More problems with meme theology

Many memes that are meant to be pithy, and maybe even inspirational, end up ignoring biblical theology in their efforts to make a point. I often refer to such statements as "bumper sticker theology." My Facebook friend Tony Belarmino calls the "Christian clichés and Pentecostal platitudes." They're those soundbites that are very tweetable or memorable, but because they're so brief (to make them easy to remember and repeat), they frequently are very surface-level, and end up failing to go deep enough to really get at the truth contained in Scripture.

One example is something I saw posted the other day quoting California megachurch pastor Bill Johnson:

The obvious implication here is that if you voice a complaint, then you're inviting Satan in.

It is certainly true that many times—especially during Israel's wandering in the wilderness—God takes them to task for complaining against Him and the leadership He had put in charge of guiding His people. Complaining for the sake of complaining, or getting one's own way, is definitely wrong, because it's manipulative, using the logic of the old adage that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Getting the metaphor wrong

I've seen this posted several times over the past week. And yes, I'm going on one of my pedantic flights of metaphoric correction here.

The tea bag is placed into the hot water, and the longer the bag is in the hot water, the more what is in the bag changes the water.

But the person being in the Word does not change the Scriptures (though there are plenty of people who try to alter and bend the Bible to match their own preconceptions and desires).

Such Stuff as Dreams Are Made Of

Last fall, I read a book by a Christian author on the subject of dream interpretation after seeing a lot of chatter on social media concerning the topic. My point in this post is not to call out a particular person, so I'm not going to name the book title or author. But I do feel that some of the assertions made in the book need to be addressed using biblical principles.

In the introduction, the author states that, while God definitely speaks our human languages, that it must really please Him when we make the effort to understand His "creative language of dreams." As someone who is fluent in Spanish as a second language, and has studied a bit of biblical Greek, I know a little about learning another language. Many people expect learning another language to be a simple matter of learning which word in the source language corresponds to which word in the target language, as though languages are just replacement ciphers. 

This misconception can lead to a lot of false starts and bad conclusions. Anyone who sets out to learn a second language quickly discovers that context is just as important as knowing a list. I've lost count of the times a native Spanish speaker has asked me, concerning an English word, "What does the _______ mean?" Probably 80% of the time, my immediate response is, "Can you tell me the sentence you saw it in?" because that one English word could have three or more Spanish equivalents, depending on the context in which it is being used. So, before we can think about learning the "dream language," we need to have an actual understanding of how languages work.

Misrepresenting Christ

I saw the following posted on Twitter (X) by SocialConserv. @bookkeepPLUS

I'm increasingly disheartened by the sheer volume of vile, disgusting posts I come across, only to check the bios and see phrases like "Christ is King," "Christian," "Reformed," and similar proclamations of faith. It's deeply troubling to witness such blatant carnality disguised under the banner of Christianity. These individuals claim to follow Christ, yet their actions and words betray a heart steeped in anger and hatred, done so under the guise of fighting for God. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, putting away the works of the flesh—anger, malice, slander—and embracing the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, and peace. When you declare "Christ is King" but your actions and speech reflect anything but His love and humility, you misrepresent not only yourself but also the God you claim to serve. This behavior distorts the Gospel. The world is watching, and when those who claim to be followers of Christ act with such carnality, it feeds into the narrative that Christianity is hypocritical and irrelevant. We are called to be the light. Unfortunately, politicians like Donald Trump and other prominent figures in politics who claim to be Christians have given many Christians a perceived permission to act on their worst impulses, believing it's justified. It’s time for a serious heart check. If one truly believes that Christ is King, then one's life should reflect His teachings, not the basest instincts of the flesh. We represent a God of love, mercy, and grace. It’s not just about what you proclaim in your bio; it’s about how you live your life every single day. If your actions and/or speech don't align with the faith you profess, it's time to rethink how you’re representing Christ to the world.

Like one of my pastors once said to the congregation, "If you're cutting people off in traffic, or yelling at people and making hand gestures when you get cut off, please don't put our church's bumper sticker on your car."

Revisionist History?

As best as I can recall, the only time I have deleted a comment on one of my Facebook posts was if the person used profanity, was abusive, or stated something that was outright false or heretical. I don’t believe I have ever removed a comment simply because someone disagreed with me, or even if they made an argument against my stated position that I couldn’t easily refute (in other words, I don’t delete comments to save my own reputation).

Over the past week, I was involved in a discussion in the comment thread on a political post. I had been in a back-and-forth with a few people, and after the 3rd or 4th day, I took a break from reading and responding, as I wanted to guard my spirit and not allow myself to get overly worked up or feel the need to adamantly defend my views. I took this break even though I had email notifications that this or that person had mentioned me in a comment, and I knew they were participants in that discussion thread.

Undeceiving ourselves about: politics

The following is my transcription of a segment of the Undeceptions podcast with John Dickson, who teaches at Wheaton College as the Jean Kvamme Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies and Public Christianity. You can listen to the origianl podcast here. 

There is an increasing movement of what is often called Christian Nationalism, or perhaps, more properly, theonomy—which just means, “God’s law.” The feeling is that God has given a law about what’s true and good in the Bible, so it makes sense that everybody should obey it, even those who don’t believe. A key text for this way of thinking about Christianity and the world is the so-called Great Commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you.” 

Those who hold this theonomist view say that Jesus has given us the mandate to make everyone obey the teachings of Christ. So this must mean through legislation, education, media, and so on. There are a couple of misunderstandings here in my view. The expression in English, “make disciples,” doesn’t actually in the Greek have the word “make.” There is no sense of forcing anyone to do anything. It’s just the verb meaning to “school” your students. This is then unpacked by Jesus in this statement as teaching people to obey the things He’s taught. This is key. For Jesus, persuasion—through teaching—is the principle means by which people become His students. We don’t “make” the world do anything. This actually rules out creating laws that force society to follow Christian doctrine and practice.

Do those verses actually mean that?

I recently saw a post on social media where someone was trying to make a case for pre-tribulation dispensational premillennialism. As someone who, after careful study, leans toward historic premillennialism myself, I figured I would look at the verses this individual cited and show how, while they may be used to support a pre-trib view, they do not necessarily support such an eschatology.

Below is the text of his post in italics, with my commentary interspersed in bold.

Friends? Here are how end times will happen- always remember this: the Antichrist WILL NOT be revealed until AFTER the rapture
- if the rapture happens? As a true Christian? You will be gone

Another argument for cessationism that fails

The other day, I saw the following posted on Facebook by the producers of the Cessationist movie:

In Matthew 24:1-3a it says, “Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen…?”

Arguments from Grammar that Simply Don't Work

Recently in a Facebook conversation about the nature of the gift of tongues, one detractor of tongues posted:

Paul seems to use the singular tongue to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan “gibberish” and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of actual foreign languages. Again no mention of prayer or private prayer language. All the gifts are to edify the body, so when Paul states in verse 4 “He who speaks in a tongue (singular) edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.”, he is saying that when someone speaks in gibberish, he only edifies himself which is not the Gift of Tongues (actual language which edifies the body).

The Way We Do Something Matters As Much As What We Do

Attack positions, not people.

When you mock a politician’s ethnic heritage, manner of speaking, or even the way they laugh, you come off more like a middle school bully than someone who has a grasp of the actual issues at hand. It makes you look mean and petty, and implies that you cannot make an actual reasoned argument, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. 

Every human being, no matter how out there their ideology may be, is a soul bearing the imago Dei, the image of God, and an individual for whom Christ died. 

Christians, above all, should recognize this and act, live, talk, and write accordingly. No matter how much others lower the level of discourse, we should raise it.

Preachers who are reading this: you don’t appreciate it when people take one phrase or sentence out of your sermon and use it to imply you said something you weren’t really trying to say. Show others the same courtesy you want people to show you, regardless of how vehemently you disagree with them on issues and ideologies.

Christ calls us to a higher way.

Do the ends justify the means?

I recently was part of an interesting interaction on social media. The discussion had to do with methods used in large events hosted by churches. I had made a point about having to make sure our means are in alignment with the ends we seek. One person replied:

God does not concern Himself with our methods; He concerns Himself with our effectiveness. That's why there's awards of gold and silver or wood, hay, and stubble. It's why one person had their talents taken and given to another. Those who handled what they had been given by God were rewarded. The one who lost his talents was cast away, removed from responsibility and was put into a place of oblivion and darkness.

There are many problem's with this person's statement. I'm pretty sure God does care about our methods. We should not use deceptive bait-and-switch methods in our outreach and evangelism, as that makes God look like the stereotypical used car salesman. We should not use entertainment that appeals to sensuality and flesh to draw people to hear a gospel presentation; that creates a contradiction between the medium and the message.

Never Surrender Your Principles

Someone just the other day sent me a direct message in Facebook Messenger. “Brian, I follow your FB threads. Do you believe a Christ follower is justified before God, should they support the Democrat platform/candidates?”

 

Rather than respond directly in Messenger, since I figure many of my online friends and acquaintances may have similar questions, I decided to go ahead and write a blog article answering the question. In addition to making it easier for me to point people to my answer on this topic (instead of having to repeat myself in multiple direct messages or individual FB comments), putting it on my blog also makes it a public record to which I can point should anyone misquote me or take a sentence or two out of context (we all know how internet debates work).

 

The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues

This is not a full regular book review, but more of an interaction with John P. Kildahl's The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, published in 1972. There are many of Kildahl's observations with which I can concur based on my 55 years in Pentecostalism (I've been in Assembly of God churches my whole life, and am a fourth generation A/G member). But there are also other observations he makes where I feel his analysis is off, or simply doesn't take into consideration other possibilities. Of course, the book is over 50 years old now, and I'm sure Kildahl, were he alive today with access to more data and evidence, would likely reconsider some of his conclusions. 

My format in this article will primarily consist of citing a quote from the book, and then my response to the claims or conclusions that Kildahl makes.

Credibility as a teacher, take 3

I've been reading a book about prayer. Some of the points the author makes are good and needed. But there are examples of sloppy wording, or things that just don't line up with standard biblical scholarship, such that when people who are educated about the Bible (either formally in seminary or self-taught through extensive reading and study of scholarly sources) see these easy-to-avoid mistakes, it ends up with the author shooting himself in the foot when it comes to credibility. 

How not to engage online if you really want to inform people

I recently had an interaction in a thread on Facebook within a private group. I'm not sure how to describe it—talking past each other, talking in circles, or close-mindedness and unwillingness to interact in good faith. I admit I probably didn't do the best in my interaction (I can tend to be pedantic, especially when people aren't precise enough with their definitions), but the way my interlocutor carried himself is a good example of how not to handle a discussion if you actually want to have your point be considered.

On Prayer

I recently saw a YouTube video where the guest was being interviewed about the importance of prayer. 

Now, prayer is definitely an essential part of living out the Christian faith. Jesus' disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, and He responded with what is popularly known as "The Lord's Prayer." Paul wrote in many of his letters about the importance of prayer.

Is the devil really telling you to keep scrolling?

Have any of you been seeing memes like these on social media? I've seen several over the past few days. All of the ones below, in fact, were shared by one friend on Facebook.

They appear pious on the surface. Because it is true that Satan would like nothing more than for God's people to be quiet and silenced, to not speak boldly the truth of the gospel message, to cower zip their lips so as to avoid being mocked or laughed at.

The problem is, these memes seem to suggest that Jesus wants you to share this image, and Satan wants yoo to keep scrolling without sharing it. 

But there is absolutely no gospel content in these memes to make them worth sharing! 

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Big, fat goose egg.

Does Hebrews 1 say that prophecy ended?

I recently saw (once again) the oft-repeated claim made by cessationists that Hebrews 1:1-2 proves  the gift of prophecy is no longer valid, or that there are no more prophets. I intend to briefly demonstrate why that claim is in error. Buckle your seat belts, though, because we're going to get a little nerdy, diving into the biblical language of Koine Greek.

Here are the verses under discussion in a handful of common English translations:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (NIV)

A Few More Issues with "Cultural Christians in the Early Church"

In my post "What is a Christian Book Editor's Job." I addressed a handful of issues I encountered in the early part of Nady Williams' book Cultural Christians in the Early Church. Most of the rest of the book was decent, but I ran into a few more major quibbles near the end.

Can believers speak things into existence?

Have you ever heard someone say, while praying, "We're going to call those things that are not as though they were"?

It sounds biblical, and even full of faith, but it's actually not.

The wording used here comes from Romans 4:17, which I am citing here in various translations:

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (KJV)

As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. (NIV)

That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, “I have made you the father of many nations.” This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing. (NLT)

Could Samuel Make It Today As A Prophet?

I recently saw a video of a service where the preacher said the following:

"This may sound strange to you, but in our school of ministry, our students are actually required to get it wrong. If they don't fail at least three times in the first year, we won't let them in the second year." 

I guess the prophet Samuel wouldn't have been allowed to advance to second eyar at that ministry school.

The Lord was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of Samuel’s words fall to the ground. (1 Sam. 3:19)

Does questioning an "anointed" person lead to spiritual ruin?

I recently heard a prominent preacher say the following:

Here’s the thing. You have to be careful that you do not criticize people who have the anointing of God on them. Better to say nothing. Because what happens is, once you begin to criticize somebody who has the anointing on them, you’re in the flesh. And once you’re in the flesh, then you’re moving toward unbelief. And once you move toward unbelief, then you live a barren life spiritually. And that’s the danger. See, you can go out of here...chattering, and what happens is, it poisons your spirit, and it leads you to a place of unbelief.

Pastors, televangelists, and modern-day "apostles," when someone raises legitimate concerns about their doctrine or actions, will frequently warn those asking questions to "touch not the Lord's anointed." Not touching the Lord's anointed is a phrase we see frequently in the life of David, especially in the book of 1 Sameul in the Old Testament. But to paraphrase the film The Princess Bride, "You keep using that phrase. I'm not sure it means what you think it means."

What is a Christian Book Editor's Job?

I just started reading Nadya Williams’ Cultural Christianity in the Early Church during the past week. The introduction lays out the structure of the book, looking at the interactions between Christian faith and surrounding culture in the New Testament era, in the era of persecution between the New Testament era and Constantine, and then in the period where Christians went from being persecuted to privileged. Sounds like a very interesting read, and the podcast author interviews I have heard have been good.

Chapter 1, “More for Me, Less for Thee,” talks about Greco-Roman attitudes toward wealth and how it should be used, and how that seems to have influenced some people in the early church (Ananias and Sapphira selling some property and giving part of the proceed to the church, while claiming to have donated all the proceeds, in what seems to be an attempt to gain status as generous benefactors, rather than out of true generosity).

Williams says that Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus, “appears to have previously been a cultural Jew. In particular, did you catch the contradiction in the idea of a Levite with property?” She goes on to mention how the tribe of Levi received no inheritance when the Promised Land was allocated to the tribes of Israel and “thus had to depend on the largesse of the other tribes in exchange for their work as teachers of the law and leaders of worship in the temple. A true Levite should have owned no property, so this anecdote shows just how far the Jewish community had drifted at this point from its roots” (p. 7).

Beware Illustrations that Only Work in One Language

Back in the early days of this blog, I published several articles in both English and Spanish. That's why the title of this site is Bilingual Bible Blog (even though I rarely post articles in both languages any more, due to limited time available to devote to writing the same article twice).

But something I've seen going around recently on social media recently prompted me to think in bilingual terms. Here is the meme that had been circulating:

The thought expressed here is a nice, sentimental devotional idea. But it doesn't work universally.

Screwtape Gets Us

My Dearest Wormwood,

The Enemy's followers are always coming up with new ways to try to spread their message and take people away from our side. With each new advance in human media technology, while some of them will balk at its use, claiming it comes from the depths of our domain, others will find a use for it in their efforts to enlist more people in their cause. 

To defeat the Christians in their attempt to use media and technology to recruit more people for the Enemy's side, a direct frontal assault is not as effective as it used to be. While some of our captives will still pay heed to our denials of any validity to the Enemy's message, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep humans thinking on a purely naturalistic level. Our propaganda campaign with the "New Atheism" of the past generation, rather than convincing more people that the only thing that mattered was physical life, backfired, ultimately having the opposite effect. While people may not have converted to the other side, many individuals did end up thinking more about eternal matters, and some of them defected from our ranks. It's better for us if humans stay completely in the dark about the eternal component of their existence.

Book Review: Strange Religion by Nijay Gupta

I recently read Dr. Nijay K. Gupta's latest book, Strange Religion: How the First Christians Were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling. This book is a very readable account of what stood out about early Christians in the Roman Empire and set them apart from the cultural norms of the society that surrounded them. Gupta takes rigorously researched academic material and presents it in a way that is accessible to anyone interested in learning about early Christianity, with plenty of relatable analogies and illustrations that help the reader create a vivid mental picture of what was going on in the first century. 

Do All Lost People Hate Jesus?

The day after Super Bowl LVIII (and the He Gets Us ad that ran during the game), someone posted the following on Facebook:

Lost people hate the real Jesus. I did when I was lost, and the Bible states that everyone else that’s lost does as well. If anyone preaches a socially accepted Jesus, they’re not preaching the true Christ, they’re actually preaching an anti-christ who appears as an angel of light, but is actually sinful, wicked, and affirming of sin, destruction, and exists to make people feel good about who they are and whatever they do.

Along with that text, they shared this screen capture from Shane Pruitt's X (Twitter) account:

When the Gifts of the Spirit are Abused and Used for Show

Let me start out by making it clear that I believe all the charismata are still distributed by the Holy Spirit as He wills. I'm not only a Pentecostal by lineage (fourth generation Assemblies of God on both sides of the family), but by experience as well, having experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. I am an ordained A/G minister, and obtained my MA in Theological Studies from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

All that said, I realize that some in the Pentecostal/Charismatic sector of Christianity may not like this article, feeling that it plays into the hands of the cessationists, possibly giving them more ammunition to use against those of us with a continuationist pneumatology. But I feel that one of the reasons cessationists have been able to launch such large-scale attacks against Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs is because we have failed to "police our own" and curb the excesses (many times possibly out of fear of lending aid to the cessationist position). 

Is there any substantive difference between these things?

What do the following scenarios have in common?

The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention saying that dealing with the accusations of clergy sexual abuse among SBC ministers would be a "distraction" that would take time and financial resources away from the mission of world evangelization.

Former Mars Hill Church founding pastor Mark Driscoll, when facing allegations from the elders of Mars Hill concerning attitudes and behavior that would be disqualifying from the ministry (and being offered a plan of counseling and restoration), claiming that God showed him in a vision that an attack was coming from people that would try to take his ministry away from him (and then resigning rather than answer the charges).

Do we just ignore the fringe and hope they'll go away?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a quote by noted Old Testament scholar and missiologist, Christopher J. H. Wright, that I wrote down while listenening to the podcast he host, On Mission, which I shared on Facebook:

When Christianity gets used for nationalistic ends, even ones that are based in justice and the struggle for liberation, it's so easy then to get distorted into a hegemonic sort of, "We've got to be the winners," and that then easily becomes violent.

Someone online commented, asking me where exactly these violent Christian Nationalist folkd were. I provided several examples, including what went on beneath banners with Christian slogans on January 6, 2021, as well as evidence of violent rhetoric by professing Christians presented by Tim Alberta in his book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.

That same commenter later replied, minimizing the importance of the extremists. Here I give my point-by-point response to what he said.

Important Books for Election Year 2024

As we enter what we all know is going to be a contentious election year in 2024, here are some books that can help us as we navigatew standing up for truth in a Christ-like manner.

Where Did it All Fall Apart?

In the summer of 2023, I read Daniel Hummel’s The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism. In chapter 11, which deals with scholastic dispensationalism, I came across the following about Lewis Sperry Chafer and his relationship to the broader fundamentalist movement.

“The Same year that [William Bell] Riley published ‘The Menace of Modernism,’ Chafer published ‘Salvation’ (1917), a work with not one reference to current events….Chafer fashioned his work to ignore its historical moment, while Riley’s writings were a direct response to it.” (p. 180)

“By 1922 Chafer had grown disillusioned with Riley’s leadership of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, with its constant agonizing over timely, rather than timeless, issues of concern….A more rigorous institution was needed if pastors were to be fundamentalist Bible expositors rather than rabble-rousers.” (p. 182)

Shortly after I read that, while driving home from work, I was listening to the recording from a chapel service at Dallas Theological Seminary where Jen Wilken spoke on teaching the Bible. She had a lot to say about small groups—especially women’s Bible studies in her experience—being generally given topical studies (often with an emotional focus) when the Christians attending those studies often lack a basic understanding of the overall scope and story of the biblical witness.

2023 Reading Report

Here is a list of books I read in 2023. A total of 25 titles, though all were not read in their entirety (some of the Leviticus commentaries, I read a major portion of, but did not read the complete volume, as I was researching material on the atonement and the relationship of the Levitical sacrificial system to Christ's sacrificial death). 

Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters by Thomas McCall

The Six Conversations by Heather Holleman

Jesus v Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement by Constantine Campbell

Songs of Resistance: Challenging Caesar and Empire by R. Alan Streett