Benefits of liturgical worship vs modernist novelty

The idea of contemporary worship stems from the liberal illusion that the church is to emulate the world in order to get the world in the church. This has been evident to be fatal to church as a christian institution, only to turn it into a worldly gathering of non-christians that are neither interested in the dogmas of the faith nor truth, but rather can at best see a socially motivated benefit of attending church.

When I was attending fundamental baptist churches, this was how the Southern Baptist convention was viewed. Usually one could see a deteriorating of the denomination starting with a weak stance against sin and worldliness combined with an ambition to evangelize but not knowing how to get the avarage man interested.

This would result in a compromising of scripture and doctrine to lessen the threshold for modernists that would otherwise be uninterested in attending church. Soon big screen TV:s would be brought in, traditional hymnals replaced by modern worship songs on the screen, weaker preaching and standards which at it’s fulfillment would result in lukewarm churches that stood for nothing, only to not offend anyone.

I have seen this precise thing at my local WELS-Lutheran congregation. The WELS, with a reputation of being so strict it sometimes becomes almost cultish, is where I live no different than any avarage evangelical church. What do I mean by that?

When I visited the local WELS-Lutheran church it had no more of a mass structure of their service than a faith movement church, the pastor (in Sweden a Lutheran pastor is rather referred to as a priest) was wearing a soft looking button up shirt and suit pants, instead of the traditional vestments of priests and preached a weak uplifting message with little bible, based on elementary doctrine at best. Like I mentioned in regards to the Southern Baptists, there were no hymnals but modern worship songs on a big flat screen tv accompanied by electric guitars and a drum set. There were no Eucharist since they don’t see a benefit in taking it every week.

If you have ever been to different churches, you learn pretty quickly to cut through the aesthetics and doctrinal statement to discern the congregation culture and level of bible adherence or, in lack of a better term, conservatism.

In my correspondence with this perticular WELS-Lutheran pastor, he extensively explained the reason for their evangelical type church and confirmed exaclty everything I had predicted as the reason for it. That is, from his perspective all of the parts of what and how a church is to be are nonessential, or in lutheran terms “adiaphora”. As long as the foundational doctrine is pure, one could essentially have any sort of service and way of expression, especially if this was a means to reach people with the gospel.

My criticism to this is that pastors and church leaders simply lack the experience of what this mentality results in. A watered down modernist church service does not have to contain heresy or false doctrine to be destructive, a soft message with zero substance delived in a secular setting by a preacher using casual language will give the attendee a casual and weak view of church and God. A church that is no different from the world does not reflect the holiness of God, the gospel of salvation and the severity of the church as instituted by Christ.

Every church has their certein liturgy. Every evangelical, baptist or pentecostal church has essentially the exact same structure to their service every Sunday. What happened was that these low free churches simply changed the traditional thousand year liturgy for one that they arbitrarily made up themselves.

They sing then pray, then preach, then collection, then they sing, followed by an altar call or invitation. This developed with the revivalist psychological ideas of stirring up certain emotions (while the piano plays) to get the attendee in the right feeling or mindset. This came as an attempt to as far as possible break away from anything seemingly remotely Roman Catholic, and understandably so. However, it is just trading tried and true wholesome tradition for modernism and egocentric preferences with little or no religious meaning. Thus, in the process of attempting to distance themselves from anything thay looks Roman Catholic, they simply created a similar liturgy as the Catholic Church, but with different songs, readings and aesthetics.

There is need for a call to ancient, historically tried and true liturgical worship. The worship of our fathers, the way christians have always conducted their church services is the mass.

A solemn mass rather than a strobe light rock concert. A sincere and doctrinal sermon delivered by a trained and ordained priest rather than feel-good “relevant” preching from an adult dressed like, and speaking like, a teen. A church room that glorifies God and emphasize his holiness and places the gospel’s sacrifice of Christ on the cross in the center, rather than hip slogans and modern interior design made to attract the post-modern secular person.

These things are biblical, reverent and rest on the historical consensus of practise of the entire church of ages. The modernist lukewarm and feel-good type church does not attract the young generation. It perhaps did in 1968, but today’s youth are seeking truth, dogma, tradition and a church that takes a stance.

Let us consider the ways of old, let us stand for the doctrines of old, and flee the selfish and hollow decadence of the modern world with a sincere and uncompromising christianity.

Benefits of liturgical worship vs modernist novelty

Thoughts on protestantism and the doctrine of salvation

It seems clear that a large part of protestantism holds to the doctrine of true saving faith by grace as biblically described. Clearly, the world is largely ecumenical and individual are syncretic in their religious experience, but the simplicity of the view of saving faith is general for many different protestants alike. At least “on paper”.

Especially so when one considers that the dogmatic differences within general protestantism are of such sort that quite rarely has any soteriological implications.

For example, a baptist might belive that his saving faith is the decision of his individual will, a lutheran accredits the same faith to God through election, a presbyterian might do the same and further also believe in an election for some unto damnation, but all three will ultimately claim to posses the same salvific faith through the grace of God wholly apart from works.

Whereas the orthodox and catholic church bodies will openly attribute works merit in combination with faith as a necessity for salvation. This is certainly accurate for foreign religions as well, and even some revivalist-type denominations.

The issue is not belief in Christ, that is a universal scale-matter, as a predominant part of the religious world claims such to some degree. Within larger christendom Christ is certainly believed and preached, while the specifics of his salvific work in relations to it’s human recipient differs. So where can a line be drawn? Where does one distinctly move away from biblical salvation to the point where it is no longer there?

The overall foundational dogma of protestantism is, in the mind of the believer, sola fide. This is particular for protestantism and heresy for both orthodox and catholics.

One could say that there are essentially three international church bodies or camps; the orthodox, the catholic and the protestant. Perhaps a fourth being cults. One could also simplify and say that there are only two; the papist faith/works-camp and the faith alone-camp. Because again, realistically the doctrinal differences within these have no actual effect on salvation. (At least in theory)

Of course, many baptists and pentecostals will burst out saying “We are not protestants!” and claim succession from some unnamed true underground church movement throughout the ages. Nevertheless, if this is in fact the case then it is remarkable that they hold the majority of belief as the protestant churches, aside from american dispensational ideas.

Understandably, churches as well as individuals will differ in their faith and practise, simply due to the human factor and having different history and influx of ideas and culture. But largely, with an overall view of christendom, there should be no reason to doubt that biblical salvation is present here and there, all throughout the protestant church.

Thoughts on protestantism and the doctrine of salvation

American Catholics should be ashamed

As a union construction worker, I frequently hear nonsensical arguments for socialism from colleagues and teachers who neither understand that what they are promoting is actually socialism, nor have taken the time to educate themself beyond the propaganda that the unions have spoon fed them.

This lazy and compliant mentality is dangerous, because it allows for ideological lies to be spread to those who are yet, so to speak, unconscious, and enables further destruction for them and their families, such as the victim-type perception of the self.

In my union, several of the organisers are self proclaimed Catholics. I mean white American culturally Catholic rather than devout as far as I can tell, yet they do make a point of going to mass on Sundays.

As a bible believing Christian I cannot grasp why these very same men will so thoroughly adhear to anti-American, full marxist ideology when it is evident that it is not limited to the monetary (on union friendly) politics of the Democratic party but also moral questions.

It is quite aggravating to hear these men clearly (ironically) teach the apprentice classes to vote with their wallets and to vote for whatever candidate benefits the unions. This is ironic since their foundational marxism is opposition of capitalism, why their love of money is contradictory to their claim of being non-capitalist.

The Bible says “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” – 1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)

“Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate.” – Psalm 34:21

I mean, it neither bother nor surprise me that Catholic union workers are pleased with pro-union policy. That kind of goes without saying. However, that they are outspokenly pro sodomy, abortion, “free” health-care and pro degeneracy over all is confusing, and frankly, repulsive.

Union workers will promote the union as something that is pro family. But it is simply not the case thay unions are pro family when you consider the fact that their democratic vote will undoubtedly propagate for abortions, gender insanity, liberal propaganda in public schools, gun control, sodomy and the sexualisation of children.

All of these things are contrary to God, and very harmful for families and society as a whole. It does not fit adult, decent men. It is plain wicked for a man to accept that his country falls into liberal socialist degeneracy as long as he earns a couple of dollars more per paycheck.

Is that what we need from educators? Do we need more people telling young minority men that they are victims? I expect more. What is needed is mature, God fearing and intelligent men that can serve as examples for their apprentices, teaching not only the trade but also character and critical thinking. This, in oppose to crude jokes and complaining about financial inequality due to subtle oppression, will make the members grow to competent family men rather than bitter, irresponsible cliches.

Now don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t care less about the Catholic faith. I don’t consider it scriptural. But if you are going to call yourself Catholic, or Baptist or Pentecostal or whatever else, then at least stand for some sound godly moral. Don’t be a complete fake and wicked money hungry opportunist. As Catholics, as workers, as men – they should be ashamed.

Is money more important to you than godly family values?
American Catholics should be ashamed

The long story of this blog and how I became an Independent Fundamental Baptist

Raised in an agnostic home with a catholic stepfather, I was peculiarly enough intrigued by christian imagery from an early age and always felt at home in the Evangelical-Lutheran (at the time) state church of Sweden. Although my visits to the church were few and far in between, almost exclusively at school endings at summer and Christmas vacation as is tradition in Sweden, I still felt at home there.

Beyond the familiar feeling, I never exactly contemplated, or knew for that matter, any christian beliefs. I did however always have a sort of natural belief in God, and remember praying as early as around five years of age.

In my late teens I promised myself to seek the truth about the existence of God after I reached the conclusion that life in a non-theistic evolutionary context is, at least, meaningless in the true sense of the word. I realized the absurdity of the magnitude of this cause, but I owed myself an honest attempt.

From there I went on to search within the realm of religion for a few years, a long story better told at another time. However, one thing led to another and in 2012 in a winter cold rural Sweden I was tought and understood biblical salvation, my sinful state and need of a savior, and so prayed for Christ to save me.

It was a tumultuous experience to navigate the landscape of contemporary christianity as a newly saved twenty-some year old student with periodic alcohol issues. This led me to the same search as I had previously been occupied with, although now solely within what I perceived to be wider christendom, to find out specifically what to believe in doctrinal matters and what church or group that were right. Was I a pentecostal? Or perhaps a catholic? After all, early Swedish history was heavily catholic, and I had catholic family.

I found independent baptist preaching online, the same way I found initial information about any religion or christian group. It was evidently biblical preaching, with distinct dogmatic sermons with a tendency to strongly call out sin and wickedness from the pulpit. It was Isaiah and Simon Peter-type of preaching. It is no secret that I became a part of and partly still am in what is considered the Steven Anderson-camp, but I would say that I listened to every bible believing sermon that I could find, a whole lot of Doctor Jack Hyles for example.

Unfortunately to this day independent baptist churches do not understand to make proper use of the internet to reach people. After all criticism, it is just a fact that Steven Anderson is the one that popularised the fundamental baptist doctrines and viewpoints internationally for the young people of today.

Either way, when I visited family in the US in the winter of 2014, I made sure to visit a fundamental baptist church. I was very well received and was introduced to a brother there that tought me how to go soulwinning. We spent a great deal of time soulwinning and fellowshipping, not seldom discussing bible doctrine or matters of christianity and fundamentalism.

Upon my arrival again in Sweden some weeks later, I found myself feeling revived in my spirit and I couldn’t help but to feel more rooted and grounded in my christianity. So far I had been somewhat of an independent fundamental baptist and sort of a halfway King James-onlyist, but now I had actually been to an independent baptist church and at least to some degree become part of their fellowship. It was the real deal.

I had previously felt a bit ridiculous to identify with such an American branch of christianity while living across the world in the darkest north. However, I now felt as if it was not only the most reasonable and bible-believing type of christianity, but also a very viable option for christians internationally to adhear to. The old monopoly of wishy-washy pentecostalism in Sweden was over in terms of being bible-believing. An autonomous baptist movement with international ties was the only way to go.

I could not refrain from being baptist if I were going to chose to take the bible seriously. It was inevitable. It was around this time that I started my blog, initially just out of a sense of wanting to take a more biblical stance in Swedish christianity than what I found elsewhere.

I thought that there was a necessity for someone to say what the bible really says, and not to sugar-coat it and compromise. Especially I wanted to do so in swedish for swedes, so that swedish christians would no longer be able to hide behind high-minded illusions that Americans are crazy and dismiss any opinion not publically accepted in Sweden. Swedish evangelicals and pentecostals alike were lame and weak, so I wanted to show that there was another way to go.

The same year I started to attend a theological seminary for college. Needless to say it was a starch contrast to the bible fundamentalist type sermons I listened to. There were interesting subjects to study, like church history and classes in rhetoric, but mainly I spent my days there trying to wrap my mind around how the teachers (Lutheran priests, doctors of theology and even some former baptist pastors) could possibly manage to combine such a liberal world view with their claimed expertise in the bible. Every stance they took was a questioning of the infallibility and literal meaning of the bible.

Although I had endless interesting discussions with priests to-be and all sorts of evangelicals, I ended up leaving a year prior to graduating to do some online courses while I worked. I had had enough of the political correctness that was in the classes and among my fellow students.

At that point I had established a good friendship with a Sri Lankan brother that had left the faith movement and joined me in many IFB doctrinal viewpoints.

Him and I had gone soulwinning a couple of times in 2014 and established a small bible study group in his house, were him or I would do some short preching followed by singing out of some Soul Stirring Songs and Hymns-hymnals I had brought i America, before we had some prayer time. On most weekdays we would sit at the seminary to study, but also find time to watch sermons and discuss biblical matters.

In 2016 I moved to the US and began attending an Independent baptist church. By then, the brother I had previously gone soulwinning with had distanced himself from me and all IFB people, seemingly since he had become open to pentecostalism and had gotten the idea that he would start a church with no qualifications for pastoring. A shame of course, but I have repeatedly noticed how emotionalist types of christianity attract people that don’t care to put in the hard work of studying.

As of now, my family and I attend our third independent baptist church. We have moved and thus switched churches, but have also freekwently felt ostracized and met with suspicion by independent baptist pastors and church staff, something quite common for anyone considered an “Andersonite”. Everyday life has gone from seminary studies and having plenty of time for the things of God, to now attempting to balance a long work week with family and church and all the things that go with that.

In retrospect, I just wish that there were more Bible-believing churches in Sweden where people could get both the milk and meat of the word, and not have to be restrained to liberal churches with messy salvation doctrine and a love for all things queer and worldly.

The so common notion in Sweden that charismatic silliness is biblical, or even spirit-filled, is disastrous for saved believers and have resulted in a Christendom as dead as a door nail.

Many are starving for bible truth and hard preaching, but their hunger remain unsatisfied and thus they never grow in sanctification, and can never reach other swedes with the gospel. I am glad I came to the U.S. where good churches still exist, but I feel bad for those saved few that are stuck there, those seven thousand that have not bowed unto Baal.

Soulwinning in Miami in 2014
The long story of this blog and how I became an Independent Fundamental Baptist