What "Pop theology" bugs you? I read posts on discussion lists sometimes that either make me grin and bear it, or shake my head incredulously.

A couple of one's that bug me; comic book theology - where the poster has gotten their information from a Chick comic book <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />; or, the economics major who wrote a book on the Bible version controversy and messes up treatment of the original languages, and yet has a big following who swear by her book <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />; then there's the good ol' prayer of Jabez <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />. So what bugs you?

SDG,
Dan

Easy-believism. Seeker-sensitive. Anything off TBN.


God bless,

william

That whole "I don't need theology, I just need Jesus Christ" mentality.

Ugh...you both listed some pretty nasty ones!

A friend at work and I were talking about how many the praise choruses today are shallow and lack true doctrine. Pair that with worship leaders who act like charismatic-wannabees and you got a real annoyance (even more annoying than charismania itself!)

Agghhhhh! All of you guys are mentioning scary ones. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />

I told my folks that our church needs to be seeker sensitive. Since the Bible says that there are none who seek after God, yet Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, then our worship should be sensitive to the desires of Jesus Christ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

SDG,
Dan

Great response, Dan. Another place you might mention in the same answer is John 4 -- God seeks men to worship him in spirit and in truth.

I think a lot of this comes from a consumer mentality that has infected us. We market our churches with "new" and "fresh" ideas and we attend churches where we "get" something out of the service.

In my own faith our worship format is virtually unchanged for centuries, and we don't feel the pressing need to update or modernized our liturgy. It is a comfort to me that at least while i'm at church I am sheltered from the madness of the marketplace.

I think our posture ought to be of our service, devotion, and worship to God and not an expectation of "getting." We then ought to trust that God will not fail to bless us and we shouldn't try to wrench that blessing from his hand.

"Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up."

catholicsoldier

Here's another one to start your morning off creepy....two words.......Left Behind.

SDG,
Dan

That may be true for some or even most of the churches within the RCC, but let me assure you that there are many churches which have adopted "modern worship styles". There are not a few who have a folk band up front playing guitars, etc. And of course, some are even charismatic, in that there are those who allegedly speak in tongues, prophesy, etc.

At St. Thomas Aquinas College, in Grand Rapids.... back in the mid '70's, Barthianism was being taught to the students and transubstantiation was questioned by many of the students.

The point is, that the Roman State Church has its own set of problems that are effecting its traditional worship, theology, practice, etc. It is not in reality what it would like people to believe, i.e., this austere body which has remained the same for centuries since its inception. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In His Grace,

OOOHHHH.....

I don't know which is more chilling...the rain this morning or those words!

Amen to that!

I dunno if this would be considered a "pop theology", and this might be off topic, but I get kinda annoyed when people preach against the guitar and other instruments. I don't wanna get into the music debate again. But I think there are a lot of instruments that we have that we could use in worship and for playing music that can add a lot to the sound (cellos, flutes, trumpets, harps, acoustic guitars, bass guitar, etc.) and because we should only have piano and organ or no music at all, these instruments, which sound beautiful when played together and alone, are ignored and people may be missing out on something.

Afterall, we are willing to listen to Handel's Messiah or Beethoven on a CD, why can't we play similar music in worship or compose our own symphonies for worship to use in church?

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Although there is MUCH that 'bugs' me, the two that qualify for top honors would be:

1) Sandemanianism, aka: 'Easy Believism', another Gospel.
2) Contemporary 'Worship', aka: Idolatry.

Of course these two things are mutally beneficial as they feed off each other. The first is most detrimental to men. The second is most injurious to the honor of God.

Pie-in-the-sky American Evangelicalism with its arminian emphasis on man and how their felt needs can be met.

Religion as a commodity that must be packaged and sold to a consumer oriented society.

Christianoid trinket stores selling "Jesus Junk"

Perhaps one should ask about the music; "is there a difference between entertainment and worship? Does it preach the word?" Is it doctrinally rich, or is it trite repetetive phrases. Does the instrument lead and accompany or overpower the message of the word in the music?" So much of today's modern worship is due to "pop' mentality and that is what is so annoying.

It is so annoying that studies are showing the only ones who really go for "contemporary" worship any more are the boomers. This generation of teenagers says, "you've got electric guitars in church- we've got better ones on MTV. You've got loud repetetive music - we've got better on VH1. We don't want what we already have, we want worship that is out of the ordinary, that connects us to the eternal rather than the temporal, we want something with history and roots."

The pendulum has swung once again.

