Christians are not Justified by Keeping Laws

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,   32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.   33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


The law was once a tutor


Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?   2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?   3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?   4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?   5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?  


Paul goes a step further


Galatians 3: 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.   10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."   11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."   12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."   13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--   14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.




more:

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.   20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.   21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.   22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.   23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.   24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.   25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.   26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.   27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.   28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.   29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.


 

 

Soloman Spaulding and the Book of Mormon, proven

A long time ago as a young Christian I had heard a friend from a fellowship that had went out west to work with Christian Apologist Walter Martin had made a big discovery which crippled the  foundation of the Mormon Faith as it exposed some documents as not being viable. I recently wrote Kurt and he straightened out what  I had heard. Here is his letter to me:

Dear Dennis,

            It is great to make contact with you after all of these years.  Leave it to Steve Herr to get people together.  He has always been a good point man for that.

            Well, where do we pick up after leaving Marion?  You’re in Florida and I’m on the west coast.  We have a home in Victorville, California, although we recently moved into a condo in Las Vegas (about three hours north of Victorville), which is about 10 degree hotter and just as dry.  Still, it puts me 1.5 hours from Utah.   Part of the move here was to try to keep ahead of the recession enough to keep from drowning in our underwater property and to wait until a president is elected who knows how important jobs are for the American economy. 

I wrote to Steve to see what “discovery” he was telling you about.  He wrote back and said that it was my research on Solomon Spalding.  He told me that you were a Romney supporter for your area, but, as that, you also stand up for Christianity and do not take lightly mixing Mormonism with Romney’s politics.  Sometime later we can perhaps exchange thoughts on Romney vs. Huntsman as Mormon candidates.

            Since the time that we knew each other through the Bible study, the Lord has provided the venue for me to contribute to 16 books on the cults with a number of Christian writers (Martin, McDowell, Gomes, Zacharias, and others).  One thing I learned the hard way is that you do not get rich writing books.  Christian book publishers are about as tricky and conniving as anything secular.  Be that as it is, my Solomon Spalding (a.k.a. Spaulding) research has ended up on a lot of books and it becomes a mess when we speak of people taking things without permission.   That is sad, but true.  Some of my boxes and files of research that I have loaned to writers on Spalding have never been returned to me even to this day.  Walter Martin, though, stood in opposition to this kind of chicanery.  He was about as honest as anyone could be in integrity, in fact, he insisted upon it and instilled such ethics in me. 

            On the Solomon Spalding theory and the Book of Mormon, it is not the easiest thing to prove to a Mormon.  Many Christian apologists do not believe the Spalding connection to Mormonism either, including Sandra Tanner, who is what I consider to the world’s leading authority on Mormonism.  I have spoken to her about it before, but she is unconvinced.  Many years ago, when Jerald Tanner was alive, I was talking with him about it and he said, “Kurt, it is not that I try not to believe in it, it is just that I have never seen anything that connects the dots to complete the story.  If you have something that can really show a direct connection between Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith, then it would make a big difference.” 

Well, it happened after his death.  The final connection that was discovered by William Moore, who was a collaborator with Davis and Cowdrey in their latest book, was a newspaper in Pennsylvania that has an 1816 mail call list with mail waiting for Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon at the same time at the Pittsburgh post office.  The Mormons, the deniers of the Spalding connection, and the Ridgon’s family have always said that Rigdon was not in Pittsburgh at the same time that Spalding was.  Now a newspaper disproves each one of them.  This was the dot-connection that Jerald Tanner never got to see and what forms the basis for the newest book by Davis, et al.  I think that Steve sent you the link for that book on the Internet.  It is posted on the Internet, in part, from the book The Spalding Enigma (CD version, 2000), as chapter 4, beginning at page 137.  http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Enig2000.htm 

            Some of the things that I found in connection to this have never been published and, quite unfortunately, one of the most important pieces of information has come up missing from my research files that I loaned to one of the writers.  Some day, God willing, I’m going to re-trace my research on this and see if I can find it again (if it has not been stolen from the archive where I found it).  From you position, the question is how do you effectively use Spalding in talking to Mormons.

            First, Mormons have a built-in force-field that shields them against the name “Solomon Spalding.”  At the mere mention of his name, you always get a knee-jerk reaction from any informed Mormon.  It is so automatic, that I’ve accused them of having an “anti-Spalding nerve” engrafted in their central nervous system.  Smile.  Anyway, once you can soothe them long enough to say “stop jerking” when I mention his name, then you may find someone who is willing and listen to the evidence alone.  They are few and far between.

            I think that news articles have done more harm than good and that the Internet has done more good than harm.  Knowing how news works, whether in print or a live, the reporter has strikes against him that makes his story harmful.  First, he is too unfamiliar with the subject to handle such scant information that he receives in points and counterpoints to make a fair story.  Second, he is limited by space or time in his report and cannot justify giving it more time than the least amount to just get something reported.  The Internet has no such limitations, so that is why Dale Broadhurst’s websites www.solomonspalding.com and www.sidneyridgon.com and Art Vanick’s website at http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/ are so important.  There is no reason to leave anything out.  If the thinking Mormon could go to that site, they will find reproduced original documents and the things that tie it together in one neat package.  Even the things that book publishers cut from a manuscript end up on the website because there is no limit to how much can be posted.  Trust me, I have known Broadhurst for 30 years, when we first swapped research, and there are a lot of Mormons who are reading his website. 

