Is the Christian Right Christian?

There are some good points made by Carter, but a lot of it borders on seriously misguided at best, I think. Carter suggests prejudice permeates the “Christian right,” for example, a sweeping — and, in my opinion, unchristian — generalization. Is their prejudice in the “Christian right”? You better believe it. Here's the big but: there is also prejudice in the “Christian left” and just about everywhere else.

Carter also notes that the Christian right has abandoned some basic Christian principles. I agree — but I also think pretty much EVERY Christian has. The question is, does that make the Christian right not very Christian? No.

Do you see the theme of my response? For every attack Carter makes on the right, it can also be applied to the left. And, for the most part, Carter attacks the Christian right on political issues, ignoring its strong points on theology (whereas, unfortunately, much of the mainline Christian left has been jetisoning away from Biblical theology — a bigger issue from the standpoint of salvation). The Apostle Paul faught modifications to the Gospel in his day:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” — Galatians 1:6-7 (NIV)

What is actually worrying is Carter's apparent hints at relativism. He talks about a person's “concept” of God and refers to his “concept of Christ.” Now, that might be harmless, but I almost get the impression in his abortion comment that he actually feels that while he opposes abortion it is only based on “his concept of Christ” and not the Christ. There is only one Christ and one Gospel — remember again Galatians 1:6-7.

Carter also talks about moderately accepting certain forms of abortion, which is disturbing — if he believes it is wrong, how can it be “acceptable”? I suppose it depends on if he thinks it is wrong or WRONG — but if he agrees that it is the killing of an innocent God created person, how can it ever be acceptable? Is murder acceptable so long as it is done within certain guidelines? I'm sure you'd agree it isn't. But if murder is murder is murder is murder, than where does it leave these “acceptable forms” of abortion in a Biblical worldview?

Also, a note on helping the poor. Carter overlooks that many on the right (myself included) don't have something against helping the poor at all, rather we feel that it isn't something done best by the government. That's what a lot of it boils down to: can the government do a better job than the Church at helping the poor (part of the Church's job)? Let's face it, government welfare has a dismal record — it seems to encourage people not to work. That's not what we want! If every dollar that is presently devoted to welfare was kept by taxpayers and was instead distributed by them to churches and charities to help the poor, I would be almost postive more good would come out of it and it would allow the Church to fulfill its job to help the poor rather than having a secular government do that job for it.

Every Christian is going to have some theological problems, but does that mean they aren't Christian? There are some theological issues I would argue are absolutely necessary to be Christian — Christ was fully both God and Man, He literally died for our sins on the cross, rose again physically, Christ alone provides for atonement and salvation, there is no God but the God of the Bible Jesus alone provides access to the Father, and other points — basically the points of the great creeds such as the Nicene Creed. If you deny the exclusivity of Christ as savior of the world, yes, I think it might be time to say you aren't Christian. If you worship Gaia and support “reimaging”-related theology, ditto that last statement. But is being against larger government programs for the poor because one doesn't believe that the government should do that kind of stuff in the same league? Is it even the same universe?

Short of the essentials — none of which Carter seems concerned about — I find such suggestions of an entire group of Christians not being Christian seriously problematic. Unchristian, in fact.

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3 (NIV)

Easter Meditation

He is RISEN! What a joyous day it is — I hope everyone reading this had a wonderful and blessed Easter!

{1} Early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb. {2} Suddenly there was a great earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled aside the stone and sat on it. {3} His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. {4} The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint. {5} Then the angel spoke to the women. “Don't be afraid!” he said. “I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. {6} He isn't here! He has been raised from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying. {7} And now, go quickly and tell his disciples he has been raised from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember, I have told you.”

What Wondrous Love Is This, Oh My Soul?

The Crucifixion
{20} When they had mocked him, they took the purple off of him, and put his own garments on him. They led him out to crucify him. {21} They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross. {22} They brought him to the place called Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, “The place of a skull.” {23} They offered him wine mixed with myrrh to drink, but he didn’t take it.

{24} Crucifying him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots on them, what each should take. {25} It was the third hour, and they crucified him. {26} The superscription of his accusation was written over him, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.” {27} With him they crucified two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left. {28} The Scripture was fulfilled, which says, “He was numbered with transgressors.”

{29} Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, {30} save yourself, and come down from the cross!”

{31} Likewise, also the chief priests mocking among themselves with the scribes said, “He saved others. He can’t save himself. {32} Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe him.” Those who were crucified with him insulted him.

{33} When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. {34} At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is, being interpreted, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”*

{35} Some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.”

{36} One ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Let him be. Let’s see whether Elijah comes to take him down.”

{37} Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit. {38} The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. {39} When the centurion, who stood by opposite him, saw that he cried out like this and breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

From Mark chapter 15 (WEB)

The Explaination
{3} He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of suffering, and acquainted with disease. He was despised as one from whom men hide their face; and we didn’t respect him.

{4} Surely he has borne our sickness,and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted.

{5} But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.

{6} All we like sheep have gone astray. Everyone has turned to his own way; and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. {7} He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth.

{8} He was taken away by oppression and judgment; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living and stricken for the disobedience of my people?

{9} They made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. {10} Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand.

{11} After the suffering of his soul, he will see the lightand be satisfied. My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself; and he will bear their iniquities.

{12} Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

From Isaiah chapter 53 (WEB)

The Passion of the Christ

By the sound of some reviews, such as the two in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, one would think that it gloried in what the one review called “NC-17 level” violence. Now, crucifixion is a horribly violent act, the question was if the movie portrayed the violence in a way intended to provide insight or simply to be violent. If you believed the P-D critics, the latter option is the case (of course, one should always be wary of what the Post-Dispatch says, but that's another story).

After seeing the movie, I am glad to say that I can call the Post-Dispatch view of the movie completely off base. I can truthfully say that the violence, whilst very graphic and agonizing, was not violence for the sake of violence. Instead, it seems truly to have been arranged by Gibson in an attempt to make the viewer experience a very small bit of the suffering involved (obviously only a small bit since one is sitting comfortably in a theater). Sometimes that kind of thing is necessary - especially in the case of Gospel portrayals, dozens of which have provided a sanitized version of events that simply do not lend themselves to appreciating the magnitude of what is going on.

This movie is stunningly powerful. It was physically exhausting to watch, and, as I said, agonizing, but for a purpose: it pulls the audience through the experience of the crucifixion in a way that I do not believe any passion play or “Jesus movie” has ever accomplished. While virtually nothing in the movie is “new” to anyone familiar with the Gospels (and that's a good thing in a case like this), it allows you to experience the narrative of Christ's suffering and death in a whole new light.

From Jesus' praying in Gethsemane at the beginning, to Pilot's conflicting motives and desires, to the actual torture and crucifixion, the Passion is really an experience that immerses you in itself. The beauty of the film is that it makes one reflect on the familiar because seeing it in realistic detail makes it seem new again.

There were a few moments that were especially poignant, I thought. Exquisitely drawn out from the Gospel of John was Jesus' confrontation with Pilot. The way it was done didn't excuse Pilot in anyway, but showed the conflict within him as he fought to figure out what to do before finally taking the easy way out by washing his hands of the matter. When the film cuts back to Pilot during the earthquake after Jesus' death he appears to be reflecting on what has just happened - maybe not completely understanding it, but at least realizing some of it.

Also, as Jesus is carrying the cross, the scene between him and Mary was a hard one to watch. As he falls again from the weight of the cross after the brutal scourging, she rushes through the guards to try to help him. Yes, I know that isn't in the Bible, but certainly it seems like something that could have reasonably happened. He looks up at her and says “Behold, mother, I am making all things new” (that's from Revelation 21:5) - it communicates so perfectly exactly what Jesus was doing, and that, even in the middle of some of the worst torture that could be inflicted on anyone He still had His desire to make us new on his mind.

I think the choice to film in Aramaic and Latin was also wise, despite the fact that the decision essentially requires most people to read subtitles, rather than just watching the film. While the manuscripts of the New Testament available to us are in Greek, translating the words back to Aramaic adds to the environment of the film. The sound - the character - of the Semitic language being spoken lends itself to the effort to create an authentic environment for the film.

The movie is also rich in great symbolism that allows anyone looking for it to experience an even more in-depth narrative. Gibson did a stunning job of tying Jesus' life and Bible prophecy into other parts of the Bible. Early on, the reference to Genesis 3:15 is perfect for the scene before Jesus begins the sacrifice that will ultimately lead to the crushing of Satan forever. During Jesus' torture, the devil appears again, this time with a baby, presumably the anti-Christ. Even as Jesus is winning the battle, Satan is “previewing” his (well, in this case, her) last plan to take as many souls as possible. Finally, toward the end of the film, right after Jesus dies, the “tear of God” is a unique and dramatic interlude before the earthquake rends the curtain in the temple, ending the separation between God and man.

Finally, I thought the brief scene of the resurrected Jesus was extremely powerful. When the scene fades in, after the camera pans over to Jesus, you have the excitement of the resurrection, but also the expression that what he just went through was excruciating. Its one last reminder, just incase the rest of the movie wasn't able to drill it in enough, that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't easy, it came at a terrible cost. This was a case of less being more, I know some people thought more of the resurrection should have been shown, but I think that would have shifted the viewer's focus completely to the joy of the resurrection and have diluted the picture's message. Everyone likes to think about the resurrection, the crucifixion is much less comfortable but no less important to remember.

I've spent a number of hours since seeing the film trying to write this and I find it is almost impossible to really put the experience into words. The Passion of the Christ is a unique and breathtaking rendering of the Gospels. No, it may not cover every part of the Gospels, but what it does include it includes in a way that seems faithful in every way to the Gospels.

This is one movie that truly uses every resource the medium of film offers to provide a better understanding of God's sacrifice for us. On Wednesday night at the Lenten service, one of the hymns was What Wondrous Love is This, a hymn that I always find especially moving.

What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul.

Seeing the Passion the week before, I couldn't help but really dwell on the words “dreadful curse.” Again, even though I knew the kind of things Jesus went through, the experience of actually witnessing what it might have been like only amplified the words to that great hymn.

The Passion, in my opinion, accomplishes its goals perfectly. It is one of the most masterfully produced films I have ever seen (if not the most), and the only one that truly shows the extent of suffering Jesus was willing to go through for me and for you.

RATING: *****

I saw it.

I saw the Passion of the Christ tonight. I need to think about what I saw for a little bit and then I'll provide my “review” of it. All I'll say right now is that it was both amazing and agonizing at the same time.

The Passion of Christ

I just watched Mel Gibson's interview on ABC News's Primetime. It was pretty good. Gibson for the most part did a good job conveying a remarkably Evangelical standpoint. I'm looking forward to the film, although I hear it is incredibly draining to watch.

Gibson also had a good sense of humor during the interview. He said, when asked if he was going to get back into movies, that he wanted to get away for a while — go where no one could find him. “You know where that is? Where no one can find you? I figure I'm going to set up my tent next to weapons of mass destruction — then no one will be able to find me!”

Did he say that he'd like to kill a New York Times columnist, have his intestines stuck on a pole and kill his dog? “Yes. Although I really regret that statment about the dog. I'd never want to hurt a dog.”

Moving back on the subject… It will be interesting to see how one of the first major Christian motion pictures in decades impacts the nation. I hope, at the very least, it makes people think about more important matters than we generally do… if only for a short while. Maybe it'll be just enough to get them started.

Alpha

A friend of mine mentioned the Alpha Course to me a few months ago when I said my church was looking for an evangelistic outreach event. It sounds pretty nice — it's a kind of “Christianity 101,” so to speak. The said person lent me the book the course is based on from Nicky Gumbel too, and I've just started it. It seems pretty good. It has lots of good endorsements — hey, even Rick Warren likes it!

Anyone familiar with this course? Have you been through it?

Gene Robinson and the Liberal Theological Cancer

Could God really want this to happen? There are many things that are happening in the church (and always have been) that God clearly wouldn't want (indulgences, rejection of Jesus' resurrection, and many others). The Episcopal Church has been rejecting many “orthodox” beliefs for years now. This is just the icing on the cake, really.

That doesn't mean God isn't in control anymore. However, God doesn't prevent evil from happening in the world, and I believe this is a case of evil occurring. It also doesn't mean God can't use it to His glory at some point, but I can't even begin to speculate how that might happen - perhaps by splitting the denomination, thus keeping the “orthodox” minority separate from the sinking ship of the neo-Christian majority.

The problem I see with the bishop is not that he is committing the sin of being actively homosexual, but that he refuses to see that it is a sin and try to stop. We all sin, but a problem arises when I say “all that stuff in the Bible that literally says such and such is a sin doesn't really mean that — it isn't a sin and I want to encourage others to do as I do.”

Biblically speaking, the bishop should be given the choice to stop committing this sin or be defrocked. Why? A bishop or any other leader all the way down to the pastors and elders are role models for the church — thus they should not willingly participate in continuous blatant sin.

Consider this: Let's say I'm a big liar that lies about everything (I'm not, no, really!). If this problem is brought to my attention, I should seek to stop lying. If I slip every once in awhile, that's one thing. However, if I refuse to even try to stop, that's entirely another. Either way, I'm not really ready for a leadership position until I stop and repent of that sin.

Point: I have nothing against a homosexual bishop. I have a problem against an actively homosexual bishop. If the bishop renounced this activity, he would be a lot better fitted for the job, in my opinion.

I would also note that he has added insult to injury. Not only is he actively homosexual, but also he divorced his wife and left his children so that he could live with his homosexual partner. He has no problem with any of this. Thus he is saying that (1) it wasn't a sin to divorce without a good reason, (2) it wasn't a sin to engage in sexual activity of any orientation outside of marriage and (3) it wasn't a sin to engage in homosexual activity.

It is this attitude of refusing to repent from these sins that disturbs me. Worse, since he wants to indoctrinate others to do the same, the sin he continues in will spread to others in the church.

And homosexuality is just the beginning. Until just days before his election earlier this year, a youth outreach organization he helps to run also promoted other sickening activities such as bestiality on their web site.

So I don't reject him as a bishop for being sinful (we all are). I reject him as a bishop for refusing to admit to his sin, refusing to stop encouraging others to do the same sin, and refusing to repent of his sin.

The dangerous ideology that he (and those like him) promotes is like a slow cancer on a church. It keeps growing and growing. Many members at the local level may ignore this and figure things are still mostly ok. However, I've seen this before: many in the UCC felt the same way that many in the Episcopal church undoubtedly feel now. The only difference is time. To avoid the eventual destruction of the entire Anglican Communion, the other Anglican churches around the world should sever fellowship with the Episcopal church before its ideology spreads to them. Promoting the creation of a new American Anglican church is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to deal with this and other problems within the Episcopal Church.

Happy Reformation Day!

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.



2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.



3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.


4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.



5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.



6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.



7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.



8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.



9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.



10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.



11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.



12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.



13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.



14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.



15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.



16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.



17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.



18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.



19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.



20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.



21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;



22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.



23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.



24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.



25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.



26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.



27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].



28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.



29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.



30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.



31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.



32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.



33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;



34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.



35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.



36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.



37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.



38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.



39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.



40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].



41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.



42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.



43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;



44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.



45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.



46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.



47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.



48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.



49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.



50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.



51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.



52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.



53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.



54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.



55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.



56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.



57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.



58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.



59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.



60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;



61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.



62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.



63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.



64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.



65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.



66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.



67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.



68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.



69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.



70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.



71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!



72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!



73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.



74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.



75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.



76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.



77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.



78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.



79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.



80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.



81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.



82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”



83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”



84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?”



85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”



86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”



87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”



88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”



89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”



90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.



91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.



92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!



93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!



94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;



95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

This text was converted to ASCII text for Project Wittenberg by Allen Mulvey, and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text.

Compromise and Christianity

Its main goal, it would seem, is to find problems with Christian musicians and pick them apart. Supposedly “compromised” artists include Michael W. Smith, Nichole Nordeman, Chris Rice, MercyMe and Sixpence None the Richer (that's a nice part of my music playlist there!). Their sins? Well, it varies, but MWS, MercyMe, Darlene Zschech and Sixpence all had at least one common sin: people in the secular world like them! <sarcasm>Isn't that a shame.</sarcasm>

Yikes! I mean, since we're Christians, that means were suppose to make ourselves unlikable, right (I'm not suggesting we conform to the world, but when the world likes stuff about Christianity, is that a problem)? I guess you could say that they are liked because they aren't bold enough, but that isn't necessarily it. MercyMe's I Can Only Imagine doesn't seem to be an attempt to hide their faith (although the site attacks it since it suggests eternal security — I'm assuming the site probably wouldn't like John Calvin then, either).

Michael W. Smith is often attacked on the issue of selling out, and it's rather unfortunate, since he actually has written about the issue. In the companion book to Live the Life (I can't remember the name of the book at the moment), he talked about his early work. He talks about how in the late 80's he tried to make a “cross over” hit. He went light on the message to try to make it appeal — and failed. Badly. After that, he realized how mistaken he was and rededicated himself before starting the next album. That album contained a song that did crossover, My Place in This World. Point of the story: when MWS stayed faithful to God, what he thought he could only do by compromising happened without doing so.

The site also attacks MercyMe and Sixpence for a really ghastly thing: they like — I can barely stand to say it — C.S. Lewis!!! Can you believe it? Seriously, that is one of the points they make. The site attacks C.S. Lewis and his fellow Inklings, such as J.R.R. Tolkien, for using and writing mythology. The site overlooks the fact that C.S. Lewis used his fictional mythology in writings such as the Chronicles of Narnia to illustrate the truth of the Gospel. I'll admit Lewis had some potentially dangerous, neo-liberal beliefs — especially about his interpretation of the Old Testament. Still, Lewis was also clearly used by God (in my opinion) and created some of the best, most concise, most important works of the 20th century (Mere Christianity, in particular).

The site also leveled attacks at Smith for starting a ministry that used a night club-like atmosphere, complete with a dance floor and live music. This is “evil” for two reasons apparently. (1) Smith shouldn't create an atmosphere like that of the world — even if it avoids the evil things, if it sortof kinda looks like something people might like about the world — it's evil. (2) Smith is targeting this toward teens — Jesus, we are told by the site, never ever targeted a certain age group, He only spoke to everyone. Is it just me, or does it actually make sense to try to use different means to appeal to different people, since a 70 year old will most likely be drawn by different types of outreach than a 16 year old? The site also attacks Smith for claiming that if Jesus was around today he'd probably be ministering in bars and other such places claiming he would not (then why was he always hanging around tax collectors and prostitutes — He, as he told the Pharisees, was on the earth to minister to the sick).

The author also attacks Smith for his past (which, before accepting Jesus as his savior) in which he was addicted to drugs (in the late 70's, IIRC). Rather than focus on the fact that Smith has repented of these actions, the author wonders how Smith will explain this to his children and points out that saying “don't do this” was what caused Adam and Eve to sin. Okay, so what does this guy want? No one can undo their past, all you can do is try to do your best from this day forward. “For there is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10).

The Pharisaic author levels many other attacks. The author accuses, without any information as to why, Chris Rice and Darlene Zschech (of Hillsongs Australia) of being compromisers, as well. Maybe Rice is a compromiser since he is signed up with Smith's record company, which in turn is another reason why Smith is a compromiser — his Christian music label. So Smith is a compromiser because Rice is a compromiser because… Cyclic reasoning makes it true, right?

Sixpence gets in trouble for quoting scripture too. One song is based on 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul writes about the importance of love. The author of the site quotes the song out of context to make it look like an attack on God's love or some such. In reality, it is a song that shows the singer as someone who appears to be in the middle of realizing they are just a “clanging symbol” or a “noisy gong” (those phrases are used by Paul and used in the song). Sixpence also gets in trouble for referring to wisdom personally (metaphorically, of course), even though Proverbs does the same. “Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you.” (Proverbs 4:6)

Sixpence and Smith also get attacked for something that has been a big bugaboo of mine. They don't have enough Christian keywords.™ Overlooking the ironic that Sixpence also gets in trouble for some of their songs being based on Scripture, let's consider this attack. Not everyone of their songs mentions the word “God.” One song that encounters the site's wrath is Love Me Good by Smith, an admittedly somewhat strange song — IIRC, it even says it's somewhat strange in the cover booklet in MWS's Live the Life album. It isn't Christian because it doesn't have the word God in it. Never mind that it includes the lyric “Let us take a moment now, to bow our heads and pray,” that isn't good enough.

And this is the thing that really inspired me to write this. I'm tired of people insisting on the requirement of certain keywords or phrases needing to be said to be “Christian.” Including the word “God” in a song just to meet the world's requirements seems to be treading close to taking God's name in vain.

This week's chapters in the Purpose Driven Life fit in here. God doesn't desire our empty worship that has the right words and phrases. God desires our heart, mind and strength. If I can't worship God through even things that aren't “religious” then I'm not really having a personal relationship with God. The person (or persons) who wrote that site fails to realize I can worship God just by doing a good job at the things he created me to do.

As a writer, according to the logic this site applies (and really, many people apply) to Christian music, I'm a sellout if I write about GNU/Linux or other “secular” matters. Really, if you apply that standard to most people, they are sellouts, since very few people spend most of their time working on “religious” (in the world's view) things. Not that I wouldn't love the chance to devote my work to ministry, but if, for the moment, it is God's will for me to do a good job doing something else, that isn't selling out.

Wow. I never thought I'd manage to tie this rant to anything and yet I was able to relate it to the 40 Days of Purpose… not bad, huh?