I will have to admit I have had to learn to start discerning what a speaker says in comparison to the Bible. I have found myself taking speaker by his word and not really crossing it with Scripture. My church had a guest speaker that so happened to be right after Hurricane Katrina and he said a number of things that were very hurtful, even if unintended (my pastor did regret that decision). I have to confess that I took his word for it at the time and it has been recently that God has been warning me about that.

I have to be honest. For a while, I had respect for Joel Osteen because of his standing as a Christian preacher. I was awakened to what message he gives through "Wretched" and Todd Friel has shown me to judge a message by the Word of God. There are some (aside from those whom he warns us about) that still would question how he goes about it, but his message is real.

Just two days ago, (Thursday) my Intervarsity Chapter played a video for our Bible study. I don't remember what it was called or who the guy speaking in it was. But this guy is sitting in his room, watching an elderly woman shoveling a driveway from snow and he goes into the history of what it meant to be a disciple of a Jewish Rabbi and the history of the educational system of the Jewish boys. He described why Peter got out of the boat when Jesus walked on the water. He said it was because Peter wanted to be like Jesus and do what Jesus did. After that, he went on to indicate that the reason Peter sank wasn't he lack of faith in Jesus but lack in faith of himself. He also went on to claim that we can do anything as long as we have faith in each other. The video concluded with showing the woman shoveling her neighbor's driveway.

While the historical background to the whole thing was good, this guy's application to the story was off. He gave no reference to the fact that Jesus was God and it was only through Jesus' power as God that enabled Peter to walk on the water. He also never said anything that none of the other disciples, who were with Jesus for the same purpose as Peter, to follow thier Rabbi, didn't try to walk on the water. And he blamed Peter's sinking on his lack of faith in himself. This is not right. It is only through Jesus we can do anything remotely productive, let alone walk on water. He also failed to mention that Peter never walked on water again. So by that fact alone, we know that Peter's ability to walk on water was not from within. This guy had an interesting approach to the subject but because he started with the historical background and not the Word of God, he (hopefully inadvertently) ended basing his interpretation of the Bible on the historical aspect instead of seeing how the Bible was written to the understanding of those at that time. So be careful on what you read and what you hear. If it doesn't match every aspect of the Bible (because the Bible is the completely consistant, inerrant Word of God), be wary. You can't take the "God is Love" aspect without also taking the "God is Pure, Holy, Just, and Righteous" aspects.

This is yet another reason why I say it is so critically important for us to know what the Bible says. Satan is a really good liar and I will be honest in saying that he pretty well knows the Bible better than we do. And as Paul warned several times, especially to the Corinthians, watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing. Not every pastor is preaching God's message. One of Satan's best tactics is to get one of his servant's into a high position in one of our churches to corrupt it from the inside out. This includes bringing in false teachers and a false message to keep people from seeking after God. And with our propensity to drift away, it doesn't take much. That is why Paul also tells us to keep our guard up and watch out. So what does the Bible say? Take that to be the truth and anyone says anything about it, put the two together and take only what stands. The Bible always will stand true and its words will never pass away.

Again, thanks for taking care of that, Fencer. And Pattertwigs Pal, I especially hope that was helpful for you.

Yes, thank you Fencer. It did help me.

First question. Does the rest of your church believe this stuff?

No, I’m pretty sure they don’t. Obviously, I had trouble believing it or I wouldn’t have posted it here. The pastor who was giving this “talk” said in part of it I didn’t quote that he might be wrong. This particular pastor isn’t my favorite, and this isn’t the first time I’ve had problems with his interpretation of the Bible. I didn’t quote the part where he said he might be wrong because I wasn’t sure if he actually meant it, and it didn’t relate directly to the parts I did quote. I’ve put it here in case anyone is interested.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this. My brothers and sisters who read the Bible differently than me could be the ones who have it right. And if they are I pray God will give me the eyes to see and the ears to hear the truth I’m missing. When it comes to the will of God, I don’t presume to have all the answers. That’s why we need each other; we always need people around us who think about things in a different way than we do. We need people who can challenge our assumptions and question our logic so that we don’t make God into an image of our own limited design. God is much bigger than any of us can imagine and it is only in our diversity of thought that we can keep from putting God in a box. We always need to be humble enough to acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong so that we can really hear what God wants us to hear.

I strongly recommend taking anything you hear this pastor say and slam it against the Word.

I try to compare what he says to the Word or at least question it thoroughly. I really felt that he was wrong in this particular case, but I was so shocked and troubled by it I didn’t really know where to start. I guess what I was really looking for was support from others who were detached from the situation. I’m feeling much better now. I’m no stranger to the Bible (I try to read a chapter a day and attend a Bible Study once a week. I’ve read through the whole thing 2-3 times). However, I’m not so good at remembering where I’ve read things or if I’ve read them in the Bible or formed the belief by reading what others have written about the Bible. I notice that people on this forum seemed a good knowledge of the Bible and where things are located, so I thought this would be a good place to go for opinions.

Satan is a really good liar and I will be honest in saying that he pretty well knows the Bible better than we do. And as Paul warned several times, especially to the Corinthians, watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing. Not every pastor is preaching God's message. One of Satan's best tactics is to get one of his servant's into a high position in one of our churches to corrupt it from the inside out. ... So what does the Bible say? Take that to be the truth and anyone says anything about it, put the two together and take only what stands. The Bible always will stand true and its words will never pass away.

I find this helpful advice too. I think it is very true as well.

Fencer: excellent analysis and rebuttal! We have to be really careful when we hear a pastor, or anyone in a leadership position, say something that may be contrary to the Word, intentional or not. We have to keep our spiritual ears open!

I still remember a Christian university chapel pastor's sermon 10-11 years ago. And every time I think about it I get angry. He said sometimes God makes mistakes. His example? God giving King Hezekiah another 15 years to live [2 Kings 20]. Why? 1. Hezekiah showed the Babylonians his treasures [they were later carried to Babylon]. 2. His son Manasseh, born during that 15-year period, was a bad king [2 Kings 21]. My response? I had a perfect rebuttal but I didn't give it. 1. God never makes mistakes! And He never changes! 2. It was God's will for Babylon to raid Jerusalem and carry off the Israelites as captives. They needed to be humbled for their continued and blatant idolatry! 3. Manasseh repented and made a spiritual u-turn! He's probably in heaven right now! [2 Chronicles 33:12-19] 4. If Hezekiah hadn't lived an extra 15 years, who would have succeeded him on the throne? What would have happened to Jesus' genealogy?! [Matthew 1]

A few weeks ago, a songleader in my youth group prayed He would be "giddy for Jesus," like the way we act with a new girlfriend or boyfriend. I told him our relationship with Jesus isn't like this at all. But he didn't get it...

Btw, I'd like members' thoughts on my Song of Solomon post...

Oops. I forgot to check the notification box when I posted last, and now I’m a little behind .

Doc, your points regarding Osteen were intriguing, but I particularly liked the broader discussion of Individualism vs. Collectivism (and your using of the Garden song to make your point). I found myself viscerally agreeing with Dig’s response to you because I lean to a personal relationship with the Divine myself. But your reply to Dig really grabbed me, because you nailed my Intellectual approach to the apparent Dichotomy.

My Monist point of view leads me to see the One and the Many as existing simultaneously, each within the other. This seems to echo your view that God has both a personal and collective relationship with us, and that one can’t exist without the other.

Where we mainly differ is that I also have a Gnostic/Pagan/Hindu view that Divinity is shared between the One and the Many. Whereas, the Mainstream Christian view is that only the Holy Trinity is Divine (though that too echoes the Monist principle as I have discussed with TBG in the past).

I also find myself agreeing with your interpretation of the Song of Solomon. It’s not often that I think that a Biblical passage should be taken literally . It must be the Pagan in me . But seriously, the passage is clearly intended as an ode to Passion first; and other interpretations, while valid in their own way, seem secondary to me. There are indeed some graphic passages that make little sense ecclesiastically. Ick indeed (unless one is into…ummm…group activities. But that is a little too Pagan, even for me ).

I still seem to be glitching and losing posts so I am pasting from my Word program. If a Mod has any advice on this score please drop me a line.

GB

What, Beard? No "live long and prosper"? I am crestfallen. ...

Meanwhile, if you're losing posts, I'm not sure what forum glitch could be causing that, but you could post in the Growing Pains thread here in the Spare Oom. Until that may be resolved, here's another suggestion: if you're using Firefox, I would recommend getting the Lazarus plugin. It's saved me a lot of times and frustration several times by keeping a backlog of anything you've most recently typed in a form!

Good to hear we kinda-sorta-quasi agree on the concept about God balancing His personal and collective relationships with His people. One thing that also needs to be said here is that for the Christian, God does not need relationships with human beings. He was perfectly content with the fellowship of Himself before creation; the idea I recently rediscovered existed in its most potent form that "the one thing God needs is to be loved, so He created people" is wrong and un-Biblical. As not only One but Three, God always had perfect fellowship with Himself. It was for His glory, somehow -- not because He needed to be loved -- that He initiated creation.

Now, although personal salvation and a relationship with Him is vital, nay essential, to be saved, He works the building of His kingdom not just through individuals, but through His organized, visible, Church.

So there it is again: God, One and yet Three; and the Church, made up of individuals, yet a single organism.

Further exploration could come if that perspective is contrasted with the Devil's way of doing things. I've long been fascinated by C.S. Lewis's supposition in The Screwtape Letters that demons want to consume things -- lacking any regard for the individual, the Devil's ultimate aim is to "devour" sinners and in effect assimilate them into his own. Shades of "Resistance is futile," perhaps? "Or "You will be upgraded"? I think that's partly the reason why Star Trek's Borg or the Cybermen from Doctor Who are so scary: they not only want to kill their enemies, but murder their individuality and turn them into mindless slaves.

I wrote more about this in a column three years ago, in which I included what seemed the most relevant Screwtape quote about it:

To us a human is primarily good; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures, whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.

[. . .]

Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve.

(By the way, Focus on the Family Radio Theatre's The Screwtape Letters audio dramatization is releasing Oct. 15 -- and you'll never guess which actor is in the lead role! )

220chrisTian, I'll have more thoughts about the Song of Solomon to offer later; I didn't mean to ignore you. Overall I agreed with what you said, but mostly to the extent that any marriage and the special love therein is a mimicking, an echo, of the greater reality of Christ's love for His Church. Before applying the parallels to His love for individual people -- and I'm not saying I wouldn't at all -- I would apply them to His love for His Church. That's because the Scriptural analogy made of Christ's "romantic" (if I dare use the word) love is not for individuals, but for the Church. (Notice I didn't say He doesn't love people, but I would hesitate to say "Christ loving you personally is a parallel to marriage.")

Also, it seems even more true that by applying the ideals of the Song of Solomon to one's relationships, whether one is single or especially married, can show better than tell the matchless love of Christ for the "Bride" He died to redeem and make pure with His blood (Ephesians 5: 22-33).

Finally, back to Pattertwigs Pal and the need to compare everything with the Word.

Again, Fencer had some awesome things to say, and along with you I have been learning more (from other teachers and books as well as the apparently incomparable Todd Friel of "Wretched Radio" fame) how to "rightly divide the Word of truth" from that which is vain speculation, un-Biblical beliefs or even heretical notions (which call salvation into question) by some Christians.

Pal, I'm not sure what kind of church you attend, but it sounds like the guy you described has clearly bought into a lot of postmodern-style nonsense about God's Word, what humility is and how we present what we're thinking about it. This kind of thing is unfortunately growing even in the evangelical world. Might I offer some point-by-point explanations?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this.

This is a Brian McLaren-style (he's an "emergent church" writer) trick to try taking the wind out of your opponent's sails. Frankly, if he's that uncertain about something so essential, he ought not be a pastor. Pastors are not called to be people who get up and express this kind of uncertainty. Where Scripture is unclear, they ought not have a firm opinion (for example, on whether it's okay to represent Jesus in visual form, or whether Christians can drink alcohol in moderation). But in matters so essential to faith and practice, real pastors should preach the Word -- not offer questionable-at-best speculations and then try to "cheat" by saying demurely "of course, I could be wrong."

My brothers and sisters who read the Bible differently than me could be the ones who have it right.

They are -- because as Fencer said, the "I read the Bible this way" introduction is a dead giveaway (I'm glad he gave himself away; some others would not). That is his own interpretation, but it can be shown according to rules of hermeneutics (Biblical reading comprehension) and plain understanding of not only the original languages but plain English, that his "interpretation" is flagrantly wrong. And this isn't about things requiring more "wiggle room," such as end-times views, or even maybe what method works for baptism. Something so crucial to Christianity as the reality of sin and conviction under Law is not just a "different reading." It's the reading. And it's not arrogant to say this is the only way, because we didn't make this up; God has revealed it.

And if they are I pray God will give me the eyes to see and the ears to hear the truth I’m missing.

I would pray the same. But I also hope someone will go to this person and say -- this may sound harsh at first -- he needs to step down from leadership until he gets this figured out. And to figure it out, he needs to re-learn simple principles of Biblical hermeneutics and not wander so far from truth. Pastors should be genuine about the areas where they are uncertain, yes, but not be so weak and un-Biblical about a truth so foundational to the Bible's main message.

When it comes to the will of God, I don’t presume to have all the answers. That’s why we need each other; we always need people around us who think about things in a different way than we do.

This is a common "emergent"/postmodern trick: acting as though anyone who claims to have the answer is arrogant or also claiming to have "all the answers." It's a false dichotomy and a straw-man. Christians who say they do have some of the answers about Who God is, answers gained from the Word, aren't being arrogant or allowing God no room to be mysterious. They are being Biblical. And this is the truly humble approach. What is arrogant is to put our own opinions above God's Word and pretend this is real humility.

As for needing diversity of opinions around: that could be important in non-salvific matters (beliefs that don't affect whether a person is truly a Christian). That can include end-times beliefs, even baptism. For example, an organization like Together for the Gospel includes teachers from different denominations: Presbyterian (such as R.C. Sproul), Baptist (Al Mohler, Mark Dever), and sort-of-charismatic Reformed (C.J. Mahaney). But they all believe the same in the one area it matters: the Gospel. And no one in Scripture ever allowed those who disbelieved the Gospel to be in church membership, much less lead a church as a pastor.

We need people who can challenge our assumptions and question our logic so that we don’t make God into an image of our own limited design. God is much bigger than any of us can imagine and it is only in our diversity of thought that we can keep from putting God in a box.

Ah, the dreaded "don't put God in a box." So if I said "God sometimes makes mistakes," as 220chrisTian said she once heard someone say, and you had issues with that, would that be "putting God in a box"? What if I said, "God may be a girl," and you complained -- wouldn't you be "putting God in a box"? Perhaps if someone thinks having certain specific characteristics and not others is "limiting," such as being omnipotent, truthful, loving yet righteous, then yes, we have limited God in these ways. But actually, He has "limited" Himself by revealing parts of what He is like and what He has done -- in the Bible.

We always need to be humble enough to acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong so that we can really hear what God wants us to hear.

(In the voice of Maxwell Smart, agent 86): "The ollld pretend-you're-humble-so-they-can't-touch-you trick!"

I have to close and get ready for church this Sunday morning, but here's a bit more I wrote about The Old False Humility Trick, specifically in response to the same ploy (however well-intended) taken by the guy who wrote the book The Shack:

Some people, especially in postmodern-influenced Western civ, seem to think that just because we don’t know everything about God, that means we can’t know anything for sure. Furthermore, this seems to them the more humble way to approach understanding God; they claim that anyone who says “this is what God is like” is therefore claiming to have God “all figured out” — a rather simplistic and straw-man attempt.

But that is another false dichotomy. God is infinite and ultimately not able to be fully understood. But He has revealed parts of Himself in the Word, in which He has said, repeatedly, that He is, in fact, a He.

Therefore, God is not a “complete mystery,” and there are parts of Him that we have figured out — though not because of anything we have done, but because we have been blessed to receive His written revelation about Himself in His Word.

How, then, could it be construed as “humility” to ignore what He has said, in favor of our own views? I might as well fail to acknowledge or even read what you have said, because then I might actually think I could understand your views and that would be “arrogant.” No, instead it would be arrogant for me to ignore your written words and decide that I, and some of my friends in a “conversation,” could figure out your views and your nature on our own — though perhaps we might say that we have high regard for your own words about, well, yourself.

No, true humility is achieved when we’re not thinking about ourselves and our own humility (which always backfires — “By Jove, I’m being humble!” as C.S. Lewis wrote). Instead, we’re focusing on God and what He has told us about Himself. We haven’t deciphered His “code” on our own; everything we have is what He has given us. It is all from Him, from His Grace, and for His glory.

This is what will keep us truly humble and dependent on Him — not closing our eyes and ears to what He has said and thus elevating our own views about Him above His own Word about Himself.

(Edited here and there for clarity.)

Excellent response Dr. Ranson. There is something else I want to add. For my birthday back in June, my parents gave me a DVD collection of Louie Giglio's Passion Talks. I didn't get the chance to get into them until yesterday and I wish I hadn't waited as long. In two of the four videos, Giglio goes into the astronomy and biology of creation and the sheer numbers alone point directly to the glory of God. He uses what we see everyday, takes the Bible for what it says, (in this case, "The heavens declare the glory of God") and makes awesome comparisons. What is even more awesome are at the end of the two videos. The center of Canis Major, the largest star we have yet to find has a gigantic X, which from the Hubble's POV, appears like a cross. Also, laminin, the protien that essentially acts as the glue to make every cell do what it does is also shaped as a cross. That is pure God-design and seeing that has blown me away.

The other two video have something I learned at an Intervarsity retreat back in May: the power of the Testimony. A speaker needs to be real with his/her audience. Talking about the theory is one thing. To see in action is something else. Giglio kept refering back to a young college girl who came to Christ through a roommate who had attended on of his events. The roommate used the videos I mentioned above as a witnessing tool and Giglio ended up with a ministry relationship with her. Just a few months later, the student was killed in a car wreck and God has been using Giglio to witness to the student's athiestic father.

One of the thing Giglio mentions in his third video on Hope, is that he has a blog and he posted something that was purely theology. He got one response. He posted this student's e-mail to him (with her permission) and got hundreds of responses. And at the Intervarsity retreat, the speaker frequently uses life stories to illustrate the point and I could relate. I could truly not only understand where he was coming from but also see how that could apply to me as well.

The Testimony is very powerful weapon in spiritual warfare (Revelation 12:11). What makes it so strong is that no one can refute it. It's your story. You were there. Only you can tell it as it happened. When a pastor/speaker shares a Testimony, they are being real with their audience. I personally believe that Testimonies are not being used often enough, and unfortunately a big reason behind that is that a lot of people think they don't have a good enough one to share. When we think of Testimonies, we think of time of conversion, the time we came to Christ. That's only a part of it. A Testimony can be how did God get you out of this situation, or how did God provide when you had this need. Everyone has one of these stories or more.

But that being said, Testimonies alone won't be enough. People need to the Word directly. But a Testimony can be used to illustrate how a passage has been applied. The feeding of the 5,000 is a passage in all four Gospels. People can debate if that happened or not. But I do have a Testimony in how that miracle happened right before my eyes. That is proof that the things God did back in the days of the Bible, he still does today. And what is also cool about the Testimony is that it is all about God. We can't do it ourselves and the Testimony shows how God lifted us out of our situation. When looking at a verse or passage, a Testimony that relates can show God does what he is saying. I am not trying to knock the theoretical part of theology, because without the theory, we have no basis for how to be practical. But we can't be just theoretical. Knowing the Bible is absolutely crucial to the survival of a Christian. But knowing the Bible alone isn't enough. We need to live it. Knowing that Jesus died and rose again is straight out fact. Living that, (having Jesus in your life) is so much more. I hope I was clear on that.

Pal, I'm not sure what kind of church you attend, but it sounds like the guy you described has clearly bought into a lot of postmodern-style nonsense about God's Word, what humility is and how we present what we're thinking about it. This kind of thing is unfortunately growing even in the evangelical world. Might I offer some point-by-point explanations?

I attend a Lutheran church (ELCA). Thank you so much for your point-by-point explanations. I knew there was something that really bothered me about the second part I posted (I took the quotes from the church's website, where he had posted the whole thing), but I had a hard time verbalizing what it was. Frankly, I was too angry about the whole thing to think straight. Your explanations make a lot of sense. I'm glad my instincts were correct.

Pattertwig's Pal: I want to discuss your pastor's continued mention of "life."

And ever since, we have been consumed with knowing what is good and evil after God had long ago given up on it in favor of bringing life to the world. . . .
God doesn’t see it as a problem because the one and only thing God cares about is life and God will use even the most despicable characters there are to make sure that death doesn’t have its way. . . .He kept telling them stories about finding life; life within and life with God and life with others. . . .He wanted them to see that God isn’t worried anymore about what is right or wrong or about what’s good or bad, God’s only concern is for life in all its fullness. . . .The Bible is not a book about naming what is good and bad or what is right or wrong; it is ultimately a book about finding life; life within, life with God, and life with others.

Yes, God wants to give us life. BUT this life is IN AND ONLY IN His Son Jesus Christ! If God has to give us life, what's the implication? That we're dead! We're not inanimate spiritually. We're dead spiritually! And what killed us? SIN! God tells us over and over in His Word that sin = death. Genesis 2 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Ezekiel 18 "The soul who sins shall die." Romans 6 "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 7 "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." What happened in Eden? Romans 5 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." God burned into Israel's mind and heart that sin = death, and that purgation requires a blood sacrifice. This is why Jesus died. He became the perfect sacrifice for sin. And through Jesus alone we have LIFE.

Share this verse with your pastor, for it's the gospel in ONE sentence: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" [Romans 6:23, KJV]. And share this song: "He loved me with a cross."

EDIT

Btw, I'd like members' thoughts on my Song of Solomon post...

220chrisTian, I'll have more thoughts about the Song of Solomon to offer later; I didn't mean to ignore you.

I know you [and others] weren't ignoring me. I was drawing attention to myself. There's nothing Christian about that, is there? My motives were impure. And I sincerely apologize.

Before applying the parallels to His love for individual people -- and I'm not saying I wouldn't at all -- I would apply them to His love for His Church. That's because the Scriptural analogy made of Christ's "romantic" (if I dare use the word) love is not for individuals, but for the Church. (Notice I didn't say He doesn't love people, but I would hesitate to say "Christ loving you personally is a parallel to marriage.")

Good point. But I still remember something I read the other day, in Handfuls on Purpose. The writer said "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" [SoS 1] is personal. We must have personal contact with Jesus. Conversion is individual. And he made a rather strange parallel, saying God spiritually "kissed" Adam when He breathed life into him in Eden. I'm not sure what to think about that. But I know what he means by personal contact.

As not only One but Three, God always had perfect fellowship with Himself. It was for His glory, somehow -- not because He needed to be loved -- that He initiated creation.

Good point. I think God created the family as a reflection of the Trinity. And the Church is the same. As a living organism, the redeemed church is the "family of God," is it not?

Christians who say they have the answers about Who God is, answers gained from the Word, aren't being arrogant or allowing God no room to be mysterious. They are being Biblical. And this is the truly humble approach. What is arrogant is to put our own opinions above God's word and pretend this is real humility.

Amen! But explaining this to people who insist on tolerance above all else [Why is the Bible the "Word" when the Koran and other so-called "holy books" aren't? ] is a bit hard. Do you mind if I quote you on this in the future?

The Testimony is very powerful weapon in spiritual warfare (Revelation 12:11). What makes it so strong is that no one can refute it. It's your story. You were there. Only you can tell it as it happened. . . .But that being said, Testimonies alone won't be enough. People need to [go to?] the Word directly.

I agree! I've shared my testimony with others. My problem is when they accuse me of lying or try to find a scientific explanation. Of course, God works through science and medicine. But He can override it, too! Testimony + God's Word =

I've enjoyed reading the discussion about Pattertwig's Pal's pastor's comments, and have a few additional thoughts to share.

First, it seems to me that this is a false dichotomy - yes, God is about life, but He's also about right and wrong, good and evil. How do we, as humans, know what is good or evil, and upon what do we base that judgment? Christians would say we base it on what God has said. God is inherently good - in a different context, Jesus stated that "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). Surely we would say that His goodness is an important part of His character. So to say He's "given up on it" seems incorrect.

I concede the above paragraph is rather ambiguous Scripturally. But a few other, more specific thoughts follow:

If you remember there were two trees that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. It is significant that the tree they found the most tempting, the fruit that seemed to them to be the most delicious was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Actually, before the Fall, there was only one:

..."You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16b-17, ESV, emphasis added.

As the only forbidden fruit, of course it was tempting! The chocolate bar sitting on my computer desk is not a temptation, because I'm allowed to eat it. Similarly, since Adam and Eve were permitted to eat from the tree of life before they fell, it would not present a temptation.

The tree of life was guarded after they were exiled from the garden - as part of the Curse and because God knew that they would live forever in their sin should they eat of it:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken....at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. - Genesis 3:22-24

Some comments have already been made about Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees. The pastor made this rather remarkable statement:

[Jesus]even broke the law on occasion and did things that weren’t kosher to make his point.

This might seem like a nitpick, but Christ, in His own words, said he came not to break the law but fullfill it (Matthew 5:17, 18). In the Old Testament the law was seen as a way to righteousness - a 'tutor' to show us we can't make it on our own, without faith (Galatians 3:23-26). But Christ was tempted like us, but was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). So while He did things that may have violated those additions to the law others have already mentioned, or did things in ways unexpected by the legalistic leaders of the day, He didn't break the Law.

Lastly,

The early believers, as Jews, thought everyone who followed Jesus needed to be a Jew first. In their minds it was no good to be a gentile and, at the same time, a Christian....[Peter] remembered that Jesus was all about life and nothing else.

Paul addressed a similar topic in the book of Galatians - some people were arguing that Gentile converts had to adhere to Jewish rites to be accepted into the church. Paul's response is that salvation comes by faith in Christ rather than adherence to the law. In fact, this is the context of the quotation cited above, and is so significant a theme that a lot would be quoted here (the discourse begins in chapter 2 and lasts several chapters). So in Galatians, the issue is whether salvation comes through faith in Christ or faith in Christ plus the works of the law. Paul writes because some were adding to the gospel he'd previously preached (beginning at 1:6).

Hmmm, this didn't come out nearly as clearly as it was in my mind. Hopefully it's of some assistance.

(edited for clarity and to fix links)

Someone I know well — let’s call him Elmer — recently ran up against this phenomenon. Elmer is a part-time music director at his church and recently tried to point the church members to more-Biblical standards of worship. Making music and singing to the Lord, especially for a special music performance (or presentation), should be done with similar standards for preaching a sermon or teaching a Sunday school class, Elmer tried to say. You ought not just get up there and not know if what you’re singing is Scriptural or not (and by the way, it’s not too good to get up there after not having even tried to practice).

But Elmer’s suggestions got shot down, because they were against the church’s status quo. Though it’s hard to know people’s hearts, it’s also hard not to avoid discerning the reason: mature Christians who should know better are still drinking spiritual milk, or spiritual baby food, and refusing to move on not only to new songs but to deeper and meatier knowledge of, delight in, and love for the Savior.

Elmer, eh, Dr. R? Makes me laugh…never knew I had an alter-ego…though I’ve been accused plenty of times for having an altar-ego.

Thanks for the consideration of changing the story details for privacy’s sake, and I’m sorry I couldn’t get over here sooner to comment on this topic.
Allow me to clarify the story, since it is mine. I apologize in advance for its extreme length.

I took the job of music director 3 years ago. From day 1, the pastor and I were on the same page as far as what we believed to be biblical corporate worship in music and song. The church is a very traditional Southern Gospel church. Order of Service hasn’t changed in the 20 years they’ve been in existence. 3 hymns, the offering, and Special Music. Almost the first problem I ran into when I inherited the job was the Special Music. I told the pastor up front that I would not beg people to sing…if they felt led of the Lord to bring encouragement to the Body through special music, they could come and let me know--I believe Scripture backs me up on this. I would occasionally mention that there was plenty of room and time for anyone to bring Special Music, but seldom did I get takers. Which meant that me, myself, and I did a lot of the Special Music. Which led to people thinking that I thought I was some kind of special someone and too proud of myself by half.

Recently, however, a member decided that he could handle the arranging of the Special Music better than I. I believe everyone has gifts that the Lord has given them to serve, and that if he wanted to give this a shot, it was a great idea. Only problem was the pastor and I had never sat down and wrote out the biblical principles upon which we base the music ministry at our church, so we felt we needed to do that to help this member have a set of guidelines to go by in encouraging others to share. Dutifully, I sat down and created a brochure containing these principles, the pastor glanced at it and vetted it, and we published it and presented it to the congregation.

Please forgive the length of this post, but the following is the text of the brochure…

“Worship is the submission of all our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness; the nourishment of mind with His truth; the purifying of imagination by His Beauty; the opening of the heart to His love; the surrender of will to His purpose – and all of this gathered up in adoration, the most selfless emotion of which our nature is capable and therefore the chief remedy for that self-centeredness which is our original sin and the source of all actual sin”. William Temple, 1881-1944, Readings in St. John’s Gospel.

New music being presented continually—old songs are certainly permitted, but the constant repeating of songs such as “In The Garden” and “Beulah Land” should be eliminated.
Our hope is new faces and new combinations of faces will appear in the line-up, and these faces should represent the age range and musical tastes of the entire church.
Any testimony or explanation the performer gives before singing should help the congregation understand the song and point to the scripture, doctrine, or concept, which it brings out.
The performance should show that the performer(s) have practiced and are familiar with the selection.
Lyrics of the songs presented should conform to scripture, either directly or in doctrine and concept and focus on our Lord and His attributes or on human sin and His salvation from it.
Any performance will be reviewed by the Music director or Pastor and coordinated with other performances (children’s choir or Hymn of the Month or special guests). Contact Music Director to schedule any performance.