SDG,
Dan

Well there are many things that could be mentioned here and a host of them already have. What I hate to see is the Pop Theology infiltrating the seminaries as we all know where it goes from there.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />

This may not be popular with many but what about the "anti-pop"-theology. They seem to be missing the boat as well, just as many in current trends of doing church. The ones who are smug, removed and distant that lauds on how things were done in yesterday years.

Christianity is a balancing act whereby we strive to reach the middle tension. Yet, man is sinful and will tend to go to extremes. Once we reached one extreme, we head back toward another.

I hadn't thought about that, but I agree!

Pilgrim

Thank you for the information. What is this "barthianism" heresy and what is its link to transubstantiation?

catholicsoldier

Many good examples have been given.
But something that is beginning to bug me is something that I have noticed fairly recently.
Recently I have noticed that some Christians are anti-label pop theology. (Hmmm, couldn't think of another name to give it).
What I mean by that is some object to using words like 'Trinity', not because they don't believe in the Trinity. But because the Bible doesn't use the term 'Trinity' and because of that they believe we shouldn't use it.
I used the word 'Trinity', but I could use a number of words that portray a particular meaning. All of which they would be reject out right simply because these words are not found in the Bible.
I have tried to explain why some of these words such as 'Trinity' were formed, but I might as well bang my head against a wall. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

The thing that bugs me is what I call "Jesus is my boyfriend" choruses. Not only are they devoid of doctrine, they are so familiar that I believe they trample on God's glory and holiness.

I thought you were going to say that "anti-label" pop theology denies the use of words like *Reformed* or *Evangelical*, etc. I heard that one in a minister's meeting this morning. The one minister said, "I don't like labels, just call me God's child." Ok, so from now on I won't give anybody labels that might distinguish them. I'll just call all of my 6 children, Dan's child, regardless of their unique individual characteristics. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

SDG,
Dan

"Barthianism" is from Karl Barth, a German theologian (1886-1968) who popularized "neo-Orthodoxy"; an attempt to hold a position which was between Liberalism, which denied the supernatural, and Protestant orthodoxy; therefore "neo-Orthodoxy". He is probably most well known for his use of the "dialectic" Theological Method, which for most of us results in our heads spinning. Barth held to such things as the Bible is not THE Word of God, but rather it BECOMES the Word of God (aka: Crisis Theology). He believed in election, but totally redefined it, as he did nearly every other doctrine, so that he could say that there are the "elect-elect" and the "elect-reject". All men were elected to salvation; some simply don't realize it or acknowledge it. Yet he would also speak of punishment, etc.... ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

You might benefit from visiting some of the following links:

The Bible alone is the Word of God
Center For Barth Studies
mwt_themes_750_barth
Hans Kung on Karl Barth by Robert Curtis

Barth had nothing to do with transubstantiation. I simply picked a couple of items which the College was teaching which were diametrically opposed to the "traditional" teachings of the RCC and from which went many men who became priests, etc. Hans Kung would be another good example of a Roman Catholic theologian who has departed from the "traditions" and who holds to neo-Orthodoxy (aka: Existentialism).

In His Grace,

Hey Dan,


Wouldn't "God's child" be a label?

Thid deffinitely bugs me as well. I went through it for a while. I would try to find "better" ways of saying things so as to appeal more widely to people. It didn't work and so I went back to the way it should be.

Dan

Words like "Reformed" or "evangelical" can be added to that list as well.

Tom

I am not Dan, but you are correct about that.
The people that I am talking about wouldn't be opposed to a label that is found in the Bible.
Is "God's child" a label that is used in the Bible?

Anyway, I think the whole matter is rather silly.

Tom

Ecumenical non-denominationalism, i.e., "we're all children of God, and that's the only thing that matters."

Sectarian non-denominationalism, i.e., "unless you are a member of an independent local Bible church (preferably mine), you worship in the synagogue of Satan."

Jesus was a radical progressive, i.e., He would be a liberal Democrat were He a U.S. citizen.

God is with America, i.e., He approves of everything the Republican party does.

Pilgrim Sounds like some unsound doctrine to me. (being a little more forward, sounds like a pack of lies from the pit of hell) That is why I am thankful for the many denominations that comprise the Church, (I'm at odds with RCC in this) :argue: I often hear it said that denominations aren't necessary, that we're all brothers and sisters in Christ, but I offer this defense: Denominations are formed because a consortium of believers formed a consensus on correct doctrine and had it officialized by a confession, or a statement of faith. The board can then insist that all pastors and teachers falling under their authority teach only the agreed upon confession and nothing to the contrary. This is an effective tool used to keep the Church safe from cults and heresies such as the one you mentioned that was taught to Catholic, I hope only briefly. No one can control what everyone believes, but we have an element of control over what is taught. You are no doubt aware that we don't see ourselves as a denomination, I use the term just to humor you :hugs: but, by golly, we're all on the same page, (or try to be, lol) Perhaps some of these examples of "pop theology" are Satan's more subtle attempts to lead us astray, having failed at more overt strategies. Just means that we must remain vigilant. catholicsoldier

Catholicsoldier,

Have you read any articles on that page I sent you about Catholicism?

