After reading a few articles, I will quote parts or all of them (all quotes are fair use) and at the end give links to them, I have been inspired to write to you again.
<<<I have no problem with slick-looking worship bands and glitzy light shows. I have no problem with churches using the latest technology to enhance the Sunday sermons. Let’s use what we can to get our message out and let’s do things with excellence for the Lord. But I do have a problem with depending on these things. Have we forgotten that Jesus is more than enough? I came to faith in 1971 as a 16-year-old, Jewish, hippie rock drummer. It was in a small, Italian Pentecostal church in Queens, New York where the worship team consisted of the pastor’s wife, who played the piano. (Sometimes, she would be accompanied by the pastor’s brother, who played the guitar.) There was hardly any amplification. Nothing was slick or sophisticated. And most of the songs we sang were written decades, if not centuries earlier. Yet the joy I experienced there, the presence of God I met with there, the life-changing power I encountered there were so great that almost overnight, I was radically changed. You might say, “But things were very different back then. Today, if we don’t have the best musicians and the tightest bands and the best technology and the coolest pastor, no one will show up.” I beg to differ.>>>(emphasis added)
I agree that Jesus IS enough that the tried and true hymns are just fine. I have a major problem with the highlighted in green.
<<<Yet when I encountered the gospel of Jesus my world was turned upside down (really, right-side up). When I met the Lord, everything changed. And all this happened even though this little church was totally foreign to me culturally. Rock concerts were loud. Deafeningly loud. In fact, to test the volume at these concerts, I would scream at the top of my lungs while the band played. If I could hear my voice at all, they weren’t loud enough. And we had light shows back then too. The Fillmore East, where I saw concerts on a regular basis, featured the Joshua Light Show. The screen would pulsate with colors and images as the band played, making for a real sensory experience. Added to this was the smell - the building smelled like pot and hash - and the fact that many (or, most) of us at the concert were stoned. Talk about an experience. What a contrast with the church where I was born again!>>>(emphasis added)
How much of the underlined can be used to describe so called christian rock concerts today??? How rock is christian rock??
look again at these words
<<<When I met the Lord, everything changed. And all this happened even though this little church was totally foreign to me culturally. … What a contrast with the church where I was born again!>>>(emphasis added)
Yet how much change is happening to todays christian converts who are told "we are just as cool as the world we like to ‘rock out’ too”??? The church was FOREIGN not familiar! There was a CONTRAST to the world not a COMPLEMENTARY nature with the world. We shouldn’t be trying to ‘out world the world’. We should be set apart from the world.
<<<That divine grace remains more than enough today. More than enough to transform the worst of sinners. More than enough to give hope to the depressed and suicidal. More than enough to meet the needs of the most desperate and helpless. Jesus is more than enough. They will literally travel from around the world to get to your meetings, even if your worship leader is a blind banjo player who can barely sing on key. If the power of God is there and Jesus is being exalted, the people will come. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and it’s the scriptural pattern as well. … Jesus is still more than enough>>>(emphasis added)
This is so true we don't need to be like the world to save people from the world to Christ. Unfortunately his point get lost a bit in his endorsement of the music now used in churches the use of CCM or “worship bands” or “praise bands”, the use of the latest technology, and using whatever means we can to get the message out. But his main point is valid in that we DON'T NEED that to convert people. He mentions in that article speaking in a language the culture understands. I think that is wrong because to do so you must adopt the world’s culture and then you are no different than the world. Speak the truth in plain language and people will come to Christ you don't have to speak like the world to get the world to listen. (And with all the swearing in the culture today do we really want to start talking like that?? Do we really think speaking with a bunch of four-letter words in every sentence and a bunch of F-bombs is really going to please the Lord???? Do we really want pastors sounding worse than drunken sailors?? Especially IN THE PULPIT????)
<<<TOWARD A CONTENT-FREE CHURCH: WHAT’S THE POINT?: If you keep on making your tent bigger and bigger and bigger, eventually you don’t have a tent. And if you keep on making your megachurch more and more mega, eventually you don’t have a church. My friend’s pastor sent us a copy of the Saddleback Worship Brand Book – Saddleback being one of the most mega of megachurches, under Rick Warren – which includes a little section on Do’s & Don’ts. If you click the link, you’ll have to scroll down a bit to find it. The Brand Book advises those who want to grow their churches to “Avoid empty phrases” and “Avoid Christianese,” the latter being words and terms that someone ignorant of Christianity or the Bible won’t be able to understand without having them explained to him. Like, who wants to go to the trouble of explaining anything? What interests me is two lists, “Words to Use” and “Words to Avoid.” Here are some of the “Words to Use,” some of which strike me as empty phrases in their own right. Authentic (no empty phrases there!). Celebrate (oh, please). Heaven (as in “Everybody goes to Heaven”). Openness (I am running out of patience). Relationship. You get the idea. Happy/Fuzzy-speak. Here are some of the “Words to Avoid.” Born again. Brothers and sisters in Christ. Fellowship (does that get rid of our “fellowship hall”?). Gospel/Good News (why would we want to steer clear of good news? Don’t we need some?). Hell (good grief! By no means ever mention Hell! That’s neither happy nor fuzzy!). Repent (“We’re all so sweet and wonderful, what in the world would we ever have to repent?”). Sanctified (You don’t need to be sanctified if you’re already sweet and wonderful). Does this sound like someone’s on the road to a pseudo Christianity devoid of content? I mean, all they’re missing is the Play-Doh. They call it “Reaching Out in Changing Times,” but it sounds more like being conformed to a desperately confused and fallen world. What is the point of herding thousands of people into your church if it’s not going to teach them any Christianity, but only tell them a lot of pap they want to hear? None that I can see.>>>(emphasis added)
Good points here. Your tent is based on standards to make it bigger you must compromise your standards and eventually after enough compromise you have no standards! That is the church today having compromised so much with the world she is practically DEVOID of standards! Oh she says all the right christian words - she talks the talk - but she lets the world define what those words mean and thus what she says is really meaningLESS! There is a quote I think sums things up well “you say the words but your hearts are empty your ears closed to the truth you stand for nothing but your own petty interests!”. We need to get back to the faith that has been handed down through the ages. The faith of our forefathers. We need to stop acting like the world and act like the apostles.
