He claimed Hananiah, which meant Yahweh has been gracious was changed to Shadrach which meant I am fearful of God. The point he tried to make was that the world wants us fearful and depressed! He claimed this was a spiritual redefining and that it was happening today! Scary until you understand that the meaning of Shadrach simply meant "Illuminated by Rak," who was the Babylonian sun god. His next butchering was the change of Mishael, which meant "who is what God is" to Meshach which meant "I am depressed, contemptible and humiliated." The application point he tried to make here was the mean old world wants Christians sad and feeling like they are worthless. How horrible! Then you realize that Meshach simply meant "who is like Shak, the Babylonian god Venus. Are you sensing a theme here? Well, we have one more. Hodges claimed that Azariah, which meant Yahweh has helped was changed to Abednego, which meant "servant of Nebo." His claim here was that Nebo meant one who speaks or prophesies so that culture will want to change what we hear or something vague like that. I will not speak to that because Nego, not Nebo, was the Babylonian god of fire. The website "Got Questions summed it up this way - "The boys' names were changed as a way of encouraging them to forget the God and traditions of their homeland and become conformed to the ways and gods of Babylon." This is what happens when you proof text the bible. When you have decided that it speaks against the modern-day culture, which it does not, you seek confirmation. It is called confirmation bias. Then you seek out preachers who align with your thinking and get lazy. You do not bother to check if they are bat-poop crazy or what the truth is. Chris Hodges LIED about all four translated names just to try and force his narrative into the text. The truly sad thing is he probably didn't have to. He could have just made the point of false gods versus the one true God and that would have been powerful and biblically/historically accurate. Instead, he sacrifices all of his credibility on the altar of NAR dominionism and is exposed as such in the very first point of his sermon. He then makes four points about culture:
* When culture shifts you must know who you are
* Culture will always try and make you compromise your standards
* Culture will always test our faith
* When culture shifts, we have to learn how to stand
So, let's deal with these one at a time. The first argument seems very reminiscent of the Andy Stanley complaint that the kids he sent off to college from his church were coming back atheists. Stanley blamed the church's insistence that the bible was inerrant, which is stupid. The problem of course is that Stanley does not preach the actual gospel and thus no one was probably saved. They went into the world and without the indwelt Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, they fell for convincing arguments. The point Hodges misses of course is that we always should "know who we are" and that is not a point of antagonizing the world. Even if you allow the point that the culture has shifted, that does not mean we need to shift. We need to be the shining city on a hill not the legislation pending before Congress. The NAR wants to change the behavior of the lost and even if they succeeded, they will still be the lost. The second point is phrased, as all of these, to continue to perpetuate the victim mentality in the church. The mean old world is trying to make me change my standards! Please. First of all, the world believes what they believe, and the bible says they think the things we believe are utter foolishness. So, stop acting hurt or surprised when they act accordingly. We see this mentality playing out in actual court cases all the time now that the NAR has infiltrated the majority of churches in this country. The church rose up and applauded a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. As if Jesus is going to say "attaboy" over this garbage. You chose to be a baker, so bake. It is not courageous to stick your thumb in the eye of the lost and say its for Jesus because it isn't. It's for you. Even from a strictly secular angle, we fail to see the non-discrimination laws are for our protection as well. If a Muslim owned bakery decided to stop serving Christians, I am sure the culture warriors would scream persecution! Now, there is a real struggle between accepting the standards of the world and the standards of the bible but that aint what Hodges is selling. He is selling victimhood and portraying the lost as the enemy. Sure, our faith will be tested by a lost and dying world but that should only reinforce the need for the preached gospel, which is the only thing that has the power of God's salvation. That brings us to the final point listed, which is when culture shifts, we have to learn how to stand for God and herein lies the red meat of NAR dominionism. Hodges lists three subpoints:
* Stand in prayer
* Stand for the work of the Lord
* Stand for God
Now, no problem with the first. Pray before action? Absolutely. The second point is mostly presented from the angle of the Purpose Driven Church and Life, which is this notion that God has this wonderful plan for your life that apparently includes your purpose of serving in the Parking Lot Ministry at Church of the Highlands after five courses, a SHAPE profile and a cloud of dust. The far more disturbing point however was the final point, summarized by Hodges as such:
