Happiness

What Is God’s Plan for A Happy Life?

Happiness can be very difficult to describe for many. Though we desire to have happiness for ourselves, some search the world over, but are still unable to find happiness in life. Why is it that the multitudes do not find peace, tranquility and happiness? Could it be that they are seeking in all the wrong places, such as riches, fame and popularity? Each time these are obtained, they are found to be empty in regards to lasting happiness and real joy in life. We need to notice that these are the things of an outward nature, while we need to realize that God’s formula for happiness comes from within our hearts. God does have a place by which all can find happiness, but He promises it from His perspective and not from our own.

The keys for true happiness can be found in the thoroughly furnishing Scriptures given by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3). We receive happiness and peace in life by being sure our actions are in harmony with God’s Word. With this said, let us notice six types of individuals who seek to find a happy life.

1. Some want to be in the family of God without being born again, which is an impossible way to happiness (John 3:3-5). Instead of being saved by faith only, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The inspired apostle Peter said, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:22-23).

2. Some want to be happy without seeking the grace and peace from Jesus, which is only found in Him and His church (Philippians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:1). We must focus our lives on forgiveness and hope if we are to find lasting happiness (2 Timothy 1:1-2).

3. Some want happiness without being thankful, for the gracious blessings of salvation, the talents given to us to use and the church built and purchased by Jesus (Ephesians 1:3; Romans 1:21-22; Philippians 1:3-5).

4. Among others things, people are privileged souls, who many times will not and do not submit to the Master of life, Jesus Christ (Luke 6:46; Matthew 7:21-29).

5. These, who attempt to find happiness, refuse to live a humble and faithful life, following the attitude and mind of Jesus (Philippians 2:5). They think too highly of themselves and their importance, to bow their knee in confession to the King of kings and the Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15). Such an attitude makes folks miserable as they wallow in their self-pity.

6. Many think they will find happiness in always complaining and murmuring at the providence of God (Philippians 2:12-14). These hold grudges against their fellow-man and are upset by every small thing that happens to them. This attitude is guaranteed to bring misery, not happiness (Philippians 4:6-7).

God has assured us that if we seek in the right way, happiness will be found. This happiness will not be in the form of money, cars and homes. The happiness that God provides is found when we bring ourselves in harmony with His word. Let us all follow His word as it guides us through life and leads us to a home in Heaven with our Creator.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Happiness

Worship in Song

The Design of Worshiping in Song

In Isaiah 55:8-9 God says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  Many use this passage to speak of God’s ineffable and inscrutable attributes.  There are other passages that teach such (e.g., Job 26:14, Romans 11:33), but this verse is not speaking of those things.  Rather, these verses teach that it is God’s purposes that are so much higher than man’s, and with human wisdom alone it is impossible to know God’s purposes.

In contrast, the general trend of religious thought today is that man’s purposes are God’s purposes.  And perhaps this is seen most clearly in contemporary “Christian” music, the primary design of which is to stir human emotion to such a fevered pitch that weeping, wailing, crying, caterwauling, and the so called ecstatic state are produced.  These emotional outpourings satisfy human purposes because they are quintessentially human.  Worship, however, must move beyond the human and into the divine in order to be true worship.  “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Turning our attention to God’s design for worship in song, we find that emotional fulfillment has little (if any) to do with New Testament teaching on the subject.  First, all Christian music is music produced by the human voice alone.  This in and of itself should rebuke the contemporary cacophony of choruses accompanied with the multitudinous mechanistically manufactured modulations.  Such artificially produced reverberations doubtlessly bring praise to human prowess, but do not glorify God; indeed such exaltation of human righteousness is without submission to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:2-3).

The lips, mouth, tongue, and voice, however, are God’s design, and when accompanied by the melodic stirrings of the heart, another of God’s creation, they harmonize with resonance divine (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).  We see, then, that one great purpose of worshipping God in song is to bring glory to Him by the instrument of His creation; it is God who gives us the songs in the night (Job 35:10).  He is not worshipped by manmade things, but is the ever giving God who brings musical harmony to our whole being, heart, soul, and body (Acts 17:25).

Hebrews 13:15 reveals that by cultivating the “fruit of lips” we “offer the sacrifice of praise to God.”  Such sacrifices cannot come forth from leathern tympanis, wooden organs, or brazen strings – only the “fruit of lips” will suffice.  Praises to God must be sung, because praises to God can only be spoken in words, the “fruit of lips.”  The principles of sacrifice found in the Old Covenant teach us that God deserves the best, that sacrifice must personally cost us something, and that one must be wholly devoted.  Singing is the only musical act of worship that satisfies all of these principles.  The “sacrifice of praise” is a purpose that must be honored in our singing.

