A Post-Faithful Report from Lipscomb University - #2

Report & Analysis

28 July 2017 - Gospel Call Media - (Charlotte, NC) - Last month in Nashville, TN on the campus of Lipscomb University there was a pro-denominational gathering known as InterGenerate 2017 (TM).  It was a purposeful, proactive, and plotted yoking of the universities "Institute for Christian Spirituality" with the radically pro-sectarian organization known as GenOn Ministries (TM).  The director of this conference herself, Dr. Holly Allen of Lipscomb University, disclosed in my hearing that the entire conference was made possible by a $5,000.00 grant from the president of Lipscomb University, Dr. L. Randolph Lowry.(1)

This reporter was there.  I was determined to hear with my own ears any evidence of movement away from the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" at Lipscomb University.  What I heard was far worse than my greatest fears.  Though there are many faithful faculty, staff, and students remaining at Lipscomb, the leadership of the Bible Department has gone "retro."  What I heard has more in common with 2nd century Gnosticism than it does the the "pattern of sound words."

The conference essentially is attempting to replace, not only the essence of the gospel, (2) it seeks to aggressively change how that gospel is conveyed.  Paul asserts in Romans 10.17 that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."  The eunuch in Acts 8, when asked if he understood what he was reading, replied; "How can I, except some man should guide me?"  The spoken and heard Word of God is the chosen conveyance of God.  It has not changed.  Sadly, this conference is interested in every form of communication EXCEPT biblical preaching for "ears that hear."  Among a number of un-biblical portals, I heard conference presenters advocate uber interactivity, the use of children in worship services, and drawing out of prayers with crayons for adults.  It was like being at a "magical mystery tour" of extreme spiritual experimentation.

Sadly, Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas would have been far more comfortable at this conference than would have Peter, Paul, and John.  In the 2nd century the Gnostic's claimed both an exclusive and higher knowledge than that which was common to ordinary Christians. Now, as then, those who see themselves as the "best and the brightest of all time," have a "buzz word" language to confuse traditional and understood meanings so as to "sound" faithful as they attempt to force the "car over the cliff."  Here is a list of novis-Gnostic words and terms I heard (along with definitions) (3) while at the conference.  (I'm sure there were others, these are the ones I caught.)

• "Cross-denominational" - The transference of truth across conflicting denominational lines without objection.
• "Spiritual" - Feelings of religion in lieu of trust, obedience, and faithfulness.
• "Intra-denominational" - Conflicting doctrines within a singular denomination.
• "Multi-denominational" - All denominations are equally viable, one is good as another, truth is in multiples and not in singularity.
• "Traditions" - In lieu of the Bible, this is where conflicting denominations justify their existence.  All "traditions" are all equally worthy.
• "Faith Formation / Spiritual Formation" - Takes the place of obedience to the gospel, an evolution and not an event.  As you may have heard; "Faith is a journey, not a destination." (4)
• "Historical Roots" - The foundation of conflicting denominations is rooted in history and not upon the Bible.  The novis-Gnostic's reject the existence of singular, revealed, inerrant, and inspired truth.
• "Explosive Free Range Worship" - The 21st century version of the "silence of the Scriptures" is a license for never ending progression away from revelation.  ("We can do anything we want as long as the Bible doesn't expressly forbid it.")
• "Accommodation" - The act of dumbing down worship, preaching, and teaching to the lowest common denominator,  i.e.don't put anything over a 4th grade level.  This is also known as "Changing forms to suit the capacity."
• "Paradigm" - That which comes from the past and must be discarded at all costs.  All things from the past are counter-evolutionary and therefore must be considered useless.
• "Story" - A term that is associated with fiction that is applied to all the historical accounts found in the Bible.
• "Testimony" - "My story" trumps revealed Scripture.  What I feel is more important than what I can learn from the Scriptures.
• "Practical Theology" - The pragmatic tail that wags the theological dog.  What works is more important that what is revealed.
• "Pragmatic Academic" - Outcome based educator who practices "practical theology."
• "Narrative of Scripture" - The Bible is a story from Genesis to Revelation devoid of interpretation of the Holy Spirit, devoid of dispensation, and testament. It overtly rejects the concept of II Timothy 3.16 - 17.
• "Re-clothing Communion" - The radical change of the Lord's Supper to include, integrate and accommodate the mindset of very young children. 
• "Collaborative Theology" - In lieu of studying the Scriptures, this is the blending of many conflicting doctrines so as to render them all devoid of conviction.  For years this has been also known as the "unity in diversity movement."  It is based upon human wisdom and ignores the Scripture entirely.
• "Tribe" - A term used for referring to people of conviction as being somehow backward for the faithfulness to revelation.  When one admits to belonging to a "tribe" one can then "admit" that there are "Christians" in all "churches."  

These are "smooth words" and we must be wary of them!

Remember Isaiah 30.10b: "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:"

[Lord willing, this will be an on-going series.  The next report will deal with the theological assumptions of Dr. Leonard Allen who is the head of the Bible Department at Lipscomb University and is married to the conference chairman, Dr. Holly Allen.] - RM

NOTES:
(1) These facts were all verified in detail in our first report 13 July 2017 and available on this same blog.
(2) There were many denominations in attendance, all advocating "different gospels."  There were Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Disciples of Christ, Anglicans, Episcopalians, et. al.  The theme, stated numerous times and numerous ways was, "truth is relative, it is multiple, ever changing, evolving, emerging, and is individually defined."  The only truth I did not hear was that "truth is revealed, unchanging, singular, and is not individually defined."
(3) The definitions are mine based upon how these words / terms / phrases were used at the conference in my hearing. As there is no such thing as a "New-Gnostic" dictionary, I WELCOME your better definitions that I can use to update any mis-definition on my part!
(4) The radically emergent ETHOS CHURCH in Nashville, where Dr.'s Leonard & Holly Allen attend brags about having an atheist leading a mission team to Kenya a couple of years ago!  You see, he's on a "journey" to faith and his "journey" is just beginning.  (Verifiable on the 3rd session of Leonard Allen at the 2016 Pepperdine Lectures, if you care to look it up.  It's on YouTube.)

