Roman Catholic priest who later became an Episcopalian, picked it up, brought it back to San Francisco, and adapted it to suit his New Age “eco-mysticism.”[3]

In 1994, about a year after leaving the Roman Catholic Church, the LA Times confirmed that Fox got the idea for “the head-banger liturgy [the rave mass] after visiting a band of unorthodox young Anglicans in England—where the ‘Rave in the Nave’ features loud music, women dancing in bikinis and video monitors flashing messages such as ‘Eat God’ [evidently referring to their belief in the Eucharist’s transubstantiated elements].”[4]

On this point, it can be noted that as early as 1991, evangelical leader Leonard Sweet sourced his “creation spirituality” in Fox’s “eco-mysticism” when he wrote that, “Creation spirituality is of tremendous help here in weaning us from this homocentric warp [that is, any understanding that makes humanity the centrepiece of God’s creation and entrusts the stewardship “over” nature to them].”[5] Rave worship, sourced in the eco-mysticism of a pantheistic or panentheistic worldview, has as its mantra, “If it feels good, do it!” So do it they do.


Perhaps spinning-off the idea of Rave Masses, some Anglican-Episcopal churches now blasphemously call their Holy Communion service a “U2-Charist” in which hymns are replaced by the Irish rock-group’s best-selling songs.[6] The communion service is described:

In what is more rock concert than Book of Common Prayer, a live band will belt out U2 classics such as Mysterious Ways and Beautiful Day as worshippers sing along with the lyrics, which will appear on screens. The [nightclub] atmosphere will be further enhanced by a sophisticated lighting system that will pulse with the beat . . . .[7]

A few years ago, USA Today reported that “U2-charists” have also come to Episcopal congregations in the United States, and perhaps will find their way into other denominations and congregations as well.[8] One young worshipper, a Roman Catholic who attended a “U2-charist” at a nearby Episcopal church, reported of her experience: “It makes you, like, warm inside. Usually at church you love Jesus and everything. But this way you can express how you feel.”[9]

Descriptions of Rave

Rave is thought to be a rising supernatural movement in the UK consisting of a wide spectrum of Christians who, disaffected by and having dropped out of organized religion, “are burning for Jesus.”[10] A 4th annual “Sloshfest” held in 2010 in South Wales, attended by a crowd of about 600 from “alternative churches” all over the UK, was described as involving “wild-eyed and out of control” participants—“sweaty clothes clinging to their backs”—flailing “wildly to a booming beat.” During what appeared to resemble more a primitive and tribal religious celebration like those which have occurred in many cultures from time immemorial, some “ravers” even passed out amidst their whirling and dancing. The party, so it is claimed, consisted of “revellers” unaffected by either booze and/or drugs, but rather by the power of God, an ecstasy of worship that participants ascribed to “‘God-ka’ and the ‘yum rum of Heaven’.” One 38-yearold participant made no apology for the participants acting out of themselves because in his opinion, God is “a party animal who wants to win over youngsters with supernatural highs.”

Another raver states:

Heaven is going to be wild. God will show up and be the life of the party. We want to see fun coming back into the Church.

Testimonials of Ravers

Matthew Fox first became acquainted with “rave masses” in England. In one instance, the Mass was “held in the basement of a sports complex and included 42 television sets flashing images of galaxies, dancing atoms, DNA, lunar eclipses and male-female archetypes.”[11] He offered his impressions of the masses he attended:

My first experience of the Mass was that this is a very friendly experience for a generation raised on television. My second experience was that these people are taking television away from the broadcasters and doing it live in the heart of the community, which is worship.[12]

Now the following testimonials of participants in the rave worship which occurred at Sloshfest are offered:[13]

  • People are looking for something relevant to them. If you like to party, drink and take drugs, our advice is, ‘Don’t drink Vodka, drink God-ka’.
  • There is no greater high than the Most High. When you come into God’s presence there is an intoxication that is overwhelming.
  • God wants us to enjoy his wine and embrace the spiritual realm.
  • Of course we all like to drink the yum rum of heaven, too.
  • When I’m worshipping I know I look absolutely insane, but that’s how I’m affected by my heavenly daddy.
  • It is such a wild fire. It is a fierce wild fire. It is untameable and undomesticated. (These words were spoken by a middle-aged woman dressed as Pinky Pirate who shaking uncontrollably grabbed a microphone and bellowed them out to the raucous crowd.)
  • I’m Mrs. Jesus. I love my husband. (A woman dressed as a pirate queen uttered these words while crawling on the floor, looking spaced out, and manifesting red, puffy eyes and a vacant stare despite no sign of alcohol or drugs consumption.)

Revellers, or Revilers?