            As far as your question, “I have a question. Steve Herr had reported that you and Walter made an important discovery regarding Mormon writings in the 70's and confronted the church. Could you tell me a little about what those were and the importance/effect?”  Steve may have it a little wrong after so many years of being removed from it and his way of saying it is more of a one-line, short version.  Probably the reason that he made this connection is because I was on Martin’s research team when The Maze of Mormonism was revised (1978) and the story that I’ll recap for you below is found on pages 59-65 of that book.  The book has been out of print for too many years and can only be found on used book websites.  I’ll briefly summarize it.

Walter Martin (and I) did not personally “confront” the Mormon church.  He helped to encourage the researchers Davis, Cowdrey, and Scales, in 1976.  That was the same year that I joined CRI as a missionary, so part of my work was in Mormon evangelism, which dovetailed nicely with working on the Spalding research.  The confrontation between Martin and the Mormon Church is more along the line of him speaking out heavily in favor of the book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon (Davis, Cowdrey, and Scales: Vision House, 1977).  He did a cassette-taped sermon on it (which is available in MP3 through his daughter’s website www.waltermartininfo.com) and we updated his book The Maze of Mormonism (1978) with all of the new information.

This was over the idea of the three handwriting experts who initially agreed that several pages of the original Book of Mormon manuscript in Salt Lake City that the Mormon Church attributed to an “unknown” scribe was actually the handwriting of Solomon Spalding himself.  That was the most astounding part of the story.  If true, then the Mormon Church has been holding the evidence of the Spalding connection all of these years without knowing it.  The Mormon Church reacted, but rather than giving solid proof or other reasonable answers like a team of handwriting experts who would oppose the three experts, they responded in three other ways.  (1)  They had their main historian answer the claims, Dean Jesse, which was strange, since he is not a handwriting expert.  (2) They point at opposing Christian apologists who oppose the project, like Jerald and Sandra Tanner.  This is the only time that I have ever heard Mormons suggest the Tanner’s writings.  And the Tanners, who have always gotten along with me, so long as I do not talk about Spalding, but they are not handwriting experts.  And, (3) The Mormon Church promoted the idea that the three hand writing experts disagreed, which is not what happened, but the Mormons confuse the story to confuse the inept. 

            The way that the showdown occurred was that the handwriting experts said that they have to see the original manuscripts in order to make a certain determination as to whether it was the same individual who wrote both examples that were provided in photocopy form.  Each expert was noted in their fields.  They were Henry Silver, Howard Doulder, and William Kaye.  I met each of them during this project and I can vouch for what took place.

            Initially, they were provided with ample samplings of Spalding’s handwriting and a section from the “unknown scribe” for the Book of Mormon.  They were never told who the writer was for either manuscript copy and each one of them did not know that two other, independent experts had the same copies.  All three of them unanimously agreed that it was the same person who wrote both samplings, but for complete assurance, they would have to see the original documents.  It was at this time that they were told that it was Solomon Spalding and the Book of Mormon.  At that point, one of the handwriting experts “withdrew” from the investigation and refused to go to Salt Lake City to see the originals.  That was Howard Doulder. 

Henry Silver gave an affirmative first opinion and once he saw the originals, he issued a second, “definite opinion” that they are one and the same writers.  A copy of his second opinion is published in The Maze of Mormonism, page 63.

William Kaye gave an affirmative first opinion and once he saw the originals, he issued a second, “shows unquestionably” that it is one and the same person.  A copy of his second opinion is published in The Maze of Mormonism, page 64.

Howard Doulder gave an affirmative first opinion and once he found out that it was the Mormon Church that he was dealing with, he withdrew from the investigation and refused to go to Salt Lake City to see the originals for comparison.  He stated to a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, even after knowing it was the Book of Mormon document, that it was the same writer: “Doulder told the Times, "This is one and the same writer," assuming that the photocopied material he was furnished is a true copy of the original documents in Salt Lake.” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1977.  See http://www.truthandgrace.com/1977LATimes0625.htm .   He later changed his story and said that he could not make a certain evaluation because he did not see the originals.  He never said that it was false, he only throws a question on it by saying that he never got the opportunity to see if the photocopies that he had matched the originals.  However, two world-leading handwriting experts did go to Salt Lake City and compare the photocopies with the originals and they were the same.

If I were to graph it, it would go like this.

Handwriting Expert	First Opinion	Second Opinion
Henry Silver	The same person.	The same person.
William Kaye	The same person.	The same person.
Howard Doulder	The same person.

            That is the story of what Steve was talking about.  I played a part in the investigation as part of Walter Martin’s staff and as a researcher for his writings.  I also traveled a large part of Ohio and Pennsylvania looking for documents back in that day.  I discovered a few very important items, like an 1830 Book of Mormon with Aaron Wright’s signature in it denying that the “three witnesses” of the Book of Mormon were telling the truth.  Aaron Wright was a personal friend of Solomon Spalding and gave testimony many times that Spalding’s material ended up in the Book of Mormon.  The discovery of a handwritten note by him in a first edition of the Book of Mormon was amazing. That is reproduced in Davis, et al, new book.  Much of the original book from 1977 is on the Internet at http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/wrw/1977DavA.htm

            I hope that I have answered your question.  If you would like to see what I have written about Mr. Romney during his last campaign, it is on my small website.  Hugh Hewitt was promoting Romney.  I do not have a problem if Christians want Romney as their president, but I have a problem with Hewitt or anyone else re-defining Mormonism as just another Christian denomination, as if it holds biblical truth.  You can read it at http://www.utahgospelmission.org/ and by following the link on the right about Hewitt.

Love in Jesus,

Kurt Van Gorden

Are Mormons Christians, here is why they are not

Are Mormons Christian?
by Cooper Abrams

The subtitle is "The Bible and LDS Scriptures Prove Conclusively that Mormons Are not Biblical Christians" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations, which Joseph Smith said were,

"all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19).

Mormons have preferred to be called "saints"; however, in the recent years the LDS church has spent millions in an intense "PR" campaign aimed at moving the church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in proselytizing the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church.

This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present itself as Christian and is trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult.
The answer to the question, "Are Mormons Christians," is simple.

They are not Christians for several reasons, and their unbiblical doctrines show them to be a "Christian" cult.

The name Christian was first used, as Acts 11:26 records, to identify the disciples of Jesus Christ. The word "Christian" is the Greek word "christianos," and it means an adherent of Jesus Christ. It literally means "Christ ones" (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). The correct definition of the word is one who is a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

For almost two thousand years it has never had a reference to anyone other that the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

Why Mormons Are Not Christian

First: Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a different Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain.

The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth.

The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."

Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, "Man's Destiny":

"As Abra'm, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men--to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,-- Which doth unfold man's destiny. . ."
The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God of the Bible is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a spirit being and never was a man.

Note the clear teaching of the Bible as to who the real God is:

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Psalms 102:26-27, "They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."

Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Isaiah 45:21-22, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Jeremiah 23:24, "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."
Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

John 1:16-18, "And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Romans 1:22, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

1 Timothy 1:17, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."
1 Timothy 6:16, "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

Clearly, Mormonism's god is not the God of Christianity who is the God revealed to us in the Bible. The Mormon god is a god formed from the imaginations of Joseph Smith, and in truth is a false, non-existent god or idol.

Second: The Jesus Christ of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
The Mormon Jesus is the son of this man-god.

The Mormon Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and according to LDS teaching, he married several of the Marys of the New Testament. He is not, to the LDS church, "God incarnate" as the Bible plainly states. Clearly, the Mormon god and Jesus are not the true.

God and Jesus of the Bible
Orson Hyde, the Mormon Apostle said, "We say it was Jesus Christ who was married in the marriage of Cana of Galilee" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 80).

Brigham Young, said, "When the Virgin Mary conceived the Child Jesus ... He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is His father? He is the first of the human family" (Journal of Discourses, pages 50-51).

Compare this with the Word of God, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Mormons teach that Jesus Christ suffered for sin in the Garden of Gethsemane when He sweat "as it were" great drops of blood. Mormons totally avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ's atonement for sin which was accomplished on the Cross.

Note the following quote from, "What Mormons Think of Christ" (LDS publication, pages 32-34):

"Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much is believed and taught on this subject, however, it is utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation."
It goes further to say that salvation is "conditional on faith, and repentance, and baptism and keeping the commands of God."
I would like to add, yes, it is very true that Christians do speak much of the blood of Christ. Note the emphasis the Bible places on the blood of Christ:
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrew 9:14).

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelations 1:5).

The ejection of this Biblical truth by the LDS church shows again it is not a Christian church.
Note that in the following verses the Bible says salvation, which is forgiveness of sin and receiving of eternal life, is a gift of God, and it is not obtained by "works":

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

I am aware that the L.D.S church has several definitions of salvation and several degrees of glory. A good discussion of the problem is found on the Internet at http:CastYourNet.com/LDS-Shock.

The real Jesus Christ is the "only begotten of the Father." He is not one of many sons and certainly not the brother of Satan as the following Scriptures clearly state:

John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Hebrews 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."

Jesus Christ of the Bible is God Incarnate in Man
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." Jesus claimed to be one with the Father.

In John 14:9, Jesus said to see him is to see the Father.

In John 8:25, 56-59, 18:6,8 Jesus used the Jehovistic "I AM," identifying Himself as God.

In Matthew 22:42-45, Jesus claimed to be the Old Testament "Adonai."

In Mark 2:5-7, Jesus forgave sin, a prerogative belonging only to God.
In Matthew 14:33; 28:9; and John 20:28-29, Jesus asserted Himself as God by allowing men to worship Him.

John 1:3 states that Jesus is the Creator, and Genesis 1:1 states that God was the Creator.

Only those who believe in the real Biblical God and Jesus Christ have the right to use the name "Christian." The Mormon prophets historically have openly ridiculed those who believe in the God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit that the Bible reveals.

One question that I would ask all Mormons is this: "If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?" Would you accept me as a Mormon if I reject Joseph Smith and all the LDS prophets as being prophets of God. If I do not believe in the Book of Mormon or the LDS Scriptures, baptisms for the dead, the temple endowments, the LDS gospel, would you accept me as a Mormon? The answer is obviously, you would not.

In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine do you think that Biblical Christians should accept Mormons as Christians? Again the answer is very obvious, no we will not.

You cannot legitimately claim to be Christians when you refuse to accept what the Bible teaches and what a true Christian believes.

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a "Christian" when Biblically you are not.

Because we love the souls of men and want to see them, too, spend eternity in Heaven with our Savior, we strongly object to anyone proclaiming to the world a false Jesus Christ. We do not want to see anyone miss having their sins forgiven and receiving eternal life, because they were deceived.

Jesus said that He alone was the truth, the way and the life.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

Belief in the real Jesus Christ is the only way a man can receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The LDS, church in presenting a false Christ is, in fact, leading souls away from salvation and the real Jesus. They reject God's truth and substitute another Jesus who does not exist and cannot save.

Only those who believe in the Biblical Jesus Christ will go to heaven when they die. Those who put their trust in a false Christ will be eternally lost. Every true Child of God knows this, and that is why we try so hard to point men away from false churches, prophets, gods and Christs, that they may find God's true Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved.

Let God speak for Himself by His Word.
Matt. 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 14:10-12).

[Pastor Cooper P. Abrams, III, Castle Country Baptist Church, P.O. Box 665, Price, Utah 84501]

CS Lewis and the Mystic Occult

How mysticism and the Occult are changing the Church

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit,

according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world,

and not according to Christ."  Colossians 2:6-9

Trouble in Narnia The Occult Side of C. S. Lewis by Mary Ann Collins February 2006 See C. S. Lewis Index - How mysticism is changing the Church

I've been uneasy about the enthusiasm for Narnia. Then one morning I woke up vividly remembering some things in the third Narnia book. And now I recognize the root of what has been troubling me.

I had read all of C.S. Lewis' books, including his essays, his collections of letters, his science fiction, and the Narnia books. I read most of the books more than once, and I read the Narnia books many times. I also read all the books of Charles Williams because he was a close friend of Lewis' and Lewis spoke so highly of his books. And I read all of George MacDonald's books because Lewis admired him and spoke well of his books."
 

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is the third book in the Narnia series. It directly promotes spells and magic.

Chapter 10 ("The Magician's Book") features a book of spells that is on an island inhabited by invisible creatures called Dufflepuds. Lucy works a spell to make the Dufflepuds visible. She goes through a spell book, and it is beautiful and fascinating. Then she finds the right spell and says the words and follows the instructions. And then the Dufflepuds (and Aslan) become visible. Her spell made Aslan visible, and he is pleased with what she did.

The book of spells is beautiful and fascinating. One spell is illustrated with pictures of bees that look as if they are really flying. In the world of C.S. Lewis’ day, this would not have caused practical problems. However, these days, kids can go to regular bookstores and buy spell books written by modern witches.

Many Christians are treating the Narnia books as being an allegory, with Aslan representing Jesus and the children representing Christians. If you do this with “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” then you portray Jesus as being pleased when Christians do magic and work spells. And you support the idea that that there are “good” spells and “good” magic. That belief is the basis for modern “white” witchcraft. However, the Bible clearly forbids any form of witchcraft:

"There shall not be found among you anyone who... practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD." (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

In the book, the Dufflepuds are ruled by a wizard. He uses magic to rule the Dufflepuds because they aren’t yet mature enough to be ruled directly by Aslan. So there is good magic and a good wizard. This magic prepares people for relationship with Aslan. Again, if Aslan is taken as a symbol for Jesus, then magic prepares people to become Christians. In our modern culture, that would mean that Wicca is a way to get to know Jesus and become His follower.

Back when C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnia stories, Wicca did not exist. Kids who read the books couldn’t experiment with spells. But this is a different world today. Now kids are surrounded by movies and TV shows that promote witchcraft, and they may know kids at their school who dabble in it.

What will happen when Disney comes out with a movie of “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”? Christian kids may wind up feeling free to practice magic. And this could help break down the barrier between Christianity and Wicca. It could “Christianize” witchcraft in the eyes of some Christian kids.

There are some other problems with C.S. Lewis' widespread influence. Blending God's truth with occult tales, he laid an enticing foundation for apostasy.

For starters in understanding the man, here is a quotation from a letter that he wrote describing a trip that he and his wife Joy took to Greece in 1960. He wrote,

“I had some ado to prevent Joy and myself from relapsing into Paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the Healer. But somehow one didn’t feel it would have been very wrong”.

Lewis also said that “Christianity fulfilled paganism” and “paganism prefigured Christianity.”[1]

In his autobiography (Surprised by Joy), Lewis tells how at age 13 he abandoned his Anglican faith due to the influence of a school mistress who was involved with “Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Spiritualism; the whole Anglo-American Occultist tradition.” And Lewis developed a “lust” for the occult that remained with him even after he returned to Anglicanism. He said,

“And that started in me something with which, on and off, I have had plenty of trouble since--the desire for the preternatural, simply as such, the passion for the Occult. Not everyone has this disease; those who have will know what I mean. I once tried to describe it in a novel. It is a spiritual lust; and like the lust of the body it has the fatal power of making everything else in the world seem uninteresting while it lasts.”[2]

Lewis said that he described that lust for the occult in a novel. It occurs in the third book of his science fiction trilogy. A man is in the process of being initiated into an inner ring of scientists who are occultists. They worship demons, which they call “macrobes” (huge, powerful invisible things, as opposed to microbes, which are tiny invisible things).

“Here, here surely at last (so his desire whispered to him) was the true inner circle of all, the circle whose centre was outside the human race--the ultimate secret, the supreme power, the last initiation. The fact that it was almost completely horrible did not in the least diminish its attraction.”[3]

“These creatures [demons]... breathed death on the human race and on all joy. Not despite this but because of this, the terrible gravitation sucked and tugged and fascinated him towards them. Never before had he known the fruitful strength of the movement opposite to Nature which now had him in its grip; the impulse to reverse all reluctances and to draw every circle anti-clockwise.” (“That Hideous Strength,” p. 269.)

Note that Lewis said that he had trouble with that lust for the occult ever since his encounter with the Matron in his boys’ school. He wrote that statement in 1955. By then, he had written all but three of his books.[4]

Lewis dedicated his autobiography (“Surprised by Joy”) to Bede Griffiths, a former student of his who became a long-time friend. Griffiths founded a “Christian ashram” in India. He said that Hindu temples are a “sacrament.” And he said, “No one can say in the proper sense that the Hindu, the Buddhist or the Muslim is an ‘unbeliever.’ I would say rather that we have to recognize him as our brother in Christ.”[5]

What Bede Griffiths did and said is the logical conclusion of a statement that C.S. Lewis made in “Mere Christianity.”  He said,

“There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”[6]

Lewis said that he was strongly influenced by George MacDonald, who was a universalist. MacDonald’s book “Lilith” is based on an occult teaching that Adam was married to a demon named Lilith before he married Eve. By the end of MacDonald’s book, Lilith is redeemed, and Adam says that even the devil will eventually be redeemed.

This universalism shows up in some of Lewis’ fiction books. In “The Great Divorce,” Lewis is in Heaven. He speaks with George MacDonald and asks him about universalism, and MacDonald answers that Lewis cannot understand such things now. In the last of the Narnia books (“The Last Battle”), a pagan makes it to Heaven (“Aslan’s Land”) because of his good works and his good motives, in spite of the fact that he did not believe in Aslan and he worshipped Aslan’s enemy, a false god named Tash.

Lilith shows up in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” Mr. Beaver tells the children that the White Witch is descended from Lilith, who is the “first wife” of Adam. This could cause confusion, especially for children. Although Mr. Beaver is a fictional character, he is speaking authoritatively about the real world--the real Adam and Eve of the Bible.

Lewis spoke very highly of Charles Williams and his books, so I read all of his books. They are novels that mix darkness and occultism with some insights about Christianity. In “The Greater Trumps,” the hero is a saintly woman who saves the day by doing magic with Tarot cards.

Williams was as much a mixture as his books were. He started out as a serious occultist. He believed Theosophy and other occult teachings, and he joined the Golden Dawn, a group that practices “sex magick,” which is ritual sex that is done for the purpose of getting occult power. (The notorious Satanist, Aleister Crowley, was a member of the Golden Dawn.) Williams left the Golden Dawn and joined the Anglican church, but he kept some of his Theosophical beliefs.

Lewis also had a close friend named Owen Barfield. He dedicated the Narnia books to him and named Lucy after Barfield’s daughter. Barfield was a philosopher who started out with Theosophy and developed his own version of it.

According to Theosophy, the God of the Bible is a tyrant, and Lucifer (the devil) came to rescue mankind from him. Even this dark view of God shows up in C.S. Lewis’ writings.

After his wife Joy died, Lewis wrote “A Grief Observed,” a book describing his thoughts and emotional struggles as a result of her death. The dark Theosophical view of God shows up in this book, as shown in the following quotations.

“Supposing the truth were ‘God always vivisects’?”[7]

“Is it rational to believe in a bad God? Anyway, in a God so bad as all that? The Cosmic Sadist, the spiteful imbecile?”[8]

Lewis didn’t stay there. He vacillated between despair and hope. But in his moments of agony and despair, the Theosophical view of God came back to haunt him.

There is another problem with his messages. I have read all of his books, and I do not recall any reference to the authority of God and to the timelessness of His ways. Lewis’ worldview seems to be based primarily on human feelings, wants and perceptions (including evolution and Freudian psychology). For example, in his last book, The Discarded Image, he tells us that nothing is permanent; everything changes -- along with human thought, wants, and speculations:

"No Model is a catalogue of ultimate realities, and none is a mere fantasy. Each is a serious attempt to get in all the phenomena known at a given period.... But also, no less surely, each reflects the prevalent psychology of an age almost as much as it reflects the state of that age's knowledge...."[5, page 222]

Lewis ends his book with this prediction:

"It is not impossible that our own Model [for many of us, that refers to the Biblical worldview] will die a violent death, ruthlessly smashed by an unprovoked assault of new facts -- unprovoked as the nova of 1572. But I think it is more likely to change when, and because, far-reaching changes in the mental temper of our descendents demand that it should. The new Model will not be set up without evidence, but the evidence will turn up when the inner need for it becomes sufficiently great. It will be true evidence.'[5, pages 222-223]

That unbiblical conclusion could easily wipe out any lasting Christian certainty in the minds of his readers! Now compare that personal and subjective speculation with actual certainties of the God who is the sovereign, all-knowing, Creator of all:

"...in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons...." 1 Timothy 4:1

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-8

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body...." Philippians 3:20

---

1.  Roger Lancelyn Green, “C.S. Lewis: A Biography,” Harcourt Inc., 1974, pages 274 and 30.

2.  C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, Harcourt Brace, 1955, pages 58-60.

3. C. S. Lewis, “That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy Tale for Grown Ups,” Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1946, pp. 259 260.

4. “The Four Loves,” “Reflections on the Psalms,” and “A Grief Observed”.

5. Randy England, “The Unicorn in the Sanctuary: The Impact of the New Age on the Catholic Church,” TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1991, pages 70-72.

6. There are many editions of the book, and page numbering varies. This quotation comes from Book IV, Chapter 10, “Nice People or New Men,” the fourth paragraph.

7.  C.S. Lewis, “A Grief Observed,” Bantam Books, The Seabury Press, 1963, p. 33.

8. Ibid., p. 35.

---

C. S. Lewis Index - How mysticism & the occult are changing the Church

Would Jesus Mosh?

I came across this blog that I felt was well written. It addressed some sensitive issues with dealing with young people and music labeled as Christian. You can view it here.
I have  added it here in its entirety.

Would Jesus Mosh? How Christian is Christian Heavy Metal? BY: David John Seel, Jr.

One of the questions I gave my high school students on their Rhetoric Final Exam was “Can Hardcore Music be Christian?” It was a popular choice. A third of the class weighed in. Their responses were thoughtful, articulate, and to the person, supportive of Christian heavy metal music—groups such as Spoken, Living Sacrifice, P.O.D., and Project 86.

What makes music or musical entertainment “Christian?” These are questions being raised within Christian entertainment itself and not simply by confused teachers and parents of adolescents. Earlier this year, WORLD magazine discussed the tensions within contemporary Christian music (CCM). Lying behind the marketplace constraints of the music industry are a host of deeper questions that serve to frame our understanding of what it means to be an apprentice of Jesus.

Discernment requires our reflection. At the heart of the argument is what it means to be “in” the world, but not “of” it. What it means to be “like Jesus” in the midst of our postmodern, post-Christian culture. To what extent are we to be the same as contemporary culture—read “relevant?” To what extent are we to be different—read “irrelevant?”

Let’s back the discussion up from the emotionally charged issues of whether one likes or approves of the music to the more foundational questions about entertainment, beauty, and apologetics. The measure of a successful conversation with a young adult on these issues is whether one can engage the topic honestly without resorting to judgmental language, sweeping generalizations, and flippant put-downs. As a rule of thumb, if the young adult is put on the defensive, some invisible line of practical love has been crossed. In the end, we may or may not agree, but by God’s grace, one would hope that we could agree on the substantive questions that shape our shared desire to become like Jesus and to live under his authority. Real disagreement on things that matter is an accomplishment. Too often, disagreement is simply a product of not listening.

It is helpful to acknowledge the reason why music is such an emotionally charged topic when discussed with an adolescent. Music in youth culture serves a role larger than music. It’s an identity trademark. To criticize a person’s music is in effect to criticize the person—and all their closest friends. It’s a criticism that cuts deep. It’s the severest “diss.” In youth culture, identity politics has a musical address. Thus, parents, teachers, and youth leaders must learn to tread lightly and treat the topic itself with great respect. Here we will seek to establish common ground on foundational issues. We will approach the question, “Would Jesus mosh?” obliquely.

Entertainment
Is entertainment spiritually neutral? We live in an entertainment-saturated culture and an entertainment-centered economy. Think for a moment of the economic impact of entertainment—television, film, music, videos, computer games, sports, and amusement parks, to name but a few. It’s our nation’s largest export. More to the point, entertainment is not something we do in our leisure. It is fast becoming who we are in our life. Reality-TV is hot simply because reality is TV. Entertainment has metastasized into life. Social critic Neal Grabler warns, “We now inhabit a world in which Plato’s worst nightmare has come to pass: the triumph of the senses over the mind, of emotion over reason, of chaos over order, of the id over the superego, of Dionysian abandon over Apollonian harmony. In that world entertainment—fun, effortless, sensational, mindless, formulaic, predictable, and subversive—is at the center of everything.” Consultants and futurists point out that business no longer sells service or information, but experiences and dreams.

If it’s entertaining, we’re not supposed to think too seriously about it. We watch TV to “veg out.” We put on the headphones to get in the “zone.” We don’t discuss movies or music concerts; we simply go to be entertained. We mosh and rave when the music takes hold of us in a kind of unreflective trance. Entertainment is not only pervasive in culture; its values are corrosive to discernment.

Does it really matter what we see, listen to, or think? Yes, it does. Age makes no difference in these choices. Spirituality does. Does age have any relevance to whether a PG-13 or an NC-17 rated movie is appropriate? Isn’t the core question about our entertainment choices really a question of whether it assists one in becoming more like Jesus?

Proverbs warns, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (4:23). The writer goes on to discuss what “guarding” entails: what we say (“corrupt talk”), what we look at (“fix your gaze”), and where we go (“make level paths”). We tend to be woefully naïve about the damage our entertainment choices make to our hearts. Our greatest fear is boredom. Bring on the fun.

The danger is twofold. First, entertainment dulls our spiritual senses. Sloth is the spiritual epidemic of the modern world—not laziness, but spiritual indifference. Philosopher Peter Kreeft writes, “Diversion’s greatest danger is that it acts like a sedative; it keeps us just content enough so that we don’t make waves and seek a real cure. It deadens our spiritual nerves, it muffles our alarm system.” A lifestyle of entertainment makes the spiritual conditions necessary for self-reflection impossible. It makes it hard to maintain cognitive distance from the taken-for-granted cultural patterns of worldliness. Second, entertainment twists our priorities. In the light of eternity, does it really matter who wins the Super Bowl? Or who wins a million dollars on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” Or who survives “Survivor?” We invest enormous amounts of time, energy, and money into that which will not last. Our lives become centered on wood, hay, and stubble. And yet, we are charged by our Savior to bear fruit that will last (John 15:16).

When we are uncritical about our entertainment choices, we are playing with our spiritual default. What do we think about most of the time? When nothing else is pressing in on our attention, to what does our mind shift? The answer to these questions provides an accurate read on the state of our heart. So what are we to think about, if our minds are “in Christ Jesus?” The Bible is clear: “whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy” (Philippians 4:8). Our minds matter, because our beliefs matter. They are the rails on which our lives run. Thus, we cannot be cavalier about our entertainment choices. An engaged mind, with a discerning biblical world view, and a spiritual concern to guard one’s heart will have to be especially present when one goes to movies or concerts. Entertainment is not spiritually neutral. “It sounds like school,” one may lament. But such a reaction is only an indicator of the extent to which one has become prey to the ethics of entertainment—turn one’s mind off and “veg out.” It is the Devil’s ploy. Such an uncritical attitude does not help one follow Jesus or develop the mind of Christ.

Objective Standards for Beauty
So if one desires to be self-reflective and biblically self-critical about one’s entertainment choices how does this relate to Christian heavy metal music? My students argued that the lyrics and lifestyle of the artist make the music distinctively Christian. “For hard rock to be Christian, the members of the band must have a personal relationship with Christ,” wrote one student. “The audience must know that the band is Christian,” wrote another. “Sure Living Sacrifice writes hard instrumental music lines, but their lyrics are pure. Their message is untainted and not filled with profanity. They praise God, not the Devil. Their words might be hard to understand and their music might be considered noise by some, but it is uplifting,” wrote a seventeen-year-old junior. “Do you really believe that a particular sound or genre of music can be morally right or wrong?” wrote another student, who is a serious follower of Jesus and a member of a heavy metal band.

What constitutes “Christian” lyrics has been a conundrum for the Gospel Music Association (GMA) that gives out Dove Awards, CCM’s version of the Grammy’s. In their definition of Christian music, “Lyrics have to be substantially based upon historical orthodox Christian truth contained in or derived from the Holy Bible, or an expression of worship of God or praise for His works or testimony of a relationship with God through Christ or obviously prompted and informed by a Christian world view.” Such an emphasis on the content of lyrics has allowed CCM to promote a wide diversity of musical formats. The GMA’s Dove Award nominations include categories such as Pop/Contemporary, Praise & Worship, Rap/Hip Hop/Dance, Rock, Hard Music, Inspirational, and Country. It appears that every possible musical format has found its Christian voice. With this proliferation of musical tastes, it seems particularly intolerant to question a particular musical form, if its lyrics have a modicum of Christian content and its performers a pretense of Christian conviction. And why single out Christian heavy metal? If questions are going to be raised, shouldn’t they be raised about the adultery of Gospel Music superstar Sandi Patti or the divorces of contemporary Christian stars Amy Grant and Susan Ashton? These are legitimate concerns, but let’s try to focus this discussion on the substantive underlying questions. Are Christian lyrics enough? Or does a biblical world view speak to the deeper question of musical quality and form?

Historically, truth, morality, and beauty were all considered objectively knowable. C.S. Lewis states, “Until modern times no thinker of the first rank ever doubted that our judgements of value were rational judgements or that what they discovered was objective.” While truth, morality, and beauty are not all known in the same way, there are objective standards that apply to each area. In contemporary society, a belief in objective standards sounds ominously totalitarian. Philosophical nihilism, moral relativity, social multiculturalism, nongender sexuality, and expressive individualism are taken-for-granted assumptions in much of American society. Here truth, morality, and beauty are all matters of personal taste and opinion. Who’s to say what is true or false, good or evil, beautiful or ugly? This is the Nietzschean ethic, which ends in the abrogation of all standards, a view found most commonly in university lectures and pop lyrics. Peter Kreeft warns, “The master heresy is subjectivism. It is the parent of all the others, for only after the objective truth is denied are we ‘free’ to recreate new ‘truth’ in the image of our own desires. Only when we fall asleep to the real world are we ‘free’ to dream nightmare worlds into being.”

Christians, including my students, usually stop short of such consistent subjectivism. But it’s in the air we breathe. Few are even aware that both Christian and nonChristian would have considered such views unthinkable as recently as a century ago. Certainly there were disagreements about what constituted truth—or even what constituted art—but they would have never thought for a moment that such fundamental matters were merely a matter of opinion. It was this view that was challenged at the famous New York Armory show in 1912. What was scandalous then, even in secular art circles, are normative assumptions within many Christian circles today. My students hold to objective standards in the area of truth and morality, but not music. Recently the directors of the most prestigious art museums in America were asked by a national newsmagazine, “What is art?” None were able to give an answer. In the end, art is what sells. Market values have trumped aesthetic values. Standards of beauty have been drowned in the universal solvent of kitsch and consumerism. And market values reinforce the subjective values of the masses. Not surprisingly, in high culture as well as low culture, tastes are nose-diving to the lowest common denominator in order to find the largest market share. Pick your context. Andrew Serrano’s crucifixes in jars of urine or MTV’s Celebrity Deathmatch—it’s a matter of taste. Or is it?

World views dictate music as well as art. The music of Igor Stravinsky and John Cage differed from Johann Bach and George Handel because of what they believed about fundamental reality: chaos vs. order, love vs. anger, God vs. self. A similar musical difference is seen in the contrast between heavy metal and jazz—two contemporary musical genres. The music itself says something about reality. Nine-Inch-Nail’s Trent Reznor’s ode to suicide in his CD, The Fragile, is an illustration of the point. His music is appropriate to his point of view. Thinking “world-viewishly” about music means that one must think beyond the lyrics to the music itself. Christian music need not be “traditional” or “classical,” but it must reflect both in its musical composition and presentation a godly view of reality.

Apologetics
The context of Christian lyrics matters. A Scripture verse written in feces on the wall of a public restroom may constitute evangelism, but one wonders if the context and presentation do not change the message. Holding a Sunday worship service in the atrium of the Mall of America may reach a new audience, but one wonders whether the gospel has simply become another consumer product. Context matters. Jesus became furious over the presence of the money changers’ encroachment into the temple courtyard. The convenience which enabled distant worshippers to purchase their sacrifices more easily was lost on Jesus. “My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers’” (Matthew 21:13). Jesus believed in sacred space. Worship space was different from the marketplace. Right worship demands a right context.

So what of heavy metal? Heavy metal scholar Robert Walser in Running with the Devil writes, “Heavy metal is, as much as anything else, an arena of gender, where spectacular gladiators compete to register and affect ideas of masculinity, sexuality, and gender.” There is a reason for the overlap between this musical genre and professional wrestling and “Beavis and Butthead.” The musical emphasis is on volume, power, and intensity. Melody and harmony are virtually absent. It’s a cacophony of rhythm, screaming electric guitars and angry voices. Vulgarity is made public and is celebrated. It is a defiant rejection of all moral demands. “The belief system that underlies heavy metal songs has its roots in American individualism. In heavy metal songs, the right of the individual to do whatever he or she pleases is enshrined among the highest values. Self-fulfillment and self-expression are held high whereas self-restraint and self-denial are scorned as the values of the timid, the dull, and the humorless,” writes sociologist Jeffrey Arnett in Metalheads: Heavy Metal Music and Adolescent Alienation.

No longer an outlawed musical subculture, metal is now discussed favorably in the mainstream press. USA Today recently ran a feature on Ozzy Osborne, who sponsors the traveling summer metal concert series, Ozzfest. This year Ozzfest is headlining groups such as Pantera, Godsmack, Static X, Incubus, and Methods of Mayhem. The article sets Osborne in the context of family life. He is pictured as a loving father with his wife and children. At Ozzfest, he is quoted in the article, “[My children] can watch the chicks flash their boobies.”

With the recent musical fusion of rap and metal—rap’n’roll—sexual aggression and adolescent anger are reaching full voice. The culture is male and misogynist. Eminem’s hit record, Slim Shady LP, promotes a message, “Life’s a bitch, who needs to die now?” Spin’s journalist observes, “Limp Bizkit, Insane Clown Posse, the frightfully articulate Eminem are becoming time bombs of unchecked anger.” The events surrounding Woodstock ‘99 (a.k.a. “Nudestock” or “Rapestock”) are described by secular music critics as “historically appalling.” Rage Against the Machine’s singer Morello described the looting, raping, and burning at Woodstock, as “an outburst of pagan glee.” This is the musical context in which we must understand and discuss Christian Heavy Metal. This musical genre has a social context.

One of my students wrote of attending a Christian hardcore concert by Mindrage. He writes, “After playing a song with the most incredible bassist I have ever heard, they started witnessing to the audience. Some of the crowd started shouting Scripture out. It was awesome.” Followers of heavy metal need Christ. These kids will never set foot within a church. Church music—much less J.S. Bach—leaves them cold. Music is at the heart of their culture. To reach them, one must engage in cross-cultural ministry. One must proclaim the gospel in the parlance of the people. The stated mission of Christian heavy metal bands—apart from fame and fortune—is to reach these needy young adults.

Another student wrote, “This is the greatest sign to me that a band is Christian. If they stop their songs and just start witnessing to the audience.” Relevance, contact, and conversion are the foundational rationale for Christian heavy metal. Good intentions aside, is this enough? Or more to the point, how far can one go to accommodate the culture in order to reach the culture without becoming like the culture? There are no easy answers. But it is clearly the question that must be asked.

Take for example the Dove Award winning heavy metal group, P.O.D. (Payable On Death). Family Christian Store’s music magazine, All Access, writes, “Currently seen everywhere from CCM Magazine to Rolling Stone, on television from Bill Mahr’s Politically Incorrect to MTV’s 120 minutes, on the Howard Stern show, and climbing up the Billboard Top 200, P.O.D. is making an impact. 

Multiethnic California hard rockers with musical ties to Korn and the Beastie Boys, Fundamental Elements of Southtown, delivers a fresh, edgy style with a focused Christian message.”

The P.O.D. web page compares their music to Rage Against the Machine and Limp Bizkit. In their opening cut, P.O.D. exposes the allure of the Hollywood life. “Sold your soul for the roll, now you gots to pay, forfeit integrity, overnight celebrity, settle for selfish gain rather than dignity, another sucka, why did you trust a playa like me fool, Eternal hustler I’m taking everything and now you know I hate to tell you but I told you so.” In their song, “Set Your Eyes to Zion,” they ask, “How do you get to heaven? Do you have an answer? Hey, Mr. Deadman, I’ll tell you if you want to know.” P.O.D. is hard rock with elements of rap included in the mix. The rhythm dominates and the lyrics are spoken with rap-like influence.

P.O.D. is a worthy case study because of their award-winning status within the Christian music world and their growing crossover acceptance with secular audiences. They are presently on tour, opening for Korn. Without questioning their personal intentions or spiritual integrity, one must ask two basic questions. From what world view does their heavy metal music arise? How do they justify opening for Korn? The language, message, world view, and lifestyle of Korn surely overshadow any intended Christian witness. How does one hang with a group that has songs with unrepeatable lyrics that are full of sexist hatred of women? I showed the lyrics to their song, “Kunt,” to my wife. She said it was the most offensive verbal pornography she had ever read. When does the scriptural admonition not to ‘walk in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers’ apply? Opening for Korn intentionally validates Korn and unintentionally devalues the name of Jesus. Is P.O.D. influencing Korn’s audience or is Korn’s audience enhancing P.O.D.’s crossover success? When is it irrelevant to be relevant?

Would Jesus mosh? Mosh pits are de rigueur at metal concerts. Pits are areas in front of the concert stage about twenty-five feet in diameter where concert-goers “slamdance,” their bodies deliberately crashing into one another in ritualized frenzied violence. Frequently bodies collide with such force that they end up on the floor. Concert-goers venture on stage where they dive into the crowd and when caught are passed overhead “body surfing.” Raw physicality and self-inflicted pain are dominate themes.

The testosterone level is palpable. It’s choreographed antisocial aggressive behavior. There are good reasons why heavy metal concerts have been called the “sensory equivalent to war.” Bruised and bloodied bodies leave concerts high on animal carnality and social disregard. Would we find Jesus at a heavy metal concert? Perhaps. But his face would be strewn with tears.

David John Seel, Jr.
John Seel is a cultural renewal entrepreneur, film producer, and educational reformer. He is a Senior Fellow at the Work Research Foundation and adjunct professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Kathryn, live in Cohasset, Massachusetts. He can be reached at djsjr@earthlink.net.