3 Reasons Not to Go to Church

1. Because there's good preaching, music and fellowship.

So, it's Sunday morning. You've had your coffee; you're dressed up with your Bible in hand. You're ready to go. But what exactly is that you're looking forward to?

Lately, I've been rather convicted about my own attitude toward church. Though I don't normally think of it this way, my motives are really quite selfish. It certainly sounds spiritual to love good preaching, good music and good fellowship. After all, aren't we supposed to like those things?

But what's at the heart of this attitude? A consumer mindset. An idea that the local church is about what I can get out of it and how it helps me. It's about what I can get out of it rather than what I can put into it. But is this really the biblical function of the local church? To be a spiritual filling station where believers come to get fueled, washed and pampered? Hardly. The local church is where the mission of the universal Church and the mission of the individual believer come together and work themselves out practically. In short, it is at the epicenter of the Christian life and mission.

2. To be blessed.

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that if our approach is proper we will be blessed and spiritually nourished. However, I don't think that should be our primary goal. Scripturally, we are continually commanded to look out for the spiritual wellbeing of our brothers and sisters.

When we go to church, our goal should be to see to it that others are spiritually blessed, become closer to God and are edified. I believe that if we make that our goal and priority then we too will be blessed, edified and brought closer to God. The main difference is emphasis. On the one hand it's about what I can get out of church. On the other hands, it's about glorifying God by serving other in the context of the local church.

3. To listen and leave.

But here's the most common one. We all have a tendency to come into church, listen to the sermon, shank a few hands and then peel out. The local church is seen as a Sunday (and maybe Wednesday) thing. But if you look at the Scripture you'll see that the Church, and therefore her local embodiments, are central to God's plan and mission. So shouldn't it be central to ours?

If the local church is primal to God's mission, should it also be a central theme of our prayers, efforts, ministry, time and energy?

Rob Bell Is Not The Issue

The dust is beginning to clear on the whole Love Wins controversy. Not that the debate is over, mind you, but the lines have been drawn. The one team is convinced that Rob Bell is a heretic who has officially betrayed historical Christianity. The other team is convinced that Bell is a victim of pharisaical traditionalism. Likewise, all that can really be said about the theological debate has pretty much been said. I don't think we're going to see a lot more "discussion" on this issue. Everyone's pretty much had their say and we've officially arrive at the part of the debate where everyone just stares menacingly at each other.

However, in all this debate and fuss, I think it's important that we not lose sight of the main issue here. Whether or not Rob Bell is a true Christian really isn't the point. I think most on the orthodox team has failed to acknowledge that Bell and the other Emergent times have a tendency to both feed off of and feed into the current cultural mood. Bell is popular because he helps reconcile people's external religion (traditional Christianity) with their internal religion (anthrocentric postmodernism). This is just another attempt to make Christianity comply with postmodern thinking.

Bell is giving the people what they want to hear. This raises the question of why do they want to hear it? True, people don't like the idea of a God who sends people to Hell. I like what Randy Alcorn says to that, “Many imagine that it is civilized, humane, and compassionate to deny the existence of an eternal Hell, but in fact it is arrogant that we, as creatures, would dare to take what we think is the moral high ground in opposition to what God the Creator has clearly revealed. We don’t want to believe that any others deserve eternal punishment, because if they do, so do we. But if we understood God’s nature and ours, we would be shocked not that some people go to Hell (where else would sinners go?), but that any would be permitted into Heaven. Unholy as we are, we are disqualified from saying that infinite holiness doesn’t demand everlasting punishment.”

However, I think there's something else going on here to. Perhaps we don't want the responsibility that comes along with a belief in a literal, eternal Hell. Bell keeps telling people that this really isn't that big a deal. Maybe that's because, until Bell upset the fruit basket, we haven't treated it like a big deal. Isn't it true that we often live like functional Universalists? Lately, the Holy Spirit's been driving a hot iron through my conscience in this area (as a side note, please pray that I would have the courage to follow through on this conviction and the wisdom to do so effectively).

