“We must make sure that nobody is left behind…”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ (September 2019) 

One of the most disappointing ministry stories that I’ve ever encountered was that of a young woman who recounted how she ended her Awana glory days. This young woman was part of a Christian family and a baptized member of the local First Baptist Church. She had been through multiple stages of Awana and considered herself “on fire” for Christ. When the year 2000 came around, her pastor encouraged her to put her faith to practice. He warned that Y2K and all of the apocalyptic events surrounding the new millennium were certainly signs of the end times. “Jesus is coming back. Don’t be left behind,” was the clear message. 

 This young woman was ready for the return of Christ. Her pastor shared that December 31st of the year 1999 was going to be the last day of the world and that the Lord would rapture up the faithful believers into Heaven. Everyone else will be left behind to face the most difficult times mankind has ever known. The message was clear – everyone who does not believe will face certain disaster. It was a powerful tool for conversions. It made the fear of the Lord into a pressing reality and gave evangelical Christians a paradigm by which to read current events. 

But on January 1st, 2000 – Jesus did not return. And neither did this young woman. Not to Church at least. She was more than disappointed, she felt deceived. Her entire worldview was built around Christ’s return and her pastor’s ability to tell the truth. 

Christian teachers who expect the imminent return of Christ are largely from the American dispensational and premillennial camps. This innovative 19th century movement can be traced back to men like Darby and Scofield, yet it now holds a great deal of influence in evangelical circles today. You may even be familiar with some of their more ardent advocates like Tim LaHaye of the fiction series “Left Behind” (which was also made into a movie with Nicolas Cage and Jordin Sparks).  Our friend Gary Demar refers to this theological movement as “Last Days Madness.” (See his book by the same title here). 

But rapture theology permeates not only the evangelical world, but the entire human condition. The idea that the world is running down toward destruction is a common trope also embraced by climate alarmists and is often coupled with phrases like, “left behind.” 

In a press release, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks, “We must make sure that nobody is left behind as a result of the climate impacts that we are already experiencing and more and more will experience in the future.” This apocalyptic language is common throughout the climate change discussion. One of the most eminent prophets for American environmentalism is former Vice President Al Gore. In 2006, Gore’s famous An Inconvenient Truth set the clock at ten years until the ice caps were gone and irreversible damage had been done. But as David French put it, “Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.”

Postponing the apocalypse happens again and again. Today’s climate prophets like Greta Thunberg sound eerily familiar to the wonks predicting the coming rapture. “I want you to panic… I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,” preaches Thunberg. And she’s not alone in her preaching, ”The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,”  says millennial Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The religious overtone of these conversations continue in almost every level of politics. In responding to wildfires and hurricanes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims, “Mother Earth is angry… She’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West…” 

I remember when the news media would mock men like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson for linking natural disasters to the wrath of God. Yet, climate alarmism seems to embrace the very same rapture mentality: the end is near, be afraid.

The negative effects and false prophecies of climate alarmism have been readily apparent for decades. Yet our politicians continue to choose the religion of climate activism over the welfare of human life. In his book “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” Michael Shellenberger chronicles how end-times environmentalism has done more damage than good. 

More than embracing junk science, modern climate change alarmist often reveal a hatred for our world.

“When we hear activists, journalists, IPCC scientists, and others claim climate change will be apocalyptic unless we make immediate, radical changes, including massive reductions in energy consumption, we might consider whether they are motivated by love for humanity or something closer to its opposite We must fight against Malthusian and apocalyptic environmentalists who condemn human civilization and humanity itself.”

(Apocalypse Never, p. 274) 

While I don’t personally agree with many of Shellenberger’s ultimate conclusions, there is an underlying truth that humans can improve the health and well being of our planet. We can transform once arid environments into farmland and relieve some of the worst human suffering by economic development. There’s no need for alarm, but rather hope. 

The myths of limited resources and overpopulation are used to malign human life by climate alarmists. Again, wielding a similar weapon American Dispensationalism spurns the world and looks to escape a sinful world via the rapture. But the message of the Gospel is that Christ’s resurrection has overcome the sin of Adam. The lamb of God has come to take away, not the people from the world, but the sin from the world. We have therefore both a spiritual and cosmic hope for this world and the next. 

We cannot allow the “apocalypse nonsense” of the left’s “climate alarmism” or dispensational “end times madness” to be the rudder of a Christian future. Christians ought to recognize the power of our sovereign God in history and the present reality of Christ’s dominion for the life of the world. 

Read more

Netflix responded to the growing criticism of their recently debuted film “Cuties,” with little girls twerking in provocative outfits by stating that the movie is a “commentary against the sexualization of children.” ^a

The director, Maïmouna Doucouré, argues that the movie is an attempt to modernize the image of femininity, not to sexualize it. Beyond that, her desire is to show the world that the image of Islamic women as captives of a patriarchal system is the wrong one. She argues that “Cuties” makes the case for the evolution of Islam and the liberation of women everywhere.

“Cuties” is a reflection of how feminists wish to see the world break from their traditional chains. It seeks to inculcate the idea that what these 11 year-old girls are doing through sensual dances and close-up of body parts is an act of religious sacrifice for a cause. After all, “Cuties” is a deeply religious movie in that it seeks to persuade the viewer of a religion of open sexuality regardless of age. No, they don’t explicitly promote abusing these little girls, but they openly set the stage for it under the guise of sexual liberation.

Whether the movie promotes pedophilia is debated externally on the basis of the morality of the movie, but I suggest that the movie promotes the abuse of children through its philosophy, as well as through its images. In fact, it’s the brutal combination of both that leads to the effective promulgation of its message.

The message is portrayed through the lens of freeing oppressed women so they may pursue true femininity. The art behind it is a deeply dark one where girls’ bodies are used as canvas to convey the desires of a director who wants nothing more than to sever the West from its Judeo-Christian heritage.

How then can we replace the traditional values of Christendom? What “Cuties” argues is that humans are formed early; that ideologies and philosophies of life are shaped by messages not when these young ladies are in college, but in that early grammar stage where thoughts are quickly absorbed. In fact, “Cuties” absorbs religious ways of conversionism and explores how we as a culture don’t have to wait to see change in an 18-year old, but how we as parents and leaders in our community can and should expect our little girls to view their bodies as sacred-less; without purpose or intent from their earliest days. In the end, the religion of “Cuties” is that bodies lack the holy–even at 11–and the sooner we ignore any divine purpose for our bodies, the sooner we can evolve as a species.

1. A little girl watches a female rap music video where scantily clad women role play through dance. During the dance in the music video, one woman reveals a naked breast.  (back)

Read more

I was interviewed yesterday on the topic of children in worship by a Christian radio station. It’s always good to know people are interested in discussing these critical subjects. One of the concerns that came up in the interview and was also brought up by a concerned commenter has to do with the exceptional cases. In other words, what about those who would suffer should a church policy be established that children should remain with their parents from the beginning to the end of the service?

I would immediately reply that I am under no illusion that such ideal would receive such a vast consensus. I am an optimist on ecclesiastical matters–the kind that keeps pressing an issue until they build a two-feet monument in honor of my perseverance a day or two after my death.

The other fact is that what we believe to be true, right and good does not mean we think that everyone must come onboard overnight. Let all those who suffered under the zeal of new Calvinists say amen: “Amen!” And I speak as a recovering irritant to my non-Calvinist friends. Mea Culpa!

That said, there are incremental ways to bring about a recovery of a view of worship that includes nursing infants and toddlers and teenagers on the same row, or preferably separated by an adult or three. When someone gives the example of a single mother of four who would panic or not even bother to come to worship because the local Church does not provide a nursery or a children’s worship program, I do have some additional caveats to add.

I do think this is a conversation that we need to have, which means that we begin with what we believe is true, and then we work our way down to the exceptional cases. We don’t build arguments based on the exceptions; otherwise, we would all be socialists. We think—at least most of us do—that Capitalism good, and then once we have established that principle, we work on how to best deal with those who have legitimate needs. But for the vast majority, the principle is that you work, and therefore you eat (II Thes. 3:10).

All this means that we need to be in some agreement as to our destination first. Then, we can begin to think carefully about what to do with the mega-church with 167 programs for little people. This also does not negate the hard work of teachers who seek to provide a carefully fitting message for kids ages 3-4. But I also want to be sure to say with all the courage I can muster that because there is good work being done, it does not mean that it is the right work to be done. Something can be a good deed applied to the wrong context. For instance, I can bring my wife flowers a day after our anniversary. It’s a good deed, but dangerously wrong timing.

We need to change the culture of the Church on this issue. And that means that some of you might need to make some changes (as I articulated in a previous post) at home, and in other places, if you really are convinced by what I have said thus far. We want to encourage the single mom by pointing her to several other people who can come alongside her and help her in the process. I would suggest that if you are a single mom of four and the Church you attend has absolutely no interest in reconsidering their methods, and you—for various reasons—have no intention to leave, then you should continue to abide by the Church’s distinctives. If, however, your convictions become so strong as the days and months pass by that you can no longer tolerate that Church’s policy, then you need to take some more serious measures lest you become a burden to the leadership of the Church (Heb. 13:17).

As a final note, one observer noted out of concern that families that once were dependent on children’s Church have still not returned to worship because the vast majority of churches who have resumed their in-person services are not yet offering children’s programs out of safety concerns. Therefore, if you are still reading, the equation is: No children’s worship=no church participation. My deeper question at this point is to ask why have churches inculcated a dependency on such things that are clearly not essential to the life of the Church in the Bible, or for that matter in the history of the Church. Consider that none of these children’s programs—however valuable—existed until about the 18th century and more formally until the late 19th century. All this means that the Church seemed to blossom for a very long time before these things, which indicates that we have become dependent on a system that is relatively new in the church scene. I propose we slowly but methodically begin to change this entire reasoning by having more difficult conversations about the nature of worship and the nature of children and their role in God’s assembly.

Read more

I want to talk about John MacArthur again. Is it the 6th time? I don’t know, but I do want to use him as an example of a principle that saddens me. I don’t want to assume too much from something he said recently on an interview, but I do wish to hammer down the idea of loyalty in times of confusion.

Eric Metaxas was inquiring of John.MacArthur about the recent comings and goings regarding his commitment to remain open as a church regardless of what passes as law in Los Angeles County. For the octogenarian pastor, this is a pretty clear cut issue no matter how many nuances others put in their sandwich. And then he added this disheartening note:

“I’ll be very specific. The last couple days we’ve been dealing with the issue, a lot of evangelical leaders across the country I know and not one of them that’s a prominent person has contacted me to say thank you…because if you’re not everything the pragmatic evangelical movement wants to be you’re pariah…”

Think about the fact that the man who was physically present –when many of these evangelicals were nursing as infants–at the Council on Biblical Inerrancy in 1977 and who has fought for orthodoxy while many of these men were opening their first pages of Berkhoff, is now considered a pariah. Just a few years ago, the same (oh, let’s go ahead and speak freely) Dever and Leeman and Mohler and others (yes, I love these brothers but strongly oppose their vision) were praising MacArthur and driving young men in masses to his Shepherd’s Conference every year, yes, these same men have not picked up the phone or used their influential tweets or Facebook posts to defend or at least act as a friend to someone who has fought the good fight. As a side note, I was amused when a theologian whose last name rhymes with Brittlejohn asserted that MacArthur is leading his flock into danger. It was at that moment that I grasped something important: the younger generation, those not impressed by Machen’s fear of liberalism, but very much impressed by theologians in skinny jeans opining about critical theory, have little interest in preserving the warring stamina of those old stalwarts like Sproul, Gertsner, Van Til, Bahnsen, and the still living John MacArthur.

MacArthur feels isolated when he should have every major player behind him, even if they find his position a bit too much. These guys–in my way of viewing things–should say, “You know John, we love you and stand by you, though we wish you would consider this or that caveat.” But rather, what we have is sheer pragmatism; the kind that sticks to the oven after cooking loads of bacon; the kind that needs extra strength to get it off.

“Not one of them,” he said. Not one of them was willing to tell a faithful pastor living in the most outrageously pagan society in America and the most conspicuously tyrannical state in these United States said, “Hey man, we got your back!” Michael W. Smith was wrong: some friends are not friends forever. Jonny, for what it’s worth, there are a bunch of unknown pastors and theologians whose popularity don’t move the social media scale, but move small little communities to think rightly, who love you and appreciate your grandfatherly care for your flock and who stand with you in these trying times.

Read more

Introduction

Part 1

Part 2

Why do we come to church? The answer to that question is actually monumentally important. If you have a simplistic/minimalist view of church, then showing up late or attending infrequently, or taking every other Sunday to go camping/fishing instead of being with God’s people means your ecclesiology is about as great as RoboCop 3, Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, or whatever sequel that ruined a great franchise. If your view of the Church is represented by that mentality, then good luck, or whatever you say to someone who is endangering his soul and the souls of his offspring.

But for the rest of you who treasure worship, and who have made a once-in-a-lifetime decision to be with God’s people every Sunday unless providentially hindered, then you should know that no matter the tradition, your view of worship is all-inclusive. There is no half-time show, no water-break; rather, the whole thing from beginning to end is significant to shape your view of Christ. In my tradition, if you show up about 10 minutes late, you will have missed the prayer of confession and Christ’s words of forgiveness. You will have missed a really big part of the Gospel story.

This leads to the second argument against keeping children in worship from beginning to end, which is, “I am not going to get anything out of the service if I am constantly distracted by them.” This is a variation of the first argument, but it adds that since the sermon is the central element of worship, keeping children in worship takes our attention away from the preached Word. There is much to admire in this perspective. But we need to challenge the basic premise here, which is that the purpose of worship is merely to hear a 20-50 minute sermon. While the premise is noble and we must treasure God’s word proclaimed, we fundamentally err in thinking that the sermon is a stand-alone act in worship. What goes before the Word preached sets the stage for the Word preached and what goes after the Word preached is the response of grateful hearts to the words of God.

Our first mistake is to think that children are a distraction from the real business of the Church. But why should they not benefit from the sermon also? What if instead of viewing them as distractions during the sermon, you view them as hearers of the sermon as well? What if you worked towards getting them to participate in the singing and the hearing? If the Word of God proclaimed by an ordained minister is so crucial–and it has always been in the history of the Church and the biblical story–why are little children exempt from such a blessing? “But they won’t understand a word!” you might say. Is their humanity and the blessings of God’s revelation contingent on their understanding? What if you have a 30 year-old mentally disabled son who grasps only the minimal? Is he also not worthy of hearing God’s word because of his mental incapacity? Think very carefully about this logic.

We often view children differently than how the Bible viewed them. In Joel 2:16, the assembly gathered and the prophet added to that flock “the nursing infants.” In Psalm 8:2, the psalmist says that praises flow from the mouth of babes and infants. There is never an indication that these little ones were set aside for a separate assembly during the prophetic delivery, and there is zero indication that Jesus scattered the babies during the sermon on the mount. But the opposite is in fact true.

The other failed premise is to assume that “getting something out of the sermon” is the sole purpose of worship. If your congregation is full of life in word and singing, then God is ministering to you in every element of the worship service. You don’t have to wait until the sermon to be fed; God has already begun to feed you before the sermon and will do so after the sermon in the worship service.

It is my contention that the service itself provides opportunities for you to gain throughout by the very act of training your little ones, and being around others with little ones, and singing with little ones, and hearing with little ones. Will there be distractions? Yes. Will you follow the pastor’s argument in Jude 6 all the way? Probably a bit or most certainly not. But do these acts of togetherness with your offspring set the stage for future worshipers who grow into decency before God and man and who treasure the songs of Zion and the Word made flesh? You better believe it! I’ve seen it! Heck, I lived it just a few minutes ago in our family morning worship.

Read more

After yesterday’s post, a dear friend jokingly said that if I keep talking about the dangers of porn, people might begin to think it’s a problem in the Church. So, it has prompted me to add an additional note as a follow-up, which is that our pornified age comes through obvious means. And if there is one consistent regret I have heard from parents over the years, it’s the regret that they gave unfettered or barely monitored access to the internet to their children. Part of the problem in our day is that most parents have little to no clue how the cyber-world functions and as a result are completely clueless about the infinite amounts of worlds one link can open.

When a parent places an iPod in the hands of his seven-year-old unsupervised, he is subtly giving permission for that child to navigate through an ad on his new game app. These ads contain links that can easily take a child to a browser than can easily grant him the ability to type something in a search engine that easily leads him to pornographic images. Does my illustration assume too much? Does it jump too fast from one thing to the next? For the record, the process enumerated above takes between 8-13 seconds. And, as Net Nanny states, 1 in 10 children under the age of 10 will have seen porn. My scenario is more common than one might think. But where is that child learning such techniques? Apart from the normal environments, you should know that children are more intuitive than you think. There was a time when a child felt trapped in a maze and would scream for help, but now for many, the maze is their home and they remain happily trapped in it.

The language those of us born before 1980 grew up with was a fairly simple way of looking at the world. If we wanted to look something up, we had to get a lexicon or an encyclopedia. Today, the language of our children–and you can’t escape it–is already shaped to accept these dangers. Therefore, uninvolved parents, or parents who remain relatively naive about our world, will be suddenly shocked when their little children know a whole lot more about the sexual ritual at 10 than they did at 17.

Among the many responsibilities of parents is the responsibility to deliver their children from evil. This means that they are to direct their children away from “intentionally tempting temptation;” like poking a dormant ferocious animal for the mere high it provides. “Deliver us from evil…”Lead us not into temptation.” Yes, the Lord’s Prayer presents us a parental paradigm in many ways.

Children mature at different levels and exposing them too early can be devastating. Parents need to exercise wisdom. No good parent would throw their children into a dangerous situation, but they may unknowingly. The world of cell phones–and social media by extension–provide such an opportunity. The question is not whether we should wait until a certain age or whether we should trust them with such a tool, but rather, “What are we doing in the process to equip them to handle such a responsibility?” In my estimation–with the exception of a flip phone for emergencies, perhaps–no child or teenager needs an all-access cell phone until they start driving.

We can no longer shelter ourselves from these conversations. We need to start raising these questions and entering into these conversations early. Free access to the virtual world represents the opening of communication doors. Are our children equipped to handle this new world? How have they behaved and reacted to the local communication they experience? Have their experiences been positive? Or, have they been quickly sucked into a false model of community where communication serves our selfish ambitions and desires? Communication is stewardship; if they are allowed to enter into a foreign world young, we shouldn’t be overly surprised that they have already been courting the false gods of pornography.

Read more