A Post-Faithful Report from Lipscomb University #1

13 July 2017 - Gospel Call Media - (Charlotte, NC) - I heard it with my own ears in person.  The InterGenerate 2017 (TM) conference was held on the campus of Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN and I was there June 25 - 27, 2017.  Not wanting to print "hear-say," I was there in person with reporters pencil in hand.  The purpose for going?  To verify one way or the other whether the university which claims to be "affiliated with the churches of Christ,"(1) continues to adhere to the "apostles doctrine" or not.  This is why I was there.  To claim "affiliation" without "faithfulness to the apostles doctrine" is simply existential, chaotic, and contradictory nonsense.  Sadly, from what I heard from the very opening of the conference, the answer is "no," Lipscomb is no longer faithful to what she once was.

From the very moment I arrived, I was perplexed.  I found not a single confessing member of the church of Christ on the program.  Other than brother and sister Ireland from my home congregation (present with me the first night of the conference), I did not meet even a single confessing member of the Lord's church among the 150 attending.  Most disturbing of all, we were the only ones present with Bibles.  The last two days of the conference, as far as I could comprehend, I alone came with a copy of God's Word.

The conference was a collaborative effort between the universities "Institute for Christian Spirituality" (2) and the openly pro-denominational GenOn Ministries (TM) organization. (3)  The purpose of this first ever InterGenerate Conference (TM) was to promote the bridging of generational gaps as a primary tool for more effective church growth, regardless of denominational affiliation.    

This pro-denominational / inter-denominational conference being at Lipscomb University was no accident nor was it incidental.  In fact the conference was orchestrated by Lipscomb faculty member Dr. Holly Allen (4) and overtly funded by a $5,000.00 grant from the institutions president, Dr. L. Randolph Lowry. (5) (6)  Despite the inspired apostle Paul's clear warning against "unequal yoking" in II Corinthians 6.11 - 7.1, Lipscomb University, Dr. Allen, Dr. Lowry, et al have unequally yoked themselves with the non-Christians (7) of GenOn Ministries (TM). to openly endorse and promote sectarian division.

Even more disturbing than the open acceptance of religious division, Dr. Allen on at least 3 occasions that I heard during the introduction focused, reiterated, and insisted upon the "multi denominational" and "inter-denominational" emphasis of the conference in a most overt way. (8)  Most upsetting of all, though, was the comments made by Dr. Holly's husband, Dr. Leonard Allen. (9)  He welcomed the approximately 150 participants on behalf of the university.  As the head of the Bible Department at Lipscomb he told the assembled denominationalists that the university was "affiliated with churches of Christ" which is one of three "denominations" that came out of the 19th century so-called "Stone-Campbell" movement.  In my hearing Dr. Leonard Allen purposely and overtly asserted that the Lord's Church was nothing more and nothing less than just another denomination. (10)  By so doing he surrendered ground to error and declined to share the one true gospel with those who are lost.  Of course, had both the Allen's stood up for the truth, the conference would not have been possible or even conceived of.

There are individuals at Lipscomb University that remain faithful but they are not in the Bible department. We must pray for their continued faithfulness.  We must also pray that faithful Christians, especially in Nashville, will warn others of this departure lest they come through many a "Jude's side door." (Jude 1.4)  This reporter will follow with more reports from Lipscomb University detailing their collective departure from the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." 

NOTES:

(1) http://www.lipscomb.edu/about/fast-facts
(2) http://www.lipscomb.edu/ics
(3) https://www.genonministries.org/blogs/blog/intergenerate-reflections (This links to a blushing pro denominational blog post about the conference)
(4) http://www.lipscomb.edu/news/filter/item/0/31716 (The very pro-denominational nature of this conference is admitted here on Lipscomb's own website.  Biographical info on Dr. Allen is included in the post)
(5) Per comments made by Dr. Holly Allen as she introduced the conference on the evening of 25 June 2017
(6) Bio on Pres. Lowry: https://www.lipscomb.edu/president/biography
(7) [In the New Testament sense of the word - no participating denominations present preach and teach that one must "repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"]
(8) Per comments made by Dr. Holly Allen as she introduced the conference on the evening of 25 June 2017.  Interestingly, even though that both she and her husband both having backgrounds in the church of Christ, neither her or her husband acknowledged this fact at any time during the conference in my hearing.  All the other participants affiliation with sectarian denominations were clearly noted.  According to comments made at the 2016 Pepperdine Lectures, Dr. Leonard Allen, Dr. Holly Allen's husband, openly admitted to their attending the radically emergent ETHOS CHURCH (http://www.ethoschurch.org/) in downtown Nashville, TN.
(9) Bio on Dr. Leonard Allen: http://www.lipscomb.edu/www/bio/detail/1248
(10) Per comments made by Dr. Leonard Allen as he welcomed the conference participants to Lipscomb University on the evening of 25 June 2017.

The Salvation of the Gentiles!

Does Acts 15 teach the addition of instrumental music in New Testament worship by default?

http://youtu.be/h4W3VtI-aNo

12 Polemicists of the New and Old Testaments

“Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.”

– Alexander Hamilton

A debate is an examination of the perceived benefits of one opinion as opposed to another.  At the end of a debate there is often a common ground established between the opposing parties forming a framework for a final consensus.  A good illustration of a debate is a legislative process known as reconciliation.  The Senate has a bill as well as the House.  Reconciliation finds common ground that becomes the final bill.  Everyone “wins” and everyone “loses.”  Think of a debate as “verbal negotiation” where both parties surrender some ground to the other party in order to achieve a common goal.  The result?  Two winners, no losers.

On the other hand, a polemic is a verbal contest of one conviction versus another.  There are no compromises, winner takes all.  Wikipedia defines “polemic” thusly; “…a polemic is intended only to establish the truth of a point of view while refuting the opposing point of view.”  Think of a polemic as “verbal combat” that “takes no prisoners.”  The result?  Victor and vanquished.  In fact, the word “polemic” comes from the Greek word polemos meaning “war.”  According to Merriam Webster on line dictionary the first known use of the word “polemic” is traced to 1638.  Wikipedia asserts that “polemic” did not come into common usage until 1815 – 1820.  It’s use was not common early on as it is not listed in Webster’s 1828.