Mind you, these are only a public statement of the standards the pastor and I were maintaining in our church music for the past 3 years…

Two weeks and a lot of heart ache and ranting later, the church has lost one deacon and at least another couple (we’re a very small assembly) because they felt we were being too exclusive. Further, the pastor felt it wise to take out the “trigger words” from the brochure. “Performance” and any similar term was changed to “presentation”. “old-fashioned” was taken out even though it did not refer to any person! Since people seemed determined to read the paragraph referring to the songs “Beulah Land” and “In The Garden” as saying that those songs were completely to be eliminated, it was changed to read “New music being presented continually—old songs are certainly permitted, but the constant repeating of songs should be limited.” Any mention of talent and ability was completely eliminated from the brochure.

I was told that since we can’t judge a person’s heart when they are making an “offering” to the Lord, we should not limit what they do as a public “worship offering” by setting up a standard that says somehow that people should refrain from attempting to operate in a gift that God hasn’t given them. That is “limiting” them.

Since I wanted to make sure that that was a biblically sound view of performing before a church congregation…that is, that it is an “offering to God” and one that is really between God and that individual and not to be judged or “limited” by others, I went back to the scriptures upon which the brochure was based.
Lo, and behold, I realized that there is nothing in those scriptures about making an offering! In fact, what applies are any scriptures that exhort concerning the public teaching of the Word, because that is what is being done during congregational music…

Colossians 3:16 makes this particularly clear: “16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

Ephesians 5:19-21 says: “19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon says the following regarding the word “addressing”…
2980 ἀπολαλέω, λαλέω [laleo /lal•eh•o/] v. A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; TDNT 4:69; TDNTA 505; GK 654 and 3281; 296 occurrences; AV translates as “speak” 244 times, “say” 15 times, “tell” 12 times, “talk” 11 times, “preach” six times, “utter” four times, translated miscellaneously three times, and “vr speak” once. 1 to utter a voice or emit a sound. 2 to speak. 2A to use the tongue or the faculty of speech. 2B to utter articulate sounds. 3 to talk. 4 to utter, tell. 5 to use words in order to declare one’s mind and disclose one’s thoughts. 5A to speak.

My point is…when a person sings a hymn, song or spiritual song in the congregation, it is not considered a public “offering” to the Lord, but considered a “teaching”. If it were a public offering, that would cause us to have to apply the principles of offerings to God to them. These are very rigorous, being from the OT! Instead, they are teachings and admonishments, to inspire thankfulness to the Lord. Therefore, Scriptural principles concerning teaching of the Word apply.
I am, in fact, somewhat reluctant to refer to the music we do as a Body as “worship” at all. A study of the word in the NT never comes near mentioning music at all.

So…to bring this back to the specifics: how does “In The Garden” as public, congregational music stand up to Scriptural principles of teaching? (Note we are not talking about private music. What you sing/do there, is between you and God).

I do not see that it does. If anyone can show me differently, I'd be glad to consider their Scriptural evidence. I'd also be open to any corrections concerning the propriety of the brochure. Obviously it caused a huge controversy in my church, and I'm still somewhat baffled as to why--except that I have to conclude that these people that I really love and thought wanted to follow God as hard as they could really don't...and that's hard to swallow.

mm

MM ... I want to know how you define "worship." Because my understanding of the word [what counts is the Hebrew and Greek, though ] is that everything we do that glorifies God is worship -- whether we sing to God, teach others through the Word and song, preach, study our Bibles, tell others about Jesus, pray, obey, tithe, etc. I don't care for the latter part of this video [after ] but it demonstrates that worship is a lifestyle.

I love the first part of your church's worship bulletin! But I admit I have an aversion to both "performance" and "presentation." Because to me, neither is worship. Giving one's testimony in a sermon or song shouldn't be a performance. Praising God shouldn't be a performance. And I can usually tell the difference. Regarding music, compare Allison Durham Speer and Sandi Patti. Patti has a beautiful voice but she seems rather arrogant to me. Speer is never arrogant. She's humble. Speer's anointing and authenticity show she worships in the Spirit! Patti performs.

Speer [Please watch these videos! If this isn't worship, what is?!]
Upon this rock
I'm bound for that city
I will glory in the cross

Patti
Upon this rock
The majesty and glory of your name
More than wonderful
I've just seen Jesus
We shall behold Him