SemperReformanda

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!"

Yes, I have, and I have taken a personal interest in the vast amounts of materials written on the RCC. But I am still Catholic and will remain so. I reguard my Catholic Faith as the forum of choice for how I worship God. I also agree with the major tenants of the Catholic Faith, but I am not in agreement with everything. I signed on as a member here because I am Calvinist in my theology, not because I am of the Reformed Faith.

As I stated before, I don't come in a spirit of contention, and will do nothing to undermine the mission of this fellowship. I am glad to discuss my Catholic Faith only as long as such discussion is welcome and only with those who welcome it.

I never got word back from you. I answered one of the points you brought to my attention about RCC, but I refrained from further comment until I could be sure that you are amenable to such discussion. I will always stress our common bond in Christ, for I am a regenerated and reborn soul just as surely as (I assume that) you are, and what we have in common far outweighs our differences.

catholicsoldier

Catholicsoldier,

I'm curious whether you're familiar with Blaise Pascal and the Jansenists? This is probably going a bit off-topic, though . . .

I almost cried reading this thread, because many of the "pop" stuff here you are talking about is right in my very church that I am currently "stuck" in. From experiencing it every Sunday, I can tell you the thing that bothers me the most is that it leaves one EMPTY. And that is one of the reasons I think I am drawn to your site. Because for about 5 years now (since we've had a new pastor) and especially in the last 18 months I have just felt more empty. The deceptive things about all of this "Pop" stuff is that it either sounds good or looks good, like the frosting on a cake; but there's no cake underneath. And that pretty much describes my church right now. No real foundation that's very important.

Dear sister, those of us, and I would dare say that there are many here, who have experienced these things ourselves, know exactly the sadness and emptiness you mention.

The "appeal" to the senses is nothing new. In fact, it was the beginning of the end at the first:

Genesis 3:6 (ASV) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; . . ."

Submitting ourselves to the OBJECTIVE truths of God's Word evokes the affections which flow God-ward. Submitting ourselves to the SUBJECTIVE innovations of man which stimulate the affections results in that we are drawn to them within ourselves. Yes, there are many who would object and say such things increase their worship. But what is it they worship? The Lord Christ said that God desires to be worshipped in "spirit and TRUTH". Anything less than the truth is falsehood and thus not true worship.


In His Grace,

Dear Janean it was with much sadness I read your post.I can equate with your experience,please forgive my directness but in my own case in the end I had to leave my church of many years.I now am greatly blessed and am no longer empty attending a church that some would consider rather extreme.Thankfully not so much by those on here,where we practice exclusive psalmody.I believe much of what passes for worship in many of todays churches is nothing short of entertainment."Pop" Theology whereas in catholic circles many look to rome sadly in baptist circles many look to America if it works (sic) there then must be okay.I shall pray my dear sister that the Lord will guide and strengthen you.

Here's another one I was talking about at lunch yesterday with some theologians; those who are enamoured with The Davinci Code.

Folks, we have our work cut out for us....

SDG,
Dan

Hi Janean:

I have noticed a number of insightful things in your posts, which is an encouragement to me.

It is always good to see the Spirit of God at work in one of His children, even when it means that the holy desires He is stirring up cause discomfort and unease with the "status quo". I don't at all mean that it is the pain or discomfort that is encouraging, quite the opposite, this is a source of grief and pain and sadness, and yet beyond that, when He is at work "all things work together for good".

For example, you said:


As I read that I thought about the word deceptive. All deception is ultimately the tool of the Adversary, and I believe you have put your finger on the heart of the problem. This foul creature rejoices (to be oxymoronic, for he knows no such thing as rejoicing) in the pain and confusion of the saints and the downfall and distruction of the unsaved. Deception in it's myriad forms, it seems to me is, so characteristic of him.