<<<“In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism’ or ‘liberalism’.” And again: “[L]iberalism in the modern Church represents a return to an un-Christian and sub-Christian form of the religious life.” This is all part of a movement which denies the basics of the gospel. Machen was exactly right to show how the liberals will take biblical terms and strip them of their biblical content, and thus promotes a false, anti-Christian religion. His warnings back them were so very important, but it seems they have fallen on deaf years today. I have to wonder, where is our discernment? Indeed, anyone with a bit theologically awareness would have had alarm bells going off all over the place when they heard Curry quote the Catholic theistic evolutionary philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin! One Catholic said elsewhere that we should be aware of what he believes. I wrote back and assured him that as a theologian I sure do know a few things about Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). Yet most Christians hearing Curry would not have had the slightest clue as to who he was and what he taught. But even aside from quoting him, the entire sermon, as I have said repeatedly now, was little more than an extended version of the Beatle’s pop hit, “All You need is love,” from their 1967 album “Magical Mystery Tour”. Um, the fact of the matter is, we need a lot more than that. First of all, we need love and truth together. And the biblical truth about love is a million miles away from the understanding of love offered by theological liberals. It is because they have strip-mined it of all biblical content that they can go on about how homosexuality is just peachy and all Christians should affirm it. Hey, love is all that matters! Speaking of which, we need to be aware of the fact that Harry and Meghan have both made it quite clear that one of their activities as a royal couple will be to promote the homosexual agenda. See here for example for more on this: www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/04/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-stand-up-for-lgbt-rights And of course it makes perfect sense to realise that they specifically invited Curry to preach, knowing full well what he believed on this issue. As one article puts it, he “was hand-picked by the couple to deliver a sermon at their wedding”. He was a chosen vessel here, pushing an agenda. Moreover, as one friend just reminded me, too often folks simply hear what they want to hear. The current debate over Yanny vs Laurel might be a good illustration of this. It isn’t the first time people hear different things from the same message. Jesus can say we must repent and turn from our sins and many folks just hear “love, love, love – everything is groovy baby”. Please Christians, stop being naïve here. Too many Christians are missing the bigger picture: this is all about the white-anting of the church, and the insidious move to homosexualise the faith. This is how the church so often loses in the West: by activists doing their thing while most Christians are clueless or asleep at the wheel. Curry is a pro-homosexual activist and a theological liberal, who was invited by the couple to offer his spin on things. It does not matter in the least that he did not mention “gay” this or that. By offering a watered down and unbiblical understanding of love, he did all he needed to do. As just one indication of this, consider this remark: “‘I can totally see why Meghan chose Michael Curry to deliver the address. I am not religious but am totally engrossed,’ Royal commentator Charlie Proctor said.” au.news.yahoo.com/american-preacher-speaks-royal-wedding-021451047.html Exactly: when non-Christians praise a preacher, chances are really good that he is not offering a biblical sermon, but a man-pleasing and mushy sermon. We expect non-Christians to have gotten all soft and mushy over his talk. But I would have expected better from those who see themselves as biblical Christians. Gavin Ashenden, an English Anglican clergyman, and former Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, just wrote a terrific article on all this. He said of Curry’s sermon, it offers us all an insight into the dramatic difference between the two kind of Christianity that are at odds with each other in the Anglican Communion. We will call them for the moment, ‘Christianity-max’, and ‘Christianity-lite’. Credit where it is due. ‘Christianity-lite’ can be very appealing. It reaches out to where people are hurting and it encourages them. It reaches out to where they are longing for good change, and it promises them that change can come. It speaks continuously of love and hope. Everyone likes to hear of love and hope. But it has three serious flaws. It doesn’t define love, and it never delivers on the hope. It isn’t what Jesus preached. His entire article is well worth reading: ashenden.org/2018/05/19/michael-curry-the-royal-wedding-a-star-turn-offers-the-world-christianity-lite/ I have already had a steady stream of Christian critics and criticisms on this. Many said that some good can come from his sermon, and we should not have expected an altar call and the like. But I have said several times now that a full gospel presentation is NOT necessarily expected at all weddings, and some folks likely heard some biblical themes there, even from Curry – although Welby gave us much more of that than Curry. And as mentioned, it is the very nature of theological liberalism to distort basic Bible terminology, resulting in people being led away from God and truth, not toward them. And that is a real worry indeed. Various other objections were raised. Many others protested: “But God can use it.” Well, yes and no. As I already said, God can use Balaam’s ass. Or even someone like Judas. But we should not seek to have a lot of Judas’s being used! Better to have someone God can properly use, instead of just being used in spite of himself! And again, while some non-Christians and some believers may have benefited to some extent from his remarks, the real question is this: how many folks were further moved AWAY from the gospel, because it was more Beatles than biblical? There were also plenty of critics who trotted out the usual line heard at times like this: “Bill, you are so negative!” Um, to seek to warn people about the ongoing Satanic homosexual agenda of taking over the churches is hardly being negative or unloving or harsh – it is the height of biblical responsibility and care to make such warnings. But as we well know – or should know – the prophets were always accused of being too bleak and negative. They were always told to lighten up and tell the people happy things that they wanted to hear. Indeed, God even warned the prophets ahead of time, telling them that they and their message would be routinely rejected. Some things never change. In sum, it seems the ability to be deceived, or at least to be open to deception, is at an all-time high in far too many churches today. So many Christians just want the feel-good, non-controversial stuff. “All you need is love” will do. No conflicts or dramas there. Everybody goes along with that sort of message. But what folks want to hear and what they need to hear is almost always two different things. Sadly, I am often reminded at times like this of the words of Jesus when he said: “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” Good question.>>>(emphasis added)
This is what being like the world has done the liberal christians have infected so many denominations with there non-judgmental approach we have even churches on the conservative side buying into this. We thought “The word likes rock we will out rock the world. The world like rap we will out rap the world. The world likes heavy metal we will out metal the world.” We figured we could be the world at it’s own game and thus show people we were cool enough for them to join. ‘Anything the world can do we can do better we can do anything better than the world!’ OR some have said we can claim these styles for christ and thus take them from the devil. Well lets take that thinking to its logical extent. Why not claim human sacrifice for christ and take it from the devil?? Or claim various satanic and other non-christian rituals for christ and take them from the devil??? Obviously those suggestions would be ridiculed but what make them different that taking the devils music and using it for christ??? As to the former about doing the worlds thing better why not ‘out prostitute’ the world??? Why not ‘out premarital sex’ the world??? Or ‘out incest’ the world?? or even ‘out BDSM’ the world??? The seem ludicrous to us but if you are going to go down the road out outdoing the world at what it does then these things might eventually be done. We will have a church we everyone is in open sin yet no-one is told they are in sin because it won’t be called sin. Since the world does it we must too or people won’t think we are cool and won’t want to join us. WE are called to be SEPARATE from the world NOT LIKE the world. If we offer NOTHING different then what the world gives them either in beliefs or music or dress or styles or attitudes for what reason should they join us?? If we are saying ‘we offer you everything the world does plus Christ’ what is the incentive to come to us?? If everything else stays the same for them why should they bother adding Christ to the lives.
Remember John 15:18-19 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” Also Roman 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” And the words of Jesus in John 17:16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 John 2:15-17). “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).We are to be IN the world but not OF the world. If the world loves us we are doing something wrong because the world only loves it’s own. Look at Romans again “be not conformed to this world”. Does that sound like Jesus is saying do what the world does but better?? Rock like the world but in my name??? Rap like the world in but in my name??? Pop Like the world but in my name (emphasis added on bible verses)
Some may object to my disapproval of CCM and the christianization of worldly music saying “Matin Luther said what should the devil have all the good music”. Point of order he NEVER said that no-one has been able to show any proof and him saying that. Most, if not all, who say that are in the CCM community or followers of it and are saying it to justify taking the devils music for Christ. However the closest we can come is <<< a message Reverend Rowland Hill, pastor of Surrey Chapel in London, preached in 1844. Reverend Hill did NOT say, "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" — what he actually said was, "The devil should not have all the best tunes." Reverend Hill's message was not a "call" to copy or bring the "devil's" music in the church. During the time Reverend Hill preached his message, in England, church music had fallen in both quantity and quality, which is certainly not the case today. His message was a "call" for Christians to write, compose and produce quality Christian music. It was NOT an appeal for Christians to sing the "devil's" music for the Lord. (Lowell Hart, Satan's Music Exposed, pp. 169-170) (V.J. Charlesworth, Rowland Hill, p.156)>>><<<Rev. Rowland Hill (1744–1833), the famous London pastor and evangelist, who said, “The Devil should not have all the best tunes”? Hill was concerned over the lamentable quality of music in his church (Surrey Chapel, built for him in 1783), and he wanted do something about it. So Hill wrote hymns and compiled and published five collections of psalms and hymns, three of which were specifically for children and schools. In spite of such readily available documentation, the statement has been misattributed to Luther as well as to both Wesley brothers, Isaac Watts, and even D. L. Moody.>>> (Some emphasis added) The only one know to have said why should the devil have all the good music is Larry Norman of the CCM movement. Remember NOTHING the devil has is good so if he has the music it is NOT good! And yes rock, rap, heavy metal, even pop are all his.
<<<At the turn of last century battles raged between theological conservatives and theological liberals, especially in Britain and America. The historical background to all this goes back another century to Europe – more on that in a moment. The issues however are still very much relevant to battles over the faith in the contemporary western world. Today Christians who have a low view of Scripture and who reject many of the crucial doctrines of biblical Christianity like to refer to themselves as “progressives”. They somehow think they are making an improvement on things by rejecting much of the central content of New Testament Christianity. Of course they are in fact regressive, and are engaged in some of the very things that Jesus and the disciples warned against. … Whenever apostasy and heresy breaks out, God raises up his soldiers to defend the faith and challenge the harmful revisionists. So if we want to combat the more recent attacks on the faith by progressive Christianity, simply reading about what the defenders of biblical orthodoxy said about their theological predecessors is of use here. But first let me offer a brief explanation of what I mean by theological liberalism. Springing from movements such as the German Enlightenment, human reason became the source of all truth as opposed to biblical revelation. Mankind, aided and abetted by science and rationality, became the final authority of all things – not Scripture. Enlightenment naturalism replaced biblical supernaturalism. Thus the Bible was criticised as being outdated and errant, and core doctrinal truths were downplayed or denied. And the miraculous – including the resurrection of Jesus – was strongly attacked.>>>(emphasis added)
Man became wise in his own eyes and decided he had outgrown a belief in God. (professing themselves to be wise they became fools).
<<<In his important 1958 volume, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, J. I. Packer lists five “characteristic tenets of liberal faith in America.” Here is a slightly abridged version of his five traits:
1. God’s character is one of pure benevolence, that is, without standards. All men are His children, and sin separates no one from His love. The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are alike universal.
2. There is a divine spark in every man. All men, therefore, are good at heart, and need nothing more than encouragement to allow their natural goodness to express itself.
3. Jesus Christ is man’s Saviour only in the sense that He is man’s perfect Teacher and Example. We should regard Him simply as the first Christian, our elder brother in the worldwide family of God. He was not divine in any unique sense.
4. Just as Christ differs from other men only comparatively, not absolutely, so Christianity differs from other religions not generically, but merely as the best and highest type of religion that has yet appeared. All religions are forms of the same religion, just as all men are members of the same divine family.
5. The Bible is not a divine record of revelation, but a human testament of religion; and Christian doctrine is not the God-given word which must create and control Christian experience.
Today’s progressive Christianity basically runs with the same destructive, watered-down agenda. Packer goes on to say this about it all: Liberalism was an attempt to square Christianity with these anti-supernatural axioms. The result was tersely summed up by Machen: “The liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is, in essentials, only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came on the scene. . . the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend.” Liberalism swept away entirely the gospel of the supernatural redemption of sinners by God’s sovereign grace. It reduced grace to nature, divine revelation to human reflection, faith in Christ to following His example, and receiving new life to turning over a new leaf; it turned supernatural Christianity into one more form of natural religion, a thin mixture of morals and mysticism. As Hebert rightly says: ‘Religion was being substituted for God.’>>> (emphasis added)
<<<Appealing to Machen was very helpful indeed. He was one of the main defenders of biblical Christianity at the time, and his writings still repay careful reading today. His classic work on this – the one Packer just quoted from – is of course his brilliant 1923 volume, Christianity and Liberalism. Let me offer a few more select quotes from it, also just from his introductory chapter: “In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism’ or ‘liberalism’.” “But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism, that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God.” “[W]hat the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category.” “[D]espite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism is not only a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” “[L]iberalism in the modern Church represents a return to an un-Christian and sub-Christian form of the religious life.”>>>(emphasis added)
Too many today have fallen for this type of christianity even in conservative circles. We use the right words but they have been so redefined, by the world, that they no longer mean what they once did and now we are left with a faith that is a shell of it’s former self.
<<<For example, in the 1930s H. Richard Niebuhr was lamenting the emptiness of liberal Protestant theology. He nicely summed it up as something in which “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”>>>(emphasis added)
Exactly. We save Christ is our savior but for so many christian what is he saving us from?? We don't teach hell or the wrath of God anymore. We don’t teach sin anymore. So what does he save us from, if no hell or wrath, and why do we need saving (if we don't sin)??? Without sin and without hell or wrath then there would be no need of a cross since there would be no sacrifice required to reconcile us to God if we have done nothing to separate ourselves from God.
<<<Dorothy Sayers. She delivered a short address in 1940 called “Creed or Chaos” which has since been printed in various forms. A few quotes from this piece are well worth offering here: Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine – dull dogma as people call it. The fact is quite the opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man – and the dogma is the drama. Christ, in His divine innocence, said to the Woman of Samaria, ‘Ye worship ye know not what’ – being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshiping. He thus showed Himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: ‘Away with the tedious complexities of dogma – let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!’ The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular. The thing I am here to say to you is this: that it is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say that dogma does not matter; it matters enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism. And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ.>>>(emphasis added)
<<<But let me conclude with a humorous take on all this. It may have come from a television comedy, but what it says hits very close to the sad reality. I refer to a 1986 episode of Yes Prime Minister entitled “The Bishops Gambit” which dealt with the state of play of much of the Church of England at the time:
James Hacker: Humphrey, what’s a Modernist in the Church of England?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah, well, the word “Modernist” is code for non-believer.
James Hacker: You mean an atheist?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn’t continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves “Modernists”.
James Hacker: How could the Church of England suggest an atheist as Bishop of Bury St Edmunds?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organization, not a religious one.
James Hacker: Is it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh yes. It’s part of the rich social fabric of this country. So bishops need to be the sorts of chaps who speak properly and know which knife and fork to use. The sort of people one can look up to.>>>(emphasis added)
How many Churches today fit that description “primarily a social organization”????? How many christians today are more about providing a good example with manners and proper speech and other things but not about showing people Christ working in their lives???? It is more about being a ‘good person’ than being an accurate christian example.
<<<It took me less than five seconds to decide whether or not to keep a flyer I found in my mailbox.The 12-pager came from a local Uniting Church, and was full of descriptions about activities it was offering. This is quite typical of the UC, with an emphasis on everything except biblical Christianity. But just as I was about to toss it into the bin, I finally saw something actually speaking about the faith. It mentioned an exploration of “Progressive Christianity”. Instantly I knew where this church was coming from, and instantly I knew I had an article on my hands. The pamphlet itself was full of all the courses and activities this church was involved in. On offer were watercolour painting, yoga and relaxation, cake decorating, tai chi, square dancing, etc. The trouble is of course, when the church seeks to compete with the world in offering worldly activities, the world usually does a much better job of this. These churches seek to be trendy and relevant by downplaying the gospel and offering everything the world does. But in that case, why even bother? Let the world offer worldly stuff. But this is all par for the course with a denomination which has long ago abandoned biblical orthodoxy. But the tie in to Progressive Christianity shows us exactly where this church is at. Indeed, a case can be made that whenever one finds the adjective ‘progressive’ prefixed to the word ‘Christianity,’ one should flee to the hills. One might almost say the phrase is a clear-cut oxymoron. This is because those who champion the phrase invariably mean moving beyond historical, biblical Christianity. They see the orthodox Christian faith as old-fashioned, restrictive, intolerant and repressive. They want to move beyond the faith once delivered to the saints to a new, trendy, and – quite plainly – heterodox version of the faith. Indeed, biblical Christianity becomes unrecognisable in this new faith.>>>(emphasis added)
How many churches offer these?? How many think this is a good thing. If you are offering the same as the world why should they leave the world???
<<<Indeed, this describes Progressive Christianity perfectly. It is not Christianity at all. It has thoroughly gutted biblical Christianity of its most basic and vital teachings. All that is left is an empty shell in which humanistic, pagan and syncretistic concepts are poured in to fill the void. Indeed, it is the very thing Jesus and the early disciples warned against. In sum, there is nothing progressive about this outfit. Heresy is always as old as the hills, and so we have nothing new here. But as Peter cautioned, “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).>>>(emphasis added)
It is sad ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ and we see this all the time when something is removed something else MUST take it’s place. If you remove the heart and soul of christianity from it then something must replace it and the devil is all too willing to replace it with something that works on a emotional level but does NOTHING for your soul but condemn it to hell to be with him. And look at the verse I highlighted especially the bold, underlined part. Too many seem to think the devil is a ‘toothless tiger’ and all he can do is ‘gum at you’. They think he is powerless to do anything and so he is not to be worried about. These same people would probably look at satan and just point and laugh. But Even the archangel Michael showed some respect, for lack of a better term, to satan in the dispute of Moses body simply saying “the Lord rebuke you”. If Michael didn’t treat satan flippantly why should we???
These last quote are from a article about CCM:
<<<When Israel broke down the walls of separation and failed to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, the holy and the unholy, God judged them. “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them” (Ezek. 22:26). This is an apt description of the CCM philosophy. It puts no difference between the holy and the profane. “All music is holy,” it boasts; nothing is profane. All dress styles are holy; nothing is profane. God is the God of everything.>>>(emphasis added)
There are things that are holy, secular, and profane and we should not try to move things from one category to another by ‘christianizing’ them. (see attached picture)
<<<Consider these quotes: “I felt that if I could take a ... tune and drop the first and third beats and accentuate the second and fourth, and add a beat the listeners could clap to as well as dance this would be what they were after” (Bill Haley, cited by Charlie Gillett, The Sound of the City: The Rise of Rock and Roll, p. 14). “I dig that rock and roll music; it has a back beat; you can't lose it” (Chuck Berry). “When they play their music, ooh that modern music, they like it with a lot of style; but it's still that same old backbeat rhythm that really, really drives 'em wild” (“The Heart of Rock & Roll” by Huey Lewis and the News). “It’s the beat that gets to you. If you like it and you feel it, you can’t help but move to it. That’s what happens to me. I can’t help it” (Elvis Presley, cited by Steve Turner, Hungry for Heaven, p. 35). The rock musicians themselves describe their music as “sexy” and they claim that the sex lies in the heavy back beat. Consider just a few examples of this: Irwin Sibler of Sing Out magazine said, “The great strength of rock & roll lies in its beat. It is a music which is basically sexual, unpuritan...” (Sing Out, May 1965, p. 63). Debra Harry of Blondie says, “The main ingredients in rock are sex and sass” Hit Parader, Sept. 1979, p. 31). Jan Berry of Jan and Dean says, “The throbbing beat of rock provides a vital sexual release for adolescent audiences” (cited by Blanchard, Pop Goes the Gospel). Chris Stein, lead guitarist for Blondie says, “Everyone takes it for granted that rock and roll is synonymous with sex” (People, May 21, 1979). Rapper Luke Campbell of 2 Live Crew says, “The sex is definitely in the music, and sex is in all aspects in the music.” Rocker Tom McSloy says: “Rock is visceral. It does disturbing things to your body. In spite of yourself, you find your body tingling, moving with the music” (Tom McSloy, “Music to Jangle Your Insides,” National Review, June 30, 1970, p. 681). Paul Stanley said, “Rock ‘n’ roll is sex. Real rock ‘n’ roll isn’t based on cerebral thoughts. It’s based on one’s lower nature” (cited by John Muncy, The Role of Rock, p. 44). John Oates of Hall & Oates says, “Rock ‘n’ roll is 99% sex” (Circus, Jan. 31, 1976). Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, observed: “... rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal to sexual desire” (The Closing of the American Mind, p. 73). Simon Frith, author of Sound effects, said, “We respond to the materiality of rock’s sounds, and the rock experience is essentially erotic” (Sound Effects, New York: Pantheon Books, 1981, p. 164). Dr. David Elkind, chairman of the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study at Tufts University in Massachusetts, said: “There is a great deal of powerful, albeit subliminal, sexual stimulation implicit in both the rhythm and [the] lyrics of rock music” (The Hurried Child, Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1981, p. 89). Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention said, “Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s rhythms” (Life, June 28, 1968). Malcolm McLaren, punk rock manager, said: “Rock ‘n’ roll is pagan and primitive, and very jungle, and that’s how it should be! The moment it stops being those things, it’s dead … the true meaning of rock … is sex, subversion and style” (Rock, August 1983, p. 60). Adam Ant says, “Pop music revolves around sexuality. I believe that if there is anarchy, let’s make it sexual anarchy rather than political” (From Rock to Rock, p. 93). Gene Simmons of Kiss said, “That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat!” (Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987). Observe that most of these statements do not refer to rock music in general but to the rock back beat in particular.>>>(emphasis in original)
<<<We agree with Dan Lucarini, former contemporary praise leader, when he says: “I am now convinced that God will not accept our worship when it is offered with music styles that are also used by pagans for their immoral practices. ... He is a jealous God. If you grasp this principle alone, it will change forever the way you lead a worship service” (Lucarini, Confessions of a Former Worship Leader, p. 57). We agree with Alan Ives, a former rock & roller, when he says: “How do you understand what good Christian music is? It ought to sound different from the rock station, the easy listening station, the entertainment music. When we sing gospel songs in the good old-fashioned way, they don’t sound like anything that the world sings. That’s the way we need to keep it. We can never portray the peace of the Lord with wild, discordant, violent sounds. We can never speak of the love of God with hateful music, the goodness of the Lord with bad music, the majesty of God with low class music, the power of God with puny music, the wisdom of God with stupid music, the holiness of God with unholy music. We can never speak of godliness with ungodly music, of heavenly things with earthly, sensual and devilish music. And we can never speak of being a soldier if we use dance music” (Alan Ives, “How to Tell the Difference between Good and Bad Music”) A key biblical principle is that Christian music is to be spiritual or holy. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and SPIRITUAL SONGS, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18-19). The term “spiritual” has the same meaning as “sacred.” It means different, set apart to a holy God. Sacred music will be different in character from the world’s sensual dance music. Contemporary Christian Music does not merely unhesitatingly borrow from the world’s music; it actually boasts of doing so. There is no sense of separation, no sense of sacredness and holiness.>>>(emphasis added)
<<<
When asked in interviews about their musical influences and their favorite music, invariably they list a number of raunchy secular rock musicians. The following examples could be multiplied endlessly: “FOURTH WATCH cites groups like U2, the Police, Genesis, Pete Townshend, and the Alarm as major influences. MEMBERS LISTEN TO A GREAT DEAL OF MAINSTREAM MUSIC, MAKING NO APOLOGIES FOR IT, and they express a desire to play clubs and other non-church settings” (CCM Magazine, April 1987, p. 19). PHIL KEAGGY performs an unholy combination of secular rock and Christian rock/folk, and those who listen to his music are drawn toward worldly rock & roll. On his 1993 Crimson and Blue album, for example, he pays “homage to the Beatles” with several of the songs. When ASHLEY CLEVELAND was asked what music was on her stereo, she replied, “Living With Ghosts, Patty Griffin; What’s The Story Morning Glory, Oasis; Exile On Main Street, the Rolling Stones” (http://www.ashleycleveland.com/acfacts.htm). In her concerts, Ashley Cleveland performs a very gritty rendition of the Rolling Stones hit “Gimme Shelter.” CAEDMON’S CALL said their greatest love in music is secular rock. They mentioned Indigo Girls, Shawn Colvin, David Wilcox, The Police, Fishbone, 10,000 Maniacs (Lighthouse Electronic Magazine). The group often performs Beatles music. Cliff Young said one of his favorites is the foul-mouthed Alanis Morrisette. AUDIO ADRENALINE’S Bloom album includes the song “Free Ride” from the Edgar Winter Group’s They Only Come out at Night album. Rock star Edgar Winter was featured on the cover of this wicked album dressed as a homosexual “drag queen.” The lyrics to “Free Ride” claim that “all of the answers come from within.” This is rank heresy, because we know that the answers do not come from within man but from God’s revelation in the Bible. STEVE CAMP says, “I’ll have a Foreigner 4 album going in my car.” He also says: “I am dedicated to good music whether it’s pop, Christian, gospel, R&B, blues, jazz, classical, rock or whatever. I just love good music” (Steve Camp, MusicLine magazine, Feb. 1986, p. 22). Some of DC TALK’S musical role models are the Beatles, David Bowie, and The Police, all of which are wicked secular rock groups. dc Talk’s album “Free at Last” contains a song titled “Jesus Is Just Alright,” which was first sung by the Byrds (the song was later covered by the Doobie Brothers). dc Talk’s Kevin Smith said that he listens to mostly secular rock music (Flint Michigan Journal, March 15, 1996, B19). dc Talk opened its “Jesus Freak” concerts with the Beatles’ song “Help.” They also performed Jimi Hendrix’s Purple Haze. Hendrix was a drug-crazed New Age occultist. Toward the end of their concerts dc Talk played the rock song “All Apologies” by the wicked secular rock group Nirvana, formerly led by Kurt Cobain, a drug-crazed young man who committed suicide. JARS OF CLAY names Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles as their inspiration (Dann Denny, “Christian Rock,” Sunday Herald Times, Bloomington, Ind., Feb. 8, 1998). The lead guitarist for Jars of Clay is said to be a “Beatles fanatic” (Christian News, Dec. 8, 1997). When asked by Christianity Today to list their musical influences Jars of Clay members “listed no Christian artists” (Christianity Today, Nov. 15, 1999). During their concerts, Jars of Clay has performed “Crazy Train” by Ozzy Osbourne, the filthy-mouthed former lead singer for the occultic rock group Black Sabbath. AMY GRANT said, “I love to hear Billy Joel, Kenny Loggins and the Doobie Brothers” (Time, March 11, 1985). Dana Key (of DEGARMO & KEY) says that he has been influenced most by B.B. King, Jimi Hendrix, and Billy Gibbons (of ZZ Top) (CCM Magazine, January 1989, p. 30). POINT OF GRACE, on their Life, Love and Other Mysteries album, recorded “Sing a Song” by the occultic, antichrist rock group Earth, Wind and Fire. The worldliness of DELIRIOUS is evident in their choice of “musical heroes,” which include “Radiohead, Blur and other big British modern rockers” (CCM magazine, July 1999, p. 39). When asked what is currently in her CD player, CHRYSTAL LEWIS replied: “Michael Jackson, Thriller; Billy Holliday; Led Zeppelin; Radiohead, Ok Computer; Radiohead, Kid A; and Sting, Nothing Like the Sun (“Ten Questions with Chrystal Lewis,” CCM Magazine, March 2002). Michael Herman of Christianity Today asked the members of THIRD DAY to “name a musician you’d pay to see in concert.” All five members of the band named secular rockers. Tai named U2; Brad, the Cars; David, Phil Collins; Mac, Tom Petty; and Mark, George Harrison (“Guy Talk” interview posted at Christianity Today web site, Feb. 26, 2002).>>>(emphasis added)
This is something we can see in those listening to CCM too. Since christian rock, rap, metal, and pop sound just like worldly rock, rap, metal, and pop then worldly rock, rap, metal, and pop will still be attractive to those listening to CCM. And that could lead to people eventually ditching the “christian” version all together and going “all in” with the world. So much for converting them with music.
<<<We have seen that contemporary Christian musicians love secular rock; they listen to it in their private lives and they perform it in their concerts and record it for their albums. They even use secular rock in the worship of God. The “Heart of David Conference on Worship & Warfare,” sponsored by Rick Joyner’s Morning Star ministries, concluded with the praise team singing the Beatles song “I Want to Hold Your Hand” as if God were singing it to believers. The worship leaders were Leonard Jones, Kevin Prosch, and Suzy Wills. In 2002 I received the following note from a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary: “A couple of my students recently attended Rod Parsley’s World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. They said that the call to worship was a tape playing Van Halen’s ‘Jump!’ Every time David Lee Roth sang, ‘Jump’ the people all jumped.” Van Halen was one of the most popular heavy metal groups of the 1980s and early 1990s. In a concert in Detroit, Michigan, lead singer David Lee Roth yelled out, “We are gathered in celebration of drugs, sex and rock and roll!!!” (Shofar magazine, Fall 1983, p. 10). Many of Van Halen’s songs are vile and immoral. A rock critic said a Van Halen concert is “a musical circus of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll cliches” and noted that “sex is celebrated in a way that makes bike gangs look like morality squads” (Calgary Herald, April 28, 1984). During the Feb. 18, 2002, premier show for the Michael W. Smith/Third Day Come Together Tour, the CCM group Third Day took the stage to the strains of the New Age Beatles song “Come Together” (press release, Nashville, April 24, 2002). The Beatles have been one of the most godless, wicked influences in modern society. In his 1965 book, A Spaniard in the Works, John Lennon called Jesus Christ many wicked things that we cannot repeat and blasphemed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Lennon’s song “God” (1970), he sang: “I don’t believe in Bible. I don’t believe in Jesus. I just believe in me, Yoko and me, that’s reality.” Lennon’s extremely popular song “Imagine” (1971) promotes atheism. The lyrics say: “Imagine there’s no heaven … No hell below us, above us only sky … no religion too/ You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one/ I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one.” >>>(emphasis added)
<<<Briner says, “…instead of just hanging around the fringes of our culture, we need to be right smack dab in the middle of it…” It is obvious that the contemporary Christian musicians are “right smack dab in the middle” of modern culture. That is apparent in the way they dress. The women wear the same form-fitting, peek-a-boo styles that the unsaved wear. The men have the same long hair or punked hair or tattoos or earrings or whatever that the unsaved have. Whatever look the world is promoting, that is the look that CCM follows. I have never heard a contemporary Christian musician warn about immodest or worldly dress in any sort of plain manner. If there is such a person, he or she is in the most extreme minority. To promote his first crossover hit, “Place in This world,” Michael W. Smith produced a video that was sensual enough to reach the top 5 on the secular rock cable television station VH-1. The video was produced by the same company that created immoral videos for Prince. It showed “a dreamy Mr. Smith singing and playing the piano in the middle of the desert while a young, pouting, gorgeous woman wanders around in the sand; eventually the two find each other, hold hands, hug, and sort of nuzzle.” Smith admitted that his wife was opposed to him hugging another woman and that his own children said their mother should have been in the video instead of another woman. Dan Lucarini, who was formerly a contemporary worship leader, warns: “When you combine the sensual dancing with the immodest dress of the women on the platform [in contemporary praise teams], you place a very large stumbling block in front of the men of the congregation” (Confessions of a Former Worship Leader, p. 71). Lucarini describes the worldly influence that even the less radical contemporary Christian musicians have on Christian young people: “We took teens to concerts given by popular CCM artists. These were not the ‘radical’ heavy metal or hip-hop artists, but the middle-of-the-road performers who seemed to be good role models. But we noticed that the artists, probably under the influence of their recording companies, imitated secular artists in music, concert performance techniques, dress, hairstyle and merchandising. Everything seemed to be geared to making money by winning fans. The poor teens were manipulated in the same way as when they were listening to their secular teen idols. They were hooked in the beginning by safe, careful lyrics and moderate music but the artists always progressed to an edgier, rockier and harder music style with a lifestyle and image to match. And the teens followed along. The CCM artists became role models for different kinds of immorality: indecent dress, rebellious images, improper crushes on married men by young girls, lustful interest in sexy females by adolescent males” (Lucarini, Confessions of a Former Worship Leader, p. 117).>>> (emphasis added)
How many churches are casual dress these days?? You could be at any group meeting by the looks of the people. You would not know these people are at a church from the cloths they are wearing. As causal as it is getting I am surprised pajamas are not standard wear. Or swimwear. Or just underpants. Or maybe the athletes coming in just their jock straps. Or why not just eliminate clothing all together an worship au naturel??
<<<Another reason why we are opposed to Contemporary Christian Music is because it is ecumenical in philosophy and practice. John Styll, the publisher of Worship Leader magazine (which has a distribution of 50,000), made the following telling observation: “You can have a pretty straight-laced but theologically liberal Presbyterian church using the same songs that are being sung at a wild and crazy charismatic church, but they use different arrangements and adapt the songs to their unique settings” (Styll, quoted by Steve Rabey, “The Profits of Praise,” Christianity Today, July 12, 1999). Why would a “theologically liberal” Presbyterian church, which perhaps hates the old hymns about the blood and adds hymns about mother god and the social gospel to its songbook and which allows preachers to deny that Jesus is God and which thinks unrepentant homosexuals make fine church members, be attracted to contemporary praise music? Why would a Roman Catholic who prays to Mary and who praises God for purgatory (such as the popular charismatic priest Tom Forrest does) be attracted to contemporary praise music? Don’t you see something wrong with this picture, my friends? In an interview with Christianity Today, Don Moen of Integrity Music said: “I’ve discovered that worship [music] is transdenominational, transcultural. IT BRIDGES ANY DENOMINATION. Twenty years ago there were many huge divisions between denominations. Today I think the walls are coming down. In any concert that I do, I will have 30-50 different churches represented.” In his book Making Musical Choices, Richard Peck makes the following important observation about modern church music. Ecumenical terms that permeate the CCM scene include “anointed,” “the body,” “united,” “John 17,” “tolerance,” “non-critical love,” “judge not,” “no finger pointing,” etc. These are terms that identify the philosophy of the End Times ecumenical movement described in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 and other passages. The End Times apostasy is characterized by a rejection of strong biblical absolutes and reproof and doctrine and by teachers who pamper instead of preach, who generalize instead of being specific, who are positive rather than “negative,” who build self esteem rather than call for repentance. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Contemporary Christian Music is at home in the most ecumenical of contexts. The same music is perfectly at home in a Roman Catholic retreat or a World Council of Churches conference or a charismatic Laughing Revival meeting. CCM is the music of ecumenical evangelism, as epitomized by the Franklin Graham and Luis Palau crusades. Billy Graham led the way in this. Consider this description of Graham’s 1997 crusade in San Antonio, Texas. “More than 700 San Antonio churches representing over 50 denominations have joined together for the Graham crusade, which hopes to attract South Texas youth with big-name Christian rock acts [Amy Grant, dc Talk, Charlie Daniels Band, Michael W. Smith, Steve Green, and Jaci Velasquez] and a Saturday service just for kids” (Houston Chronicle, April 2, 1997). A typical Luis Palau evangelistic “festival” was described by Contemporary Christian Music.com as follows. This one was in Seattle in 2003. “Musical expressions spanning from southern-fried rock, to smooth soul, to explosive hip-hop swirl through a crowd of over 150,000 Seattle residents nestled within the spacious Marymoor Park on a beautiful summer afternoon. Opposite the stage, professional skaters perform death-defying stunts in front of teens accented by multiple piercings and an arsenal of tattoos.”>>>(emphasis added)
Ecumenicalism is not biblically sound. And these words while biblical have lost their meaning and can be made to mean anything people want and justify many anti-biblical beliefs. (Like the word LOVE for instance) I like the Grahams but using CCM is and was a mistake.
<<<When the Roman Catholic Church sings about Christian unity, of course, it is singing about non-Catholics being united with Rome! The 1996 CCM hit “Gather at the River” promotes the ecumenical theme: “Sometimes we don’t see eye to eye/ WE DON’T AGREE; WE DON’T KNOW WHY/ BUT JESUS PRAYED THAT WE’D BE ONE/ For the sake of God’s own Son/ CAN WE PUT AWAY OUR DIFFERENCES/ LAY DOWN OUR PRIDE/ It’s time we start turning the tide” (Joel Lindsey and Regie Hamm, “Gather at the River,” 20 Contemporary Christian Hits, Vol. 2, Benson Music Group, 1996). This song is built upon the false ecumenical interpretation of John 17:21, which claims that the unity for which Christ prayed is an ecumenical unity of professing Christians that disregards biblical doctrine. The context of John 17 destroys this myth. In John 17 the Lord emphasizes that the unity He desires is one based on salvation and truth. It is not a unity of nominal Christians with regenerate, sound doctrine with false. It is not a unity that ignores doctrinal differences for the sake of an enlarged fellowship. (1) The unity of John 17 is a God-created unity (John 17:11). There is nothing in Christ’s prayer to indicate that men are to do something to create the unity for which He prayed. John 17 is a prayer addressed to God the Father, not a commandment addressed to men. It is not something man needs to do; it is something God has already done. The prayer was answered 2,000 years ago. It is a spiritual reality which was created by God among genuine believers who are committed to the Scriptures, not a possibility which must be organized by man. (2) The unity of John 17 is a unity in truth … Note, too, that the ecumenical CCM song “Gather at the River” pretends that the doctrinal divisions between Christians are the result of pride (“lay down our pride”) and ignorance (“we don’t agree; we don’t know why”). This conveniently overlooks the Bible’s commands about defending the faith and separating from error. Christians who take these commands seriously refuse to be ecumenical, not because they are proud or ignorant but because they desire to please the Lord. This ecumenical song libels Bible-believing Christians who practice biblical separation. Contemporary Christian Music’s influence toward ecumenism is well stated by a man who at one time preached against it, Bob Larson. “Have you ever seen a bunch of young people (be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Baptist, charismatic or evangelical) setting aside their religious idiosyncrasies to jump and shout when Petra walks on stage?... The shared experience will send them back to their own churches LESS THEOLOGICALLY EXCLUSIVE. From that moment on, they are ‘not of this world’ with all of its petty ecclesiastical divisions” (Larson, Contemporary Christian Music Magazine, December 1985). …
To characterize doctrinal issues that separate Lutherans and Presbyterians and Baptists and charismatic as “RELIGIOUS IDIOSYNCRASIES,” as Bob Larson does, is ridiculous. It is not mere idiosyncrasies that divide these denominations but serious doctrinal issues. Some of these are the eternal security of the believer vs. the doctrine that a born again Christian can lose his salvation; believer’s baptism vs. infant baptism; Spirit baptism as a part of salvation vs. Spirit baptism as an experience subsequent to salvation; premillennialism vs. amillennialism; and a special priesthood vs. the priesthood of the believers, to mention only a few. Bill Gaither illustrates the ecumenical philosophy of Contemporary Christian Music. … The Gaithers frequently perform and record songs that present the ecumenical philosophy. An example is “Jesus Built This Church on Love” from their Back Home in Indiana album. The lead on the song is performed by Candy “Hemphill” Christmas, who travels with the Gaithers. The song is sung at many of the Gaither concerts. It is done in the style of a mid-tempo, jazzy black spiritual with drums and bass guitar emphasizing the back beat. Here are some of the lyrics: “Do you ever just get to wonderin’/ ‘bout the way things are today?/ So many on board this gospel ship/ Trying to row in a different way/ If we’d all pull together/ Like a family me and you/ We’d come a lot closer to doin’/ what the Lord called us to do. Chorus: “Jesus built this church on love/ and that’s what it’s all about/ Trying to get everybody saved/ NOT TO KEEP ANYBODY OUT…” This song implies that the divisions within Christianity are largely if not entirely man-made and unnecessary, that if professing Christians would merely “pull together” and exercise love the divisions would be healed. It is a feel-good sentiment, a nice fairy tale that has wide appeal, but it is unreasonable and unscriptural. The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles warned repeatedly that false teachers would lead many astray, that there would be false christs, false spirits, false gospels, false churches, doctrines of devils (see Matt. 7:15-23; 24:3-5,11,24; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Cor. 1:1-4; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:13; 4:3-4; 2 Pet. 2; 1 John 4:1; Jude; etc.).
The book of Revelation predicts a one-world End Time harlot Christian religion (Rev. 17). Those who preach an ecumenical unity rarely even mention these Bible warnings and never focus on them. They do not tell us plainly where these false christs, false gospels, false spirits, false teachers, and false churches are in Christianity today. They imply, rather, that denominational divisions are largely unnecessary and petty things that could be overcome by a little ecumenical love. There are many problems among Christians that could be healed through love, but it simply is not true that love will heal the major divisions within Christianity. The differences between denominations involve serious doctrinal issues that cannot be ignored and cannot be solved through sentimental songs. This Gaither song also says the churches are “not to keep anybody out.” That is openly contrary to the Bible’s command to separate from error and to exercise church discipline (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-21; 3:5; 2 John 8-11; Rev. 18:4). Another ecumenical Gaither song is “Loving God, Living Each Other” from the album by that name. “They pushed back from the table/ To listen to his words/ His secret plan before he had to go/ It’s not complicated/ DON’T NEED A LOT OF RULES/ This is all you need to know/ We tend to make it harder/ Build steeples out of stone/ FILL BOOKS WITH EXPLANATIONS OF THE WAY/ But if we’d stop and listen/ And break a little bread/ We would hear the Master say/ It’s Loving God, loving each other/ Making music with my friends/ Loving God, loving each other/ And the story never ends.” This song contains more half truths and subtle errors. Love is a very important part of the Christian life, but true Christian love is obeying God’s Word (John 14:23; 1 John 5:3). To say that we “don’t need a lot of rules” ignores the fact that the New Testament is literally filled with commandments! To say that we don’t need to “fill books with explanations of the way” ignores the fact that the Bible instructs us to “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). It ignores the fact that the Bible is given for “doctrine” (teaching) (2 Tim. 3:16), that preachers are instructed to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2), that older women are instructed to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), etc. Bible teaching certainly involves “filling books with explanations of the way.” That is precisely what the apostles did in the New Testament Epistles. The Bible itself contains 66 books with explanations of the way! This Gaither song presents a sentimental, ecumenical approach to the Christian life and ministry that is simplistic and appealing to a modern crowd but that is patently contrary to the Scriptures. ...
The very popular JOHN MICHAEL TALBOT is a Roman Catholic who prays to Mary and believes in dreams and other forms of extra-biblical revelation (including Catholic tradition). He became a lay “brother” in the order of Secular Franciscans in 1979 and lives in Little Portion Hermitage in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. This is the home of the Brothers and Sisters of Charity, “an integrated monastic community of families, celibates and singles” founded by Talbot and formally recognized by the Catholic Church. Talbot says Mary is very important in his life. In his book Simplicity, Talbot stated: “Personally, I have found praying the Rosary to be one of the most powerful tools I possess in obtaining simple, childlike meditation on the life of Jesus Christ.” The Rosary is largely a prayer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven. In 1984 Talbot said: “I am also feeling the presence of Mary becoming important in my life. ... I feel that she really does love me and intercedes to God on my behalf” (Contemporary Christian Music Magazine, November 1984, p. 47). Talbot’s albums were the first by a Catholic artist to be accepted broadly by both Protestant and Catholic listeners. “In 1988, Billboard Magazine reported that Talbot out-ranked all other male Christian artists in total career albums sold. After more than three million sales with Sparrow Records, making him Sparrow’s all-time best-selling recording artist” (Talbot’s web site). In an article entitled “Our Fathers, and Our Divided Family,” in the Catholic Charismatic magazine New Covenant, Talbot called for Christian unity on the basis of the Roman Catholic papacy: “A Roman Catholic, I respect other Christians. We are especially close to those who value apostolic tradition as well as Scripture. But even in this we face further debates that are obstacles to complete Christian unity. THIS IS WHY THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INSISTS THAT SCRIPTURE, TRADITION AND MAGISTERIUM ARE NECESSARY FOR A FULLY UNIFIED PEOPLE. WE ROMAN CATHOLICS FIND THIS IN THE POPE AS BISHOP OF ROME, TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCHES IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME. ... May we all hear these ancient truths and experience real conversion of heart” (emphasis added) (John Talbot, “Our Fathers, and Our Divided Family,” New Covenant, September 1997, p. 21). Talbot says Catholic tradition and the papacy are equal in authority with the Scripture. He says the fullest expression of true Christian unity can be found only in fellowship with the Pope of Rome. He prays that his readers will hear this message and experience conversion to Rome. What could be more unscriptural? …
The reason the contemporary praise music is so successful ecumenically, so universally popular in this apostate hour, is three-fold:
FIRST, AS A RULE IT IS NOT DOCTRINALLY STRONG AND CLEAR. While there are exceptions, they are only that. CCW sings of Jesus and grace and love and salvation, but in such a doctrinally non-specific manner that the modernists can find their “jesus” therein and the Catholics, their “grace.” False teachers use the same terms that Bible believers use, but they have a different dictionary. They sing about grace but they do not mean the free undeserved grace that comes through faith by the shedding of Christ’s blood without works or sacraments. They sing of Jesus, but it is not necessarily the thrice holy Jesus, the mighty God, the everlasting father, of Scripture. They sing of the Spirit, but it might be a strange one that knocks people to the floor and glues them there. SECOND, THE CONTEMPORARY PRAISE MUSIC IS POPULAR EVEN AMONG UNREGENERATE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME ROCK MUSIC TO WHICH THIS GENERATION IS IRREDEEMABLY ADDICTED. And there are all sorts of rock music, hard, soft, rap, you name it. People are so addicted to rock music today that oftentimes they do not recognize that music is rock unless it is of the most violent brand. I believe that if you took away the rock music, you would see an immediate and dramatic decline in the popularity of contemporary praise. Rock music is very powerful and moving in and of itself, and I am convinced that it plays a large role in producing the emotional high that modern worshippers are commonly seeking. Where would they be without their rock music? THIRD, THE CONTEMPORARY PRAISE MUSIC REPRESENTS THE POPULAR ECUMENICAL PHILOSOPHY OF POSITIVISM AND SPIRITUAL NEUTRALISM. One thing that is grossly and almost universally lacking from the lives and ministries of the creators of contemporary praise music is a forthright defense of the faith and an exposure of apostasy. Thus Contemporary Christian Music doesn’t “get on anyone’s toes.” But defense of the faith and exposure of error is not an optional part of Christianity. To neglect this ministry is blatant disobedience to the Bible that commands us to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3). For the most part, the CCM people are those who believe in the myth of “evangelical Catholics” and who praise Mother Teresa as a great Christian. These are the people who refuse to name the names of heretics and who ridicule those who do. Further, the influential names in Contemporary Praise Music have taken up the neutral ground that allows false teachers to prosper. The Bible describes massive apostasy at the end of the church age. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Contemporary praise music is proving to be one of the most powerful glues to bring together every sort of church in this strange and wicked hour, regardless of its heresies. For reporting purposes, I have attended meetings of a wide range of denominations, Pentecostal, Charismatic, American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Willowcreek, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Episcopal, and Roman Catholic, to name some, and the one thing they all have in common today is contemporary music. Therefore, another one of the reasons why we are opposed to Contemporary Christian Music is its ecumenical nature. >>>(emphasis in original highlighting added)
The next section is about charismatic movement. I know many here will have no problem with charismatics but it is somewhat suspect with healings that get ‘lost’ and ‘knocking people down to the ground’ it doesn’t sound at all like the apostles ministry which it seems to want to claim it is continuing.
<<< John Wimber conducted “signs and wonders” conferences in various parts of the world, teaching the error that effective evangelism requires the working of miracles. Wimber spread great confusion through his allowance for extra-biblical revelation. The Promise Keepers (PK) movement was founded by men involved in the Vineyard churches. PK founder Bill McCarthey is a member of a Vineyard church in Boulder, Colorado. The pastor of that church, James Ryle, teaches that God is still raising up prophets and claims to have received many personal revelations from God through dreams and visions. Wimber moved easily in the most radical of charismatic circles. For example, he was a featured speaker at the North American Congress on the Holy Spirit & World Evangelization in Indianapolis, August 1990. In that forum he joined hands with and preached to 25,000 charismatics, including roughly 12,000 charismatic Roman Catholics, including countless priests and nuns. A charismatic Catholic mass was held every morning of the convention. I was present at this conference with press credentials and heard Wimber speak. The very popular and influential INTEGRITY MUSIC company (Integrity also owns HOSANNA MUSIC) rose out of the charismatic movement and the music it spreads to 117 countries is charismatic in nature. Integrity recorded an album at the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida, where a strange charismatic “revival” broke out in 1995. Don Moen is the “creative director” for Integrity. In an interview with the Pentecostal Evangel, a magazine published by the Assemblies of God, Moen described the power of the music recorded at Brownsville: “Because something is imparted when you listen to this tape. I don’t want it to sound spooky or mysterious, but there’s something powerful about embracing the music of the revival. The fire of the revival can stir in you even as you listen to the songs that took place at the Brownsville revival” (“Don Moen Discusses Music at Brownsville Assembly,” Pentecostal Evangel, Nov. 10, 1996). The “revival” to which he refers is not a biblical revival; it is a “revival” in which people become drunk and stagger about and fall down and are unable to perform the most basic functions of life. The pastor at Brownsville during the alleged revival, John Kilpatrick, has testified that it has taken him a half hour just to put on his socks when he was drunk with the Brownsville revival spirit. He has lain on the church platform for as long as four hours, unable to get up and unable to exercise his responsibilities as a pastor. His wife has been unable to cook their food or clean the house. Whatever this “revival” is, it is not something that is Bible based. Yet Moen testifies that this spirit can be imparted through the music.>>>(emphasis added)
<<<A final reason why we are opposed to Contemporary Christian Music is that when it comes into a church (or into the life of an individual) it weakens the church’s fundamentalist stance and results in a gradual lowering of standards of morality and doctrine. The late Gordon Sears, who had an evangelistic music ministry for many years and ministered with Rudy Atwood, was saddened before his death by the dramatic change that was occurring in many fundamental Baptist churches. He warned: “When the standard of music is lowered, then the standard of dress is also lowered. When the standard of dress is lowered, then the standard of conduct is also lowered. When the standard of conduct is lowered, then the sense of value in God’s truth is lowered.” Frank Garlock of Majesty Music warns, “If a church starts using CCM it will eventually lose all other standards” (Garlock, Bob Jones University Chapel, March 12, 2001). The late fundamentalist leader Ernest Pickering gave a similar warning: “Perhaps nothing precipitates a slide toward New Evangelicalism more than the introduction of Contemporary Christian Music. This inevitably leads toward a gradual slide in other areas as well until the entire church is infiltrated by ideas and programs alien to the original position of the church.” We can see this happening on every hand today.>>>(emphasis added)
He then give several examples some having to do with the church changing its name, often to drop the baptist part, to seem more appealing after having gone to CCM form awhile. I have one of them here:
<<<CONSIDER THE EXAMPLE OF BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH IN FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA. This church illustrates the changes that contemporary music brings. At one time this church was an old-fashioned Baptist church that believed in separation and was committed to the King James Bible, but for many years the church has been moving ever more gradually in a contemporary direction. By the time the 2002 Baptist Bible Fellowship International conference was held here the contemporary “worship team” was led by four women. Today the Bethlehem Baptist Church has much gone about as far as you can go away from its roots in the matter of standards. In a letter dated July 3, 2003, Pastor David Stokes said: “With regard to dress and modesty issues, we enforce NO RULE on our folks. … apparel issues are really of NO CONCERN to us” (emphasis added). If the pastor really means what he says, then it would be fitting for a Sunday School teacher to come in her bikini! Of course, the pastor probably wouldn’t allow that, which proves that what he really means is that he has rejected the OLD strict conservative Bible standards and has replaced them with his NEW loose worldly standards. All churches draw lines in dress, but while some draw them using biblical principles, others draw them using the world’s principles. Of course, the latter group consistently labels the first group mean-spirited legalists. Stokes also led the church to drop its “King James Only” clause from the by-laws and he now preaches from the New American Standard Version and the New Living Translation, among others. In recent years the church’s name was changed from Bethlehem Baptist Church to Fair Oaks Church. One of the church’s ministries is Skate Night, which is sponsored by secular skateboarding companies. Thus the church is blatantly yoking together with unbelievers in open defiance of Scripture (2 Cor. 6:14-18). A description of Skate Night was given by a local newspaper: “CHRISTIAN ROCK THROBS inside the small gymnasium off West Ox Road in Fairfax, just a few decibels louder than the clacking of wheels. ... It’s Sunday night and more than 170 teenagers and young adults -- all but one of them male -- line the walls of the Bethlehem Baptist Church gym, waiting their turn to grind and swoop and dive over a maze of makeshift ramps and rails” (Washington Post, April 4, 2001). The church testifies that it is using rock music and skateboarding to win young people to Christ, but the Skate Night web site’s gospel presentation is so weak as to be almost meaningless: “We’re not talking about religion; we’re talking about a relationship. It’s about recognizing that you are not perfect. We’ve all made mistakes. From pimping and drug abuse to telling a little white lie, we are all in need of a Savior. He doesn’t care what you look like, what bad things you have done, or even how good you may think you are. He just wants you to know Him!” That is not the gospel message that we find in the New Testament. There is no clear explanation of man’s sin. There is nothing about God’s holiness and justice, nothing about what Jesus did to become our Saviour, nothing about His death, burial, and resurrection. Nothing about the blood. There is nothing whatsoever about repentance or turning. And as for God not caring how good a person might think he is, He most certainly does, because if a person thinks of himself as good in any sense, he cannot be saved. Someone might get saved through Fair Oaks Church’s Skate Night ministry, but it would be in spite of its gospel presentation and not because of it. The Bethlehem Baptist Church paper in 2002 featured a photo of the church’s new Youth Pastor, Rob Hoerr. Bedecked with a goatee, an earring, and a P.O.D. T-shirt, this independent Baptist youth director is proudly promoting the Christian rock lifestyle. P.O.D. is a rock band. The initials are supposed to stand for Payable On Death. The tattoo-covered band members curse in interviews, smoke, watch R-rated movies, and criticize kids “who want to segregate themselves from the world.” The group’s leader said, “Jesus was the first rebel. He was the first punk rocker going against all the rest of it” (Sonny of P.O.D., www.shoutweb.com/interviews/pod0700.phtml). In another interview, P.O.D. said, “We’re not passing out pamphlets saying ‘Get your life straight or you’re gonna burn in hell” (Sonny, Guitar World, Oct 2000, p. 78). Sonny says, “I like Slayer. I like Manson. I like music and this dark imagery” (2001 interview with Theresa McKeon of Shoutweb titled “P.O.D. The Fundamental Elements of God Rock”). He is talking about the antichrist rocker Marilyn Manson. P.O.D. guitarist Marcos says, “You know, everyone is free to rock ---. When we go on stage we go crazy. We are like four guys you should put in a mental hospital” (interview with Hwee Hwee Tan of Singapore, October 2002). Is that the example you want your young people to follow, dear parents? I say woe unto the worldly youth directors who are leading young people in such paths, and woe unto those pastors who appoint such youth directors! Thus we can see that Bethlehem Baptist Church has gone a long way down the road from its roots as a conservative, fundamentalist Baptist church, and music is at the very heart of the changes.>>>(emphasis added)
<<<In each case, they will profess that they have not changed anything important. Brad Powell of Northridge (formerly Temple Baptist of Detroit) claims that by following church growth guru Bill Hybels of Willowcreek, he has not changed anything of significance. For those who have eyes to see, this subterfuge won’t fly. … For the Bible believer, the choice between the contemporary church growth philosophy and the old traditional fundamentalist philosophy is not “both and,” it is “either or.” The pastors who follow the contemporary church growth principles claim that they are not changing doctrine, only style. That is simply not true. Many of the so-called “style” changes are doctrinal. To allow church members to dress immodestly like the world without any reproof or correction is a doctrinal issue. To borrow the music that the world uses for sexual pleasure and to incorporate that very music into the church program is a doctrinal issue. To claim that music is neutral is a doctrinal issue. To yoke ecumenically with charismatics and such is a doctrinal issue. To say that preaching should focus on the positive is a doctrinal issue. To take Matthew 7:1 and Romans 14:4 out of context to approve a non-judgmental, doctrinally non-controversial approach to the Christian ministry is a doctrinal issue. To use community surveys for planning church policy is a doctrinal issue. To adopt a New Evangelical philosophy is a doctrinal issue. When a church changes its “style” in these areas, it is undergoing a radical doctrinal change; and continual boasting to the contrary is mere noise without meaning and only deceives the willfully blind.>>>(emphasis added)
Somewhere along the line we decided the SIZE of our flocks mattered and showed how successful a preacher we were. Thus a mega church paster is seen as much better than the paster of the little chapel down the road that has only a dozen members. As I said before pastors seem to boast of their flock size like worldly men boast of the penis size when they are very well endowed. The fact is God is more impressed with the preacher from that little chapel down the road whose 12 members are all saved than he is with the mega pastor who while having 10,000 congregants likewise has 12 saved members.
with smile amazon you can choose a charity and 0.5% of the purchase price goes to that charity when you buy your amazon books through their smile amazon site.
Links for above articles:
P.S. I refuse to capitalize satan, unless it is the first word in a sentence, I will not give him the honor of capitalization of his name or title(devil).
Paul Wilson
Protestant (only to show I don’t follow the pope)
Independence MO USA
"If man will not be governed from within, he must be governed from without."