Condemning Rob Bell really isn't the issue. The issue is that people need Jesus and He's charged us with pointing people to Him. Does our lifestyle match our theology? Would my life be any different if I truly acted like I really believe billions of souls are a breath away from eternal, horrific torment? Am I living as though I've truly been commissioned with the making of disciples? Would I treat people differently if I were living with that truth in mind?

So, don't get distracted with Rob Bell. He's not important. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Rob Bell and Judgementalophobia

Good ol' drama. Not even Christianity can escape it. This drama came in three acts. Act 1: Rob Bell (pictured), the patron saint of the emergent church, releases a promo video for his upcoming book, Love Wins. In the video he "raises some questions" with some implied Universalist answers. Act 2: Justin Taylor of Crossway Publishing wrote a piece raising concerns about the potential heresy being promoted in the video. You can read it as well as watch Rob Bell's video here. Act 3: Those theologians within Taylor's circles (Piper, Driscoll and their whole gang) pass on his article and condemn Bell's book.


Enter the drama. The response has been incredible. We'll there is a good chunk of people who agree with Taylor and his supporters, there others who clearly don't. These people typically throw out two arguments. To me, these two arguments reveal an underlying phodia that the contemporary Church as.

Therefore, I've decided to create a new word just for kicks (hey, if Shakespeare and Tolkien can do, I should be able to too, right?).


Judgementalophobia: "The fear of initiating or receiving something perceived as indignation."

This is the most common argument being used in Bell's defense. "Don't judge him." "He's just asking questions." "Give him a chance." This, I believe, portrays a common sentiment among Christians. Granted, that sentiment does have some legitimacy. But I think we're so afraid of being one of those "judgmental Christians" (a very real concern) that we're afraid to call things what they are. Jesus was never afraid to call falsehood falsehood or sin sin. While God would never have us to act proud, arrogent or hateful, there is certainly a place for pointed out sin if our heart is right. Jesus said this is Matthew 7:5.

Also, there is a flawed idea of what judgment is. Today, we think any criticism or moral assessment is judgmental. But that's not the case. We are told to be wise, discerning and to expose wickedness and falsehood. Being judgmental is when we take the place of God and condemn the person rather than the falsehood.

There is a balance to be had, but really it's not as complicated as we might think. The answer is to simply be as wise as serpents and as peaceful as doves (Matthew 10:16).

Addicted to Service

Recently, I came across a verse in Scripture which stood out to me. It isn't some great theological text. Nor is it of a memorable or important verse. In fact, the section in question is actually show in parenthesis by most translators as if it were an after thought that the Apostle Paul just kind of plugged in there. The passage is I Corinthians 16:15, which states: "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints)" (KJV)

When I first read this passage in the good ol' King Jimmy Version, I had to laugh at the choice of words. Addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. The English Standard Version simply says "that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints".

But then I got to thinking about the powerful word picture that is painted by the word addicted. Our world is full of addicts. It seems nearly anything can be an addiction. Smoking, drinking, porn, food, media, sweets and even exercise. Some of my friends accuse of me being a coffee addict and their assessment is probably not entirely untrue. But here Paul describes a man and his family that had addicted themselves to service of the saints.

What is an addicted person like? By definition it means that their life is no longer their own. It is under the mastery of something else. An addict no longer calls the shots. He does what his master demands of him. He is bound to the object of his addiction to the point that is almost impossible to break that bond. Eventually, it gets to the point where the addict's life is completely and thoroughly controlled by something other them himself. Addiction is a powerful thing.

Most addictions are bad. They rob us of the loving lordship of Jesus Christ and bring us under the bondage of a spiritual idol. But what would it look like if we addicted ourselves to the service of the saints?

In his epistle, Paul commends Stephanas and his family for devoting themselves to serving the Body of Christ. Here was an entire family that had commit themselves to laboring for others. Paul uses some very strong language to describe their dedication of this ministry. He says that they addicted themselves. How addicted are you to serving and ministering to your brothers and sisters in Christ? Do you fit the profile of person addicted to serving others?

It always breaks my heart to see spiritual siblings strive against each other instead of laboring to serve each other. It also breaks my heart to hear people of talk of ministry as if it's something reserved for professionals. However, we see that in the early Church, ministering to others was something that average church-going laymen did.

Something I've been convicted about lately is my attitude when I go to church. Do I simply want to get blessed and ministered to spiritual or am devoted to blessing and ministering to others spiritually? Is service something others owe me or something I owe them?

In short, we all need to follow the example of Stephanas and his family. We need to addict ourselves to the service of the saints in a real and dedicated way.

The Church's Man Crisis

Over the past few weeks I've been reading a verity of things that have all got me thinking about the way the Church seems to be masculinity. The first was an article at the Art of Manliness which addressed the decline of masculinity in our culture. I found myself in agreement with the article. It seems that in our society in which Egalitarianism and Feminism are the dominate worldviews, men get left out in the cold. These doctrines, in a reaction to Aristotelian chauvinism, promotes the idea that men are women are identical. Despite this, there is almost the suggestion that women are superior. Women can do anything and everything. Men are only good for so much. As such, masculinity has become a vice and not a virtue.

Later, I was reading an article by Dr. John Piper which really brought home to me the dangers of the Church accepting these philosophies. The result has been the emasculation of the Body of Christ. Now, understand that I'm not advocating the complete defeminizing of the Church. Throughout the Bible God gives us certain word pictures of terminologies that will appeal to both men (the armor of God) and women (the Bride of Christ). However, contemporary Christian seems to be reaching out almost entirely to women and children.

Across the board, women are generally more religious than men. I think that's because we guys seem to struggle with more egotistical pride. We don't like to submit to anyone, much less God. As such, preachers and church leaders have tried to appeal to their base and in doing so have emasculated the Church. Walk into most churches and you'll see a festive arrangement of pink, baby blue and lemon yellow. The music is hyper-emotional and a very love song-esque.

Notice that I'm not saying women don't have a part in the Church. Women have a vital part and the total removal of Christianity's feminine elements would be equally fatal. However, that's not the problem our culture faces. We guys have failed to do our part. Most men in the Church are either chauvinists who abuse their power or cowards who avoid it.

Thankfully, we are beginning to see an increased awareness of the this issue. Many of the young up-and-coming preachers, such as Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler, have made this a signature of their respective churches. The New Reformed movement has also made Complementarianism a doctrinal staple. It's no longer just those crazy Quiverfullist and family-integrated churches that are aware of the problem. Many of the more mainstream churches are also waking up to it.

However, this will ultimately need to happen on an individual level. We guys need to start taking responsibility and initiative. Servant leadership needs to be prized virtue among young men again.We need a return to courageous manhood in which guys aren't afraid to take a few hits for a just cause. We need to start leading through humility and not self-centered dominance. I believe that the extent to which we respond to this "man crisis" will determine the Church's effectiveness in the upcoming generation.

Lawlessness Is The New Legalism

Many churches pride themselves in speaking out against the enslaving evils of legalism. Pastors are always reminding their congregation to not get distracted by rules and regulations but to just concentrate on Jesus. Well, that's great. Or is it? Legalism has become such a negative buzz word that we no longer really know what it means. I'm a guy who likes to have words nicely defined. So, before we continue our little discussion on legalism, let's give it a definition.

In my understanding, legalism is an overemphasis on law rather than on God which usually results in the creation of additional rules. Legalists typically become judgmental of those who violate these laws. In short, legalism is idolatry. It's putting man-made laws above God Himself.


So, than what's with my peculiar title? If legalism is the overemphasis of law how can lawlessness be the new legalism? Didn't I just contradict myself? Just a few months ago I would have answered yes to that very question. However, then I got to thinking about the way that we often label people as legalists.

We take people who don't listen to rock or families that don't watch R-rated movies or girls who only wear dresses and then label them legalists. But what are we focusing on? The outward appearance. Laws. Rules.

There are many people in churches today who have strict rules about not having strict rules and then when people violate their no-rule rules they judge them for being judgmental.

I've seen families who homeschool their kids, don't listen to anything with a beat, hardly every watches movies, only read certain kinds of books, would never hear of dancing, dress in a very conservative way and attend a Fundamentalist, family-integrated church. But no one could ever justly call them legalists. They aren't focusing on rules. They're focusing on Jesus and this has caused them to live their lives in a certain way. They don't judge others who don't have their same standards, but focus on living their lives in a way that would please God.

