Tactile Inspiration

I was just sitting here watching ESPN's College Gameday and they had a special spot on how most of the high profile college football programs have an inspiration object that they touch for motivation before they run onto the field. This spot chronicled teams such as Notre Dame who has touched their "Play Like a Champion" sign since the Lou Holtz era in 1986 and Texas who touches a pair of long horns before running onto the field.

During this spot the discussion approached near spiritual terms. According to the program, not only do these tactile expressions create motivation, but they also unify the team and create a sense of identity for the players.

As Christians what are we to make of these physical expression of "faith." Should we condemn the practice because these individuals are offering respect and honor to physical objects or should we just play it off as enigmatic of sports and declare that because it is not done in a religious context it has no real spiritual meaning. How do we respond if we realize that we can't dichotomize our spiritual lives from our "regular lives" because all of life is indeed spiritual? I really don't have these answers but this does prove to be an interesting issue. I wrote a bit about the issue of seemingly religious "touching" in conjunction with sports after the Super Bowl in February (here) so you can check those thoughts out if you're interested.

This topic does make me think about our own practices of tactile religious practices. Before relocating to NC I spent about three years attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church. While I am not Orthodox, I don't think my love for Orthodoxy is any secret and I think there are many ways that we Protestants can learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. One of the things that we can learn is that worship, just as much as it is mental and emotional, it is also physical.

Since fully reentering the protestant world there have been many, many times where I have felt my body aching to be involved in the worship of our holy triune God. At times my arms and hands have felt cheated when I was hesitant to make the sign of the cross over my head and chest in holy reverence. My nose has been left out by not being able to smell the incense that symbolizes the prayers of the congregation as they rise to God. My knees have become soft with the lack of bowing and my eyes long to see the beauty of the Father made manifest in the images of his Son and the holy saints. I'm adjusting, and I don't mean this to sound like a complaint against the things we do at my church or against Protestantism in general. But maybe ESPN is right. Maybe we are tactile beings and touching things does inspire us and motivate us. Maybe looking upon a sign and touching a common object can create unity amongst us. And maybe this is part of the reason that the iconoclastic heresy was so detrimental to the faith and was rightfully condemned at the 7th ecumenical council.

Surely our worship practices do more than these sports practices. We do things for more reasons than to inspire, motivate, and create unity amongst ourselves. We are not "spiritual beings having a temporary physical experience" as I once read on a "Christian" bumper sticker. For if that were true then why would Christ our God become truly human and physical in order that we might be fully redeemed. Indeed we are both spiritual and physical and as such our worship must be both physical and spiritual or else by our practice we deny the truth of the incarnation and become no better than the Arian heretics of the First Council of Nicea.

May we all worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with body, mind, and soul.

- Ben

EDIT: Here is the link to the original video from College Gameday.

Gameday: Pregame Touch Traditions

Passion Narratives with Ehrman

This post is long overdue but that's never stopped me before.

I had the chance a couple of weeks ago to see arch-heretic and blasphemer Bart Ehrman's appearance on the Colbert Report. For those of you who don't read much in the field of biblical studies Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who has turned away from the faith and has been publishing books about the Bible is unreliable and is full of mistakes and whatnot. Ehrman continues to go well beyond just technical criticism by attacking the fundamental teachings of Christianity and opting for a form of gnostic belief.

During his interview with Ehrman, Colbert asked him for examples about concerning his view that the gospels just don't fit together. Ehrman cited the passion narratives as a prime example of contradictory textual evidence. He claimed that Jesus' countenance is drastically different in all four narratives and thus they are incompatible and should be jettisoned from belief.

A day or two after seeing this interview I decided to drive to Greensboro to go to an Orthodox church for the vespers of Good Friday with the 12 passion gospels. As I participated 2+ hr evening service I found great delight that not only were we reading the passion narrative of one gospel or two of them but we were reading all the passion narratives interspersed among each other. In this service we slowly walked through the events leading up to the crucifixion, recounting each word, deed, and action portrayed in the readings.

As we slowly read each of the 12 segments from the gospels I couldn't help but think of the interview I saw just days prior. Ehrman looks at the passion narratives and sees contradiction, he sees a mythos about the person of Jesus and because he looks this way he falls deeply into heresy, blasphemy, and life without the living God. The church on the other hand is called to live within the scriptures. We are called to read the scriptures through the lens of faith. We were passed down a tradition from the apostles and it is within that tradition that we read the gospels. We start knowing that Jesus is divine and human and as such we read the scriptures that way. Ehrman on the other hand, starts with the assumption that Jesus is not divine (because scientifically humans can't be divine) and thus the scriptures are wrong and are full of lies and contradictions.

I realize I'm not doing justice nor adding to the conversation of "how to read scripture" but I did want to share this delightful juxtaposition that I experienced.

You can see the Ehrman interview here via Ben Witherinton's blog.

You can also see Witherington's critique of Ehrman's books via his blog if you click here.

I haven't read Witherinton's critiques, but from my experience he does a good job refuting the heretical beliefs of individuals like Ehrman.

Thoughts from Sunday School Prep.

I've been teaching my 8th grade confirmation Sunday school class about the Trinity the past two weeks. I've really enjoyed it even if I was sad that I don't have enough time to really dig deep with them on this issue.

There is one thing that I've been thinking through that has really bothered me the last few days. As I prepare for Sunday school I try to think through various issues the kids may raise and attempt to prepare answers for them. One issue that I've been thinking through in anticipation of the kids was the heresy of Modalism. Even though this issue didn't come up I've been thinking a lot about Modalism the past few days. Just to be clear I'm not thinking about it in a "maybe it's right" sort of way. I completely affirm with the Fathers and the councils that Modalism is a heresy and that it incorrectly describes the Trinity. What I've been thinking about is the soteriological ramifications of modalism.

I've spent the last three years reading, believing, and praying trinitarian doctrine. I affirm the truth brought forth in the seven ecumenical councils of the Church and am resolutely Trinitarian in every way. I can could go on and on explaining why certain Christological heresies strike right at the heart of our ability to be redeemed by God. I can explain to you why it is primarily a salvific issue that Mary be called Theotokos and not Christotokos (as the Nestorian heresy taught), I can tell you how Arianism distorts God's plan of salvation, and I can tell you why I believe that the insertion of the Filoque into the Nicene Creed creates a propensity for Modalism in the West.

Despite all this, when I was thinking about and trying to articulate why we reject I could do no better than penciling down how Modalism is directly contrary to the God explained in scripture. Don't get me wrong, that in and of itself is enough to reject a certain teaching, especially one concerning the Trinity. But I wanted to offer my kids (if they asked, which they didn't) something more than "obviously this isn't how God is spoken about in scriptures." Don't get me wrong, I have a very high view of the scriptures and I believe them to be very clear that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three different persons and yet all fully divine but the scriptures can be distorted and indeed they were used by the modalists to corrupt the teaching of the Godhead.

And so I decided this week that I wasn't going to look up the answer in Pelikan's history, a book on doctrine, or in the works of Irrenaeus and other such prolific defenders of the faith. I decided this because I have no doubts that the belief in Modalism is detrimental to our faith and it corrupts how we think about God. I also know that I have worked through this in the past but am merely drawing a blank. So I ask those of you more theologically astute than I am to post your thoughts on this.

It seems to me the Modalism largely strikes at the incarnation. The description is on the tip of my tongue but I cannot seem to fully articulate it. I had hoped writing this blog post would help me to be able to articulate things but it hasn't worked this time. If each person of the Trinity is not really a person but just a "mode" of God or a temporary manifestation of God (as Modalism teaches) then it seems that something about our redemption in Christ is incomplete. It seems that if Christ is just a mode then was humanity really assumed and redeemed? For we know as St. Basil states; "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed" (paraphrase).

It also seems that if the Spirit is just a mode of some ethereal divine essence then I wonder how fully dwells within believers. I am so frustrated because I sense all these problems with Modalism and yet I cannot fully articulate it. So give input and we can have ourselves a nice old fashioned heresy bashing party.


Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music

I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.

For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.

Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.

Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.

Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.

Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?

I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.


May the faith grow deep within you all

- Ben

Shared Experiences

Much of what is below is still a work in progress (especially given I just started thinking about this about 3 minutes ago) but I wanted to throw it out there before I forgot it (as I usually do).

I was just youtube-ing at work since the student center is completely empty and I have another hour and a half to work, and I came across a sweet video via my friend Tegan's blog. I promptly sent the link to my sister with whom I was IM-ing to pass the time.

After a period of no response from my sister (not an unusual thing) I asked if she watched it yet? She replied that she hadn't and thus I exhorted her to watch "now." I told her it was great and gave her a few reasons to watch it. After prodding her to watched it I began thinking about the youtube phenomenon and blogging and things of that nature.

I began to wonder how much of this is more the desire for shared experience than actually just the dissemination of cool videos and ideas. I'm sure it's a bit of both, but it seems that one of the driving forces behind youtube and really all the internet fads is shared experience.

As I think about this I wonder if this is need or craving for shared experience has helped to feed into the various popular Christian movements over the past few years. Think about the Emergents. What do they emphasize? They build upon a need for experience and collective-ness at the expense of Christian orthodoxy, even to the point of holding heretical views and ignoring essential Christian tenets. I personally am absolutely dismayed that the emergent movement continues to thrive. This is a cancer growing through protestantism that is causing us to forsake the Christian faith all for some sort of collective experience and liberal idealism. In my mind many of the emergents are no better than the heretics of old such as Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc.

I also wonder if desire for shared experience helps to contribute to the Rob Bell craze. While I'm still working on reading through some of this guy's books, I do have to say that I'm not a big fan. His nooma videos are junk and I think they are mostly fueled by this desire for a shared experience or a desire to be 'timely' (see my post: Current? and yes I do realize that I'm being a bit contradictory by posting these thoughts so quickly)

The students here crave Bell and the Emergents. They get all starry-eyed when someone mentions their names and quickly bristle when someone like me says that they're not that great and may indeed hold heretical beliefs (emergents). I find it disturbing that students champion these people and drink the proverbial Kool-Aid so quickly. Why must our shared experience be found in the latest fad and not the timeless beliefs of classic Christian orthodoxy? Why do we champion these new thinkers for innovative ecclesiologies when they lack the substance of the faith and are doing nothing more than leading people down the path to hell with their watered down theology and absence of anything genuine?

If these men and women teach something contradictory to classic Christian Orthodoxy and they cease to become "nice" and "slightly misguided" people that we should learn from and they become impious God-haters (to use some of the phrasing for those anathematized at the ecumenical councils).

Just so I don't get misunderstood and get a ton of backlash let me be clear: I am not calling Rob Bell a heretic. I am also not calling ALL of the Emergents heretics. I have, however, had a conversation with one high-profile Emergent leader in which he claimed the Trinity was just Greek philosophical ideals and not really Christian and thus not a necessary or even important doctrine. I also think that Emergent theology down plays Christian orthodoxy to a dangerous extreme and thus runs fearfully close to falling into heresy (like the aforementioned leader).

My concern is that Asbury Seminary students and undoubtedly students, ministers, and lay people across the country and buying into these faulty paradigms because they desire a shared experience. This is absurd. The shared experience should be the Holy doctrines of the Church which help us to partake of the divine essence of God as St. Peter says. I am absolutely disgusted with the hero worship the students around this campus give to folks like Rob Bell and the emergents.

While the same charge of hero worship could be thrown at me and the way I read the saints of the church, I will just say that my hero's have lasted the test of time, and were actually building up and codifying Christian orthodoxy not ignoring it and leading people astray.

- Ben

Quick Update

If you were wondering how the reader situation described the post below ended up I got an email today that said they were opting to strike the Nestorian Liturgy quote but keep the Origen quote.

I'm not thrilled with this option, but it's a little better and I have to live with it. Personally I think that both should have been taken out of the reader, but I'm not in charge and I can't make those decisions.

So if you're at Asbury and you are using the 2008 Lent reader for your devotions please know that I had nothing to do with that. Also know that I can only place my wholehearted endorsement on the Lent/Easter Day section of the reader. The other half may be great, but I still feel uncomfortable with Origen in the mix. I can appreciate the major contributions that Origen made to biblical studies and I can agree that it sucks that he was condemned a heretic posthumously, but I cannot agree with including him in a devotional reader knowing that he was condemned a heretic by people much wiser and knowledgeable than we are.

I'm sure these last two posts have bored almost all of the 5 people that read this blog so I'll try to post something light and/or funny next time around. Though I'm not making promises.


- Ben

Does anyone care about Christian orthodoxy anymore?!

I should be reading for class right now so I'll try to make this quick. As a few of you probably know, I have spent my last few semesters here working on a couple devotional readers for the seminary for use during the seasons of Lent and KingdomTide (a season created in the 60s or 70s during the season commonly called Pentecost or proper time). I recently finished the Lent/EasterTide reader for 2008, of which I was responsible for all of Lent and Easter Sunday. The EasterTide section was taken by a student down at the Florida campus. In case you're wondering a typical day in the reader would consists of the following:

Opening Prayer - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm or a Saint.
Gospel Reading - We segmented out the Gospel of John for each day on this one.
Historical Reading - A reading form a major figure in Church history. I use mostly cannonized saints (east and west) and John and Charles Wesley.
Prayer of Response - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm, a Saint, or often I will write this to bring more cohesion to the above elements.

Some days will also include an OT reading, or be missing either an historical reading or prayer of response, but you get the idea. The woman with whom I am working at the Florida campus also uses roughly the same format, though I've noticed she likes to bring cohesion by writing more of her own material other than prayers.

Now to the issue that leads to my thoughts:

At the end of the reader we usually write short biographies to help the readership know more about the figures we use. As I was compiling the biographies I noticed that she used two sources that seemed suspect to me: "The Nestorian Liturgy" and Origen.

I took contention to these to figures because both Nestorius and Origen were condemned by the Church (back when it was unified) as heretics. I debated on whether or not to say anything because there is some debate whether Origen actually was a heretic (he was condmned posthumously) and it is popular to quote him. I was going to let Origen slide but I could not remain silent about including part of a heretical liturgy for our campus community to read devotionally. Nestorius (and thus the Nestorians) held that Jesus existed in two persons: Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the man. This means that it was not Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross, but that it was just the man that suffered.

Nestorianism is problematic because, as I believe it was St. Athanasias (though I could be wrong) said, "that which has not been assumed cannot be redeemed." In other words only God could free us from our Sin and thus Jesus Christ who was indeed fully man must be fully God in order for their to be any merit in his death and resurrection. I am aware that this is a truncated argument, but it will have to suffice.

After an exchange of emails she said that she was aware that these men were heretics but that they were condemned under "shady" circumstances and that we can still learn from them because they got "sidetracked." I'd be willing to allow her argument that his condemnation was "shady" to hold a little weight as Origen was dead when this happened, but not Nestorius. And she is dead wrong that Nestorius "got sidetracked" he was confronted by the Church and he refused to deviate his teaching. Nestorius' view strikes at the heart of the incarnation and devalues the entire Christ event. This is not a little slip up, this is huge!

To be fair the readings she included were not in and of themselves heretical. In fact, the small phrases she used were very orthodox, but that is not the point. While it may be important to read these things and talk about them in the classroom to help firm up our foundation on orthodox Christian teaching I do not agree that even the seemingly orthodox statements of heretics should become devotional material. I know that I am dangerously close to separating that which feeds the spirit from that which feeds the soul (something I don't like to do), but we cannot just openly endorse heretics.

I am also confused as to how one can be "open to exploration [of heretics] (as long as it is not teaching heretical stances)." We cannot think that one's heretical beliefs can be fully separate from the rest of one's beliefs. I argue that it is impossible to dichotomize a major belief unit from the rest of one's beliefs. How can one speak praise to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which is what her Nestorian quote consisted of) while holding that the Son - Jesus Christ is two persons. To whom are you giving praise? The Son that is born of Mary and thus fully human or the Son that is only fully God and thus did not really die and rise for our transgressions?

I'm not intending to get on her case, but I do see this as problematic and didn't know how else to discuss it. She means very well, but in my opinion this is a major issue. I think the part that bothers me the most though is the reaction to many of those whom I've shared this with. People just don't care. I know that I'm a church history nerd and I know that I am very excitable when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, but am I really barking up the wrong tree here?

Why are these heresies that strike right at the heart of our faith suddenly open for discussion? Why is it ok to exalt these heretics to such high levels? Do we not care about the Faith?

We fight long and hard about moral issues, but yet we are not willing to fight for the substance of the Faith? The early church fathers saw little to no distinction between right belief and right practice. It is right belief in who Christ is that as Paul teaches is the basis for our right belief. Maybe, just maybe if we worried a little bit about what our faith is saying we would begin to put together correct Christian morality.

Maybe for us (though I think it's a long shot) we need to worry about other things more than doctrine. But even if that is so what kind of faith will we have to pass on to the next generation? If we continue to ignore the substance of faith and allow heretics to pass as Saints we will have no substance to pass on to our children and to their children. I don't believe it's an accident that the earliest Christian hymns and creeds embedded in the New Testament are very doctrinal and Christ focused - the doctrines of right faith are the soil out of which right morality grows.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for immoral behavior. I am just wondering why no one cares about the substance of the faith.

Frankly it just makes me sad.

The issue with the reader is just symptom of what is going on in the Church. We must read heretics as heretics and saints as saints. Heretics have no place in our devotional life and must be read cautiously. We can examine them to help inform as to how we got where we are, but we cannot just flippantly include them in communal devotional reading. Especially reading that as my friend Anna pointed out is inherently not conversational with the work or others. In my opinion the inclusion of a figure in the reader implies their endorsement for those who don't have the time or desire to read a lot of these figures. These quotes may get used in sermons, bible studies, and youth group lessons. These quotes may get googled and used within the context of the whole. My biggest fear with the quote form the Nestorian liturgy is that some student hoping to do a nice 'emergent' liturgical service will Google the liturgy and unknowingly have his or her parishioners partake in a heretical liturgy. For what we practice will slowly become embedded in us and become part of our belief system. This is one of the reasons why we must continue to celebrate the creeds in our services. But that's another post for another time.

As always I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter even if you disagree with me, as I'm sure many of you will given the reaction I've gotten so far from some friends.

Ray Boltz is a heretic and other thoughts from church on Sunday

I'm not sure if anyone else even knows who Ray Boltz is, but he was a Christian pop singer in the early 90's that was quite popular with our parents generation. Ol' Ray had a sweet curly mullet sorta thing going on with a huge 'stache he was the archetype for the mid-life crisis wanna be "rock/pop star" for the Christian worldview. I'm very familiar (as I'm sure my sister is) with Boltzy because my dad became a huge fan during a Promise Keepers crusade back in the day. Our house and somehow our church became a Ray Boltz extravaganza and I'm sure there are many kids from our church (like myself) that could sing almost all of Ray Ray's songs from memory. Although all the above information is greatly important (or not so much) the point of this post is really not to bash Ray, and his sweet moustache, the point it rather to address theological ideal espoused in one of his songs and indeed much of western theology.

The song I want to draw attention to is "One Drop of Blood" (lyrics: here) and to be honest Ray is primarily guilty of mixing metaphors and not necessarily heresy per se. The metaphors he mixes (and I could be wrong so please correct me) is at the beginning he seems to assert "the accuser of the brethren" is demanding the the plea and later in the song he seems to be saying that the one to whom "their righteousness is filthy rags" is demanding the payment. Either way the music video (yes I've seen it) is what caused me to think of this song in church. In it Ray Ray depicts the courtroom where he stands accused by the prosecutor (probably a satanic figure) and it is the judge (set up as the Father) demands payment.

While we may vary on our theologies of atonement let me humbly suggest that the way this penal substitutionary view has worked itself out since St. Anselm is near heretical.

This is where we get to church. The priest at my church was talking about the cross on Sunday and how there is a view of the cross as a divine extraction of justice. When he was describing all this the scenes from Ray's video kept coming to mind. While my priest did not specifically say this view is heretical let me explain the process that caused me to think this.

This divine extraction of justice is often portrayed in a courtroom setting (as Ray does) and depicts the Father as Judge and sometimes even accuser. This image also portrays Christ as defense and substitution. This image often sets the Father up as condemning and the Son as mercifully intervening. This view seems to violate the essential doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and Christ are not opposed and neither do they have contrary wills. We should not allow analogies of atonement in our churches that are contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine of the church. We cannot and must not see the Father as a vengeful judge and Christ as a merciful ambassador. This dichotomy cannot stand! How can we assert that the Trinity is of one essence and yet has three different wills. Correct Christian theology has always taught that the Trinity is united in will because the three persons are united in essence. Three persons and one substance. This implies that it was not the Father mandating the sending of the Son, but rather the Holy Trinity participating in this act willfully unified.

Contrary to my title, I'm not necessarily claiming that Ray Boltz is a heretic, rather I am just using him as an illustration. I also have not read enough of St. Anselm to know if he espoused these ideas or, as with some theological constructs (i.e. Augustinian theology) it just decayed over time. I am also willing to recieve correction if anything that I have said violates the history of Christian orthodox teaching. I am not an expert on the Trinity, but I do think that what I have said is correct.

---------------------

Here is another and possibly even more interesting (read: less nerdy) thing from sunday. Though we practice the same liturgy with a few mild variation every sunday I am continually struck by the beauty and precise articulation of the service. Sometimes I notice phrases or pieces of the liturgy that I have never heard befoer and they sink deep within my soul. Yesterday was one of those occasions.

During one part of the liturgy the priest was offering prayers and he said something similar to: "for those who love us and those who hate us, may you remember in your kingdom always" to which the congregation responds "Amen." I've heard prayers for enemies before (sadly too few) but to have it as a part of the liturgy and to say "remember in your kingdom always" is amazingly beautiful and humble. I ask myself if I could say that about those who have wronged me and to an even greater extent, could I say it about someone if I had been severly wronged. I hope so. It seems to me that it is one thing to pray for those who hate you, but to ask God to remember them in his kingdom is a very bold statement. Hopefully this prayer can resound in all of our hearts. Amen Amen Amen.

Now and even deeper question comes to mind. How does this prayer fit with the above section of my post? If someone is outrightly espousing heresy can we bless them? Is it not our job to refute that heresy and uphold the truth of the faith? I believe that it is, but we must find a way to do it in love and a prayerful spirit. We must have in mind the salvation of the person espousing heresy. Just as Paul says: hand them over to the devil so that their soul maybe saved. Maybe this is an inadequate answer, but it's a start.


May the Lord God remember you all in his Kingdom now and ever,

Ben

Short thoughts on Christmas music

I know the time has passed when this post would be appropriate but I'm going to write some short thoughts anyway... it is my blog after all.

In the days following Christmas I listened to the standard Christmas songs and as I listened I began to think that many of them are border-line heretical. This caused me to wonder if it was just me seeing heresy in everything (which some would say I do) or if they are genuinely quasi-heretical. I've continued to reflect on this and came to the conclusion that my descriptor of "many" might be a little bit of an over generalization. I haven't taken the time to sit down and analyze a great deal of them so I feel that 'many' is too strong of a word, but I do believe there are some songs that are seemingly heretical as well as, so I would argue, our larger conceptions of Christmas.

Let me explain.

Christmas is about the incarnation - God becoming human in the truest sense of humanity yet without sin. It is about Jesus Christ being truly human and truly God; 100% of both at the same time. Many of the heresies throughout Church history have been condemned because of errant thinking on the incarnation. Many of these heretics erred by over-emphasizing Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity and it seems that an equal number of heretics erred by over-emphasizing his divinity at the expense of his humanity.

In protestant theology we seem to see both of these errant trends come to the surface. The arch-liberals deny the divinity of Christ while it seems (and here lies the point of the post) that many of the more conservative Protestants deny Christ's humanity (or at least minimize it) to emphasize his Divinity.

For example let us look at the song "Away in a Manger." I choose this song for a few reasons: 1) It supports my point - it's good to pick an example that supports your argument (or so I've been told). 2) It seems to me that although this isn't a song of vast theological content it encapsulates the themes of contemporary Christmas theology. 3) It's the only one that I can remember the words to off hand.

Now to the "heresy:" I don't think this is a horribly blatant heretical treatise against Christ's full humanity but I do think that traces of heresy are evident. Think with me how the infant Messiah is portrayed in this song (remember that this seems to be an archetype for most of our Christmas thinking). Jesus is viewed as peaceful and serene little child that doesn't cry, fuss or cause his parents any loss of sleep. Oh that cute little baby Jesus "no crying he makes." I am willing to grant that maybe Jesus was one of the babies that don't seem to cry at all when they are younger, but (and I am, for sure, no expert in babydom) isn't that the exception more than the rule. Isn't the rule for babies that they cry, they keep their parents up and they fuss. Maybe I'm grasping at strings for an example from a song but I think the assertions that baby Jesus never cried, never fussed, and never acted like a NORMAL BABY are all too prominent in our little Christian Christmas subculture.

I think it's good that we're saying Jesus was set apart from birth. Yes he was different, yes he was the fullness of God even while he was an infant, (emptied himself of "all but love" saith Wesley) but the nuance of our assertions of his divinity seem to make his humanity minuscule... is this not the beginning of heresy? It seems that we have characterized this first Christmas night into an image barren of any true humanity. Mary and Joseph are content and happy giving birth in a stable, and Jesus is cute, adorable, and doesn't act like any other baby.

I'm not trying to be a downer on Christmas but it just seems that the way we tend to think about and portray the first Christmas minimizes the humanity of it all. Our Christmas songs, our nativity scenes, and all the other trappings of the holiday seem to make Christmas more a time of myth and fantasy rather than the in-breaking of the divine into the real world.

Yes Jesus was a baby, one may argue that all babies are cute and thus was Jesus, one may also argue that Jesus was one of those peaceful babies, but to characterize Jesus' infancy so that resembles nothing like real infancy borders on heresy. This does not mean that I am willing to assert that Jesus sinned as a child or anything of the like. I am merely trying to assert that he was indeed FULLY HUMAN and FULLY GOD. He was incarnate without sin and suffered and died for us and for our salvation. Maybe our Christmas songs are fine, maybe they don't say anything heretical enough for us to kick them out of our hymnals, but this is not just a passing matter. We must strive to think rightly about the incarnation and the divine Godhead. For it is our thinking of this that shapes all of our other thoughts. Our moral lives, our social lives and the rest will be shaped by what we think of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our obedience to the Holy Scriptures is directly corollary to our view of the God who speaks in and through those scriptures. This is why this isn't just a passing issue.

Christmas is over, but let us think hard next year (and at all times) about incarnation. Maybe we just need to readjust the lens through which we sing the Christmas songs, maybe we need to get rid of them, maybe we need a solution that is more outside of the box, who knows. All I know is that thinking correctly about the incarnation is paramount!!

About time eh?

Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.

Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.

[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]

As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.

As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.

One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.

Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.

I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.

Part Two: On the Incarnation

"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."

Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.

Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.

Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.

If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.

In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)

"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."

Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.

This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.

It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?

Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!

Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)

Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.

I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.

1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.

2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.

3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.

4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.

Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.

Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.

I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.

Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity

Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")

It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.

This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.

Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.

Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.

Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.

This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.

Part Five: Regularity and Novelty

This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.

There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.

I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.

Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:

“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”

To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.

The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.

Church Experiment: A Charismatic Ministry

I made it. Yep that's right I'm living in KY now. I don't have internet in my apartment yet so this post will have to be short as I'm writing it from the library. I'm not sure if it's possible for me to be short, because I like to ramble but I'll try.

I went to church on thursday evening in a small building in Wilmore that had a sign out front that said "a charismatic ministry." Being the charismatic that I am I decided to see what it was like even though I hadn't asked anyone about it yet.

I walked in the small building and was greeted by very friendly people. The service began with singing some choruses (none of which I had ever heard before) and little jumping up and down/dancing (not on my part mind you, I'm a good Wesleyan... er... C&MA or whatever).

The offering was to be next, but before that could take place the pastor asked us to turn to a certain Psalm. He then gave a little mini-sermon on the Psalm and told us how God didn't want any of us to be in debt and that he would give us all sorts of things. It sounded a little like Larry Burkett.

After the offering we sang another song and were treated to a sermon. During the sermon my discomfort grew from mild to severe and I didn't know what to do. Should I cry? Should I laugh? Should I walk out, or should I stand up and rebuke this man for his false teaching? I chose the easy way out and sat in my pew and listened. Yes, I know, I punked out.

The sermon's main thrust was from Hebrews 3 or 4 where it calls Jesus the High Priest of our profession (KJV). The word profession, or homo-legomena (GK - same words) as the pastor liked to refer to it, was the key point. You see, we have to say words, audible words to receive things from God. If we don't say them then we don't receive. We don't receive salvation if we don't speak it audibly (I guess Jesus doesn't really love the mute people of the world), we can't receive healing if we don't speak it audibly (the mute people can't even be healed then... that sucks) and we can't receive blessings if we don't speak it audibly.

God doesn't desire us to be poor or sick, we just don't tap into his blessings because we don't speak it. We don't use the "same words."

In the sermon the Pastor also said a bunch of other things that disturbed me. He reminded us that God has exalted his word above his name, that we have more dominion than Jesus because we're on earth and we can speak the words and Jesus is in heaven, and that my physical body doesn't really matter because I'm a spiritual being (yeah for dualism).

He also demonstrated how we can be healed if we're sick. How you may ask? Say to yourself (outloud) various phrases such as:
"by his stripes I am healed"
"I'm not sick"
"I'm the healthiest person alive"
"I'm healed"
"I don't have (insert illness here)."

You also have to say these phrases (or similar ones) multiple times, it isn't enough just to say them once, it has to go on for as long as the illness continues.

The same holds true for money, if you need money just say phrases of blessing and provision. Then you'll receive and live it out.


This teaching makes me sick! I"m not saying that I don't believe in healing and God's provision, because I do. I truly believe that "by his stripes we are healed" (both spiritually and physically) and I believe that God does provide for us. I especially rely on these things as my Grandpa has lung cancer and the only hope is a miracle, and as I relocate myself down here following God with school loans and rent payments.

I believe in these things, but to reduce it to merely saying positive words to yourself is absurd. To downplay to role of Jesus and the glory God is due is just blatant Heresy or blasphemy.

I don't know why God chooses to heal some and not others, I can't explain why the majority of the church lacks power and signs of the kingdom like miracles and love. I long to see these things, but to take the stance of the above church is just dumb. What about God's heart for the poor and the downtrodden? What about giving of ourselves to others? What about healing in a community so that it is truly a witness and a sign, rather than just positive thinking?

I have never experienced so much false teaching from a church that I attended. I was truly disgusted. Although there was one bright spot. Even though there was false teaching, I truly felt that some (not all) but some of the 15 or so people in the church were my sisters and brothers in Christ. Some of them are truly seeking after God, but they are being led astray by false teachers.

May God purge his church of false teachers and false prophets and renew his bride to be pure and spotless in his sight.

May you be blessed with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, the Power of Christ, and the Love of the Father today my friends!