This is something entirely different, but, prompted by a recent Honors Colloquium discussion, I have been thinking about the importance of symbol. The discussion was about the possible relationship between symbol and reality, thought so important in the Medieval period (e.g., crossing oneself to rid the vicinity of demons, gematria, symbols of the gospelwriters, etc.). After all, Christ himself was in some was in some ways an incarnate symbol, the logos, of God ("he is the image of the invisible God").

It is certainly aesthetically appealing to imagine a real connection between symbol and reality. The medievals thought that the symbol reflected some of the real power of its owner, as in names, numbers, and signs. That there were twelve apostles and twelve zodiac constellations, for instance, signified some spiritual connection. On the other hand, there could be a danger in this of image-worship, or accepting the symbol in place of the real thing. It's a fascinating subject to ponder. What is the value of Christian symbols today, in a culture that no longer sees the symbol as having any imbued or inherent power, except perhaps among occultists and mystics? Shall will still in any way declare the words of Constantine, In Hoc Signo? Any thoughts?

Dr. Ransom,

As an "Old Calvinist" (aka--I'm more or less confessional), I have to say that it's this guy who is forsaking Church history. Has he never realized that the 1689 Baptist Confession was more radically reformed in some of its theology than the Westminster? Is he forgetting that his understanding of the end times (presumably dispensational--aka Left Behind-style) is a new innovation from the 19th century that denied 1800 years of church teaching on eschatology, not to mention Covenant theology? Who is really denying the past here?

For those who aren't aware, "Fundamentalism" was originally a multi-denominational movement in Presbyterian and Baptist circles that simply sought to defend Biblical orthodoxy against the liberalism that was then invading the Church. Early leaders included Bod Jones, but also J. Gresham Machen and William Jennings Bryan. However, as the movement progressed (or, in many ways, regressed into moralism that was little better than liberalism), the reformed element pulled away from the Baptist-dispensationalists who had come to define the movement, so that by the 1940s, there were very few in Presbyterian circles who identified as fundamentalists.

I think this pastor also underestimates the power that reformed preaching can have in evangelism. The first Great Awakening in America was led largely by Calvinists like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. While yes, Reformed theology has been misunderstood to downplay preaching, in reality it frees the preacher to preach indiscriminately and let God take care of saving souls. Preaching never saved anyone--the Holy Spirit saves--yet no one will ever be saved without preaching.

Phos,

I do think that symbols are important. Just because our culture devalues symbols is no reason to stop using them--we just have to be sure not to worship the symbols.

TBG

Hello all. Great topic, Ransom.

I am admittedly replying without listening to the sermon, as I am having computer problems. I will say that he sounds too much like some politically-minded people who get upset that their leaders and ways of doing things are not being followed by the younger interlopers.

The only area I could agree with would be with criticizing people like Rick Warren. That man gets severely on my nerves. I am not much into the lovey-dovey aspects of modern preaching. I want more Hellfire, more of a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type of sermon. There are too many Christians who do tend to just "want to get along", and not teach Biblical truth. Probably not for the pastor's reasons, but for my own observations, I can not tolerate Warren.

That's what I think so far. Again, great topic, Ransom. I'm glad that you brought it over to here. God bless.

I bid you all adieu.

I can not tolerate Warren.

I hear ya'. I think guys like Osteen might be the larger problem though. He gets under my skin a bit.

But even guys like these sometimes God can use. I remember the PTL days back in the 80's with Jim and Tammy Bakker and all the brouhaha that happened when the manure hit the fan. Jim went to jail and the experience purportedly changed him. I'm told he's pastoring again but not at all like he was before and is allegedly doing good and this time following God instead of his wallet. Then again I'm out of the loop and haven't kept up with the details for several years, so my info may be off by quite a bit.

Sweatt says too many young Christians are just sitting around discussing theology and not sending out missionaries and making enough of a priority to save the lost.

. . . And if you are a "free willie," do you agree with this pastor that too many Christians are mostly interested in sitting around and talking about God or theology instead of planning how to save the lost?

I don't consider myself a "free willie." However, I don't deny either free will or predestination / sovereignty of God. I see it all as one package: God draws people to Himself and they respond. Anyway, I was at Thomas Road this morning and Pastor Falwell concluded his sermon series "Sent". And basically he said that it is the church's God-given duty to go and preach the gospel, to evangelize. If we're not sending, we're missing our purpose. Matthew 28:18-19, the Great Commission, is a command! The heart of the gospel is missions--witnessing God's love in Christ. And Jesus Christ was the first missionary. Shouldn't we be like Him in this as we should be in everything else? There's a lost, hurting, and dying world out there. And they need Jesus! If they won't come to a church building, we should go to them! We should be the church! Here's my evangelism playlist on Youtube. [Sorry, couldn't resist. ]

MereChristian and Shadowlander: I consider guys like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing. I don't even call them Christians. But, Shadowlander, I think you made a good point about God using even people like Jim Bakker. In 1 Samuel 1-4, even though Eli the priest was bad because he wasn't disciplining his children and God eventually judged him by wiping out his family, Eli still spoke words of peace to Hannah, the mother of Samuel.

"Then Eli answered and said, 'Go in peace and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of Him.' And she said, 'Let thine handmaiden find grace in thy sight.' So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.'"

God used a bad priest to lift Hannah's burden for a child!

My main problem with people such as Joel Osteen is that he never preaches any doctrine. If you've heard one of his sermons, you've heard them all! Every one of his messages is along the lines of "God can use you to do great things" or "Just trust in God, and believe on Him, and your life will be so much better!" And while these things are definitely true, and while we need messages like these every once in a while, hearing nothing but these messages isn't going to get a Christian any where!

You never hear Osteen preaching about anything that may offend people. Yes, it's true that when the Word of God is preached, it's going to offend some people. The Bible clearly states that Christians will be hated for speaking up for the things in which they believe, but that doesn't let us off doing them!

You see, Aslan didn't tell Pole what would happen. He only told her what to do. That fellow will be the death of us once he's up, I shouldn't wonder. But that doesn't let us off following the sign.

Osteen has done just the opposite (well, perhaps not an opposite but certainly a rabbit trail). He preaches part of the message, but not the other part. He's more than willing to preach about the good things, but refuses to preach concerning the bad things.

The problem with the logic behind that is this: The bad things (preaching about hell, preaching about how everybody is a sinner, preaching about how worthless we are as human beings, preaching about the redemptive power of Calvary) are the things that cause us to become Christians in the first place. How can he possibly think that the good things described in his sermons (God's going to make gold rain on your house every day, and you're going to be the healthiest person on earth, and you're going to find a herd of unicorns living in your backyard. If only you just believe!!! [Ok, that's a bit extreme ]) can be used to influence somebody in the dark. It would be as if he were describing the grand canyon to somebody. The person who was receiving the explanation, no matter how many beautiful words are used to describe the splendour and glory of the grand canyon, is only going to be able to picture a great big hole in the ground.

Describing God's power, while denying (or at the very least, not informing people of) the power therein, is pointless. That is why you always hear so many people "getting saved" at the end of each of his broadcast. To make an audible noise in a church that size, would take upwards of 500 people, and I just don't believe that 500 people are getting saved in his church every week, and here's why. If people were really and truly getting saved through his sermons, than they wouldn't tolerate his hunkey-dorey view of the world for more than a couple of weeks. They would want the doctrine - the meat of the Word - rather than just the milk.

For those reasons, I'm led to believe that Osteen's church is filled with people who want that religious experience that you hear about so often these days. They want to be blessed by God, without serving Him, or yielding their lives to Him, or without going through the trials and sufferings that make us stronger. I'm not denying their salvation, for that isn't my place to do so, but I am denying the fact that they're being spiritually fed. But, logically, there are only two options:

A: They are Christians who are very weak in their faith. They are Christians who are so weak in their faith that they have become addicted non-doctrinal dribble that comes out of Osteen's mouth, and will work endlessly to ensure the future of that church, merely because it is the drug that they need to get them through the week of troubles. If this is the case, than these Christians represent a true Laodicean church. They are this lukewarm church that God will "spew out of his mouth." In short, according to the Bible, they make him want to vomit.

B: They are not Christians, and are therefore looking for that religious feeling. They want to feel the tinglies running up and down their spines. They want to be told how great everything will be if only they just believe in God rather than believing on God.