On the flip side, I've seen believers who walk around like they're at a pop culture festival and live very legalistic lives. They may not think they have rules about dress or media, but they actually do. Their rules just have the extra convenience of commanding them to act 'lawlessly'. When people use the argument that the Bible never says "thou shalt not " what are they focusing on? The law. They aren't looking at the heart behind the law. Just the law and the law doesn't mention the particulars. They are very dedicated to their anti-rule rules and will judge and label anyone of violates them.

But before I start judging the lawless legalists, I must remind myself that we're all legalists at heart. We all have this natural, God-given draw toward order and it's much easier for that order to be controlled by rules rather than love.

We must all guard ourselves against the dangerous snares of legalism. At the end of day, if you're driving down a precarious road it doesn't really matter if you fall into the ditch to your left or the ditch to your right.

Three Things I Hate About The Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Before I tell you the three things I hate about the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I first need to clarify some things. This is an important issue and I'm not meaning to take away from that fact. However, I think that the way in which we Christians have gone about discussing this issue has become rather unhelpful. If we better the means in which we address this issue it'll better the outcome of any debate.

For the purpose of making a point I'm not going to give a long, drawn out description of my opinion of the Calvinism-Arminianism issue. However, if you are interested in a brief summary of my beliefs, I'd encourage you to check out this sermon by Mark Driscoll. As I've stated before, I don't agree with all Mark Driscoll's stuff, however, he does a nice job of summarizing his beliefs on this issue, which I happen to be in full agreement with.

#1. The names.
In the early Church, Christians use to say that they were of Paul or of Apollos. Now we say that we're of John Calvin or of Jacob Arminius. We haven't made much forward progress, have we? Not only that, but the names are kind of misnomers. Neither Calvin nor Arminius were in full agreement with the schools of thought that would later bare their names. John Calvin never advocated Limited Atonement and Arminius, while he did express some doubts, never denied the doctrine of Eternal Security in any of speeches or writings.


The fact is, we can't put too much stock in any human being, even great Christian leaders. Calvin and Arminius were both great men who loved Jesus. However, they were also both sinners. As created creatures, we naturally feel the need for a hero. Since we can't physically see God we tend to idolize someone we can see. While they're is nothing wrong with having people we like and admire, we need to remember that all are sinners. We can't every fully trust any sinners, even great theologically minded sinners.

#2. The points.
In 1610, the Arminians got together for an event called the Remonstrance, or Protest. During this event they came up with five doctrines which directly defied Calvinism, which had been a Protestant staple since the Reformation. In response, the Calvinists held a synod at Dort (pictured) and came up with the Five Points of Calvinism, all of which were handpicked to discredit the Five Points of Arminianism.

This is really, really bad way to do theology. We don't create doctrine in response to someone else's doctrines. We get our doctrine from the Bible. The result of the current five-point system is that instead of discussing Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, we end up arguing over Irresistible Grace, Unconditional Election and the Perseverance of the Saints. The debate quickly becomes academic rather than biblical.

Personally, I always find it really frustrating when I try talking to someone about this issue and they refuse to address the Scriptures. Everyone has a cute illustration or catchy little quotable to prove the infallibility of their point. Meanwhile, the Bible stays on the shelf.

#3. The divisions.
There are certain things that should divide us. If someone tells you that Jesus wasn't God or that the earth was created by aliens, run from them like Forest Gump. However, I don't believe this should be a dividing issue. And yet it is.

It always amazes to see how willing credobaptists, paedobaptism, charismatics, cessationists, Complementarians and Egalitarians are to get together and sing Kum Ba Yah providing that they agree on the Calvinist-Arminian issue. However, if they agree on nearly everything else but can't agree on predestination, they suddenly become die hard separationists.

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if it has become more of a pride issue. Because if you examine this issue in light of many of the other truths, it really isn't that big a deal. It's important, but not quite as important as we make it out to be. However, this topic has become the defining issue within Christian circles. I once heard some one say that there are only three kinds of Christians. Calvinists, Arminians and Catholics. This debate has been so heated for so long that no one is willing to back down.

I think it is vital to remember that this is an in house debate. At the end of the day, we're on the same team. Granted, the Body of Christ will always have its little family quarrels. That's nothing new. Some times these disagreement will even create a need for us to separate, just as Paul and Barabbas did. However, that doesn't mean the Church of Jesus needs to be consumed in hate and in-striving. Rather, let us remember that we are one Body with one Goal.

Independence: A Tragic Mindset

Not too long ago, I made the acquaintance of Jay Lauser. This is a young man who has an obvious passion for the things of the Lord and is very diligent in using his talents and abilities for the glory of God. One of these abilities is writing. Jay has an incredible grasp for words. Therefore, I asked him to guest post for this blog. I can't even begin to tell you how pleased I am with the article Jay sent me. I think he puts our fingers on the pulse of one of the most commonly overlooked problems among Christian youth. I hope you all get as much out of this piece as I did.

--

“I just want to find out if I can do it on my own.”

“I want to get out of all these rules and limits and live on my own.”

“I don't want to be dependent on other people.”

“I can do it.”

“I need to live on my own.”

All of the above are statements that I hear pretty often from teenagers approaching their 'mature' years of 18-25 or so. Honestly, I hear them all too often for my taste. This is because they are representative of an attitude of independence that is fundamentally in opposition with God.

Sadly, I hear these slogans from Christians and from Rebelutionaries. This is tragic, to my mind. And I believe that it poses a serious danger to the success of the Rebelution and to the impact of the Church on our generation.

Now that I have made everyone really mad, I better go back up those rather outrageous claims. :D

There are four words which I need to define for the context of this article: Freedom, Liberty, Responsibility, and Independence. People have a strong tendency to equivocate using these words, which is assisted by the wide range of meanings that they can have. Please note that I am not limiting their definitions or meanings at all: I am only locking down how I am going to use them in this post for clarity's sake.

Freedom: A state of exemption from the power or control of another.

Liberty: Freedom to do what is right.

Responsibility: The state of being accountable for a trust reposed.

Independence: Freedom from support or authority of another. (Focus is on freedom from support in this post.)

A few quick remarks on these definitions:

I will really only be talking about independence. But I need the other words defined so that I can define it properly.

No one is free. And no one should try to be free. This would be rebellion against God.

Everyone ought to have liberty. We should seek liberty, but not independence. A lot of people point at liberty and say 'that is good' and then go try to acquire independence instead.

Everyone has a responsibility. No one should shirk their duty, and everyone has a duty to others. Refusing to work with other people is a violation of your responsibility. A lot of people say they are trying to be responsible, but are really trying to be independent. Do not get responsibility and independence mixed up.

No one but God is truly independent. That is actually written into the definition in Webster's 1828:

“1. Not dependent; not subject to the control of others; not subordinate. God is the only being who is perfectly independent.”

This makes sense. We cannot escape the necessity of things outside of ourselves. That is an inherent part of our created, finite nature.

My first point against an independent mindset, therefore, is immediately self-evident. To seek to be more independent than we already are is an attempt to be more self-sufficient than God made us. We are, in effect, striving after the supremacy of God. God made us inherently reliant on others. That is His plan. And to try to exclude those support systems from our lives is extremely prideful, not to say insane. We should rather seek for more support, while still maintaining our responsibilities.

The Rebelution has nobly resurrected a mindset in our youth. It is a good mindset, and in fact, it is the mindset that has built empires, preserved liberty, and in many other ways glorified God throughout the ages. But like all good things, Satan loves to twist it with his sophistry and render it damaging to the kingdom of God.

And so now there has been a resurrection of another mindset that feeds off of some of the concepts in the Rebelution, but which is contrary to it. This mindset rejects two of the three pillars of the Rebelution, and focuses exclusively on the third (which, obviously, cannot stand alone). They refuse to show Character by yielding to their pride, they block all Collaboration from mentors and peers alike, and yet they stubbornly claim Competence to be their savior.

Scripture is very clear that God wants each person to rely on others, to be interconnected and interdependent in His pattern for the network of society. I will quote a few Scriptures here to demonstrate this, but do not expect an exhaustive list, as that would be... exhausting. ;)

Romans 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

Ephesians 4:15-16 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

That last one needs a bit of explanation, I admit. :)

First notice Ephesians 4:15-16, which talks about the body of Christ, with Christ as the head, and the body being joined together, each part requiring the others (for more on that, study Romans 12). Then look back at Ephesians 5:23-24. Paul deliberately makes a strong parallel between the family and the church, asserting that they are structured the same.

The conclusion is that the family, like the church, is designed to work in harmony with itself, each member supporting and relying on the others, each part adding to the whole. Therefore, trying to go off and live on your own as a teenager, merely to assert or test or prove your independence, is folly of the highest degree. In general (from what I have learned, and the Bible bears with me), it is best for you to be under your father, and thus a part of your family, until you are married. This is a far cry from the modern practice of teenagers leaving the home in all but name in high school, before they every even get to college.

For us to receive God's blessings, we need to allow Him to work through others in our lives to bless us. If we try to rely on none but ourselves, we are actually blocking out God.

And thus is my assertion. It is radical and extreme, I know. But if you read my blog, you know that doesn't bother me at all. ;)

So now it is your turn to make yourselves heard in the comments!

Have you seen this mindset in your life? Have you seen it in others? How has it affected you? And how do you think you could change your life to avoid it?

--

Jay Lauser, aka Sir Emeth Mimetes, is a homeschooled Rebelutionary writer passionate for God. He divides his time between his many projects and his freelancing web design and development business. He blogs at http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com.

The Need for Young Male Leaders

Okay, I have a confession to make. I'm not the biggest Mark Driscoll fan. Don't get me wrong. I love him as brother in Christ. He's a tremendous preacher. I agree with about 90% of his theology (which is actually pretty good for me). No one can deny that he knows how to reach the very anti-Christian culture of Seattle, Washington. Likewise, I have no doubt that God has used him in great ways and will continue to do so.

However, there are a few cases in which I wish he'd be a little less crude and I disagree with some elements of his philosophy of ministry. That said, he's very much a modern John the Baptist. Blunt, direct, rugged and real. He certainly drives a point home in this video.

While I might not have worded it quite like that, I definitely agree with what Pastor Mark is saying. Though, while Driscoll puts most the blame on the Church, I think that we young men are also the blame. The young men in our churches have failed to step up to the plate. In most churches, young men are more rebel than leader.

We as men have the duty and God-given responsibility to be leaders. We were designed, according to our Father's perfect plan, to take the initiative. Women are designed to respond to our initiative. But, with us guys failing in our responsibilities, women have forced to step in any many areas that are designed for men.

If the Body of Christ is going to prosper, we need men to be leaders. They need to be heads of their families, their businesses, their communities and their churches. And we, as the succeeding generation, need to begin right where we are.

We must never forget that we, whether we like it or not, are the leaders of the future. We will either lead with our action and inaction. So, the question is not whether or not we will be leaders, but what kind of leaders we will be.

It is vital that we have a vision for the future. Regardless of what are vocation may be - be it pastor, missionary, elected official, movie directer, businessman or janitor (I'm sorry, it's custodian) - we need to have an idea of how to best live our life for the glory of God.

So, my challenge to my fellow guys is to simply be men. Take the initiative. Make a stand. Learn how to lead. Serve others. Have a God-centered vision. Live in light of eternity. Lead by example. This is key to the success of the Church.

10 Marks of the Early Church

While doing some research, I came across these ten characteristics of the early Church. The way the Church acted toward the increasingly corrupt Roman culture is a great model for us today as we too try to interact with a society that is increasing more antagonistic toward the Way of God.

1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social. Tertullian and Augustine both write about these events in a negative light.

God's principles should always trump society's feeble definitions of morality. The early Christians could have said, "Well, the Scriptures never actually say, 'Thou shalt not go to gladiatorial games.' Therefore, it isn't really a sin to go watch people kill others for sport." But, instead, they chose to travel the road less taken. They looked at the Word of God as a whole and saw that certain principles did not align with their culture's view of entertainment. Therefore, they chose abstinence in an age of indulgence.

2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.

Of course, the liberals love this one. They like to scribble pacifism all over the early Church. However, the matter wasn't so much war itself, but the cause of the war. The wars which the Roman Empire had started at this time weren't about defending the people or punishing wickedness - the extent of the government's jurisdiction. It was about feeding Caesar's blood lust. Therefore, the early saints drew a line in the sand and said that they would have no part in helping the government defy God's Word.

3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In this culture, both were considered acceptable. To throw your baby out on the dung heap if you didn’t want it was not taboo.

You want to know what Christian extremism really is? It'll tell you. These Christian had such an extreme love for people they had never met that they would go wading, knee deep, in the dung piles, listening for the cries of abandon newborns. When they would find them, they would not only nurse the children back to health but they would also raise them as if they were their own offspring. That is love in action.

4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.

Until recently, chivalry has always been a prominent fixture in the Body of Christ. Unfortunately, the Feminist movement has convinced society that valuing women for their unique and God-given traits is sexist and primitive. We guys need to make sure that we treat ladies with respect and honor.

5- They were against sex outside of marriage. This fidelity was considered odd and against culture. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.

I don't think I really need to explain how this relates to our current culture. Just take comfort in the fact that saints of God have been fighting the same battles for centuries. The God who gave them victory then can still give us victory today.

6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.

There is nothing new under the sun. Our adversary has been trying the same old tricks all throughout history. The traditional view of marriage was not something a bunch of bigots tried to push onto the Bible. It's what God designed and what His Church has been fighting for since the beginning.

7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.

Generosity and hospitality are two components that I believe are sadly missing from the Church today. We need to once again begin displaying love in practical, everyday ways.

8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.

In a poverty-stricken age, the Christians did not waste their time worrying about their own needs. Rather, they went out of their way to actively serve others.

9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.

We are one Body. Race, gender and social status don't matter in terms of our value in Christ. Our Lord is the Father of all.

10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a time when everyone had a god and could believe something entirely different and it was totally acceptable to be polytheists and pluralistic. Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.

Need I say more? In an age of 'tolerance', everyone is pushing coexistence. It doesn't matter what you believe. The God of the Bible is the same as any other god. Jesus is just a way, a truth and a life. Come as you are. There's no need to do things God's Way. Oh, but there is! May we always have the courage to profess Jesus Christ as the only Way to the Father.

The Calvinist Comeback

In 2009, that all-wise, omniscient source of knowledge, Time magazine, named New Calvinism as one of the top ten ideas changing the world today. There’s no question that Calvinists and Reformed theologians are doing a lot of heavy lifting lately. It’s people like John Piper, Voddie Baucham, Joshua Harris, Albert Mohler and Brett & Alex Harris who are bringing the faith of our fathers back into the hearts and minds of modern man.

So what is it about Calvinism that is drawing so many Christian to it like a magnet? Last March, I had the privilege of working with Chad Warren of Worldview Academy during TeenPact Iowa 2010. Chad believes that the answer to that question is reaction. Just as the Emergent church claims to be a reaction to postmodernism, New Calvinism is a response to the Emergent church.



Since before I was born, the Body of Jesus Christ, at least in the West, has been dominated by “feel good theology.” Emotion-centric praise teams lead worship. Pastors are judged by how many laughs they can accumulate from the audience. Youth ministries focus more on pizza and dodgeball than on biblical teachings. To most Christians today, God is a benevolent, loving grandpa and Jesus is no longer the King of kings, but the Buddy of buddies.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for an intimate relationship with our Heavenly Daddy. However, there’s so much more to God than a flippant deity who speaks softly and carries a twig. This is where Young Calvinism comes in.

You can say what you want about predestination and unconditional election, but whether they’re right or wrong, Calvinists are doctrinally-centric, Bible-focused believers. It’s not about getting a fuzzy feeling. It’s about glorifying God.

This is where Reformed theology offers something that is far too uncommon in modern Christian circles. The whole point to Calvinism is that God is God is God and He can do whatever He wants. We don’t have to like it. We don’t have to understand it. We just have to submit to it.

So, regardless of what you believe about Calvinism, there’s something that can be learned from it. When John Calvin first came on the scene, his teachings went upstream of the social status quo which was rooted in corrupted theology and dead religion. Now, our culture has stooped back to wishy-washy doctrines. It’s time for a new generation of reformers to bring our culture back to the Word of God.