In our day and time, the clear difference between debate and polemics is blurred nearly to extinction.  Our post-modern existential culture, not recognizing truth of any kind, asserts that there is no such thing as a “conviction,” there is only the ever changing opinion.  Increasingly those holding true convictions, the polemics among us if you please, are seen as “narrow minded,” “judgmental,” “bigoted” and “hateful.”  To espouse any kind of “absolute” assaults the primary “virtue” of our culture…”tolerance.”

Spiritually speaking, even a casual examination of the Bible reveals a multitude of polemic episodes from Genesis to Revelation!  The first polemic contest in the Bible takes place while Adam and Eve are still in the garden, though not for long.

 

God: “...thou shalt surely die!”

Satan: “…thou shalt NOT surely die!”[1]

 

God took no prisoners, as the polemic promise of Christ striking Satan’s head took place on Resurrection Morning!  Nearly every page of the Bible is polemic in nature.  Good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, bitter vs. sweet, truth vs. falsehood, obedience vs. rebellion, faith vs. unbelief.  Many scriptures set the Christians polemic paradigm but two are prominent, II Corinthians 6.14 – 18 and I Peter 3.13 – 16.  In the II Corinthians passage Paul sets the polemic stage in the most stark contrast possible in the rhetorical question format. Peter pulls out his “metaphorical sword” and challenges us all to be ready for the polemic contest.  For those inclined to “tolerance,” “coexistence,” “opinion” and “accommodation,” the Bible will prove unsettling.  If one finds polemics uncomfortable, one will certainly find the Bible even more disturbing.  Polemicists abound in God’s Word!   Let’s examine 12 of the Bibles most prominent polemicists:

1.   CHRIST – Our Lord and Savior uttered the most polemic statement of all time: “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life.  NO MAN comes to the Father EXCEPT by me!” – John 14.6

2.   PAUL – Paul had polemic encounters nearly everywhere he went: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” – Acts 17.30

3.   JOHN THE BAPTIST – The tenacity of John was admired by Christ as he truly was a polemicist “faithful unto death.” – “…Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” – Matthew 14.3 – 4

4.   PETER & JOHN – After being threatened by the Sanhedrin for speaking in Jesus’ Name, Peter and John offer up a polemic remembered by many even today: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” – Acts 4.12

5.   STEPHEN – Having been arrested for speaking in the Forbidden Name, Stephen issues a polemic challenge to the Sanhedrin: “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.  Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?  They killed those who previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.” – Acts 7.51 – 53

6.   JEREMIAH – The “Weeping Prophet” never converted anyone but his polemics are still honored by God’s people.  He stood up to the king and his entire nation issuing one polemic challenge after another.  “Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am giving this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire.  You will not escape from his hand, for you will surely be captured and delivered into his hand; and you will see the king of Babylon eye to eye, and he will speak to you face to face, and you will go to Babylon.’” - Jeremiah 34.2b – 3

7.   MOSES – The polemic war between Moses and Pharaoh is iconic.  Who could ever forget; “The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, “Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness.  But behold, you have not listened until now.” - Exodus 7.16

8.   ELIJAH – As polemics go, no confrontation between good and evil is more poignant than the face off on top of Mt. Carmel between Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal! – Observe  his polemic public prayer shouted out loud for all to hear; “O Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and I have done all these things at Your word.  Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that You, O Lord, are God , and that You have turned their heart back again.” - I Kings 18.36 – 40

9.   SHADRACH, MESHACH & ABEDNEGO – It was like a spiritual “shoot out at the O.K. Coral.”  With a backdrop of the “Fiery Furnace,” Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego drew a line in the sand for King Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful man in the world: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter.  If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” – Daniel 3.16b - 18

10.               JOSHUA & CALEB – Jesus enjoins us all to remain “faithful unto death.”  When Joshua and Caleb were faced with death by stoning they continued to lay down their polemic challenge to the rebellious Israelis; “The land which we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land.  If the Lord is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us – a land which flows with milk and honey.  Only do not rebel against the Lord; and do not fear the people of the land, for they will be our prey.  Their protection has been removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them.” Numbers 14.1 - 10

11.               SAMUEL – One man of God transitioned Israel from foreign subjection to the dawn of power and prosperity.  The first king of Israel, Saul, turned out to be a rebellious apostate requiring Samuel to polemically challenge him.  “Is it not true, though you were little in your own eyes, you were made the head of the tribes of Israel?  And the Lord anointed you king over Israel, and the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.’  Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord, but rushed upon the spoil and did what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” - I Samuel 15.17 – 19

12.               NATHAN – One can imagine just how difficult a polemic is when    the opposition is a good friend and brother.  Such was the case with Nathan the prophet.  He was the personal prophet and confidant of his good friend, King David.  Despite his personal feelings towards the king, Nathan does not shirk from his polemic responsibilities.  "You are the man! Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.  And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.  Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.  Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'  Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.  For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'"  - I Samuel 12.1 – 14

 

Thank God He speaks to us through His word polemically, candidly, forthrightly and clearly!  We are challenged by Him to speak the same way to those who are outside of Gods will for “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God!”   May those hearers have “ears to hear” the polemics of God.

 

-      Russ McCullough / 9 April 2013

---

[1] All Scripture references are from either the King James, English Standard or New American Standard versions.

A Case For Engagement

During the War Between the States there was a cavalry engagement at Thompson's Station, TN near Nashville.  The Southern force was being pressed from both their front and rear.  When asked for orders the Southern commander replied; "Charge in both directions!"  They won the day.

I am reminded of that line in the great hymn, Just As I Am.  

Fightings within and fears without, oh Lamb of God, I come, I come!

The church of Christ today continues to face the foes of sin and strife from outside the body of Christ as she has since the beginning.  She is also facing today those within who are attempting her destruction.  Jude refers to these as those "who have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation..." - Jude 4 (ESV)  In a way of speaking, they "came in through the side door unnoticed."