I also appreciated your use of the word, "EMPTY". As I read it I thought of all those verses that speak of the exact opposite in regard to communion with God, "FULLNESS". One of my favorite is Pauls prayer for the Ephesians in the 3rd chapter of that epistle:


It seems to me that since Paul prayed this prayer for all the Ephsian church, it is meant to be prayed for (and by) all believers for all time. What an encouragement. There are so many wonderful thoughts in this prayer that it is impossible to cover them all, but I think a bit of meditation on the words of this prayer and it's purpose, in conjuction with how it intersects with other verses that deal with the FULLNESS of God, will reap rich rewards, as in:


Aren't those beautiful promises?

I would say, Janean, that if you keep on listening to the Spirit's voice about the emptiness of the church you are in, and contrast it to the fullness that He promises those that seek Him with their whole their heart, and do so seek Him, you will find that fullness. In other words, I believe that if we ask Him for that fullness, and keep on asking, and really want it, such that we remove those things that impede it, just as Paul asked Him for it for the Ephesians, and taught them to lead holy lives, He will lead you to it, and fulfill what He has led you to seek.

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry,

As you would imagine, I am in full agreement with your words. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> But I would like to append them in regard to this statement:

The Adversary also often uses deception here as well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Why is it that the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, along with the incredible rush to institute the corruption of biblical worship for this enticing "seeker-friendly/contemporary" model? What I can tell you is that in nearly every single case where I have talked to people who are involved in these things, the overwhelming answer has been, "I wasn't being filled, satisfied, etc., in the church I was formerly attending." In some instances, those former churches were faithfully preaching the Word and seeking to glorify God according to His infallible Word. Yes, in some cases, the churches were failing to do this to one degree or another. But, IMHO, what was lacking was a "new heart" in the individual. The love of Christ which only the Spirit of God can give was not present. Thus there was a "hollowness", "emptiness" within these people, which things are by nature, in opposition to the things of God and thus they found no fullness in the worship which is according to "spirit and truth". So, to satisfy this emptiness, they sought out the things of this world which so many churches have adopted to attract people; with great success. People are running wildly to these churches like lemmings. May the Lord turn them back before they through themselves off the precipice and to their deaths.

All this is simply to say that one must be very careful to discern the cause of an emptiness within. It could very well be that the fault lies within and not without. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Are we the only people around who realize that this book is a work of fiction? I will admit. It bugs [edited] me how stuck on that book Christians are and how seriously they take much of it as fact. But at the same time, it's a work of fiction. I wish the "Christian" community would learn the difference between truth and non-truth...

I guess you could say that's another one. Stupid people...lol

Janean,
My heart goes out to you. I have been in your situation before and even though there were increasing numbers in the church and great plans for a new building, and everyone seemed so excited about "what the Lord was doing" I knew that something was very wrong and that what was going on was empty and was only bringing man the glory, not God. You are right to want to be in a church with sound teaching. Has your husband begun to see those things you have noticed that are wrong in your church? Do you think he is a Christian? Your situation is harder because your husband is one of the leaders in your church. May God give him understanding. I am still praying for you and your situation. It sounds very trying. May God give you His wisdom and guidance and encourage your heart.

Pilgrim:

You said:


I couldn't agree more. Thus the need to teach how to discern the difference between the true the the false, between what the adversary brings and what the Spirit of Truth provides. The Puritans spent a great deal of time doing just that, rather than ignoring or minimizing the issue because they realized, I believe, the dangerous and deadening consequences of the former approach.

Perhaps if we spent less time (not no time, less time) in endless, deadening debates on paedo vs credo baptism, the nature of outward covental signs such as circumcision on the OT and baptism in the NT, we would find that there would be more love in our hearts and true power for service.

In my post to Janean I was emphasizing that Paul taught in Eph 3 that this fullness is for the real and true believer who seeks it. I believe that this truth is ignored, minimized set aside, etc. by the modern church, including the true Reformed church, in part precisely because of a fear of confusion with Charismatic teaching. With Joel Beeke, and the Reformation Divines, I find myself concerned that the doctrine of assurance of faith is so little discussed in the current church; from Beeke:

From the Conclusion of Joel Beeke's "The Quest for full Assurance, the Legacy of Calvin and His Successors", page 275.

You further stated:


It seems to me that you are in full agreement with what I am saying, judging by your last statement at least. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> "The love of Christ which only the Spirit of God can give" was, indeed, not present. Or as Paul put it in Romans, "the love of God shed abroad in the heart" had not been shed abroad, or, if it had, in some measure, because of either a lack of teaching on the wonderful gift this is, or an out and out denial of it as a genuine manifestion of Christ's Spirit, it is ignored or minimized and, as Paul said again, "you have forgotten your first love".

