Christmas! For which Jesus Christ?

We are in midst of a Christmas evolution. This evolution is to disconnect Christ from Christmas. Some societies have replaced “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.”

The secular world is not the only threat to Christmas. There is a threat to the Christian faith from within Christianity. This threat will not impact those firmly entrenched, but it will adversely influence those growing in the Christian faith - our children - the future of Christianity. If we remain unaware of this threat, we will not act to prevent but will place our future into a greater turmoil.

These threats are largely variants or replicas of heresies that have been in existence. Postmodernism is not a recent threat, but as Ravi Zacharias said in one of his sermons, postmodernism is found as early as in Genesis 3:1, “…did God actually say…?” As a logical outflow of this thought, a postmodern Christian thinker claims it is unnecessary to believe in the Bible as the sole and final authority for all matters of man’s spiritual life.

As affirmed, the non-Christians are not the only entity that dispute Historic Christianity. Christian seminaries are actively buying into postmodern thought and selling it to their students – our pastors and elders. Many Christian seminaries are scurrying to discard God from Christianity - the Bible is relegated to the status of a mere book, the miracles are said to be mythical and nonsensical, and a Cosmic Christ archetype that indulges in ‘deep ecumenism’ to embrace all religions and the likes is actively taught.

The question that looms large over us is this: Can we, as serious Christians, reasonably and confidently respond to these truthless threats with the timeless truths found in the Scripture? Every Christian ought to be a theologian (cf. Ephesians 4:13). Every Christian ought to provide reasons for his hope in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). Every Christian ought to destroy arguments against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Christianity is not a part-time, once-a-week activity that takes place in the precincts of the church and that once-a-week cell group activity. Attending church and bible study fellowships are indeed beneficial. But Christianity cannot be limited to these two once-a-week activities. Similarly, Christians cannot think that our mainline activity is only to provide for ourselves and our families. It is a sin to neglect our family. But it’s a greater sin to discard God or relegate HIM to mediocrity or obscurity.

A reasonable goal for a Christian is to spend two hours a day praying, reading, and studying the Bible and commentaries that interpret the Bible. Christians practicing tithing will affirm that spending two hours a day at the feet of the Lord falls short of the one-tenth mark!

An average believer of other active proselytizing (evangelizing) faiths such as Islam, Church of Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses know our Bible more than an average Christian. How proficient are we in clarifying the apparent contradictions in the Bible that our non-christian friend throws at us? We may not readily be able to clarify every doubt our unbelieving friend seeks from us. But in this internet era, we should know the online resources that offer clarity to these apparent contradictions (e.g. www.carm.org or www.gotquestions.org). Or we have to educate ourselves through our investments in resources (books, podcasts, smartphone apps etc.) that offer clarity. Our investments indicate our heart’s disposition. 

Are we theologians? Can we confidently provide a reason for our hope in Christ? Can we reasonably dialogue with those who preach against the tenets of Historic Christianity (the tenets are in my blog: http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/10/do-all-people-go-to-heaven-reasoning.html)? If we aren’t, then we better be.

Importantly, every Christian ought to:

(1) Identify the errors in the opposing worldview.

(2) Provide clarity to every honest question asked, especially by our young people.

As a result of more and more seminaries teaching liberal theology, ¹ heresies under the guise of rationality and progressivity attack and will inundate us. Those who believe and broadcast the tenets of Historic Christianity are branded as fundamentalists, arrogant, exclusivists etc. These developments should not deter us.

Some heresies are direct (e.g. Bible is not to be believed as a sole authority for man’s life and spirituality). This is similar to the devil casting his evil dogmas directly into our face. Other heresies are subtle and cunning. This is the devil disguising as the angel of the light (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). These heresies are meant to confuse people. Often the young and naïve (immature) minds are the victims of these deceiving heresies. ‘Young and naïve’ need not be limited to young people, but even the old can be ‘young and naïve’ in their minds. 

Some insist that a true Christian ought to reject all doctrines, for they claim all doctrines to be man-made. This is a very deceptive thought, which is only meant to confuse and corrode a young and naïve believer. Let me elaborate.

Which Christ is celebrated during Christmas? Is it the Christ of the Bible? Wait! Are there other Jesus Christs? Yes, consider the Christ of Islam. While the Islamic tradition affirms the virgin birth and the second coming of Christ, it denies Christ’s divinity (Surah 5: 17, 75), crucifixion (Surah 4:157-158), and ascribes Christ to be inferior to Prophet Muhammad. Very minimally, Muslims believe that Christ was not crucified but Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

So we observe two different versions of Christ – Islamic and Christian. The Christ of the Historic Christianity was crucified and resurrected but the Christ of Islam was not crucified. The truth is Christ was either crucified or not crucified. A claim that Christ was both crucified and not crucified cannot be true. Crucifixion, therefore, is an essential doctrine that separates the Christ of Islam from Christ of Christianity.

Doctrine is a belief that is taught. Crucifixion is a doctrine associated with Christ. There are several essential and fringe (peripheral) doctrines. Essential doctrines are essential to salvation (salvific), hence cannot be compromised (Christ’s deity, crucifixion, bodily resurrection etc.). Fringe doctrines (baptism, speaking in tongues, Premillennialism, Postmillennialism etc.) are not salvific, which we can agree to disagree on.  

For instance, denial of Christ’s virgin birth is to deny Christ’s sinlessness and HIS divinity, and will also invoke a cascade of other negations. Similarly denying Christ’s crucifixion would deny HIS resurrection, HIS victory over death etc. Therefore, the Christ who saves man from his sins is the Christ who is the second person of the blessed trinity, born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified and bodily resurrected.

It is abundantly clear that a Christian has to believe in the doctrines of virgin birth, Christ’s divinity, HIS crucifixion and resurrection. Negating one of these is to present another Christ. The Christ of the Bible is not the Christ who was not crucified (proposed by Islam) nor is Christ the spirit brother of Lucifer (proposed by Mormons). In other words, doctrines are essential to faith.

Rejection of a doctrine could lead to a belief in a contradicting doctrine or simply a belief in nothing. Both are equally dangerous, for both reject or suppress truth. 

Doctrines as a concept cannot be rejected as well. A deceptive statement is that “All doctrines are man-made and hence should be rejected,” but this:

(1) …is a doctrine made by man.

(2) …is the doctrine of a person who believes that there should not be a doctrine.

Therefore, the person who says that all man-made doctrines are to be rejected is trying to reject all doctrines by affirming the concept of a doctrine - a self-defeating proposition.

There are true and false doctrines found in all walks of life. According to Historic Christianity, the doctrine of virgin birth of Christ is the truth; all other contradicting doctrines are false. A Muslim believes in the doctrine of monotheism, and according to Islam all contradicting doctrines are false. A postmodern thinker believes in the doctrine that there is no objective truth. In fact he projects his doctrine as the objective truth (!!), and he believes that all contradicting doctrines are false. A liberal Christian believes in the doctrine that the Bible is not the final authority for man, so he believes that all contradicting doctrines are false.

Doctrines that promote truth are beneficial to man. The early church developed the Nicene Creed to fight the Arian heresy that relegated Christ to be a created being.

We are celebrating the birth of Christ of the Bible, who is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was crucified and bodily resurrected, who is now at the Father’s right hand interceding for you and me, and will come again to judge the world. Until HE comes again, HE will generously offer all spiritual blessings that include wisdom and courage to all who seek HIM to defend the truth and fight the evil.

May the light of Christ shine into all hearts so to make them captive to HIM and HIM alone. Amen.   

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html

The Dirty Church

The church is to be a beautiful community that worships the only living God, nurtures the seeker with the truth, fellowships in the loving community of saints, and encourages the brokenhearted with Christ’s love. In other words, the church looks ‘upward’ in worship, ‘inward’ to edify, and ‘outward’ to serve those in need.

However, the church, from Christ’s time on earth, has been losing these components slowly yet steadily (cf. Mark 11: 15-17). A church can profess her allegiance to the Lord Jesus, yet be corrupt in her core values and expressions. In other words, the church, from the surface, could seem adherent to the biblical teachings, but avoid being truthful, loving and gracious, and thus corrupt.