Because Sloshfest is a Christmas party, revellers dress up like a monk, priest, nun, dancing pirate, Abraham Lincoln, unicorn, winged fairy, court jester draped with Christmas lights, etc. Amidst all the costuming, “in the main room the party is pumping, with dry ice, air horns and dazzling disco lights adding to the debauched atmosphere.”

So is Sloshfesting, revelling in God, or reviling Him? To answer the question, only the Word of God can be our guide and judge. On this point, what was the Lord’s take on one of the original Sloshfests (I say “one of the original” because amongst primitive peoples they had been going on long before the incident of Israel’s worshipping of the “Golden Bull” – Exodus 32:1-35?

Assurance for me regarding this issue, notwithstanding all the participants’ testimonials, can only be moderated by the Word of God – 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To this point, Archibald Alexander wrote:

There is nothing more necessary than to distinguish between true and false experiences in religion . . . . And in making this discrimination, there is no other test but the infallible Word of God; let every thought, motive, impulse, and emotion be brought to this touchstone.[14]

To this pastor it stands axiomatic and logically consistent that the spiritual work of God will in nowise contradict the Scriptures which the Holy Spirit inspired to be written –cf. 2 Peter 1:21.

Unlike the crowd at the first Pentecost, whom sceptical onlookers accused as being drunk with “new wine,” but who in fact were not – Acts 2:13 – the claim of ravers that their euphoria has nothing to do with taking drugs or drinking alcohol may ring a bit hollow. As one worshipper exclaimed, God “makes me so happy. I love him but I’m a bit drunk.” One well-known speaker at Sloshfest, who claims to have met Jesus on an acid trip, is described as slurring through his sermons and talking “about ‘smoking the Baby Jesus,’ being ‘whacked out’ and ‘tokin’ [urban slang for smoking pot] on the Holy Ghost’.”[15] He calls these expressions “metaphors” of the Christian life! In 2005, that speaker, John Crowder, wrote a book The New Mystics in which he promoted “Sloshfest-style ecstatic worship and mystical Christianity.” Then in 2009, he wrote a sequel, The Ecstasy of Loving God: Trances, Raptures, and the Supernatural Pleasures of Jesus Christ.

Further insight into the question lies in John Crowder’s testimony, one in which he claims to have met Jesus while on an acid trip, and his message when he talks about “smoking the Baby Jesus” and “tokin’ on the Holy Ghost.” How can such activities, so diametrically opposed to the work of the Holy Spirit, things categorized by the Apostle Paul as “lusts of the flesh”, lusts that includesorcery (Greek, pharmakeia or drugs), “drunkenness, carousing and things like these” – be instrumental in saving a person’s soul – Galatians 5:20-21, NASB? Such cravings lay in stark contrast to “the fruit of the Spirit”, one of which is “self-control” – Galatians 5:23, NASB. Persons may be saved from such activities, but they are not saved by such activities -1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In all fairness, one Sloshfester does testify to his having been saved from drugs and alcohol.[16]

But this man’s soul was not converted because of the influence of drugs and alcohol, but in spite of it.

Are These People Mad?

Sloshfesting impresses me not as being church, but as carousing. Rave worship (as in “stark raving mad”) impresses me as being opposite from one fruit of the Spirit, “self-control” -Galatians 5:23. In rave worship, people are “out of control.” The inbred and eccentric phenomena of rave, observed first hand by passers-bye or inquirers who watch it on You Tube, will not only give unbelievers a wrong impression about the meaning of The Gospel, but also fail to impress many observant believers. As the Apostle Paul questioned, “If . . . ungifted men or unbelievers enter [or go online?], will they not say that you are mad?” – 1 Corinthians 14:23. Illustrating the apostle’s point, one curious passer-by is reported to have shook his head and laughingly commented after having through a steamed-up window observed the rage of rave: “Looks like one hell of a party.” To me, the phenomena of rave church as manifested at Sloshfest 2010, may be compared to The Toronto Blessing of the 1990s, only on steroids.[17] As rave and Sloshfesting, dancing the “Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey” belongs to the same perversion of so-called “worship.”[18]


My first article, Getting High on God, was meant to draw attention to a study coming out of the University of Washington which suggests that “attending a Protestant mega church actually does produce a high much like being on drugs.”[19]

Drugs: An Implicit Connection

From the UW study, it has been noted that mega churches are “powerful purveyors of emotional religious experience” as they blend together popular music, state-of-the-art technology and positive and nonthreatening messages, all of which and more, contribute to make up an “Oxytocin cocktail” that affects a “sense of recognition, trust, and a reduction of stress” in the brains of congregants.[20] The UW study makes implicit the connection between the mega church and the inner opiates that, when stimulated by the right mechanisms, provide spiritual euphoria for, among and between congregants.

Drugs: An Explicit Connection

This article, Getting ‘Higher’ on God, has sought to draw attention to the new wave of worship that many are seeking to catch a ride on, worship that unabashedly makes explicit the connection between drugs (whether induced from within or ingested from without, who knows?) and the attainment of spiritual ecstasy. The point being, that such spiritual experiences, whether emotionally euphoric or mystically ecstatic are not the result of the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the life of a believer, but rather the result of the hyped-up machinations, manipulations and managements of church leaders.

The difference between the euphoria engendered by the mega church and the ecstasy by the rave church may well be only one of degree, not kind. A comparison might be made between smoking pot (“the euphoria lite” engendered by the mega church) and shooting heroin (“the ecstasy heavy” incited by the rave church). Mega churches have mastered a strategy of how to offer their congregants “lite” doses of experience (euphoria). The rave church has upped the ante by offering its participants “heavy” doses of experience (ecstasy). Neither movement evidencessober-mindedness, that spiritual attribute the New Testament enjoins believers to cultivate -Titus 2:2, 4, 6; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8.

In fact, if the euphoria or ecstasy of so-called worship is induced by means other than by the Holy Spirit, then it violates Paul’s injunction to “be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit”, the manifestations of which — “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Giving thanks always for all things to God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God”, bear no resemblance to those exhibited in “Sloshfesting” – Ephesians 5:18-21. Worship that masquerades as drunkenness in the Holy Ghost resembles more the wine bibbing of a bacchanal celebration than worship of the Holy God.[21]

Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep, sleep in the night; and they that are drunken are drunk in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation – 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8.

via Getting “Higher” on God.

May the blessings of a New Year find its’ way to your door.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA

I found this article by Randy Pope very instructive. Many Christians compartmentalize their lives, and live like “practical atheists” Mon-Fri, and then put on their “Christianity” on the weekend. Either that, or they dichotomize their political views from their Biblical views. I love these lines from below: “If Jesus is Lord then everything is sacred. If, as Revelation 4:11 says, all things are created by Him and for His will’s sake, there is nothing outside the compass of His instructions. To state this simply, every area of life must align with the principles revealed in His holy word. When the Christian orders every area of life with the word of God that is a Christian worldview.” 
Amen, and amen. We need to establish a Biblical worldview that is all-encompassing. Please read, and comment.

“Some non-believers see the Bible as a collection of myths and fairy tales. Others view it as a collection of moral precepts to be held up with other great religious works. Many Christians look at the Bible as a blueprint for how to order the spiritual compartments of their life. The Christian who sees his faith as relevant to all of life and culture is in the process of developing a Christian worldview.

Marshall Foster says there is no dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. If Jesus is Lord then everything is sacred. If, as Revelation 4:11 says, all things are created by Him and for His will’s sake, there is nothing outside the compass of His instructions. To state this simply, every area of life must align with the principles revealed in His holy word. When the Christian orders every area of life with the word of God that is a Christian worldview.

The dirty little secret is that everyone in the city of Akron has a worldview, whether he realizes what his worldview is or not. A worldview is the system of thought one utilizes to make decisions in life. The worldview that one adheres to determines how he will act and react in his daily life. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that everyone has a blended worldview. To truly please God it is incumbent upon the Christian to be constantly adjusting his worldview to fit scripture. The thing that is often more difficult is the application of Biblical principles to each unique situation in life. This requires wisdom, and a multitude of counselors. In other words, Christian, do not try to go it alone. Lean on God and His word, and commune together with other Christians who are seeking to understand His word through His wisdom, peeling away all philosophies that are foreign to scripture.

There are grave consequences when alien philosophies are added to a Christian worldview, or when it is divorced from any realm. When business is not ordered by Biblical standards you can never be sure of the quality or integrity of a contract made. When a Christian worldview is excluded from recreation the result is a morally debauched fare for the choosing. The American Ohio, and Akron governments illustrate the problem with replacing Christ as King; legalized murder, theft, and an attempt to force false doctrines on the church. Replacing a distinctly Christian education with secular philosophy results in an illiterate culture and an exodus of the youth from the church. When Biblical principles do not reign in all areas of life men and women replace the one true living God with a false god, resulting in lost souls going to hell.

Religion is not merely an individual pursuit. When your worldview strays from Biblical principles the effect does not merely affect your life, but it affects all of culture. The Christian develops a Christian worldview by “…bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ…” (II Cor. 10:5). Every Christian will admit that he is responsible to participate in the fulfilling of the great commission If the Christian does not have his mind renewed by the word of God he can not “teach all observe all things, whatsoever I [Jesus] have commanded you…” (Matt. 28:19 – 20).”

via A Christian Worldview; What is it and Why do I Need One? – Akron Religion & Politics |

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA