“Even our beliefs have become trend statements. We don’t even believe things because we believe them anymore. We only believe things because they are cool things to believe. The problem with Christian belief—I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God and a devil and a heaven and a hell—is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe.”
        - Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, p. 107

The Bible teaches very clearly that we are born dead in sin, we are D.O.A. (Dead On Arrival) into this world, thus we are moral stillborns. Consider these verses:

PSALM 51:5 – “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

ROMANS 5:12, 15, 17, 18, 19 – “. . . sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned . . . many died through one man’s trespass . . . because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.”

PSALM 14:1-3 – “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”

ROMANS 8:6-8 – “The mind of sinful man is death . . . the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”

1 JOHN 3:8 – “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. . . .”

I am getting so sick of American evangelicalism, which embraces the heretical views of Pelagianism! Let me allow R.C. Sproul to define Pelagianism for you, from his article entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Church:

Pelagius was a monk who lived in Britain in the fifth century. He was a contemporary of the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Church history if not all time, Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. . . .

This is … what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean? It helps, it makes more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact some people who do it. Augustine said, “No, no, no, no… we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being — so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline themselves to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability not to sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first of three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism — because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

But today we have a new form of this which Sproul refers to as semi-pelagianism.

Now what is called semi-Pelagianism, as the prefix “semi” suggests, was a somewhat middle ground between full-orbed Augustinianism and full-orbed Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism said this: yes, there was a fall; yes there is such a thing as original sin; yes the constituent nature of humanity has been changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful but it’s absolutely necessary for salvation. While we are so fallen that we can’t be saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don’t have the ability to accept or reject the grace when it’s offered to us. The will is weakened but it is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It’s out of that little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between heaven and hell. It’s that little island that must be exercised when God does his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it’s the one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell — whether we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or whether we don’t. That little island Augustine wouldn’t even recognize as an atoll in the South Pacific. He said it’s a mythical island, that the will is enslaved, and that man is dead in his sin and trespasses.

Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and what Aquinas taught as well. The Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with — and assent to — the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism.

I know I am mostly just quoting this article, but I found it profound and wanted to share key parts of it with you. This is the problem with much of Christianity today – we have lost the Gospel! We’ve traded it in for a semi-Pelagian ideal and we substitute regeneration with moral improvement! From Sproul:

I heard an evangelist use two analogies to describe what happens in our redemption. He said sin has such a stronghold on us, a stranglehold, that it’s like a person who can’t swim, who falls overboard in a raging sea, and he’s going under for the third time and only the tops of his fingers are still above the water; and unless someone intervenes to rescue him, he has no hope of survival, his death is certain. And unless God throws him a life preserver, he can’t possibly be rescued. And not only must God throw him a life preserver in the general vicinity of where he is, but that life preserver has to hit him right where his fingers are still extended out of the water, and hit him so that he can grasp hold of it. It has to be perfectly pitched. But still that man will drown unless he takes his fingers and curls them around the life preserver and God will rescue him. But unless that tiny little human action is done, he will surely perish.

The other analogy is this: A man is desperately ill, sick unto death, lying in his hospital bed with a disease that is fatal. There is no way he can be cured unless somebody from outside comes up with a cure, a medicine that will take care of this fatal disease. And God has the cure and walks into the room with the medicine. But the man is so weak he can’t even help himself to the medicine; God has to pour it on the spoon. The man is so sick he’s almost comatose. He can’t even open his mouth, and God has to lean over and open up his mouth for him. God has to bring the spoon to the man¹s lips, but the man still has to swallow it.

Now, if we’re going to use analogies, let’s be accurate. The man isn’t going under for the third time; he is stone cold dead at the bottom of the ocean. That’s where you once were when you were dead in sin and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air. And while you were dead hath God quickened you together with Christ. God dove to the bottom of the sea and took that drowned corpse and breathed into it the breath of his life and raised you from the dead. And it’s not that you were dying in a hospital bed of a certain illness, but rather, when you were born you were born D.O.A. That’s what the Bible says: that we are morally stillborn.

This is the only accurate view of regeneration. We were completely dead and God made us alive. This is what caused Luther, in his explanation of the third article of the Apostles’ Creed, to say:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

This is most certainly true. Remember that “to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12-13). We can’t choose to be saved any more than we can choose to be born or choose to be resurrected from the dead! Salvation is completely God’s work in our lives!