When resolving a situation, the church could opt to enforce law or grace. Here is a rather dense situation to highlight the church’s corruption. A church rejects the marriage proposal of a couple because one partner has had multiple divorces. Not only is the church ungracious, but she could be successful in driving away the couple from her precincts. While rejecting the proposal, the church may have even cited a few scripture passages (e.g. Malachi 2: 16). But is this the only viable or the most biblical option for the church? If you say yes, please allow me to contradict you.

I submit that the church should have married this couple, of course, with bible-centered pre-marital counseling. If this couple were married, it is possible that this marriage would survive and the past sins of divorce, repented. By rejecting the marriage proposal, the church eliminated a magnificent opportunity for the person to repent and establish a family. More importantly, the church may have even driven these two away from Christianity. (You could argue that the multiple divorcée, as in the past, would reject/divorce this partner as well. This, however, is an ‘argument from ignorance’ i.e., one cannot predict if that marriage would result in divorce.)

Now then, why should the church not be radically gracious in solemnizing such a marriage? The church may have either rejected this proposal to avoid unnecessary criticism (for the leadership to have their job intact) or because she is profusely legalistic (so to abandon grace into oblivion). In both these instances, the church abandons the minority. This is in total contradiction to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If the church leadership claims ignorance on this matter, then they are inadequate for leadership.)

It is good to err on the side of grace, than on the side of law. But only strong and courageous leaders (Joshua 1: 9) would dare to err on the side of grace. The selfishly fearful, corrupt and theologically impotent leaders would cite the law to evade being gracious. They defy the Lord’s act of running after that one lost sheep, leaving the ninety-nine. Losing one sheep is insignificant to these leaders. They satisfy the majority, even at the cost of one sheep and the gospel! The Lord is the epitome of grace (John 1: 14-17); when the church adheres to the law and abandons grace, the church becomes corrupt.

The first entity to take responsibility for the church’s corruption is her leadership. Christ showed the way for mankind to follow. Similarly the church leadership ought to be role models for the flock to follow the Lord. If the leadership is legalistic, the essence of the church would be legalistic.

However, it could be healthier to have a legalistic leader than a weak leader. If the leadership is weak, then the church would travel the way of the powerful group in the church, and the powerful, if biblically correct, will remove the weak leader (so to resolve the problem). If the weak leadership remains, the church is bound to be sold to the devil in one form or another. If leaders are ruled by fear, they will inevitably succumb to the temptations of the evil one.

The elaborate description of Jesus cleansing the temple in Mark 11: 15-17 presents an instance of a ‘dirty church.’ The Lord’s house was transformed into a house of business instead of a house of prayer. The Lord cleansed the temple by driving out the offenders (15). Wait! Did HE really drive them out? I don’t think so! Verse 17 fascinates me, for the Lord taught ‘them’ the true intent of the church. ‘Them’ refers to those who abused the temple precincts and the spectators. Hence the Lord not only cleansed HIS house off its filth, but taught the abusers the truth. Isn’t this what today’s church leaders ought to do and isn’t this where they fail?

We take pride in proclaiming the church as a congregation of sinners, and truly so. Sin is inevitable in the congregation of sinners. When sin is encountered, the sinful act should be eliminated by the power of God, and the sinful actor cleansed by the Word of God. 

Today’s church seems more intent on driving out the sinners; not the sinners who sin against God, but those who disagree with the leadership. The formula of today’s church seems to be if-you-don’t-agree-to-my-agenda-you-will-be-fired. Thus, instead of church multiplication, church division seems to be the order of the day. Where is the fault? It’s obviously in the insecure arms of the weak leadership.

I am part of a ‘facebook prayer group’ of a certain church. One day, I realized I wasn’t a part of that prayer group. Upon digging for clarity, I discovered that the church leadership had me removed from that group, because my blogs seemed to implicate that church. Thus far, I have not received a response as to what unholy or unbiblical content from my blog merited such an ungracious decision. If I am a sinner, where is the teaching to correct me? If there is no teaching, does it imply I am correct? If I am correct, why should I be removed? Or am I a terrible sinner beyond correction? This is not a personal rant, but an illustration of what I see as a failure of the church.

