I am not sure there is ever an excuse to quote a heretic from the pulpit... not unless you are giving an example of their bad theology. For example... if a pastor ever gave a quote from Joel Osteen... one that wasn't followed by "this is an example of horrible theology!" then I think there is a right to be concerned. The congregates may assume that the quote is coming from a sound and biblical source... and journey down that rabbit hole and arrive at the verge of heresy without knowing it.

Today a red flag went up when I heard a preacher at a church in town quote from mystic Brother Lawrence. For more on this mystic see here: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/brotherlawrence.htm I have to wonder... why? Is there NO ONE else in the history of Christianity who has spoke on prayer at any length who isn't a heretic? Someone who was not engaged in contemplative practices that are more pagan than Christ-centric?

Why is there a desire in ANY way to reconnect with the mystics today? I mean... what was the reason for the Reformation of 400-500 years ago? What, after all, did we LEAVE when Christianity moved beyond Rome? If we left it, why attempt to allude to it in a positive way?

It's just... troubling.

I wish I had something far more insightful to say... but I really don't.  I am still here...

My grandparents and parents visited the church Kacey and I attend last weekend.  It was an interesting visit.  Even MORE interesting is that my grandparents really liked the service and the sermon Pastor Doug gave!  Not that Doug usually gives inadequate sermons... not at all!  However, seeing as Boulevard holds to the Doctrines of Grace... and the sermon was in ROMANS... it would not have surprised me if my grandparents (who were raised up in the Oneness Pentecostalism and now attend a liberal American Baptist congregation) ended up hating the service, with its emphasis on God's grace rather than our works.  Still, they really seemed to like it.  My parents, of course, loved it... no surprise there. 

The sermon was definitely focused on God's grace in our salvation.  Non-God-fearing Gentiles suppressed the knowledge of God (Romans 1).  God-fearing Gentiles claimed to love God, but were hypocritical in that they did the very things they said were sinful for people to do (Romans 2).  The Jews, to whom the law was given, are no better either... because they too sin (Romans 3).  Additionally, the law cannot save.  It only points out what sin is.  This is not to say that the law is sin!  By no means!  But rather, the law points out sin - points out MY problem, MY sin.  The problem is not the law for doing its job... the problem is ME and my wretchedness.  In a way it is kinda like "don't blame the messenger."  The law brings the message of my wretchedness - it does not make me a wretch.  I do that just fine on my own.  How then is there any salvation?

Romans 5:6-11.    Christ died for the ungodly.  We did not initiate - He did!

Yes.  Believe it or not... it is possible.  Actually don't "not" believe it.  If you do (or don't?) then you are just wrong.  So stop it.  Or do it.  I forget. 

Moving on.

One of the "drums" my extremely liberal professor Boyer was banging away at this past intercession course was that there is no way to generalize about an event or teaching of Christ from the pages of Scripture.  We can, according to Boyer, only say with any certainty what Mark says about Jesus doing _____ or how John characterizes Jesus during ______.  Each account exists isolated from each other; it would be foolish to attempt to reconcile these accounts into one coherent account of the life and teachings and death and resurrection of Jesus... as... "Then you would be creating a gospel that is unlike ANY of the four canonical Gospels: a gospel that does not even exist!!" 

Right.  I call shenanigans.

It sounds profound, after all.  I mean, if I were to take clips from various films or television episodes... and attempt to edit them together into one story line... I would not have anything resembling the original... rather I would have some strange concoction of Top Gun/Back to the Future/Batman Forever/The Naked Gun/Monsters Inc/Tin Man... right???  The end result of the edit would be essentially a film freak... not fitting into any of the categories of films we started with.  The end result of the piecing together project would be a NEW story that the films themselves, in their contexts, never attempted to tell.  Any attempt to splice them together would be to rape them from their historical and meaningful and artistic contexts.... RIGHT????

I would put to you, this is the summary of the argument Boyer presented in class concerning ANY (and I do mean ANY) attempt to harmonize the material presented in the four canonical Gospels to arrive at any coherent look at the Gospel accounts.  Pardon me while I throw up... the argument is severely flawed at its core.  The film example he briefly alluded to (and which I have faithfully, i would argue, expanded on) presupposes that the gospel accounts are of completely different events and story lines.  Top Gun has little in common with Back to the Future (aside from the fact they both were made in the mid 80s), and even less in common with Tin Man and Batman Forever!!  Each film is looking at its own fictional story to entertain the audience, completely separate from one another.  And therein lies the error.

The film example uses distinctly different fictional stories and a hack job to attempt to make a brand new story from various pieces.  However, NO ONE would suggest this is the case when reading or watching the daily news.  When reading about an event - historical or current - it is often helpful to gain multiple perspectives on the news piece at hand.  Multiple papers may show a wide array of opinions and perspectives on a single issue or occurrence.  Fox News will include details of a story that are not to be found on CNN... and the BBC or The Telegraph (a British news outlet) are likely to include perspectives on a single story rarely spelled out clearly in an American newspaper. 

I think you see my point, but I will put it to you another way.  I just hope this example is not too crass.

Some of us can probably recount the various camera angles on the World Trade Center crashes on 9/11 by heart.  Different media outlets got a different perspective on the plane crashes.  See bellow (disturbing images)

<br>

Now I ask you... is there something particularly wrong or DRASTICALLY INSANE about piecing this footage together to show the unfolding of events on 9/11?  True... camera A did not see things camera B was able to include.  Does this mean that camera B made things up that A did not know about?  This is a stupid question.  The answer is clearly no.  Additionally, you probably know the majority of footage we have of the first plane crash that occurred is not from the major news sources but from independent amateur footage. What of this then?  Using Boyer's (and other liberals') logic... we can not POSSIBLY string together the amateur footage with the footage from Fox News of the second plane crash to arrive at a clearer and truthful look at what happened on 9/11, CAN WE???  After all... Fox News Channel MUST have been meaning to tell the ENTIRE story of 9/11 with their cameras from their perspective, as if it is the only perspective to see the footage from.  Or... is this not the case?

If we are to be HYPER-critical of harmonization of the Gospel accounts to give us a clear and concise record of the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we MUST be consistent and be HYPER-critical of ANY attempt ANYWHERE to harmonize an account of an event or teaching.  Just as the liberal Boyer wants to look at the crucifixion of Christ, and come away from it claiming any form of harmonization does damage to the artistic and cultural context in which the story was composed and told... so we would HAVE to look at different footage from 9/11 and resist putting together that footage to understand what happened that fateful day. 

I am unaware of CNN's cameras claiming to provide the entirity of angles when it comes to a given news story.  I am not familiar with Fox News' declaration that every camera angle it provides DEFINITIVELY tells each and EVERY story to the fullest, with NOTHING left to uncover from any other possible camera angles on a given story.  Similarly, Matthew does not claim to pen the FINAL WORD on the teaching. life, death, and resurrection of Christ.  Luke does not claim for itself that ONLY what is recorded in the pages of his Gospel is what actually happened during Jesus' ministry and mission to redeem a lost people.  Quite the contrary.  Even John wrote in John 21 that Jesus did MANY OTHER things that are not recorded in this particular book.  No gospel is comprehensive in and of itself on the life and death and resurrection of Christ!!  No gospel even claims this for itself. 

Despite what the liberals want you to think/believe... the Gospel accounts CAN be reconciled with each other.  One CAN look at the three "options" for Jesus' final words and come up with a definitive last phrase by Christ:  "It is finished," as described by John. (For more on this, see below)*  Coming so this conclusion is fairly simple once we understand that each of the gospel writers had a unique vantage point of the events which unfolded.  Though the vantage points, or camera angles, differed slightly, there is plenty of evidence to piece the different points in such a way that a fairly clear and accurate depiction of Jesus is carefully edited together to give a clear picture of the historical reality of what occurred, as recorded in the New Testament.  Historical documents and records are often needed to be harmonized to show a complete picture of what happened, as no single account claims to be the final say on said event.  If we are willing to be wisely charitable with other ancient and modern historical accounts... there is absolutely NO reason to not apply this method of harmonization to another ancient document - The Holy Bible.

Of course... seeing as the Bible is literally God's breathed-out Word... this gives even more reason to have trust in the reliability of the documents and in harmonization.  But I suppose that is a slightly separate (though indeed important) issue.



*The last words of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Mark are "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  This is not to be understood as Jesus' last words, but they are the last words that these two gospel writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded.  Mark, for instance, also records that "Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last" (15:37).  Luke, then, gives  the reader WHAT that loud cry was.  "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!'"  Again... Jesus then, having said this, breaths his last.  So what was uttered with his final breath?  "It is finished."  After this, Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit, for he is now actually dead, having accomplished redemption.