February 7, 2010 FB
I was listening to “Unbelievable” an apologetic radio show from Britain, and one of the episodes featured a guy named Hemant Mehta; an atheist living in Chicago. He agreed to try out a religion based on who won a bid for his soul on eBay. The person who won the bid was an evangelical pastor and he recommended that this atheist try out several evangelical churches in the Chicago area. The churches ranged from small churches of barely 60+ people to the mega churches of Joel Osteen and the like.
Hemant made several comments during the radio program about his enjoyment of the large mega churches as opposed to the smaller ones. He kept mentioning that the sermons that the pastors of mega churches preached were easy for him to relate to, not dogmatic, and more humanistic in their principles. He also noted that the bigger churches had better entertainment that made his experience more enjoyable, and that their preaching of Jesus was more practical and philanthropic.
I’d like to examine his experience using the Bible to see if we can gain a better understanding of where modern Christianity really is in relation to the world. The two main things to keep in mind throughout this examination is 1) that Hemant Mehta is an atheist who has absolutely no inclination toward Christ, and 2) that the larger mega churches are the ones most non-believers derive their view of Christianity from.
First, Hemant mentioned that the entertainment of the larger churches was very helpful in making his experience at a particular church enjoyable. Now bear in mind that this is a man who has no spiritual life whatsoever and whose sole authority on what is enjoyable is his own corrupt fleshly desires. So for him to have an enjoyable time, the entertainment must cater to his flesh. And, since he did have an enjoyable time at the mega churches which characterize all of Christianity for most people, his enjoyment was one that was based on fleshly pleasure rather than true spiritual worship.
Question: Is it biblical to use fleshly music, drama, or other forms of entertainment to worship God?
The biblical principle here is that, not only in our worship but also in our daily lives, we are not to provide the flesh with anything that would feed its corrupt desires. And since this atheist, who has nothing but fleshly desires, is having a good time in the mega churches, it shows that the mega churches are catering to the flesh. A further problem is that the world sees this fleshly good time as what worship truly is. And since true worship is only fleshly than all they would have to do to worship God is create music/drama/etc. that would make someone have a good time. Never mind the theology or exaltation of the Lord Jesus. As long as the people get into a good mood, this is considered worship.
Second, Hemant noted that the sermons of mega churches were something that he could relate to, that they were something he could use, and that they were more humanistic in their purpose (i.e. for the general, physical and emotional benefit of people rather than their spiritual wellbeing). Now there is nothing wrong with sermons being this way, and the Bible does speak to these issues, but when an atheist, who has no desire or capacity for God and whose thinking is solely affected by the worldly system, is affected and able to applaud a sermon from his worldly and humanistic perspective, it raises some eyebrows. Furthermore, the view of Jesus that Hemant got from these churches was very warm and gooey. These churches made Jesus likeable and would conveniently leave out any of Jesus’ teaching on sin. Question: does the Bible have anything to say about these issues?
Jesus says here that the unbelieving world will hate him because of his teaching on sin. If the unbelieving world does not hate Jesus, it can only be because it hasn’t heard his teaching about sin. If a confirmed non-believer, like Hemant, gets a warm, gooey, friendly feeling about Jesus, it means that they have not been given the true view of Jesus. This means that the mega churches, which Hemant visited (and which characterize Christianity to the world), are not promoting the true Jesus of Scripture. Rather, they are preaching a watered down, non-dogmatic, flaccid, wimpy Jesus who makes no demands on a person’s life other than to share love.
In this passage, the apostle John says that the spirit of antichrist is in the world and that the world does not listen to truth. According to John, the world is not able to hear and applaud truth but only its own erroneous teaching. Now, when Hemant went to these mega churches and was able to hear and applaud the teaching of the pastor, it shows that the teaching was not spiritual but worldly. Not pure, but tainted. Not truth, but error. This may shock you but there are actually false teachers in our churches. This is why John says to test the spirits. And guess what, from Hemant’s experience we can see clearly that the spirit of antichrist has infected our mega churches and has taken over our “Christian” pop-culture and a great many of our pulpits. It is so bad that our favorite Christian music artists may be promoting antichrist fleshly entertainment rather than truth, and even so bad that your own pastor may be a false teacher! When an atheist, who has no desire or capacity for God and whose thinking is solely affected by the worldly system, goes to church and is able to have a good time and walk away feeling like Jesus was just a nice guy who only talked about love, it can only mean that something is terribly wrong with the Christian church. The Christian church is in urgent need of discernment because it has allowed the spirit of antichrist to infect it and it can’t even see this fact! As a church, we need to wake up out of our darkness (Rom. 13:11-14) and begin to preach the true Jesus who is the light of life to the condemned world so that some may be saved out of it.
To listen to the podcast episode of “Unbelievable” featuring Hemant Mehta Click Here
Nehemiah Ryan © 2010
I’d like to examine his experience using the Bible to see if we can gain a better understanding of where modern Christianity really is in relation to the world. The two main things to keep in mind throughout this examination is 1) that Hemant Mehta is an atheist who has absolutely no inclination toward Christ, and 2) that the larger mega churches are the ones most non-believers derive their view of Christianity from.
First, Hemant mentioned that the entertainment of the larger churches was very helpful in making his experience at a particular church enjoyable. Now bear in mind that this is a man who has no spiritual life whatsoever and whose sole authority on what is enjoyable is his own corrupt fleshly desires. So for him to have an enjoyable time, the entertainment must cater to his flesh. And, since he did have an enjoyable time at the mega churches which characterize all of Christianity for most people, his enjoyment was one that was based on fleshly pleasure rather than true spiritual worship.
Question: Is it biblical to use fleshly music, drama, or other forms of entertainment to worship God?
Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
The biblical principle here is that, not only in our worship but also in our daily lives, we are not to provide the flesh with anything that would feed its corrupt desires. And since this atheist, who has nothing but fleshly desires, is having a good time in the mega churches, it shows that the mega churches are catering to the flesh. A further problem is that the world sees this fleshly good time as what worship truly is. And since true worship is only fleshly than all they would have to do to worship God is create music/drama/etc. that would make someone have a good time. Never mind the theology or exaltation of the Lord Jesus. As long as the people get into a good mood, this is considered worship.
Second, Hemant noted that the sermons of mega churches were something that he could relate to, that they were something he could use, and that they were more humanistic in their purpose (i.e. for the general, physical and emotional benefit of people rather than their spiritual wellbeing). Now there is nothing wrong with sermons being this way, and the Bible does speak to these issues, but when an atheist, who has no desire or capacity for God and whose thinking is solely affected by the worldly system, is affected and able to applaud a sermon from his worldly and humanistic perspective, it raises some eyebrows. Furthermore, the view of Jesus that Hemant got from these churches was very warm and gooey. These churches made Jesus likeable and would conveniently leave out any of Jesus’ teaching on sin. Question: does the Bible have anything to say about these issues?
John 7:7 The world…hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
Jesus says here that the unbelieving world will hate him because of his teaching on sin. If the unbelieving world does not hate Jesus, it can only be because it hasn’t heard his teaching about sin. If a confirmed non-believer, like Hemant, gets a warm, gooey, friendly feeling about Jesus, it means that they have not been given the true view of Jesus. This means that the mega churches, which Hemant visited (and which characterize Christianity to the world), are not promoting the true Jesus of Scripture. Rather, they are preaching a watered down, non-dogmatic, flaccid, wimpy Jesus who makes no demands on a person’s life other than to share love.
1 John 4:1-6 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world…They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
In this passage, the apostle John says that the spirit of antichrist is in the world and that the world does not listen to truth. According to John, the world is not able to hear and applaud truth but only its own erroneous teaching. Now, when Hemant went to these mega churches and was able to hear and applaud the teaching of the pastor, it shows that the teaching was not spiritual but worldly. Not pure, but tainted. Not truth, but error. This may shock you but there are actually false teachers in our churches. This is why John says to test the spirits. And guess what, from Hemant’s experience we can see clearly that the spirit of antichrist has infected our mega churches and has taken over our “Christian” pop-culture and a great many of our pulpits. It is so bad that our favorite Christian music artists may be promoting antichrist fleshly entertainment rather than truth, and even so bad that your own pastor may be a false teacher! When an atheist, who has no desire or capacity for God and whose thinking is solely affected by the worldly system, goes to church and is able to have a good time and walk away feeling like Jesus was just a nice guy who only talked about love, it can only mean that something is terribly wrong with the Christian church. The Christian church is in urgent need of discernment because it has allowed the spirit of antichrist to infect it and it can’t even see this fact! As a church, we need to wake up out of our darkness (Rom. 13:11-14) and begin to preach the true Jesus who is the light of life to the condemned world so that some may be saved out of it.
John 3:16-21 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
To listen to the podcast episode of “Unbelievable” featuring Hemant Mehta Click Here
Nehemiah Ryan © 2010
ORIGINAL NOTE COMMENTS
Elisabeth Vander Mey
I hope this means you will stop listening to secular music now. That's what it implies. You need to be careful about your conclusions, Nehemiah. Generalizations are never good to make. Sad to say, we disagree with your conclusions.
Nehemiah Ryan
It's interesting that you go straight to the music thing but don't even care about the majority of the note which is about false teaching. You have the right to disagree, but you do not have the right to force personal convictions on another believer who has freedom to partake of the meat offered to idols. That's what legalism does; it forces sometimes legitimate personal convictions onto others who do not have those convictions. I never tried to tell anyone to stop listening to music, christian or non, i simply made an observation that modern "christian" music has a tendency to minister to the flesh, not the spirit, and the proof of this is that an atheist gets into it. How much fleshly leaven is okay for Christianity to use to gain the worlds acceptance/favor?If the music that I listen to causes someone else to stumble then I won't listen to that music. It's as simple as that. It's not that big a deal to me anymore. Yet when "christian" music actually causes another believer to stumble, the offended brother is the one who is wrong and has to get with the program. Too bad if something in "christianity" offends Christians, we have to have our drugs and spitefully do them in the face of the offended (1 Cor. 8:8-13).
Here is another observation; "christian" music has award shows to honor the artists and this is direct disobedience to what Jesus preached: total humility and self abasement (Matt. 18:1-7; 23:11-12; Luke 14:7-14; 18:9-14; John 15:12-13). Who is the greatest in the kingdom? Not the one who accepts an award for having the "most godly" album. It seems that in your opinion anything that is labeled "christian music" is holy and must be supported and applauded. Is it really impossible for anything labeled "christian" to be unholy, even when Jesus is totally left out and the actor/writer/performer/preacher is the one who is exalted and promoted?
Elisabeth Vander Mey
The issue isn't just music, but as far as music goes, you quoted Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. If you are going to apply that verse, in the way you are suggesting, you should stop listening to any secular/fleshly music, right?! Yes!
You're saying that, just because one athiest enjoyed going to church, that all churches like that are wrong and unbiblical, right? If he had come to your church and liked it, would that make your church unbiblical and your pastor a false teacher? How can you reason like that? Even tax collectors and sinners liked Jesus and were attracted to him and his teachings. Does that make him a false teacher? The Pharisees thought so.
You can't say that all big churches are not biblical or preaching the Gospel. Have you been to all big/mega churches? Do you know that for a fact? You can't just assume that, because some of these bigger churches are seeker-sensitive, that ALL big churches must be, and are therefore unbiblical and preach flasehoods.I could also assume, based on your reasoning, that ALL small/struggling churches preach the Gospel and are biblical, couldn't I?!
I would also like to remind you that, feelings are ok, when worshiping God. David wrote a lot in the psalms about himself and his feelings about how great God is. He was called a man after God's heart. Maybe we should learn from him?
Worshiping God is supposed to make us feel something. It should cause us to feel thankful to God for what he has done for us! Aren't we supposed to care about what we are singing to the Lord?! God looks, not at our outward appearance, but our heart. What is our heart saying while we are in worship?What is the real issue with contemporary christian music?
Nehemiah Ryan
Elisabeth you are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to this whole thing and you are not thinking rationally or logically. It is actually your reasoning that is flawed, and if you would read the note again from an objective point of view you will note that I tried to be fair and not make wildly absolute statements without thinking, and i tried to be careful about my wording. I know that you guys are going thru a very rough time about this right now, but please do not let it affect your judgment so that you take an absolute stance on something that you cannot support biblically. I personally think that you and the other person(s) are fighting about valid convictions and neither one of you is willing to back down. Do you really think God wants that?I will write another note about a biblically philosophical view of music, both christian and secular, and i will show that it is literally impossible to make an absolutely objective judgment about music in relation to the Christian life, and by trying to do this we are actually disobeying God and showing self-interest and a lack of love for other believers.
Elisabeth Vander Mey
I am being objective, maybe you are the one having a reaction to the thing you heard on the radio?I would have to say, I haven't heard one biblical argument against newer music. I agree with you that many churches today do not preach the Gospel, or glorify God in their music, preaching, etc. But, I think you are being unfair and exaggerating by making blanket statements about ALL churches being a certain way just because of one bad example. You have always had a problem with contemporary christian music, and I know this. But, I've never understood why you can't see that listening to secular music can be harmful, as well. I'm not saying you should never listen to it, I don't really think there's anything wrong with listening to it, to a degree. But, I think that, if you were to follow YOUR own logic and arguments, maybe you would see that secular music is worldly and fleshly, and you shouldn't listen to it, either (according to your arguments). You see?Nehemiah, you have always been very opinionated and eager to point the finger, without always thinking first or seeking a rounded/contextual view of scripture. You just need to be very careful not to blow things out of proportion. This has nothing to do with the situation we find ourselves in. I would feel this way no matter what.You can have your views, and I can have mine, I just want you to see the holes in your arguments. You just can't speak in absolutes like you do.
And, I'm not just referring to the music issue. I feel this way about what you said about the preaching, too. You can't say that all preachers of big/mega churches are not preaching the Gospel. But, that is what you are saying, simply because an atheist liked going to those types of churches.
And, am I understanding you correctly when you say that if we go to church and have a good time, that is sinful? And, clapping during church is sinful as well? Just want to clarify, because I can think of verses that would say otherwise.
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
I would have to say that Elisabeth's reasoning has been much more objective and has followed through to logical ends. I understand your point, Nehemiah, about today's Christian music being more about show and awards. However, I don't think it is correct to assume that all Christian artists have wrong motivations and that all Christian music is the same.
We are careful to learn about the artists we listen to and know their theology. We are particular about which songs we listen to and choose to listen to music that is Christ-centered, not man-centered. Is there some bad "Christian" music and are there some bad "Christian" artists? Yes. Does that mean all Christian music and all Christian artists are bad? No.
We are also careful about which secular music we listen to. Is there some good secular music? Yes. Is there some bad secular music? Yes. Some secular music can be fun to listen to and may have harmless lyrics. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of secular music that promotes worldviews that are contrary to Scripture. Much of secular music promotes a "love" that is merely lust and worldly, choosing to do what is best for yourself, not others, rebellion and many other sins that Scripture clearly says to avoid and is also filled with filthy language.
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual imorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolarty. Because of these the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips." Colossians 3:5-8
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2
These are only a couple of verses. There are many passages that talk about what we should and shouldn't be filling our minds and lives with.
I think the issue of secular music and Christian music really isn't an issue of music at all. The style of music and the actual instrumentation are not issues addressed in Scripture. The issue is really the lyrics and what the artists are trying to promote. Whether Christian artists or secular artists, we need to be careful about what we are filling our minds with.
One last thought. You think it is wrong for Christian artists to stand up and receive awards for their music. Do you also think it is wrong for secular artists to sing about things completely contrary to Scripture and promote lifestyles that are not honoring to God, then stand up and receive their award and give thanks to God? Does that keep you from listening to their music?
I know you're good at thinking through issues. Hopefully you will take some time to dig into Scripture further and look more carefully into the issue of what we are to fill our minds with.
Praying for you...
Nehemiah Ryan
I DID NOT want to do this but i am forced to show Elisabeth's faulty logic. She is committing fallacies all over the place.But before i do i want to say that i never said that ALL mega churches do not ever preach the gospel and only have sinful music. This is a total misinterpretation of what i was saying. It's reading something into the text that is not there. All I was saying was that modern Christianity has been infected by the spirit of Antichrist and that it is found mostly in larger churches. And since the large churches are the ones that have the most influence and widest audience, it has the capacity to do the most damage to the cause of Christ and the truth of Scripture.
Here are just 5 of the many fallacies:1. Appeal to emotion. "am I understanding you correctly when you say that if we go to church and have a good time, that is sinful?"-N makes claim X. E says that N is making a statement about emotions, therefore N's claim about X is false. The flaw here is that E's argument a priori assumes that emotions cannot possibly be fleshly. Only if emotions and the flesh are never intertwined then E's accusation stands. But sometimes emotions are fleshly, so this argument against claim X cannot stand in an objective absolute.
2. Ad Hominem. "Nehemiah, you have always been very opinionated and eager to point the finger"-N makes claim X. E makes a personal attack on N, therefore N's claim is false. Because N has a personal belief, his reasoning cannot be possibly be objective, therefore nothing he says can be true. The flaw here is that objective truth does not change based on a person's subjective view or involvement in a given claim.
3. False Dilemma. "If you are going to apply that verse, in the way you are suggesting, you should stop listening to any secular/fleshly music, right?! Yes!""...that ALL big churches must be, and are therefore unbiblical and preach flasehoods. I could also assume, based on your reasoning, that ALL small/struggling churches preach the Gospel and are biblical, couldn't I?!"-N makes claims X and Y. E says that only one of them can be true, but both cannot. The flaw here is the E has set up a false contradictory dilemma in order to disprove either X or Y or both. E must show how both claim X and Y are mutually exclusive and contradictory to one another in the absolute.
4. Red Herring. "I've never understood why you can't see that listening to secular music can be harmful, as well."-N makes claim X. E brings in claim Y in attempt to discredit claim X, yet claim Y is totally irrelevant to claim X.The flaw here is that the irrelevant claim Y is brought in only to discredit and add doubt to claim X.
5. Straw Man. "But, I think you are being unfair and exaggerating by making blanket statements about ALL churches being a certain way just because of one bad example."-N has position X. E presents position Y (a distorted version of X). E attacks position Y, therefore X is false.The flaw here is that E has set up a distorted view of N's position and is attacking the distorted view Y rather than the original X.
As you can now see, Elisabeth is not being objective and has a distorted view of my intent by this note. Apparently she sees it as a malicious attempt on my part to sneak in a personal bias against "newer" Christian music, but it never was intended as such. I was only addressing the issues brought up in the radio program. Believe it or not, i was actually in agreement with the feelings of the atheist guest, until i realized that the church does not exist to attract and cater to the changing whims of the world. It was at this point that i began to see how bad Christianity has become, and how we need to get back to proclaiming a biblical Jesus who hated and was repulsed by sin. If a church does not proclaim the biblically true Jesus then it is not Christian.
Josh-Trisha, you made the same straw man error as Elisabeth
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
Using logical terminology really doesn't make your point any more convincing. By the way, I'm not saying you didn't have some valid points. I would agree on some of your statements about mega churches and the teaching and even the Christian music industry. Just not all of it.
Laying out the faults in Elisabeth's logic really was quite unneccessary though and it really did nothing to prove your point.
I know I, and I'm sure Elisabeth too, are more concerned about seeing you mature in your walk with the Lord than winning a debate over who uses better logic.
Elisabeth knows you much better than I, so I'm sure some of her statements come out of years of frustration in arguments with you. But, I'm pretty sure she is frustrated because she loves you and wants to see you filling your life and mind with the things of God rather than the things of this world. I know that's where my heart is.
I'm really not frustrated or upset with you. You come across to me as a young, zealous man who knows just enough Scripture (and logic) to think you have it all together. However, you are lacking a love and passion for Christ and for His people (as was demonstrated by your tone with your sister above).
I'm not saying I have it all together yet. I'm still growing and learning. I do love God though and I pray that you will develop a trust and love for Him and a true love for God's people.
You have a good mind Nehemiah. I'm looking forward to seeing God use you to do great things for Him. In Christ, Trisha
Nehemiah Ryan
Your statement above uses logic to disprove logic, which actually proves logic.
Your assumption that i was trying to use logic to prove my point is wrong. I was using it to disprove the other side, without attempting to support mine so you are correct that it doesn't prove my case. But it does disprove the other, therefore i am now free to use it to support my own.
Also, if the truth divides people, then so be it. It does not necessarily mean that i lack love.
Also, what do you think my point was? Go back and read it again and read it carefully this time and notice that i use words like 'apparently', 'seemingly', and 'possibly'. I tried not to make absolute statements, and if someone were to read absolutes into it it shows that they have a strict bias against a particular view.I have to be honest and say that I myself did commit a Post Hoc fallacy. I put the proof before the hypothesis. Simply put, my claim was that modern Christianity has been severely infected by the world and the spirit of Antichrist and my proof was that an Atheist God hater was able to get into the church services on a mental and emotional level without being convicted of sin or turning to God (1 John 4:5-6). But my error is that I used the proof to make the claim, rather than to confirm the claim. However, this does not mean that the claim is untrue, but only that the premises were confused.
A note about generalizations. Using a generalization is only wrong if the generalization is gained by examining a minority. In this case, the individual mega churches, while being fewer in number than individual smaller churches, are nonetheless still the majority because they are made up of more individual people. Thus they have the greatest and widest audience, support($$$), and influence($$$), and to the watching/listening world at large (millions upon millions of people) they characterize Christianity. Therefore, it is a legitimate generalization to say that modern Christianity as a whole is no longer able to be hastily trusted without question.
I'm still looking at my claims and premises to find any other errors in logic, and have yet to find any.
David P
It was sad to see something intended for edification actually result in bringing up some personal issues unrelated to the content, especially in front of many other people on Facebook.
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
Thanks David P. You are correct. I brought up personal, side issues that would have been more appropriately addressed in a private message. I humbly apologize. ~Trisha
Nehemiah Ryan
I just realized that I actually did not commit any logical fallacies that would collapse the thesis. What happened was that my presentation of the thesis was not clear enough, thereby allowing for misinterpretation based on apparent core fallacies which are not really there. I was not clear enough in the presentation and I'm sorry.
Here is a brief outline of the note:
1) An atheist tries out several churches in the Chicago area, including the ones by which most of Christianity is generalized2) An examination of biblical truths in relation to mega churches and the experience of the Atheist3) A conclusion that so-called "christianity" is now able to mislead people and can no longer be trusted without question.
Because of my lack of clarity, what happened in the minds of others can be shown as follows:a) N presents a single sample of one man's experience.b) N relates this single experience to the biblical truthc) N then commits a logical fallacy claiming that this one experience is the experience of all, thereby making a hasty generalization based on a bias sample. Thus the conclusion is bias and does not rest on a definite side of truth or falsity. In other words, one or more of the premises are fallacious but the conclusion may still be true.
That line of reasoning then became the straw man to which i myself would also disagree and attack. However, this was not the line of reasoning i was following.
Here is the reasoning that was intended:a) N presents a generalized sample based on the majority of Christianity derived from the largest audiences and the beliefs and practices of those audiences (millions of people who are members and/or supporters of mega churches).b) N then relates this sample to the truth of the Bible and uses the experience of the Atheist to support and evidence the claims made in the examination.c) N concludes that Christianity as a generalized whole can no longer be hastily and completely trusted because it has now been infected by worldly teaching and fleshly entertainment.
Please note that this line of reasoning DOES NOT necessitate that ALL of Christianity must never be trusted and should therefore be rejected. It also does not necessitate that all non-general/non-mega churches can be completely trusted without question. All that the conclusion necessarily claims is that Christianity, and its entertainment, must not be hastily and unquestioningly trusted without first "testing the spirits".I hope this makes things clear, and once again I'm sorry for my lack of clarity.
I hope this means you will stop listening to secular music now. That's what it implies. You need to be careful about your conclusions, Nehemiah. Generalizations are never good to make. Sad to say, we disagree with your conclusions.
Nehemiah Ryan
It's interesting that you go straight to the music thing but don't even care about the majority of the note which is about false teaching. You have the right to disagree, but you do not have the right to force personal convictions on another believer who has freedom to partake of the meat offered to idols. That's what legalism does; it forces sometimes legitimate personal convictions onto others who do not have those convictions. I never tried to tell anyone to stop listening to music, christian or non, i simply made an observation that modern "christian" music has a tendency to minister to the flesh, not the spirit, and the proof of this is that an atheist gets into it. How much fleshly leaven is okay for Christianity to use to gain the worlds acceptance/favor?If the music that I listen to causes someone else to stumble then I won't listen to that music. It's as simple as that. It's not that big a deal to me anymore. Yet when "christian" music actually causes another believer to stumble, the offended brother is the one who is wrong and has to get with the program. Too bad if something in "christianity" offends Christians, we have to have our drugs and spitefully do them in the face of the offended (1 Cor. 8:8-13).
Here is another observation; "christian" music has award shows to honor the artists and this is direct disobedience to what Jesus preached: total humility and self abasement (Matt. 18:1-7; 23:11-12; Luke 14:7-14; 18:9-14; John 15:12-13). Who is the greatest in the kingdom? Not the one who accepts an award for having the "most godly" album. It seems that in your opinion anything that is labeled "christian music" is holy and must be supported and applauded. Is it really impossible for anything labeled "christian" to be unholy, even when Jesus is totally left out and the actor/writer/performer/preacher is the one who is exalted and promoted?
Elisabeth Vander Mey
The issue isn't just music, but as far as music goes, you quoted Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. If you are going to apply that verse, in the way you are suggesting, you should stop listening to any secular/fleshly music, right?! Yes!
You're saying that, just because one athiest enjoyed going to church, that all churches like that are wrong and unbiblical, right? If he had come to your church and liked it, would that make your church unbiblical and your pastor a false teacher? How can you reason like that? Even tax collectors and sinners liked Jesus and were attracted to him and his teachings. Does that make him a false teacher? The Pharisees thought so.
You can't say that all big churches are not biblical or preaching the Gospel. Have you been to all big/mega churches? Do you know that for a fact? You can't just assume that, because some of these bigger churches are seeker-sensitive, that ALL big churches must be, and are therefore unbiblical and preach flasehoods.I could also assume, based on your reasoning, that ALL small/struggling churches preach the Gospel and are biblical, couldn't I?!
I would also like to remind you that, feelings are ok, when worshiping God. David wrote a lot in the psalms about himself and his feelings about how great God is. He was called a man after God's heart. Maybe we should learn from him?
Worshiping God is supposed to make us feel something. It should cause us to feel thankful to God for what he has done for us! Aren't we supposed to care about what we are singing to the Lord?! God looks, not at our outward appearance, but our heart. What is our heart saying while we are in worship?What is the real issue with contemporary christian music?
Nehemiah Ryan
Elisabeth you are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to this whole thing and you are not thinking rationally or logically. It is actually your reasoning that is flawed, and if you would read the note again from an objective point of view you will note that I tried to be fair and not make wildly absolute statements without thinking, and i tried to be careful about my wording. I know that you guys are going thru a very rough time about this right now, but please do not let it affect your judgment so that you take an absolute stance on something that you cannot support biblically. I personally think that you and the other person(s) are fighting about valid convictions and neither one of you is willing to back down. Do you really think God wants that?I will write another note about a biblically philosophical view of music, both christian and secular, and i will show that it is literally impossible to make an absolutely objective judgment about music in relation to the Christian life, and by trying to do this we are actually disobeying God and showing self-interest and a lack of love for other believers.
Elisabeth Vander Mey
I am being objective, maybe you are the one having a reaction to the thing you heard on the radio?I would have to say, I haven't heard one biblical argument against newer music. I agree with you that many churches today do not preach the Gospel, or glorify God in their music, preaching, etc. But, I think you are being unfair and exaggerating by making blanket statements about ALL churches being a certain way just because of one bad example. You have always had a problem with contemporary christian music, and I know this. But, I've never understood why you can't see that listening to secular music can be harmful, as well. I'm not saying you should never listen to it, I don't really think there's anything wrong with listening to it, to a degree. But, I think that, if you were to follow YOUR own logic and arguments, maybe you would see that secular music is worldly and fleshly, and you shouldn't listen to it, either (according to your arguments). You see?Nehemiah, you have always been very opinionated and eager to point the finger, without always thinking first or seeking a rounded/contextual view of scripture. You just need to be very careful not to blow things out of proportion. This has nothing to do with the situation we find ourselves in. I would feel this way no matter what.You can have your views, and I can have mine, I just want you to see the holes in your arguments. You just can't speak in absolutes like you do.
And, I'm not just referring to the music issue. I feel this way about what you said about the preaching, too. You can't say that all preachers of big/mega churches are not preaching the Gospel. But, that is what you are saying, simply because an atheist liked going to those types of churches.
And, am I understanding you correctly when you say that if we go to church and have a good time, that is sinful? And, clapping during church is sinful as well? Just want to clarify, because I can think of verses that would say otherwise.
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
I would have to say that Elisabeth's reasoning has been much more objective and has followed through to logical ends. I understand your point, Nehemiah, about today's Christian music being more about show and awards. However, I don't think it is correct to assume that all Christian artists have wrong motivations and that all Christian music is the same.
We are careful to learn about the artists we listen to and know their theology. We are particular about which songs we listen to and choose to listen to music that is Christ-centered, not man-centered. Is there some bad "Christian" music and are there some bad "Christian" artists? Yes. Does that mean all Christian music and all Christian artists are bad? No.
We are also careful about which secular music we listen to. Is there some good secular music? Yes. Is there some bad secular music? Yes. Some secular music can be fun to listen to and may have harmless lyrics. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of secular music that promotes worldviews that are contrary to Scripture. Much of secular music promotes a "love" that is merely lust and worldly, choosing to do what is best for yourself, not others, rebellion and many other sins that Scripture clearly says to avoid and is also filled with filthy language.
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual imorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolarty. Because of these the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips." Colossians 3:5-8
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2
These are only a couple of verses. There are many passages that talk about what we should and shouldn't be filling our minds and lives with.
I think the issue of secular music and Christian music really isn't an issue of music at all. The style of music and the actual instrumentation are not issues addressed in Scripture. The issue is really the lyrics and what the artists are trying to promote. Whether Christian artists or secular artists, we need to be careful about what we are filling our minds with.
One last thought. You think it is wrong for Christian artists to stand up and receive awards for their music. Do you also think it is wrong for secular artists to sing about things completely contrary to Scripture and promote lifestyles that are not honoring to God, then stand up and receive their award and give thanks to God? Does that keep you from listening to their music?
I know you're good at thinking through issues. Hopefully you will take some time to dig into Scripture further and look more carefully into the issue of what we are to fill our minds with.
Praying for you...
Nehemiah Ryan
I DID NOT want to do this but i am forced to show Elisabeth's faulty logic. She is committing fallacies all over the place.But before i do i want to say that i never said that ALL mega churches do not ever preach the gospel and only have sinful music. This is a total misinterpretation of what i was saying. It's reading something into the text that is not there. All I was saying was that modern Christianity has been infected by the spirit of Antichrist and that it is found mostly in larger churches. And since the large churches are the ones that have the most influence and widest audience, it has the capacity to do the most damage to the cause of Christ and the truth of Scripture.
Here are just 5 of the many fallacies:1. Appeal to emotion. "am I understanding you correctly when you say that if we go to church and have a good time, that is sinful?"-N makes claim X. E says that N is making a statement about emotions, therefore N's claim about X is false. The flaw here is that E's argument a priori assumes that emotions cannot possibly be fleshly. Only if emotions and the flesh are never intertwined then E's accusation stands. But sometimes emotions are fleshly, so this argument against claim X cannot stand in an objective absolute.
2. Ad Hominem. "Nehemiah, you have always been very opinionated and eager to point the finger"-N makes claim X. E makes a personal attack on N, therefore N's claim is false. Because N has a personal belief, his reasoning cannot be possibly be objective, therefore nothing he says can be true. The flaw here is that objective truth does not change based on a person's subjective view or involvement in a given claim.
3. False Dilemma. "If you are going to apply that verse, in the way you are suggesting, you should stop listening to any secular/fleshly music, right?! Yes!""...that ALL big churches must be, and are therefore unbiblical and preach flasehoods. I could also assume, based on your reasoning, that ALL small/struggling churches preach the Gospel and are biblical, couldn't I?!"-N makes claims X and Y. E says that only one of them can be true, but both cannot. The flaw here is the E has set up a false contradictory dilemma in order to disprove either X or Y or both. E must show how both claim X and Y are mutually exclusive and contradictory to one another in the absolute.
4. Red Herring. "I've never understood why you can't see that listening to secular music can be harmful, as well."-N makes claim X. E brings in claim Y in attempt to discredit claim X, yet claim Y is totally irrelevant to claim X.The flaw here is that the irrelevant claim Y is brought in only to discredit and add doubt to claim X.
5. Straw Man. "But, I think you are being unfair and exaggerating by making blanket statements about ALL churches being a certain way just because of one bad example."-N has position X. E presents position Y (a distorted version of X). E attacks position Y, therefore X is false.The flaw here is that E has set up a distorted view of N's position and is attacking the distorted view Y rather than the original X.
As you can now see, Elisabeth is not being objective and has a distorted view of my intent by this note. Apparently she sees it as a malicious attempt on my part to sneak in a personal bias against "newer" Christian music, but it never was intended as such. I was only addressing the issues brought up in the radio program. Believe it or not, i was actually in agreement with the feelings of the atheist guest, until i realized that the church does not exist to attract and cater to the changing whims of the world. It was at this point that i began to see how bad Christianity has become, and how we need to get back to proclaiming a biblical Jesus who hated and was repulsed by sin. If a church does not proclaim the biblically true Jesus then it is not Christian.
Josh-Trisha, you made the same straw man error as Elisabeth
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
Using logical terminology really doesn't make your point any more convincing. By the way, I'm not saying you didn't have some valid points. I would agree on some of your statements about mega churches and the teaching and even the Christian music industry. Just not all of it.
Laying out the faults in Elisabeth's logic really was quite unneccessary though and it really did nothing to prove your point.
I know I, and I'm sure Elisabeth too, are more concerned about seeing you mature in your walk with the Lord than winning a debate over who uses better logic.
Elisabeth knows you much better than I, so I'm sure some of her statements come out of years of frustration in arguments with you. But, I'm pretty sure she is frustrated because she loves you and wants to see you filling your life and mind with the things of God rather than the things of this world. I know that's where my heart is.
I'm really not frustrated or upset with you. You come across to me as a young, zealous man who knows just enough Scripture (and logic) to think you have it all together. However, you are lacking a love and passion for Christ and for His people (as was demonstrated by your tone with your sister above).
I'm not saying I have it all together yet. I'm still growing and learning. I do love God though and I pray that you will develop a trust and love for Him and a true love for God's people.
You have a good mind Nehemiah. I'm looking forward to seeing God use you to do great things for Him. In Christ, Trisha
Nehemiah Ryan
Your statement above uses logic to disprove logic, which actually proves logic.
Your assumption that i was trying to use logic to prove my point is wrong. I was using it to disprove the other side, without attempting to support mine so you are correct that it doesn't prove my case. But it does disprove the other, therefore i am now free to use it to support my own.
Also, if the truth divides people, then so be it. It does not necessarily mean that i lack love.
Also, what do you think my point was? Go back and read it again and read it carefully this time and notice that i use words like 'apparently', 'seemingly', and 'possibly'. I tried not to make absolute statements, and if someone were to read absolutes into it it shows that they have a strict bias against a particular view.I have to be honest and say that I myself did commit a Post Hoc fallacy. I put the proof before the hypothesis. Simply put, my claim was that modern Christianity has been severely infected by the world and the spirit of Antichrist and my proof was that an Atheist God hater was able to get into the church services on a mental and emotional level without being convicted of sin or turning to God (1 John 4:5-6). But my error is that I used the proof to make the claim, rather than to confirm the claim. However, this does not mean that the claim is untrue, but only that the premises were confused.
A note about generalizations. Using a generalization is only wrong if the generalization is gained by examining a minority. In this case, the individual mega churches, while being fewer in number than individual smaller churches, are nonetheless still the majority because they are made up of more individual people. Thus they have the greatest and widest audience, support($$$), and influence($$$), and to the watching/listening world at large (millions upon millions of people) they characterize Christianity. Therefore, it is a legitimate generalization to say that modern Christianity as a whole is no longer able to be hastily trusted without question.
I'm still looking at my claims and premises to find any other errors in logic, and have yet to find any.
David P
It was sad to see something intended for edification actually result in bringing up some personal issues unrelated to the content, especially in front of many other people on Facebook.
Josh-Trisha Jacobs
Thanks David P. You are correct. I brought up personal, side issues that would have been more appropriately addressed in a private message. I humbly apologize. ~Trisha
Nehemiah Ryan
I just realized that I actually did not commit any logical fallacies that would collapse the thesis. What happened was that my presentation of the thesis was not clear enough, thereby allowing for misinterpretation based on apparent core fallacies which are not really there. I was not clear enough in the presentation and I'm sorry.
Here is a brief outline of the note:
1) An atheist tries out several churches in the Chicago area, including the ones by which most of Christianity is generalized2) An examination of biblical truths in relation to mega churches and the experience of the Atheist3) A conclusion that so-called "christianity" is now able to mislead people and can no longer be trusted without question.
Because of my lack of clarity, what happened in the minds of others can be shown as follows:a) N presents a single sample of one man's experience.b) N relates this single experience to the biblical truthc) N then commits a logical fallacy claiming that this one experience is the experience of all, thereby making a hasty generalization based on a bias sample. Thus the conclusion is bias and does not rest on a definite side of truth or falsity. In other words, one or more of the premises are fallacious but the conclusion may still be true.
That line of reasoning then became the straw man to which i myself would also disagree and attack. However, this was not the line of reasoning i was following.
Here is the reasoning that was intended:a) N presents a generalized sample based on the majority of Christianity derived from the largest audiences and the beliefs and practices of those audiences (millions of people who are members and/or supporters of mega churches).b) N then relates this sample to the truth of the Bible and uses the experience of the Atheist to support and evidence the claims made in the examination.c) N concludes that Christianity as a generalized whole can no longer be hastily and completely trusted because it has now been infected by worldly teaching and fleshly entertainment.
Please note that this line of reasoning DOES NOT necessitate that ALL of Christianity must never be trusted and should therefore be rejected. It also does not necessitate that all non-general/non-mega churches can be completely trusted without question. All that the conclusion necessarily claims is that Christianity, and its entertainment, must not be hastily and unquestioningly trusted without first "testing the spirits".I hope this makes things clear, and once again I'm sorry for my lack of clarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment