Posting At Winging It

I occasionally post at Winging It.  Today is one of those occasions.  You can find it linked below if you like.

Which Judge To Choose?

This video is worth watching.  That there are no Muslim songs that sing of being put to death by Christians for preaching the name of Muhammad speaks volumes... I think.

God...? Or Science Of The Gaps?

The phrase “God of the gaps” is based on the premise that scientific discovery is slowly eroding away any basis by which our lives and existence can be explained through an intelligent designer. These gaps in scientific understanding, so it is implied, are the only remaining vestiges of man’s ignorance in which notions like superstition and supernatural beliefs can find refuge, and from that refuge exert influences on culture. Noteworthy however is the confidence found in the perspective that sees the idea of god and gods as simply “gaps” in real knowledge. The confidence is placed in the belief that science can and will eventually leave no refuge for religion and man can finally rest, assured that the days of interpreting life’s meaning and events according to a subjective template of make believe gods and goblins is fading into man’s collective memory. This, of course, is short sighted of the modern day scientist turned pontificator for such a mindset is oblivious of the inability of the scientist to remain objective in his own pursuits of knowledge.

The reality will ever be that it will be impossible to explain away religion. Science has answered difficult questions and in so doing has afforded man a more comfortable life as well as the ability to control certain aspects of his existence. While such advancements do create an allure to those who dream of science’s eventual ability to dispel notions of a “higher power”, these leaps have in reality only succeeded in misleading those who have placed their hopes in science for such ends.

One way of explaining this is by perspective. While it’s true that the number 10 is ten times the number 1, this is not the only truth about ten that should be considered. There are other perspectives. If these numbers represent knowledge and scientific advancement, then given the amount of ignorance that a tenfold increase in knowledge would have displaced, some may be apt to become haughty. But others with not so narrow a gaze will still see 10 as a hundred times smaller than a thousand, which is also true. Moreover, this will always be the case because each advancement in knowledge still succeeds also in creating an exponential increase in questions. Conclusions drawn from these advancements, whether they be, “look at what we now know”, or “look at how much we now realize we don’t know”, will depend largely on a naturalistic verses theistic perspective. One begets confidence in Man, the other an awe of the Creator.

The naturalistic viewpoint that sees only a material world is really narrow and small, no matter how large the naturalists interprets his little cocoon to be. This leads to an unfounded confidence by man in man’s ability to answer all questions, even questions that science will never be able to answer. In the end his discoveries becomes a runway of sorts for an ill-fated flight into a different realm. Science simply cannot slip the surly bonds of materialism. Once the science that gave us electricity, the automobile and cell phones begins to venture into the realm of morality it immediately runs out of runway and crashes into the chasm of subjective preference. It does not fly, indeed it cannot, for if we are constructed of something so amoral as “chance and molecules” we are by nature only machines made of material; and material is amoral. The reality of this reality, of course, is nothing new. It was pointed out quite well millions of scientific discoveries ago. It goes like this:

“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

Simply put, the person who sees the world solely through a materialistic lens is half blind. He can see gods as gap fillers, but he can’t see science as a gap maker. He can chide those with much wider horizons as narrow minded, but he can’t see the constrictions naturalism has put on his own views. Because of his unsubstantiated conclusions based on theories that morphed, more religiously than scientifically, into fact, his own gaps are not only larger than he realizes, he doesn’t seem capable of noticing them gaping before him. Like his “religious” counterpart, his view, though he vehemently denies it, is based more on hopes than science; the chief of these being that there is no eternal being to which he is accountable, and if there is, it is silent… and benevolent.

To peek past the thin veil of so called “science” is to apprehend the root issues that bellies the religious like credulity prevalent in this age. That root issue is good old-fashioned political power. The truth is that ultimate liberty is at stake when it comes to determining what is right and wrong, what is and is not acceptable behavior and what will and won’t be the ultimate reference point from which morality is measured. An open minded perspective therefore will reveal that the existence of a creator, to which all men are ultimately accountable, is simply unacceptable on a personal self-centered level; and there’s simply nothing scientific about that. Such an entity simply puts too much of a damper on chasing after the lusts of the flesh and so it therefore must be rejected on the best grounds available. It just so happens that right now, in this technologically advanced era, those grounds are in the realm of science; even if it has to be make-it-up-and-change-it-as-necessary-to-accommodate-real-discoveries-and-the-policial-template science.

With this in mind it might surprise many that some of the political shenanigans, like those taking place right now in response to an academic freedom law recently passed in Tennessee, that pass as science actually find more in common with the religions they malign and reject than they do science. Worse, like some of the beliefs held in some religions, many scientific theories believed to be true based on political necessity, have grown hard over time themselves. They, in a politically charged and institutionalized environment like the current American education system, become therefore unassailable in the minds of those who have put their faith in them. Their faith has then blinded them to the fact that their theories draw nourishment, not as much from empirical science as plain old political bullying.

It cannot be overcome that answers based on anything that cannot be proven or disproven by science is not science. It is religion. Such a religion, under the guise of science, begins its argument based on assumptions, one of which is that its belief in the nonexistence of a creator is rock solid. Or, on the flip side, it believes that the world as we interpret it with our five senses is all that is and so is all that can be known. Since there is no way of knowing ultimate truths in ways that satisfy both empirical science and the atheistic scientists, it therefore stands to reason that when these scientist accuse religions of filling gaps with the very thing they themselves are filling them, these scientist are simply projecting onto others their own methods and beliefs: the belief that others are filling gaps with nonsense. The accusation can just as easily be made that some of what passes for science today is nothing more than “science of the gaps”. A more opened minded approach might foster a more humble assessment of the limits of man’s knowledge by concluding that man can never know if he can know all that can be known. Perhaps then he can then realize that not only at some point, like it or not, he is operating on faith, but also that the transition has occured.

One of the more blatant examples of “science of the gaps” can be seen in the so called multiverse theory. This is a theory that basically suggests that the exquisite design of our universe… exists merely because there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that appears to be designed. (1) Another theory along these lines is called “Punctuated equilibrium”. This is an evolutionary theory that exists, not as much as a result of research but rather because of the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. As one person aptly put it, “it is like saying that elephants must run through our living room very fast because we never see them”.

These are but two theories that qualify as science, not on any scientific bases but because they reject a designer to whom the theorist might owe a reckoning. The case could be made that its only purpose is to bolster other theories that new discoveries are having the effect of weakening. The fact is that there is just too many ingredients in some “theories” that simply cannot withstand the rigors of real science but are nevertheless needed for political purposes and so remain.

Some of these theories morph into accepted fact over time by undergoing their own process of evolution and so develop more of a religious air about them because of their bases in faith. Political, as opposed to scientific, terms like “consensus” are then adopted in this evolutionary process to prop up theories since there is disagreement within the scientific community on the trustworthiness of the theories. When has anyone seen the word “consensus” used to support the idea of gravity, or the periodic table? The very word “consensus” comes through the door hauling baggage stuffed with politics. The fact is, if questions remain among those within the discipline, ignorance remains; and so should open minds. It should be remembered that ignorance in its own right is not a bad thing but a thing to be conquered; that is unless one has ordered his life around ignorance posing as fact. In that case it is the questions that must be defeated, and ignorance defended by all means.

So it comes about that antitheses to politically accepted scientific theories are rejected, not because of the scientific method, but rather according to a system of beliefs. Gone is the typical open minded curiosity that should be resident in the scientist. Belief, now posing as science, has morphed into religious fervor that has solidified theory into fact. This belief turns with its politically motivated self-righteous wrath against all who imply that the theory may not, after all, be true. Dr. Dave Pilbeam, speaking along these lines, lends some insight to this as he aptly wrote considering such mindsets:

“...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.” (2)

So how do humans view themselves? I would say, in a word: “Autonomous”. Yes, that is our ever and always goal by any means necessary, even if it means becoming slaves; a thing at which man has proven himself especially adept.

To be sure, and let me state, we are today the benefactors of scientific theory. But it is not anti-science to assert that there remains the necessity that science keeps itself corralled in the arena of science. If it is possible to test theories to render them true or false then all must be willing to accept that which is true, even the scientist. But when the ramifications of a theory are as profound as those that are based on theories that clearly exist for the purpose of dispensing with objective truth and an ultimate law-giver, let us not close our minds. Let us not muffle and oppress by outlawing opposing views without basis. In conclusion, while it is reasonable and logical that no humble person should deny that gaps exist in man’s knowledge concerning both our material and spiritual world; it is neither reasonable nor logical to throw stones at another man’s “gaps” when one’s own are made of glass.

1. From Eternity Matters

2. Conservapedia

On Karma

A friend of mine posted this on his blog "A Tiger's Got My Back" a few years ago. I've found myself thinking about it many times since so I thought I'd just post it on my blog for easy access.

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

The Unseen Holocaust

One sure-fire way of cutting taxes would be to do away with payroll deductions. There's something about writing out a check that makes paying taxes a little more painful, a little more real. Why is that?

In the same way, does anyone really believe that if we daily lined up thousands of infants and then crushed and dismembered them that abortion would be considered a right? If a small country was guilty of this, on a smaller scale of course, what would the response of the world be? If there was a church in that country, and there was a political party that wanted it to continue, and a political party that, for the most part anyway, wanted it to end, would the church in that country have an obligation to point this out by naming names?

OK, like the payroll tax deductions that move taxes from the seen to the unseen, does it make any difference that these babies being crushed and dismembered are out of sight? Does it matter that their cries are not heard?

Apparently so.

Jumping Out Of A Perfectly Good Airplane?

In my previous post I discussed an analogy of faith using a skydiving experience once upon a time. I pointed out that anytime I wanted to reflect on what it is to experience faith I simply recalled the thoughts and feelings I had had as I readied myself to jump. But as I considered these things in more depth as of late, I realized that there was more to the analogy than simply having faith that my parachute would open and thus save my body from death. The airplane began to represent this world and it’s thinking, and my life.

Paul spoke of a dividing point, or a separation that occurs in our minds. In Romans 8 he said that those who ARE according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh and those who ARE according to the spirit, the things of the spirit. In thinking back, the assurances offered by the airplane verses the lack of assurance in my parachute seemed to represent that division.

Staying with the airplane seems to be the obvious choice. The constant drone of the engine affirms my faith in the airplane. The controls affirm my faith in my will. The pilot affirms my faith in man’s ability. The airplane is safe.

When I was going through the little training course the morning of my jump the instructor anticipated the question: “What kind of fool would jump out of a perfectly good airplane”? He told us to answer the question when asked: “There’s no such thing as a perfectly good airplane”. This was, of course, in jest, but it fits well into the symbolism of this analogy. According to God, our lives are broken.

But faith is practiced. It is a life lived rather than a one-time decision to have faith. Faith is required at every turn, or, as James puts it, Faith without works is dead. It is as if we are, on a regular basis, required to make decisions in which the obvious choice, the one that feels right, the one that seems safest, the one that appears to promise us the highest level of peace and comfort is not the right choice. We generally know that it isn't the right choice, yet we experience these crises, both large and small, as we learn to trust in God instead of our own understanding.

Such crises can range from whether or not to go out on a date with someone attractive yet ungodly, to spanking one’s children, to breaking off a dating relationship, to telling the truth about something, to asking for help in an addiction, to homeschool, to not having an abortion, to trusting God to provide instead of the government with all its Satanic entangling strings attached, and on and on. In all of these, the point of decision is not the time to make up one’s mind. We must be ready ahead of time, before we are face to face with the decision, just as Joshua told the Israelites to “choose this day whom you will serve”.