If you’d like to read more on original sin and salvation, check out my post, American Jesus: A Manifesto.

Sorry for no new content this week, I’ve been struggling with God in a few areas, namely finding a fellowship. This has been ongoing for us, but we feel that expectancy and anxiety like we are close, but we’re not sure where yet. Here are a few short sermon clips that I saw over at Truth Matters that I’d like to share with you:

John Piper: Are You a Church or a Club?
John Piper reminds of a neglected function of our churches. Only two minutes long.

Paul Washer: Stupid Evangelism!
Wow, this is powerful. Washer is in tears as he expresses his genuine love for people. He points out the folly of modern day evangelism “tactics” that employ a method rather than introducing people to the Savior Jesus Christ. Four and a half minutes in length.

Tim Conway: I Am Repenting But It’s Not Working
Tim Conway does a phenomenal job pointing out that repentance is not a work of our own wherein we have to clean ourselves up to be presentable to God, but God does it all in us – it is HIS work. He then takes it a step further and points out that trusting in ourselves is self-righteousness. Check this out! He really points us to Christ, as our faith should! This is just under seven minutes in length.

“[The Enemy's] plan from the beginning was to assault the heart… Make them so busy, they ignore the heart. Wound them so deeply, they don’t want a heart. Twist their theology, so they despise the heart. Take away their courage. Destroy their creativity. Make intimacy with God impossible for them.”
        - John Eldredge in “Waking the Dead”

I was just reflecting on Acts 15 and the Council at Jerusalem. Christianity could have very well been destroyed at this moment, had the Jews decided that Gentiles must follow the Mosaic laws and customs. But the apostles affirmed that day that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from the law. The occasion for these thoughts is an article by M.R. Thomas entitled The Turning Point. In this article, Thomas notes:

When new believers are required to take on a new set of customs to be part of “God’s family,” they quickly confuse grace, which is received by faith, with works. And if they adopt a new human culture, they become outsiders to their own people. This, in turn, results in a gospel that is immobilized. . . . This may seem obvious, but it is something we often ignore. . . . We, too, must sort out Jesus from our religious traditions, from “our” Christianity. We, too, must free the gospel from the amendments we’ve made to the grace of Jesus Christ.

It seems that many institutional churches create an entirely new culture and even develop their own language (see the “Christianese” video). After watching the Starbucks Church video, a friend of mine told me that the attitude captured by that video is what keeps him from wanting to join a church – he is afraid he might become “one of them.” I recommend you watch the short video, but if you can’t, just know that it shows how inauthentic and fake many Christians can be.

I have a business degree, and in the corporate world there are two concepts that I want you to consider: organizational culture and groupthink. Organizational culture is basically the personality of an organization. It includes our “assumptions, values and norms, e.g., our values on money, time, facilities, space and people” [source].

From Wikipedia:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.

A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. If you ask the top-level leadership in your church if it has created a different culture that is a hindrance to the Gospel, they’ll likely tell you no. Ask an outsider. Do people visit your church often? Do you retain or lose most visitors? Why do you think that is? Does your church speak a language that the average person coming off of the street can’t understand? Does your church have its set ways of doing things that would make an outsider uncomfortable or confused (such as Communion procedures or “sharing of the peace”)? Finally, has your church developed such an internal culture that it actually immobilizes the Gospel, making it hard for church members to relate to outsiders?

Tiffany and I (Dan) ate at a local restaurant called Houlihan’s the other day, and as I sat there waiting for the check, I realized that Houlihan’s was a lot like a typical American church. Let me walk you through the similarities.

The Experience
Before going there, I checked out the website to see the menu. I always view church’s websites before attending as well, to see what it might be like (and to see if the church is culturally relevant enough to publish a somewhat informative website). Anyways, the Houlihan’s website was really flashy and had some progressive music playing (see for yourself). It seemed pretty cool.

Upon arriving, the atmosphere was fairly trendy: they had metal covers on their menus, a neat paint/color scheme, progressive music playing, and the staff wore all black and looked stylish. Despite the artificial atmosphere, the wait staff wasn’t all that good, the glasses were dirty, and the food was average. It was a let-down. I used to feel this way a lot when I attended new churches. They would have a cool atmosphere, but the same old attitudes and ways of doing things (just like in the Starbucks church video, watch it if you haven’t seen it yet!).

What They Say About Themselves
Later, after reflecting on this. I decided to revisit their website and read the “About Us” page. There were some startling similarities with how churches present themselves. Let’s go through some of the statements they make about themselves and compare it to how churches portray themselves:

In 1972, Houlihan’s first opened its doors in Kansas City with a progressive, eclectic menu and energetic bar scene. Ferns hung throughout, artifacts cluttered the walls and tapestries made by San Francisco hippies formed the ceiling. Caviar burgers, roasted duck, foot-long hot dogs and fresh carrot juice were just a few original menu items so ahead for its time. It was hot.

Just as Houlihan’s opened in the early 70’s with an eclectic and energetic atmosphere, so too many churches found their origin in the “Jesus Movement” of the 60’s and 70’s and used charisma and popular culture to draw in crowds. Notice the goal here is to cater to the consumer, not to conform the consumer to a greater ideal. In many ways churches today have it as their goal to meet peoples’ needs, rather than to conform them to the image of Christ (even when it’s not popular to do so).

Before long, there were a lot of ‘casual dining’ restaurants opening and call us crazy, but they looked a whole lot like us. We tried to be flattered. Some grew really big, and by the ’90s, the whole ‘casual dining’ landscape was pretty me-too. Instead of watching the consumer, the industry seemed more worried about what competitors were doing. Casual dining lost its way, and in doing so lost its edge.

Houlihan’s makes a good observation here, they recognized that not only had the casual dining industry lost touch with the consumer, but it also became self-absorbed and chased after competition relentlessly. Over the last few decades, churches have also been racing to be the biggest, most “relevant,” have the best worship band, and draw the largest crowds. They have forgotten that the true focus is Christ, not having better preaching than the mega-church on the other side of town.

Fast forward to 2002. That’s when we had our ‘Aha!’ moment (as Oprah would say). New leadership, new ideas, new inspiration. We completely re-imagined ourselves, and got back in touch with the consumer. New menus. New plates. New building design, new soundtrack. Stylish uniforms. And a modern, warm restaurant design with an open kitchen and prominent bar. Today, our company is built entirely around what the progressive consumer seeks in a restaurant + bar experience. And we plan to keep it that way.

Forget ‘casual dining.’ That’s an industry term so out of touch with how consumers eat and drink today. For premium quality and style; fare that’s at times familiar and other times adventurous and a laid-back modern setting, Houlihan’s is a true original.

Notice two things: 1) All of the changes involved the external environment, not any real internal change on the parts of the staff; 2) Above and beyond merely stating the casual dining industry has gotten out of touch with the consumer, Houlihan’s believes entirely new terms need to be employed to describe their “original” setting, rendering the “old” terms obsolete and “out of touch.”

Isn’t this also the only real change many churches have made – external only? In an attempt to make church all about the people in the pews (rather than keeping its sole focus on Christ), it has tried to create an experience that will meet the Christians’ needs for belonging and adventure, among many other things. The problem is, these needs can only be met in Christ! The church will never be able to meet all of peoples’ needs, the local bar or the person’s family can do that much better – but the Church can show the person the only thing that will truly meet their needs: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Also, just as Houlihan’s has sought to employ new terms, the church is filled with new terms such as “missional,” “relevant,” “seeker-sensitive,” etc. Now those terms are being attacked as out of touch, and new terms are emerging such as “post-missional,” “beyond relevance,” “seeker-friendly,” “post-denominational,” etc. Despite the terms, the church still looks and feels the same, and it’s still doing things the exact same away (in many instances it is doing them worse than it did before).

Conclusion
Just as my Houlihan’s experience was blah and average, my experience with many churches is the same. The church can’t compete with Satan’s progressive culture, nor should it try. The church needs to stand against the grain of culture and challenge it to embrace Jesus Christ. Rather than adapting to culture, the Church should transform culture. Only Jesus Christ can do this, not a new movement, program, or committee.

For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel.
        - Martin Luther

Just a quick shout out to Kevin Welch (from Dan O’Day)!

Dick sent me this 3-minute YouTube video:

It really makes me think about the “Christianese” I use on a regular basis. What about you?

Here, then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study God’s Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy.
          - R.C. Sproul