None of us can judge anyone else among us, that is up to God and only God.  However, there are those who insist upon the division of the Body of Christ in order to possess the instrument.  It truly is an "instrument of division."  They must be confronted, engaged and stopped!  Paul clearly teaches in Romans 14.23 that if any Christian holds a divisive opinion he "should keep it between (him)self and God." (ESV)  Regardless of all the biblical reasons to reject the instrument, it should NEVER be adopted for it divides the Body of Christ.  Not only does it divide the Body as a whole, it often divides congregations.  Many "double minded" elderships purposely divide their flocks between so-called "traditional" and "contemporary" worship hours.  Two worships, two assemblies and two interpretations of the Bible. Which is right?  Which is wrong?  Who is right?  Who is wrong?  James tells us that "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways." - James 1.8.  Elijah the great prophet asked the Baal worshiping Israelites of his day; "How long will you go limping between two different opinions?" - I King 18.21b (ESV)  There is no such thing as a "multiple truth" where both parties can be right before God simultaneously while advocating two different things.

The instrument cannot be both right and wrong!

 "IF" we assert that the instrument is wrong we must say so!  If we no longer believe it we must adopt it's use and begin teaching that those who fail to use it are in error before God.  Compromise is not an option for compromise is just another word for surrender and lukewarmness.  It is time we engaged the dividers of the Body with the truth proclaimed in love.

In times past brethren who disagreed would hold a public, logical, reasonable and monitored debate so that ideas and facts could be presented in a non-emotional setting.  Today, debates in the true sense of the word are nearly extinct.  Taking their place today are  un-monitored, emotional and opinionated rantings in the most prominent media vehicle among churches of Christ, The Christian Chronicle.  In the current on-line edition of the paper (today being 14 May 2012) there appears an article examining the question as to whether or not the instrument faction is seeing a rise in attendance because of the devise.  As I am writing this article there have been 36 responses.  Of those responses, only 4 quote or refer to any Scripture!  That makes only 11.1% of those responses, at least partly, based on Scripture.  This writer attempted on several occasions over the last two days to post Scripture based responses but, for whatever reason, they are no longer there.

Why assert engagement?  James makes it simple; "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." - James 5.19-20 (ESV)

Won't YOU engage?  Just go to this link, scroll to the bottom and write your Scripture based comments for all our erring brethren to see.  Perhaps some will repent!

http://www.christianchronicle.org/blog/2012/05/are-the-instrumental-christian-churches-really-experiencing-phenomenal-growth/

The general flavor of the comments posted rest upon the assumption that to use or not to use the instrument is just an "opinion."  God does not really care if we do or not use it - so appears the typical sentiment.  In fact, there is a certain syncretistic overtone to all of this, a sort of "we can have it both ways" if you please.    This reminds me of the syncretism of the State of Israel from the time of Jeroboam until the Babylonian exile.    Websters On Line Dictionary defines the term as: "the combination of different forms of belief and practice."  ["We will take the instrument while you do not but your'e o.k. and I'm o.k.  We both can be right though our faith and practice is 180 degrees apart."]  THEY wanted it both ways; "We can serve Yahweh AND Baal!"  "Not only that we can change the priesthood, we can alter the focus of our worship and we can change the place of worship.  God won't care..."  Well, He DID care.  He sent prophet after prophet, not to those outside of the covenant, but to those "wandering sinners" inside the covenant.  These prophets were not so-called "defenders of the faith," they were proclaimers of a message of repentance.  That, my friends, is OUR role as we seek to lovingly engage the advocates of the "instrument of division." Our engagement is one of repentance, renewal and restoration while God's mercy tarries.  The need is eternally urgent for we can see, as it were, the dust of the approaching Babylonians just over the next hill. 

Growing Papal Influence Within Emerging churches of Christ – Apostasy Redux?

How the “Tail of Tradition” is Wagging the “Theological Dog” in a Growing Number of Congregations Among Us

Benedictine Papal Coat of Arms rendering courtesy of Wikepedia.com

All over our fair city one is finding advertisements for many “holy week” observances. Here, and elsewhere, congregations claiming to be churches of Christ are advertising “holy week” observances such as  “Good Friday” and / or “Easter” worship services.  We must, therefore, ask the question; “Are these celebrations biblical?”  Did Jesus and His Apostles command such celebrations?  Did the Apostles celebrate these things themselves?  Did they even infer that such celebrations were allowed?  The answer is a resounding, NO!

From Matthew to Revelation we find nary a trace of anything called “Holy Week.”  To add such celebrations to the Holy Scripture would be presumptuous, arrogant and wrong.  How, then, did the several observances of “Holy Week” come into being?  The so-called “Holy Week” has six components:

·         Ash Wednesday

·         Lent

·         Palm Sunday

·         Maundy Thursday

·         Good Friday

·         Easter Sunday

What do all of these celebrations have in common?  They are all Roman Catholic in origin and have “meanings” that are allegorically assigned.   Allegorical interpretive methods were adopted by the apostate church beginning in the 2^nd century based most notably upon the teachings of the so-called “church father,” Origen.  Origen taught that all Scripture has multiple meanings and each individual can interpret the Scripture based upon their own individual experiences, understandings and stories.  The RCC then began to assign “meanings” to Scripture erroneously (in error.)  Strangely, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that these celebrations were unknown in the first century:

…there seems much to suggest that the Church in the Apostolic Age designed to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ, not by an annual, but by a weekly celebration.[1]

Before you take umbrage at your writer, the claim that Origen’s Platonic philosophy[2] is the foundation of “tradition over revelation,” please note that such is not my claim but the claim of Pope Benedict XVI himself!  Here is what the self-proclaimed “vicar of Christ” said about Origen just five years ago this month:

In our meditations on the great figures of the ancient Church, today we will get to know one of the most outstanding. Origen of Alexandria is one of the key people for the development of Christian thought. He draws on the teachings he inherited from Clement of Alexandria, whom we reflected upon last Wednesday, and brings them forward in a totally innovative way, creating an irreversible turn in Christian thought.  He was a true teacher; this is how his students nostalgically remembered him: not only as a brilliant theologian, but as an exemplary witness of the doctrine he taught.  In substance, he grounded theology in the explanations of the Scriptures; or we could also say that his theology is the perfect symbiosis between theology and exegesis. In truth, the characterizing mark of Origen's doctrine seems to reside in his incessant invitation to pass from the letter to the spirit of the Scriptures, to progress in the knowledge of God.  And this "allegoristic" approach, wrote von Balthasar, coincides precisely "with the development of Christian dogma carried out by the teachings of the doctors of the Church," who -- in one way or another -- accepted the "lesson" of Origen. In this way, Tradition and the magisterium, foundation and guarantee of theological research, reach the point of being "Scripture in act."[3]

Just what does the pope mean when he uses the phrase “Scripture in act?”  He means that, based upon Origen, church tradition in practice…over time…becomes “revelation.”  In other words, church tradition practiced over time TRUMPS Scripture!  Thus, even though NONE of these “holy week” observances are commanded, exampled or inferred in the Word of God…they are “Scripture in act” due to their centuries old practice by papal directive…according to the pope. 

Here is a short history of these allegorical additions to God’s complete Will…“the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”  -  Jude 3 (KJV):

1)    1) ASH WEDNESDAY – Ash Wednesday is the beginning of the 40 days of Lent.  The name comes from the practice of taking the ashes from the previous years burnt palm leaves form “Palm Sunday” and spreading them on the foreheads of parishioners in the form of a cross.  This is said to be representative of “mourning and repentance.”  This supposedly prepares the adherents for the 40 days of Lent following. Historically, Ash Wednesday was first celebrated annually beginning around the year 960.

2)      2) LENT – The word “Lent” is from the old English word lencten which means to “lengthen” and was used to describe the longer days of the spring season.  The time span of “Lent” was totally allegorical and imaginative.  It was based upon the fact that Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness as He prepared for His temptation.  Other allegorical assignments were also made:

The duration of the season of Lent is based on the ancient church custom of requiring catechumens to undergo a forty-day period of doctrinal instruction and fasting before being baptized on the evening before Easter.  This probationary period was called the quarantine (from the Latin word for forty). [4]

The annual celebration of Lent dates to the mid 5^th century and is noted by several church historians of that time; Leo, Socrates and Jerome.

3)      PALM SUNDAY – Palm Sunday was never celebrated in the apostolic era and apparently not annually celebrated until the 6^th century at the very earliest.[5]

4)      MAUNDY THURSDAY – Thursday is the traditional day of the Lord’s Supper.  “Maunday” comes from the Latin term mandatum novum, meaning new commandment.  It is also known as “Holy Thursday” or “Green Thursday.”

Zelený čtvrtek (Green Thursday) is how the Czechs and Moravians refer to Maundy Thursday. One explanation is that in many places, before the thirteenth century, green vestments were used for the Mass that day. Another is that this is a reference to "the Green Ones," the penitents who, being re-admitted to the Church, wore sprigs of green herbs to express their joy.[6] 

5)      GOOD FRIDAY – The annual celebration of both Good Friday and Easter date to, at the earliest, the 2^nd century A.D.  Though unknown in the 1^st century, these two festivals were the earliest of practiced “Holy Week” observances from a historical standpoint.

6)      EASTER – The word “Easter” comes from the old Anglo-Saxon word, eostre.  The word generally came to refer to the “spring season.”  It has clear pagan overtones since the word was the name for the so-called goddess of spring:

This mythical figure is said to have been the goddess of the sunrise and the spring. She is the Teutonic goddess of the dawn. The direction of the sunrise, East, is named for her. In Norse mythology, the name is spelled Eostare. Another considered the Norse/Saxon goddess of spring is Ostara. Eastre is believed to be an ancient word for spring.[7]

CONCLUSION:

Any and all “Holy Week” celebrations are at best extra-biblical and at worst un-biblical.  They are all allegorical, presumptuous and self centered.  They were created by men for men and do not glorify God in any way, shape, matter or form.  We were called, not to “Holy Week” but to holy living!  We celebrate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ EVERY Lord’s Day during the Lord’s Supper and not during an annual celebration of so-called “Holy Week.” 

With all due love and respect for our erring brethren, the embrace of Roman Catholic “holy week” (or significant parts thereof) tradition constitutes a theological un-equal yoking with un-believers.  Sadly, a large number of churches of Christ are now heeding the words of Pope Benedict XVI more than the words of God’s Holy Word by accepting, instead, the magisterium.  For a biblical perspective on how God wants us to remember the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, read I Corinthians 11. 23 – 34.  Let us go back to the Bible and avoid an apostasy redux.

– Russ McCullough – 8 April 2012

---

NOTE: An "Emerging church of Christ" is a congregation focusing on it's own "theological evolution" rather than eternal and static truth.  For more information on the "emerging church," read Brian McLaren's 
A Generous Orthodoxy.


[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm

[2] Plato understood Homer allegorically and so Origen taught that God’s Word could be understood allegorically as well.  An allegory is a fictional illustration of a point of fiction.  Such allegories have multiple meanings and multiple interpretations – after all, it’s only fiction!

[3] Origene: il mondo, Cristo e la Chiesa," tr. it., Milano 1972, p. 43. (Benedict XVI. Homily On Origen of Alexandria. Vatican City. Zenit - April 25, 2007).  [RM NOTE: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia On Line, Magesterium & Tradition is defined thusly: “The word refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission.”]

[4] http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/lent.htm#WHAT DOES THE WORD "LENT" MEAN?

[5] http://www.orlutheran.com/html/holyweek.html

[6] http://www.myczechrepublic.com/czech_culture/czech_holidays/easter/green_thursday.html

[7] http://www.allabouthistory.org/origin-of-the-word-easter-faq.htm

EXegesis and EISigesis - An Analysis

There is a world war being fought with renewed intensity these days. It is a war, not of guns and bullets, but one of truth and error. This war began in the second century and continues to this very moment. It is a war of biblical interpretation.

The Scripture is very clear about what it is and how it is to be interpreted. Two passages come quickly to mind:

II Peter 1:19-21 – We have also a more sure word of prophecy; to which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (American Standard Version(ASV)

II Timothy 3:16-17 – All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works. (ASV)

These verses are saliently clear, ALL Scripture is inspired of God and Scripture is not to be interpreted according to one’s own emotions, feelings or opinions. This was the un-contested understanding of the early church. However, near the end of the 2nd century, this began to change. Origen of Alexandria began to teach that the Scripture had “multiple meanings” and that each person could “interpret” each Scripture “allegorically,” i.e. according to their own individual experiences. This philosophy, grounded in the pagan Homeric Greek philosophy of Plato, took hold in the apostate church and holds sway to this very day. It is a philosophy embraced by the Roman Catholic Church and “emergent” theologians such as Brian McLaren. It is a man centered philosophy that essentially places God in a secondary position in the search for and the establishment of truth. Mechanically, this “allegorical method” is one that looks inside the Sacred Writ and allows the seeker to “pour in” his or her own “meaning” into the passage. The “truth” that is therefore “discovered” is of the making of the seeker and in the “image” of man. This is what Paul warned of in Romans 1:25 when the “interpreters” of his day…”changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” (Webster' 1833 Bible) This madness is known to us today as eisigesis (ice-a-gee-sis). A relative new term coined ca. 1878, eisigesis is defined as;

“The interpretation of a text…by reading into it one’s own ideas.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster, Inc. Publishers, Springfield, MA, 1991), pg. 399)

To coin a phrase, for one to embrace eisigesis in the pursuit of truth would lead one’s search for salvation onto the “thin ice.” Eisigesis has brought us everything from 2nd century Gnosticism to 19th century liberalism to the so-called “Emergent church” of today. The process takes one in circles, always searching and yet never finding. Eisigesis allowed King Saul to rationalize keeping alive the king of Amalek as well as the best of the herds and flocks instead of utterly destroying them as God had clearly commanded in I Samuel 15. Today, eisigesis allows men and women to rationalize all kinds of things un-biblical though the Scripture clearly teaches that additions and subtractions to God’s Word are strictly forbidden as we see in Proverbs 30:6.

There we are enjoined to “…not add to His words or He will rebuke you and prove you to be a liar.” (Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.)

On the other hand, those who wish to honor God and move “neither to the right or to the left,” view Scripture from an exegesis [ex-a-gee-sis (“ex” – out of)] basis. Exegesis is what Jesus Christ referred to as “having ears to hear.” It is the mindset that instead of injecting our own opinions into the Scripture, we humbly extract God’s will for us from the Scripture without question or argument. The exegete is totally subservient to his or her Lord and Master’s Word, the final say in the on-going war of biblical interpretation. In I Samuel 15, Samuel was the exegete while Saul was the eisigete. Samuel is now honored among the faithful while Saul was removed from the throne of Israel. Just how we interpret God’s Word has the most serious of consequences.

Eisigesis views the Word of God as a collection of “stories, historical fiction and fables” to be “interpreted” via one’s own life’s experiences rendering God a god of “confusion” and “contradiction.” It produces a foundation of sand causing both spiritual collapse and spiritual death. The end of eisigesis is unbelief and the end of unbelief is death eternal.

Exegesis views the Word of God as 100% “God breathed,” “Holy Spirit inspired” and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (Websters 1833 Bible, op. cit., II Timothy 3:16) It has nothing to do with our own life’s experiences, opinions or conjectures. It is not influenced by circumstance or any kind of pragmatically conceived benefit. It produces a foundation of rock solid faith rendering both spiritual stability and spiritual life. The end of exegesis is belief and the end of belief is life eternal.

So dear reader, which are you, an “ice” or an “ex?” Heaven and hell anxiously await your response.

Why Does An Agnostic Need A Bible Commentary? - A Review of a Review

“Ag-nos-tic –One that holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.” – Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers, Springfield, MA, 1991) pg. 65

It is such a surreal time in which we live. I grew up in Hampton, VA on a little twenty four home street called Briar Drive. Between the years of 1957 – 1969, there was only one family living on that street that did not attend some church of some kind. There were Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Adventists, Pentecostals and our family…members of the Lord’s church. There was only one family that never attended a church of some kind. That family lived across the street from us and they took their boat out every Sunday instead of attending worship somewhere. However, they were not atheists or agnostics.

I remember studying about atheists in school. Atheists lived in Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba...they were all communists. The only other atheists I ever heard of were the defeated fascists of Germany and Japan. I can’t remember when I first gave a conscious thought about agnosticism. I was grown before I actually met anyone claiming to be an agnostic. [Of course since agnostics, by definition are not sure about anything, they may be theists one day and atheists the next!] In the intervening years between then and now, rightly or wrongly, I began to think in terms that agnosticism seemed most prevalent among drug addicts, rock and roll groupies and growing numbers of college professors. Soon I noticed that it was creeping into the mainstream Protestant denominations, Unitarians and a few other groups. Agnosticism was not main-stream and it certainly had no place in the churches of Christ!

Fast forward to 2008…all that has changed. For reasons I cannot easily understand, our Christian colleges and many of our “mega-churches” are awash with agnostics! [For the purpose of this discussion, agnostics are doubters of the veracity of Scripture and by logical extension…doubters of the Divinity of Jesus Christ] Of course, we must scratch our heads and wonder WHY would an agnostic bother attending worship, put their hand-wringing doubts into endless reams of media and choose a career in “ministry?” Really…what can one palm sweating doubter do for another?

Without answering the “why” question of agnosticism I want to address the fact that these “Christian-agnostics” now have their own entire Bible commentary! It’s like running into your lung doctor and notice he’s smoking a cigar! What’s up with that?! Why would agnostics need comments on that which is unknowable and un-provable?

Simply this…post-modernist “Christians” embrace contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty instead of peace, harmony, revelation and truth. This new one-volume commentary, therefore, is allegorical, circular and emergent. It embraces contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty as a “spiritual narcotic” to numb the soul of the reality of sin, death, judgment and hell.

In the false tradition of Origen, “post-modern Christian agnostics,” instead of simply hearing the Word of God for what it plainly says, search for endless multiple “hidden meanings” lurking behind every jot and tittle. Every person, therefore, ends up with their own “personal truth” which contradicts every other persons “personal truth.” To the “post-modern Christian agnostic,” the only certainty contained in the Scripture is uncertainty! The Holy Bible winds up being just a big allegorical story book. THIS is the foundational sand upon which is built the new Christian / agnostic Bible commentary,

The Transforming Word

, (ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 2008).

Found in the current issue of the

Christian Chronicle

is a review of this volume. [Harold Shank,

The Christian Chronicle

, “Scholars Find Merit, Drawbacks in The Transforming Word,” September 26, 2008 – NOTE: Both brothers May and Briley quote from the commentary though the quotes are never identified by either contributor or location within the volume.] The volume is a compilation of some 30 contributors. The names remain unknown to me at the time of this writing. According to brother Shank the 30 contributors “are representatives of eight colleges and universities associated with churches of Christ.” The review is actually two reviews, one written by brother Cecil May, Jr. of Faulkner University from a generally LINEAR view and one written by brother Terry Briley of Lipscomb University from a generally ALLEGORICAL view. Unfortunately, neither brother exposes the commentary for what it is, an enabler for doubting Christians that should be avoided, especially by NEW Christians. Sadly, neither men mention the fact that there are a multitude of commentaries available that are far better suited for study by men and women of faith. Neither men warn elders of the dangers of the dubious contents of this book. The purpose of this blog posting is to hoist those warnings aloft. We would encourage all brethren to refrain from the purchase of this volume and here are the reasons why:

1. Beginning with the very title of the book, this volume takes us into the murky madness of post-modern and emerging theology. This past week end a prominent former secretary of state endorsed one of the two major political candidates, describing this candidate as “transformational.” “Transformational” is a post-modern buzz word that means “constant change,” a take-off of the “continuous improvement” business theory of the last decade or two. In other words, this candidate has no core values or convictions, only ever changing and ever evolving opinions…there is no permanency about this person…and this is seen as “good” by post-modern people who reject the notion of the existence of ultimate truth. These people used to be referred to as “pragmatists” but too many of us have caught on to that word, hence the replacement word “transformational” to keep us all off guard. One, at first glance, might look at the title, The Transforming Word, and assume that it means the Word of God that transforms ME. Unfortunately, what the title, The Transforming Word, really means is that the Word of God, instead of being eternal, unchanging and true is being sold as a “living, breathing document” that changes generationaly. Not only that, to the “post-modern agnostic Christian,” the Word of God becomes nothing more than a personal “Gumby” ® for all of us to manipulate allegorically as we please. Origen would be delighted!

2. The book, by premise according to the review, rejects the fact that Jesus built but one church, the church of Christ. Instead, the authors embrace the self-identified denominational title for our fellowship which they call the “Stone-Campbell Movement.” Pray tell, dear brothers, did God add the Pentecostians to the “Stone-Campbell Movement?” Stone and Campbell were added to the same church the Pentecostians were added to at the time of their baptism into Christ! If these brethren were sincere about this so-called “movement,” they would post it on their church buildings! And…I wish they would! By so doing, non-Christians would not get the truth confused with error! Every emergent “church of Christ” should change their name to “So and So Stone-Campbell Fellowship.” To claim to be the “church of Christ” AND the “Stone-Campbell Movement” is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. This kind of “dual track identity” is an existential embrace of chaos, confusion and contradiction making the adherents to such “double minded and unstable in all their ways,” alluding to James 1:7’s discussion of doubt. We don’t follow Stone and Campbell, we follow Christ! We should look to Stone and Campbell for history, not theology. We are not sanctified by Stone and Campbell, we are “sanctified by truth, the Word of God!” – John 17:17 Neither Stone nor Campbell were crucified for us and, therefore, none of us were baptized into the name of either Stone or Campbell…alluding to Paul’s inspired illustration to the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 1.

3. At least some of the contributors deny the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch. Brother May quotes a passage: “The Pentateuch appears to preserve several streams of tradition that did not necessarily originate at the same time and place.” Wow… “IF” we follow this “logic,” we MUST conclude that Jesus Christ was either ignorant of the facts, or worse, steeped in deception when he clearly declared, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” [John 5:46-47 (NKJV)] Jesus CLEARLY claims a singular Moses as author of the Pentateuch! If for ANY reason, Jesus is mistaken on this salient point, Jesus Christ is NOT divine. Another point to ponder… “IF” there were multiple “Moses’,” which Moses appeared on the mount of transfiguration with Elijah and Christ? Or perhaps, were there some 47 Moses’ standing on the mount with Elijah and Christ? Perhaps the name “Moses” was a singular name for a large group of individual people?

This is the kind of manic-depressive existential nonsense we wind up with “IF” we adopt Origen’s allegorical, multiple and hidden meaning approach to biblical interpretation!

4. This volume, by insinuation, denies the divinity of Christ for it drops the “Before Christ (B.C.)” designation in lieu of the agnostic / atheist / evolutionist word-smith of “Before the Common Era (B.C.E.)” The so-called “Common Era” designation favors the so-called “HISTORICAL” Jesus, over the DIVINE Christ revealed in Scripture. The authors have NO reason to make this switch unless they doubt the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by whom the universe was created and by whom the universe is sustained even as we speak!

5. At least some of the contributors reject the fact that there was but a single individual by the name of Isaiah. Here is a quote from the Christian Chronicle review of brother May:

Although Isaiah was an eighth century prophet, “the book’s composer” is said to have put the book together “at the end of the fifth century BCE.” Chapters 1-39 are Isaiah’s messages “preserved, deleted, modified, rearranged and expanded…for application in new situations.” Chapters 40 to 55 are primarily the work of a “sixth century BCE exilic prophet.” Later we read, “Passages in chapters 56 to 66 date originally from the period of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple (536-516 B.C.E.) to rebuilding its walls (about 445 – 432 B.C.E.).

“IF” we accept the “logic” of this volume, we will have to acknowledge that Jesus Christ did not
know that there were “actually three Isaiah’s!” This kind of arrogant senus plenoir “reasoning” would mean that the authors of this work have “new revelation” that somehow eluded even Jesus Christ! As with the point made on the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch, this would render Our Lord and Savior mere mortal and no more divine than you and I. My brothers, this allegorical, “fuller sense,” subjective, multiple and hidden meaning and circular interpretation method renders man “superior” to God and thus no longer responsible for his sin. Like the theory of evolution, Origen’s methods are designed to render the judgment of God of none effect.

6. This volume, being largely interpreted allegorically, strips the Old Testament of its powerful and prolific prophesy of the coming of Jesus Christ and His church! Such “interpretation” renders the inspired Word of God as effective as a de-clawed and toothless lion in the wilds of the jungle. Not only that, the volume accuses the New Testament writers of brazen manipulation and fraud! Here is the quote from brother May:

There is no unequivocal specific prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ and / or the church in the Old Testament. New Testament speakers reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament texts to Christ and / or the church.

Wow… The agnosticism of such a statement is horrific! Paul was a deceiver. The Hebrew writer was a deceiver. And…Jesus Christ Himself was a deceiver “IF” the above statement is true! As previously cited, Jesus Christ committed out and out fraud by claiming that “He (Moses) wrote of Me” “IF,” in fact he (or “them” as the commentary would assert!) did not. This quote is so agnostic to the extreme I wonder if perhaps Brian McLaren penned it himself!

7. A least some of the contributors deny the inspirational veracity of the book of Jonah. Here is a quote from brother Briley:

With regard to the historicity of Jonah, the commentary on this prophetic book lists various views of its nature: “a historical account, legend, fable, novella, allegory, parable, satire, narrative, midrash, or didactic story.” It [the author – RM] concludes that Jonah “is probably a religious drama” composed sometime after the Babylonian exile. This interpretation remains somewhat ambiguous regarding the historical reality of the events described in Jonah.

Here is yet another assault upon the divinity of Jesus Christ for our Lord cited the 100% historicity of Jonah’s account! In fact, “IF” Jonah is not historically accurate, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ never took place! Let’s hear our Lord speak: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” – Matthew 12:41 [NKJV]. Not only did Jesus assert the historicity of Jonah’s time in the “belly of the great fish,” he says “so will be the Son of Man in the heart of the earth!” Let’s examine the logical and reasonable conclusions:

Jonah + Great Fist + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth

Or

Jonah + Great Fish + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative

My brothers, these are not mere semantics! “IF” Jonah did, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is resurrected! “IF” Jonah did not, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is NOT resurrected! Theology has consequences! The denial of the historicity of Jonah renders Jesus Christ, not only a liar and a deceiver, it nullifies the certainty of the resurrection, Christ is not raised and we are still in our sins! Thank God! Jesus Christ told the truth about Jonah and told the truth about Himself!

8. At least some of the contributors to this volume take a jaded and cynical view towards Dr. Luke. Dr. Luke wrote the finest histories of the latter days, Luke and Acts. However, brother Briley quotes a passage that would see Luke in the light of one of those “talking heads” on cable T. V. news! In the twisted world of allegorical interpretation, Luke is not objective, in fact Luke “spins” the “narrative” pragmatically to suit the preconceived ideas of his audience! Listen up:

…it notes that because Luke “writes to believers, not skeptics, he is more concerned to interpret events that to prove their veracity.

Translation: Luke “spins” the history for his core supporters differently than he would non-core supporters just like the politician that is pro-life in Tennessee and pro-abortion in California! I don’t know about your God, but my God is not a manipulator!

I would be remiss if I did not declare my deepest disappointment with the conclusions of both of the reviewers. Brother May says:

The commentary is a valuable addition to a Bible teacher’s tools, but contains occasional
serious negative distractions to many believers in biblical infallibility.

Even more disappointing are the conclusions of brother Briley:

The results of this brief survey reveal that some writers in

The Transforming Word

who engage the views of contemporary biblical scholarship draw conclusions that will raise questions, especially for readers not conversant with this scholarship. Space limitations do not allow writers to explain fully these difficult and delicate issues.

It should be pointed out, however, that such discussions comprise a very small portion of The Transforming Word. It would be a shame for this review’s treatment of a few challenging passages to overshadow the substantive contributions of the book as a whole.

[NOTE: How many drops of arsenic in a gallon of water is sufficient to kill? Very little I’m afraid. AND…from not too recent history, “Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler reduced unemployment.”]

The editors and authors should be commended for their work on this milestone publishing event. Their goal was not to draw readers into areas of academic debate but to help them “hear afresh transforming words [Generationaly changing words NOT life changing words! – RM] that will quicken the life of the church as it shares in God’s redeeming work in the world.

In conclusion: The Christian Chronicle review fails to adequately warn of the grave errors contained in this volume, though it often “politely” mentions them in a near “the emperor has no clothes” fashion. The Transforming Word appears [I have not yet been able to actually see a copy] from these quotations and others, to be written by and for agnostics and skeptics, in the total allegorical interpretive manner and must be rejected outright, regardless of how much “truth” is found in its pages. The “inclusion” of “truth” with “error” in one volume…we must be reminded…amounts to nothing more than an unequal yoke. Hear once again my brothers the inspired words of Paul:

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will dwell with them and walk with them. I will be their God and they shall be My people.

– II Corinthians 6:14-16 [NKJV]

Russ McCullough
Charlotte, NC
October 24, 2008

Russ McCullough serves as an elder for the Archdale church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina. He maintains a biblical interpretation blog at: http://www.samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com and is the author of the upcoming book,

Emerging Towards Apostasy

, © The book examines the emerging theology among departing churches of Christ driven by post-modern philosophy, Evangelical influence and a resurgence of neo-Gnostic Patristic interpretive models. He can be reached at: rmcculls6@bellsouth.net.