I am afraid we live in a time in which many people preachers and theologians believe that we are saved by the one-time act of faith exercised when we “accept” Jesus. I am of the belief that this is a deception, and a horrible one at that, for it convinces people that faith is exercised by putting on the parachute, so to speak, then going on in life with the vain assurance that if their life falls apart or they die they have this sort-of ace in the hole. Meanwhile they never understand the One in whom they have placed their faith. Terms like joy and abundant life are interpreted as happiness because they are wholly foreign terms to the one who does not know his savior.

This is the airplane, a life that is according to the flesh. As for me, I have now begun to attempt to think and pray in terms of being both ready and able to face decisions based on a mind that is set on the things of the Spirit which is life and peace. I know I will have times of failure, but I also look forward to the times I jump, and in so doing, will KNOW my savior, and the wonderful joy that accompanies this intimacy, in new ways.

Knowing Jesus + Suffering = Joy

Years ago I got it into my head that I wanted to jump out of an airplane with a parachute. I managed to do a few static line jumps, which is a fancy way of saying that your rip cord is tied to the airplane, before hanging the hobby up due to funds. It hardly qualified as skydiving I would say, but it was quite a thrill all the same.

I've recalled that experience many times since as I've attempted to grasp the word faith. I can still remember what it felt like, climbing out of the airplane at 3000 feet and standing on the landing gear of that little Cessna; the wind, the noise, the adrenalin rush. I'ts actually a fairly well fleshed out understanding of faith I think. The truth is that I trusted the rig on my back with my life and was willing to act on that trust while the danger with which I was confronted was very real and present.

As of late I've been considering this analogy of "faith" in a deeper sense. I realized that it didn't really serve to clarify the understanding of faith in a way that I needed because the purpose of my parachute, and by extension my faith, in the analogy was to save my life. That is to say that my faith was wrongly centered on me and this body of flesh in which I live. I have become convinced, you see, that if this is the reason that I have faith in Christ, I am missing the mark. If I am to understand faith in a way that will ultimately bring the joy that I need to my heart, I need more... much more actually.

You see, while faith in a parachute to save this flesh is a great thing in the natural, in the end its purpose is not much more than a seat belt. Such a thing's purpose has only to do with keeping my flesh in tact. But I am much more than flesh. I am spirit also. And my spiritual being is the being that should be the most interested in faith, for it is by faith that my spiritual being is saved from, not death, but an eternal death of torment. Why would I worry about something that will kill this body, when I should be worrying about what can kill both soul and body? (Luke 12:4-5)

So I changed the analogy. Now, when I recall those jumps, in order to better understand faith I rename the purpose of the symbols. Before, the purpose of the parachute was to save my body. In my new understanding the parachute exists to be known. This is key... and I think somewhat difficult to grasp.

In both ways of understanding this the parachute represents Jesus. But in the true understanding "I" cease to be the reason and the center for the parachute's existence. Instead, the parachute exists to be known. Please try to grasp this. In this way everything shifts to make much more sense of the life I experience. In this new way, you see, the analogy puts me in a position where I cannot reach my new goal of knowing "my parachute" unless I jump out of the airplane. And I reiterate that knowing the parachute is EVERYTHING. In this way I hope that it can clearly be seen that I cannot KNOW Jesus properly until I obey Him in a way that does not necessarily make sense in the natural, but trust him to come through in a way that glorifies Himself. It is key to understand in this that when I say "Him coming through", I mean Him revealing Himself to me in a way that I KNOW Him all the more, and so therefore, am better able to serve and worship Him, all the more, and to allow this flesh to die to all these things, all the more.

I began right away, with this new insight, to realize that this was a recurring theme in scripture. It was after Noah built the ark, you see, that God's salvation, and thus glory, came. Abraham was not able to see God's glory until after he left his father's land. It was after Joshua marched around Jericho that God's glory was displayed. It was after Daniel went up into his room and prayed that he witnessed first hand the glory of God. It was after Jesus was raised up that he was glorified. On the contrary, the Israelite's unwillingness to take the land the first time cost them forty years in the desert. Key to all of this is God's glory; his exaltation, his majesty. Perhaps when we approach these scriptures from this perspective we can begin to see why faith plays such a major role in God's redemptive plan. We believe, then God's glory is revealed, then we get credit for righteousness that we don't possess. No belief, no God's glory, no redemption.