The church seeks easy, or evil, solutions today. Quite a few AGM’s (Annual General Meeting) of the contemporary church present a sad yet hilarious scene. The powerful oppress the powerless and the seemingly-more-spiritual oppress their brothers and sisters. If you speak the truth, you are mandated to shut up. Is this the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Laugh-out-Loud! It is the case of weak and unbiblical leadership. Weak leadership manifests in several ways. You are fired if you disagree; you are disciplined if you speak the truth. Both situations were a reality in the life of Martin Luther and many others who stood firm for truth. Welcome to the dirty church.

George Barna and Frank Viola expressed this sentiment as they dedicated their book, “To our forgotten brothers and sisters throughout the ages who courageously stepped outside the safe bounds of institutional Christianity at the risk of life and limb. You faithfully carried the torch, endured persecution, forfeited reputation, lost family, suffered torture, and spilled your blood to preserve the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest .a minister ... and a functioning member of God's house. This book is dedicated to you.” ¹ Weakness hides behind law, discards grace and Christ out of the church. The church then is sold to the devil.

I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who ridiculed the church to say, “they have taken that which belongs to the soul and institutionalized it.” Do you belong to a dirty church that destroys a soul, or do you belong to a grace-abounding, Christ-filled, Spirit-anointed church?

You can for all you want shout at the top of your voice that you are anointed. But if you discard grace from your life, you are discarding Christ. If you are abandoning Christ from your life, are you a true disciple of the Lord Jesus? You need to answer these questions as much as I need to. Amen.

References:

¹ George Barna and Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, 2007. 

The Church Building

On 30^th March 2013, BBC reported, “…the doors of St John's Episcopal Church are open to hundreds of Muslim worshippers, arriving for daily prayers. The familiar sounds of Christian hymns have been replaced with Islamic prayer in the chapel this Friday lunchtime and the church priest with the imam from the neighbouring mosque.” ¹ What’s your response to this? Some would welcome such a move, others may not have a view, and some traditional christians may express shock, disbelief, anger, and disappointment.

I once believed that ‘church’ referred to the building in which christian worship services are held. Little did I know then that the church is the community of the believers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To understand this, let’s explore the Old Testament temple, which I believe is the precursor to the modern day church worship (I will not touch upon the “tent of meeting.”). Outside of sociopolitical compulsions, David considered the temple construction as a dwelling place for God, the Ark of the Covenant and the Tent of Meeting and its sacred furnishings (2 Samuel 7: 2, 5, 13; 1 Kings 8: 3-4), but Solomon built it. The holiness was ascribed to the temple when the Ark of the Covenant, Tent of Meeting and its sacred furnishings (institutional representations) were in the Most Holy Place, and when the glory of the Lord filled the temple (1 Kings 8: 10-12; 2 Chronicles 5, 7: 1-3). There was a tangible manifestation of God in the temple. Hence, the temple, without its institutional representations and the tangible manifestation of God, would not have acquired the intense holiness.

As days passed, the temple was used as state treasury, “emptied to pay tribute or filled and decorated with booty according to the power of the land.” ² Let us also bear in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was “presumably lost during the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC. There was no ark in the second temple (Josephus, BJ 5. 219).” ³ Finally this temple was destroyed by the invading Babylonians.

A vision of a new temple was given to Ezekiel, but was not built according to the vision (Ezekiel 40-43). The second temple was built, but its foundations were apparently inferior to the first temple (Ezra 3: 12; Haggai 2: 3). Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up a pagan altar or statue, which the triumphant Maccabees cleansed (1 Maccabees 4: 36-59). The institutional representations in the Holy Place were limited to the seven-branched candelabrum, the table of showbread, and the incense altar. This temple lacked the glory of the Lord that was present in the first temple. The main structure of Herod’s temple (third temple) was completed in 9 BC.⁴ This temple was destroyed in AD 70 by Romans. The candelabrum, the table of showbread, and other objects were carried to Rome. This temple too lacked the glory of the Lord. Thus the second and the third temples without the tangible manifestations of God lacked the intense holiness that was present in the first temple (cf. after centuries of covenant disloyalty, the Lord withdrew HIS presence - Ezekiel 8: 6, 10:18).

The Lord Jesus had two opposing views of the temple, on one hand he respected it and on the other hand he relegated the temple to a subordinate position. HE called the temple the “house of God” and considered it holy (Matthew 12:4, 23: 17, 21; John 2:16-17). On the other hand, Christ taught that HE was greater than the temple (Matthew 12: 6), and deemed the temple as an umbrella for Israel’s spiritual emptiness (Mark 11: 12-26).⁵ Christ also proclaimed the temple’s destruction (Mark 13: 1-2), thus indicating the unworthiness of the obstinate Judaism of the divine presence of God incarnate – the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the new temple was established in the congregation of believers of Christ (Matthew 18: 20; John 14: 23).

The Greek word “ekklesia” represents the New Testament church. Etymologically “ekklesia” means “to call out.” This supports the biblical doctrine of the church as a people called out, and separated from the world by God. “Specific Christian Assembly” is the New Testament meaning of the word “ekklesia.” The New Testament uses “ekklesia” in the sense of the ‘local church’ and ‘universal church.’ It is certainly not used for a Church building, or a particular denomination.

Christ, standing in the temple precincts called out people to HIMSELF (John 7: 37-38). HE emphatically stated HIMSELF as the temple (John 2: 21). Further, the body of the believers is also stated as the temple of the living God (1 Corinthians 6: 19; cf. Romans 12: 1-2). Therefore, the temple made of flesh and blood replaced the temple made of stones. We do not go into the temple to worship God, but we carry the temple to worship God in the community of the saints. This is the church.

So how do I respond to the sharing of the church building with the muslims? Do I vote for people or the building?

Since 2003, I did not consider the church as a building. I lived this belief and experienced the public wrath of the traditional christians. I was awarded a 6-month suspension from public worship, for providing oversight to an evangelistic hard rock concert that was held in the “church building.” The traditional christians considered this radical evangelistic event (where the gospel was proclaimed) as sacrilege, and even went to the extent of cleansing the church precincts of evil spirits.⁶ They disregarded people for the sake of the building!

Having been raised in the mainstream church that considers the building holy, it was initially difficult for me to comprehend such a radical deed of sharing the worship place with another faith community. But the building has lesser spiritual significance than people, so why not?

When 2 or 3 gather at my home to worship God, my home is a church building. I do have muslim friends, and would welcome any of them to stay at my home. But I would not prevent them from worshipping at my home, if such a need arises. If my muslim friend can worship at my home, then what prevents me from allowing muslims to worship from the church building?

Many christian worship services are being held in larger halls of hotels. In a hotel, there is a good possibility for a simultaneous occurrence of a christian worship, muslim worship, and even a sinful deed of a man satisfying his lust with a sex worker. Would the latter two destroy the sanctity of a christian worship? I don’t think so.

Many muslim countries have allowed the existence of churches. If such is their benevolence, why should a church close its doors to muslims? Shouldn’t the christian community also be benevolent?

These are however my secondary reasonings.

My primary reasoning is as follows:

(1) The universe is God’s dwelling place (cf. Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7: 49).

(2) The existential reality showcases God’s freedom to people to worship any entity of their choice irrespective of HIS pleasure, and that from within HIS dwelling place.

(3) If God says ‘yes’ to conflicting worship from within HIS dwelling place, why should man say ‘no,’ especially when the sacredness of worship has been taken out of building and brought into the realm of human body?

If the choice is between the building and people, my vote any day would be for the people. Do you agree or disagree? Please state your views, in case of disagreement.

May God bless us all. Amen.  

References:

¹ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21953899

² New Bible Dictionary, 2^nd Ed, p1169.

³ New Bible Dictionary, 2^nd Ed, p82.

⁴ But the work continued until AD 64.

⁵ New Bible Dictionary, 2^nd Ed, p1171.

⁶ This christian outreach event was deemed evil, because the hard rock (performed by christians) and its elements were considered evil.

Useful reads:

1. http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/temple.html

2. Pagan Christianity, Frank Viola & George Barna.