Why I'm Not Taking the Time or Spending the Energy to Debate the Trinity

Most commenters on this blog stay on topic. I appreciate that. One of the unwritten rules of blog interaction is that the topic of the post should also be the topic of the comments.

A few times recently at least one commenter has repeatedly called into question the doctrine of the Trinity. This would be fine if I had, in fact, been blogging about the Trinity. However, I was not (and thus I did not post all of the anti-Trinity comments). It has been a long time since the Trinity was the primary focus of any blog post of mine.

While I love the Trinity, I have no intention of taking the time or spending the energy on debating this doctrine. Why not? There are several reasons. First and primarily, I believe the doctrine is very clear according to scripture. One great example occurs at Jesus' baptism. I could go on and on. It is so clear that debating it is pointless.

Furthermore, within the church as a whole this is a largely settled debate. The church has agreed on the truth of the Trinity for hundreds upon hundreds of years. This is different, for example, from the debate about ecclesiology. Numerous dissenters have always existed against institutional Christianity since very early on (see here for more on that). Not so for the Trinity. I'm not suggesting that all Christians have always been convinced of the truth of the Trinity, but rather that no significant number has failed to adhere to it.

I'm also not going to debate the Trinity because plenty of other paces exist to do so. If you desire to bring up the topic, please do so there. Beyond that, I simply see no benefit in the debate. I don't know what can be gained by discussing in detail something that is, at least in my mind, so clear scripturally. I'd rather talk about, and wrangle over, something that needs to be discussed: the state of the church.

So there it is. If you want to debate the Trinity please do so in other forums. This is not the place. Thank you.

Theology Matters

Happy Reformation Day!

The Protestant Reformation was not a perfect movement, but it certainly did a lot of good. Specifically, God used it to wrench the biblical Gospel out into the open. The Roman Catholic Church was no longer allowed to shroud the Gospel of grace under its false, works-based teachings.

Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, Germany was a significant event. It occurred on October 31st, 1517 (as an aside, next year will hold lots of 500 year celebrations of Luther's act). However, it wasn't the most important thing to happen. Rather than one big thing, the Reformation was a conglomeration of many different, semi-related little things that happened over the span of a few hundred years. In the end, the true Gospel was freed from the clutches of those who hate it.

If not for the Reformation, I doubt that I would know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. That's why I cherish the Reformation.

Excellent Article on Eric Liddell

Eric Liddell is a modern day hero of mine who was both a world class runner and a committed missionary. Liddell is most well-known because of the movie Chariots of Fire. The film, which won best picture in 1981, tells part of the story of Liddell's life (along with that of fellow British sprinter Harold Abrahams). However, Chariots leaves out a great deal about Liddell. Albert Mohler recently wrote an excellent article entitled "God Made Me for China" — Eric Liddell Beyond Olympic Glory that discusses much more of Liddell's life, including his impact in Japanese controlled China during World War II. I highly encourage you to read it.

The Bible is Full of Eyewitness Accounts

This post is the fifth in my blog series entitled Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

All sorts of people today doubt the truth claims of scripture. This doesn't surprise or concern me when coming from secularists. I would expect nothing else. However, I'm deeply troubled when followers of Christ struggle with whether not to trust as true what they read in the Bible. Many act as if the Bible is a nice book but lacking in solid, historical reasons to believe it.

I want to encourage fellow Christians with the reminder that we can trust scripture. One reason is the fact that the Bible is full of eyewitness accounts. From Genesis to Revelation we read account after account written by people who were there in time and space. They saw and lived what happened.

The person of Jesus Christ is the most critical aspect of the Bible. It all revolves around him. But what do we know of him? Frankly, we know a ton. Matthew's and John's gospel accounts are extremely important for us because both men were part of Christ's twelve apostles. They were right there in the midst of everything that occurred. John in particular was part of Jesus' inner circle (along with Peter and James). His twenty-one chapters are a goldmine of eyewitness data. He saw, lived, and experienced life directly with our Lord. And then John told us about it.

The most important events in the life of Jesus Christ are his crucifixion and resurrection. If they are true, then he is a very special and unique person indeed. If not, then he is a fraud to be rejected. Why ought we believe, in particular, in the resurrection? Because many, many people saw the resurrected Christ. Paul writes the following in I Corinthians 15:1-8:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Jesus appeared to over five hundred people! Paul is telling the Corinthian believers that they should hold strong faith in the resurrected Christ because so many folks saw him in the flesh. They were eyewitnesses. Not only that, but many remained alive. Paul is almost challenging those doubting in Corinth to travel to Israel to ask the eyewitnesses themselves.

To sum up, the Bible makes massive truth claims. These claims are supported again and again by people who saw what happened. We have the written records of people who spent years with our Lord. They even saw and spoke with him after he was resurrected from the dead. These accounts give us great reason to believe.

Spurgeon Nails It

Linking: Is the Reformation Over?

Does justification by faith alone matter anymore? Is the Reformation over?

R.C. Sproul provides excellent answers to these questions as he deals with the critical topic of justification. Sproul is correct in saying that justification by faith alone is a core attribute of the biblical gospel. He points out how the Roman Catholic Church has steadfastly rejected the notion that faith is enough for salvation. Please read the post. It is relatively short and worth your time.


(HT: Arthur)

Happy Reformation Day!

Church History is Authoritative Only As Far As It Follows Scripture

When it comes to the history of the church, most Christians swing to one extreme or the other.

On the one hand, some believers look to church history as carrying a significant amount of authority. In particular, certain creeds have been elevated by different groups of Christians to the point where they carry a great deal of power. The Apostles' Creed is one of these. Another is the Westminster Confession, which some Reformed and Presbyterian groups look to for much direction.

On the other hand, other believers reject church history as having any sort of authority. While they may look to some more modern creeds for direction, in general they simply take a "It's me and my bible" approach. These folks are generally ignorant of church history and don't care that they are. Many Baptist and non-denominational groups, for example, fall into this category.

Both positions fail.

There is a better way. We can learn a great deal from church history, both the good and the bad. While some decisions and creeds are positive, others are most decidedly negative. What do we do with this? What we do is look for the good.

As far as church history follows scripture, then we should look to learn from it. While it does not carry the same weight as scripture, where it is faithful to the bible we ought to carefully consider it. Additionally, we should treat it as though it carries authority - but only when faithful to the bible.

We can and must also learn from the myriad mistakes in church history. In particular, we cannot ever forget all the times the church has harmed, persecuted, and even murdered all in the name of "faith."

In summary, anywhere church history, especially in the creeds, does follow scripture, then we should be following it. This is because, obviously, when we do so we will be obeying the bible.

Let's avoid both extremes. This is a situation where the middle position is best.

Reformed on Salvation. Anabaptist on the Church.

The longer I live the more thankful I am for the Reformers. As we near October 31st, the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door in 1517, I can't help but muse upon just how much we owe those who came before us. For hundreds of years prior to the Protestant Reformation the Gospel had been largely locked away behind the pomp and circumstance of the Roman Catholic Church. The average person on the street had no access to the truth of the Biblical Gospel. Most people couldn't read, and even if they could they would not have had any way to read the scriptures in their first language (since the Bible was stuck in the Latin Vulgate at that time).

Enter the Magisterial Reformers. Men such as John Wycliffe, Jan Huss, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, William Tyndale, John Calvin and many more literally risked their lives for Biblical truth. Some, like Huss, lost theirs at the stake. These men, who were able to read the Bible, saw that the Gospel is all of grace. They understood that Jesus Christ's work is complete. It is about Christ and Christ alone. God used the Reformers greatly to proclaim the wonderful news that Jesus accomplished all that was required.

Secondarily, I agree wholeheartedly with the Refomers' strong belief in the absolute sovereignty of God when it comes to salvation. I love both the 5 Solas and the Doctrines of Grace; I love them because I believe they are scriptural.

The Reformers stuck to the Bible when it came to the Gospel. For this I am indebted.

And yet...

When it comes to church life, the Reformers dropped the ball - at least where the Bible is concerned. Frankly, the Reformers did very little to alter the church from what it was (and still is) in Catholicism. The priests simply became pastors. The mass was replaced with a new sacrament: the sermon. The big buildings hardly changed at all. Because of this, I reject the Reformers' model of church life.

Enter the Anabaptists. While the Reformers deviated little from the Roman model of church, the Anabaptists embraced not only the Biblical Gospel but also the Biblical model of church life. They kept things simple. They emulated what they saw in the Bible. They rejected unbiblical concepts such as salaried clergy, special buildings, and worship services. They also saw the church as free, unencumbered by a cozy relationship with the state. It was this rejection of the church-state alliance that brought persecution and death to many of them. Almost all of their early leaders were slaughtered, either by Catholics or Protestants.

It is the Anabaptist model of church, which is basically just the Biblical model of church, that I embrace. This is not to suggest that either A) the Anabaptists had everything figured out perfectly, or B) that all Anabaptists were the same. However, they generally attempted to allow scripture to inform what they believed and how they acted as it pertains to living out church life.

For this, I'm deeply indebted to the Anabaptists.

In the end, this leaves me in the somewhat odd situation of being Reformed on salvation, but Anabaptist on the church. So be it.

Papal Ponderings

Pope Francis has come and gone. The church in the USA remains the same. After all the pomp and circumstance we are left with the vast variety of problems that we had prior to his visit.

I'm not surprised that many American Roman Catholics were thrilled to have Jorge Bergoglio (his real name) on U.S. soil. He has been lauded by many as a Pope who is willing to change things for the better. In some situations this is, in fact, true. For example, this particular pontiff shuns some of the ceremonial nonsense that normally goes along with his position.

In addition, Jorge truly does appear to care for the poor and downtrodden in society at large. Furthermore, he speaks out in favor of peace, for which I am grateful. Finally, the Pope not only accepts but also recognizes at least some of the Roman Catholic abuses of the past; he recently apologized for Rome's vicious persecution of the Waldensians in the years leading up to and during the Protestant Reformation.

In light of all this, should we be thrilled? Should we even consider, as many evangelicals now do, this Pope to be our brother in Christ?

Despite some of his outward uniqueness, Pope Francis has not been willing to change one thing about Roman Catholicism that never changes: Roman dogma. The Council of Trent showed us this hundreds of years ago. As a reaction to the Reformation, the Catholics gathered on and off over the course of eighteen years to basically say, "We still believe what we've always believed." Rome does not compromise or change any of its theological positions. It still has seven sacraments. It still celebrates the Mass. Most troubling, it continues to reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Put simply, this Pope continues to believe the Roman gospel, which is a different gospel from the one clearly taught in the Bible. Therefore, this Pope cannot be a true follower of Christ despite his outward actions.

On a related note, Pope Francis is not a big fan of definitions. This leaves things messy. While he speaks much about the social side of life, his statements on theological matters are unclear at best. We are left to assume that he believes what Rome always has.

Finally, Jorge remains at the epicenter of THE largest church institution on the planet. If there is one position on earth that exemplifies all that is wrong with the leadership, authority, and power that has warped the church into an institutional framework, it is the papacy. The Pope is the hub.

In the end, little has changed. Although this new Pope does some things differently, he still rejects the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the key issue.

To learn more of the excesses of the Pope and the Vatican, watch the two videos below:

Linking: The Imminent Decline of Contemporary Worship Music

I have no interest in the ongoing evangelical "worship wars." However, the older I get the more I prefer the great hymns of the faith to modern praise and worship choruses. While the hymns generally have both beautiful tunes and theological depth, the choruses seem designed to whip the audience into some sort of warm fuzzy through repetition. This difference does not always hold true; I'm speaking in generalities. Churches ought to sing a variety of songs of differing styles, all with sound theology.

The church would do well to reconsider its current love affair with praise and worship choruses. Frankly, it may just be the latest fad. Twenty years from now most of today's popular choruses will be long forgotten.

About a year ago T. David Gordon wrote an interesting piece entitled The Imminent Decline of Contemporary Worship Music: Eight Reasons. Gordon offers some solid insights into why modern worship music is already fading. While I don't agree with some of his views on church life, I do believe this article is worth reading.

Speaking of music, a few years ago I wrote a post named (not too creatively) My Top Ten Favorite Hymns. While I do not know whether or not all the links still function correctly, the hymns I've listed remain my favorites.

Linking: "We're All Sadists Now"

In his essay We're All Sadists Now Carl Trueman makes the case that the Marquis DeSade is the most influential thinker of our time. Now that is a frightening thought.

The Darkest Day in the History of the United States

Seventy years ago today the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. I believe this is the darkest day in the history of our country.

In what amounts to one of the largest terror attacks in world history, our military set off a weapon that instantly vaporized thousands of unwarned civilians. Over the next days, weeks, months, and even years many thousands more died of burns, radiation sickness, and various cancers. The suffering was beyond comprehension.

For being a country that prides itself on being "the home of the brave," on August 6th, 1945 we took the cowardly way out.

I understand the arguments in favor of dropping the bomb on Japan; I disagree with them all. NOTHING Japan did or could have done would have ever justified our using a weapon of this magnitude on an unsuspecting civilian population. It was a hideous, wretched act on our part. To make matters worse, we did it again three days later at Nagasaki.

The United States has done some good things in its history. It has also done some bad. What happened on August 6th, 1945 was the worst. May it never happen again. We must never forget what we did that day.

Christians Shouldn't Fly the Rainbow Flag Either

I've never seen or heard so much talk of flags. Why are flags even important? Do they matter?

They do, in fact, matter because they represent ideas. And as the saying goes, "Ideas have consequences."

As many of you know, I live in the American South. Thus, I see my share of confederate flags. They mostly fly at private residences. Over the past month or so the confederate flag has been all over the news. Opinions about this flag are wide ranging. Emotions run high almost whenever the topic is brought up. A few years ago I put my opinion about the confederate flag on this blog. The post is entitled Christians Should Not Fly This Flag.

There's another increasingly popular flag that also stirs the emotions: the rainbow flag. Generally speaking, this flag represents the homosexual community. If you fly the rainbow flag it means that you are supporting the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not surprised that secular society is now rallying around this flag. However, what bothers me is just how many self-professing Christians support homosexuality. It's as if they've never read the bible (maybe they haven't) or just don't care what it says.

Despite what some revisionist interpreters would like us to think, the scriptures are clear on the issue of homosexuality. The words penned in the bible actually mean what they mean. It is instructive that the entire church was in agreement that homosexuality is sin until just recently. To think that all Christians everywhere were wrong about this for 1900 years is very arrogant.

Because the bible is abundantly clear on this topic, followers of Jesus Christ ought not in any way support homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. Part of this is not flying the rainbow flag.

As a reminder:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Rom. 1:26-27

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Cor. 6:9-10

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." I Tim. 1:8-11

Additionally, below is everything positive the bible says about homosexuality:

If you follow Jesus Christ, don't fly the rainbow flag.

I Want to be Presbyterian, But the Bible Won't Let Me

This may sound odd coming from me, but I'd really like to be Presbyterian. Specifically, I'd like to be a member of a local body of believers that are part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Just to avoid any confusion, please take note that the PCA is far different from the PC(USA), which is a far-leftward leaning denomination that has basically given up on the biblical gospel altogether.

I like the PCA for several reasons. First, Presbyterians tend to take the bible seriously. Second, they believe the gospel as presented in scripture. Third, they tend to be Christ-focused rather than man-focused when it comes to their gatherings. Fourth, they care about church history. Fifth, they sing the great hymns of the faith.

I realize that the above paragraph is full of generalizations. It's also based on some of my own subjective likes (hymns). So be it.

Although I like a great about this particular denomination, I just can't be a part of it (in the sense of traditional church membership). Why can I not? The reason is that the bible won't let me. Simply put, too many things about the PCA do not line up with what I read in scripture.

Five aspects of the PCA are huge roadblocks for me. They are, in no particular order:

1. Emphasizing institutional-style preaching
2. Practicing infant baptism
3. Holding to a strict, detailed statement of faith
4. Carrying out extra-biblical, local church membership
5. Governing through a multi-leveled, nonbiblical system

Of course, at least some of the above five apply to almost all denominations, so the PCA is hardly alone. And the PCA is one of the few that I actually like!

My main point in this post is that institutional-based denominations have far too many nonbiblical and blatantly unbiblical practices in place for me to consider being a part of any of them. Although they vary somewhat, almost all still maintain the institutional trio of professional pastor, "worship" ceremony, and expensive building.

As it has been for the past five years for me, so it will continue: no denominations. I'll continue to walk in the church wilderness to one degree or another, and will do so happily. I know it is the same for many of you. It can be lonely at times, but I'd rather follow God's plan for his church than man's.

Why Is the Lord's Supper More Often Like a Funeral Than a Celebration?

Almost all of us have been through it before: the institutional Lord's Supper / Communion / Eucharist.

We know how it goes. Most of the folks sit somberly in pews. One person in the front leads a ceremony that feels like a funeral. Everybody is instructed to focus upon their sins and upon Christ's death. No one except the leader speaks. Everyone eats a small cracker or bite of bread. Everybody sips wine or juice. No fun is had.

The above, with small variations, occurs in almost all churches in the USA throughout the year. This would be fine if it was based in scripture. The problem is that it is not. Nothing like what I've described exists in the bible, especially not in the New Testament. If you search the New Covenant people to see what their Lord's Suppers looked like, you will find large family celebrations with full meals. Now that sounds like fun.

So how did we get to this point? Why would the church trade in a family celebration for a funeral-like ceremony?

(This post stems from an earlier piece entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

To answer these questions we must turn back the clock of church history.

As with much that is wrong with the church, the Constantinian change played a large role. When Emperor Constantine made Christianity the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (in the early 300's A.D.), many pagans flocked into the church institution. They brought their pagan sacrifices with them. In order to keep some semblance of these practices in place, the Mass was developed. Thus we have the "re-sacrificing of Christ" each time the Mass takes place.

In order for a sacrifice to happen, a priest has to be involved. Additionally, the people present must be somber in nature. After all, you cannot celebrate when someone is being sacrificed. The Roman church knew that the bread and wine had to be involved; therefore, they kept them as part of the sacrifice.

When the Reformers came along they did some things to change this. They got rid of the Mass and the priest. However, they put the sermon and the pastor in those spots. Additionally, they kept the funeral-like atmosphere. Ugh. They did not do what they should have: reverted back to the family celebrations we read about in the New Testament.

When we realize that church history and not scripture has led to the current situation, we see what we must do. Scripture must trump tradition. Family celebrations it is!

Why Do So Many Christians Gather for "Worship"?

If you ask most Christians why they gather together (usually on Sundays), they will tell you that it's for worship. If you then ask them why they get together for the purpose of worship you will likely receive a blank stare. This is because most Christians have never pondered this before. It's also because the bible gives no indication that the body of Christ comes together for worship.

In the New Testament we see the church meet for a different purpose: edification. I Corinthians 14:26 says, "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." The point of the gathering was the building up of the members. No confusion there.

However, there is plenty of confusion today. How did we get into this mess? In order to find out we must look back at church history (in fact, we'll find many of the answers to these fifteen church-related questions by searching through church history).

Not long after the first century a clergy system began to form. Specialists emerged who did the bulk of the stuff as the church gathered. This gradually morphed into the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. The priests led the Mass, which became the primary gathering of the people of God.

Enter the Reformers. Men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. rejected the Mass for the heresy that it was (and still is). They recognized that when churches came together something other than "another sacrifice of Christ" must occur. The Reformers did a good thing by jettisoning the Mass. However, they failed to follow the biblical model when they replaced it. The Reformation saw the rise of preaching as the center point of body meetings.

Fast forward to today. The Catholic Church still performs its Mass. Protestant churches focus their gatherings on music (now known to many as "worship") and preaching. Neither group gathers specifically for edification. Over the years the Protestant versions have become known as "worship services." This is fascinating because the worship is poorly defined and no actual service takes place. Regardless, because the gatherings are known as worship services, many of the people think that they gather for worship.

The biggest problem with this situation is that it leaves the church largely unedified and spiritually immature. Gatherings are supposed to build up the body. However, in worship service ceremonies very little communication occurs or is encouraged among the people present. Edification happens mainly through the carrying out of the one anothers; this cannot happen during a ceremony. Thus, the body does not grow spiritually.

Many, many Christians think they gather for worship because they know little else. It's what they have always done. It does not stem from scriptural teachings, but rather church history. The church suffers because of it.

We do well to challenge this way of thinking.

Let's tell and show our brothers and sisters in Christ that edification occurs best in simple gatherings.

"The Reformers and Their Stepchildren"

When I was in seminary I was required to read The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Although the book interested me at the time, I didn't give it a great deal of thought because I was reading so many different books. It quickly faded into the background of my mind as I tried to ingest all sorts of other required reading.

I'm now far removed from seminary. My views on the church have changed dramatically since those years. I decided it was time to read this book again. I'm glad I did.

The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, written by Leonard Verduin in 1964, takes a fascinating look at the stark differences between the Reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin) and those who were called by various names such as "Anabaptist." Both of these groups had broken away from the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. Both held a high view of scripture. Where the two groups differed was in their view of the church. While the Reformers largely took a Constantinian view of church, the Anabaptists believed the church should be free. This led to a massive rift.

The Anabaptists thought that each person in an area should be free to choose what he believed. This necessarily led to a composite society. The Reformers, seeking protection from the government, looked for a melding of church and state. Therefore, everyone in a given location was considered part of the church in that location. The Anabaptists wanted no part of this view. This led to severe persecution by the Reformers (and Catholics) toward the Anabaptists.

The Anabaptists were known by a wide variety of different names given to them by the Reformers and Catholics. Almost all of these were derogatory in nature (even the term "Anabaptist" was originally negative). Verduin entitled the various chapters in this book with these negative names; the chapters deal with different but related topics such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church-state relations. While the Reformers and the stepchildren held the same basic views of the gospel, it was their differences over the church that led to the problems.

This book is extremely well researched and detailed. At some points it bogs down a bit, but the large amount of information is needed because this book is a challenge to the Reformed view of both the Reformation and the Anabaptists. The author was forced, due to the resistance this book would face, to add a great amount of detail.

The interesting thing about this book is that, for most of us in the modern West, a free church is the norm. We cannot imagine anything other than a composite society. That was hardly the case 500 years ago. Back then the Anabaptists' hope for church life led to persecution, shunning, and death. They desired what we have.

This text is much more than a history book. It is living in the sense that the Anabaptists, or stepchildren, asked many of the questions about the church that we do today. The difference is that they often paid for it with their lives.

This book is worth your time.

By the Way, Christianity is Not a "Religion of Peace" Either

In my previous post I made the case that we should reject the ignorant, politically correct, and patently false notion that Islam is a religion of peace. In doing so, I did not want to imply that Christianity is a religion of peace. When we look historically at the religion Christianity has become we see much violence. This is to our shame.

Please allow me to take a moment to clarify one key term. When I say "religion," I'm referring to man's attempts to get to God by his own means. This describes any religion in the world that does not have Jesus Christ at its center.

Institutional Christianity poses some problems when it comes to definitions. While it has many aspects of man-made religion, it also focuses to one degree or another upon Jesus Christ. Additionally, many wonderful Christian people attend institutional churches. This makes things a bit murky.

The sad reality, however, is that institutional Christianity has a long history of violence. This all began when Constantine made Christianity the preferred religion of the state. Whenever the church and state come together, the church becomes the whore of the state. This always (no hyperbole) leads to violence and aggression. All through the Middle Ages the church struck out against any they deemed to be heretics. During the crusades, many Muslims were slaughtered in various attempts to retake the holy land.

During the Reformation, both Catholics and Protestants killed in order to defend what they considered to be theirs. Dissenting groups such as the Anabaptists felt the wrath of both sides, finding little shelter anywhere. Even in modern times many within the church support violence. When President George W. Bush, himself at least sort of an evangelical, decided to start two different wars the church in this country largely lauded him.

When we look at the life of Jesus Christ we see one of non-violence. In fact, we see a man of peace. This is the model he left for us to follow. While the man-created institutions that masquerade as Christianity embrace war and violence, those who truly seek to live as Christ did desire lives of peaceful existence with all people. This is not to suggest that Christians cannot endorse or even commit violent acts; rather, I'm saying that those who do so have no biblical basis for their beliefs and actions.

Ultimately, Christianity is not a religion of peace because Christianity is not a religion.

Christianity, at least what we see in the scriptures, is about knowing and living for Jesus Christ. It is not man's attempt to get to God, but rather God's successful reaching down to mankind. He has done so in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ never retaliated even though he would have been completely justified in doing so. This is the type of life we must lead.

Let's follow after Christ, rejecting both the violence and made-created religion that permeates this world.