I believe that in some measure this love is a real, felt, experienced, divine love, accompanied by a peace that passeth understanding, that, as Edwards clearly taught, cannot be provided by a false spirit, for they do not have or know it. A cheap imitation can be counterfited by the adversary, but it will be seen as such if proper teaching to discern the difference is provided.


Again, from Beeke on assurance:


Beeke, "Quest for Full Assurance" pg 279

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry,

Yes I am in full agreement with what you wrote before and thereafter! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In regard to the quote from Joel Beeke, where he wrote:

I would say that the churches today are full of people with assurance. However, once again, this assurance is not that which flows from a regenerate heart by from a fatal deception of the Evil One. The assurance that has permeated so many churches today is one which comes from without; i.e., because some pastor, evangelist, some so-called "soul-winner" has said so, or from what some tract. The biblical teaching on assurance, as you well know, flows from BOTH the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, Who first brings a conviction of sin and a desire to flee to Christ for the remission of that sin. Thereafter, the Spirit's working also brings forth the "fruit of the Spirit", which can be seen with the eyes and testified to by the individual and others. Assurance does not result simply from a minimalist "confession of faith", e.g., "I asked Jesus into my heart and therefore I am saved." But now, I'm preaching to the choir! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim

As a former Pentecostal, I would like to say I couldn't agree with you more.
When I think back, I can not help but think just how subjective the Charismatic movement is. Although for the most part they believed in checking everything out with Scripture. Sometimes subjective emotionalism unintentionally takes precedence over objective Scripture. So much so in fact that experience interprets the Scripture, rather than the other way around.
Funny thing though, when you are caught up in it, the truth of the matter is hard to see.

Tom

Dear Pilgrim:

And I am in full agreement with what you wrote also <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />. Part of which was:


Amen to that brother. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> The phenomena you describe is, I believe, what is called false assurance, the only true antidote to which is true assurance. May we be blessed to know it and to proclaim it, to His Glory, both now and forever.

In Him,

Gerry

I can only assume that this is a referrence critical to the Catholic Church, but please forgive and correct me if I'm wrong. Although I welcome anyone who wishes to discuss the tenants of my faith, I'm sure you can understand I can't possibly keep track of every dissident to the RCC. Life is too short and the list too long <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />

Let me know if you have any specific question, I'd be happy to answer, always stressing our common bond in Christ.

"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen."

catholicsoldier

While we're discussing "pop theology" I want to bring up a topic that I haven't seen addressed in articles on the Charasmatic Movement. The phenomena of "being slain in the Spirit" is a fallacy that seems to be the crowning disachievement of the CM.

My own father is a pastor of a Protestant Church (imagine his dismay when his son went Catholic) and he believes in this kind of ministry. I said that nowhere in scripture can this be found as a tradition of the early church, and he gave referrence to the guards of Jesus Tomb that were rendered unconscious, and to the posse that fell prostrate when Jesus said, "I am."

God bless him, and I love my dad so much! But when I mentioned that these were all the enemies of Christ and that there is no account of believers being so affected by the Spirit, he could offer no further defense of the practice, but held that it was not harmful and in fact very beneficial to receive a touch by the Holy Spirit.

It is my experience that when the Spirit of God touches me I am more aware than ever before, not less, and that this touch happens when I draw near to God in worship, not seeking an undue spiritual experience. And it happens at God's own discretion and pleasure, not at my expectation.

"That the Church of Christ may be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth as promised by our Savior, Jesus Christ, we pray to the Lord."

"Lord hear our prayer."

catholicsoldier

I ask because Pascal and the Jansenists had an Augustinian theology similar in many ways to Calvinism, but they remained within the RCC. It is only negative for the RCC for the fact that the Jesuits basically wiped the Jansenists out. I was not specifically intending to offer criticism of the RCC.

Catholic Soldier,
I once met a lady while visiting a friend and she said something interesting about this. She attended a charismatic church and talked about how so many would be "slain in the Spirit" during their services, but oddly when these same people were visiting another church with a hard concrete floor and not the plushy floor they had at their church, no one fell down at all! Hmmm, it makes me a little bit suspicious! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Universal Salvation
Hyper-Arminianism (you can't be saved unless you pray this prayer in your own words)
Whatever it's called where people say to attract more people to Jesus, we should shape ourselves like the world. Whatever that's called.
Gay "Christianity"
"I can do whatever I want, God will forgive me if I confess my sin"


Oh yeah. Those are annoying. I hate those with a passion.

The pragmatic gospel?

Sin?

Oh really? That would never have crossed my mind. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />