Forging the Faith

The Five Solas are the cornerstone of virtually every Protestant doctrine. 

• Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
• Sola fide ("by faith alone")
• Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
• Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
• Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

This ancient list, handed down to us from the holy mountain of the Reformation, has become to Protestant theology the new stone tablets; authoritative, absolute, and beyond the understanding of mere mortals. None may question these firmly established laws, given to us so clearly by men far greater than ourselves five centuries ago. 

Except for the minor issue that it was only in the 1900s that this list was formulated. The invention of sliced bread predates this clean organized list of five solas. Granted, concepts similar to these doctrines were taught by most reformers at some point or another, but given the ponderous amount of literature and preaching that came out of the Reformation, there are many other doctrines that they taught that have been lost to the common parishioner. Yet this list, which has been refined only recently, is taught as an ancient teaching that should be revered for its age and origin, rather than doctrine that has been communally agreed upon by a large group of theologians within the last century. 

Ironically, those who hold this list as sacred would find that sola scriptura would advocate for them to drop this list, as this list is not found in Scripture; indeed many of these concepts could be and have been challenged by believers with Scripture. Why is it then that so many Christians hold so strongly to the Five Solas? 

A large part of the issue here is a desire for an ancient and sure theology that has been upheld by great men of the past. If great and wise leaders have united around this teaching it must be sound, right? Much of our popular Christian religion habits of the twenty-first century are really products of the last century or so, but rebranded as ancient and accepted theology. Things like altar calls and Sunday Schools are much newer than we would assume. Modern pop culture reading of Revelation, thanks to easy to digest fiction works that shall remain nameless, give rise to doctrines that are rather new but implied to be ancient.

This forging of doctrines to look ancient in order to be accepted is an indication of our human tendency to follow the 'broad way' rather than search for truth ourselves. We follow whatever looks popular, or perhaps what is being preached by the loudest and most confidant preachers of our times, and we put our faith in the ancient aspects of the teachings rather than in Christ.

Our faith should not be in how old or commonly accepted a doctrine is, but whether or not Jesus taught it. Wether we hold Sola Scriptura, Nuda Scriptura, or Prima Scriptura our chief focus should always be on Christ, not human doctrines. Holding fast to this list of traditional theology that itself denies the authority of tradition is an ironic proof of our human nature to cling to what is comfortable rather than seek out what is painful, but true. Our calling is not blind obedience to doctrine, but a servant's heart and a willingness to take up our cross to follow Him. 

Demon Worship in America

Growing up I heard about many 'Satanic' things that I should avoid, Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, Procter and Gamble,  and of course the Freemasons. I heard tales of witches and devil worshipers, and the power granted to them. As an adult, I find that these things are just not what I was told. In fact, Procter and Gamble successfully sued Amway for spreading lies to its customers to steal sales. 

But don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of devil worship going on in America. The problem, however, is that it isn't outside the church, but in it. 

Satan is revered as the ultimate foe, the tempter of every Christian, the source of all our sorrows and temptations, and the cause of all evil in the world. He is ascribed power and ability, cunning and skill, strength and omniscience. He is feared and avoided, touted as the ultimate thing we should be wary of.

This is textbook worship; the reverence of a supernatural being and ascribing works and power to him. Another term for such practice is deification. 

Our sin and our temptation is not the devil's fault; its ours. God punished Adam for his sin, and Eve for hers. Our sin is our fault; we make those choices. The evil in the world is the fault of the choices of people; individuals who have chosen self over God. This is ultimate evil; the self, or flesh. That is what we deny. We are called to deny ourselves, to crucify our flesh. We are the villains of our own stories. Jesus is the hero. 

Now, it is much simpler to simply blame the devil. What could we do against some immortal spirit that once was an angel? It's easy to blame everything on the devil and give him the credit for all evil.

But that is false. The problem in our world is not that the devil is causing all our problems, its that we are. Our choices are what cause the evil in the world. Our denial of God is the problem, as individuals and groups. 

We want a villain outside of ourselves to blame, a scapegoat. It is comforting to think that our sin isn't our fault, that it was the result of some other factor or being. Yet it is our fault. We are responsible for our choices. 

The devil is not the opposite of God. We aren't trapped between an ultimate Good versus an ultimate Evil. There is no 'evil' opposite of God. Instead, there is only the option of following God or not following God. Choosing ourselves over God is ultimate defiance. 

Sadly, we find many Christians today obsess over the devil. They attribute all their problems to him and spend most of their time trying to avoid or fighting him off. 

Instead, we should focus on Christ. He is our life, love and very existence. With Him, we have everything we need. We have no need to fear anyone. No one and nothing is a match for our God. We have nothing to fear. God is Good. 

Selective Hearing

As a father and as a teacher, I'm amazed at the selective hearing that children have. They seem only to hear what they want to hear and will try to 'misunderstand' things in order to get to do what you clearly told them not to. It can be frustrating as the adult to correct this behavior.

God has to deal with us 'misunderstanding' things too. Two rules can be side by side, but if we want to defy His rules we find a way. Here's an example, but just for fun, I'll switch it with another command and see how well we understand the rule if its reapplied. Here's basically the re-written argument I've often heard.

As a Christian I carry a condom  handgun with me at all times. Now I know God forbids adultery murder, but I keep it just incase I need to sleep with someone kill someone in order to save my family. Sure, no-one I personally know has ever actually needed their condom  handgun, but you never know, these sorts of things happen on tv all the time. I would never willingly commit adultery kill someone, but I like the feeling of power that it gives me knowing I could if the situation presented itself. When I get together with other people who carry their condom  handgun,  we talk about how good it is to be prepared and how manly it makes us feel to have it just in case. In our free time we share videos of people describing how adultery self-defense isn't illegal in this country. Sure sometimes we aren't sure if its right to be waiting for a chance to commit adultery murder, but then we imagine a situation where the only way to save everyone is to sleep with shoot some stranger.

Isn't it strange how we try to justify murder but condemn adultery? We seem to be really clear on one rule, to the point of making half the sermons that young people hear about one, yet the other we try to ignore and even justify.

Secondly, I find there are two things Christians tend to carry with them at all times, ready to use if the situation might ever call for it: a handgun or a Bible. I find it interesting how many Christians have no issue sending a stranger into eternity, yet would be scared to explain eternity to a stranger. How is it that we care more for our lives than another persons soul? How have we gotten to a point where carrying a gun is not just normal, but expected and assumed by those followers of Christ who used to die for their faith? Is this what Christ desires of us? Are we being selective hearers?

What do you think?

Modern Mennonite Interviews

Introduction

I have long studied and advocated the Anabaptist teaching of history. At its heart, it started as an unwavering dedication to follow the commands of Jesus, given to us in the Gospels.
Fast forward five hundred years. In the era of iPhones, YouTube, and SnapChat, many of the traditions that have evolved have no relationship to the original dedication to Christ. Indeed, the issue of tradition has become as problematic in our era as it was for our forbearers half a millennium ago.

In this era of uncertainty of what is to become of the Mennonite faith and culture, I asked a dozen young people in their twenties and early thirties, raised in the Mennonite tradition, why they left the church and what their thoughts were on the future of the Mennonite people. Some were single, some married, with almost equal ratios of men and women. Here are their answers.

Question One: When Did You Decide to Leave the Mennonite Church?

Here we had varied answers. Some had left years ago, some only a few months ago. Some of the respondents gave more details as to what caused this separation. Location was mentioned by more than one person, for another, it wasn't a decision to leave as much as a gradual evolution of situation that made it too difficult to remain. Some would say even though they don’t attend a Mennonite church at the moment, they would not consider themselves separate from the Mennonite Church even though they were not currently attending for various reasons. Others felt pushed out by disagreements, they said.

Question Two: Do you still identify yourself as Mennonite? Why or why not?

Again the answers came from all over the field. One couple said yes, it was part of who they were. About half of those who responded said yes. These yeses varied from very firmly yes, to considering the Mennonite part of their faith as secondary to being Christians.
The other half felt differently. The no answers ranged from a short and simple ‘no’ to those who felt you could not identify as a Mennonite without attending a Mennonite church any more than a Baptist who didn’t attend a Baptist church.

Question Three: Was your departure based on Mennonite culture, teaching, or church experience?

The answers were again quite varied. One couple said all of the above, and felt that the church excluded anyone who didn’t fit the churches’ ideals. A few stated it was due to experiences in the church itself, also agreeing that those who were different from the Mennonite norm were not accepted and rather ostracized. There was one departure that was due solely to the lack of a Mennonite church in the area they moved to.
A few respondents were concerned with the church and disagreements within those bodies. One respondent in particular voiced strong concerns over what they believed were false teachings and doctrines that were allowed to grow in the Mennonite culture. The lack of discipline and sacraments were part of the respondents concerns, along with a distaste and condemnation of the amount of power that Mennonite doctrines and church leaders’ opinions had in the faith and teaching.

Question Four: Do you believe that the Mennonite tradition is still good for others to continue or do you think that this generation should assimilate into the culture around it?

Here all but one respondent felt that there were parts of Mennonite culture that should be preserved. The sense of community was praised by some, and most considered the culture of their past something that had as much value as the cultures around them. A few still thought that assimilation to an extent would be good, with the one response being very dismissive of the usefulness or value of any part of Mennonite culture.

Question Five: Do you think any part of the Mennonite way of life (traditions, teachings, language, or other items) needs to be preserved? Why or why not?

Surprisingly, virtually all of the respondents felt that the Mennonite language specifically was an important part of their history and should be preserved. Several voiced the opinion that history should not be forgotten and that we should continue to teach the next generation about our heritage. There were those who were quick to point out that this should not be done in a way that is exclusive or in any way made to imply superiority. Several people were very clear that they believed that the history of the Mennonite way should be preserved and taught as heritage, but not as the correct way of Christian living but instead the path that got us where we are. Another replied that the teachings and traditions as they have evolved need to be reevaluated, but that the origin of these teachings was good. Not all of the respondents felt that there was much to save of Mennonite culture or that it was worth the effort. 

Household Faith

A few weeks ago I attended an event I never thought I would attend in my life. Had someone told me a year ago that I would willingly attend this type of event and not condemn it outright, I would have laughed at the preposterous thought. Yet, there I was, in silent support. So what was this event that I attended? It was an infant baptism.

Obviously, this is the sort of thing that would still be hotly condemned by even the most lax of Mennonite Churches, but likely that's why it fascinated me so much. I am fairly certain that I am the first member of my family for half a millennium to attend such an event. Mennonites may not be sure about most of their original doctrines anymore: head coverings, war, politics, nationalism, or personal defense, but infant baptism would be possibly the strongest point of unity for this very fragmented and divided denomination.

Obviously, I have taught and backed Anabaptist doctrine for a good while. The founding concept of Anabaptist theology was a stance against infant baptism. However, as with most things in life, the concept of infant baptism is more nuanced than a single sort; the type my forbearers died fighting against. They stood against the Roman Catholic view that baptism is one of the seven sacraments that are required for salvation that must be administered. Indeed, as far as my understanding of Catholic sacraments goes, baptism is the only Sacrament that is required for a person to be saved. (Holding on to said salvation is more difficult in Catholic teaching, however and requires more sacraments). The Anabaptist doctrine on the subject of baptism would not view baptism as a sacrament but instead an ordinance. This meaning they believed it is commanded and should be obeyed, but is not salvific in any way. Instead, a Christian should have the desire to obey Christ after salvation and then be baptized on their faith. 

However, these are not the only two views of baptism. There is another school of thought that also views baptism as a sacrament, but does not consider it salvific. They believe that the household baptisms in Scripture, like those of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Stephanas, indicate that baptism is not only a personal issue, but an issue of the family. Since baptism is not salvific but a symbol of dedication to Christ, they advocate that children raised in Christian homes be baptized into the Christian church as full members as soon as possible and be supported by the church and its membership as fellow members of faith. 

Those who have been taught a believer's baptism, such as I was taught and given, tend to balk at this idea. What happens to being baptized on your own confession of faith? Is that not what we are taught? While this is a common phrase, it is not in scripture. Indeed, we have more scripture supporting a Catholic Sacrament view (Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, 1 Peter 3:21) than one that excludes infant baptism. Although I personally cannot reconcile the Catholic view of Sacramental baptism for salvation, I find that I do not disagree with the concept of baptizing the household of a believer. 

We have stressed the personal aspect of salvation so much in our generation that we forget we are a body. We are not independent units, but the singular bride of Christ. Our culture of personal satisfaction and personal achievements and competition have driven us to be so exclusive that we even find that we compete with our spouses in Christianity and spiritual mindedness. We are not God's employees that must compete to stay on the team; we are children. As children, we need to be more open and understanding with our spiritual siblings and see that our way isn't the only way. Can we accept other modes of baptism that are less personally driven and more family and community driven than our own? Should we? 

Of course, that begs the question, what about my son? I have a two year old son who is obviously not baptized. Do I split with five hundred years of tradition and baptize my child? 

Good question. 

Christian Identity

Modern, non-denominational teaching which floods our generation strongly advocates our relationship with Christ as paramount. Our relationship with Christ is vital; however it is not the only part of Christianity that is important. We cannot pick some parts of Christianity and leave the rest. 1 2 In our generation this obsession as let to a problem not unique to our generation. Dr. Harold Brown said it well:

"Instead of stressing personal Christianity, at a certain point much of Pietism began to cultivate the Christian personality, and soon found itself more romantic than Christian." 

Although this quote was about the Pietism movement and not originally about our generation, we find that history does often repeat itself. There are no new thoughts or movements, simply a new generation rehashing the things of previous generations. We see that the same issue has popped up again; we replace relationship with personality. We are drawn to the 'modern, hip, spiritual Christian' personality and it is so much simpler to conform to the standard than personally develop our own faith. This MHS Christian is pretty easy to identify, as they permeate all of social media.

 The ideal modern, hip, spiritual personality consists of:

-Strong Conservative or neoConservative views
-A stance against modern, conventional medicine
-A healthy condemnation of denominational beliefs as merely divisive
-Country house with a large yard
-An entrepreneurial hobby, usually involving woodworking or whole foods
-A beard obsession
-A natural health regimen
-Several children, all kept at home

This is what a good, modern Christian is supposed to look like. Its more romantic, a more desirable form of faith. Solid doctrine, opinions on complex theology, and a stance on denominational views are looked at with suspicion and concern. Rather than stressing a thorough education or critical review, the focus is on relational issues. The strength of a church is now measured in the extroverted charisma and popularity of the pastor, combined with a photogenic face.

We find these personalities usually have the gift of gab; that is they can speak for long periods of time sounding very spiritual without actually teaching or exhorting their listeners with any concrete beliefs or mandates. They delight in pleonastic speech, unarticulated faith, and vague vision statements that leave everything to the imagination. They take every opportunity to speak, without saying anything. Most importantly, they don't take a stance on difficult doctrine; in fact, they condemn those 'divisive' churches that have such doctrines. They are easy on the ears, supremely motivational, and demolish straw men with confidence.

We find ourselves enamored with the personality of these leaders, not the teaching thereof. We would rather follow the personality; its fun, its easier, and preprepared. It doesn't require discernment, just duplication. These are easy men to emulate, and we feel good doing so. We find that as we do that, we automatically fit in with all the rest of our peers that are duplicating the exact same thing. We have a pre-made clique, it is comfortable and safe. Of course our neighbors agree, they are copying the same master plan.

Was there anything inherently wrong with any of the traits I described? No, but when we replace substance with personality there is no personality that can take the place of substance.

Like everything in life, the easy route isn't really the best route. Most of the prerequisites we have created for a good modern Christian aren't even Christlike goals or have a blessed thing to do with Christianity. They are comfortable goals of our own generation and socio-economic class. We should not mistake our desires and whims with God's. Our nationality, patriotism, economic plans, or political views should not be valued the same way our faith is. We can't worship a God we create in our own image. If we fancy God to be an upper middle class Conservative gun-toting, Republican-voting, coffee drinking, bearded Confederate, we have created our own God. The ego we display by assuming God needs to approve our lifestyle rather than tailoring our lifestyle to Him is flabbergasting. There is no wrong in having a beard, artisan coffee, or gluten-free bread. There is great wrong in merging these things into our faith.

We are creating a new generation of non-traditionalists. We reject the traditions of the 'old' church; its teachings, practices, and style, yet we are creating equally preposterous standards; more so, since many of our new standards of Christianity have nothing to do with Christ. In fact, we find that much of this generation is labeling itself 'non-denominational', as if that were possible. Having no opinion on doctrine is in itself a doctrine, and we find that most 'non-denominationalists' really do have personal doctrine, they merely don't understand the terminology and implications of that belief. The culture of ignorance is valued as greater than knowledge because we have equated ignorance with humility and knowledge with pride. This will cause the church great harm as difficult situations arise and the church has no cohesive way to approach it. The personalities will fail us, as they are silent on the difficult parts of life. All the coffee, nonGMO foods, and natural sugars won't have an answer. We must stand up and be followers of Christ, to know what we believe and take the hard road. Doctrine may not be easy, but the church needs it; it is a vital component of a healthy church.

Removed from the Body

In the book of Luke, our Lord tells us a story about a well-educated, well to do man of the church. He thanks God for all His blessings and for his fortune in life. The prayer sounds very familiar, even holy, if you don't pay much attention. But God is not pleased.

We live in an age where this style of Christianity is not only accepted, but exalted. Being proud of our superiority over our unenlightened neighbors is normal. Removing ourselves and our families from those around us because of our superior Christianity is seen as the expected way to raise our children and lead our families. We look at those in the church with us, as this Pharisee did and we thank God we aren't them. We remove ourselves from their presence and stand alone, proud of our Christianity,  our conservative way of life, our knowledge, our wisdom and our humility. We isolate ourselves from the regular Christian rabble and pat ourselves on the back about how much God has blessed us. We thank God we aren't one of 'those people' and avoid those people as much as possible.

This form of worshipping our own selves is one of the most destructive to the church. It corrupts it from the inside, causing pain and suffering to all the members of the body we cut ourselves off from. It destroys the witness of the community of believers and harms the growth of those who are still growing in the faith. It teaches our children that God has 'good children' and 'bad children' and that they should avoid these lesser Christians.

Some of the first red flags of this Pharisee's prayer are the isolationism. He stands alone, proud of his way of life. He equates his lifestyle with God's favor, and assumes those who are different are less Godly. He praises God, not for God's sake, but for his own; his praise is not of God at all but really praise of his own standing.

This prayer, and the lifestyle therein, is all too common today as well. We assume that our comfortable Conservative Evangelical lifestyle is the hand of God blessing us because we are so great. We avoid and distain those who are different, keeping our selves and our families from the worldly influence of anything that isn't exactly our own ideology.

Instead, we should do as the publican, admit we are nothing before God. Our lifestyle - liberal, conservative, urban, rural - none of these will impress God. We need to remember we are not any better than the people around us, and treat them accordingly. Isolation in the Christian faith is dangerous: We are called to be one body; not many. As soon as we avoid parts of the body that we find less spiritual than ourselves, we fall for the same trap this Pharisee did. We become trapped by our own spiritualness, instead of God's grace. We become of the world, but not in it. We avoid being 'in the world' because it is less spiritual than we are, yet we strive for the same material comfort and prestige as the world around us, showing we are just as much of the world as our neighbor. Instead, we should value our neighbor more, and value our own comforts and position less.

MENNONITES: The Next Generation

The Mennonite existence is changing. We are more engrained in politics, activism, consumerism, and economic investment than ever. We have droves of Mennonites carrying weapons, shedding their doctrine, but yet somehow still holding on to their Mennonite cultural roots. Little of the original doctrine of sacrifice and submission still exists, yet you see that most Mennonites go to Mennonite churches, work for fellow Mennonites, marry Mennonites, and socialize with Mennonites, but somehow refuse to call themselves what they are; Mennonite. A leopard may not change his spots, and simply not calling someone a Mennonite does not make them something else. If we are not pleased with what the previous generations of Mennonites have done, we do not need to try to remove our heritage, instead we need to improve our understanding of our history so that we can minister in an educated manner.

In this denial of our heritage, I find there are indeed some things that need to go. Old traditions that are simply the specters of a dead world need to die. But many parts of doctrine are being tossed out with tradition; this does not need to be so. We do not need to abandon solid, Christ-centered theology for doctrine taught elsewhere simply because we are ashamed of our fore-bears. Indeed, I see things that are not Christian at all, but simply American, (Capitalism, American Liberty, Patriotism) being taught by our generation as if it is divine.  These things may not be evil, but they are not of God, yet they are taught as such, making them equal with Christianity. This idol worship is very wrong. Capitalism may be good for the nation and useful to us, but that does not make it a morally good thing. Nor does it make it a morally bad one. However, we have starting incorporating it into Christianity, and that is wrong. 

We as a culture have come to a fork in the road: either we hold to our theology, that which is good and Christian (not simply the traditions), or we abandon the constructs of having a Mennonite society completely- close the doors and join the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. If we do not wish to be mennonite, let us not be so. But this nonsense of just removing the label and continuing as Mennonites in our culture is just pandering to our own ego. 

Rough waters are ahead for Mennonite Churches. As we become indistinguishable from our neighbors in all but last name, one may ask, "Have we just become to self-righteous to interact with the world?" For most of our generation marry, interact, and serve only those with the same culture as we ourselves have. If we have no doctrinal reason to separate ourselves from those around us, why do we do so? Why must we be our own sub-group? If we really want to stop being Mennonite, we should stop congregating within ourselves and actually assimilate with the culture around us. If we do not have any religious differences with our neighbors then the only reason we do not join them must be based on something more selfish; our pride.

It is time for our generation to take a stand in what we believe and teach as Mennonites. We need to do one of two things: abandon ship, or set about the maintenance that has been lacking for generations. The latter choice may be messy, painful, and difficult, but it needs to be done. I must play the hand we have been dealt, we are Mennonite. We do not have an American heritage, Canadian heritage, Mexican heritage, or Russian one. Our forefathers did not bleed and die for these nations, we have not right to appropriate them as if they did. We must accept our own heritage and build upon it. We can complain all we like, that does nothing. We must assess our situation and decide what we wish to do with what we have inherited.
I am delighted with some aspects of my heritage, and ashamed of other parts. Yet I will take and learn from it; not abandon it.

I cannot deny who I am, instead I will learn from it. I advise you to do the same. 

Backpedaling our Faith

I have recently been talking to people about the Mennonite Doctrine of Non-resistance. There seems to be a great deal of concern about this doctrine, and wether or not our churches should still teach this, or if we remove it from Church Doctrine should let each member decide for themselves. Let's see what Jesus taught.  Out of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew:


38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 


Here we see Jesus commanding us to turn the other cheek. This is not some Old Testament law that we have been freed from, nor is it the words of an Apostle to one of the first century churches. This is an explicit command of our LORD and Savior that He addresses to all of us. As if this wasn't clear enough, He continues on this subject later in the chapter. 


43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and theunrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

God, in human form, came down and commanded this teaching. It isn't an easy teaching, but it is a clear one. Nowhere does Jesus give us an exception to this command. Even His own life was an example of how to live out this truth. 

We cannot say that Jesus didn't command this. He did. Explicitly. He gave no exemptions; no addendum saying He didn't mean it. Our choice is simply this, do we accept what Jesus said or do we try to find a way around it? Can we choose which parts of Christ's commands to follow? If so, which are ok? Do we get to negate Christ's words? Do we just want a Savior, or do we accept His authority as LORD as well? Can backpedal on such a clear command and still profess to teach His Word? What Word are we teaching if not love? Can we as a church condone those who obey our fleshly inclination here, and if so, what does can the Church condemn? If we stop teaching the commands of Christ, why are we claiming to represent Him? 

I have heard many people advocate the church remove this clause from our Constitution, that we remain silent on the matter. They would advocate that everyone do what is right in the sight of their own eyes instead of offending those who do not want to obey this command. Is this the legacy we wish to leave to our children? That we backpedal on Christ's commands that our forefathers died for simply because we no longer like the command? How can we profess to be obedient followers if we cannot actually at least support His commands in teaching? 

Not only this, but the main argument against this doctrine is not based on war any longer, but on defending ourselves with violent or deadly force. The theoretical, "What would you do if your family was at gunpoint?" argument is the most common one, and this disturbs me on a psychological level. I personally do not know of anyone who has ever been in such a situation, nor do I feel it likely. However, there are those who argue this just so they have a reason to justify taking up violence against another person. As Christians we should seek the path of peace, not look for a socially acceptable excuse to kill people. I am concerned by the fact that so many people are trying to find the one loophole where they could shoot someone. We should focus on love and peace, not look for hypothetical situations where we could kill people. The fact that it is so enjoyed by so many should concern us. We should have an obsession with saving life, not taking it. The fantasy of killing an intruder is just the adult version of the teenage, "save the girl" fantasy, just with more murder involved. We need to be mature in Christ, follow His commands, even when they cost us something. 

Christ's command was explicit either we obey or disobey. Ignoring a command is disobeying it. Choose you this day. 

Called or Commissioned?

Recently, our church has announced that we are returning to old traditions of the Mennonite culture: only those with a church title are allowed to preach on Sunday morning. For years now, those brothers in the church who were determined to have the gift of preaching and teaching were allowed to exercise their gift for the good of the church and the glory of the Lord. But no longer. This was due to the fact that someone had apparently complained that we were not following Mennonite traditions. Frankly, this bothers me greatly; that we would go back to such a vapid tradition after having left it for many years.

Note, there is no Scriptural reason that one needs a title to preach. In fact, we are told in Scripture that Spirit gives the gift of prophecy and teaching. (Ephesians 4:11) We are told that we are not to quench the Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 5:19) No where in Scripture is it implied or stated that we are supposed to only allow those with church titles to preach.  Indeed, the concept of only elected leaders preaching is foreign to Scripture entirely. There are those in Scripture who are commissioned to preach the Gospel, but only after the Spirit calls them, not when a body of some local church group elected them. The Great Commission (Mark 16:14-16) is a command that we are all called to follow, not those that are elected by popular vote once every two years.

Not only is it against Scripture to deny those with the gift of teaching to teach; it is also against Scripture to indulge those who are ignorant in the Church. We are commanded to stop following the doctrines of man. (Matthew 15:9) If someone is bothered by not keeping tradition that is not Scriptural, we should correct them in love. (2 Timothy 2:25) We are not to be caught up in our traditions, (Colossians 2:8) but instead we are to correct those who are wrong out of love. We should not alter the Church in order to help people hold on to incorrect theology, but instead train them in the truth. (II Timothy 3:16)

But if we are going to go back to abandoned Mennonite traditions, why stop there? Why not have our ministerial wear all black? Why not only preach and teach purely in High German? Why not sing in the traditional, long winded Mennonite style? Why not take up issue with head covering? At least that argument is a Biblical one. (I Corinthians 11)

I am disheartened by this decision to placate those who are still caught up in traditions that should remain dead. We are going to lose the next generation of Mennonite leaders to dead traditions in order to placate the weak. I cannot and will not stand by.

The Right to Rule

The Founding Fathers are often the rallying figures for the conservative faction of America. They point to these men as deeply religious leaders whose piety would be able to subdue all the 'evils' of modern progressivism and federalism that has so besmirched this great nation. They speak of the Divine selection of America, and the rights that God gives.

A look into history tells a different tale, however. For centuries leading up to the American Revolution, it was the assumption of the people of the world that God ordained government, and therefore the common population should be subservient toward it. However, with the rise of new ideals of the 'rule by the people, for the people' we find that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the right of government as ordained by God; instead, they believed it was man who had the right to chose to be ruled. This is a major step in humanism that modern Fundamentalist tend to overlook; that the Founding Fathers did not believe the message of Romans 13 which clearly states that God ordains government. Instead, they believed it was the right of men to decide who rules over them. They denied the authority of God and instead believed they could establish a form of government that took its authority from the people, not from God. This was not a 'Christian' ideal, it was a strongly, intentionally secular idea for its era.

This departure from Scripture is indicative of the real setting of the American Revolution. It was a humanistic movement led by religious men. The term religious does in any way imply Christian or Christlikeness. Instead, we see a denial of Scripture and a reversal of God's position. Instead of viewing God as the authority figure who decides who rules us, the Founding Fathers believed that God had given them rights that even God Himself could not deny: life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. None of these so called 'rights' are scripturally based, indeed we are called as Christians to die, be slaves, and to crucify our fleshly desires. In short, the exact opposite of the claims of the Founding Fathers.

This is unsurprising if we look at the men who penned this document. Thomas Jefferson, the penman of this worshipped document, was not a Christian, but a Diest. He did not believe in the Godhood of Jesus, nor his Messiah status. Instead, Jefferson thought Jesus to be a good teacher. As such Jefferson authored his own version of the Bible. The Jefferson Bible was a cut and pasted document that removed all references to Jesus deity and any supernatural elements from the Gospels. He was against the idea that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This by definition makes Thomas Jefferson an AntiChrist President. 

George Washington, another of the worshipped ancestors of America, was explicit with the Muslim nations of his era that the Unites States was not a Christian Nation. He put that in plain writing when making a treaty with them in 1797. The exact words, written in Arabic, but read in English to the entire Senate were as follows, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This approved by the Senate and signed by the then president, John Adams, another of the Founding Fathers.

America is a wonderful land of  great opportunity, but that does not make it the most holy nation that has ever existed. There is much revisionist history on both sides of the American divide. We should not worship the Founding Fathers, nor should we worship the icons of our nation. Worship belongs only to God, and as such we are called to be servants of the appointed government. That does not extend to worshiping its Founders, who were impressive and accomplished men; but we do well to remember that they were as fallen and sinful as our current government.

The Topic of Expository Teaching

Expository preaching is the buzzword of the Reformed movement today. "If your pastor would only use expository preaching, all your churches problems would be solved," they seem to say. For those who aren't familiar with the term "expository preaching', it means to preach Scripture chapter by chapter, verse by verse, in its original order and meaning. Sounds very biblical, right? In fact, the advocates of expository preaching will tell you that avoiding the 'shallowness' of topical preaching and sticking to expository preaching will create a firm foundation for the church that will help it avoid fads of Christianity, oh the irony.

In the rush to not skip over any part of Scripture, the expository movement has somehow forgotten to check if expository preaching is Scriptural itself. Did Jesus use expository teaching? Did Paul? Did Peter? How about James? Anyone in the New Testament at all? How did God Almighty preach when He was here? How did His hand-picked followers preach?

Jesus used Scripture in His teachings, but He used it to underline the points He was making while on particular topics. His recorded teaching is all topical. In fact, there is a constant theme to His teaching: love. Some preachers in the modern era have said that we preach too much on the love of God and not enough on His wrath. I disagree. If every human from Adam to the last human to draw a breath all preached the love of God till their dying breath, we would not do the love of God justice. God would not take us aside and tell us that He doesn't love us that much. I understand what these preachers mean, that there is more to God than 'just' love. While that may be true, love was Jesus's main theme when He taught, maybe it should be ours as well. We should never undermine that love. Jesus used it as His theme in almost every message He preached. If it is important enough to God that He preached on it, it should be to us as well.

But what about the disciples? Did they teach topically? Yes, and we see that in every message that they they preached. No matter where they start, they always bring the focus back to their main topic: Jesus Christ. Paul said he wished to know nothing else among the Corinthians than Jesus Christ and Him crucified. They had an unending theme: salvation through Jesus. Even in Paul's sermon where the name of Jesus was not mentioned, the theme of God's salvation through repentance and the resurrection are made clear.

Now, I strongly believe that preachers should study the Scriptures in an expository manner themselves. The teachers of the church should have a thorough understanding of all of scripture in order to preach and lead in a Godly manner. Even group study can benefit greatly from expository study for mature and earnest Christians. However, the obsession with preaching in an expository manner is not Scriptural, nor does it seem to have the miraculous effect on churches people claim it does. You know who does have a miraculous effect on the church? Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Our relationship with Him should be our obsession. He is our theme, our hope, and our God. He should be the theme of everything we do. Every message preached should point back to Him.

Reforming Anabaptists

As our Anabaptist traditions fade and are replaced with more modern Protestant and Catholic ideas, many forms of church function are changing. We are replacing the tradition of our fore-bearers with the traditions of the fore-bearers of the Reformers. Teaching, doctrine, and style of the last five hundred years are being pulled up and quickly and quietly chucked out of the window as we scramble to replace our backward and embarrassing past with the prestigious and regal formalities of the Calvinists. All but Calvinism itself has been accepted, with patriotism being lauded as Christlike, weapons of self defense touted proudly, and Zionism becoming the norm; all the while we cover our mantles with guns, flags, and crosses.

How do Mennonites become functioning Calvinists? By turning from studying the Word to following loud, confident men. We listen hungrily to the confidence and emotion of teachers who teach the religion of Americanism. We drink up stories of the nobility of long dead men, fantasizing about becoming them, idolizing those who came before us. Instead of turning to the purity of Christ and His Word, we take in the predigested words of those who speak boldly. We idolize fallen humans of the Old Testament; sinners who are under grace, just as we are, and relish in the violence of their lives. We take the stories of Godly men and deify those men, rather than glorify the Creator of men.

Sadly very few people born as Mennonites believe or even understand anything that the Anabaptists taught. The last century of Mennonites have left a poor example of leadership and theology and instead of improving the situation, we have abandoned the focus that the original Anabaptists taught; namely, following Christ and only Christ. Instead, the majority of Mennonites have become "Reformers in Denial". That is, they adopt the teaching of Reformed personalities on tv, youtube, and the radio without understanding the theology and meaning or implications behind that teaching. We have become starved for leadership, and like starving men, we stopped checking what we are using to fill that void. In our hurry to have human leaders to look up to and admire, we have trampled the foundation that our Anabaptist forbearers insisted upon: the literal interpretation of Christ's commands and obedience to them. 

Instead of this literal interpretation, we have substituted the doctrines of the Reformed Church. Our churches may not accept TULIP theology in so many words as of yet, but that is usually out of ignorance, not disagreement. We have turned from a literal application of the Sermon on the Mount to the American Reformed teachings of justified lethal self-defense, the glory of mammon in the form of capitalism, and the inalienable rights that are promised to all men that are not found in the Bible, but instead in American Scripture, the Constitution. We reinterpret loving your enemies to somehow exclude the actual enemies of the United States or those of the new nation of Israel. The teaching of the Anabaptists is dead, so now Mennonites are now scrambling to join Calvin's followers, a mere five hundred years late to the party.

Our Anabaptist heritage doesn't make us better than other Christians, however the teaching of the original Anabaptists still is founded upon God's truth. Not because its labelled Anabaptist, but because it is founded in following Christ, literally and fully. It is not founded in adding teaching to Scripture, such as the Just War Theory or TULIP. Instead, Anabaptism is about removing these human doctrines from our faith. 

Sadly, most Mennonites don't even know the term Anabaptist, nor what it means. We have become ignorant, both of history and theology. As such we have turned to predigested theology offered in an appealing way through some easy to use media, be that tv, the radio, or youtube. As such, I very much doubt that my son's generation will have any qualms about Reformed doctrine, as the majority of them won't even bother to find out what that means. Instead, it will just permeate the church as the easiest and most available teaching to digest, with very few, if any, to care enough to find out why so many of their forefathers were martyred for disagreeing with the Reformed doctrines. While our forefathers were willing to die for rejecting man's doctrine mixed with God's command, we cannot be bothered to tell the difference. 

What Does It Mean to be a (Bat)Man?

Two years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine. He asked me a question that I have pondered in my mind for a while now. His question was this, "What is your definition of 'being a man'?" Now of course being a man can be construed as being born male and being over eighteen. But that is not what was being asked here. The question is a valid one and in our current area I'm sure many of my cohorts would say that David was a prime example of being a man. Strong, fearless, obedient, Godly. Which I agree entirely.

There is more to this question, I think. This desire to 'be a man' as we put it, permeates our society. Big beards, big trucks, concealed weapons, UFC, MMA; all these flood our society. Machoism is alive and well in America and in the church. There is an intense obsession with 'manliness' in our generation. There are websites, books, and YouTube tutorials on 'how to be a man'.

While being manly is all well and good, there is logical and human reason why our generation of Christian men feel the need to look up to facial hair and testosterone. It feels good to be capable of instilling our will on our fellow man, to force them to yield to our strength. Much of modern 'manliness' is really just a power struggle. Its about being the biggest, bulkiest man in the bunch who gets to order the rest of the 'beta' men around. This is frankly the antithesis of Christianity. Becoming strong to force our will upon the world is the exact opposite of Christ's teachings of self-sacrifice. The reason Christians pick David as 'manly' is mainly due to his war record. I've been hard pressed to find anyone in our generation who was obsessed with the manliness of David's poetry. Instead, they all point to his battles, the blood he spilled, as the cause to admire his manliness.

While I do believe that David is a great man; I have another example I prefer to use when answering this question. My incarnation of 'manliness' (excluding Christ Himself) would be Bruce Wayne, aka Batman. I'm not kidding. Well, maybe I am kidding a bit, but bear with me. Although Batman may be fictional, he sets standards that those of us attempting to be manly would do well to follow.

Bruce Wayne is a wealthy man who dedicates his life and fortune to helping those that cannot defend themselves. He does this out of his own pocket, with his own time. He doesn't do it for praise; in fact, no one knows his name. Instead, he personally invests his life in improving his city, Gotham, without accolade and without regard for the status of the person he defends.

Secondly, Batman doesn't force his will upon others; instead his goal is to defend the helpless from that very fate. His goal is to free others to make their own choices; even when those choices are foolish, nefarious, or evil, like those of his rival, the Joker. Although Batman does not believe that the Joker deserves to live, he does not take another life into his own hands. Instead, Batman attempts to free everyone, even those who despise him, to make their own choice. This is exactly what God Himself does for us. He frees us to choose, even when we choose evil. The Joker knows that Batman will never kill him; most of his plots revolve around that assumption. Batman lets Joker make his choice, yet he never condones the evil choices he makes. Batman does all in his power to negate the evil choices of others with the choices he himself makes. He incarnates the ideology that goodness cannot simply kill evil; for in doing so those who thought themselves good become the very bullying, dictatorship of evil they sought to destroy.

While this example of manliness may be a bit satirical, there is more than a grain of truth to it. The form of manliness that Christ shows us embodies this truth as well. Christ allowed everyone to make their own choice about Him; he did not force Himself upon them. He was not a brute, but a healer and defender. He allowed those who mocked Him to do so. He didn't condone the evil around Him; yet He did not force Himself upon them either. He was frank and honest with people, both in praise and condemnation.  Yet, in the end, Jesus let both groups make their choice.

Honor Your Mother

Mothers are wonderful. Nothing in this world is as pure as a mother's love, nor as devoted. There is something sacred and holy about the care a mother gives for her children. Sadly, sometimes children forget that their mother is more than a free source of food and work, but a human with a soul who has emotions and trials of their own. No mother is perfect, but we should not expect them to be.

What is more disheartening is when children grow older, leave their mother, and then decide that they now have authority over her to judge and condemn; or worse, blackmail and extort by withholding familial bonds. Throughout Scripture we find that we are to honor our mothers, without question or doubting. We are never called to judge or preside over them, we do not have the right to do so, no matter how high and mighty we may feel we have become. We have no right to tell our mothers what to do. God forbids it. Even if they are wrong, it isn't our place to tell them so.

The Solomon in his wisdom said that dishonoring your mother is shameful. (Proverbs 19:26) Proverbs also states that such a man should have his eyes gouged out by ravens. (Proverbs 30:17) Even Jesus, whom we know for his loving forgiveness said that a son who speaks evil of his mother deserves to die.  (Matthew 15:4) Proverbs gives us a detailed description of the man who would dishonor his mother. (Proverbs 30:11-14)

Yet I know men who profess to be Godly, that think it is perfectly acceptable to disown their own mother because they don't like how she handles her personal health. They seem to think it is a good motivation to withhold her grandchildren so they can make a point. This is evil behavior. Never should a Christian have to tell another Christian that treating your mother this way is wrong. It's wicked. Jesus says that anyone doing this deserves death. Jesus never minced words. He forgave prostitutes, thieves, even the very men who killed him. But when God came down to earth, He said that people who do this to their own mothers deserve to die. 

I must say, I dare not disagree with God Almighty.

May God have mercy upon your soul. 

The Devil Made Me Do It

When I was growing up, I was taught that games like Dungeons and Dragons were demonic. I avoided them at all costs. I feared them and assumed that what I was told was true. As an adult, I started to wonder what exactly about these games was demonic, and did some reading. I have a hard time finding any evidence of demonic influence, yet the games still make me uncomfortable.

This isn't an uncommon issue in Christianity, I'm afraid. The fear of otherwise neutral things based on the fear-mongering of others. In Christian circles, it is common to blame almost any unfortunate situation on the Devil, and it is also common to accuse anything that is misunderstood as being demonic. People look for evil influences in politics, music, books, even in soft drink companies. Why?

I find that this obsession is usually held by people in fear. They fear that they will somehow unwittingly fall for some demonic trap or force. Therefore they look for evil in everything, and as happens with any conspiracy theory, if you look hard enough and want to find something badly enough, you will find something to latch on to. Just like those who believe that reptilian creatures rule the earth or that some secret Illuminati group controls our fate, people who look hard enough for signs of demons will find what they are looking for; real or imagined.

As I already stated, this obsession with demons is based off of fear. It is also entirely unnecessary. Christ has defeated all demonic forces for Christians in our place and as such, we have nothing to fear. Christ is our substitute, He is our defense against the darkness. As long as we are in Him, nothing can take us away. (John 10) So then why are so many Christians, including pastors, so obsessed with demons?

Fear is easier to preach than faith. Scaring people is easier than motivating them, so preachers who do not want to put in much effort preach on one of two subjects: the Devil or the book of Revelation. Both of these subjects are then preached in such a manner as to literally 'scare the hell out of' the congregation. However, we find that our God is not a God of fear, but of peace. (2 Timothy 1:7) In fact, we find that God wants us to be of sound mind, to be strong, and to not fear.

Fear mongering is un-Godly. It is lazy preaching. It focuses on evil instead of Jesus. As such, I find it to be a dangerous and unprofitable form of teaching. In my experience, preachers who end up feeling the need to mention the Devil in every sermon they preach usually do so as a habitual fallback plan. They are so accustomed to focusing of evil rather than good that it has become their nature. This is an unhealthy example for a church. Our habit should be to exalt Christ, not credit every happenstance to the Devil. In some circles, every illness, poor choice, and misadventure is attributed to the Devil. In doing so, they ascribe more power and glory to him than he deserves.

Some would accuse me of underplaying the power of the Devil. To them I would simply say this: Beside Christ, who is my Lord, Savior, and God, there is no power that the Devil has. I'm not underplaying anything. I'm instead focusing on the Author and Giver of Life. If we focus on Christ, we will not go wrong. He is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. There is no other. We need nothing but Him. That should be the natural fallback of every preacher. We should always fall back to the magnificence of Christ. If we do, our doctrine will be Godly and the Devil will be of no consequence to us.

Sola Scriptura VS Total Inerrancy

Coming from a conservative background, I was taught that Scripture, specifically the King James Version, was totally inerrant; meaning it is without flaw, perfect, and absolutely pure. After all, it is God's Word, how can it be any less? This view of Scripture respects the Holy text about as much as God Himself. Indeed, this view makes Scripture as the outpouring of God a literal part of God.There is no room for flaw within perfection, and if God is perfection Incarnate, how could any part of Him not be so as well? With that reasoning, it is logical that Scripture must be flawless.

As I got older, I began to study my Anabaptist roots. Of course, one of the originators of the movement that eventually spawned the Anabaptists was Martin Luther. He held the view that all doctrine should be found in Scripture; that is, if something isn't in Scripture then we shouldn't make assumptions about it, and that no doctrine should be based on anything that was not directly from Scripture. He called this Sola Scriptoria, Latin for "by Scripture alone". This meant that Luther did not hold to the Catholic teachings that were found in places like the Apocrypha, verbal tradition, or in Jewish histories. Above all, however, he was saying that he disagreed with the Catholic church's power to create doctrine that was equal to Scripture or even sometimes considered above Scripture. He believed that Scripture was not only the first authority, but the final and only authority.

However, these two views are incompatible. No where in Scripture does Scripture itself claim to be inerrant. It states itself to be God-breathed and useful. However, man is God-breathed and useful, but very far from flawless. To claim that Scripture is inerrant deviates from the five hundred year tradition of Sola Scriptoria that Martin Luther set. Ironically, anyone who holds one of these two positions almost invariably holds the other as well. Yet, clearly you cannot say that Scripture is the only authority and then promptly add to it yourself. This is not to say that Scripture is not Divine; nor that God does not protect His Word. It is to say that both the doctrine of Sola Scriptoria and the doctrine of Inerrancy are doctrines of man, not explicit in Scripture.

As noble and well intentioned as both of these doctrines are, they have some failings. Chiefly, they attempt to place absolutes in places God did not do so. Absolutes are dangerous things, and time finds a way of twisting the most noble intentions of liberty in one generation of theologians into chains that confine and cripple the next.

Sola Scriptoria

When Luther stated his doctrine of Sola Scriptoria in his Five Solas, he intended to undo the binds of men's doctrine. However, even with those noble intentions, he was not removing the doctrine of man, but instead replacing the Catholic doctrines with his own. Doctrine is almost exclusively derivative, and by limiting all doctrine to explicitly Scriptural sources he was already breaking his own rule. The doctrine of Sola Scriptoria is not found in Scripture, and as such it fails its own requirements. It is an excellent guideline in limited usage, but in modern theological circles this doctrine has been abused in order to exclude any form of 'human reasoning' from theology. However, any reasoning we do is 'human reasoning' for how can our reasoning be anything but human? Of course, there are those who would say that there is also God's reasoning, but God is by definition omniscient - meaning He knows all. This is axiomatic. If God wasn't all knowing then He wouldn't be God. As such, God doesn't reason by Himself; instead, He knows. We do not use reasoning to understand things we already know, instead we use reasoning to attempt to understand things we do not know. As such, God never needs to reason Himself. He can help us reason, but as such it is again a human reasoning and then by definition 'human reasoning'. Simply put, human reasoning is the attempt by humans to understand things that we do not understand. We cannot simply remove reasoning or we would remove the very thing God commanded us to do. (Isaiah 1:18)

Do you see the madness? You cannot reason away reason. The folly of taking a well intentioned concept, Luther's Sola Scriptoria, and twisting it into a means to remove reason from theology is absurd. The concept of Sola Scriptoria itself is 'human reasoning'.

Now, Scripture is indeed God's Divine Word and useful for teaching, correcting, and training. (2 Timothy 3:16) However, there is a massive difference between using Scripture for these purposes and claiming that only Scripture can be used for such purposes and absolutely nothing else. If a teaching is contrary to Scripture then of course Scripture supersedes men's teaching; but a great many things are not directly mentioned in Scripture. Therefore we must use reasoning to find God's will for our lives. We cannot assume that every moral question that we face will be explicitly mentioned in Scripture. We have to take the nature of the teaching, the implication of the teaching, and the focus of the teaching and use reasoning to find a solution. In fact, that is what we are doing right now. No where in Scripture is the question of Sola Scriptoria addressed, so we are taking the context of Scripture and reasoning our way toward an answer. In believing in Sola Scriptoria in its most rigid, letter-of-the-law way, you are already using human reasoning. It is impossible to use this as our only standard, for it defies the standard it creates by its own existence.

Just because a great leader like Luther advocated a position like Sola Scriptoria does not mean it is right. To assume that doctrine is true because a great leader authored it would simply be following men instead of God, which we are explicitly forbidden from doing in the very Scriptures that we follow. (Matthew 15:9, I Corinthians 3) I am not saying that Luther was a heretic, far from it. Luther was a Godly man but yet he was still a man. As such he was not perfect, but had to do the best he could in the time he lived. The same can be said for us. We have not been commanded to defend Luther, but instead we are to follow God. It is what Luther desired, and it is what we should desire as well.

The weight of Scripture is not what concerns me. I believe as Luther did that Scripture is divine. It has the ultimate say. However, there are places that Scripture is silent. In those places, reason must be used. Issues like abortion, slavery, and the supremacy of one economic ideal -capitalism, communism, or socialism- over the others are issues that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Yet, we cannot simply wash our hands of these things and claim that we have no dog in the fight. In many situations both sides of an issue have Scripture to back their belief, yet we must use our reasoning to come to a conclusion. The issue of slavery in the United States was one such issue that both sides believed they were in the moral right. Both sides had Scripture to back their beliefs, yet the two ideologies were incompatible. We now side with one over the other and are appalled at the though of anyone trying to use Scripture to defend such a vile practice, yet Scripture can be used to defend slavery. It is only when we go beyond the Sola that we see the meaning in the Scriptoria.

I think the issue with Sola Scriptoria is not in the Scriptoria portion, but the Sola. I would advocate a less assonant form of theological leaning: Alpha Scriptoria. Scripture has the primary say in our theology; nothing comes before it. However, sometimes we must reason beyond the explicit into the implicit. As such, Scripture is not the sole, but rather the dominant and prominent, guideline for theology.

Total Inerrancy

As I stated earlier, I was raised with the unwavering conviction that Scripture is inerrant. Yet, Scripture does not state this anywhere. To believe this, we have to take a viewpoint that is more nuanced. Frankly, I cannot say that any translation is inerrant, not even the sometimes almost worshiped King James Version. Why? Because this belief is not driven by God, but by men who wish to create for God something that God does not feel He needs to defend.

To make my point, let me ask you a simple question. What is the Devil's name? You know that the angels have names, like Gabriel and Michael. So what is the Devil's name? If you answered Lucifer, I'm happy to inform you that you're wrong. Why? Well, take a look at this verse from Isaiah chapter fourteen verse twelve.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12 KJV)

Hmm... It appears that the Devil's name is Lucifer after all. Well let's take a look at a few other English translations and see if they agree.

“How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12 ESV)

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations! (Isaiah 14:12 NASB)

Shining morning star,
how you have fallen from the heavens!
You destroyer of nations,
you have been cut down to the ground. (Isaiah 14;12 HCSB)

“How you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have made the nations weak! (Isaiah 14:12 NLV)

Uh, oh. They don't. In fact, no other translation in German or Latin gives the Devil the name Lucifer either. In English only very early translations like the Geneva and Wycliffe translations would include the name Lucifer. Why is that? Let's take a look at the Latin Vulgate Translation () of the same verse and see what it says.

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes. (Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate)

Here we see the problem. The fifth word in is lucifer, which is the latin word for morning star. It literally is the word for morning star, the same term used for Jesus in elsewhere. (II Peter 2:19) When Jerome translated the Hebrew Old Testament word   ‏מזרות into Latin in 382 AD he used the literal Latin word for morning star, lucifer, which is what the Hebrew word means. Note, lucifer is never used as a name until the English translation turns it into a name by capitalizing the Latin word rather than translating it into English. Later translations corrected this error, but for hundreds of years, the English speaking population believed that the Bible said the Devil's name was Lucifer. This belief continues today, as most of the population would assume that the Devil's name is mentioned in Scripture.

Not only that, but we have literally different versions of some Biblical books. The book of Jeremiah that Jesus may have read differed greatly from the one you and I read in our English Bibles. We have two full  and differing versions of this particular book that have survived to the modern day: the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. We have no definitive way of knowing which is the more accurate to the original, even our oldest copies that were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls have bits and pieces of both forms of the book. In the New Testament, authors quote both the Masoretic texts and the Septuagint texts, yet they do not seem to be concerned with their differences. They make no issue over the fact that the texts differ because they worship God, not texts. Wether or not those books were translated with absolute inerrancy or not, they had complete faith that the truth of God was not twisted. The same is true in our time. Even if some translator errors occur, like the infamous Wicked Bible, the truth of God is not confined to exact translation. God's truth transcends any concept of human translation purity.

We cannot say that God's Word is totally inerrant in its translation. We have proof otherwise. However, we can say without a doubt that God's Word is inerrant in its message of salvation through Christ. It is not the KJV, NIV, or ESV that will save souls. It is Christ. This message rings forth clearly throughout Scripture, whether you are reading the Latin Vulgate or Luther's German translation. Man's work is not inerrant, even when translating something as holy as Scripture. However, God is perfect, and we can trust Him to lead us in His way, no matter which language we read His Word in.

CONCLUSION

Faith in Christ is not about having an iron grip on our doctrines, refusing to let go of the things we were taught for fear of losing our salvation. Instead, we are to grow in Christ, realizing that this may mean growing past the things that we were taught by men, but never growing past the need for Christ that lead us to grow in the first place. We do not fear that by learning more we will find God inadequate. Instead we can grow past that which we were taught knowing that God knew these things all along and is waiting for us to come to more understanding like a patient Father waiting for His children to learn more so that He can teach them even more than before. God is not fearful that we will somehow learn more than He can anticipate; instead like the loving Father He is, He enjoys watching His children grow more and more with each generation. It is only logical that we use the steppingstones left by our forbearers and build upon them. That does not invalidate the faith of those great men; instead, it builds upon their faith to expand God's kingdom.

Bible-Believing vs Christ-Following

There is a vast difference of opinion in Christian circles as to what we as Christians are allowed, commanded, or forbidden to do. But there is a major difference between being a Christian, or little Christ, and being someone who uses the Bible to defend what they believe. You can find verses to support almost any topic that God permitted, or at least didn't directly punish people for doing.

For example, if you want to find a verse in the Bible to support owning slaves, its not hard to find: Leviticus 25:44-46 gives Israel expressed permission to buy slaves. You can also find permission to beat them almost to death in Exodus 21:20-21

There are verses supporting divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ; killing your children for disobedience, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; the rape of the women of captured countries, Zechariah 14:1-2; wife-stealing from your own people, Judges 21:19-24; genocide, I Samuel 15:3 ; killing children because their fathers are wicked, Isaiah 14:21; beheading your own people as warning to the rest of the nation, Numbers 25:3-4; and even human sacrifice, 2 Kings 23:16-20. In fact, there is precious little that you cannot support with a random verse, even the great King David was not only ok with infanticide but blessed those who did it in Psalm 137:9.

Are we as Christians called to follow these Old Testament verses and examples? Can we just take verses and people from the Old Testament, that God approved, and use them to support what we are doing?

The answer, of course, is absolutely not. We are now Christ-followers or Christians and we are commanded to follow the direct commands of Jesus Christ. Jesus who was our example, our direct and perfect example of what God wants us to be. Whenever we are in doubt about what God wants for us we should turn to Christ first and foremost. If Jesus gave us a command about it, that takes number one priority. If Jesus gave us an example in His life, we should follow that instead of random Old Testament humans. It is important to remember that in the Old Testament we are dealing with fallen sinners like ourselves, who cannot be perfect examples; however, in Christ we have the perfect example.

What were Jesus' commands? Quite simple ones really; Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. We are even commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to lay down our lives. We are commanded to turn the other cheek when attacked, with no exceptions for attacks on country or faith.
We are commanded to deny ourselves and take up our cross, not our weapon. And as my good friend Jamie likes to say, "Crosses are for dying." We seem to forget that in our world.

So as Christians it is important to remember that even Scripture considers the Old Testament, or old covenant done, as we are shown in Hebrews 8:13. Jesus didn't invalidate the Old Testament, but instead finished and fulfilled it, as He Himself states in Matthew 5:17. We are now in the covenant of Christ, meaning that the old has passed away and we are now in the era of Christ, not in the era of the Old Testament. And what does the era of Christ dictate? Love: pure and simple love. It dictates love that costs, love that can get us killed, love that does not strike back, and love that does not spew forth violence.