Another great purpose of singing is found in Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”  When we sing the words of Christ, we teach and admonish.  So many contemporary lyrics fail to provide this needed aspect of Christian music.  Songs of the New Testament period were originally composed to instruct, and even rebuke.  Today we have few songs in our songbooks that employ these didactic tools.  The contemporary “Christian” composers have left this purpose behind in their quest to glorify man.

What is the place of emotion in singing?  Human emotions must flow out of the God given purposes that are fulfilled in song, and must never be the object of our worship.  If the singing rebukes, we should feel ashamed.  If the singing exhorts, we should feel edified.  If the singing is glorifying God, we should feel humbled, awestruck even.  Whatever the particular intent of the individual song, the goal is to empty ourselves unto God in fulfillment of His purposes first, and, like the obedient eunuch, the result will be that we will go on our way rejoicing (Acts 8:39).  God’s design for worship in song is for His praise glory and honor, and our instruction and rebuke.  May we ever seek to fulfill God’s design.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Worship in Song

Contentment

Seeking Peace and Contentment in Life

There is within the heart of most people a desire for safety, freedom of thought, and opportunity to succeed in desired endeavors they may attempt. This is not just some utopian ideal; this is the desire of most people in the world. As we look about us we must make constant decisions about events and privileges extended to us in this life, those opportunities and privileges may be good for us or they may be bad for us[1]. I Say, good or bad, understanding that there are different ideals about what is good and what is bad. Even thought there are differing views about determining good or bad we must make decisions regularly that affect our life and the life of others in many situations. Because we live in a world that is in constant change (I.e., moral. ethical. spiritual, etc.), we must be careful that we do not create problems for ourselves that we cannot undo. For instance, there are things that I may choose to put into my body (I.e., illegal drugs, alcoholic beverages, etc), that will shorten my life and perhaps cause me to become involved in the maiming or death of someone who is innocent. Indeed, I may make a choice to put things into my body that may damage me and might cause me to unwillingly maim or kill someone else. You see, the choices we make may affect me as an individual but the peripheral damage that my choices cause others may be inexcusable. The secular law may convict a person of a felonious crime because he/she unwittingly harmed another person or persons because of their bad choice to put a mind altering substance inside their body.

A PERSON MAY OR MAY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE AND CONTENTMENT

Because we all have free moral agency it is our choice to do whatever we want to do, even to breaking laws that we know will cause us loss of freedom if we violate them. There are many people who practice many forms of law violation daily, yet they care not that they are in violation of law, both of man and of God. The lifestyle and choices each person makes in life is governed by their view of God, of His Book (I.e., the Bible), of Christ, of their fellow man (I.e., their neighbor), of marriage, of faithfulness to vows, etc.[2] consequently, whatever one believes in life, their environment, and influences will mold them into one of two totally different personalities. If a person believes in God that person will develop Biblical guided moral, ethical, and spiritual values (I.e., generally speaking – there are always exceptions to any given norm) but, on the other hand if one does not know about God or does not care to acquaint himself with God that person will develop qualities that are not like the person that does believe in God.[3] The person that cares not for God, regardless of their reasons will become problems in society, that person will not regard morals, ethics, and spirituality (I.e., based on God’s Word) of any value. In our lifetime, we have witnessed the results of a society in America that has turned from public acknowledgement of God, to attempts at eliminating the knowledge of God as a public policy. This philosophy, (I.e., the eliminating of God or any acknowledgement of God) is at the root of many problems in society today (Examples – increase in teen and pre-teen sex and sex orientations, increase in drug related crimes and consequence {drunken driving, suicides, etc}, infants being born with physical and mental handicap’s because of parental use of non-prescribed medications, abuse of their body, and alcoholic beverages, etc.). These by-products of Godless orientations are destroying those that practice them and are bringing secondary damages to those that are close to or involved with them in any way.

EVERYONE AFFECTS SOMEONE ELSE BY THEIR LIFE STYLE

We know that our actions, both public and private will affect someone else. Our actions will either benefit others (I.e., help others to achieve a better life) or our actions will corrupt others (I.e., make others worse off in their life and relationship with God). We must see this fact; no other description that one may find of personal action and reaction for displaying our lifestyle and allegiances in life.[4] No person can live for either the devil or for God and not affect other people by their decisions and their lifestyle (I.e., their choice). We cannot live life in an invisible state nor can we live life so that no one in the realm of our influence is affected. Indeed, I must, because of others, seek to find the best life that I can live so that I will benefit but also so that everyone in the realm of my influence will benefit from having interacted with me (Matt 5:13-16 {Christians Are Salt and Light} — > “13 You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.  > 14 you are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.  > 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lamp stand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  > 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.“ (NKJV) In consequence of these facts it is apparent that the most productive and helpful life to others that one may live is a life of faithfulness to God.

COULD I REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH INFLUENCE WITH OTHERS

Yes, Example, Matthew 5:16, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven.”  God has revealed to the Christian that our ability to influence other people to do good things while we are serving him faithfully is evident in many places,

Please note the following references:

2 Timothy 1:5, “when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois  and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (NKJV).

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9, For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us” (NKJV).

1 Timothy 4:12, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity”

2 Peter 2:4-6 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly” (NKJV).

CONSIDER THIS:

Yes, we may have a great deal of influence on others if we will serve God correctly and live  our lives openly as Christians. We may enjoy the greatest contentment and happiness in life because we serve God faithfully and are an encouragement and a good example for others that do not have God in their lives. We may also have an encouraging effect on those that are Christians and are going through difficult times in their life, simply by remaining faithful and living godly lives for them to imitate, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:15, “Therefore I urge you, imitate me” (NKJV) and in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Imitate  me, just as I also imitate  Christ” (NKJV).

Posted in Garreth L. Clair | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Contentment

Remember the Sabbath Day

Remember the Sabbath Day—Who and How?

When Israel arrived at Mount Sinai, the voice of God echoed from the holy mountain and said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:7). While they could define the words spoken by God, there was no way they could have known how God wanted them to “observe the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:12). Because of His words they could know there was sabbath (a rest day, for that is what the word sabbath means), but they had no way of knowing what was to be done.

The Sabbath was NOT known before the Jews left Egypt. Read carefully what the Holy Spirit of God revealed about the time when God’s people learned about the Sabbath. “You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath” (Neh. 9:13-14). There is no way to make known that which was already known. Israel did not know about the Sabbath before they left Egypt.

Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph did not observe the Sabbath. There is not one verse which teaches that the Sabbath was observed before Moses lead the Jews from Egypt. This is critical in understanding the nature of the Sabbath. For anyone to affirm that godly men kept the Sabbath before the time of Moses is to add to the Bible! We cannot know that they did this unless God shows this to us. Where is that verse? It does not exist! Then let all mankind cease to affirm that any of these men kept the Sabbath until that verse is found! What does God reveal? God made known the Sabbath to His people at Mt. Sinai.

God did not sanctify the Sabbath on the day He rested in Genesis. Genesis 2 shows that God rested on the seventh day, but it does not show that God sanctified the seventh day on that day. Read it carefully. God rested on that day, then afterwards He sanctified it because He had rested on that day. It was sanctified because He had rested and sanctified after He rested!           So how does one observe the Sabbath? God gave that day of rest to Jews who had been slaves without rest (Deut. 5:15) and told them how to keep it. No one was to do any work, including slaves, cattle and guests in their houses (Deut. 5:14). Also two lambs were to be sacrificed at the temple, along with grains and oils (Num. 28:9). God gave the Sabbath to the Jews who had been slaves and told them how to observe it.

God did not sanctify Sunday as a holy day like He did the Sabbath. Next week we will show He did not make Sunday a “Christian Sabbath.”  Then what is Sunday worship all about?

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Remember the Sabbath Day

The Emerging Church

The Emerging Church Movement’s Quasi-Political Kingdom Theology

Mathematician Eric Temple Bell said, “Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.”  The Emerging Church movement has many assumptions to examine because it buys into popular cultural notions of right and wrong, truth and error.  These popular cultural notions, however, have been shaped and molded by philosophical influences decades and centuries in advance.  It is precisely these notions that become the assumptions under which popular culture operates today.  Yesterday’s philosophies are today’s politics and the Emerging Church movement is a political movement to be sure.

Indeed, one of the difficulties in examining contemporary religious movements is the numerous philosophical influences involved.  The Emerging Church movement exhibits traits of many of the following philosophies: communism, existentialism, postmodernism, relativism, subjectivism, pragmatism, humanism, and phenomenology to mention a few.  These philosophies have their own interrelatedness that is difficult enough to discern.  The task becomes proportionately more difficult as one introduces a religious element.  However, I believe that, like mining for ore, we may be able to trace some nuggets in the stream of current activity to the originating vein of thought.  In this article, we will look specifically at the Emerging Church’s philosophies that underlie their political agenda.

Emerging Church proponents are very interesting in Postmodernism.[1] This is really a bad place for them to begin.  Nevertheless, in order to understand Emerging Church thinking, we must understand Postmodernism.  In Christian theology, Postmodernism characterizes its focus as shifting from a traditionally ecclesiastic one to a primarily Christological one.  What they mean by “Christology,” however, is not the same as in non-postmodern theological studies.  How so?  Non-postmodern Christology focuses upon Jesus as divine, provoking a Theocentric (God-centered) view of Christianity.  Postmodern Christology, however, deemphasizes Jesus’ divinity by regarding the historicity of the resurrection as irrelevant.  This results in an anthropocentric (man-centered) view of Christianity.

John Milbank, a Postmodernist Theologian told Time Magazine that discussions about the historical resurrection have “no place” in his theology (Biema).  Emerging Church leaders reflect these concerns both in their assumption of Postmodernism and in their stated concerns.  Brian McLaren is one such leader.  “I have become convinced that a generous orthodoxy appropriate for our postmodern world will have to grow out of the experience of the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century” (92).  Following consistently with this epistemology, McLaren declares, “We must continually be aware that the ‘old, old story’ may not be the ‘true, true story’” (294).  If McLaren simply means by this statement that we must renew our affirmation in the absolute truthfulness of scripture to the detriment of denominational traditionalism, we would agree.  However, this is not so clear.  McLaren’s Postmodern assumptions cause us to question whether he agrees with Milbank in rejecting discussion of the historicity of the resurrection.  It seems that he does.

The implication of such a rejection necessarily entails an avoidance of a discussion of the divinity of Christ, for the resurrection stands as this doctrine’s central proof.  A lack of emphasis upon the divinity of Christ entails a stronger emphasis being placed upon the humanity of Christ.  For Postmodern Christians, Christology becomes not a question of the deity of Christ, but rather, his humanity.  As a result, Christianity becomes an anthropocentric (man-centered) religion.  This is reflected by Maria Clara Bingemer also who recognizes the “anthropocentric character” of contemporary Christianity.

[Contemporary] Christian thinking, discourse, and action . . . have transferred the central axis of Christianity from the previously mentioned ecclesiocentrism to a more accentuated christocentrism, which in reflecting on the person of Jesus Christ and his project, searches for what is fundamental in Christian identity.  Perhaps because of this emphasis, the anthropocentric characteristics of Christianity have been accentuated.  The human being has been the center of theological and pastoral concerns of the Church, and it is in the name of human growth, development, and wholeness that the most significant Christian movements of the last decades have been formed and brought together.  This anthropocentrism finds its base in Christology, in Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church and Redeemer of humanity (85-86 Emp. added).

Another name for anthropocentrism is humanism: placing humans at the center of concern and focusing upon humanity’s problems (as defined by humanity) as the primary work that we, mankind, must do.  God may be acknowledged in a sort of patronizing fashion, but the praxis of such a focus is humanistic and anthropocentric.  Such is the attitude of Humanist Manifesto II written in 1973: “We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species.”  This entails that man’s primary responsibilities are not in his personal relationship with God, but rather, in his personal relationship with the rest of humanity.  This shift of relationship implies a different personal ethic of behavior.  The individual’s concern is no longer how to love God in holiness and purity as one who sustains a personal relationship with God, but rather, how he can be more socially conscious of society’s problems and work toward solutions in his relationship with his fellow man.  As a result, sin against God takes a backseat to sin against man.

In this anthropocentric (man-centered) ethic, society arbitrates right and wrong because the daily problems of the culture end up being the problems with which the individual must concern himself.  “Salvation” depends upon his anthropocentrism: his ability to be concerned about and work toward the solution of humanity’s issues (as defined by humanity).  Personal ethical choices become matters of opinion because they do not relate to solving the problems of humanity as a whole.  “Sin” becomes one’s lack of involvement in working toward humanistic solutions.  This means that personal issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, take a back burner to cultural issues such as poverty and social justice.

Emerging Church practitioner Scot McKnight sympathizes with this ideology:

I have publicly aligned myself with the emerging movement. What attracts me is its soft postmodernism (or critical realism) and its praxis/missional focus. I also lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don’t think the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don’t support abortion–in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s design.

For all of his support for social issues, McKnight recognizes a danger.  He says:

Sometimes, however, when I look at emerging politics, I see Walter Rauschenbusch, the architect of the social gospel. Without trying to deny the spiritual gospel, he led his followers into the social gospel. The results were devastating for mainline Christianity’s ability to summon sinners to personal conversion. The results were also devastating for evangelical Christianity, which has itself struggled to maintain a proper balance.

As McKnight points out, the result of such anthropocentric thinking implies a church organization that is more concerned about social issues than personal conversion.  As such, the church becomes less an institution concerned with the eternal salvation of immortal souls, but an institution concerned with the temporal preservation and quality of human life on earth.  Such reduces the doctrine of the church to a Quasi-Political Kingdom Theology closer akin to contemporary Liberation Theology.

In the remainder of this article I would like to contrast the Biblical perspective and what Christians must do to combat these efforts.

First, we must renew our commitment to the teaching of the historical resurrection of Jesus.  The apostles declared plainly that the resurrection implies personally responsibility on the part of the individual.  In Acts 2:32, 36, Peter says, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. . . .   Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”  The resurrection is our assurance that Jesus is the Lord.  The resurrection is also our assurance that He will judge each individual personally one day.  In Acts 17:30-31 Paul declared to the anthropocentric Athenians, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”  The resurrection proves that the individual’s responsibility is first and foremost to his Lord and God, Jesus.

Second, because the most important relationship of the individual is with his Lord and God, this means that His life must be theocentric (God centered), not anthropocentric (man centered).  The apostle Paul declared the preeminence of Christ in Colossians 1:16-18 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”  No other relationship supersedes the relationship of the individual with the Lord because He is preeminent over all others.  When the believer prioritizes and sustains this personal relationship he receives blessings: citizenship in the heavenly kingdom (Col.1:13), redemption, forgiveness (14), peace (20), reconciliation (21), holiness (22).  This theocentric relationship addresses the individual’s problems (sins) as a necessary consequence of maintaining a loving relationship with the Lord because such a relationship motivates the praxis of the theocentrist’s life.

Third, addressing the problems (sins) of individual persons through the priority of their personal relationship with God facilitates addressing the greater problems of society as a whole.  It is individual and personal sin that is the ultimate cause of all society’s ills.  When each individual recognizes his responsibility to maintain a right relationship with a loving God, the condition of society improves.  God demands of individuals that they love Him first, but that they love one another also (Matthew 22:37-40).  A man who is concerned with keeping himself in the love of God will obey God’s command to love his fellow man.  As already noted, his motivation for such obedience is his own relationship with God (Philippians 2:12).

Fourth, it is the responsibility of the church to address the problems (sins) that each individual faces in light of his responsibility to God.  The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).  The church is the instrument that God uses for making personal application of His word in the lives of each individual and ensuring that such individuals remain faithful to Him (Acts 20:28).  This means that the church has the authorized role of resolving society’s ill on a long term basis through the teaching and preaching of the message of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20).  Because the church has this primary role, and because the eternal salvation of the individual is at stake, there are physical consequences that ought not be resolved for individuals who refuse to obey God’s word and maintain fellowship with the church (Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15).

Fifth, the government has no authority to interfere with the church’s efforts in this regard and government social welfare constitutes interference.  When the government provides assistance to individuals who will not prioritize God in their life, making their personal salvation of utmost importance, the government undermines the consequences that God desires for these individuals to suffer as a result of their disobedience to Him.  The sole role of government is to punish the evil-doer and to support those who do what is right (Romans 13:1-6, 1 Peter 2:13-14).  The Christian has the obligation to support and be obedient to government in these areas, but beyond that, a Christian’s involvement in supporting government undermines God’s plan for man’s salvation.

The church has a divine obligation to teach personal and individual salvation through emphasizing the priority of the individual’s relationship with God!  Any and all efforts that deemphasize that relationship as being first and foremost, undermine God’s plan for man’s salvation and cause souls to be lost.  The Emerging Church’s emphasis upon political social involvement where man’s physical concerns are placed as a priority over man’s spiritual concerns is such an effort.  Let us resolve to maintain a theocentric (God-centered) perspective as opposed to an anthropocentric (man-centered) one and may God help us to place Him in the highest place within each of our lives.  Society will be blessed in our so doing.

Works Cited

American Humanist Association. Humanist Manifesto II.  22 May 2009 <http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II>

Bell, Eric Temple. in H. Eves. Return to Mathematical Circles. Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1988.

Biema, David Van. “God As a Postmodern.”  Time Magazine. Sunday, December 09, 2001.  15 May 2009.  <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,187579,00.html>

Bingemer, Maria Clara.  “A Post-Christian and Postmodern Christianism” in Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity, and the Americas.  Florence: Routledge, 1997.  Pp. 83-94.

McKnight, Scot. “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.” Christianity Today 51.2 (Feb. 2007): 34-39. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 15 May 2009 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23914494&site=ehost-live>.

McLaren, Brian D. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2006.

[1] See Jody Apple’s article in this volume.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Emerging Church