It's OK 'Cause They're Dead
I heard a sermon recently that made a reference to the martyrs Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley. These two men were burned at the stake (as were thousands of others) for publicly denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (among other things). We admire these men for standing up for the gospel. We admire them because they were willing to defend the finished work of their Savior.
Good thing for them that they're dead.
If they were here today, they'd have less to worry about from the Catholic Church in terms of stakes, but they'd be in line for some pretty nasty press from so-called Evangelicals.
In the very same sermon that Latimer and Ridley were lauded, Mother Theresa was given as our example of "living for Jesus". I hate to have to point this out, but Theresa worshipped the very false doctrine of transubstantiation that thousands gave their lives to oppose. To those martyrs, "living for Jesus" meant defending His work on Calvary. To Theresa, she saw transubstantiation as the hope of mankind. She once lamented about not being able to send her nuns to certain places because those places had no priests. Without the priest, there could be no "sacrifice" of transubstantiation. Theresa was more concerned about living for the false Jesus of transubstantiation than she was for the true Jesus of the gospel.
In today's church, we don't mind admiring people who defend the faith... so long as they've been dead a few centuries. I have fellowshipped and worked in some of the most conservative, evangelical places in the United States. I have discovered something in my journeys: it matters not how saccharine sweet I try to be, it matters not how diligent I am in my research and presentation, the fact remains, that when it comes to the doctrines that hundreds of thousands thought serious enough for which to die, the modern church no longer has the stomach to object.
Oh, it's worse than that. Not only am I asked to censor my ministry to Roman Catholics and censor my testimony of salvation from the Roman system, amazingly I am asked to tolerate open displays of Catholicism in the church!
The Catholics around me are allowed to openly "bless" themselves or to write "JMJ" on their papers. Confronting such things, no matter how kindly, is verboten! Conversely, one mention of my Catholicism in giving my testimony and the murmuring begins. In one local publication any mention of my devout Catholic life was expunged from my testimony. So we are left with this: we are allowed to admire and talk about the great martyrs of the faith... we're just not allowed to mention why they were martyred or who murdered them. Most of all, we are shunned if we dare to stand in their place and oppose the very same doctrines for which they gave their blood.
The CCM Scenario
Since much of my blog commentary is in connection with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), allow me to look at this topic from the view of that world. If you think opposing Catholic doctrine in a conservative church is hazadous, it's down right lethal in CCM!
I attended a concert featuring CCM artist Shaun Groves last fall. His "ministry" included attacking the United States ("the flag that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [etc]") and included the required attacks on the church for "not loving enough" (for which you'll never pay a price and for which you will always be lauded in the CCM press).
Shaun, of course, had a song attacking evangelicals for not caring enough about orphans of the world, etc. Not that I'm against orphans, but CCM is replete with songs attacking the true church for not being a socialist entity. How about just one song attacking the church for not preaching the gospel (as commanded) or for not defending the faith (as commanded)? How about a song attacking Rome for leading one billion souls astray? Judas seemed pretty concerned about the poor too.
Just as in CCM, it is considered "brave" to attack the true church in just about all evangelical circles these days. The CCM world almost requires a song along these lines to remain in a state of grace (sic) in hopes of any radio play. The chances of winning a Dove award increase with every neo-socialist, anti-evangelical lyric.
Late CCM "saint" Rich Mullins went so far as to mock "those Evangelicals" and spoke of our works as being "salvific". Whereas he should have been corrected and shunned as scripture commands for teaching such a wicked, anti-gospel doctrine, quite the opposite happened. He was, of course, labeled as "brave" and given "hero" status.
The trend in CCM down the path of apostasy will continue so long as (a) the CCM world shuns sound doctrine and embraces Catholicism and (b) the CCM critics continue to rely on Freudian psychology, unbiblical "back-beat" doctrines, and selective biblical exegesis based on pretext for their attacks. In both cases, the solution is simple: we need to get back to glorifying the Person, the Work and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That should be our criteria.
In general, CCM fails to do this and her critics waste time studying the effects of the back-beat on plant growth instead of emphasizing sound doctrine. The attacks on those of us who point out the eternal errors in Catholicism will continue. I expect such attacks to grow even worse as we near the end. I also expect the Freudian attacks on the music of CCM to continue. In all this, doctrine is sacrificed.
Instead of "earnestly contending for the faith" (Jude 3) and encouraging those who do, the church is mired in cowardice by refusing to rebuke false doctrine on one side and mired in "science (falsely so-called)" by presenting contradictory "studies" on the effects of the "back-beat" on the other.
It's about Christ. We need to defend His Person, His Work and His gospel. When we do that, we will be attacked, but just think, in a hundred years we may be in someone's sermon!
Good thing for them that they're dead.
If they were here today, they'd have less to worry about from the Catholic Church in terms of stakes, but they'd be in line for some pretty nasty press from so-called Evangelicals.
In the very same sermon that Latimer and Ridley were lauded, Mother Theresa was given as our example of "living for Jesus". I hate to have to point this out, but Theresa worshipped the very false doctrine of transubstantiation that thousands gave their lives to oppose. To those martyrs, "living for Jesus" meant defending His work on Calvary. To Theresa, she saw transubstantiation as the hope of mankind. She once lamented about not being able to send her nuns to certain places because those places had no priests. Without the priest, there could be no "sacrifice" of transubstantiation. Theresa was more concerned about living for the false Jesus of transubstantiation than she was for the true Jesus of the gospel.
In today's church, we don't mind admiring people who defend the faith... so long as they've been dead a few centuries. I have fellowshipped and worked in some of the most conservative, evangelical places in the United States. I have discovered something in my journeys: it matters not how saccharine sweet I try to be, it matters not how diligent I am in my research and presentation, the fact remains, that when it comes to the doctrines that hundreds of thousands thought serious enough for which to die, the modern church no longer has the stomach to object.
Oh, it's worse than that. Not only am I asked to censor my ministry to Roman Catholics and censor my testimony of salvation from the Roman system, amazingly I am asked to tolerate open displays of Catholicism in the church!
The Catholics around me are allowed to openly "bless" themselves or to write "JMJ" on their papers. Confronting such things, no matter how kindly, is verboten! Conversely, one mention of my Catholicism in giving my testimony and the murmuring begins. In one local publication any mention of my devout Catholic life was expunged from my testimony. So we are left with this: we are allowed to admire and talk about the great martyrs of the faith... we're just not allowed to mention why they were martyred or who murdered them. Most of all, we are shunned if we dare to stand in their place and oppose the very same doctrines for which they gave their blood.
The CCM Scenario
Since much of my blog commentary is in connection with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), allow me to look at this topic from the view of that world. If you think opposing Catholic doctrine in a conservative church is hazadous, it's down right lethal in CCM!
I attended a concert featuring CCM artist Shaun Groves last fall. His "ministry" included attacking the United States ("the flag that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [etc]") and included the required attacks on the church for "not loving enough" (for which you'll never pay a price and for which you will always be lauded in the CCM press).
Shaun, of course, had a song attacking evangelicals for not caring enough about orphans of the world, etc. Not that I'm against orphans, but CCM is replete with songs attacking the true church for not being a socialist entity. How about just one song attacking the church for not preaching the gospel (as commanded) or for not defending the faith (as commanded)? How about a song attacking Rome for leading one billion souls astray? Judas seemed pretty concerned about the poor too.
Just as in CCM, it is considered "brave" to attack the true church in just about all evangelical circles these days. The CCM world almost requires a song along these lines to remain in a state of grace (sic) in hopes of any radio play. The chances of winning a Dove award increase with every neo-socialist, anti-evangelical lyric.
Late CCM "saint" Rich Mullins went so far as to mock "those Evangelicals" and spoke of our works as being "salvific". Whereas he should have been corrected and shunned as scripture commands for teaching such a wicked, anti-gospel doctrine, quite the opposite happened. He was, of course, labeled as "brave" and given "hero" status.
The trend in CCM down the path of apostasy will continue so long as (a) the CCM world shuns sound doctrine and embraces Catholicism and (b) the CCM critics continue to rely on Freudian psychology, unbiblical "back-beat" doctrines, and selective biblical exegesis based on pretext for their attacks. In both cases, the solution is simple: we need to get back to glorifying the Person, the Work and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That should be our criteria.
In general, CCM fails to do this and her critics waste time studying the effects of the back-beat on plant growth instead of emphasizing sound doctrine. The attacks on those of us who point out the eternal errors in Catholicism will continue. I expect such attacks to grow even worse as we near the end. I also expect the Freudian attacks on the music of CCM to continue. In all this, doctrine is sacrificed.
Instead of "earnestly contending for the faith" (Jude 3) and encouraging those who do, the church is mired in cowardice by refusing to rebuke false doctrine on one side and mired in "science (falsely so-called)" by presenting contradictory "studies" on the effects of the "back-beat" on the other.
It's about Christ. We need to defend His Person, His Work and His gospel. When we do that, we will be attacked, but just think, in a hundred years we may be in someone's sermon!
posted by bleechers at
4:07 PM
<< Home