So, the only way I can know my parachute is to jump out of the airplane. Sure, I can put it on my back in case the airplane begins to go down and experience the parachute as a back up plan. I have known Christians who wear Jesus in this way. They all seem to have one thing in common, a joyless existence because their flesh is their end goal.

I can also take it out of its pouch within the safety and security of the airplane. I can study it, a tangled mess of thin fabric and strings. I can talk about it, argue about it, hold positions about its construction; but I can't know it as an inflated canopy until I take that step of faith. Knowing the parachute in this way misses the parachute's and my reason for existence, at least as it pertains to faith: its reason being to be known... my reason: to know.

With this in mind I read Paul's words and his passion in "knowing Christ, and him crucified", or "I want to know Christ-yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings," or "I count it all loss compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ" with new understanding. He is glorified in our hearts when we are knowing Him with increasing intimacy, and as we experience his glory on display we experience joy, which glorifies Him all the more. This is our taste of heaven on earth: knowing Him. This is the source of our power over sin, knowing Him. This is our power to consider it all joy when we face trials of many kinds: knowing Him. This is our ability to count all the fruits of our efforts to satisfy the flesh as dung: knowing Him. We look up, as a parachutist looks to his canopy, to worship the thing that has happened in response to our step of faith, the revelation of our savior that we may know, glorify and worship Him in ever more ways.

We miss it when we see Jesus as existing to make this life better. Such thinking puts us at the center, and we are not at the center. That's why the analogy of the parachute breaks down when we see its purpose as saving our bodies. To reflect the spiritual reality of faith it would have to exist solely to be known in its true inflated form, and then worshiped. Actually, for anyone who has jumped out of an airplane, worship is actually not all that far fetched. There is a special feeling one gets, at least the novice, after the transition from hurling toward certain death to gazing up at the wonderful and beautiful canopy quietly gliding oneself safely to the ground, takes place. There is a realization that the parachute was in fact trustworthy. In a spiritual sense what could be better than knowing our savior better as we trust in him to reveal himself to us?

I have made thousands of decisions in my life based, not on my espoused faith, but rather on ensuring minimum suffering and increased comfort. More of those decisions than I'd like to admit have been based on not trusting God to take care of me, or avoiding the feeling of discomfort about my "faith" before others. As a result my life more closely resembles a life in which my lips honor God when it is safe, but my heart is far from him. (Mt 15:8) But therein is the problem. I am wanting to trust God to take care of me when what I really need from God is that I can know Him in a way that causes all the things of this world that would hinder me to fade away. What I will eat, and what I will wear, and where I will lay my head are all necessarily secondary to that one all encompassing hope: to know Him!

In thinking this through, I discovered that my developing little "parable" could actually be mined for more. In the next post I will discuss how the airplane represents my flesh.

Another Name For Guilt: "A Good Start"

We live in a culture obsessed with the exaltation of self. Of course there are many obstacles to this feat, one of which is "guilt". How can we exalt self when we know in our inner being that we are guilty? The realization of this fact is evidenced in our answer to the question: "Would I feel comfortable asking God to give me everything I deserve?". We all inherently know this would be a bad idea.

The fact is, guilt, just as physical pain, is a good thing. They both keep us from harming ourselves; pain-our flesh and guilt-our spirit. But guilt goes much further than protecting our conscious, it takes us much further by taking us to the cross. And it is there, at the cross that we are able to find the most precious gift of all, redemption.

But the cross stands against the exaltation of self. To reconcile this, the self-exalting individual will seek comfort elsewhere. One of the common places of finding vain spiritual comfort is the words in the Bible: "God is love". Assuming our self is the center it is easy to think that God is love because he loves US. But it should also be considered that God would still be love even if he didn't love US. These comforting words can also be deadly without the full counsel of scripture. There is a down-side of "God is love". That down-side, as well as the glorious side, was put on display at the cross. It is here, at this horrible, bloody and cruel display that we can see the reasons that we know in our inner being not to demand of God: "give me all that I deserve", for we are actually looking at what we deserve.

Our guilt reminds us of our wrong actions to others, which according to scripture, are wrong actions against God. While the self-exalting person is willing to pacify his anger at someone else with the assumption that justice will somehow be exacted by God, or some other cosmic force, he seldom brings to the forefront of his thinking the wrong he has done to others deserving of that same justice. But when he does, it is a good starting point, for it might well be that he has stumbled onto the "narrow path", a path that leads to a place where something this world sees as foolishness and ugly, the cross, is seen as liberating, wonderful and glorious by those who understand what it reveals.

A Horrible God?

Why does watching this NOT challenge my beliefs? Also, to read the comments that follow I'm a non-thinker. Of course I level the same charge at the video's makers as well as it's commenters.

One of the reasons it's easy to sluff this off is that it ignores the basis for evil. Suppose that the Video's maker is correct. Suppose that there really is no God. Does evil suddenly vanish? Does the corporate raider who steals the company's wealth then lays off the employees suddenly stop? Do murders, homelessness or child abuse suddenly just go away? The fact is, if there is no God, not only do these things continue, but any reason that they should end disappear also for if there is no God, there is no basis for morality. But the video not only ignores this but also then judges God as evil. This is odd when you think about it. It destroys any basis upon which to judge anything, then judges God. The video seeks to destroy one standard without providing another standard by which it can base its own conclusions?

How easy it is to reach out from nothingness and smack things that are. It's like the violent invisible man. Really, how difficult is it to pick a part one thing while at the same time presenting nothing worth defending to take its place? This video has the feel of a hand reaching out of the fog of nothingness to slap us in the face after which it disappears again into nothingness.

Though I think it is sad that such attacks are effective on those who don't think these things through, they don't bother me personally. Besides, we were warned in scripture that these sorts of things would happen. Therefore I would rightly have more reason for concern if the makers of this video had simply ignored my "silly" Christian beliefs altogether. By paying no attention to my "folly", they would have proven Jesus a liar. But instead they have showed him to be the light of the world, a light in fact that man hates because of His illumination of sin.

confusion, part four

To recap, in part one I started the post with this:

“'For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.'

Working from the premise that deception is a product of confusion about truth, this passage foretells of a great confusion in the world; a confusion that not even the elect would escape save for the supernatural hand of God"

The forth "confusion" I would like to profile comes from more clandestine measures. Such measures make them more dangerous because of the difficulty in detecting the poison that they spread. This confusion comes from assemblies that are on the surface, and in statement, doctrinally sound. On the inside however they have become increasingly ashamed or afraid of doctrine in practice. They have succumbed to the fear of man, and the fear of division, and though they have not perpetrated the lie that truth is unknowable, they have placated the lie by simply avoiding the discussion altogether. These assemblies have chosen instead to focus on man or US, how God is interested in US, how God wants to know US, and bless US, and how WE are important to God. Now while this is true, and it isn't entirely doctrinally unsound, it misses the more important point that these things are not true because of anything we bring to the table. Rather, they are true because of the glory it brings to God. And there is a huge difference. In these assemblies there is a very real feeling that we are redeemed of God because it was the just and right thing for God to do. Such thinking brings about a hideous confusion because it is so close to the truth but veers quietly away from our true state at the last minute. That it is not readily obvious that confusion has even entered the mind and our midst makes this confusion especially dangerous.

Furthermore, this confusion is supported and masked by the comfort of our emotions. These assemblies are very concerned about feelings: good feelings about God trumps the truth about God, and good feelings about ourselves trumps the truth about ourselves. The leaders of these assemblies bend over backward to make God "likable" within the confines of the vain thinking of this age and in so doing confuse many about the Gospel and lead many astray.