In these trying times, men need doctrine, not wishy-washy nonsense meant to satiate the earthly need for comfort. We need to have our eyes fixed on the prize that lies before us. We are caught in a spiritual battle in these perilous times; a battle who's magnitude has not been seen on this planet in hundreds of years. God wants us to put on the whole armor complete with shield, and sword, so that we can fight this battle in a manner that is pleasing to him. But Osteen, and those who follow his worldview, want to send us into battle with a plastic sword, weak bows, arrows with suction-cupped tips, plastic shields, and as for armor, we don't need that, because God will protect us all, if only we just believe!

DiGoRyKiRkE: ditto on all of it! Fantastic critique of Osteen! Have you considered taking up preaching?

Aaaargh!!! I just lost a post to glitches twice . I don't want all of you to think I'm ignoring you. I have very little to offer on the subject of Osteen .

But I really like the topic of Symbology Phos has raised , and I will have some comments regarding that. But being a little peeved at the glitches right now, I will have to return to it later.

GB

Beard, I was just thinking about you this morning and hoping you, perhaps like Emeth, would somehow make it to the New NarniaWeb.

Interestingly, you might find a strange sort of intellectual kinship with Mr. Osteen and many professing evangelicals. Just this morning I was reading from a book called Christless Christianity a rather surprising contention: that along with health/wealth/prosperity and semi-Pelagian pragmatic practices, another series of non-Christian religious practices and memes has infiltrated American Christendom -- Gnosticism.

By that I don't mean most American Christians (or Churchians) believe that the real God is spiritual, as opposed to this messy materialistic stuff created by an underling god (Yahweh) as I understand "classical" second-century-style Gnosticism holds.

Rather, Christless Christianity author Michael Horton says that many leaders popular in Christendom, including the aforementioned Osteen, advocate a super-personal "inner spirituality" kind of Christianity that forsakes any kind of hierarchy, testing by external sources -- especially Scripture -- and the organized Church.

Instead, both notions of self-help salvation (Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism) and uber-focus on one's personal God-nature and relationship with God (Gnosticism; Osteen and others imply, or even say directly, the half-truth that people have "divine DNA") has contributed to what Horton calls a "perfect storm" of uniquely Americanized religion. It downplays or even forsakes the true Gospel -- the historical truth, applied to human minds and hearts, that Christ saves His own from themselves for Himself, not for themselves.

And apparently that sort of romanticized me-and-Jesus-all-alone notion isn't new to today's culture. Transcendentalism and other teachings in the 1800s gave birth to an earlier wave of this. Even the hymn "In the Garden" echoes the opposite notion.

"Aaaaannnnnnd --
He waaalks with me
And He taaalks with me
And He tellllls me Iiiii ammmm His owwwwn
And the joyyy we shaaare as we taaaa-rry there
None otherrrr has everrr known"

(emphasis added).

Umm ... I feel I have always disliked this song, yet now I know my reason is much more than simply its too-mushy lyrics. It's rather self-centered and subtle Church-bashing to claim that only you and Jesus have this kind of relationship. Jesus died to have a relationship with His Bride, not someone personally. As author Kevin DeYoung said (in a podcast): If you diss the organized Church Jesus founded, you're dissing Jesus' "girlfriend."

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, and look forward to more!

Finally here, this for your enjoyment ... the suggested mascot for Episode V: The Empire's Hype is Back:

...though Osteen's good at selling toothpaste.

LOL W4J. Gotta love those bright whites!

I never liked that song either, Dr.E. I always found it mildly creepy...but maybe that's just me.

I believe that this song is partially being taken out of context (not that it's a big deal. It is just a song, penned by man)

The fact that the singer of the song "Goes to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses." Implies that it is morning time. Christ said something along the lines of doing daily devotions/Bible reading/prayer in the morning (exact Scriptural reference needed)

I know that that certain passage gives a lot of people a lot of problems, and seeing as I cannot find the Scriptural reference, I'm laying that issue aside for the present time. But if you look at the whole song as somebody spending time doing their devotions and praying, and communing with God, how can you possibly say that it's self-centred? Along that argument, doing devotions at all would be self-centred because it is a work. Yes, it's a work that God commands in Scripture, but it's a work just the same.

Yes, God's main focus is His church, His bride, but to say that God can't be a God of the individual is putting God inside a box. It's saying that God doesn't really care about the single person, but rather as the community as a whole. It's saying that God's working on the tapestry, without so much as caring about what threads He uses. Do you see the flaw in that logic? It's the individual that makes the community such a wonderful thing for starters.

Going back to the tapestry example, it would be as if God was making a tapestry of the ocean, but, along the argument that God is not a God of the individual, sometimes uses a red thread, or a pink thread, or another colour that obviously isn't the blue of the ocean. Every now and again one of the threads might break, or be under extreme pressure, but so long as the tapestry as a whole remains undamaged, it doesn't really matter.

We are the children of God. We're supposed to run to Him calling Him "Abba Father," which would translate to "Daddy." Does a father care for the well-being of all of his children collectively, while ignoring the fact that his youngest child is struggling in school, or his middle child is dealing with bullies?

That's what's so great about God. He can be a God that preserves the church as a whole, while at the same time, being a God that cares about the fact that your car isn't running well. He can be the God that's preparing a home for His bride, but He's also the God that cares about the individual enough to take them to Heaven.

I want to dredge up one of the debates that happened in N&C on the old forum. I believe Wisewoman started it, and it went along the lines of whether or not we'll retain our individuality in Heaven. Whether or not I'll still love the sound of running water, or love the smell of rainy days, or love the colour of large thunderheads. Dr. E, you particularly liked my explanation of that, and even quoted it in one of your numerous articles. How then can you say that the Bride is the only thing that matters? Saying that God only cares about the church as a whole entity, would that not then mean that that one entity will be the only thing that remains individualistic once it gets to Heaven? In short, along your view of a God that cares only about His church, and not the individual, you've committed a flaw in your logic. Either we remain individuals in Heaven, and God loves all of those individuals for what they are, or we become an amalgamated glob of individuals known as His bride, whom God loves only because we are a part of the entity.

I've always found that song to be a great comfort to me. It's a very comforting thought that all I have to do is have a little quiet time with God, and He's right there with me. He cares enough about me, to take time out of His busy schedule (not that He's bound by time. He "calls all time soon.") to commune with me, and listen to me, and hear my concerns. But any ways, that's the way that that song has always been interpreted to me. People are more than welcome to disagree, but either way, it doesn't really matter because man's words are usually flawed. God's aren't.

How then can you say that the Bride is the only thing that matters?

I didn't, did I? What I've been trying to say is not a false either/or dichotomy, but both/and, and pointing out that the song seems to be based only on the assumptions of one "side" of it.

It would be like singing a song only about how God is wrath, and punishes sin and sinners, without also mentioning His mercy and lovingkindness.

Absolutely, Christ loves individual believers! But His love is not just as part of a super-personal spirituality that dismisses the essential role of others who share in that love and truth, growing in both with one another. That's why the song's exclusive "none other has ever known" part leaps out to me. Regardless of the writer's intent, it dismisses the truth that Christ founded a community of believers, even an "organized" one, and Christians collectively have this relationship with Christ.

I hope this is not taken to mean that I'm trying to overcorrect the other way. As I said elsewhere:

Very likely many people have been plagued by the notion that "God is only found in the institutional church (i.e., ours)" view, and need to be reminded (even by "In the Garden!") that if they are Christ's people, He died to save them and loves them personally.

But I submit: which is the more common error in the West -- lack of personal "spirituality" or opposition to "organized religion"?

A little more (and even more e-cycling from me):

I'm not saying it's a Bad song, or critiquing those who have a "soft spot" for it (as I like to point out, I have a soft spot for the Left Behind series, though its view of the end-times I now believe is skewed). Rather, the song's lyrics (like some contemporary songs) seem borne of a view that over-individualizes a relationship with Christ, dismissing the love Christ has for His Church, not just specific people -- supposedly a joy that "none other has ever known."

The apparent assumptions behind the hymn, not the hymn itself, are what I'm "picking" on, if anything. And it's been something I've struggled to balance Biblically during the past several years especially: the healthful tension between loving and knowing God both individually, and as part of the Church, Christ's bride, which He founded on Earth. ...

I don't think I would mind even the "mushy" parts as much -- I've tried to get used to referring to God in a hymn or song as "beautiful." But it's the "none other has ever known" part that seems symptomatic of an overemphasis on one's personal relationship with God -- or spirituality, as apparently was the case back in the late 1800s with Emerson, Thoreau and people like that, within and outside of Christianity, who gave rise to overly "romanticized" Christianity.

Again, I'm not saying this is all bad, but mightn't it need balance?

My questions aren't about whether the emotions along with such a song are too silly. But does it balance what we feel about God with what we know about Him?

I could sing a love song to my wife (as a card-carrying newlywed) but if I claim that only I get to spend any time with her, ever, in any sort, that would not be accurate. If I said only we share certain things, that would be right -- but it would be wrong to claim her exclusively in all ways.

Here's hoping none of this sounds just snarky, as if I would be a total idiot and insist baby Christians get everything right in what they sing. Rather, I've been in churches where it is the mature believers are still stuck on "love songs" that don't echo God's epic essence in better ways. Could it be that they're missing out on ways to love Him more deeply, in less "silly" ways? Paul said believers must move beyond "milk" into "solid food" of loving and knowing the Lord. Even a newlywed stage must develop into more lasting love.

[. . .]

By the way, thanks to all this discussion about it, the song is now stuck in my head for perhaps the rest of the day!

DiG: I love your response! I used to find "In the Garden" annoying too, but now it's such a comfort. And it was my late grandfather's favorite hymn.

Yes, Dr. Ransom, we need a balance between corporate Christianity, the body of Christ worshipping God together, and our personal relationship with Jesus. But as you said, we need both! God whispered to me yesterday, "I suffered, bled, and died for you." And just thinking about that, I started crying.

I don't like the romantic stuff in some "Christian" songs either. And I wonder about the songwriters. "He's not a tame lion": God's wrath is real. Jesus will return to earth as a conquering King, not a suffering servant. Moses, David, and others feared God because of His wrath and power. BUT ... Christ is also the Bridegroom. Look at the relationship between Christ and His bride in Song of Solomon! [It's my favorite Wisdom book. ] "Because of the savor of thy good ointments, thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. Draw me, we will run after thee" [1:3-4]. The name of Jesus is a healing balm; "is there no balm in Gilead?" [Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11] "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love" [SoS 2]. Banqueting = Heb. yayin = spiritual intoxication! "The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills. . . .My beloved spake, and said unto me, 'Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away" [SoS 2:8, 10].

Dr. Ransom: I love the pic in your sig! Check out my recent post in "A Place of Praises." So why are all the posts centered?

EDIT: These "personal relationship" songs have helped and comforted me over the years. They celebrate the amazing TRUTH that Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, wants a personal relationship with me, within the context of His body the Church. God calls individual people and places them in His church. This personal relationship theme runs throughout the Bible: Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David [the Psalms!], the prophets, Jesus' disciples, Paul, etc. Jesus makes Himself available to each one of us, as well as to the body. He says, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden and I will give you rest" [Matthew 11]. He says, "Ask and it shall be given you" [Matthew 7]. We can come to Jesus, in faith, with ANY need and He will answer! He will take away our burdens! God is so good to us!

"Jesus my Jesus" -- think of Luke 10, Mary sitting at Jesus' feet / "I need Thee every hour" / "He's been faithful" / "My help" -- Psalm 121 / "More than enough" / "Thou oh Lord" -- Psalm 3 / "Oh draw me Lord" -- Song of Solomon 1 / "Precious Lord take my hand" / "Press on" -- Philippians 3 / "You are my hiding place" -- Psalm 32 / "His eye is on the sparrow" -- Matthew 6, 10 / "God on the mountain" -- 1 Kings 20 / "God walks the dark hills" / "I must tell Jesus" / "So you would know" / "Standing somewhere in life's shadows" / "Till the storm passes by" / "As the deer" -- Psalm 42 / "Lord I run to You" -- Psalm 121 [and others] / "I'm free" / "No one ever cared for me like Jesus" / "Who can satisfy my soul" / "Because of who you are"