CRN.Info and Analysis

When I saw Chris P. was going to post his argument(s) against a universal application of the Imago Dei I was intrigued… this is such an assumed doctrine in Christianity that I was stunned the first time I read someone write that only those who are born-again have the Imago Dei. After reading part one I was disappointed and not a little bit confused at the non-sequitur logic.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and/or rebuttals.

There is a lot of teaching that all men currently exist as God’s image and likeness., i.e. that “divine spark” is found in all men. There are those who teach God exists in all creation. Everything, and everyone, is essentially good. Everything is beautiful in its own way……….What exactly does that mean? - CP

Here we find the first flaws in the argument. It is sort of a straw-man. That some teach that there is a divine spark in all humans, that others teach that God exists in all creation, that still others teach that everything and everyone is essentially good is true. It is also moot to the question. The misapplication of a doctrine, the misinterpretation of a passage bears no weight on the doctrine or the passage itself. The Dispensational claim that Covenant Theology may lead to anti-Semitism neither argues for Dispensationalism nor against Covenant Theology. It is moot, and not a good start.

God made man in His image and “likeness” by creating him as male and female, and then giving “them” dominion over creation. So man is like God in being male and female, and in asserting dominion, or rule, over creation. CP

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” - but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means. These may be descriptive; they may just be the order in which things happened. Therefore any argument built on this interpretation is only as strong as the interpretation itself.

God does not exist in the created things around us. He does not exist within fallen man. That is what Romans 1 is all about. God only exists in the new creation, i.e. Jesus Christ the head (chief authority), and in His Body, the ekklesia, and ultimately in the new heavens and new earth. - CP

The teaching that God exists in all creation, or that all creation is part of God is called panentheism (god in all) and pantheism (all is god), respectively. And it is false. But does God only exist within the new creation? Of course not. God exists separate from all creation – current or new. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he will be the ultimate authority of the new heaven and new earth, but this is not another way (cf. the i.e.) of saying God only exists in the new creation. God is separate from creation, now and forever.

So death is the state of all mankind who are outside of Christ. Therefore Christ’s atoning death on the cross not only satisfies the requirement of the Mosaic covenant regarding sins, forgiveness, and deliverance,, i.e. the Passover, it also fulfills God’s (His Law) judgment on man, based on Adam’s transgression of the covenant, which is death. -CP

What death are we referring to in Adam’s transgression – physical, spiritual, both? It cannot be physical, i.e. that only those born again will be physically resurrected since all will be resurrection, those in Christ and those not… some to everlasting joy others to everlasting punishment. To say otherwise, to say only those in Christ are physically resurrected would be to embrace annihilationism.

The resurrection then is essential, which is why Paul defends it as fact so aggressively in 1 Cor 15. It is through the death and resurrection that we exit the old creation, and enter the new. Jesus said, in answer to the Sadducees trick question, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so he is the God of the living not the dead. That would mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are participants in the resurrection and thus the new creation. (1 Peter 4:1-6)They are “the living”. So are we who are now called the Sons of God because of the second Adam.- CP

OK – no problem there… but I need to include it because of…

This would the mean that “imago dei” is found only in Christ, the new creation, and in His body the church. We, who are “born again” are imago dei. Imago dei is not found in unregenerate mankind. Unregenerate man is dead (literally) in the sins of Adam. (Romans 6: 4-13) He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is only found in His Son, who is alive forevermore, Amen.

What’s that noise I hear? Oh, it’s your transmission fallen apart as you grind the gears shifting too fast from one thought to a supposed conclusion. Where is the connection between the need for the resurrection and the Imago Dei only being found in believers, in the new creation, in the church? That God is the God of the living proves that He is the God of the living. That the resurrection is necessary proves that the resurrection is necessary – no connection was made to the Imago Dei. I suspect no connection was made because there is no connection to these truths and the residence of the Imago Dei.

So, part one fails to prove that only the regenerate possesses the image of God. It fails because it is built on a spurious interpretation of the meaning of the Imago Dei. It fails because it relies on the buttresses of the false and straw-man doctrines of pantheism and panentheism both of which are moot to the argument. It fails because it claims God exists only in the new creation – which is not only false, but is itself panentheism in the future. And it fails because it never makes the connection between God being the God of the living, the need for the resurrection and the limited Imago Dei.

Maybe part two will be more convincing.

*** UPDATE *** June 30

Chris P. has posted part 2 of why the Imago Dei resides only in the regerate.  It consist with a list of Scriptures interspersed with commentary and “The conclusion is that Imago Dei is seen only in the new creation. Those who are born again from above, i.e. the Body of Jesus Christ.”  It was rather an odd process to read the Scriptures Chris P. posted, agree with a lot of his commentary on them, then reach the summation that it all proved his conslusion… maybe if I try a little harder I’ll see the link.  Usually I can follow an argument even if I disagree with it.

Bottom line, I am still unconvinced (but now confused at the flow of logic or lack thereof), and dissappointed that he never dealt with Genesis 9.

I think Chris P. confuses good works that reflect the Father and/or Christ with the Imago Dei… I’ll have to think about that.

Like many conversations, there are certain subjects which rise to the surface from time-to-time, often (and hopefully) becoming clearer over time. One such subject that probably bears another go is that of the language we use - words and sentences.

Setting the Stage

As part of the baseline for this discussion, I would like to borrow and briefly touch on some concepts from this article last fall. Specifically, there are three ways of classifying behavioral beliefs:

Absolutes - those things which are cross-cultural truths, which are demanded or forbidden. To do (or not do) such things is sinful, regardless of the cultural context.

Convictions - those things which are personally convicting, actions which a person believes they should (or should not) do. To do (or not do) such things would be sinning against one’s conscience, and therefore would be sinful. However, convictions are limited to the person or faith community (as with binding and loosing) and cannot be demanded cross-culturally.

Preferences - those things which are personally preferred, based on traditions or likes and dislikes.

Legalism occurs when Preferences or Convictions are raised to the level of Absolutes. This is the sin of the Pharisees. Relativism occurs when Absolutes are lowered to Convictions or Preferences. This is the sin of the Pagans and Hedonists.

Both are to be avoided.

The Words We Use

The Bible has a number of things to say about the words we use. Just a few relevant examples: Continue Reading »

We’ve had a number of questions about why we’ve not addressed the ODM response to Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival. The answer is pretty simple - because the ODM’s, in general (when they aren’t lumping the ECM, Granger Community Church, Rick Warren or their other favorite whipping-boys in with Bently & Co.) have it right - the guy’s a huckster and the ‘revival’ is downright wacky.

While we’re at it - just in case anyone asks:

• Fred Phelps is a hate-monger who does a disservice to modern Christianity
• The Church of Jesus Christ & the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) is not a Christian denomination
• The Unification Church is not a Christian denomination
• The Universalist Unitarian church is not a Christian denomination
• The health & wealth gospel is a lie and is antithetical to the Kingdom of God
• The sky is blue
• Water is wet
• Most politicians lie to get votes

I hope this clears up where we stand on the issue of the circus in Lakeland.

I’ve been re-reading Philip Yancey’s book called What’s So Amazing About Grace? In the beginning he shares this story that a friend of his told him.

A prostitute came to me in wretched straits, homeless, sick, unable to buy food for her two-year-old daughter. Through sobs and tears she told me she had been renting out her daughter– two years old! —to men interested in kinky sex. She made more renting out her daughter for an hour than she could earn on her own in a night. She had to do it, she said, to support her own drug habit. I could hardly bear hearing her sordid story. For one thing it made me legally liable—I am required to report cases of child abuse. I had no idea what to say to this woman.

At last I asked if she had ever thought of going to a a church for help. I will never forget the look of pure, naïve shock that crossed her face. “Church!” She cried. “Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They’d just make me feel worse.”

Yancey continues,

“What struck me about my friend’s story is that prostitutes much like this woman fled toward Jesus, not away from him. The worse a person felt about herself, the more likely she saw Jesus as a refuge. Has the church lost that gift? Evidently the down-and-out, who flocked to Jesus when he lived on earth, no longer felt welcome among his followers. What has happened?

I’ve pondered this question for years. What has happened? How have we as the church lost our way? When did it become about being right instead of being refuge? When did it come about posting our credentials? When did it become about creating mocking names about offering children to Molech? When did it become Ok to mock and jeer those we disagree with or those we agree with who aren’t as mean as we want them to be? When did Jesus tell people to take their plank and shove it? How many people have walked away from the church because those who made it up forgot how dirty they truly were? Somehow, we’ve lost our way as a church. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the blogosphere where people can hide behind any name they want and say whatever they want to say. Someone can call 15 year old girls painted whores of Sodom and write Tabloid titles because they don’t have to see the pain they are causing people. Somehow, the political party you belong to is more important than the family you belong to. If we believe we are criticizing children of God then we are family. If one is not criticizing God’s children then we’re violating all sorts of Scriptures not in the criticism but in the name calling. Lines are being drawn not about salvation but about what is worn on Sunday’s to church.

And the whole time people who’s lives are being blown apart just keep on dying. They just keep on living the wrong way because Darn It, I AM RIGHT!!! One camp picks apart a person in the other camp because he doesn’t go far enough down the Theological trail with them. They may agree that one goes to Heaven by believing on the work on Christ but down the path they disagree so it’s Ok to tear each other apart. I wonder, does this make you as sick as it does me?

Here’s what the Apostle Paul had to say about it,

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

I wonder how many people have been devoured by someone who “was right” and “justified.”

I thought this comment by new commenter, Chad, was rather insightful, demonstrating a truth I’ve tried to convey in the past, though much more ham-handedly than he has elegantly phrased.  In answer to the question “what would you consider ‘heresy’”, he writes:

Making works necessary for salvation. I would qualify this, though, by saying that our Roman Catholic friends are not heretics in this regard. When I say “works as necessary for salvation” it is to say that grace is being denied as free gift (or more to the point, that there is no need of grace), that God in Jesus has not done something to open the door to heaven.

I am quick to point out that many of my protestant brothers and sisters are no different than our RCC brothers and sisters - they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrines. While not “heresy” I consider it to be a departure from orthodox understandings of grace (gift!).

In the early church, particularly those with a Jewish background, the separation of “works” from “faith” was inconceivable.  In this mindset, one physically cannot have a belief system that is not demonstrated.  Sin, itself, is a demonstration of a belief that God cannot provide.  As most of the world, and the church along with it, was Hellenized it began creating abstract compartmentalizations which separated ones “faith/belief” from one’s “actions”, leading to the church schizophrenically pitting one against the other.

We see the seeds of this already planted in the book of James, and the schizophrenia fully realized in Luther’s desire to strike it from the canon, since it appears to stake out ground somewhere between legalism and sola fide.  To paraphrase James, “faith” (mental assent) really isn’t faith (mental assent) unless it is demonstrated.

And all of this is independent of grace, which is freely given.

As you survey the online landscape of Christianity (in which the relative percentage of Evangelical vs. Reformed vs. Catholic is skewed far differently that represented in living, breathing human beings), you can’t help but wonder why so many people are busy defending a 450-year-old church split, looking for the devil in the other party.  One need only examine the wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime a Protestant church reintroduces a Catholic tradition.  What you end up seeing is extra-biblical whining in condemnation of extra-biblical tradition (noting that I used ‘extra-biblical’ and not ‘unbiblical’ or ‘anti-biblical’).

It’s no wonder Jesus’ criticisms were almost exclusively about the religious class, always eager to demonstrate their righteousness while condemning anything that didn’t fit their own narrow traditions.

I guess it’s time for the weekly question about Mark Driscoll: Do the ODM’s love him or hate him this week?

[spins the wheel]

Love Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark …

…

-Hate Mark-

Oops! Guess it’s his time to toss Mark in the barrel. Why, you might ask? Let’s start with the video below, part of the promotion for a one-night appearance in Sydney, Australia called Burn Your Plastic Jesus. subtitled “Mark Driscoll takes a blow-torch to the 21st century Jesus, and rediscovers the Jesus of the New Testament”.

Probably the quote that tipped it over the edge was the one the held a mirror to a particular type of Christian, of which discernments are a key subset -

Ask the average person, walking down the street, what they think of Jesus, and they will immediately identify him with someone who is religious, loves rules, is unpleasant, unkind, unhelpful. Someone they do not want to be with. Someone they do not want to be like.

Does that sound like the most accurate understanding of Jesus? In no way.

When Jesus was on the earth, he called sinners to repent of sin, go find your pants, stop drinking, get a job, move out of your parents’ house, grow up… He said those sorts of things and people loved him for it.

Religious people hated him the most. He told them to repent of their religion. Stop being so prideful. Stop being so self-righteous, so judgmental, so holier-than-thou. The result is that they despised, opposed and ultimately murdered him.

This may shock you - Jesus is as opposed to ‘religion’ as he is to sin…

Ah - no need to wonder anymore why the teeth were set to ‘gnash’ in ‘discernment-ville’ today.

Apparently, Mark’s public message in Australia, which partly concludes (if the advertisement is correct) that Jesus wants to save Christians in addition to the lost, isn’t going to cut the mustard because he is disrespectful of the plastic, pop-culture “Jesus”, represented by the kitschy bobble-head represented on the page. Or possibly that he describes religious folk as being just as bad as sinners. The mysterious “editor” doesn’t let us know.

And so whose spiritual advice does the anonymous discerner give regarding Driscoll ? Jesus? James? Peter? John? Paul? Nope - a few steps above those (though still below Spurgeon) - Christian mystic A. W. Tozer:

Some preachers have such a phobia for repetition and such an unnatural fear of the familiar that they are forever straining after the odd and the startling… We dare not impugn the honesty or the sincerity of the men who thus flap their short wings so rapidly in an effort to take off into the wild blue yonder, but we do deplore their attitudes.

Ah, poor Mark. He didn’t get the ODM playbook on the only proper ways to preach. I just wish these guys would make up their minds about Driscoll - is he OK or not? Will they not discern for the masses?

Or - have the sheep already heard the echo of the master’s voice in his under-shepherd from Seattle and recognized the baying of the wolves for what it is?

Sometimes the truth is so much better than anything you could make up. Tonight, we can witness a case in point.

First, just to establish some context: As many readers may know, one of the frequent “discernmentalist” sites we take to task for injurious action toward the Body of Christ is Slice of Laodicea (SoL). Slice’s primary mode of operation is to place itself in a position of sanctimonious judgment over anyone/anything its primary author deems to fall short of her shallow, externalist view of Christianity. Unfortunately, Sol’s author is also a radio personality with a larger-than-average platform from which to spew her “discernment” on unsuspecting masses.

Frequent readers of SoL will recognize that one of its author’s primary sources of scorn against the modern church is its lack of older hymns and “proper” externals (with “proper” being defined as 1950’s idealized church culture). And so it is no surprise that SoL would publish an article like this one (here is a link to a screen-capture (and a full one), since it is highly probable that its author will attempt to make it disappear into the ether, as if it never happened).

In this article, SoL’s author begins by staking out a “moral” high ground:

I have heard hip, healthy young Christians laugh about the musical format at VCY America during the wee hours of the morning. Over the night hours our radio network airs quiet hymns and instrumental music interspersed with Scripture readings and devotional thoughts from the host, Vic Eliason. Oh, if only these young people could read the mail that we get.

Before we go on, it should also be noted that the author trumpets, with great pride, her vastly over-inflated ability of “discernment”. With this “gift”, she is able to spitefully trash all sorts of Christian brothers and sisters - Rick Warren, Ravi Zacharias, Rob Bell, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll and many more - along with casting aspersions at entire bodies of believers all over the world. For instance, her magnified powers of ‘discernment’ have recently been raking Ravi Zacharias over the fires of hell for not mentioning the name of Jesus in a prayer during a program on the National Day of Prayer. Continue Reading »

This post is more personal than that of the standard fare here at .info but I think there are some applicable learnings for current affairs buzzing in the blogosphere.

I’ve been estranged from my family (mom, step-dad, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc…) for the better part of 9 years. Without giving all of the details; suffice it to say I did many things wrong as a teenager and my parents did many things wrong as parents. Neither party was able to forgive. Because of the strain I chose to close off communication. One time about 5 years ago I did contact my Mom in an attempt to live out the verse “As much depends on you be at peace with all people”. In a God given moment of humility I was able to say “Please forgive me” to which my Mom responded with “You’ve made your bed now lie in it” and slammed down the phone. In that moment, having honored God with his command to seek forgiveness, I had peace. The bridge to my family wasn’t reopened that day but I continued to trust that “All things work to the good for those of love Christ”.

Fast Forward 4 years. This past Christmas I received a Christmas card in the mail from my Aunt. Stunned that I got a Christmas card from her I didn’t open it. My wife however did. Inside was a personal note that read “We miss you guys being a part of the family give us a call. P.S. (my cousin) is getting married in May and she would love for you guys and the girls to come” My immediate response was I’m not going to the wedding. I questioned everything… “Who’s gonna be there”; “What’s their motivation for inviting me”; “What if so and so is there”; etc…

But then God began to nudge me. He reminded me of the call of a Christian. We are to be ministers of reconciliation; by our Love they will know us; as much depends on you be at peace with all people; Bless those who curse you. On and on scripture came in rapid fire pattern until I was literally on my knees humbled by the words of my Savior. Now I knew I had to go to that wedding to honor God and the commitment I made to follow him wherever leads.

Recently Saddleback Church issued personal notes to those in the blogosphere that have been most critical of what Rick Warren is doing; inviting them to a future conference. To say that this has caused a little questioning of motives would be an understatement. Quite frankly their (the bloggers) thoughts haven’t varied much from the thoughts that I had when I was invited to the wedding of my cousin. What is very different however is the public manner in which they are airing those thoughts.

A few weeks ago Ingrid wrote a scathing response essentially stomping on the graciousness of Rick Warren to pay for the trip. Recently Chris Rosebrough of Extreme Theology wrote a more balanced response to his invite and in fact accepted the invite. But again questioned the motives of the invitation. In fairness to Chris he has since removed that post stating “There is a commitment that I need to honor and I want to respect the wishes of my host.” Which shows character and perhaps a willingness to take a “wait and see” approach.

Others however (who haven’t received invites) have been blogging and commenting voraciously; ascribing all kinds of conspiracy theories to Rick and Co.

Purpose Drivel had this to say.

Wow. I have to wonder what the spin will be on this one. I would be torn. Do I go and let him twist the event to his own advantage? Or do I decline and let him publicly say “they wouldn’t play nice, look we even invited them for ‘dialogue’!”

I guess if I could have a recording team there to record the meeting, I would be OK with it. Then nothing could be edited for slant/spin purposes without it being exposed by the opposing team.

Jim Bublitz of Old Truth in the Extreme Theology comments (the old post)

I‘ve been hearing about all of the invites to this event for the past week and have wondered what’s really behind it all. Is Warren finally starting to see that the blog world is a great detriment to his methods, and this is his way of doing damage control? Surely he’s not naive enough to imagine that he’s going to change the minds of people like you and Pastor Bob DeWaay who is also there and has written a book against Warren’s teachings. Or maybe Warren thinks he’s going to shower you with gifts and kill you with kindness (so to speak) to the point where you are going to think of him as “Uncle Rick” from now on; somebody you just can’t speak poorly about. I just don’t know, but will be interested in your opinions. It just doesn’t make sense.

You’re right Jim; it doesn’t make sense. Why would Rick Warren a heretic invite a fringe group of malcontents to a conference on his dime. I suspect because Rick is wise enough to understand that the caricatures we have in our heads (heretics and malcontents) vary widely from the reality of who people are in real life. Communication is the only thing that will close that gap. Which is exactly what I experienced at my cousins wedding.

Most of my relatives (sans my mom and step-dad) were gracious and affirming of me. Many were able to see the change (Christ) in my life and I was able to say to them that I am where I am today because of Christ. It was a powerful night and my wife, kids, and me were able to witness to my family the grace of Christ. On a very personal note I got to see my Grandfather, whom I assumed was dead. I was able to introduce him to his great grand-daughters and was also able to say good bye (he has cancer and Alzheimer’s and was given only about 2 months to live). Which was a wonderful gift from God in my eyes. Plus all of the caricatures that I had of my family were shattered during the night. In my humanness I would never have expected God to be able to reconcile my family. Sure I still have room to grow and certainly the healing in my family has a long way to go but God is good and able to “work all things to good for those who love Christ”.

Maybe God is calling all of us to that higher ground. Lets not let pride, humanness, or team politics get in the way of that calling.

Grace and Peace to all.

SO much digital ink seems to be spilled these days, sniffing about how the church is whoring itself out by ‘looking like the world’. While I agree with this sentiment on a number of levels, it seems that the targeted examples of ‘worldliness’ are merely personal preferences, while the actual examples of worldliness move on, virtually unchallenged.

Examples of supposed ‘worldliness’:

• Mars Hill Church (Seattle) holds a “Red Hot Bash” for New Years Eve, which serves a champagne toast at midnight.
• Saddleback Church holds a “Glitz and Glamor” night for singles in the church
• Christians hold a dance festival, one weekend in Michigan
• Pastors use examples in their sermons from current movies, like Spiderman
• Christians are involved in movies, popular music or other popular artistic ventures
• Christians attend movies or watch TV shows that other Christians disapprove of

While this isn’t to suggest that poor decisions may (or may not) have been involved with any of these examples, but all of these - and most usages of the word “worldly” by the fundamentalist and discernmentalist crowds - are not examples of “worldliness”, at least as it is defined by Jesus, who they claim to be their standard. Continue Reading »

Several weeks ago, Shane Hipps spoke at Mars Hill Bible Church on the Spirituality of the Cellphone (link good for about 7 more weeks) a look at how human culture is, and has been, shaped by its media and the underlying technology for thousands of years. His message was so compelling, dovetailing with a professional project I’m working on, that I ordered his new book which greatly expands on the subject: The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture.

As a one-time ad-man for Porche, who left the world of marketing to become a pastor, Hipps does a remarkable job at examining how the media we use and choose, in and of itself, conveys certain messages, things what we need to be cognizant of as Christians in our culture. I cannot recommend this book enough, especially if you are interested in how to communicate Christ in an increasingly postmodern society. Continue Reading »