Ten Questions to Ask About The Da Vinci Code...by Don Whitney

This is an excellent article written by my friend, Don Whitney, that will equip you with ten pointed probing questions when discussing TDVC with others. You will find that they will assist you greatly as you proclaim the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ concerning this book and movie.

Thank you Don for penning such a helpful witnessing tool for the body of Christ.

"We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord..."
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

"Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false" (255*). This line from Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, is an illustration of why the 2003 book/2006 movie is so controversial. The fact that Brown's tale is the best-selling adult novel of all time—with more than 40 million copies sold—as well as a blockbuster film indicates why Christians find themselves everywhere encountering the scandalous beliefs of this story.

The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery. The victim is the curator of the Louvre Museum in Paris. Before dying, he leaves a series of clues about a secret allegedly suppressed by the church since the time of Jesus. The curator is the leader of a small, clandestine society that has protected this secret through history. One of the purported members of this ancient group was Leonardo Da Vinci who, according to this protective band, embedded aspects of this secret in his artwork for the initiated to see. From this comes the title, The Da Vinci Code. As the primary characters pursue the clues left by the murder victim, author Dan Brown uses the story to convey his beliefs that, among other things, the Bible is a corrupt, human document, that Jesus is not God, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and produced a child, that Mary Magdalene is a goddess to be worshipped, and that sex should be seen—as in pagan religions—as a means of experiencing God.

The phenomenal popularity of Brown's vehicle for this anti-Christian message will provide believers with many opportunities to discuss the book/movie in light of the Bible. So here's a list of questions to use with those who read the book or see the movie.

1. If, as The Da Vinci Code says, Jesus is not God (253)—despite all the wonderful things which The Da Vinci Code agrees were said and done by Jesus (251)—then what did Mary Magdalene do to qualify as goddess and become worthy of the worship commended by The Da Vinci Code?

2. If, as The Da Vinci Code asserts, the biblical claims about the deity of Christ are unreliable (250, 254-255), why does The Da Vinci Code maintain that the good things recorded in the Bible about Mary Magdalene are reliable?

3. If, as the book acknowledges, the alleged sexual activity between Jesus and Mary Magdalene disqualifies Jesus' claims to divinity, why doesn't it disqualify Mary Magdalene from being goddess?

4. Why should we worship the dead (for even those who worship Mary Magdalene acknowledge that she is dead)?

5. If, as The Da Vinci Code assures, Jesus was married ("It's a matter of historical record," 264) and His apostles knew it, why didn't the Apostle Paul ever appeal to Jesus' example when he wrote about marriage, especially when he defended (in 1 Cor. 9:5) a minister's right to marry based upon the example of "the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [that is, Peter], when Jesus would have been the greatest example of all?

6. When The Da Vinci Code claimed that "the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. . . . in the temple" (336), why didn't the author mention how inconsistent this was with God's Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery," Exo. 20:14), which was given before the Jews even had a tabernacle or temple for worship?

7. Is the kind of ritual sex associated with worship (as advocated in The Da Vinci Code) really an exaltation of women, or is it a pandering to the lusts of men condoned by their religion?

8. Since both secular and Christian historians agree that The Da Vinci Code is wrong about things such as the practice of ritualistic sexual activity in the temple, the Holy of Holies in the Jewish temple housing God's "powerful female equal," the events at the Council of Nicaea related to the divinity of Jesus, the process by which the 27 books of the New Testament came to be accepted as Scripture, the activity of Constantine in church history, etc., do you think author Dan Brown is simply ignorant of the biblical and historical facts, or that he is intentionally misleading his readers?

9. For any who think there might be some degree of truth on both sides, do you realize that biblical Christianity—including the New Testament declaration that Jesus is God (John 1:1, etc.)—and the goddess worship of The Da Vinci Code are mutually exclusive, and that there is no possible middle ground between them?

10. Upon which will you base your hope for eternity?

The Da Vinci Code is based upon the belief that there is a "spark of divinity that man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine" (337). In other words, all the problems that exist because of alienation from God can be overcome by our own efforts. There is no need for repentance according to this view, for all we need we can "achieve through [sexual] union with the sacred feminine."

But the Bible declares that our hearts are desperately wicked. We are self-centered, go our own way in life, and live to indulge our own desires. Contrary to Dan Brown's theology, the Bible says that our greatest need is not for us to do something, but for something to be done for us. In His love and mercy, God did for us what we could never do for ourselves: He sent His Son to rescue us from eternal punishment for our sins. Jesus lived the perfect life that only God-in-the-flesh could live. On the cross, Jesus offered Himself to His Father as a sinless substitute in exchange for people who deserved God's righteous judgment. Then God raised Jesus to life to signify that He had accepted Jesus' sacrificial death. God offers all the benefits and blessings earned by Jesus to anyone who will turn from living his or her own way and believe that only Jesus' life and death can make them right with God.

Will you rely upon God to accept you because of what you do to reach up to God, or will you rely upon what God has done through Jesus to reach down to us?

Out of Their Minds...some pithy and spot on followup to "TDVC"

Here are some very insightful words about The Da Vinci Code movie and its message from two of my favorite journalists today: Daniel Henninger and Peggy Noonan. Enjoy!


Holy Sepulcre!
"The Da Vinci Code" shows that conspiracy theories have no limits.

by Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal)

Here's my theory of "The Da Vinci Code."

Dan Brown was sitting one night at the monthly meeting of his local secret society, listening to a lecture on the 65th gospel, and he got to thinking: "I wonder if there's any limit to what people are willing to believe these days about a conspiracy theory. Let's say I wrote a book that said Jesus was married. To Mary Magdalene. Who was pregnant at the Crucifixion. And she is the Holy Grail. Jesus wanted her to run the church as a global sex society called Heiros Gamos, but Peter elbowed her out of the job. Her daughter was the beginning of the Merovingian dynasty of France. Jesus' family is still alive. There were 80 gospels, not four. Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean da Vinci, knew all this. The 'Mona Lisa' is Leonardo's painting of himself in drag. Da Vinci's secret was kept alive by future members of 'the brotherhood,' including Isaac Newton, Claude Debussy and Victor Hugo. The Catholic Church is covering all this up."

Then Dan Brown said softly, "Would anyone buy into a plot so preposterous and fantastic?" Then he started writing.

The real accomplishment of "The Da Vinci Code" is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits. The genre's future is limitless, with the following obvious plots:

Bill Clinton is directly descended from Henry VIII; Hillary is his third cousin. Jack Ruby was Ronald Reagan's half-brother. Dick Cheney has been dead for five years; the vice president is a clone created by Halliburton in 1998. The Laffer Curve is the secret sign of the Carlyle Group. Michael Moore is the founder of the Carlyle Group, which started World War I. The New York Times is secretly run by the Rosicrucians (this is revealed on the first page of Chapter 47 of "The Da Vinci Code" if you look at the 23rd line through a kaleidoscope). Jacques Chirac is descended from Judas.

None of this strikes me as the least bit implausible, especially the latter. I'd better get started.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com

Out of Touch
by Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal)

Speaking of the detachment of the elites, the second big news of the week--in some ways it may be bigger--is the apparent critical failure of "The DaVinci Code." After its first screening in Cannes, critics and observers called it tedious, painfully long, bloated, grim, so-so, a jumble, lifeless and talky.

There is a God.

Or, as a sophisticated Christian pointed out yesterday, there is an Evil One, and this may be proof he was an uncredited co-producer. The devil loves the common, the stale. He can't use beauty; it undermines him. "Banality is his calling card."

I do not understand the thinking of a studio that would make, for the amusement of a nation 85% to 90% of whose people identify themselves as Christian, a major movie aimed at attacking the central tenets of that faith, and insulting as poor fools its gulled adherents. Why would Tom Hanks lend his prestige to such a film? Why would Ron Howard? They're both already rich and relevant. A desire to seem fresh and in the middle of a big national conversation? But they don't seem young, they seem immature and destructive. And ungracious. They've been given so much by their country and era, such rich rewards and adulation throughout their long careers. This was no way to say thanks.

I don't really understand why we live in an age in which we feel compelled to spoof the beliefs of the followers of the great religions. Why are we doing that? Why does Hollywood consider this progressive as opposed to primitive...?

"The DaVinci Code" could still triumph at the box office, but it has lost its cachet, and the air of expectation that surrounded it. Its creators have not been rewarded but embarrassed. Good. They should be.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.
Her column appears Thursdays.

The Da Vinci Code Movie...my review

My brief but accurate review of the book and the movie: "40,000,000 people can be wrong."

(For other reviews: check out at RottenTomoatoes.com; and The USAToday). You'll discover that the vast majority of the secular press is panning this film as well.

I was given a free ticket to an advanced showing of TDVC which I saw last evening. It was very long, dark (in the Batman tradition), tedious to sit through, and not as entertaining as one would think. Apart from the biblical concerns this movie generates, as a film, I'd give it two out of five stars.

Content wise, it stays pretty true to the book. It comes as no surprise that it is pure unadulterated fiction not to be taken seriously. Its historic assertions on the most basic of issues (Constantine, The Nicene Creed, scriptural accounts, etc.) are so distorted that to give any meaningful analysis of it would be inadvertently to elevate its status to a credible work worthy of such careful examination—which this work does not deserve (even the audience wasn’t ‘completely buying it’ which I gathered from their very meager reaction at the films conclusion).

Matt Lauer this past week on The Today Show was in France doing a series on TDVC; and even he, with just a tertiary analysis, discovered many historical flaws and inconsistencies as to not give it any real merit.

In short, TDVC is Gnostic in its foundation and claims, and as a movie is not terribly compelling.

We all know Tom Hanks to be a brilliant actor and Ron Howard a very gifted director, but this usual winning team, in this film, falls flatter than J-Lo in Gigli. Hanks gives a fairly wooden performance and feels out of place throughout. It’s easier believing that Darryl Hannah is a Mermaid in "Splash", that there is a place called "Oz" over the rainbow, or that Indiana Jones really did find the ark of God than believing the claims made in TDVC. The experience of watching this movie is kind of like listening to the Caner brothers: it is wearisome, nonsensical, arduous, historically twisted and in the end is unproductive.

There have been many Christian authors who have written extensively and thoroughly on "unmasking TDVC" that I don’t need to repeat those same arguments here (my friend, Dr. James White, does an excellent and thorough job here; and Dr. Al Mohler gives a very solid biblical response here).

But how are we as Christians to respond in the aftermath of this film?

Four things:

1. Dan Brown is not to be taken seriously on any level regarding the Christian faith (Col. 2:8-10). Don’t give him the fuel or the platform for his historic revisionism, mystic dribble, “sacred feminine” agenda, and theological fiction.

2. Satan has always attacked the authority of God’s Word; the character of God; and the gospel, person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is nothing new and as old as the garden of Eden. But, how do we confront such attacks? With the truth of God's Word (read 2 Cor. 10:1-6).

3. Every believer needs to be able to give a reason for the hope that is within him or her with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15-16). Know the Lord and His truth deeply; you don’t have to be an expert on TDVC to address it with your friends, family or co-workers at your place of employ. Know Christ; be an authority on the once for all delievered to the saints faith (Jude 3); when asked, give a clear witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. Pray that the Lord will grant you an opportunity, because of the talk generated by this film, to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to your neighbors, friends and family. Take advantage of this media/cultural happening to witness the truth about the Lord to others. And may I encourage you to pray for Dan Brown and all associated with this film, that their hearts would be made receptive soil to "hear" the Word of Christ--the genuine gospel (Romans 10:14-17); that they would be given godly sorrow to repent of their sins (2 Cor. 7:8-12); be granted saving faith by God's sovereign grace to come to salvation; and to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (Eph. 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10).

Now, if its fiction you want that is entertaining, may I suggest Mission Impossible III?

Guard the Trust,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

The Need for Discernment in These Perilous Times Pt 1 ...by Pastor Lars Larson, PhD

This past two weeks of ministry has taken me to some wonderful and interesting places.

I was privileged just three days ago to play golf in the Marine Toys for Tots Golf Classic at the beautiful Mount Vernon Country Club in Washington, D.C. The Lord blessed us with great weather, great fellowship, and some fine golf as well.

What a joy to be have been a part of this great outing for the third year in a row. Lt. General Cooper (retired) announced at the beginning of this year's tournament that last year's Golf Classic raised $160,000.00 and they were on track to do just as well if not more this year. In addition, Toys for Tots is also one of the top fifty philanthropic charities in the world with 2005 donations of $150,000,000.00. Toys for Tots is a tremendous charity which does valuable work for children all around the world.

Then two weekends ago, I had the privilege of ministering outside the Boston area in Leominster, MA at the First Baptist Church. The senior pastor, Lars Lawson, was a gracious host and come to find a very gifted theologian and pastor/teacher as well. He is a dedicated under-shepherd of Christ and we enjoyed some rich and rewarding conversations. To be in the "neighborhood" where men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and D.L. Moody once ministered was very inspiring. Though time didn't permit us to visit some of the historical sites attributed to these men, it was a joy to encourage all who came out of God's Word and worship in song.

On Friday evening and Saturday morning I was part of a conference where they had assigned me four topics to teach: Reforming music; Reforming worship; Reforming evangelism; and Reforming fellowship. This wonderful church holds dearly to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and have stood firm among much opposition to the truth claims of Scripture. It was an honor to partner with them in ministry.

I had asked Lars if he had done much writing and for permission to post some of his articles from time to time on the blog and website. He graciously agreed and sent this article to me as what I hope will only be the first of many contributions from him here at COT. His first installment at COT is on the issue of discernment. There is almost a "famine in the land" when it comes to finding books that have been written about this subject of discernment; but yet it remains, IMHO, one of the great and pressing needs in the body of Christ today.

Here is part one of his excellent and much needed article on the issue of discernment. May your hearts be encouraged by his powerful insights and words.

Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

The Need for Discernment
in These Perilous Times Pt 1
by Pastor Lars Larson, PhD

"It is by the mixture of counterfeit religion with true, not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ. It is plainly by this means, principally, that he has prevailed against all revivals of religion, since the first founding of the Christian church."
--Jonathon Edwards in the Preface to
Religious Affections.

Few evangelicals would challenge the assertion that spiritual discernment is sorely needed in these days. I suspect also that most would agree with the notion that professing Christians are generally undiscerning. However, I also suspect that most would say that they view themselves as having better skills of discernment than others who profess faith in Christ. I would suggest that regardless where we are in relation to others respecting this matter, that all of us are in various degrees in need of developing our ability to discern the will of God respecting ourselves and the world about us. I hope in this article to expand our awareness of our need for discernment by considering the challenge that is before us. We will first consider the Scriptures’ emphasis for our need of discernment. Then we will consider the present society in which we live and the unique challenges which it imposes upon Christians. Finally, we will point out some specific areas within evangelicalism that underscore our need to be a discerning people.

The Biblical Emphasis on Discernment
The Scriptures speak to the need of God’s people to be discerning in order that they may understand fully the will of God for their lives. There is much error about us and God’s people are capable of embracing much of it to their own detriment. This is so due to their ignorance of truth, the craftiness of deceivers, and their own susceptibility to being deceived. Epaphras, a servant of Christ, was concerned for the young Christians at Colossae respecting this matter. Paul wrote of him, “Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bondslave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God (Col. 4:12). It would do us well to have the same healthy anxiety for ourselves and others about us.

The Bible refers frequently to the concept of discernment. The two words that are most frequently used to connote this process are the Hebrew word bin and the Greek word diakrino. According to Jay Adams in his book, A Call to Discernment, the Hebrew word is used 247 times in the Old Testament. The word has been translated variously as “understand”, “discern”, and “distinguish.” When it is used, the word suggests “to separate things from one another at their points of difference in order to distinguish them.” Adams goes on to write, “It refers to the process by which one comes to know or understand God’s thoughts and ways through separating those things that differ.” The Greek word is used similarly in the New Testament. It too refers to a process of separating or discriminating whereby truth may be set apart in relief from that which is false. In short, discernment is a filtering process by which a person distinguishes and separates good from the bad, right from wrong, and truth from error.

We should emphasize that discernment is not merely a function of the mind. Discernment is a spiritual work which uses the mind to ascertain what is true. And as a spiritual work, only the Spirit of God can illuminate the mind, thereby enabling us to make proper judgments. As Paul wrote, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:11-14). Take note, and this is important: the mind is still in the process. One must “understand” with the mind, but understanding can only come through the illuminating work of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind with spiritual words--words of Scripture--as they are pondered.

The New Testament teaches that the ability to discern is linked with the measure of the maturity of a Christian. Consider Hebrews 5:11-14. The writer was addressing Hebrew Christians of the first century who were under the threat of persecution for their faith. They faced the temptation of removing themselves from hardship by renouncing Christ and returning to Judaism, which was an accepted and legal religion of the empire. The writer set forth a word of exhortation to them, urging them to persevere. Abandoning Jesus Christ and returning to Judaism was not an option for them. There was no return possible. Christ and the salvation He brought had fulfilled Old Testament religion. Among the many arguments set forth, the writer sought to show how superior Christ’s high priesthood was to the Levitical priesthood of the old covenant. The ministry of Christ as a high priest resembled that of the Old Testament priest Melchizedec, who was neither a descendant of Abraham nor a Levite. But the writer paused, and gave a rebuke to his readers. For although the matters he discussed were complex, they would not have posed difficulty for the Hebrews had they not been “dull of hearing” (5:11). Furthermore, the writer rebuked them, for they were but babies when they should have long since become mature teachers (5:12). The writer then explains what constitutes maturity in verses 13 and 14: “For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who “because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” The measure of Christian maturity, by definition, is the ability to exercise discernment. We will say more respecting these verses later.

We find the same link between discernment and spiritual immaturity in Ephesians 4:11-16. I referred to this passage earlier when I sought to emphasize my responsibility as a pastor to instruct the body in the matter of discernment. But look at the wording of verse 14 once again: Paul identifies undiscerning persons as “children” in need of growth who are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Again, to increase in the ability to discern is to move toward spiritual maturity.

The Pursuit of Truth and Wisdom
Since discernment is the activity by which we may discover the truth of God, we would do well to consider the value and emphasis which Scripture places on truth. First, consider truth with respect to ourselves: The truth has the ability to set us free (John 4:23). We were saved upon hearing the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), for God begot us with the word of truth (James 1:18). Furthermore, after becoming a Christian, the truth sanctifies us (John 17:7). In contrast, the unsaved are “destitute of the truth” (1 Tim. 6:5), and they do not obey the truth (Rom. 2:8). Moreover, they do not love the truth that has the power to save them (2 Thes. 2:10,12). Although some unsaved people come to some knowledge of the truth, they may hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), or be opposed to the truth (2 Tim. 3:8). Some change the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25). Others are ever-learning but never come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7).

The nature of God is associated very closely with the concept of truth. His word is truth (John 17:7). Jesus Himself is the truth (John 14:6) and we may find truth in Him (Eph. 4:21). Jesus was a minister of the truth (Rom. 15:8). The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The judgment of God is always according to truth (Rom. 2:8).

According to the Scriptures, how should we view truth? We must think on whatsoever things are true (Phil. 4:8). We must examine the Scriptures daily so that we might know whether the things we hear are true (Acts 17:11). We are not to love in word or tongue, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:18). We are to be fellow-helpers of the truth (3 John 3,4), as we walk in the truth (2 John 4), being obedient to the truth (1 Pet. 1:12), as we are girt about with the truth (Eph. 6:14). We are to speak the truth in love as we worship God in Spirit and truth (John 4:24). In addition, we must heed the warnings regarding the truth, for some can go astray from the truth (2 Tim. 2:18). Besides, we all have a propensity to turn our ears from the truth (2 Tim. 4:4). And, for those who go on sinning wilfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, they may expect a "certain, terrifying expectation of judgment" (Heb. 10:27). Therefore, given the emphasis that Scripture places on this matter, should we not be ever mindful, ever vigilant regarding the truth? Do not the above references underscore the need for discernment whereby we may ascertain what is the truth of God and whether or not we indeed have the truth?

The Scriptures also emphasize the importance of acquiring wisdom. Proverbs contains the record of a father impressing and instructing his son of the importance of seeking wisdom. Wisdom in the Bible is a complex matter with many facets. Occasionally wisdom merely refers to human knowledge or the acquiring of human skills or abilities. However, in many biblical contexts wisdom describes the ability to view life from God’s perspective. To gain wisdom is to obtain truth by which we may order our lives. Wisdom, if attained, will enable us to lead good and fruitful lives, as we order our existence in a way that pleases God and elicits His blessing. Wisdom also enables us to recognize evil, error, and dangerous people who would bring ruin to us if they remain unrecognized. Attaining wisdom, we might say, is both the root as well as the fruit of discernment. The ability to discern (or distinguish between) truth and error, right and wrong, good and evil, is to be desired and sought as others would seek for “silver” and “hidden treasures” (Prov. 3:13,14).

On the other hand, consider the teaching of the Bible about the one who lacks wisdom. He troubles his own soul and his entire household. He cannot deliver himself from the evil man or woman, or from the folly of his own soul. He is deceived easily, and he encounters repeated misery, gaining for himself only dishonor, disappointment, and ultimately death (Prov. 1:31ff.; 4:14-19; 5:8-14).

Our Responsibility to Make Judgments
One of the most damaging and biblically errant notions among Christians today is that believers are not suppose to make judgments respecting other people. This is frequently heard: “I am not to judge,” or, it may be worded like this: “Who am I to judge?” With this wrong view of the teaching of Scripture and wrong manner in which we relate to one another, we have forfeited God’s means of correcting much error and recovering many deceived and straying persons. In today’s churches Christians have purposely ceased to exercise thinking respecting questionable practices and persons. This “judge not” attitude has now become so “normal” that there is reluctance or refusal to confront Christians when they are seen acting in some blatantly sinful manner; to do so would be perceived as being judgmental. In these days there is very little true exhorting one another; consequently, there is much hardness (insensitivity) among us due to the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13). This is a masterstroke of the devil which he has brought upon God’s people. Because he has kept them from performing the work of discernment and acting upon it, he has placed many securely in his stocks. If your attitude toward the world and Christians about you is never judge, never rebuke, never correct, or condemn, then you are of little real service in God’s kingdom. You are unable to provide true spiritual assistance to those about you. Perhaps you can provide comfort for others for having shared in their misery, but you will be unable to bring them to experience deliverance from their condition. But further, you yourself are easy prey to a deceiver; you will be easily led into false doctrine, for false teachers will readily beguile you.

“But does not the Word of God say in Matthew 7:1, ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’?” Yes, but that verse and others like it is not condemning the work of discerning; rather, it is condemning a censorious spirit, which is seen in one who, with a spirit of anger or intolerance, tries to dismiss or discredit other persons in order to damage their reputation or justify himself. To this kind of person the Lord says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” A person who tries to pluck a splinter out of another person’s eye when he has a beam in his own is to be regarded as a hypocrite (Luke 6:42), but it is not the act of trying to remove a splinter, but the fact that he is equally at fault which reveals his hypocrisy. He is first to remove the log from his own eye “then” he will see clearly to remove the splinter that is in his brother’s eye (Luke 6:42). We are to be in the business of spotting and removing splinters--discerning and correcting errant belief and practice--but we are first to perform this work on ourselves.

Now it is true that the Scriptures tell us that we are incapable of judging the desires and motives of hearts; that is something only God can and will one day do. But we are commanded to make assessments, that is, judgments, respecting ours and others’ attitudes, actions, and general character. How are you going to obey Titus 3:10 in rejecting a “divisive” person unless you first recognize and identify him as a divisive person? How are you to disassociate from a “disorderly” person described in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, unless you first assess one to be such? How are you to “expose” the “unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:11) unless you identify them when you see them? You must perform the work of discernment if you are to obey the Lord in these matters. The Bible commands us to be discerning people, and we are incapable of governing ourselves or of truly helping others if we are unable to do so. King Solomon became the wisest man who ever lived, apart from the Lord Jesus, because he sought wisdom from the Lord. “So Give Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Thine?” (1 Kings 3:9). Solomon could not rule his people without wisdom, and we cannot govern our lives without wisdom.

The Present Societal Setting
The Christian’s need for discernment at this time in history is very great. Protestant Christendom appears to be in a mass state of confusion. Everything is in upheaval. The entire fabric of what once distinguished Protestant Christianity is being ripped to shreds. Long-held tenants of the faith which were once proclaimed and defended tenaciously are being relegated as either outdated or relatively unimportant matters in the context of our modern society. Strange doctrines, which are either new or ones once soundly rejected by earlier generations of Christians, are now becoming accepted and even popular without much resistance. Christians are being “tossed here and there by waves” and are blown about by “every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” False teachers promoting their heresy abound. There are reasons to believe that Christians may be facing more difficult times than have we ever known in history. Why is this occurring to this degree in these days?

There are many reasons, but we will only cite a few causes at this point.
First, it is possible that we are in the final days before the Lord’s return. I do not know that we are, although I hope it is the case. However, if we are in the last days, we can expect the spiritual environment of the world to become more cloudy, less defined, than ever before. Thus we find ourselves in a wicked, spiritual environment in which there is great potential of being deceived. Paul wrote to young Timothy, “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1). He went on to describe conditions characterized by ungodly and unscrupulous men who peddle deception (vs. 6,7,13). However, he sought to give encouragement to young Timothy, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and have become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:14-16). Paul assured Timothy that in his possession of the Scriptures, he had the means to deal with every kind of error he would ever face, enabling him to discern truth from error, right from wrong, and good from evil.

The second reason which suggests that we live in dangerous times and are in need of discernment, is that we have experienced a monumental societal shift, especially since the Second World War. We are now living in a post-Christian society. The “world” is in some ways more worldly than before. We are no longer in a culture that is “Christian”; rather, it is wholly secular. And we as Christians live within this context day by day. Within this secular society there has been an increasing segmentation of life within the lives of people. A single Christian can live in different worlds, and adopt different values in each of these contexts. Christianity is seen as not being applicable or relevant in the “real world.” As a result, Christianity is no longer the central and unifying factor in many people’s lives, it is but one of many parts and, in the case of many professing Christians, on the periphery. Because Christian values, speech, and behavior seem so out of place in various contexts, the Christian is gagged, and he finds it is easier to act as Nicodemus, assuming the role of a “secret disciple” (John 19:38).

Here is a description of these phenomena:

Our society no longer has a center of' values that exerts a centripolutionetal force on our collective life; similarly, our religion has lost the theological center that once held together thought and practice, private and public. The disappearance of the center in both society and religion has produced emptiness, and for lack of anything better, this emptiness has been filled with various forms of pluralization. The once-whole worlds of society and religion have broken apart into a host of smaller independent worlds, each of which has taken off on its own trajectory.

In society, these subworlds consist of the small units of meaning within which we exist and through which we pass, perhaps even several times a day. Each has its own values, its own cognitive horizons, its own reasons for and ways of doing things, its own class interests. Often, the only connections these worlds have with one another is the fact that the same people have to move amphibiously among them. Within short periods of time, people move from the family setting, with its unique relations and values, to an entirely different set of relationships and values in the workplace, from the company of professional colleagues to the company of personal friends, from service organizations to the larger business and bureaucratic structures in society, from engagement with the world's catastrophes and crises through the news media to the diversions of sitcoms, game shows, and, perhaps, the occasional blue movie. Then we go to church. And lying across these worlds, sometimes identifying with them and sometimes disengaging from them, are the additional cultural distinctions of age, ethnicity, class, and occupation. To move among these multiple worlds smoothly, one has to master a variety of languages of survival and be fluid enough to accommodate a considerable variety of special interests, some of which may be mutually antagonistic. In fact, it is unlikely that such cultural diversity can be surmounted without considerable cognitive dissonance. . . The resulting pressure away from any unifying focus gives powerful impetus to yet another form of pluralization -- a breakdown in the unity of our knowledge and the emergence in its place of a mass of specialized fields and disciplines, each with their own assumptions, procedures, and criteria of judgment. . . The randomness, the lack of connection, the independence of our private worlds of knowing is fracturing our perception of reality.

There is a price for living in this fashion. We experience increasingly what Jay Adams described, “In every area of life, members of the church are continually bombarded with ideas, beliefs, and opinions, most of which are unbiblical and suspect. But they don’t know how to sort things out.” Due to this segmentation of life that has occurred, certain subjects become regarded as “outside” of the realm of the faith. Now, “professionals” in their respective fields are viewed as having greater ability to deal with problems which were at one time under the authority of the church and the Bible. The result of all this is the Christian’s inability to view all of life in the light of, or under the authority of Scripture.

The sheer mass of information which claims to be distinctly Christian is itself enormous. How do we filter through it all? How do we assess this or that book, or tape, or the instruction of any number of teachers which have a worldwide hearing among Christians? I have little knowledge the content of written material which comes into the hands of our church people, to what kind of doctrines they are exposed through “Christian” radio and television, and whether or not they are embracing heresy. There was a time when a pastor could watch and filter material, and thereby insure that his people could be fed good, godly, material. That day is gone. People themselves now fend for themselves and must wade through the mountains of material. But if they cannot discern, they have no means to perform this task. Consequently they are vulnerable and easily led into error.

Third, but related to the second, we are now experiencing a monumental philosophical shift in all of western society which has greatly affected Christian thinking. We are now living in a time when truth is no longer the primary concern of Christians. If it were, then we would be okay, for we would be pursuing truth and by doing so recognizing and rejecting the error. But truth no longer is the chief concern. Again, this has something to do with society. Sociologists are now convinced that a major societal shift has occurred in the last 20 years of this century. Before, we were in the age of Modernism (generally regarded as covering the period of 1789-1989). It was an age in which truth was sought, by Christian and non Christian, for it was believed by all that truth was obtainable. The evangelical Christian sought truth in the Scriptures; the secular modernist sought truth in his evolutionary view of science. Then the modernist attacked the Christian, he charged that what the Bible taught was not true.

But now it is recognized that we have entered a new era, which has been termed Post-Modernism. The characteristic of this age is that the idea of truth itself is now challenged.

Until the last two decades the Western world thought itself capable of arriving at truth in all arenas through scientific enquiry. We have not thought in postmodern terms. Many of us still consider ourselves to be living in the modern world. Yet that modern world has given way to postmodernity. Postmodernity describes a dislocating of human condition that is being experienced in these last years of the twentieth century. We say it is ‘dislocating’ because it tends to throw people out of the worldviews they have traditionally held. It is a cultural event happening right now wherever people are educated in and acculturated to Western civilization. . . Postmodernism is a new set of assumptions about reality, which goes far beyond mere relativism. It impacts our literature, our dress, our art, our architecture, our music, our sense of right and wrong, our self-identity, and our theology. Postmodernism tends to view human experience as incoherent, lacking absolutes in the area of absolutes and meaning.

Many postmodernists assume that either no rational structures exist or that we cannot know them. James Sire has characterized five aspects of postmodernism: (1) Things and events do not have intrinsic meaning. There is only continuous interpretation of the world. (2) Continuous examination of the world requires contextual examination; we ourselves are a part of the context. (3) Interpretation depends not on the external text or its author, but on the relative viewpoint and particular values of the interpreter. (4) Language is not neutral, but relative and value-laden. (5) Language conveys ideology.

While modernists’ attacks on Christianity are loosing their force, postmodernists are attacking Christians on different grounds, based on Sire’s five characteristics. We can see that the agenda has moved from that employed by modernists in this past century. For example, modernists would argue in a number of ways that Christianity is not true. Postmodernists, on the other hand, would critique Christianity by claiming that Christians think they have the only truth. The claims of Christianity are rejected because of the appeal to absolute truth. Absolute truth claims will be dismissed by the postmodernist for being “intolerant”--trying to force one’s beliefs onto other people. Postmodernists have genuinely given up on the idea of absolute truth, thus the Church faces new challenges in proclaiming the Gospel to our contemporary world.

As one has said, “In today’s world people do not mind if you search for the truth, just do not claim that you have found it!” The scholars who advocate this new way of viewing things are leading figures in education. Their philosophies shape the goals, organization, and curricula of our schools, colleges, and universities. These scholars claim that they do not impose meaning on texts; rather, they say that words do not have meanings apart from their contexts. We might affirm this statement to a degree, but it is important to know what they mean by “context.” You and I would agree that the meaning of words is shaped as they relate to the other words in their written (or spoken) context. But postmodernists are saying the reader himself is a part of the context. Therefore, it is not what the author intended by the words, but it is how the reader (or hearer) perceives the words which is most important. What they claim is that the meaning does not reside in the words themselves, but in the reader’s inner psychology. It is completely subjective. David Wells described it in this way: “the subjective triumphs completely over the objective.” The following exert sets forth how this plays out in interpreting a text:

Take, for example, the sentence “The sergeant looked at her carefully and then smiled warmly.” What does this mean? The deconstructionist's (postmodernist) answer is that even in the context of a larger text, it all depends on which internal world of meaning fills out the words. A reader approaching the text as light entertainment might be inclined to view the sergeant's warm smile as simply the first small spark of romantic interest. A feminist critic might be inclined to view the sergeant as making a deliberate calculation -- "looked at her carefully" -- in preparation for launching himself on a course of action that might end with seduction or harassment. A recent graduate of a military school might be inclined to find in the sentence a snapshot of' the human face that the army is keener these days to show, in which control (the careful look) and humanity (the warm smile) are blended. The point is that it is the reader, not the author, who is providing the meaning here. And it should be noted that the significance of this shift in the source of the meaning is not simply that it unleashes pluralism in places where it has not been known so plentifully before but that it aims a blow at the entire Western academic tradition in which it has always been assumed that although all words have ranges of meaning, good authors also know how to limit for the reader what possibilities exist in any given passage. If the only meaning in a text is that which any particular community wants to provide, then what is normative in language, as well as in life, has been destroyed.

My opinion is that this philosophy has resulted in a society that not only has no absolute values whatsoever, but it renders an entire population incapable of reasoning through issues. Even worse, if this trend continues, I believe it will render true communication of ideas between individuals impossible, for it removes any notion that the words you use have meaning in and of themselves. Rational communication will become impossible, because true communication can only be conducted by conveying one’s own thoughts precisely to another through words. The result will be an interaction characterized by subjective perception only, void of reasoned communication. Discernment, as we have been describing it, will be non-existent. Educational institutions will become completely ineffectual, even detrimental, to the training of our Christian youth.

A society which functions in this realm will not remain free, although the citizens will not recognize that they no longer have freedom. Those persons who know how to present an image in order to elicit a specific response will hold the power which dominates such a society. The image shapers are already in demand, such as the Dick Morris’ of society, who have a genius for this kind of thing, but who are void of morals and character. People will be (already are) herded as cattle yet completely unaware they are being manipulated.

The T4G Statement...in the essentials, unity

reformated

In the essentials unity…
The Together for the Gospel Conference (T4G) concluded last week in Louisville, KY. Everyone I have spoken to that attended T4G was greatly encouraged, impacted, challenged and eager for T4G 2008.

Other duties kept me from attending personally, but I downloaded all the conference MP3’s a few days ago and have listened to each message about three times (I thank the Lord for my iPod). I truly hope that they will also release the panel discussions in the near future as well.

I was greatly encouraged by each of the messages presented by these seven men (Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and John MacArthur). Arguably, these are some of the finest Bible expositors, theologians and Christian thinkers of our day. Some of them are friends, others mentors, some I have never met, but all have been examples to me of men dedicated to the truth of God’s Word and representing its truth uncompromisingly. We can rejoice that God has raised up such men willing to take a stand on what it means to really be committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, live according to its truths, and encourage others to do likewise. I do not say that lightly or gratuitously.

Though the messages preached were not for the most part expositional in nature from the text of Scripture as many would expect (with the noted exception of Ligon Duncan on his excellent message of preaching the O.T.), these brothers did faithfully declare needed and helpful biblical and theological principles concerning the local church, culture, evangelism, personal holiness, the glory of God, and the gospel. For example: John Piper was very passionate about what he called, “exposition exaltation”; John MacArthur shared meaningful sign posts that have marked his 40 years in ministry; R.C. Sproul gave an excellent theological treaty on justification by faith.

Then you add to them Al Mohler’s spot on views of culture, Mark Dever’s marks of a faithful pastor, Ligon Duncan’s encouragement to faithfully preach the O.T., and C.J. Mahaney’s infectious unconscious humility to guard one’s life and doctrine—we are given some indispensable foundations for biblical ministry. I am prayerful that the Lord will use these messages in future weeks and months to speak to my own life and ministry. I would urge you to obtain your own copy of the MP3’s HERE.

in the nonessentials, liberty…
One of the fruits of this conference is a T4G Statement on the Gospel drafted primarily by Dr. Al Mohler. This is a brief manifesto (18 articles) of essential doctrine concerning the gospel and its outworkings; urging the church at large to stand against the tide of unsound doctrine and the moorings of a distorted gospel by boldly reclaiming and then proclaiming the true gospel. Though not specifically mentioned, the concern is fueled by movements and skewed theological suasions such as the Emergent Church, Open Theism, New Perspectivism of Paul, Sabellianism, Pragmaticism, etc. Though we have many profound current statements on the gospel, and throughout all of church history great confessions and creeds, we can say amen for the need of this new kind of statement of faith that crystallizes biblical truth to confront and correct these theological aberrations.

As I was reading the T4G Statement I began asking myself a series of questions. The first one being a general and practical one that pertains to us especially who “live dialy” in the blogosphere: is it right in the public arena to pose questions about what anyone may assert about the Christian faith? What if this involves those whom you admire (like the brothers mentioned above)? What if they are friends or co-laborers in ministry or that are the leading “names” of our day? Is it proper to voice an opinion through the lens and plumbline of Scripture if that opinion is different or in direct conflict with theirs? IOW, are some exempt from public scrutiny concerning doctrine? Does the standard apply to all or just to some? And should some be given a pass because they have faithfully served the Lord for many years?

The clear answer came through the words of the Apostle Paul: “Examine all things; cling to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21); “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:9-11). Careful testing of all that represent the Lord and His truth, including myself, is essential to the health of modern day evangelicalism; and as well, in a spirit of humility, any of us in public ministry must submit to and welcome the constructive criticisms and probing questions from any believer in the Lord as a “noble minded Berean.”

I have not been to seminary for my training in theology. Though I considered that path several years ago, it is not how the Lord has led in my life in preparation for ministry. There are many others throughout church history that can apply to as well. Seminaries, though not mentioned in the Bible and have no real biblical footing, can be used in some manner to prepare men for ministry. But Scripturally, the duty is given to the leadership of the local church to train “faithful men to teach others also.” IOW, “the treasure” of the Bible was not given to scholars or educators—the duty to “contend for the once for all delivered to the saints faith“ is not the mantle of professors, but of the people of God; people who were primarily uneducated, unschooled, and unlearned. And yet, they were expected to understand, comprehend, apply, teach, preach, and live according to its infallible truths.

Today, one of the concerns within evangelicalism is that many of these heresies mentioned above were not born in the womb of local church ministry and leadership, but in the halls of academia and scholarship. The seminaries have virtually no accountability to the local church or local church leadership today—and it is troubling. Listen, every believer in the body of Christ is to be a faithful Berean examining whatever is being asserted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not meant for a few professionals, but for all who know the Lord and embrace His gospel. And an ordinary Christian equipped with the truths of God’s Word can confront and engage even the most profound of scholars and “win the day” for the cause of the gospel.

Beloved, if the Apostle Paul who penned the infallible, eternal truth of Scripture writing thirteen of the twenty-seven N.T. epistles under the superintending of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16ff) willingly invites examination by others, how much more should any of us, all of us in public ministry welcome that same examination? Even if those words of question and scrutiny come in the form of a corrective exhortation, passionate disagreement, gentle encouragement, or in the language of debate?

and in all things, charity.
On this blog, I want it to be understood, that if you read from time to time in these many articles of instruction from God’s Word on a myriad of subjects, when I am addressing those with whom I have served with in the past, or admire, treasure in friendship, and hold in high esteem, it does not mean that I don’t love them, respect them or honor them. We must guard our words and bathe them in a heart of Christian love and grace, but we must speak the truth and not shrink from our duty to represent the whole counsel of God. As Proverbs says, “faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” I submit to you my brothers and sisters, that it is a sign of deep Christian charity that we continually examine our Christian leaders and what they are teaching for “teachers are subject to a stricter judgment.” And to ignore this duty, is to not operate in Christian love, but in self-preservation, political posturing, and timidity.

In that spirit, I would like to offer the following questions and suggestions about the T4G Statement on the Gospel with the motive not to be critical, but to see this statement stronger and more profitable for the body of Christ.

As you read this statement, there are three things that I would humbly submit for your consideration:

1. In these eighteen articles there is no Scripture listed. This, I believe, is crucial. All of these men are dedicated to the authority of God’s Word and to the proclamation of its truth rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15, 3:16-17); and all of these suasions listed above have one thing in common, the purposed departure from the standard of Scripture. The Scriptures must define, shape, govern, and clearly demonstrate our convictions doctrinally and theologically. The T4G statement represents for the most part sound doctrine, but for the body of Christ in general to understand and have confidence in this statement, I think it is a needed component that with every affirmation and denial that Scripture must be there leading the way. This is the only thing that gives any statement of faith like this its authority. Without it, others could easily dismiss its assertions, importance and the weight of its convictions as theological bias..

2. There is no articles currently listed that deal with three key areas: original sin/the fall of man; the consequences of eternal judgment for rejecting the gospel; and practically, whom we partner with in the proclamation of the gospel and in the daily outworking of the gospel. This again is very important. The gospel of grace brings comfort to the sinner when they see the depth of their own fallenness from God; the gospel of grace brings a sobering warning to those who reject its claims; and in a highly politically charged environment currently in evangelicalism trying to recapture a societal morality through legislation rather than through regeneration—the gospel of grace must remain central for the Christian in addressing all cultural concerns.

3. Lastly, the language of the statement would benefit greatly from more specificity and clarity to provide context, definition, and precision in its claims. I.e. – a simple illustration of this can be found in Articles 1 and II in dealing with the authority of the Bible. I agree with what is written, but there is no definition as to what they mean by “the entire Bible”? The Romanists would claim that the entire for them includes the Apocrypha as well; or the Mormons claim that “the entire Bible” would also include the addition of The Book of Mormon. This may seem basic, but I know the framers of the T4G Statement would desire to see those blinded by these false gospels (Gal. 1:6-9) to be changed for eternity by its claims in seeing them respond to the gospel of grace by God's sovereign electing love.

Though the T4G Statement in its current form to me is not as strong as it needs to be, I believe it could benefit greatly by giving the proper time for discussion, debate, scrutiny and examination from many in Christianity and thus being multi-authored. May I encourage us all to pray that the Lord would guide these men as they consider the input, constructive criticisms and questions of others pertaining to T4G; and that they would be freed from the urgency of publishing deadlines, immediacy, and brevity. We are all on the same team here beloved and desire to see God glorified, His gospel magnified, and the onslaught of unsound doctrine silenced and genuine Gospel churches committed unashamedly to the truth of God’s Word.

To that end, we all can stand “Together for the Gospel”… Amen?

“We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord.”
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5