Theology of Twilight - Implications on Purity

So, while we're on the subject of Theology... let's talk about vampires. I'm referring to a recent collection of novels which center around the life of a high school aged girl who falls in love with a vampire: Twilight. I've read them. I'm admitting it to the world, "I'm a man in his twenties who has read and enjoyed the Twilight saga." While I realize the books have been most popular with teenage girls, the reason I started reading them is a theological one. Let me explain.

I started by going to watch the movie "Twilight" with my wife. I started to get nervous when we were in the ticket line with what looked like a sorority recruitment camp. Nevertheless, we took our seats and were thrilled to enjoy a great movie (and an additional soundtrack from the audience). As I mentioned above, the movie (and books) are about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. The girl is named Bella (which, itself, means "beautiful", and comes from Isabella, which means "My God is bountiful. God of plenty. Devoted to God", made popular by queens of Spain) and the vampire is named Edward (which means "wealthy guard", made popular by kings of England). The two fall in love, of course, but the nature of their relationship is ever determined by the facts of their natures. Bella is human, young, in many ways weak, and very clumsy. Edward is a vampire, and due to that nature is incredibly attractive: has fantastic bronze hair, bright amber eyes, and stone skin (which sparkles in sunlight). Also, as a vampire, he has nearly limitless strength and speed and thirsts for human blood. Of course this last attribute is the most critical source of tension in the entire series. If he were like every other vampire the book would have been very short. Bella would have taken her first steps into biology class and been met by brilliant white teeth... the story would have been over. What makes this love story possible is that Edward is not like all other vampires.

Edward is different from others of his kind because he is a follower of Carlisle Cullen, the first vampire who has denied his thirst for human blood, choosing, instead, to drink the blood of lesser creatures. Edward has decided to not give into his natural desire to drink the blood his body desires. Edward can also read minds, which is a gift unique to him, but I don't think that's why Bella (and every teenage girl) loves him.

Let me give away my main point: The real reason Edward is amazing is not the bronze hair, amber eyes, or stone skin, it is because he desires to be righteous. When Edward and Bella fall in love, he is hesitant to even kiss her for fear that he would lose control. Edward firmly states (in the book) that he will not have sex until marriage. Edward won't have sex with Bella for the same reason he won't drink her blood: to do either would kill her and reveal the monster that is his nature. He is incredible because he loves her and loves her righteously. The hair, eyes, skin are products of his vampiric nature... and those alone would leave Bella dead. He needed to also be upright.

What I saw in the movie, and saw again when I later read the books, was a metaphor for the life of a Christian. Edward had a nature which made him a monster. All mankind has a nature which makes them monsters: a sinful nature which is opposed to God and opposed to His law. Edward has been changed by his relationship to Carlisle, who, though a vampire himself, has never (ever!) given into his vampiric nature. Christians have been changed by our relationship to Jesus Christ, who, though a human himself, has never (ever!) sinned.

I also see a parallel for a specific scenario that I've dealt with in my own life and I'd imagine most teenagers themselves are or will soon deal with: purity. Take a situation where a girl and guy fall in love. They probably will have a desire to elevate the relationship physically. To elevate the physical intimacy to inappropriate levels is against God's law. God has a context for intimacy, and it is within a covenant relationship called marriage. To have sex before marriage is immoral. God calls it sin:

1 Corinthians 6:

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

I bring this up because I see a parallel between the natural desires of unmarried couples and Edward's thirst. Consider with me for a moment that Edward thirsts for Bella. Part of his desire for her is good and right and true, but it is always stained to some degree by his inner urges. So it is with a young man who has met a young woman he loves. He longs for her, and this can be a good longing, yet part of him desires to take things beyond the appropriate boundaries. It is a constant struggle for a Christian.

Consider next that if Edward were to, even for a few moments, give in to his pressing thirst. It would literally kill Bella. If you've read Midnight Sun, you'll know that it would kill Edward, too. He would forever live with the monster that he had become. When unmarried people perform acts that were intended for marriage, it kills them. Please don't think I'm being over dramatic here. Consider what God tells us in the book of James:

James 1:

14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Please understand, I am not saying that sex is wrong. Sex is wonderful. It is a gift from God for mankind. It has a right context, though. The right context for sexual intimacy is marriage. Bella calls Edward "old fashioned" when he wants to wait until marriage (Eclipse). Sadly, it is seen as "old fashioned" by much of the world, today. The way God intended things, though, should not be considered "old fashioned" as if not relevant today, at least by those who are called by God to be His own. God holds marriage in such high regard that he wants us to protect it:

Hebrews 13:

4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Marriage in this life is not the final end, though. Marriage, like so many parts of this life, is intended to give us a picture of that which is to come. Marriage is the most intimate relationship for a human to have with another. What is amazing is that God has decreed that his people will one day be united to Jesus Christ. He describes this union as a marriage.

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Revelation 21:
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Marriage is worth protecting, worth waiting for, because heaven is worth waiting for.

As I recall the teenage girls screaming when Edward first appeared on screen, I think to myself, why did they adore him? Why is Edward worth screaming for? I'll tell you that it is not because of the hair, the eyes, the skin... or even because he can read minds or is old-fashioned. Young women love Edward because he would protect their virtue in a society which wishes to exploit it. Edward is someone they can trust because he has shown himself to be trustworthy. As these young women look for someone love, I pray that they would find a man who is, in this sense, like Edward.

“That’s it, isn’t it?” The short laugh that escaped me was more shocked than amused. “You’re trying to protect your virtue!” I covered my mouth with my hand to muffle the giggle that followed. The words were so . . . old-fashioned.

“No, silly girl,” he muttered against my shoulder. “I’m trying to protect yours.”

-Eclipse (Book 3)

Cooperating 002

I'm still pondering the essay I need to prepare for my application to Seminary:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

As I was considering my answer, I picked up a Manual of Interchurch Relations from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). The small booklet gave a scriptural proof for an excerpt from the Covenant 1871 (found in the constitution of the RPCNA, section 4, page I-9). Here is the excerpt and below I'll give their summarized points:

That, 1believing the Church to be one, and that all the saints have communion with God and with one another in the same Covenant; 2believing, moreover, that schism and sectarianism are sinful in themselves; and inimical to true religion, 3and trusting that divisions shall cease, and the people of God become one Catholic church over all the earth, 4we will pray and labor for the visible oneness of the Church of God in our own land and throughout the world, 5on the basis of truth and of Scriptural order. 6Considering it a principal duty of our profession to cultivate a holy brotherhood, we will strive to maintain Christian friendship with pious men of every name, and to feel and act as one with all in every land who pursue this grand end. 7And, as a means of securing this great result, we will by dissemination and application of the principles of truth herein professed, and by cultivating and exercising Christian charity, labor to remove stumbling-blocks, and to gather into one the scattered and divided friends of truth and righteousness.

The numbers are my addition. They correspond to the following points, which were given to summarize the above paragraph:

1. The Church and Christians are one.
2. Denominational divisions result from sin.
3. The blessing of unity is to be looked for in the future.
4. Visible unity must be the goal we work toward.
5. Unity must be based on Biblical truth and order.
6. Fraternal relations are to be fostered.
7. Stumbling blocks are to be removed so that organic union will be secured.

I think these points make sense... I'm pondering them as I consider how we as Christians ought to cooperate, even though we do come from different theological backgrounds.

on the label "Presbyterian"

ARTHUR:  ...I am your king.
WOMAN:  I didn't know we had a king.  I thought we were an autonomous collective.

I remember a newspaper cartoon which had two dogs standing next to each other. The first said to the other, "I'm a St. Bernard". The other replied, "I think I'm a Presbyterian."

I'd like to start by saying, Presbyterians (though often loyal) are not a breed of dog. Presbyterianism is not a particular series of doctrines or beliefs either, which may be confusing as the word "Presbyterian" occurs in the titles of some denominations, which do have doctrines and beliefs. Presbyterian refers to a type of church government. Presbyterians may generally hold some beliefs in common, but this is not always the case. While I, myself, am a Presbyterian, I don't necessarily agree with other Presbyterians on all their theology. I will agree with their form of church government.

Definitions, please?

ARTHUR: ....Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?

So, what is a Presbyterian form of church government? First, the word "Presbyterian" is from the Greek word "πρεσβύτερος" which means elder. As I'll show later, the whole of Presbyterian government is based on elders.

The United States Government was formed by many Presbyterians, from it I'll pull some examples. In the US, there are city governments, county governments, state governments, and the federal government. Each level has representatives from the people over which they preside. The mayor of a city has to be a citizen of that same city. A US Senator must come from the state which elected him. These are representatives. Representatives from several cities form a county government. Representatives from a number of counties form a state government. Representatives from all the states form the federal government.

When we think of a Presbyterian denomination, we'll see the same pattern. At the basic level, there are individual local churches (or local bodies, as in "the body of Christ", I'll use the terms synonymously throughout this post). The decisions which affect each of these local churches are made primarily by a group of ruling elders which are also members of this same church (called the session) and thus each has it in his interest to keep this local body in good health. A group of local churches together form a presbytery. A presbytery is a group of elders - representatives from the sessions of each of the local churches which make up the presbytery. Representatives from several presbyteries form a synod. If a denomination is large enough to require it, representatives from several synods make up a general assembly.

Here's a short diagram of what I've covered so far:

a city is comprised of citizens.
city -> county -> state -> nation (federal)

a local church is comprised of believers.
local church (session) -> presbytery -> synod -> general assembly.

Why?

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

Why do Presbyterians choose to govern themselves the way they do? What is their reason? What is the advantage? Why aren't they governed by a hierarchy of bishops (episcopacy)? Why doesn't each local body govern itself completely (congregationalist)?

A basic premise is that there is strength and wisdom in seeking many counselors. This is a biblical idea:

Proverbs 11:
14 Where there is no guidance, a people falls,
but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

Presbyterians hold that oversight is good for a church. If a church is only held accountable by it's pastor, what happens if he were to lead them astray in some way? Would they follow him? How far? A larger body to which a local church can appeal decisions and seek counsel is helpful in keeping that local church healthy. This is why Presbyterians avoid placing too much power in a small number of people in the local church; why they are not congregationalists.

In addition to taking precautions against too much power in the local body, Presbyterians do not want to place too much power outside of it. Just as a local pastor or a small group of elders without accountability could lead the local body astray, a ruling hierarchy without accountability could do the same. The presbyteries and synods are composed of elders from each local body, thus they are responsible and accountable to them. They also have equal voting power to prevent placing too much power in any single person or small group within each presbytery.

Ultimately, each elder is also accountable to God, and must be above reproach. These are things which Paul told Titus:

Titus 1:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, [3] and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, [4] as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound [5] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Notice that the term "overseer" or "bishop" is used synonymously with "elder". The elders are instructed to hold firm to the trustworthy word and called to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine. When a local church selects an elder, they are to use Paul's criteria to select upright men.

Applying the Label

I am a Presbyterian. I submit to the authority of the elders of my church as they instruct me according to God's Word. I appreciate the accountability they receive from the elders of my denomination. I intend to hold my elder accountable to their post regarding the local church and the church at large. I'm thankful to God for these ways in which He maintains, builds, and defends His church.

Quotes of Monty Python and the Holy Grail can be found at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

Faith Alone? ... yep.

I was recently in discussions with a friend of mine over what the gospel is. My friend is a Catholic and I am Evangelical. We disagreed. He directed me to a website from the "Bible Christian Society". I'm a fan of the bible and am a Christian, so I gladly checked out what was there. My friend asked me to download and listen to a lecture called "Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone?". I happily obliged.

The lecture was by a man named John Martignoni, and John began by introducing 3 false assumptions that Protestants make. As a Protestant, I was eager to understand what I had been assuming falsely. These false assumptions that I had apparently been making were:

1. You have to believe either the (Roman) Catholic Church or the bible.
2. The (Roman) Catholic Church teaches a salvation by works.
3. And a third one... Scripture teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

The third struck me as odd. I'll assure you that I didn't know then what the Roman Catholic Church's teaching was on these matters, so I didn't mind being accused of misunderstanding them. The third, however, was a shock to my system... as an Evangelical, the accusation was preposterous. The doctrine of Faith Alone is central to the gospel itself, how could someone assert that is wasn't in the bible? This is a very serious accusation, indeed, as the apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 1 verses 8 and 9 in no uncertain terms that anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed.

As I listened on, John Martignoni read verses from the bible that he felt Protestants misinterpreted. Each of these, he countered with verses which he felt proved his point. If you'd like to take a look, he's got them listed on his website. For each of the verse responses he gave, he remarked that the bible taught faith and works. He even accused Protestants of misunderstanding Ephesians 2:8-9 by not also reading Ephesians 2:10.

At the capstone of his argument, John Martignoni read from James chapter 2. Particularly, he said that the only verse in the bible which has "faith" and "alone" next to each other is James 2:24:

James 2:
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

John Martignoni claims that this verse teaches against the doctrine of faith alone. Is he right? Well, first it would be helpful to identify what the doctrine of faith alone is and also get some context for the verse in question.

What is Faith Alone?

Faith alone is the doctrine rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation. It basically identifies the instrument by which a person recieves salvation. The Reformers held that God justifies (accounts as righteous) a person based on the work of Christ applied to them through faith. Because Christ's works are perfect, the faithful person is immediately acceptable to God, and thus has eternal salvation. The question then comes up:

'what about good works?" If a person is saved by having faith in Jesus Christ, do they need to do anything else? Shouldn't they also be trying to be good people?'

I've mentioned this in another post, but I think it should be mentioned here: faith and good works are distinct, but not separate. The Reformers certainly held that "we are justified by faith alone" but also that "the faith by which a man is justified is never alone." In other words, a person who is justified is also being sanctified. When John Martignoni points to passages in the bible which call for good works in believers, I agree wholeheartedly with the passages, but can't help but feel that John Martignoni doesn't understand the entirety of the doctrine he opposes.

James's Argument.

So, concerning John Martignoni's argument clinching verse, James 2:24, is James correcting a false doctrine? The context will help us. James actually asks the question he intends to answer in verse 14:

James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

James asks the question: 'can someone have true, saving faith but lack good works?' The answer James goes on to give, and the answer with which that the Reformers wholeheartedly agree is "NO!". Saving faith is always accompanied by works. These are distinct but never separate. Does a person exist who is justified but not being sanctified? NO.

From the context, we see that the verse which John Martignoni claims argues against the doctrine of faith alone is actually an argument against a wrong understanding of faith itself. We should understand verse 24 in light of verse 14.

The faith which James speaks against in James chapter 2 is so inherently different than the faith which Reformed Theology holds to, that to say that James is speaking against the doctrine of "faith alone" is either a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine itself, of what James is saying, or of both.

I disagree with you, John Martignoni. When I read Ephesians 2:8-10, I see the doctrine of faith alone...

Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

...and yes, that includes verse 10.

Cooperating 001

I'm applying for seminary. I'm incredibly excited at the prospect of learning more about God. At the same time I feel incredibly unprepared. I suppose I think of men in seminary as really smart, godly men. In my mind, they are people who can say in less than a minute all the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. They're probably people who have read through the bible 3 times, at least. Often, lately, I've felt that I'm not good enough for seminary.

Q. What makes me think that I could ever go, spend money, time, and effort to study God?

A. Jesus.

I'm reassuring myself, as did the apostle Paul, that...

Philippians 4:
13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

I can't do this on my own. It's even true that I don't deserve to go to seminary. I'm not super-pastor. I'll never be super-pastor. But Jesus is my savior... and I cannot be separated from Him.

Romans 8:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ... 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jesus is my strength. He is my salvation. He is my Lord. So, when I ponder the essay question on the entrance application to my seminary of choice:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

A. Jesus.

What other answer do I have?

Distinct vs. Separate... FIGHT!

When I say that something is distinct, I don't mean that it is necessarily separate. Let me explain:

I might say that we can distinguish between parts of a piece of fruit. Take, for example, an orange. An orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Each of these are essential to this particular object. An orange has each: a peel, fruit, and seeds (unless it is genetically sterilized to be seedless...). As I speak about them, I distinguish between the peel and the seeds. These parts are distinguishable... I could separate the peel from the fruit. If I did so, I would no longer have an entire orange. I would only have a part of an orange. To have a complete orange, you must have all the parts.

I think the example of the orange introduces the difference between calling something distinct and separating its parts. It is critical to understand this difference when either term is used to describe a theological concept. I'll introduce two:

In the testimony of the church to which I belong, there is the following statement:

(13.4)

Sanctification is inseparably connected with justification, but is distinct from it. By justification the sinner is acquitted from condemnation; by sanctification he is made holy, and prepared for the happiness of heaven. Justification is complete at once, and equal in all believers; sanctification is neither equal in all, nor perfect in any, while in this life. Nevertheless, all who are justified shall be completely sanctified.

In the above, we see distinction and separation used in a theological assertion. Specifically, justification and sanctification are mentioned. I won't go into the details of what each is just yet, but I will affirm that they are distinct, but not separate. What I mean is that if a person is justified then they are also being sanctified. These are not separate, indeed they cannot be. The testimony uses "inseparably connected" to describe this. This is like saying that an orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Take away one, and you no longer have an orange. Take justification away, and we can't expect sanctification. Take sanctification away, and we shouldn't presume that there ever was any justification.

There is also distinction in the assertion above. It identifies how justification is different from sanctification. Justification is different from sanctification. They can be distinguished from one another because they are not the same thing. We can distinguish between a seed and a peel. They are different. They are not the same thing.... but they are parts of the same thing: an orange. Justification and sanctification are parts of the same thing: the work of God in those He saves.

Distinction is important. I hold that we are justified by faith alone. I also hold that this same faith by which we are justified is never alone, it is always accompanied by good works. I don't want to go over that too quickly, because I think it is extremely important. God pronounces men just when they have faith in Jesus Christ. God also brings about change in a faithful person's life: He makes them better people: people more like Jesus Christ. This is the same as saying that justification is always accompanied by sanctification. The two are always found together because they are both works of God's grace in those He is saving.

This has some profound implications:

• We should not presume that we have been justified if we do not also see ourselves being sanctified. (i.e., we should judge a tree by its fruit).
• If God has brought us to have faith in Him, we can trust that we are saved, because the same God who justifies also sanctifies.

The above may seem contradictory. Indeed, it is hard for my finite mind to comprehend all that God has done and is doing in my life. I hold to them both, because I don't know how else we're to read Ephesians 2:8-9 with Ephesians 2:10 any other way:

Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Praise God who justifies and sanctifies His people.

on the label "Fundamentalist"

Am I a fundamentalist?

Those of you who have read much of this blog will probably be able to tell me if I am or am not. I'll go ahead and say that I think I am a fundamentalist, and that is why I started this blog post. While writing it, I came across an article, though, that has caused me to think again about the term. In his article, http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm, Scott Bidstrup asserts his definition of "fundamentalist" in his first paragraph:

In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

Well, according to the definition above, fundamentalists seem like heady, heartless people. I can't imagine I'd like such people. How, then can I still hold that I identify myself as a fundamentalist, if the definition is so clear. Well, for one, I hold a different definition of fundamentalist:

It seems to me that the word fundamentalist is tied to the word fundamental. I'll define a fundamentalist as someone who understands, believes, and applies the fundamentals of some set of knowledge, principles, or doctrine.

Allow me to provide an example: There is a textbook called : Fundamentals of Biochemistry. Suppose a professor of Biochemistry assigned this as the text for a class he was teaching. On the first day of classes, one of the new students storms into the classroom, points a finger at the professor and yells "You're a loveless fundamentalist! You're trying to indoctrinate us with your fundamentalist agenda! I'm never coming to class again." Imagine the absurdity of this. The word "Fundamentals" as used in the title of the textbook is synonymous with "basics" or "essentials". This is the same as I use it in the word "fundamentalist". A fundamentalist is someone who understands, believes, and applies the basics or essentials of some thing.

It should be easy to see from my definition how I can hold the word "fundamentalist" without contempt. The word itself is morally neutral. There can be and are good fundamentalists. Consider students of the Biochemistry professor above. Some of them would grow up to graduate and become practicing Biochemists. Now, if these Biochemists are any good, they still would understand, believe, and apply the fundamentals of Biochemistry they learned in college. These Biochemists can be understood to be Fundamentalist Biochemists. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact it is what defines them as being good at what they do if they know, believe, and apply the essential parts of their profession. Thus there can be good fundamentalists. This also shows that it is not the fundamentalism which is necessarily good or bad, but the principles or doctrine which governs this fundamentalism.

I am a Christian fundamentalist. I realize that there are people (even many Christians) who have qualms with these terms in such close proximity. I'd like to ask those people, "Do you not believe in the fundamentals of Christianity?" or, "Does your Christian belief not have anything which is fundamental to it?". I've already asserted in a previous post that I hold Jesus' role as Savior and Lord are essential to Christianity. They are fundamental. It is the fundamentals of my faith which lead me to correct action. It is Jesus who instructs me that I should love.

Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

I am not a fundamentalist who has had his heart surgically removed (thanks to Scott Bidstrup for this vivid picture). In fact, it is the very fundamentals of my faith which have changed my life. I have a heart of flesh and not a dead heart of stone because Christ has made me alive. I know how to love others because God tells me in His word what love is and how to do it. The fundamentals of my faith lead me to love, compassion, and caring. Let's put the "fun" back into "fundamentalist". OK, I had to say it. Aside from the jokes, though, I hold that fundamentals are important... that's why we call them fundamental.

Reasons why I love the Psalms 001

I was just watching this video on a new revision of the psalter. The psalter is, of course, a copy of the book of psalms but arranged to be sung. At my church, we sing the psalms. I realized somewhat recently that I love singing the psalms. I love them. So, let me share with you a reason why.

As Duncan Lowe (the elderly gentleman) points out in the video, "sometimes the psalms can be bold in saying certain things... that a hymn writer wouldn't have the right to say." Pretty profound. I think immediately of psalm 13. Consider the first 2 verses:

Psalm 13:
13:1 How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

These are words that God led David, the man after His own heart to pen. These are words specifically meant for God's people to sing. I'll be honest, if it weren't for God giving me these words to sing, I wouldn't be able to express this emotion. And this gets to my point: I see so much of praise music these days focused on expressing emotion. It seems that there is a general feel that if things aren't flowing with free emotion that the Holy Spirit isn't working. Are modern praise choruses, written by men, capable of expressing a feeling that God has forgotten me? Can they express without blasphemy that I'm overcome with sorrow all day? Should they?

I'll stick to the psalms. I love the psalms.