Heartland Baptist Church of Oklahoma City

The Dying Brand of Dispensationalism

2011-09-02T14:58:00.005-05:00

I never thought I would see the day, but I have come to believe that we are watching the slow death of dispensationalism before our very eyes.

In case anyone may not know what is meant by the word "dispensationalism", just think of the never-ending end-of-the-world talk in churches or conferences. Is the Antichrist among us? What is the mark of the Beast? When will the temple be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Are you ready for the Rapture? What will happen during the seven-year period called the Tribulation? Will America be around then? Are we seeing the signs of the end of the world with all these natural disasters?

According to the dispensational scheme, there is going to be a secret rapture of Christians anytime soon, and only unbelievers will be left behind (hence the name of the famous book and movie) for the seven-year hell on earth tribulation, with the world ruler Antichrist breaking covenant with the nation of Israel and therefore slaughtering many of the Jews, but 144,000 male Jewish evangelists will be preaching and many can be saved during the tribulation (like a second chance after the rapture), a revived Roman Empire, the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, then after other disasters the Second Coming of Christ (or part two of the second coming, with part one being the rapture), etc. This is in a nutshell the framework of dispensationalism.

The books of Daniel and Revelation especially have been the campgrounds for dispensational fervor. What Daniel and Revelation were originally meant to show, that the four successive world Gentile empires back then (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) known as "the time of the Gentiles" that would dominate old Jerusalem proper, have been sensationally stretched out 2000 years and counting. It sure is more scintillating to say that Iraq today is Babylon, or Iran today is Persia, or the European Union today is Rome, or America is something somewhere in the Bible.

How do I say that dispensationalism is dying? I cite some evidences of that:

(1) Dispensationalists are turning up the heat and coming out more vigorously. That could be the action of those who are so sure of themselves, but it also could be the action of those who are on the defensive, and not the actions of those who can really defend their position well. In fact, I know for a fact that many well-known dispensationalists, even some in my area, have refused over and over again to engage in a civil debate over eschatology with those who think dispensationalism is wrong. If a person is so sure of his position, then he will welcome any opportunity to explain it in a public forum. When a person has doubts that he can defend his position, then it is much safer to "preach to the choir" where he already has loyal followers, be it his church congregation or some well-orchestrated conference. If a pastor or conference speaker is so sure of his dispensational position, then he would not be afraid of inviting a fellow Christ-loving, Bible-believing brother to offer a variant view. But we don't see or hear of that happening, do we? It is more like "my dispensational way or the highway."

(2) Most seminary graduates and most younger pastors totally refute dispensationalism. This scares the old vanguard in the dispensational camp. They don't see enough younger church leaders to carry the torch into the future. About 15 years ago I attended a John MacArthur's Shepherding Conference locally, and most of the attendees, like myself, were younger pastors, like in their 30s and 20s. It was a large gathering. In one session, the leader from MacArthur's church in California, asked how many of us were dispensationalists. I was afraid that I would be about the only one who would not raise his hand. Instead to my shock, and to the shock of the leader, no one raised his hand. It took a while for the leader to recover from his surprise before he could move on with his talk. The leaders in the dispensational movement are aging, and they don't see enough church leaders to carry on their work, and read their books, and attend their conferences, and listen to their sermons.

(3) Dispensatonalists have been proven wrong on more occasions than a person could possibly count. In fact, dispensational teachers and preachers are banking (like you continue to buy my books so I can take my money to the bank) on the fact that people have a very short memory. Dispenationalists are losing followers today, though, because more and more people are wising up and remembering past predictions that have not come true. Hal Lindsey assured us in my generation that Christ would come back maybe in 1981, because that was seven years before 1988, the 40th anniversary of the birth of Israel. Forty years is a generation, ala Matthew 24:34, so 1981 would be the Rapture. Oops! He revised it by saying the rapture would be 1988. Oops again!

Other dispensationalists, like Hal, had to revise their charts and diagrams too over time, several times over. 2011 sure is way past 1948. Y2K rolled around, and one day is as a thousand years, so with the six days of creation, and the earth created at 4000 B.C. and the new millennium starting up at 2000 or 2001, then Christ was supposed to come back maybe 1993, or some other dates, because the millennial reign of Christ would be at 2000, but who cares now, because they were all wrong.

It has been those in the dispensational camp that have thrown out guesses after guesses who the Antichrist was supposed to be, the 666 guy, and there again, wrong again, every time. A friend of mine reminded me recently that I once said that Barney the purple dinosaur was the antichrist. I had forgotten all about saying that. I have the dispensational bug I guess.

We were told that this war or that war in the Middle East was going to be "it", Armageddon, but "it" never became "it", and we are waiting for the new dispensational "it" to surface. First I was told it was U.S.S. R. that will come from the North to invade Israel. Then I was told it was going to be Red China. Then I was told it was going to be Iraq. Then I was told it was going to be Turkey. Then I was told it was going to be Iran. Next year it might be Mozambique, Madagascar or Mississippi. (The last one is not a nation, but with dispensationalism, facts are stubborn things anyway.)There are still plenty of nations around the world we can go through to see if we can hit the right one eventually.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. I sense more Christians are putting two and two together, and their short memories are getting longer and longer all the time. Dispensationalism has become a breeding ground for endless end-time speculations, and the awful truth is that the world may look upon us as silly nut jobs. I am all for being a "fool for Christ", like what Paul said, but repeating the same mistakes at a fanatical pace is a different kind of foolishness.

(4) A deepening awareness of history is discounting the whole dispensational viewpoint. Because of the alternative educational choices, like private school and homeschooling, a big push has been underway for us and our children to know the true history of our country and of the world. Historical revisionism is rightfully despised and scorned. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The more a person studies any branch of history, the more his eyes are opened up to the truth, that is often ignored or purposefully overlooked. And this applies to church history as well as American history.

As one studies the origins and development of dispensationalism, one finds out very readily and easily that dispensationalism was not known until the 19th century. It had its beginnings in a cult-like atmosphere in England. Just google the "origins of dispenationalism" or something like that, and you can read the history for yourself. This means that practically no Christian and no church in the first 18 centuries heard of anything like dispensationalism, let alone believe in it. With this indisputable fact being so, how can anyone believe the central tenets of dispensationalism? Are we going to overlook this historical fact and thus be hypocritical when we emphasize so much our knowing of American history?

Are we saying that the Christians in the first 18 centuries were all wrong, and it was not until the 1800s that Christians finally got it right? Did Christians evolve into smarter human beings in the 1800s than the apostles? A dispensationalist once told me, "If it is new, it must not be true." He was saying that about something else in modern church life, but did he really know what he is saying (which I agree with) when he said that? He is hammering the final nail in the coffin of dispensationalism.

I don't expect dispensationalism to die off anytime soon. It will linger around for a long time to come, but it is losing adherents all the time. I am running into people all the time who once were dispensationalists, and then their eyes were opened to biblical and historical reality.

If Acts 17:11 really is a favorite verse among Christians, then we need to demonstrate it in the area of eschatology. Yes, I have books I can recommend that can guide one to a more sensible (and less sensational and always changing) interpretation of key books and passages in the Bible about end-time matters. But my main interest is that a child of God have a teachable, humble spirit, which means he may have to unlearn some things in order to learn the right things. Some of those things which he will unlearn will be hard to let go of, because they have been part of his belief system for decades maybe. But truth can not hang on to error, no matter how long error has hanged on to us.

The Bible is not a complicated maze of riddles left to the fertile imagination of man to figure out. It is amazingly direct and simple. Man has muddied the eschatological waters, and once a Christian decides it is not a good thing to drink continuously from muddied waters, then he will be able to enjoy and appreciate better the refreshing waters of the simplicity that is in Christ.

I once was a dispensationalist, but I abandoned that in my late teenage years. The purpose of this article is not to label dispensationalists as "heretics", nor is it to shame anyone who is reading this who might be a dispensationalist. We all were something once, but if God's grace has made its way in our hearts, then we have been made into something else. Sanctification is the lifelong process of being made into something else, in the area of behavior and beliefs. May God help us to pursue sanctification, without which no one shall see the Lord.

Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death (part three)

2011-08-31T13:51:00.003-05:00

Four reasons have been cited previously for why the pro-choice position is losing steam and why the pro-life position has the momentum. This is no time for us to assume that since everything is going our way we can just coast to victory. A football team can lose momentum as quickly as it obtains momentum in a game. We need to keep working and praying, because every human life is worth saving.

(5) THE LEADERSHIP COMING FROM SO-CALLED MINORITY GROUPS. In the past it was white people who led the way in advancing the pro-life position. Now we are seeing a large number of leaders who are Hispanic and black, for example, who have taking the reins in advancing the pro-life cause. This scares the pro-choice crowd, because the liberal political wing has always taken for granted that the majority of the minorities are in their corner in all issues.

Is it not the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. that makes speeches around our country about the evils of abortion? Some time ago, a billboard in New York City featured a picture of a young black girl with the message "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb".

Many found this ad "racist", so blacks who ran this ad were committing racism against blacks. Go figure. Lost in the controversy was the actual point of the advertisement: abortion clinics target poor minorities in the inner city.

Institutional slavery of a different kind is an operating branch of Planned Parenthood. All one needs to do is examine the extremely racist views of Margaret Sanger, its infamous founder. More blacks have been killed by abortion in one year than have been killed in the past history of our country as a direct result of slavery when it was in force.

Hispanics and Mexicans have always valued family life, and it has been a hard sell to convince them to discard children as if they were useless appendages. More and more are speaking up against abortion, and are taking the lead in the pro-life movement.

Ask the Chinese who have come from that country to ours because of their yearning for freedom, if the one-child policy in China is looked upon with much favor. Our Vice President thinks it's okay, but most Americans find it repulsive. All the ugly features of abortion, nationally and internationally, are being exposed, and no amount of cover-up can smooth over its tragic reality. Even Whoopi Goldberg said that women who get abortions out of convenience are "idiots" (that is the number one reason why women do abort, Whoopi!).

(6) ABORTION ADVOCATES FIND THEMSELVES ON THE DEFENSIVE. One can always tell if a particular cause or issue is losing ground--it is when the promoters of that cause or issue are having to be on the defensive so much of the time. Even the die-hard leaders of the Pro-Choice crowd admit that abortion is not a lovely thought. When new technologies continue to open the window into the womb, then those who continue to deny the humanity of the unborn will look and sound silly and illogical.

Obamacare is vastly unpopular among the American people, and will be increasingly unpopular once it takes effect (if it does) and when the devil in the details come out more fully, especially the enormous costs. Guilt by association is the government funding of abortion hidden in the unhealthy health care bill. That will only cast a darker shadow on abortion.

When people are on the defensive of a losing proposition, they usually resort to all sorts of bizarre, hateful tactics, which will only dig the hole deeper for them. It is like when a vehicle is stuck in a snowbank or a deep mud hole. Continuing spinning of the wheels commonly result in one thing--a big problem that just got bigger. Pro-choicers are angrily spinning their wheels.

But I saved maybe the best reason for last. . .

(7) THE PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE ARE LOSING FUTURE ADHERENTS TO THEIR CAUSE BY THE VERY THING THEY PROPOSE. Who are the people, women and men, who opt for abortion as their preferred choice? It is those who are pro-abortion. They are killing off future adherents to their cause. Whether they realize it or not, they are having a negative membership drive.

And who are the ones who are pro-life? Those who have babies, and sometimes lots of them. Statistics have shown that those who have three or more children are much more likely to be pro-life in their family values. One does not have to be a math genius to figure out that the pro-life cause is gaining more members to their cause while the pro-choicers are literally aborting themselves to death.

Pro-choicers try their best to rally more people to their position, but at the same time they have to kill off potential future members to their cause. How are the pro-choicers going to get them out of this fix? There is only one way out--they are going to have to become more pro-life. I say that tongue in cheek, but life not only is precious, but life sure can have its funny twists.

Yours to the glory of the Author of life,

Chris

Censorship at Church

2011-08-27T10:18:00.002-05:00

On Thursday, September 15, at 6:30 p.m., the History Book Club will be meeting at the Edmond library to discuss the book Calvin by Bruce Gordon. Leading the presentation and the discussion will be Dr. Michael Springer, historian. It is free and open to the public. The life of John Calvin, the theologian, will be the topic for the night.

Libraries have come in for all sorts of criticism, sometimes justifiably so, for censorship of certain books, like Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I abhor the "n" word myself, but at the same time, there are all sorts of books in the library that contain much more graphic and obscene language and art. Some libraries have placed "offensive" material in a special section, hopefully off limits to children.

I find it rather amusing and sad that government-run libraries are more open to discuss the life of John Calvin than churches today. Do we have an unspoken, unwritten censorship at church? Not just Calvin, but is there a general off-limits rule about discussing anything at church that is just too theological in nature? Are certain topics banned at church? Is it not a sad state of affairs when a Christian who is interested in growing deeper in Bible knowledge has to go to a library to learn about the life of the one of the greatest theologians who has ever lived?

Yesterday I talked to a lady who travels a lot and teaches the U.S. Constitution to young people and adults alike. She told me that the first thing she does is give a simple written test to all who attend her classes. One of the questions she asks is, "What are the first ten amendments to the Constitution called?" The overwhelming majority of attendees wherever she goes does not have a clue. She also told me that she wears a small patriotic pin on her blouse from time to time which has "1776" emblazoned across it. One young college-age student admired her pin, but asked her what the numbers represented. This lady gave her a short history lesson, and this student was hearing something for the very first time.

"My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6) I too am embarrassed about how little Americans know, even our elected officials, about the basics of our nation's heritage. I am more embarrassed about how little Christians know, even our church leaders, about the basics of Bible theology and church history. We are destroying ourselves in the process. The future can look pretty bleak when we in the present want to abandon all memories from the past.

Maybe I need to take a different approach to this story though. Since the church is hades-bent on copying the pursuits and pleasures in the world, should we then not take a cue from this library? After all, we don't want to be left behind in the dust and become irrelevant to society around us. We must find out what the world is doing, and we must do it with vigor and delight.

So, with that being so, what hip church out there is going to follow the lead of this library and have a discussion on the life of Calvin? I am waiting with bated breath to see which church will be the first up to bat.

But then again, I can think of FIVE reasons why a church will not do that. . .

Censorship is alive and well at church.

(I have not forgotten. . .part three of Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death is still forthcoming.)

Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death (part two)

2011-08-23T03:35:00.005-05:00

Here are some other reasons or proofs why the pro-life position has been gaining ground in recent years:

3. THE RELUCTANCE OF THE MEDIA TO CHAMPION THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION. Everyone knows that Hollywood has sold out to liberal causes, chief among them the "right" for women to do with their reproductive bodies as they wish. Although there has been a significant movement toward wholesome family entertainment, still the predominant mindset among the Hollywood elites, be it producers or actors, is to trample upon fundamental values that most of us hold very dear.

Stupid, Crazy Lust, rated R, is just one current example. (I realize the movie title has the word "love" in it at the end, but I have taken liberties to describe the real message in the film.) Adultery and bed-hopping are the common fodder in this "romantic (eros, not agape) comedy". How any self-professing Christian can get chuckles out of this and hope his or her children don't follow the lead actors' examples is beyond me. One should strike out every reference in the Bible about immorality, fornication, and adultery, if one wants to be consistent with his or her viewing habits.

That sermonette aside, it is amazing how few times in Hollywood films or TV shows that anyone ever gets pregnant from their rampant sexual escapades. It must be magic, or more like, fantasy land. But here is an additional kicker--when someone does get pregnant, most of the time life is chosen over abortion, a fact I find very puzzling. Here is a grand opportunity for the media darlings to champion one of their favorite causes for millions to see, yet they opt for the "pro-life" position. One case in point is the movie Juno, about which I have read the following: the pregnant teenage girl approaches an abortion clinic and meets a pro-life friend who informs her that the baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain and already has fingernails, wherein Juno chooses to "appreciate her miracle."

On those very rare occasions, when abortion is chosen as the preferred alternative, it is done so in hush, hush tones, or in a very dour mood. I wonder why abortion is never celebrated with great fanfare in media presentations, if it is such a wonderful alternative. Come on, Hollywood. If abortion is often your number one cause, why not trumpet it more? Why not glamorize it as nothing more than a safe medical procedure, just like removing one's gall bladder or having a bad tooth pulled?

There is an inbuilt reason why we celebrate birthdays and not abortion days. Mainstream media doesn't have the nerve to advance their own cause when they have all the opportunity in the world to do so. Their skittish hesitancy only proves the point that the "pro-life" position has much more going for it.

4. THE GROWING NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE PRO-LIFE CAMP. My generation of baby boomers has handed our society so many cultural ills that we may never fully recover from. We are the ones who followed the drum beat of "tuning in, turning on, and dropping out." We wanted to make love and not war. We wanted to eliminate all consequences of our moral choices, if it meant legalizing marijuana, taking off to Canada to avoid the draft, or taking the pill before or now after, or taking the fetus out of the womb. We were the anti-establishment. Whatever our parents and grandparents were for, we were against. Whatever they were against, we were for.

How the tables may have turned. There is growing evidence that more and more young people are too becoming anti-establishment, as in anti-baby boomer establishment. The boomers are now the greying generation. What goes around comes around (or becomes grey or falls out).This is not to say that the overwhelming majority of high-schoolers today are choosing abstinence over promiscuity, and that there is not much of a drug problem among teenagers today.

What is happening though is a mounting, bold resistance among the young to the immoral ways of the previous generations. They really don't like the mess we have handed to them, because they see a bleak future ahead of them, if things continue on the trajectory they are on now.

One can not simply discount or ignore the major inroads such things as "True Love Waits" has had in young people's lives. It has been noted that many of the American Idol finalists and winners are self-professing Christians who have chosen to wait until marriage for sex. At national "tea party" rallies, observers have commented how many of these anti-political establishment activists are in their teens and twenties. These are not gatherings of the AARP crowd. The sea of young faces at this year's annual "March for Life" in "Washington prompted NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan to worry: "There are so many of them, and they are so young."

Jeremiah's mom did a blessed thing by giving birth to a boy who would grow up to say, "Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I set you apart, and I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations."

If a Planned Parenthood office had operated in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, I shudder to think what kind of counsel they might have given to an unmarried young couple that had just arrived from Nazareth.

(the final installment in this series will be next week. . .hopefully next week)

Pro-Choicers Are Aborting Themselves to Death

2011-08-12T22:06:00.008-05:00

Traditional political wisdom is that the social conservatives should be silenced for fear the fiscal conservatives will lose their voice and, most importantly, lose upcoming elections. Those "pro-lifers" are going to be our downfall, so goes the conventional line. Blue blood establishment types think, I guess, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Not only is it possible to be a social conservative and a fiscal conservative in the same breath, but the latest news is that both joined together are a winning combination.

There has been a noticeable shift in the cultural wind, which has the "pro-choice" crowd shaking in their boots. What are the reasons why things may be tipping in favor of the pro-life position?

!. YEARS OF PERSEVERANCE THROUGH SUCCESSFUL ADVERTISING AND EDUCATION. I can recall back in the 1990s how a soft, low-key pro-life advertising campaign on the major networks caught the pro-abortion advocates off guard. People's opinions about the issue began to change slowly over time; for one thing, the pro-lifers were seen as normal people who just valued life wherever it is found, inside the womb as well as outside the womb. The idea that pro-lifers were some extreme fringe element of "in your face, name calling, unloving, judgmental, abortion clinic bombers" proved to be grossly wrong in the eyes of the public. If anything, the pro-choice crowd with their marches and speeches have showed off a very hateful rhetoric.

While there has been some advertising that has been very graphic and edgy in a few instances here and there, for the most part, the pro-lifers have done a better job presenting themselves and their views. After all, when you have a good product "to sell", the product pretty much sells itself; everything from pro-life car tags to "abortion stops a beating heart" bumper stickers to tactful tee shirts has had a cumulative effect of selling the idea that life sure is a better deal than death. Exactly how can one sell the product that aborting a "live fetus" is a good and necessary thing that elevates culture and human dignity? That's a hard sell.

After all, who are the biggest promoters and active participants in adoption, for example? You certainly won't find that in the pro-choice crowd. Who are the ones who have done the most in our society to care for unwed single mothers, or pregnant teenagers, or children born out of wedlock? Facts have borne out the obvious answer--pro-lifers do so much more to back up their talk with loving, sacrificial service than what Planned Parenthood has to offer.

For abortion providers, it is "we will get you in here to take care of that unwanted pregnancy" and then you are on your own after that. What do they really do in terms of post-abortion traumatic disorders, a hidden, but known fact, that plagues the great majority of those women who have had abortions? Their counseling services, if you want to call it that, leave women struggling with a boatload of guilt. Also overlooked, or I should say buried on purpose by the pro-abortion advocates, is the growing scientific evidence that certain cancers in women are much more likely to occur in those who have gone through an abortion.

Even the pro-abortion clinics now have to admit that, from their own records, that the number one reason why women seek an abortion is because it is a convenient form of birth control. All the cries about rape, or incest, or the health of the woman, simply have registered only a very small token number of women who fall in one of those categories.

On college campuses around our country, Justice For All has been making the rounds with tremendous results. It is a visual presentation, with no protest signs or marches or speeches, about the need for justice (a good-sounding name that resonates well in a liberal college atmosphere) for everyone. If we want justice for all types of people, like those in minority status, or those with disabilities, or those with certain diseases, then to be consistent we should seek justice for those who can not speak up for themselves--those who are in the wombs, the most dangerous place to live in our nation today.

Years and years of successful advertising and education are paying off huge dividends, for the majority of Americans now, according to the a recent Rasmussen poll, say that abortion is "morally wrong most of the time."

2. THE FAILURE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY AND ITS INSEPARABLE LINK WITH ABORTION. It goes without saying much that Darwinian macro-evolution has owned our high school biology textbooks; it has owned our college campuses; it has owned all the large media outlets; it has owned for example everything from National Geographic to Newsweek; it has owned Hollywood; it has owned practically all science museums; it has owned all science TV specials; it has owned the entrenched scientific upper establishment. One can not get away from the long reach of the evolutionary propaganda arm.

Yet with all this going for them, it puzzles and it enrages the Darwin devotees that the vast majority of Americans totally reject Darwinian macro-evolution in poll after poll year after year. Added to that is the remarkable gains the Intelligent Design movement has had in all corners of our society, and there is a growing number of evolutionists who are abandoning this cherished theory, which is closer to an hypothesis than even a theory. One can not overstate the domino effect that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box has had in the scientific community. Antony Flew blew the minds of many, and evolutionists are now on the defensive with no solid evidence to back up their own blind-faith religion. More and more Christian scientists are "coming out of the closet" so to speak and declaring boldly their belief that Darwinian raises more questions than it ever solves, and that all the facts point to an Intelligent Uncaused Eternal Creator Being behind it all.

What does this have to do with abortion? The continued demise of the evolutionary model is partnered with the fall of the abortionary model. They are joined at the hip. Evolution is the concrete slab; if abortion is not the ground floor, it is one floor up. Darwinian evolution provides a way to get rid of God; we are answerable to no one, and therefore, we can live our lives any way we want to and do with our bodies what we deem fit. What is it we have heard all our lives from the pro-choice crowd? "It's a woman's body and she can do with it what she pleases. It's a case of women's reproductive rights!"

But if the foundation of evolution is destroyed, then what can the unrighteous do with their cause for abortion? Hitler and Stalin both loved Darwin; you see how well that worked out in promoting the sacredness of human life.

It is an irony that modern science has become a chief enemy of abortionists, which only proves what we should have known all along--that is, abortion is not about science, but about a certain philosophy of life, or anti-life. In a Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies, because, "we can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible."

How many abortionists are downright fearful of the high-tech imagery we see on ultrasound machines? Just hear the public outcry in states that have proposed and passed laws that say a woman must view the pictures from an ultrasound machine before she proceeds with an abortion. It is hard to understand the justification for such a protest when I thought we were supposed to give in to all the advances of science, the great disprover of religion. Is this a case where with every good rule there must be an exception?

Thanks go to God and to the perseverance of God's people in praying and educating the public about the tragedy of abortion. Political involvement should not be ignored as well. Those who think the church should stay out of public policy debates or the political process at all, even when it comes to clear-cut issues like abortion, have a lot of explaining to do. Nehemiah did the godly thing--he prayed to the Lord, and he posted guard on the Jerusalem wall he was leading to rebuild. He rallied the people to seek the Lord's favor, and he told the people to carry a weapon at their side.

It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. We pray, and we get involved. We worship, and we vote. We read God's Word, and we read up on the latest bills before Congress. And whatever we do, we must always remember that we do it unto the Lord, for His glory. Our task is much bigger than advancing a cause or getting someone elected to office.

If the Truth is contained within the walls of a church building on Sunday morning, then all we have done is to promote a situation ethics or a relativistic philosophy not unlike the world's. The world does not need more world. Darkness needs light and not more darkness.

(to be continued next time; more reasons why the pro-choicers are losing ground, and why the pro-life position is gaining strength)

Til Debt Do Us Part: He Who Goes a-Borrowing Goes a-Sorrowing

2011-08-05T20:26:00.000-05:00

After watching the D.C. debt debacle, I thought of a question worth asking ourselves, "Now how many times are the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves?"

Of course the answer would be, "Trillions and trillions of times."

Frugal Benjamin Franklin said, "Think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty."

Thomas Jefferson reflected, "I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared."

From the excellent book The 5000 Year Leap, I quote: "The Founding Fathers belonged to an age when debt was recognized for the ugly spectre that it really is. They considered frugality a virtue, and even when an emergency compelled them to borrow, they believed in borrowing frugally and paying back promptly."

The recent debt deal was no big deal. Our supposed savings over ten years, as if it really is going to happen in the first place, will be wiped out in two days of debt spending. It makes one wonder if the inmates are running the asylum.

Political pressure to fall in line is what many freshmen Congressmen learned the hard way. But that being said, there might be a silver lining behind it all. There has been a recognizable paradigm shift in our nation's capitol. Over one hundred times in the past has the debt ceiling been raised without a whimper coming from the city on the Potomac. But this time we heard an economic revolutionary shot that was heard around the world. The political establishment does not like it one bit, because they see an erosion of their power.

That is what everything is all boils down to anyway--we need to keep huge voting blocs of government dependents happy, so they can return the favor on election day. They are not called "entitlements" for nothing. Harry Hopkins, advisor to President FDR, put it this way: "Tax, tax--spend, spend--elect, elect."

And to make the silver lining more silvery, I heard that the debt deal has put the funding of Obamacare in real jeopardy. I would not mind if it were in double jeopardy, and then final jeopardy. So, in the spirit of Joseph, "what they meant for evil, may just turn out for good."

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

That last quote by Thomas Jefferson sums it all up well. One reason why I love to quote T.J. is because he is supposed to be the darling of the liberals; he who is the supposed "non-Christian deist among a group of Bible thumpers" is the most admired among the Founding Fathers by those who cherish Big Government. Most liberals only think of one thing Jefferson ever said, and that is his statement regarding a wall of separation between church and state. (Which by the way was a line in a letter he wrote to some Baptists, whom he reassured that there would be no State Church like there was in Europe; hence, there would be a wall of separation between church and state.)

The book of Proverbs says that the borrower is servant to the lender. We got rid of one kind of slavery in this country; hopefully we can get rid of another kind of slavery, an economic one, this time without 600,000 casualties on battlefields, though.

Romans 13:8 says we are not to owe man anything (not to keep any debt outstanding), but to love one another, for that is the fulfillment of the law. The most loving thing to do is not for you to go deeper in debt at home by providing your family with all sorts of goodies you can't afford; there is not much love in a home where there is so much constant fighting done over money matters, particularly over unpaid bills. Proverbs also talks about the superiority of eating just veggies where love is than having the best cut of beef where there is strife.

On a national scale, the same principle applies. The Big Government crowd think they are doing the most charitable thing by giving hand-outs through a variety of entitlement programs (we have more people on food stamps now than at any time in our nation's history!). In actuality, the reverse is true. Our country is so divided right now and so deep in debt and so embroiled in tension and strife and in such an economic tailspin. How exactly is that a picture of love?

Our family has been blessed from the Lord by being out of debt, There have been times in the past when we had to pay out medical bills over an extended period of time, without any interest involved, but we have learned the joy of being free from financial bondage. Those married couples who worked long and hard to get out of debt know what I am talking about.

Paul in Philippians 4 talks much about contentment, and how we must LEARN to be content. It is a valuable lesson we need to learn as individuals and as a nation. We have two competing principles: Either God is able to supply all your need according to His riches in Christ Jesus, or Government is able to supply all your want according to its continued borrowing and printing of money in D.C.

"My God is bigger than your government."

(Thomas Jefferson didn't say that one, but he could have.)

Now that TRON has won over one, will HARRY POTTER be coming to a church near you?

2011-07-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

One of the most frequent criticisms of the church has been that it has demonstrated itself to be so much behind the times. The church needs to get over it, get with it, get on with it.

A sure example of the modern church being so stuck in the past is when a church decorates its lobby with light cycles featured in the movie TRON: LEGACY. If a church wants to have an "At the Movies" sermon series, then can't it please get something much more current? Do you realize that the movie TRON: LEGACY was released at the end of 2010? We are talking over six months ago! How behind the times can we be when we have a movie that has been released on DVD for over three months now? Not even Redbox has it on its current releases list.

It is really embarrassing how much the church is lagging behind again, especially when the world has moved on to other things. How many movie releases have there been since the end of 2010, and all we can come up with is a fantasy world thriller that is so 2010ish?

The ideal solution is this--have a church advertise all over the place that Harry Potter is coming to their church. Talk about being current, talk about being on the cutting edge, and talk about mega box office hit with the finale, DEATHLY HALLOWS 2, and talk about bringing in the teens and the twenties to church. Picture this for example: young people lining up outside a church building in the late hours of a Saturday night waiting for the church doors to open on Sunday morning. The TV cameras would catch the spectacular. Most of these young people would be dressed in the familiar Harry Potter garb, complete with Potter's glasses and wizardry attire.

The church could have giveaways which would entice an even bigger crowd to show up--like a complete DVD series of all the Harry Potter movies, once the finale makes it to DVD. Once inside the church, the young people would be met with people from the church dressed just like themselves and the town of Hogwarts would be recreated in the lobby and on the auditorium stage. Background music from the movie would be playing all the time leading up to the start of the worship service (excuse me, here I am showing myself stuck in the past!), I mean, entertainment hour, experience hour, reconnection hour, or whatever we want to call it.

The preacher, excuse me again, the speaker could come out on stage dressed like Potter himself or maybe Lord Voldemort. We must identify with the world if we are going to reach them. The ideas behind all this are LIMITLESS and quite magical.

For a Scripture-based sermon, there are much more possibilities with a Harry Potter than a TRON. I looked in my big Young's Bible Concordance, and I didn't see one verse anywhere with TRON in it. But the word "potter" is a different story. In Jeremiah 18, God told the prophet to go to the potter's house. There you have the obvious connection. What more does a speaker need?

But then again, maybe that will not work. After all, Jeremiah is a book in the OLD Testament, and OLD does not compute with what is new, current, up-to-date, trendy. So maybe we better scratch the idea from Jeremiah 18. Of course, we can hide the fact from where we are reading, and most people would not know the difference, but it is still too risky. We need to be new and fresh and safe.

So I kept looking, and behold in Romans 9, this is the NEW Testament, it talks about God being like a potter who has absolute power over everyone of us, represented by clay, and it is His prerogative to make some of us vessels of wrath for destruction and some of us vessels of mercy. That He shows mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He has compassion on whom He desires to have compassion. And none of us can talk back to God about this, because it is His sovereign right to do all the above, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, and. . .

On second thought, we might need to scratch the Romans 9 word connection with young Potter. It might be new, but it definitely is not safe these days.

So, back to the drawing board, and I stumbled upon a verse in Isaiah 29:16. (I know it is the OLD Testament, but we will just not mention the scriptural reference. The Potter fans would not be carrying their Bibles to church anyway.) There we read people who were getting things backward. They were saying that they were the potter and God was the clay.

Now that will go over big time! We control God, God answers to us, we do something, and God must respond, that He is a responder and not an initiator, we push the right buttons and God does His thing, we hold the keys to determine our fate, etc. So we have found our angle from Scripture. Plus, it has the added advantage of fitting right into the world of Harry Potter.

What church out there will be the trendsetter and get us out of the six-month, behind-the-times, rut we are in? Who out there will be the first one to invite Harry Potter to their church?

(After we are through with Harry, the next coming attraction could be HORRIBLE BOSSES. I know it is very racy and rough in parts, but once you cross one line, it is so much easier to cross the next line. And besides, do you know how many people out there work for horrible bosses? Disgruntled employees would be flooding through the church doors.)

One final word. . .I read this summary movie review of TRON: LEGACY. "The result is a cheerful, colorful and solidly PG popcorn piece that won't leave you deep in thought."

Maybe I was too harsh on the use of TRON at first. I get it now. The connection is so obvious, how could I have missed it? It makes perfect sense now. I have seen the light, just like the light in that church's newly decorated lobby.

After all, we certainly don't want the Sunday crowd at church ever to be deep in thought about anything. O foolish me, what was I thinking?

Sarcastically yours,

Chris

A Fomenting Family Fetish

2011-07-15T16:42:00.000-05:00

The human heart is a nonstop idol factory, and often times the hardest idols to detect are those things which are good that compete with that which are best or most necessary.

The fifth commandment has to do with the family; the first four though has to do with God and the exclusive worship, honor and obedience which He deserves. Really the fifth commandment is directed not just toward fourth-graders in the honor they should give to their parents, but it is geared toward 40 year-olds in the honor they should give their aging parents. Adults comprised the original audience of Moses' congregation at the base of Mt. Sinai.

Today I fear that in an over-reactionary way, to correct society's views toward the traditional family, that there is a large segment of the Christian community who are unknowingly elevating the family to a place that belongs only to God. I see this danger especially in the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement, a prominent fad that will fade away over time just like Gothard's Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts and Promise Keepers.

There are many points of appreciation (and I want to give credit where credit is due, and that is from a positional paper from a Grace Bible Church, somewhere in the USA) which I have toward those individuals and organizations who have sounded the alarm bell about the devaluation of the family. For one thing, they address the many problems in the modern day church related to youth, where often times children and youth are segregated at every turn from adults, and are babysat and entertained. The traditional youth ministry has proven to be a disaster in so many ways.

Also, they boldly call parents, especially fathers, to take up the call to lead, shepherd, disciple and train their own children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. How many dads, even Christian dads, have gone AWOL from their responsibilities at home? When parents turn over their responsibilities to day care or schools or churches or other organizations to train their children primarily, then repentance is in order.

Our society looks upon children as a curse or a nuisance, inside the womb and outside the womb. Those who champion the family have rightly said that the Scriptures teach that children are a blessing.

So I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have spoken up rightly so about all the above matters. We are losing our church youth today even after spending so much time and church budget in youth activities, and the numerous Christian spokesmen on this issue have put their finger on what is the problem and what are some practical solutions.

In some quarters, though, I am hearing and seeing hard-fast rules to counteract all the above that do not have the support of Scripture behind them. We are being told that only parents should be teaching their children, that age-segregated instruction such as Sunday School, VBS, church camps, AWANA programs, or whatever is "of the devil" or "from the pit of hell" (the exact words from some within the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement), wives should only be taught by their husbands and not from a ladies' Bible study group, that the family must do practically everything together in a church setting, that the father/husband has almost supreme authority in all matters of instruction.

Yes, the parent(s) should be the primary teacher or instructor of children, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that parents should be the SOLE teacher of their children. Deuteronomy 6:3-9 is a favorite among the patriarchal movement, but nowhere in that passage does it say that ONLY parents should be teaching their children. Priests were given by the Lord to instruct people in the law. Prophets were called out by God to admonish the people to follow the Lord and His covenant. Synagogues were developed during the Exile, and rabbis came on the scene to teach the people God's laws. Paul was trained by rabbi Gamaliel. Even boy Jesus was bar-Mitzvah-ed; he was conversing with the religious authorities in the Temple at the age of twelve.

There can be a benefit to children hearing "other voices" in support of their parents' instruction. What if the parents' instruction is off the mark scripturally? Would it not be a blessing if that child hears godly, doctrinally solid instruction from some other source over time? Sunday School or other times of instruction do not have to be a substitute or in competition with the parents' instruction at home, but it can be a nice supplement on a level where the children can learn with their peers. After all, we are talking about only an hour each week. If a parent is really concerned about the detrimental effect an hour's instruction will have on their children on a Sunday morning at a church they like and leaders they trust, then what does that say about the value and worth of their own instruction at home during the week? If one hour can possibly "undo" all they do during the week, then I guess what they are doing during the week must not be that hot.

There can be a sense of hypocrisy within the family-integrated church movement. Are not their children learning from a pastor/elder who is teaching and preaching each week? Unless that pastor is his or her own parent, then that child's instruction is coming from someone other than his or her own dad. Within the home school community, where this family-integrated church movement has really taken off, how many of those home school kids are instructed ONLY by their parents? Dance lessons? Piano lessons? Sports teams? Home school co-ops?

I am a family guy, but I want to be known more as the Lord's guy. It has been rightly said that God made Adam before he made Eve. He could have made Eve before Adam; He could have made Adam and Eve at the exact same time. He also could have made the entire family at the same exact time--Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. But He did not do any of those things. He made an individual first. Marriage and family are high up on God's list, but it is the individual that must give an account of himself before God. It is the individual who has sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is the individual sinner that is need of salvation. Ezekiel 18 plainly says that the son will not bear the sins of the father and the father will not bear the sins of the son. It is the individual soul that sins that shall die.

The church is not made up of a "family of families", as one family-integrated prominent advocate has stated. Nowhere do we find that definition of the church in the New Testament. I know of some churches who have "Family" in their name to advertise they are a family-integrated church. I guess that would leave a single man like the apostle Paul feel unwelcomed. In a family-integrated church, are singles made to feel like second-class citizens? Are widows disenfranchised? What do you do with a woman is a new Christian and whose husband is an unbeliever? Send her somewhere else? What do you do if you have an unbelieving family with unruly children? It seems that our Lord Jesus had an easier time interacting with people like that than those refined, cultured religious folks in His day. The woman at the well in Samaria certainly might stick out like a sore thumb, maybe an unwanted sore thumb, at a family-integrated church.

Yes, families are important to God. Marriage and family are God's ideas after all. But a good family life is not a guarantee of anything, nor is a bad family life a guarantee of anything, unless we believe in Christian determinism, an oxymoron if there ever was one. Josiah had a rotten father and grandfather, but he was a righteous person and a great King. Yet, in spite of being raised in a good home environment, Josiah's three sons were evil in the Lord's sight. We should do everything we can in a Christian home to provide the best type of learning environment for our children, but in the final analysis, that child will have to answer for himself before his Creator. (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

When a church defines itself in any other way than CHRIST, it limits its ministry to a people who are just like them. Maybe that church should put CLIQUE after its name. Legalism takes many forms, and there is a tendency in this patriarchal movement toward outward conformity to certain unspoken and spoken expectations, so much so that these families actually look alike. Contrary to what some might think, there is not an eleventh commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to public schools", there is not a twelfth commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to any church age-segregated events", and there is not a thirteenth commandment that says, "thou shalt not dress thou girls in anything but long denim skirts or dresses".

One fault behind the Promise Keepers movement was that it tended to berate dads into believing their wives are nearly always right, and we should bow to their wishes. Wives are sinners and can be wrong at times. The patriarchal movement tends on the other hand to elevate man to a status where he has no accountability. What if that man is abusive with his authority at home? Does the family have a right to seek corrective church discipline, or must they take it on the chin, because the father is untouchable and all-powerful?

I sincerely applaud all that those in this movement have done to highlight some needed changes that need to be made in our homes and churches. We must be careful, though, that we don't impose our individual or family preferences as a law over others. We have a great amount of Christian liberty (Romans 14) in areas where there may be a diverse set of convictions.

A good course for a church to follow is this--allow families to make up their own minds if they want to send their children to age-segregated activities at church or not. Provide options for all. The church surely is not a showcase for self-defined saints; rather, it is a hospital for self-denying sinners. The church is not a place for law to abound; it is a place where grace should abound. The church of Jesus Christ is made of up of redeemed individuals. That is the family of God that will live on throughout eternity.

Praising God for His being such a wonderful Father, I am yours in Christ,

Chris

Some Surprising Observations from Attending a "Moderate" Southern Baptist Church

2011-07-11T21:30:00.000-05:00

I hardly ever get to attend a church as a visitor. But over Memorial Day weekend, I did just that in Ft. Worth, Texas. While my wife and two of my daughters were two hours west of Ft. Worth, I was alone, and I needed to decide which church to attend. I chose a Southern Baptist church close to where I was staying, and a church I was somewhat familiar with in my seminary days back in the late 1970s.

As I entered the worship center, I flipped through the church program that was handed to me, and I noticed immediately that the church had a different name than what it had back in my seminary days. I had no problem with that, but as I read through the program before worship began, I did see something much bigger than a name change that raised all sorts of red flags. I discovered that I was sitting in a "moderate/liberal" Southern Baptist church. (In case someone thinks I might be jumping to conclusions with my labeling of this church, the pastor in his sermon even brought out that their church was a moderate Southern Baptist church.) Texas has two state Southern Baptist conventions, due to a split several years back between the conservatives and the moderates.

I did give it some thought about quietly making my move out of the church building and finding another place to worship. But I stayed put, because I thought this might be a good learning experience. I am glad I stayed put.

What I witnessed was something that blew my religious socks off. We sang some hymns, some of which were totally new to me, but every one was very deep theologically and biblically. We did a responsive reading from two Psalms, after which the choir sang a beautiful song from one of the Psalms in response.

Later the deacon of the week got behind a microphone on the floor and read to us Romans 13:1-7. The pastor then preached out of Matthew 22:15-22, the last in his sermon series on historic Baptist principles. (Of course, his take on all that constitutes historic Baptist principles would be somewhat different than mine.) While the sermon was entitled "The VBS Flag Incident", it was basically a sermon on Baptists and Religious Liberty.

While I disagreed on some points he made in his sermon, at least he preached verse-by-verse, and as I looked around the congregation, everyone had his or her own Bible opened and was following along as the pastor preached. It was not a three-point, twenty-minute sermonette with jokes interspersed, worn-out illustrations, or a poem at the end. It was a very well developed biblical exposition of the text.

Contrast to what I witnessed that Sunday to what I have seen at some contemporary "conservative" evangelical/Southern Baptist worship services, and the differences are startling. In the modern conservative stream, I have seen many people not even carry a Bible to church. To reduce the number even further, I have seen many of those who have a Bible never make an attempt to open it during the sermon.

One of the saddest commentaries on the state of the church today is the number of people who do not carry God's Word with them to church and/or those who never open their Bibles at all while they are at church. Why go to all the trouble when it is shown on an overhead screen? But the saddest commentary is not all of that. . .there is one that is sadder and more tragic, and that is not giving the people a reason to bring and use their Bibles in the first place.

When sermons are fluffy topical motivational speeches with very little exposition of Scripture, then why bring a Bible, when the man behind the pulpit, or on a bar stool, or on a sofa hardly uses the Bible himself? When we do not give an ample reason for people to bring and use their Bibles at church, then that has to be the sadder commentary on the state of the modern church.

So what I learned on Memorial Day weekend this year is that I attended a non-conservative church in order to hear more Bible than I possibly would have had I attended a flashy, trendy, "conservative" church.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Is Barack Obama the Antichrist? (or if he is not, does he come in as a close runner-up?)

2011-07-07T20:43:00.015-05:00

I turned 18 in September 1972, just two months before the first presidential election in which 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. In the early spring of my eleventh grade, months prior to my birthday, my economics teacher talked me into attending the local Democrat precinct meeting at someone's house. That is the last thing I wanted to do and the last place I wanted to be on a school night. But to please my teacher, and to earn some possible brownie points in class, I reluctantly went. That was my first taste of local politics, a far cry from my taste for sports.

The biggest surprise came when they began to nominate delegates from the precinct to attend the Eastern Oklahoma County Democrat district meeting (or whatever it was called). My teacher nominated me to be a delegate. I sat there in shocked silence. What did I do to her to get this type of treatment? If this school night in a stranger's house with a bunch of adults was a barrel of fun, I just couldn't imagine what excitement would be brewing in a Friday evening and all-day Saturday event at a high school auditorium! My brownie points better be piling up in a big way.

After attending that two-day mini-political convention, I decided quickly that it was going to be my alpha and omega as a political delegate.

That election year would eventually have George McGovern as the Democrat nominee, President Richard Nixon as the Republican nominee, and George Wallace as the Independent candidate. I stood in a long line to vote for the first time in November that year. It was a privilege I took seriously.

Many that year thought McGovern was probably the Antichrist or close to it. After Watergate became full-blown, there may have been many who once thought McGovern was the Antichrist changed their minds to Nixon's being the most likely candidate for the biblical position.

While in college, several of us drove over to Hot Springs, Arkansas, to hear some Georgia peanut farmer speak. I shook hands with the former Georgia governor who would eventually become the next President of the United States.

I held out great hopes for the unashamedly "born-again Christian" who now occupied the White House, but my hopes faded over time. I still remember such things as those long gas lines and our hostages in Iran. Jimmy Carter was a good, decent man, I thought back then, but I became to believe he was just too incompetent for the job. He may have meant well in all that he did, but he was just in over his head. I have done household plumbing before, and I know what it is like to be in over my head, figuratively and almost literally.

David was a righteous man, but he was also very skilled in what he did. (Psalm 78:72) Character and competency together residing in a leader is a powerful force for good in any society.

Presidents have come and gone, and our own evaluations and opinions may vary on how each one did. The awful truth is that we probably have had more mediocre or bad Presidents than we have had great ones. This only shows the genius of our founding fathers, who did not want a monarchical executive. Our country, so blessed by God in the wisdom imparted to our nation's founders, is very resilient because not all power rests in one man.

Two of our most unheralded past Presidents whom I would put in the "great" category are Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, and Calvin (good first name!) Coolidge, a Republican. When Cal Coolidge left the presidency in March 1929, he said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." If government would mind its own business, and quit trying to mind everyone else's, it certainly would be a marked improvement, in my books.

Certain past Presidents have gained the inevitable distinction of being nominated as the Antichrist. That would be a special category of a "bad" President.

Without giving away everything in a future article, I can with 100% certainty say that Barack Obama is NOT the Antichrist. Some would be quick to add, though, that he deserves to come in as a close second.

I realize the Bible says that we are to pray for all those in authority, and if first century Christians can pray for Nero, then we can pray for President Obama. I also realize that God raises up leaders as He sees fit, as He did toward Pharaoh and Cyrus, and as Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way after seven years of insanity. I also know that the Bible teaches that the king's heart is in the hands of the King, and He can turn it whatever direction He chooses.

The other thing we learn in Scriptures from the history of Israel and Judah is that God often gives the leaders they deserve. The more appropriate question to ask then is not if Barack Obama is the dreaded contrived "Antichrist" or not, but is Barack Obama God's judgment upon our country? Are we getting what we deserve?

That may sound like a harsh statement, and I do not delve into politics in these articles and I certainly refrain from doing so when I teach God's Word on Sundays, but it is hard to ignore the obvious these days. Charles Spurgeon in his sermons frequently referred to relevant current events in his day.

I have read much on Barack Obama's upbringing (no, I am not talking about his birth certificate!), and that alone scared me. While I disagree with about everyone of Obama's liberal policies, and while I think he has proven to be much more incompetent or inexperienced than any previous President in my lifetime, those two factors alone by themselves do not raise my concerns to the level that it exists today.

While I have disagreed with all past Presidents over certain issues, I figured that for the most part they thought that what they were doing was what was best for their country. Some may have come from different worldviews or held different presuppositions than I did, but still I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to all of them in that they were doing what they thought would help our nation improve or get better.

But. . .

I do not know if I have that same sentiment toward the current occupant of the White House. This is the first time I have ever felt this way toward the President of the United States, and it is not a feeling I relish or enjoy having. It is hard for me to imagine that we would ever have a President that would purposefully do things to harm our country. What we are witnessing today has to be more than just incompetence at work. It has to be something else. No one can just be this arrogantly wrong or misinformed.

I hope I am proven wrong, but if it is true that the current policies of this administration are aimed at bringing our country down at home and abroad, then we are on uncharted waters as a nation. Incompetence is one thing, but intentional design is something far worse.

Like every parent, I want my children to have things better than I did. I want to leave them a country flourishing in liberty. I want them to grow up with opportunities to use their God-given abilities in a free society. I want them to be grateful they are Americans. I want them to bask in the rich heritage of our country.

My concern is that we have a President who does not share in these same desires and goals, and who is determined to undo everything our country has stood for. Whatever his motivations, my prayer for this President is that he will be a one-term President. 2012 can't come soon enough for me. After all, that passage in 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for those in authority so that we can lead a quiet and peaceable life.

Calvin Coolidge hit the nail on the head.

After saying all that, though, I must repeat what I read this week as I was studying for my sermon series through Ezekiel: "If there is any lesson to be learned from this sorry history (of Israel) it is this: Trust God, not national power. American Christians are too often overly concerned with saving America. Perhaps God does not intend to save America. But God will save His people. He always has, and He always will."

That is a bigger nail.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

WARNING: In Case of Rapture, This Blog Spot will be Unmanned

2011-05-19T17:07:00.010-05:00

I write these articles on the fly most of the time, but this time it is really, really on the fly. . .as in I will be flying away in several hours. At least that is what Harold Camping has informed us. The world is coming to an end on May 21, and I don't have that much time left before I must don my rapture robe woven out of silk from Jerusalem.

I overheard some comments today while I was out there working in the secular world (now why was I working in the first place, when I should be eating and drinking because the day after tomorrow I will fly?). These employees were joking about the atheists who have formed a business to take care of the pets of all departed Christians come May 21. That is the American entrepreneur spirit at work--making money at the expense of end time silliness. Many Christians have been doing that for years (just walk through your local Christian bookstore), so why can't atheists join in the parade and reap the same financial bonanza?

My first car was a 1963 two-door white Chevy Impala. I had on it a bumper sticker that read, Warning: In Case of Rapture, This Car will be Unmanned. It was the "in" bumper sticker among Christians at that time in the late 60s and early 70s. I soon discovered that "rapture" was secret (no pun intended) code language known only to the inner circle of dispensationalist Christians. The world by and large had no idea what that bumper sticker was saying. But it made us all Christians feel good, I guess. Or maybe just plain superior to all those worldly folks.

Of course, rapture is not found in any biblical concordance. That in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible either. The word "rapture" comes from the Latin word "rapio", and it means to be caught up. It is not the word that bothers me so much, but how the word has been co-opted by a cult-like following among a huge portion of evangelical Christianity, which has done nothing but make Christians look and sound stupid in the eyes of the world.

For the first eighteen centuries of Christianity, the idea that Christians would be secretly raptured out of this world to be followed by a seven-year tribulation time and then the Second (or would it be Third?) Coming of Christ was totally foreign to the thinking of all Christians. The trio of Edward Irving, J.N. Darby and Margaret McDonald in their English cult group changed all that. Pretty soon, Darby exported this sensationalism to America, and a divorced lawyer who had spent time in jail, a C.I. Scofield, picked up on this novel theory, and as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, now you know the rest of the story.

Harold Camping may be an extreme example, but he is an eschatological blood brother, whether certain people want to admit it or not, to all the other end time prophecy "experts" who have drunk liberally from the well of dispensationalism. Harold is bold enough to pick a date; others only flirt with dates. (Of course, if Harold lived back in the Old Testament times, when the penalty for being a false prophet was death by stoning, Harold would have been a goner a long time ago.)

What is the difference really between Harold and all those preachers who were so eager to preach after the devastating earthquake in Japan that we were witnessing a sure sign that we are living in the last days, or how the turmoil in Egypt was a sure sign that the rapture is very, very near?

While growing up as a young person, I heard this remark made many times over: "There have been more earthquakes in the 20th century than all the earthquakes in the previous centuries combined. This just proves we are living in the last days just like Jesus said in Matthew 24:7." Well, guess what? No one ever called anybody on the carpet about that statistic; we just took it at face value (and we love to say we are Berean Christians like in Acts 17:11?), because it sounded so good coming from the pulpit or when we read it in print.

The truth is in earlier centuries they did not have the modern know-how in seismology to measure earthquakes. The statement was and is blatantly false, but don't let that minor detail stop many preachers and authors from using it over and over again still today. The apparent rise in earthquakes over the last several decades is due to nothing more than the use of technological advanced seismographs. How many were killed in the Japan earthquake? Compare that to the one in China in 1850, where an estimated 400,000 died, or how about the one in Calcutta in 1737 where 300,000 died, or how about Egypt in 1138 where 230,000 died, or to top them all, again in China in 1556 where there were over 800,000 casaulties?

So Harold is camping on the fact that May 21 is when it will all end. I can only hope and pray that all this inexlpicable fascination with a cultish modern invader called dispensationalism will come to an end someday.

I told my wife I was going to take her to Hawaii on our 33rd wedding anniversary come May 27. You could not imagine how happy I made her feel. But alas, I also told her I found out that the world will come to an end six days before then, so I had to scrap all my original plans.

Another fallout of dispensationalism--it does not promote harmony in the home. Thanks, Harold.

Looking for the blessed hope,

Chris

What is a Mommy After All?

2011-05-07T08:46:00.005-05:00

I searched and searched for just the right poem to read on Mother's Day;
But all seemed so impersonal and just did not express what I wanted to say.
I'm not that great a poet; rhyme is not my thing,
And to put it to music--everyone knows I can't sing.
So I've come up with my own prose, be it ever so small
To answer the fundamental question, "What is a Mommy after all?"

A Mommy from my perspective is a 1001 different things--
Or is it rather a Mommy must do each day 1001 different things?
Underneath her blouse is hidden a big letter "S"--
Now does that stand for Super Mom, Super Caring, or Super Tired
(or maybe all the above)?

A Mommy can leap over a pile of toys with a single bound,
Wipe a runny nose faster than a speedy toddler,
And with nerves of steel go toe-to-toe with anyone who messes with her kids.

A Mommy cooks, sews, irons, washes dishes, mops floors, changes diapers,
Dresses the kids, takes them to the doctor, shops until she drops,
Watches Barney for the umpteenth time, kisses and mends boo-boos,
Cleans house, picks up clothes, does the laundry, dusts and vacuums,
And then by lunch time she's ready to go at it again.

A Mommy does that and more,
And yet she finds time for Daddy.

A Mommy is a lighter sleeper than a Daddy;
That's why she always gets up at 2:00 a.m. with a sick child,
While Daddy is still fast asleep, or pretending to be.

A Mommy is smarter than a Daddy;
That's why a Daddy always tells his child to go ask Mommy.

A Mommy does not get paid by the hour;
She gets paid by looking with satisfaction
Into the eyes of a family God has given her.
A Mommy reads to her children from the most precious Book of all,
And tells her children about the most precious Person of all.

A Mommy watches her child take her first step,
And before she can turn around, she is watching that child
Take her first step down a wedding aisle--
A Mommy knows how to cry alot.

What would this world be like if God did not give us Mommies?
Children grow up, leave home, start their own families,
Come back to visit for a while, and always ask for advice.
Yes, children grow up, but Mommies never really do,
Because Mommies are always Mommies.

So I close this little prose with one more bit of rhyme.
To tell you all that a Mommy is I simply don't have the time.
And that's something else special about a Mommy--
She always seems to have the time or take the time.
How she does it, I will never know!

But to see those little ones grow up full of the love of God,
Well, that's worth all the having to get up and go.
So Mommy, I salute you--you really are one of a kind.
Don't worry about falling behind on your housework,
Because your homework is walking behind.

Many thanks go again to Jan Blair of Jones, OK, who did the above in calligraphy and nicely framed it for us over 16 years ago.

Rot in Hell: How a Secular Newspaper Can Teach a Christian Pastor

2011-05-03T17:30:00.004-05:00

One thing is certain: Osama bin Laden is NOT the Antichrist.

This article was not exactly what I had in mind for part two of Is the Islamic Antichrist Among Us?, but it is funny how the news events of the day can change one's course.

My sister called me this past Sunday evening to ask me if I were watching TV. She does a good job of alerting me to things I should be aware of, like an approaching tornado, because most of the time we don't have the TV turned on. This time, though, it was not a weather report she was making me aware of; instead, it was the earth-shattering announcement that our military, particularly the cream of the cream of the crop, the Navy Seals, had taken out Osama within a 40-minute time period within his compound in Pakistan.

It was either Good Morning, America or the Today Show the next morning that held up the New York newspaper headlines announcing the death of this terrorist mastermind. One of the New York City newspapers had this for their big caption on the front page--ROT IN HELL. Beside that was the picture of Osama bin Laden.

How strikingly odd that a secular newspaper in New York City would admit in this "eliminate-all-hell-talk" postmodern religious environment that hell must be a real place after all. True, it is only a place for the really, really, really bad folks, like Osama, or other mass murderers, or serial rapists, or child abusers, or former spouses, but nonetheless, the world still has a place for hell, besides just in our cursing. We can't shake off hell, as much as we are told that we must, in this new age of coexistence, full tolerance and positive feel-happy spirituality where all roads lead to heaven. . .except that one road we must keep in tact that leads to hell.

What is the explanation for all this dichotomy of how we should not believe in hell, yet how we should believe in hell? The Preacher in Ecclesiastes says that God has set eternity in the heart of man. Man has been designed by its Creator to think of eternity, that this life is not all there is. The new atheists or the run-of-the-mill advanced secularists can try all they want to rub this "archaic" thought out of our craniums, but it simply will not go away. We have a list of people that we want to see rot in hell. It is more than just a death wish, and it is more than just a hell wish too.

This is because we know that justice is never fully served in this life. It is not right that Osama had a quick death for one time, when how many people did he kill, many of them very painful slow deaths, on 9/11? Even if we could kill Osama many times over, we still would think he did not fully get what was coming to him.

We demand that there be a fuller justice out there beyond this life, something that is more exacting and more definite by a Judge that is completely able and willing to do the right thing in every case. Justice delayed is justice denied, which is often the case in this life; but that sticky unresolved issue could be more than overcome if justice determined is justice divined in the next life.

Of course, a normal man's thinking has all those people "worse" than himself getting their just desserts before God one day; he never stops to consider that Gehenna will be populated by people that were not as "good" as God. That should strike another kind of terror in the mind of every man. How can anyone be as good as God, and how can I then be removed as a prime candidate for residency in hell myself?

Justification is the heaven-sent solution whereby man can avoid being sent to hell. Since all our righteousness is like filthy rags (menstrual cloths, literally), we need the perfect Righteousness of Another to be transferred to our account. Jesus, the God-man, through His death on the cross, has made it a reality that a believing, repenting man can have all his sins removed and God's righteousness be put in its place. What better deal could man hope for--this is real hope and change--God gets all our sin, and we get all His righteousness. Man comes out on the better end of that arrangement.

This is where the New York City newspaper falls short. All will "rot in hell", apart from God's saving grace.

But at least the secular media recognizes there is a hell of some sort. Maybe they can teach a few things to people like Rob Bell, a Christian pastor and author of Love Wins, who denies the reality of hell.

What a strange world we live in, where we are asking the world to teach a Christian pastor some sound theology. How foolish could we be for expecting it to be the other way around!

Living with eternity in mind,

Chris

Is the Islamic Antichrist Among Us? (part one)

2011-04-29T06:41:00.007-05:00

In February 1989, the Ayotallah Khomeini delivered his infamous fatwa (the formal opinion of a Muslim canon lawyer) against Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses.

As a quick historical review, during the prophet Muhammad's days in Mecca, before he was run out of town and took his flight to Medina, Muhammad was sitting with some eminent men of Mecca next to the Kaaba, the cube like building in the middle of the center of the mosque at Mecca. There he began to recite sura 53, which describes Gabriel's first visit to Muhammad and then goes on to the second visit:

He also saw him (Gabriel) another time

By the Lote tree at the furthest boundary

Near to which is the Paradise of rest,

When the Lote tree covered that which is covered,

His sight turned not aside, neither did it wander

And verily he beheld some of the greatest Signs of his Lord

What do you think of Lat and Uzza

And Manat the third beside?

At this point we are told that Satan himself put into Muhammad's mouth words of reconciliation and compromise:

These are exalted Females

Whose intercession verily is to be sought after.

The Meccans were overjoyed at this recognition of their deities and are said to have prayed with the Muslims, the early followers of Muhammad. But supposedly, Gabriel paid another visit to the Prophet, scolded Muhammad, and told him that the true ending to the verse should have been:

What! shall there be male progeny unto you, and female unto Him?

That were indeed an unjust partition!

They are naught but names, which ye and your fathers have invented.

Muslims have always been uncomfortable with this story, unwilling to believe that the "monotheistic" Prophet could have made such a concession to idolatry. Actually, this was not a slip of the tongue by Muhammad. This was a calculated attempt to win the support of the pagan Meccans to Muhammad's eclectic religion. When the Meccans failed to follow in line, Muhammad reversed course, and blamed Satan for inspiring him to say the original lines.

If Satan truly had been these words in Muhammad's mouth, how can anyone put faith in a man so easily led astray? How could God allow that to happen? How do we know if there not other passages in the Koran where Muhammad had not been led astray?

For Salman Rushdie to pursue this line of thought and state the obvious from Muhammad's inglorious past, he was deemed as good as dead. Mr. Rushdie became a fugitive on the run from the long reach of the Muslim law.

At the same time, a glaring inconsistency existed, even to this day. Christian end-time soothsayers in our country have recently nominated Libyan President, Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi, as a possible candidate for the post of Antichrist. Other candidates have come and gone through the years, but the nominations will keep pouring in until somebody will finally get it right, supposedly.

But the surprising thing about al-Qaddafi is that he is anything but a faithful Muslim. His public statements on the Prophet, the Koran and Islam in general amount to a blasphemy far greater than anything written by Salman Rushdie. He changed the Islamic calendar, mocked Meccan pilgrims as "guileless and foolish", criticized the prophet Muhammad, and claimed that his own achievements in Libya were far greater than those of the Prophet. He has shown extreme skepticism about the truth of the Koran and even about the details of the life of the Prophet. Though religious leaders found al-Qaddafi anti-Islamic and deviant, and condemned his "perjury and lies," there were no calls for his death, nor were any of his writings banned.

Today there is an uprising in Libya, as there is in other parts of the Middle East. The protesters in Libya have discovered, though, that it is a much harder job to dislodge their leader than in the case of Egypt's Mubarek, another previous candidate for the post of Antichrist. This has led many to assume that the protesters are a more radical group of Muslims who finally want to instill an Iranian-type Islamic state. NATO has gotten involved, along with American air forces, and the time may come when ground forces will be sent in to remove the Libyan leader from power. The question remains, though, why has it taken so long for Muslim leaders to take al-Qaddafi to task for his anti-Islamic rants through the decades?

One explanation is that in Islam and in Muhammad's own life there are a countless number of inconsistencies and contradictions, all because "the end justifies the means."

Ibn Warraq in his book Why I Am Not a Muslim reminds us we need to distinguish three Islams: Islam 1 is the what the Prophet taught as contained in the Koran, Islam 2 is the religion as expounded, interpreted and developed by the theologians through the traditions (Hadith), which includes the sharia and Islamic law, Islam 3 is what Muslims actually did do and achieve, or to put it in other words, Islamic civilization. (Do you see the familiarity with what Jesus had to face in His day with his ongoing confrontations with the Pharisees and scribes?) Trying to reconcile all three strands of Islam will cause any critical thinker to have unending migraines.

For starters, Muhammad did not invent a new religion. He was basically jealous that his tribe in Mecca did not have a monotheistic religion like the Jews and the Christians. Inside the Kaaba there were 360 idols, for instance. What Muhammad did was draft the moon god "Allah" into becoming the One Supreme God, and then from there he borrowed pagan practices left and right, much of it from Zoroastrianism, to fit them into his home-brew concoction of Islam.

Islam does not allow for critical analysis. Everything is to be accepted by blind faith. When one dares to question anything about Muhammad's life, his sayings, the Koran or Hadith, or the religion of Islam in general, that person becomes a marked man, ala Salman Rushdie. In contrast, Christianity invites critical thinking and probing investigation, because the truth has nothing to fear.

Because Europe and the United States have been swept off her feet by growing secular humanistic ideology the past two centuries, they no longer have the stomach and mind to recognize the danger that Islam imposes. The United States is not far behind Europe in so many ways. Have you ever wondered why since 9/11 there is the inexplicable attempt on the part of the political, academic, media and religious establishment to defend and even promote "peaceful" Islam at all costs? How can the National Organization for Women remain silent, for example, about how women in Islamic countries are treated? Such is the case, though.

I have often wondered about the "COEXIST" bumper stickers I see on vehicles. Is it just by accident that the first letter C represents Islam, whereas the last letter T represents Christianity? Hmm. But more to the point, what are the chances that we would find a COEXIST bumper sticker on a vehicle in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, et. al.? A rational person would have to conclude that we don't have much problems with "coexisting" in the United States. (How many Muslims have been persecuted, beaten, imprisoned, killed in this country, and how many mosques here have been bombed or burned to the ground? Compare that number to Christians and churches in Islamic countries.) It seems that the Islamic countries didn't get the memo yet on peaceful, tolerant coexistence.

In the United Kingdom, where Prince William got married today (finally!), there are more Muslim mosques than Methodist churches. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. Many European leaders are afraid to make a move due to how it may upset the Muslims in their respective countries. Witness how Spain quickly withdrew its armed forces from the Iraqi war, all because of a terrorist attack on a train.

Where did this "bend-over-backwards-to-appease" Islam attitude develop in Europe? In the sixteenth century, when Europe began to explore other parts of the world, the notion of the "noble savage" was first fully developed. That included Muslims in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The seventeenth century saw the first truly sympathetic accounts of Islam. Compared to the Catholic Church, for example, Pierre Bayle would comment: "The Muslims have always had more humanity for other religions than the Christians." The Crusades, going back several centuries, were the Catholic Church's attempt to outdo the Muslim jihad. This had a lasting negative hangover in the minds of the intellectual class in Europe.

George Sale in his translation of the Koran in 1734 firmly believed that the Arabs "seem to have been raised up on purpose by God, to be a scourge to the Christian church, for not living answerably to that most holy religion which they had received." In other words, Islam was a means of divine judgment upon the Christian church. Had the church lived up to its ideals, then Islam would not have succeeded so much. That was the estimation of many at the time.

It was Voltaire, the French atheist, that got the pro-Islamic, anti-Christian ball rolling at full speed. To Voltaire, the God of Christianity was a "cruel and hateful tyrant" who "surely cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on the gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough" and nor could he have inspired "books filled with contradictions, madness and horror."

By contrast, Voltaire found the dogmas of Islam very simple: there is but one God, and Muhammad is his Prophet. There were no priests, no miracles, no mysteries. This appealed to the anti-supernatural bent of people like Voltaire. The historian Gibbon, who wrote The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, painted Islam in a favorable light, especially as contrasted to Christianity. The anticlerical Gibbon jumped on Islam's bandwagon because it provided more ammunition is his own disdain for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Gibbon's deistic view of Islam as a rational, priest-free religion, with Muhammad as a wise and tolerant lawgiver, enormously influenced the way all Europeans perceived their new sister religion for years to come.

A familiar pattern was emerging in Europe in the late 1700s and into the 1800s--Islam was being used as a weapon by a growing number of movers and shakers in European society to mock and to attack Christianity. Many of the European apologists of Islam had not proper acquaintance with the Arabic sources of Islam; most had only a superficial knowledge of their subject. They simply used Islam as a convenient weapon against intolerance, cruelty, dogma, the clergy and Christianity.

This is where we are today. Christianity is the whipping boy; Islam is the whipper.

So. . .is the Antichrist an Islamic religious-political figure who may be on the scene now, or who will appear soon? It is reported that Glenn Beck has suggested as much. The 12th iman will reappear, and in Islamic theology his likeness is comparable to the Antichrist we read about in the New Testament. So the reasoning goes. But what does the Bible say about the Antichrist? Surprisingly, the Bible paints a totally different picture of the antichrists or an antichrist than that that has been popularized through evangelical or even Mormon circles.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Earthquakes in Pulpits and Pews

2011-03-26T13:01:00.003-05:00

Tim LaHaye was in Hawaii at a Bible prophecy conference (at what other conference would he be attending or speaking?) when the 8.9 earthquake rattled parts of Japan. When asked about the news in Japan, the first thing out of his mouth was along the lines that the Bible says there would be earthquakes in various places before the Second Coming of Christ. Where is all that Christian compassion for the victims and survivors of that catastrophe? Nothing seems to matter more than to hope that this crisis or the next crisis fits into our end-time scheme. Just like Jonah. (See earlier blog post, Have You Been Gypped about Egypt?, and especially my P.S.)

Let us set the record straight. Jesus is coming again. There will be a second bodily coming of our Lord. There will be a future bodily resurrection of believers and unbelievers alike. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. There will be an eternal lake of fire.

But there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says that earthquakes, famines, wars, or whatever else would increase in frequency right before Christ's Second Coming. This may come as a shock to many, especially those who have been fed dispensationalism all their lives. And I may be branded as some sort of kook heretic, but so be it.

It was the improper interpretation of God's Word that led the religious leaders in Jesus' day to miss the boat on his First Coming, and it is the improper interpretation of God's Word that is leading many Christians today to miss the boat regarding the Second Coming. (See John 2:18-21 and Mark 14:55-65 for one such example.)

There is ONE passage about earthquakes or wars or other catastrophic events that have been used over and over again by countless preachers and authors who relish in sensationalizing over national or world tragedies. This passage is found in the Olivet Discourse, which is found in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Many assume right off the bat that this whole discussion between Jesus and His disciples was about the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. That is where people go wrong.

The disciples were not thinking about the Second Coming of Christ. They did not know fully yet about the First Coming of Christ, and they would not know all about that until after Christ's resurrection. So why would they bother to ask about the Second Coming now thousand years removed from them, when they did not even have at the time the slightest clue about Jesus' death just several hours away?

What was the burning issue on their minds? Luke 21:5-7 tell us, so does Mark 13:1-4, and so does Matthew 24:1-3. Jesus made it so clear to them and to us, how can we miss it? Jesus pointed to their beautiful Temple in Jerusalem, which all Jews took enormous pride in, and said that building would be leveled to the ground. Naturally, the Jewish disciples were astonished to no end, and they wanted to know when the end of their Temple would occur.

Jesus proceeded to answer their question. He gave the signs leading up to the end of the age, not the end of the world, but the end of the old covenant age, when Jesus would come in judgment upon that generation that rejected the Messiah. When the Temple is destroyed, there are no more sacrifices, priests and Levites are out of a job, and the old covenant nation of Israel ceases to be. Plain and simple. The disciples were not asking about the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Christ (why would they be concerned about that since it was going to be such a long way off, two thousand years and counting now?). They were asking when the Temple and their nation would come to a screeching halt.

Wouldn't that concern us if someone with impeccable credentials and authority told us today that our nation's capital would be overthrown? Would our normal, natural reaction be, "When will a rebuilt nation's capital be destroyed some hundreds or thousands of years later?" How preposterous. That flies in the face of reason. Or would it be something like this, like what the disciples asked, "When is our country today coming to an end? Tell us, give us some clues, give us some time indicators, when will the D.C. we have now be Destroyed Completely?"

So Jesus answers the disciples' question. He doesn't answer a question that they didn't ask. He doesn't give answers that would be totally irrelevant to His disciples. Jesus knew what the disciples were asking, the disciples heard what Jesus had said, and the question before us is this: Will we hear Jesus, or will we hear some popular preacher/author instead, who will take advantage of an earthquake in Japan, in order to prove a point that Jesus never made? Do we know more than our Lord?

Bottom line is this--everything Jesus said in Mark 13:5 and following (and in the other synoptic gospel accounts) is about historical events that would happen leading up to the destruction of the Temple in the first century. And in Mark 13:30, Jesus wraps up everything in a nice pretty bow by saying, "Truly I say to you, THIS (not THAT, as in a future distant generation) generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS (all the things he talked about from v.5 on) take place."

Was Jesus right? Jesus spoke these words in 30 A.D. Guess what would happen in 70 A.D., forty years later, within a generation of time? The Temple was destroyed by an invading Roman army. The old covenant age came to an end. The nation of Israel ceased to be. Jesus came in judgment, like when God came in judgment numerous times in the Old Testament (Isaiah 26:21, Micah 1:3, etc.).

There are many passages in the Bible that speak concerning the Second Coming of Christ, but Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are NOT one of them.

What about the earthquake in Japan? Or Hurricane Katrina? Or Haiti? Or 9/11? Or Mt. St. Helens? Or the Vietnam War? Or the San Francisco earthquake? Or the Chicago Fire? Or the Black Plague in Europe? Or the Crusades? Or any other disaster that has been used to justify the nearness of Christ's Second Coming?

Rather than go to Mark 13, we should go to Luke 13, like verses 1-5, for insights on how Jesus handles man-made or natural disasters. "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Jesus said that twice in fact. He didn't jump on the leading news stories in His day in order to hype them for some end-time scenario. He preached repentance to those who were still alive. There is a far greater "fate" than dying in a tsunami; it is dying without Jesus.

Maybe the real earthquake that needs to happen today is the one in our pulpits and pews. Maybe we need to shake loose of some bad teaching that has grabbed hold of us for so many years and has distorted our view of prophecy and of the gospel.

Living in the blessed hope of Christ's coming,

Chris

Dear John, Your Uneducated Peasant is The Intelligent Being

2011-03-25T15:12:00.007-05:00

In a letter to the editor at The Oklahoman newspaper, dated March 12, 2011, a John D. Sargent of Oklahoma City wrote the following in response to an earlier letter to the editor:

". . .First, the Bible is too incomplete to explain the 'how' of practically anything. If the entirety of human history, much less the cosmos, can be demonstrated by the amount of water contained within the Pacific Ocean, then the Bible represents the historical equivalent of a one-gallon pitcher. In reality, the Bible is religio-political propaganda, created by tribal shamans and first-century clergy, to explain the 'why' to their adherents.

Second, considering that he was an uneducated peasant, Jesus could not have known even a portion of what a modern person knows second hand about the cosmos or germ theory. Christianity is a multimillion-dollar business and its sustainability relies upon an effective marketing program (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Bible literalists/fundamentalists must wake up and realize that the clergy's livelihood and position within their respective organizations is dependent upon their ability to convince consumers of the effectiveness of their product.

Using the Bible in support of intelligent Design is a a fool's errand"

Here is my Dear John letter:

With all due respect to John Sargent's vacuous, worn-out arguments, his last statement is a remarkable example of evolutionary hypocrisy: "Using the Bible in support of intelligent design is a fool's errand."

Now did John Sargent use his intelligence to come to the conclusion that we all came from non-intelligent matter?

And as a famous philosopher once said, "If there is a God, nothing is impossible; but if there is no God, then everything is permissible", then how can we make any value judgments of what is foolish and what is intelligent in the first place? Would it be foolish or wrong for me to kill someone I don't like, or would it be an act of intelligence to speed up the process of the survival of the fittest? No one can say, because everything becomes permissible.

The inspired, inerrant Bible never makes the claim of being a "scientific textbook"; neither do William Shakespeare's works nor any other great work of literature. We don't use the Bible to teach calculus, business law, architecture, civil engineering, interior design, computer technology, German, or any other worthwhile pursuit. We can be educated to learn how to make a living, but we need Something or Someone to tell us how to make a life.

God gave created man a dominion mandate in Genesis 1:26, and involved in that is the discovery of God's wonderful creation. The human body is wonderfully and fearfully made, so says the psalmist. If God told us everything how He did it, then that would put scientists out of a job. So it would be intelligent not to bite the Hand that feeds you and made you. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." (Proverbs 25:2)

Just last night I was watching a science program on PBS, hardly a Bible fundamentalist mouthpiece, and I learned that scientists do not know what 95% of the universe is made of, because it is mostly dark invisible matter. If scientists only know 5% of the universe's composition, then how can they tell us with such certainty what did or did not make the universe? That would be the fool's errand.

Whom John Sargent calls "an uneducated peasant", Jesus Christ has done more to change people's lives for the better now and forever than all the John Sargents and Chris Humphreyses in the world put together. If Jesus were just "an uneducated peasant", then why do secular works, such as encyclopedias, still devote more time and space to His life than to any other person in the history of mankind?

Maybe John Sargent can use his intelligence from non-intelligent matter to figure that one out for us.

Respectfully yours,

Chris Humphreys

Have You Been Gypped about Egypt? (with all apologies to Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, and all the rest)

2011-03-10T21:44:00.010-06:00

Sure enough. It happened. Sermons, Bible studies, prophecy conferences, books, articles, you name it have poured out about how today's turmoil in the Middle East is a fulfillment of prophecy. It seems that eager beaver Christian leaders are ready to capitalize on any crisis to prove something that you and I can't figure out on our own. In the New Testament day, that elitist idea of special knowledge granted to a few was called gnosticism; today it is called dispensationalism. With our Scofield Bibles in hand, and with our note pads ready to jot down the latest "insights" from our prophetic gurus, we are confident again that "this" today in Egypt is "that" foretold in Isaiah.

Not long after the unrest in Egypt erupted, I came across numerous instances where Christians were flocking to hear how the latest leading news story was all there written down for us thousands of years ago. The Bible is more of a crossword puzzle, where the word cross has been marganilized to make room for our imaginative prophetic puzzles to be solved. We come out looking smarter than God Himself, all the while looking more foolish again in the eyes of the world.

Have you noticed that all the prophecies mentioned by these dispensational experts about Egypt are in the Old Testament, and none are in the New Testament? That should tell us something big. Why are there no prophecies in the New Testament, which covenant is said to be superior than the old covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13), about the current Middle East situation? Why is there no mention of Egypt in prophecy in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament? Not even one in the book of Revelation, the largest prophetic book in the entire Bible. (Interestingly enough, first century Jerusalem is identified as Egypt in Revelation 11:8.)

If all the experts today want to take us entirely to the Old Testament to prove their cherished theories, then are they willing to live under the Old Testament's dire warnings of what should happen to those whose prophetic insights don't come to fruition? (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) Death is the only option for any prophecy blunder. As a way to escape any responsibility, like Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of any guilt, modern day dispensational preachers will say they do not consider themselves as prophets in the Old Testament sense of the word. Therefore, they conclude, this Deuteronomy passage is not valid concerning them, since they are only trying to teach what the prophets foretold.

However, such reasoning does not stand up, especially if these modern preachers twist and distort Scripture out of context to their own profitable liking. In that sense, they are creating new prophecies which God never said in the first place. If their teaching applications do not come to pass over time then, they are demonstrating themselves to be false prophets. But alas, very few will see it in that regard, because dispensational preachers and teachers are banking on people's short retention span. (The words "profitable" and "banking" are not just financial metaphors!)

Haphazarding a guess, I am inclined to believe that many sermons have been preached out of Isaiah 19 recently, where the connection has been made between what we read there and what we read and hear today in Egypt. For example, v. 2 says, "And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they will fight, each against another and each against his neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. . ." Aha, some would say. Isn't this what we see going on in Egypt today? Civil unrest, and Egyptians fighting against Egyptians, right? So, therefore, the conclusion must be that all this today has been prophesied right here in Isaiah 19.

Another verse I am sure dispensationalists will latch on to is v. 4, "and I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master (President Mubarek, or his successor?), and a fierce king will rule over them, declares the Lord God of hosts." So the guessing game begins who will be this hard master, this fierce king, who will take over the reigns of Egypt today, and how will he be the missing cog on the road to Armageddon?

It is a high crime not to believe the words that come out of God's mouth. It is also a high crime to put God's words in His mouth where we try to force Him to say something that He never meant.

If we want to go down this dispensational road of imaginative speculation and fanciful interpretation, then we better be consistent all the way. Let's read the rest of Isaiah 19 and not just pick and choose a couple of verses that seem to fit any preconceived end-times scheme.

Where is the Lord riding on a swift cloud to Egypt? (v.1) If we are to be strict literalists, as dispensationalists insist we must be, exactly when did that happen recently, or when will it happen?

Where are the idols of Egypt today? (v.1) Islam is a false religion, but can anyone show us where the carved idols are in Egypt today?

Where are the sorcerers and mediums and necromancers in Egypt today? (v.3) If Isaiah 19 is about today, then should we not expect to see v. 3 clearly in view today?

Where is the king who will rule Egypt? (v.4) Will he take that title upon himself? Mubarek was President, not King, of Egypt. We must be literalists, say the dispensationalists.

Where and when will the Nile River and all other waterways be dried up in Egypt? (v.5-7) We should all be waiting for that to happen any day now, right?

According to v.8-10, what are going to be the principal occupations in today's Egypt, if Isaiah 19 is about today's headlines? Does Egypt today depend on fishing as its main source of income?

Where are the capital cities of Zoan and Memphis today? (v. 11-14) I thought Cairo was its capital today. Are we to believe then that Zoan will overtake Cairo as the new capital of Egypt?

Also, will the new king in Egypt today take over the title of Pharoah? (v.11) Has there been any suggestion on the part of anyone that the new leader in Egypt or any future leader will be called Pharoah?

In v.16-25, we read that Egypt, Assyria and Judah will join forces in a spiritual way. Where is Assyria today? Where is the tribe or nation of Judah today? Syria today is not Assyria; and Israel today is nothing like Judah of the Old Testament days.

Where are the five cities in Egypt today that will speak the language of Canaan? What is the language of Canaan? And where is the Old Testament altar going to be built in Egypt today?

If dispensationalists try to spiritualize all the above, then they are destroying their own literalistic theories.

How about this for a novel idea. . .novel to dispensationalists? Why can't Isaiah 19 be a prophecy about events that would happen in Isaiah's lifetime? Not something thousands of years down the road, but something more immediate. Does not Isaiah 20:3 indicate a three year period of time? Why do we think that every prophecy, or even most of the prophecies, have to concern us and our times? Are we that egotistical? Do we think the world of biblical prophecy revolves around us? Are we better than all those Christians who lived before us, who evidently had nothing said about them in their times, if indeed dispensationalism is true? Where do we get off thinking that God made us kings and queens while Christians in previous generations and centuries were nothing but paupers in comparison? (Judging by the state of Christianity today, a person may be inclined to believe the reverse is true instead.)

Isaiah 19 uses the names of people, places and events to describe what would happen during that day, not during our day. How can we be so blind to miss the obvious?

A text taken out of context is a pretext. I have even heard dispensationalists use that catchy phrase. Okay, let's take them at their word. If we start at Isaiah 9 and read on, we see that all the nations mentioned in prophetic judgment were nations at the time of Isaiah himself: Assyria, Philistia, Cush, Babylon, Moab, Tyre, Sidon, and last but not least, Egypt. Why do we have to suppose that all the nations mentioned in those chapters before and after chapter 19 deal with nations back then, but in chapter 19, God throws us a curve ball, and talks about a nation way off in the distance, like in the 21st century A.D.? How exactly does chapter 19 then have any relevance to the original hearers of Isaiah's prophecy?

It is true that only the nation of Egypt in the Middle East, outside of Israel, carries the same name as what we find on the map today, but what does that really prove by itself? A text taken out of context is still a pretext.

I feel sorry for Libya, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other places in the Middle East who are experiencing as great as an upheavel and maybe more so than what Egypt has encountered so far. Not a word is being said about them from our leading dispensational spokesmen. Of course, those nations are relatively new nations, and it may be hard for even the most creative, imaginative interpreters of Scripture to find their names in the Old Testament. We may owe these nations an apology for slighting them and focusing all our time on just one country.

Have no worry though. All the latest sermons on Egypt will soon be forgotten; they will be collecting dust in file cabinets along with all the hundreds and thousands of other sermons in the past on prophecy where the interpretations have never panned out. We will move on to the latest news story of the day and just depend on the short memories and shallow theology of all our devoted followers.

Jonah was the reluctant prophet. The last thing he wanted to do was go preach to the hated Assyrians. After a brief submarine ride, Jonah got the message though, and he preached the message to Ninveh. To Jonah's disgust, the Ninevites got disgusted over their sin, turned from their sin, believed in Yawheh God, and God did not send punishment their way. The once praying, preaching prophet became a pouting prophet in Jonah 4. All his prophetic dreams, charts and diagrams were in the ash heap. The gripes of wrath is what we find Jonah doing outside the city limits of Ninevah. He was only out there to see if God would somehow change His mind and vaporize Ninevah within forty days. He was a prophetic speculator and spectator.

He could have stayed inside Ninevah to help disciple all these new converts. He could be in there preaching and teaching them more about the true Yahweh God that they had come to believe in, and he could have been in there praying with and for them. Nope, he would have none of that. It was more to his amusement to see if his preconceived prophetic wishes would come true whereby he could rub his hands in glee over the destruction of Ninevah.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we Christians in America are so consumed with doom and gloom that we rub our hands in glee when a new worldwide crisis comes on the scene. We seem so eager to pounce on the latest catastrophe and try to prove to others and to ourselves that this is what God said would happen in the last days. We have moved in with Jonah outside of Ninevah. We have become prophetic speculators and spectators. We eat it up, and we can't buy the latest prophetic books fast enough.

Imagine for a moment two churches in town: one church has recently advertised a big special sermon and Bible study on end time events and how Egypt today is a direct fulfillment of this or that prophecy in Scripture; another church in the same town at the same time has gotten the word out that they want to have a very special prayer service for the Christians in Egypt and the Middle East during this upheaval, and to pray for some missionaries they know are serving over there. Let's say that both churches have put out the word equally through different avenues about what would be happening this coming Sunday at their respective churches.

Now which one do you think would attract a bigger crowd?

We know the answer to that question, don't we?

We would rather be outside of Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Ninevah, where we could safely speculate or watch with bated prophetic breath. How many would want to go on the "inside" and spend our time instead lifting up fellow persecuted believers in prayer and for the gospel to make more inroads into the hearts of Egyptians or Libyans?

Are we more like Jonah than we care to admit?

Yours in Christ,

Chris

P.S. An 8.9 earthquake has rattled Japan and left hundreds dead. Are our hearts broken over the lost of many lives, or are we nestled in with Jonah outside of Ninevah, somewhat giddy on the inside, because "there will be earthquakes in various places" (Matthew 24:7)?

The Problematic Parable that Puzzles Prophecy Pundits

2011-02-01T15:03:00.012-06:00

While doing work with a fellow believer in Christ some years ago, he commented to me that his pastor was preaching through Revelation and he made the observation (which I have heard countless times before) that the word "church" does not appear after chapter three. His conclusion was that the church would be raptured after chapter three and will not be here on earth during the seven-year great tribulation period, which is the topic of conversation from chapters four on. I listened to my co-worker explain with excitement how this truth has made such an enlightening impact on his understanding of the end times and the book of Revelation in particular.

Maybe I should have said something, but considering the circumstances, I didn't want to get into any sort of debate with my fellow Christian, and I didn't want him to have any sort of lowered opinion of his pastor. This common misinformed deduction from the book of Revelation, though, has more going against it than for it. The word "church" also does not appear in Revelation 21 and 22, so does this mean that the church will not be in heaven as well? A second line of argument is that the word "saints" appear throughout the book of Revelation, from chapter four on, and the word saints is not a reference to a football team in New Orleans; it is always used as a synonym for God's people, the church. Thirdly, I might add, to the surprise of many, that the word "antichrist" appears nowhere in the book of Revelation, but that doesn't seem to stop dispensationalists from talking about an "antichrist" adnauseam.

At another event some years back for the Gideons, my wife and I were sitting at a table with some others whose subject matter turned quickly to the book of Revelation. This time the remark was made by someone that the United States was not mentioned in the book of Revelation; therefore, the obvious lesson from that was that our beloved country will not be around in the "last days". I tried to keep my mouth from dropping open too far, but I sat there with total incredulity. We are trying our best these days to find things that are not listed or mentioned in the book of Revelation, be it the church of a nation, that is no wonder many Christians struggle with expository teaching of God's Word these days--the kind of teaching/preaching that bring to light the things that are there in God's Word. As one unbelieving past popular American author said, "It is not what I don't know or don't find in the Bible that troubles me; it is what I do know and find in the Bible that troubles me."

From A to Z, I started to list in my mind all the countries of the world that are not found in the book of Revelation either, from Australia to Zimbabwe. What about them? Maybe the ugly American characterization is justified at times. Where do we get off that the United States has received God's Favored Nation Status? Isaiah 40:15 says that all nations in God's eyes are but as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as small dust on the scales. Without a doubt, the U.S.A. has been providentially blessed, but the Lord God of the universe was able to get His will done prior to 1776.

Dispensationalism is that fairly new end-time belief system that has filled too many Christians in this country for too long with so many faulty notions (like not finding certain words here and there in Revelation), erroneous predictions (at last count there have been at least 666 guesses who the Antichrist is supposed to have been), doom-and-gloom scare tactics (someone somewhere is writing a book on the riots in Egypt now and how all that fulfills an obscure passage in Ezekiel or Daniel), and terrible hermeneutics and theology (like a secret rapture of Christians, that is so secretive that Christians for eighteen centuries knew nothing about it, to be followed by seven years of tribulation, the appearance of Antichrist, the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem and a return to the inferior old covenant system, an Armageddon war between Israel and Russia(?), or China (?), or Iran (?) or ________ (?), a physical 1000 reign of Christ in a modern Jerusalem with a rebuilt Temple where old testament sacrifices will supersede his death on the cross and where people will die during this 1000 reign on earth after Christ has abolished death at his second coming, etc.) It is hard to keep up with dispensationalism, because it is newspaper exegesis that rules the day, and they keep moving the goal posts.

I don't know of anyone who would keep taking his car to a mechanic or keep taking his body to a doctor who has proved himself wrong in every situation with his analyses and diagnoses. Yet, dispensationalists keep restating their prognostications, keep writing new books that contradict earlier writings, keep preaching new sermons about shifting current news stories, and nobody seems to be bothered by it all. When are the dispensationalists ever going to get it right? Only one time. That is when they repent from their mental strongholds and sensational arguments. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

Dispensationalism is a money-making sacred cow to be sure, but it is about time to sacrifice that cow on the altar of biblical faithfulness. It is no accident that sensationalism rhymes with this man-made theory that was birthed in England in the first half of the 1800s. The key players were a man by the name of Darby, Edward Irving and Margaret McDonald. It was brought to America's shores where a lawyer by the name of C.I. Scofield picked it up and ran with it, and as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, "now you know the rest of the story." It is the predominant best-selling viewpoint out there in mainstream conservative Christianity. Most pastors out there probably adhere to a certain form of dispensationalism. Most books written on eschatology come from this angle. I would venture to say that most Christians out there probably have not heard anything or read anything but dispensationalism in one form or another. I will admit it is most popular, but when does something that is popular make something right, especially when it comes to biblical truth?

I used to believe that differences in eschatology were no big deal, and it is best to let dead dogs lie, so to speak. I have come to see things differently. Since one's eschatology flavors and colors so much of his understanding on so many other key biblical mattes, it can not be quietly pushed aside or relegated to the area of the non-essentials. To hear classic dispensationalists talk and write, the church is nothing more than a hiccup from God, or a speed bump on the road to something more glorious, which is the modern state of Israel. According to consistent dispensationalists, the cross was an afterthought from God, a Plan B that went into effect after the Jews rejected Jesus' offer of the kingdom. The atonement of Christ and the assembly of God's people are not minor issues at stake. Ephesians 1-3 by themselves should put to rest any idea that there is something better out there yet than the church. The book of Hebrews, Galatians or Romans should forever silence any false inkling to return to the days of the old covenant now or anytime in the future. It makes far better sense for a person to trade in his brand new Apple computer for a 20-year old computer dinosaur than for anyone in the new covenant days to desire a return to the old covenant, and that includes a reinstated sacrificial system in a rebuilt Temple that duped Christians are funding to build hopefully one day in Jerusalem.

Part of the reformation of the church today would involve, in my humble opinion, an eradication of dispensationalism. It needs to be yanked up by the roots. It needs to be LEFT BEHIND.

My inspiration for writing this blog article comes from an excellent sermon I heard last Sunday at our church from Bro. Ron Andrews. His text was from Matthew 13:24-30, the parable on the wheat and the tares. That parable by itself throws all sorts of monkey wrenches into dispensational preconceived plans. It is only one of two parables that Jesus told wherein He fully explained the meaning. The first one was earlier on in the same chapter, the parable of the sower. Now for the second time, this time at the request of His disciples, He takes the time to explain every part of this parable of the wheat and the tares. (Matthew 13:36-43)

The kingdom of heaven is a present reality, even though it is yet to be fully consummated. Christ has established His kingdom through his death, resurrection and ascension. He reigns at the right hand of God the Father now. As He told Pilate, "My kingdom is NOT of this world." A seat on a kingly throne in an earthly Jerusalem would be a serious and downright blasphemous reduction of His glorious position in heaven. During this kingdom reign over all the earth, He is sowing His good seed in the world (the field is the world, not the church), and His elect are being saved and bearing fruit. At the same time of the growth of the kingdom between now and Christ's second coming, the final harvest yet to come, Satan is out planting his tares in the world. God has His people during Christ's reign now, and Satan has his people as well. Sometimes it may be hard to tell the difference, since tares initially may have a similar appearance as wheat when it is growing. We have no business as the church by physical force to pull up the tares. Christianity is the only world religion to advance the cause of religious freedom. Other religions may use the physical sword to convert, but we use the sword of the Spirit and not physical coercion or intimidation.

Jesus says we are to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the final harvest at the end of this age when Christ will come back with His angels. According to dispensationalism, the next step will be that Christ will gather His people first to Himself, and they will escape the seven year tribulation period, after which the tares will be gathered and be assigned to their eternal destination, the eternal lake of fire. Somebody forgot to tell Jesus of the plan and to show Him all our neatly drawn diagrams and charts.

In this parable, and how can anybody can miss this is a mystery, Jesus says, "first, gather together the TARES (not the wheat) and bind them in bundles, but gather the wheat into my barn." In case anybody misses the point, Jesus would take three verses to explain what would happen to the tares FIRST (v. 40-42), before He explains in just one verse what would be the glorious outcome of the wheat (v.43). Jesus has it backwards from the dispensationalists, or should we say that the dispensationalists have it backwards from Jesus? The wheat are not raptured or secretly carried away first into his barn, only to be followed much later by the burning of the tares. The tares are gathered first and will be cast into the furnace of fire. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

John the apostle heard every word Jesus said. He with the other apostles got it, as Matthew 13:51-52 bring out. We are not surprised then to find John the apostle writing about this final harvest in Revelation 20-22, where first, the tares, those whose names are not found in the Book of Life, are judged by Christ in Revelation 20:11-15. This is a judgment strictly for Satan's tares at the great white throne judgment. Then next up is Revelation 21-22. The holy city, the new Jerusalem (why put all our focus on an earthly, old Jerusalem?), the bride, the church, are with God forever and ever in a new heaven and a new earth. Part of the description of their eternal dwelling sounds really familiar to the parable of the wheat and the tares. . .about the righteous shining forth as the sun.

"But I saw no temple in it (so why all this attention to a rebuilt Temple on earth?), for the Lord Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. . .There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever." (Revelation 21:22-23, 22:5)

All this may be new stuff to those who have been force-fed dispensationalism all their lives long, and I certainly can relate when as a young person this is all I heard. But if we are going to be Berean Christians (Acts 17:11), then we should not take anything we read (including this blog article) as the gospel truth. We should take the gospel as the gospel truth. If a pastor is preaching dispensationalism, and if it is not the truth, then there is a decision a Christian may have to make in good conscience and in a spirit of humility. What that decision entails may be different in various circumstances. There are books in our library that may have to go. There are changes in our theological outlook that will occur. Change is sometimes hard, but if it is a good change, it is a necessary change. Sanctification is a lifelong commitment to change toward godliness in belief and behavior.

The thing about wheat is that it has to be crushed in some way for it to produce edible bread. Dying to self and being crushed is a painful enterprise, but before the truth is worth dying for, it has to be worth living for. And it can only be worth living for, if we know it and want to know it more and more, whatever changes that may involve in the process.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Undercover God (continued)

2011-01-21T14:58:00.011-06:00

It's an oldie goldie. A little boy is drawing a picture at home. His mother walks by and sees him drawing and asks him what he is drawing. He replies, "I am drawing God." To which his mother tries to correct, "Well, that is good, but no one knows what God looks like." Quick on his feet, the tot rejoins, "But they will after I get done."

One of Vance Havner's often used illustrations has a guest preacher at the pulpit one Sunday. The guest preacher was only 5 foot 5 inches, rather shorter than the 6 foot 3 inch pastor of the church, who was away on vacation. Behind the pulpit in the baptistery was the familiar artistic rendering of Jesus in a picture frame. A little boy had never seen the picture before because their tall pastor blocked the vision of it, but the shorter guest preacher made it visible for the first time to this boy. After it dawned on him just a little way into the guest preacher's sermon, the boy tugged at his mommy's dress and asked in a low whisper, "Where is the man that stands in the way so that we can not see Jesus?"

We know Jesus had a beard, and we know he had a dark olive complexion in all probability, but that is about it when it comes to his physical appearance (outside of the fact He also would have nail prints). The rest is just fanciful human imagination. No one knows what Jesus looked like, and no one for sure knows what God looks like, because God is a spirit, and He is invisible. (John 4:24, 1 Tim. 1:17) Mormons have it all convoluted, regardless of their new slick advertising campaign. They say God is physical and Jesus is not God. The Bible says God is spirit, and Jesus is the true eternal God (1 John 5:20). And furthermore, Mormons, men do not become gods; the gospel is that God became man.

Yes, in language we can understand, the Bible often describes God in human-like terms, like the fact He has eyes, feet, hands, etc. But the Bible also says "He covers us with his feathers", and that he is a rock, a fortress, a mighty tower, as well as some other metaphors. God is not Big Bird, nor is he alongside the Rock of Gibraltar, nor does he live in Fort Knox (although he does own it) or the Eiffel Tower. How can one describe God who is indescribable to the race of people who depend on descriptions so much? The wise God uses all sorts of literary devices that are commonly understood and used by the created species called mankind. That is how it is done. That is what we read in the Bible. God knows it all, therefore He has a "mind." God sees it all, therefore He has "eyes." God gets all things done in His created universe, therefore He has "hands." God is not static; He is always on the go, therefore He has "feet."

How is it, though, that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18), and if one could see God, he would be obliterated in a flash (Exodus 33:20), and yet Moses saw God in a burning bush in Exodus 3, and the text says "Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God." Did he see God or not? It is written that Jacob saw God face to face in Genesis 32:30, and that Manoah and his wife had "seen God", so that later we read Manoah saying in Judges 13:22, "We shall surely die because we have seen God." Manoah knew about the death penalty. How can we reconcile these and other "appearances" of God to various people in the Old Testament with the verses that say that God is spirit, He is invisible, no one has ever seen Him, and if they did, they would be goners.

This passage in Philippians 2:1-11 and other passages as well do the reconciliation for us. God can not be seen, but Jesus can be seen. Jesus is the "form of God" (Phil. 2:6, "being in the form of God" refers to his eternal unchanging state). What Moses and Manoah and Jacob and everyone else saw (old King Neb in Daniel saw one "like a son of man" in the burning furnace) was Jesus, about whom it is said "being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person (Heb. 1:3)." Jesus gives form, as it were, to the invisible God. No wonder Jesus did say, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." (John 14:9) Moses & Co. escaped death because God revealed Himself to them in the pre-incarnation appearance of His Son. Does God save us from Himself? Yes, that is what substitutionary atonement is all about. That is why Jesus is our propitiation, the God-man who dies for man's sin and saves man from God's wrath.

Next up in Philippians 2 is the matter of what did Jesus empty Himself of when He left heaven to become a man? Some translations have verse seven reading, "but made Himself of no reputation." Skipping over the centuries of lengthy debate among scholars of what this consisted, we can cut to the chase by stating that the emphasis has been wrongly placed on what Jesus gave up when He left heaven. Instead, the focus here in this passage is not on what Jesus gave up, but what he gained. It is not a matter of subtraction; it is a matter of addition. He did not cease being God, He did not lay aside some attributes temporarily, He did not handcuff Himself so to speak; instead, Jesus gained or obtained a new outward appearance and all the experiences that go with it.

To illustrate this, if I take a big jug of grape juice and pour all the contents of it into a very large drinking glass, has the grape juice changed at all? No, the content has remained the same. What has changed? The container. If we take it a step farther, what if the new container is dark, and not a see-through container. From a distance, a person could not tell what the contents are in that container. Is it iced tea, Pepsi, Gatorade, milk, what?

What we have in Jesus is a concealed container. The content is the same. His identity has not changed. We could say that He emptied Himself of "heavenly glory" when He became man, and there is some definite truth in that. (John 17:5) Later on, Jesus would say in that same prayer, though, "and the glory which You gave Me I have given them. . ." Yet again, we read, "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me."

John Calvin probably summed it up best: "Christ, indeed, could not divest himself of godhead, but he kept it concealed for a time, that it might not be seen, under the weakness of the flesh. Hence he laid aside his glory in the view of man, not by lessening it, but by concealing."

To those whom God revealed Himself (Matthew 11:25-27) in the person of Jesus while He was on earth, these chosen eyewitnesses could write, "and the Word became 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 1:14) They were able through God-given eyes of faith peek into the darkened container to see the content. Later on in Matthew 17, a few of the disciples saw with bigger eyes what Jesus would look like in fuller glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, like a sneak preview of more to come. Peter, one of those few, would write about that experience in his second epistle, chapter one, verses 16-18.

Philippians 2 is not then about what God gave up, but what God "gained." It was a series of the biggest step downs ever that led all the way up to the highest exaltation ever. First, He took the form of a bond servant. Well, an angel would qualify for that categorization, and if God took on the outward form of an angel, that would be a serious step down. But the passage does not stop there. Second, He came in the likeness of men. Not an angel, but a man. Wow, what condescension! He became a human bond servant, and not an angelic one. He really was a man, but not a sinful man. The likeness of sinful flesh, as some translations have it, refer to the fact that "he was tempted at all points, yet was without sin." Well, he could live a pampered life here on earth, born and raised in royalty or aristocracy. Still, that would be an incredible step down from what He once enjoyed. But the story continues its decline.

"And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself. . ." His life was the very opposite of plush royalty or sheltered aristocracy. From the account of His birth to His upbringing to what Jesus said about foxes and birds had it better than Him, He volunteered Himself to put Himself so low that He had to look up to see the bottom of the proverbial ladder. Isn't that good enough? Hasn't Jesus done enough, stepped down enough, emptied Himself enough?

He could live the rest of His life on earth in poverty and ridicule, being a hunted man, but He would have nothing to worry about because He had done nothing wrong, so therefore there would be no wages of sin for him. Death would elude Him. He was the Fountain of Youth; He was Life Eternal. He was blameless, spotless, pure, undefiled. Jesus has not gone down far enough yet, though.

He humbled himself to the point of death. The only one who ever lived that did not deserve to die died. He must have paid somebody else's wages. But, we can come up with a sanitary death, a painless death, a death in old age, a death in one's sleep, a peaceful departure from this life. Jesus would have none of that. He must go down farther. He must gain something more than just dying by itself.

The last step down is that he became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Jesus was willingly obedient to carry out the Father's intent all along, and it was not just a peaceful, painless death. It would be the most hideous kind of death ever invented by man, but it was far more than the torture and excruciating pain. Mel Gibson's controversial movie could only pretend to show that side of the cross. Cursed is every man who hangs on a tree, as Galatians 3:13 puts it. He became cursed for our sake. He took the full brunt of God's wrath against sin. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?" No sedatives, no nurse by his side, no hospice care, no around-the-clock medical attention. It was the death of the cross.

He had to die this way, because no other way would reveal the depth of man's depravity and the greatness of God's mercy and grace.

Jesus could not have gone down any further. He made the last step down. He "gained" the cross, the purchased redemption of His people. He "added" to His resume the title, the Good Shepherd who laid down His life for His sheep.

How low can God go? How low did He go? Philippians 2 informs us. But it also tells us how high all these step downs took "the form of God", a name above every name. So high, that every knee should bow, of those in heaven, of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. No greater humiliation, no greater abasement, no greater lowering. Yet, no greater exaltation.

The form of God was emptied into a new container, and now we know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. (2 Cor. 8:9) Now look what we can gain!

While we can not draw or paint a caricature of God Himself, and while we do not know what Jesus looked like (for many obvious reasons), we can take heed from what the second little boy said. After all that we have gained due to grace, we should not stand in such a way so people can not see Jesus .

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Undercover God

2010-12-25T12:20:00.007-06:00

While I have not watched an episode yet, I have heard that Undercover Boss can be a very heart-touching TV show. I understand the basic premise--a CEO or president of a large company or corporation leaves his high position, goes incognito, and takes the status of a lowly employee temporarily. In doing so, he becomes familiar with the plight of some of his employees, not only in their daily work, but in their life struggles. He reveals his true identity at the end of the show, to the complete surprise of his former fellow workers, and then showers some with material blessings to help them in their difficult circumstances.

An exalted high position. A willingness to forsake all that. Temporarily take the form of an ordinary employee. Empathize with his employees. His identity is concealed and then revealed. He returns to his once-deserted office and position. Showers an employee or two with unexpected blessings.

It seems there was another, much earlier incident that takes that similar story line, except on a much grander scale and a world-altering course. Undercover Boss? Nice conception, but not an immaculate one. For that, we must go to the Undercover God.

The producer-director of this real life drama holds all nations and all companies and all people and all there is in the palm of his hands. Talk about power, but this absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Donald Trump is a mere speck of dust in comparison to this CEO--Creator, Eternal, Omnipotent. You can not find a more lofty position or exalted office. And you can not find a more heart-changing story, when this CEO left it all to enter the depths of the company of his creation, which went horribly awry after rebellion against this CEO entered the picture.

No movie or TV script can hold a candle to what we find in Philippians 2:1 and following. The narrative of the Incarnation is found in Luke 2, but the theology behind the narrative is found in Philippians 2. What exactly happened in that manger scene? Who was born that day? Who was that crying on Mary's lap? Who was it that shepherds came to see? Who was it that divided our date- setting and calendar between B.C. and A.D.? Well, it was none other than the Undercover God.

Those who say that any discussion of theology belongs only in the realm of academicians in seminaries encounter one of the most profoundest theological statements in the pages of Scripture right in the context of practical instruction in Philippians 2. Theology is practical and personal, and therefore it is most relevant and reverent.

Actually, Paul begins in the first four verses of this chapter by talking about the practical matters of unselfishness and humility. In verse two, Paul tells the Christians then and now, "You want to make my day? Then you all have the same mind-set, the same attitude toward one another, the same love for each one. You do that, and you have made my day and my life!" Maybe anticipating some questions, the apostle continues the thought in the next two verses: "Okay, you might be wondering how can we do that though? Isn't that asking too much? How can we have the same love for every single person in the body of Christ? Well, quit the game of one-up-manship and quit trying to put your best foot forward only to put your foot on the throat of someone else. In fact, start thinking and doing that 'looking after number one' is looking after everybody else besides you." There is no "I" in team, but there sure is in sIn.

And this is not asking too much of you. It is within you to do it. That is why he begins the whole discussion in verse one. Every one of us has Christ, his love, his Spirit, his encouragement, his consolation, his affection and his compassion to do it. It is not asking too much of us, because we have it within us to do it. But not only do we have it within us to do it, but we have it before us to do it as well.

Do we have an example out there before us that can provide the best clue on what selfless living and humility are all about? So, in verse five, the bridge from the practical to the theology is a super natural one. Yes, Virginia, there really is a sacred clause: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

The reason why stories like what we see in Undercover Boss or in other heroic, selfless acts stir our heart's passion is because they only mirror in a small way what the Undercover God has done in history. No matter how depraved the human heart is, there is still enough of the image of God within all of us that we yearn for something bigger than ourselves that tell us what life is really all about. You can't get any bigger than the life and death example of the Undercover God, Jesus Christ, in Philippians 2.

When examined in detail, it becomes even that much bigger. No company president would do or could do what Jesus did. No human interest story on the evening news could match what God did when that Babe was crying at Mary's breast. No act of philanthropy or heroism could ever duplicate the selfless life and sacrificing death of the God-in-human-form.

Two intensive and extensive questions are raised in this passage, that has occupied so much time and space by the best of scholars through the centuries. Number one is "What is meant by being in the form of God?" Number two is "What exactly did God empty Himself of when He became man?" For the answer to those two questions, we will devote some time and space at our next blog posting.

I read today that Bethlehem has recorded this year the most number of pilgrims and travelers in history. Maybe many are having a hard time finding room for themselves in an inn. Why a record number this year? Laying aside for the moment the superstitious motivation behind many who make the journey to Bethlehem, I can only think that there is so much growing uncertainty and fear in this old world, and people are craving such things as stability and hope. We don't read of people in mass making long treks to places like Harvard or Oxford on an annual basis to find solutions to the world's problems. We don't read of people traveling the world over to visit some guru on a mountain in India. We only read of people marching on a nation's capitol to protest what is being done or what is not being done. Yes, we are familiar with Muslims by the millions going to Mecca annually, but only the adherents of this religion of fear and hate can attend, and Allah did not become man and dwelt among us. There is a sword in Islam, but there is no cross. They have dying enemies, but they have no dying Savior.

Why this out-of-place, small hamlet called Bethlehem? Why journey there of all places?

Because it was there that the Undercover God appeared and it is only in Him that perfect love casts out fear, and it is only in Him that hope springs eternal. It is a story like no other, and we don't need CBS to promote it on a weekly show. All followers of this Undercover God have it within them and before them to promote this incredible story of biblical proportions on a daily basis.

Joyfully yours,

Chris

Gog and Magog: The End of the Beginning

2010-11-11T19:31:00.002-06:00

Saddam Hussein really wanted to be the new Nebuchadnezzar, the foreign conqueror who took it to the Jews. Saddam is now with the old Nebuchadnezzar, though. Hitler couldn't have taken out all the Jews in Europe, let alone the entire world. Haman, though, could have rubbed out all Jews for all practical purposes, since the Jews were confined within the boundaries of the Persian Empire.

The beginning of Satan's scheme to stop Genesis 3:15 come to fruition would come to its Old Testament climax in the book of Esther, when Haman, number two man in the Persian kingdom, concocted a plan to do in all the Jews. Never before has anyone tried to exterminate all God's chosen people. Not Pharaoh. Not Neb. Not Cyrus. Not Alexander the Great. Not Caesar. Haman, Satan's number one man at the time, went where no man had gone before.

Haman was an Agagite according to Esther 3:1. Agag was king of the Amalekites, a long standing enemy of the Jews, that King Saul was commissioned to destroy back in 1 Samuel 15, but Saul failed to do all God's command. Mordecai, Esther's cousin and guardian, was a descendant of King Saul. So Agag's descendant and Saul's descendant met in the capital city of Susa, where Haman would determine to kill all Mordecai's people scattered throughout the Persian empire.

So the book of Esther is no ordinary story. Considering this unique plot to kill all the Jewish seed, which would mean killing the seed from whom the Seed of woman and the Seed of Abraham would come, we would have to conclude that this earth-shattering event would have been prophesied for sure by some of God's mouthpieces prior to the book of Esther. Had Haman succeeded, there would be no Jesus, no one to squash Satan's own head, and Genesis 3:15 would be proven wrong, so this is not some minor footnote on the pages of human history.

Ezekiel lived many decades prior to Esther. He was a Jewish exile from the 597 B.C. captivity of Jerusalem. In chapters 38 and 39 of his book, God's people were forewarned of a future leader named Gog (Hebrew spelling very similar to Agag; remember Haman was an Agagite) from the land of Magog who would build a "united nations" army to destroy all of the Jews. Such was the case in the book of Esther. Gog is not Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, Germany or any other modern nation. The list of nations with Persia heading the list in chapter 38 were nations that were in existence at the time of Ezekiel to Esther.

The type of military weaponry mentioned in chapter 38 does not belong to modern warfare. They belong to the era back then. Our brave soldiers in Afghanistan do not ride on horses with shields and bucklers and bows and arrows. Also we read that the time period when this confederacy of nations would come against all the Jewish people would be a time when the Jews lived in "unwalled villages." While Esther and Mordecai lived in the Persian capital, many Jews had returned to Israel years prior to repopulate the land, under the generous offer from King Cyrus. The temple had been rebuilt, but until Nehemiah came along in the mid 5th century B.C., which was years after Esther, all the Jews lived in unwalled villages with neither gates nor bars. Nehemiah came specifically to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem.

There are over 400 miles of walls around Jerusalem today. So much for Gog and Magog being a prediction of what would occur in the modern state of Israel! The walls today serve as a protective barrier from Palestinian terrorists who would drive cars and trucks laden with bombs. Walls today, though, can not prevent bombs from being dropped from planes or from missiles being fired from long range destinations. But walls back in the Old Testament days were essential for protection because the type of warfare then was totally different than what they are today.

We are told in Ezekiel 38-39 that God would come to the rescue of the Jews, which was the case in Esther 8-9. Haman's plot was foiled, God's promise in Genesis 3:15 would stand, and the enemies of God would be destroyed. Israel would take seven years to burn all the confiscated weaponry for fuel purposes, something that would be unnecessary in today's "natural gas/oil" world but it would be something very practical and useful for the days back then. It would take seven months for the house of Israel to bury all the dead. It would not take that long today, but it would take that long during the days of the Old Testament with all the ceremonial restrictions placed upon the Jews and with the lack of modern equipment.

The mass burial place for these arch enemies of the Jews would be called Hamon-Gog or Hamonah. Does anybody see a remarkable similarity in the spelling of that burial site with Haman, the villain in the book of Esther?

All of the events of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 would be for the express purpose of God setting His glory among the nations, and that all nations would come to know that Israel went into exile because of their iniquity, and that is why God led them into captivity in the first place. Israel would come to recognize the Lord is God, and that Israel would put away their false gods. All of this places the events of Gog and Magog in the days then and not in the days now.

I don't have to wait for the NY Times or Fox News or CNN to report what may seem to be a non-literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39. All I need to do is read the Bible, the book of Esther, and there I find literally the end of the beginning of Satan's plot to thwart Genesis 3:15 in the chronology of Old Testament events.

In Esther 8:17 we discover that the nations did come to acknowledge the Lord God, for many of the Gentiles within the Persian empire became God-fearing Jews, monotheists in a polytheistic world. Never before had this happened in the pages of the Old Testament, when a massive number of Gentiles from various ethnic groups became believers in the one true Yahweh God. (The book of Esther has many unique historical/providential features.) Would not that also in all likelihood be prophesied in the pages of Scripture?

Haggai and Zechariah were two prophets God used in the time of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. This is post-Ezekiel, but pre-Esther. In Zechariah 2, God says that Jerusalem would be inhabited without walls (Ezekiel 38!), but God would protect her by being a wall of fire around her. The Jews would flee from the land of Babylon (which they did in three separate returns), and that He would protect them from the nations who would seek to destroy Israel (Ezekiel 38-39, Haman's confederacy of nations in Esther!). Like in Esther 9, the tables are turned, and the victims become the victors. The Feast of Purim today celebrates this wondrous miraculous deliverance. And in Zechariah 2:11, many nations would join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become His people (sounds like Esther 8:17 to me!).

Esther was her Persian name. Her Hebrew name was Hadassah, which means "myrtle", as in myrtle trees. How convenient that in Zechariah 1, God enables Zechariah to see a vision of a man among the hadassahs, the myrtle trees.

All of this is not as scintillating as the modern prophecy experts who have mapped out all types of scenarios of an incoming invasion of foreign forces against modern day Israel. There is another difference too. Modern prophecy experts have all been proven wrong over time, and the Bible has been proven right all throughout time.

"All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord abides forever." 1 Peter 1:24-25

Yours in Christ,

Bro. Chris

The Dirty (and Necessary) Business of Politics

2010-11-01T18:42:00.013-05:00

Writing this on election eve, maybe one of the most historic midterm elections ever, I am struck how well-intentioned Christians can be poles apart when it comes to the subject of politics. On one extreme are those that think the pulpit and a political platform or candidate should be connected at the hip. On the other extreme are those that think that anything political in nature should be disconnected at the lip. One church may be decorated in red, white and blue, and it may be hard to distinguish it from an American Legion hall (except maybe for the smell of beer) or a political convention (except maybe for the smell of champagne). The other church at the opposite may think if is a sure sign of ungodliness to do or say anything about "politics", which has to be one of the works of the flesh that should have made the list in Galatians 5.

Both extremes are extremely disappointing and dangerous. To be intoxicated with political pursuits, be it in liberal or evangelical churches, advances the kingdom of man and not the kingdom of God, no matter how justified a person or an entire church may feel toward politics in general and certain hot button issues. To be indifferent toward political matters, though, advances also the kingdom of man and not the kingdom of God, no matter how "spiritual" a person or church may feel by ignoring politics in general and certain hot button issues. Silence and inactivity on the part of those who are called to be salt and light can do as much damage as any misguided political overzealousness.

Some Christians in the land of the free and the home of the brave find any mention of politics as totally repulsive. It should be off limits altogether, because they think somehow it betrays a trust in God's providence by putting one's trust in man instead. These same people though find nothing wrong in going to work on a daily basis, as if God's providence is not going to help them pay the bills and put food on the table.

Politics is a dirty business. So what else is new? We live in a fallen world and everything we do is dirty, because we are all dirty. Being a firefighter is dirty business. Being a salesman is dirty business. Being a nurse is dirty business. Being a preacher of the gospel is dirty business. Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, because when you walk through this world you get dirty. And might it be that God wants to use His children as cleansing agents in all spheres of life, including politics, if He truly is Lord of all?

It reminds me of the raging debate in Martin Luther's day (since we just celebrated Reformation Day on October 31) if a Christian could be a soldier at the same time. Today some of the "spiritually indifferent" would have us to believe that it may not be possible for a person to be a Christian and involved in politics in any sense of the word. The ungodly and unbelievers in our land would love to have all us Christians to become so "spiritual" so we would let others direct the course of our nation, while we have our heads buried in our Bibles and in the sand. If our high and mighty indifference toward anything political is a route we feel compelled to take, just remember that we will have Jehovah's Witnesses as some traveling companions.

Anytime a person erects a new man-made criteria for advanced spirituality, i.e. uninvolvement in anything political, then that only breeds a haughty judgmentalism toward those "weaker brothers" whom they judge to have soiled themselves with political matters. Romans 14 has much to say about these matters, regardless where one fits on the political involvement spectrum. "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

Do we not recall how the saints and the prophets in the Old Testament were involved in the affairs of government in their day? Whether it be Joseph serving in a heathen Pharaoh's court, or Daniel serving in Babylonian or Persian administrations, or Esther finding herself as first lady, what would the Old Testament redemption story look like if any one of those three had removed themselves from the dirty business of secular government life? What if Nathan had decided not to confront the governmental leader of his day, King David, because he thought it would be more spiritual to stay aloof from messy governmental concerns? Be it Moses, Amos, Isaiah or Jeremiah, one can not read their stories and their preaching without finding a man of God who was deeply informed with the main issues of his day and then told the political machinery of his day what he thought about the main issues of the day. John the Baptist lost his head at a dance because he refused to dance around the politics of his day.

Jesus did not come to start a political movement nor a new political party. The Democrats could try to say that Jesus is one of them because he cared for the poor and he rode a donkey and not an elephant into Jerusalem. The Republicans may try to say that Jesus is one of them because after all does not GOP stand for God's Own Party? As Joshua learned when He faced the Commander-in-Chief with a drawn sword in Joshua 5:13-15, our Lord does not take sides; He is here to take over. Jesus came to die for man's sin, because man's chief problem is not his political position but his spiritual condition.

At the same time, Jesus was not afraid to throw Himself in the political arena, be it His involvement with Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees or the Pharisees. Jesus was not a Zealot out to overthrow the government by political and military maneuvering (although He did have a Simon the Zealot as an apostle), but neither was He an Essene, who withdrew from the dirty business of daily living by just waiting on God out in the desert (after all, He did have a government employee in Matthew as an apostle).

If it were not for our nation's forefathers, most of them very active churchmen including ministers among the group, we would not have a Declaration of Independence or a Constitution or a nation called the USA. So much for spiritual indifference and aloofness. Read the sermons of those God-fearing Revolutionary ministers, and one will not find the extreme of political intoxication, nor will one find the extreme of high-minded spiritual indifference.

If we sit back and do nothing except go to Bible studies, then who are we to blame if our American culture continue its slide toward Gomorrah so that we are not as able to "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." (1 Tim. 2:2)? Exactly how is uninvolvement a wiser and higher ground we must take? Do not Scripture and history say otherwise?

I am very eager to vote tomorrow, because I am very concerned about the future of our country, which I love very much. I do not want my children to live in a different country, totally different than what our forefathers had in mind and what I have enjoyed for much of my life. This country had the hand and heart of Providence guiding it, and I am not going to let my hand and heart be idle on election day, just as I get up tomorrow morning to head off to work (after I vote) while trusting in Providence to provide for my needs.

I hope my candidates win, and I hope they live up to my expectations. If not, then I can vote them out the next round. If my preferences do not win, I will not writhe in agony and utter hopelessness. God is not limited on man's terms, and God is not term limited. Regardless who is on man's throne, even if it is Nero in the case of Paul, then we must pray for him or her (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God can change the hearts of the kings (Proverbs 21:1) and He can use us in a free country to change our "kings"--our senators, our governors, our presidents, our mayors, etc. How many in other countries would give their right arm to have the right to choose their leaders like we do in ours?

I will not tell the congregation whom to vote for, nor will I have candidates come in to give a political commercial. The church members can watch Fox News and listen to talk shows or read the daily newspaper, but I must preach the Word. The gospel is not for sale to the highest political bidder. At the same time, I will not sit on the sidelines when it comes to election day and all the days leading up to it. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is uninvolvement more blissful.

When it comes to the doctrine of election, I will enthusiastically preach it when the text calls for it. When it comes to the duty of election, I will enthusiastically do it when the day calls for it.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Before There was Hitler, There was Haman: Gog and Magog I (part three)

2010-08-26T20:44:00.013-05:00

First it was Hitler and Nazi Germany. Then it was Hirohito and Japan. Then it was Stalin or Kruschev and the U.S.S.R. Then it was Mao and Red China. Then is was Ida Amin and Uganda. Then it was the Ayatollah and Iran. Then it was Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Now it is. . .well, it really doesn't matter, because there will be new candidates at the time of the next world crisis, the next Middle East conflict, the next big breaking news story of the day, the next year, the next decade. Gog is the bad boy leader of the bad nation Magog, which is anybody's guess who or what and when that will all come to pass. Anybody's guess is the appropriate term, for anybody can do it so that anybody can be proven wrong.

Those who peddle their end-time books are banking (in more ways than one!) on the selective amnesia of fellow prophecy-imbibed Americans. The speculation game is not confined to Wall Street, nor is fortune telling just for the psychics and palm readers, nor is the ancient Gnostic heresy confined to the first century. Long before Michael J. Fox played the role, American religious crystal-ball gazers have been acting out Back to the Future every time a potential Armageddon explodes on the scene. Instead of reading people's lines in their hands to tell their future, eager beaver spiritual soothsayers will read between the lines in the pages of the Bible to tell us all our future. I am still waiting for the first modern-day prophecy author to step forward and offer a 100% money-back guarantee to all readers should his prognostications do not pan out. That still is a much better arrangement than the Old Testament method of dealing with self-professed prophecy authorities whose predictions did not come true.

But all the above does not matter, because we are so forgiving or forgetful when our favorite authors or preachers make the same mistake time and time again in their predictions. We wouldn't trust our cars to a mistaken-prone automotive mechanic, and we certainly wouldn't hand our bodies over to a clumsy physician, yet we freely turn our minds over to people who are sloppy with the Word for their own monetary gratification. We gobble up their latest end-time books quicker than we can say "sure-fire bestseller", and we soak in every word they say in person or in print without once giving any thought about being a Berean Christian (Acts 17:11) We don't need to check out the Word diligently to see if what Bro. So and So is saying is true about Iran, Israel, the European Union, the United Nations, the USA, China, et.al; all we need to do is check out the latest headlines of the day. Newspaper exegesis takes much less effort than biblical exegesis after all.

The early Gnostics believed that they were the "spiritual elite" who could discern and understand the deeper things of God that the average person could not. They had the key to seeing things that others could not see, and those who could not see stood amazed with bulging eyes and dropped jaws at those who could see. The elite have the charts and diagrams and can bring things out of Scripture things that are not clearly seen by the average Bible reader. And who says that Gnosticism is an ancient heresy that has been buried once and for all? In the realm of eschatology, it seems that Gnosticism is alive and well, and we seem to be content and happy with that. The apostle Paul in Colossians was anything but happy and content as he wrote about the dangers of any type of secretive inside knowledge that only a handful could decipher, where the rest of us ignoramuses were at the mercy of these elitists.

Now when it comes to interpreting Ezekiel 38 and 39, what does every popular error-prone prophecy expert have in common? They all see these two chapters having a modern-day fulfillment; in other words, they are yet to be fulfilled. That opens the speculative can of worms, and those worms crawl out in every possible direction. Worms make good bait for fishing, but herein lies the problem. Many people see prophecy as nothing more than a fishing expedition rather than a rigorous study in biblical theology.

We should all agree that prophecy is about the future. No argument there. Prophecy is not prophecy if it is telling about the past--that's providential history that has been made. Prophecy is about providential history in the making. But why do we think that all prophecy in Scripture, or most prophecy in Scripture, or even much prophecy in Scripture is about our future? Why can't it be about the future of the people to whom the Bible was originally written? In other words, why can't prophecy be about events and people that lived back then in the Bible times and were fulfilled in events and people back then?

In fact, going back to previous blog articles, that point has been made pretty persuasively when one considers the overwhelming biblical evidence. There were numerous prophecies made in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the Old Testament, some of them in their near future, and some in their distant future. Other prophecies made in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the person of Christ and in the days of the New Testament. Scores of prophecies in the New Testament were fulfilled in the days of the first century.

So, here is the crux of the matter. Why can't the prophecies about Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 have already been fulfilled sometime during the Old Testament? Why do we naturally assume that they have to be about something that is yet to be fulfilled, unless of course it might throw a monkey wrench in all our preconceived notions, cause us to toss out books and tear up notes, put an end to the speculation game, and therefore be a monetary fiasco for all those who profit from being a prophet? Outside of those few insignificant things, I can't think of many reasons why anybody would balk at the suggestion that Ezekiel 38 and 39 be already fulfilled in our past, yet it was fulfilled in other people's future.

My thesis is simply this--Gog and Magog were about people and events in Ezekiel's and his contemporaries' future. They were not about things yet to occur in our future. For me to come to that conclusion, I better have the facts with which to back it up. As in real estate, location is everything. Location, location, location. In biblical interpretation, location is everything. Context, context, context. There are thirty-seven chapters in Ezekiel before we get to chapter 38 and 39. Might it be a wise idea for us to study chapters 38 and 39 in its location? To think that Ezekiel all of a sudden in chapters 38 and 39 talks about something that is totally disconnected with what he says prior to those chapters is totally baffling, and it is being totally reckless with Scripture. Location, location, location. Context, context, context.

Ezekiel lived during the time of the downfall of Jerusalem when people's hopes were crushed beyond measure. To the Jew, it was far worse than our 9/11. We still had a nation after that fateful day. There was no nation and there was no temple after 586 B.C. when the Babylonian terrorists wrecked havoc and destruction upon the southern kingdom of Judah and precious Jerusalem. You can only understnad and appreciate Ezekiel when you put it in context. In chapters 36 on, the prophet turns the corner and begins to preach almost exclusively about the good news that was lying ahead of his people in the immediate future, his future and not ours. It would have no meaning whatsoever to the people back then if Ezekiel all of a sudden started talking about a future prosperity and blessing to come Israel's way in 1948 and on, for example. Tell me, exactly how would that bit of news encourage a distraught people back then, some 2500 years before modern-day Israel became a sovereign state?

In previous chapters, God through Ezekiel told about His judgment that had come not only upon Israel in 586 B.C. and since, but also upon Israel's neighboring nations. In chapters twenty-five and following, we find prophecies and pronounced judgments against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Assyria, Elam, and Edom. Those were nations in Ezekiel's day and not in our day to whom God was preaching and referring. In chapter thirty-three then, God turns His attention back to His own chosen people where He explains again why Jerusalem back then, not the Jerusalem of today, was struck by God's hand of judgment. In chapter thirty-four, He rebukes the worthless shepherds, the leaders of God's people back then prior to Jerusalem's fall, and not the Prime Minister nor the Knesset of modern day Israel. He then says that blessings are about to come Israel's way again, the Israel of then and not the Israel of today. That is the focus of chapters thirty-four and thirty-six.

In chapter thirty-seven, we have that famous vision of the valley of dry bones, bones that came alive when flesh enveloped them and the breath of God revived them. After 586 B.C., Israel saw itself without any hope, just a pile of dead bones, with no chance of being back in the Promised Land with God's favor on them again. What is impossible with man is possible with God. God would bring the dead Israelites back to the land and restore them to Himself. He would breathe new life in them.

At the end of the chapter, the vision ends on a teaching point--God would reunite all displaced Israelites, whether from the northern kingdom or the southern kingdom, into one nation, and they will no longer be two kingdoms as was the case post-Solomon to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the purpose behind the two sticks of v.16 on becoming ONE stick in God's hand. That has all happened when Jerusalem and the Temple were rebuilt in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was ONE nation under God. None of those prophecies are in our future, any more than the birth and crucifixion of Jesus are in our future. Context, context, context.

All this brings us to the next two chapters of thirty-eight and thirty-nine. What gives us the right to leapfrog over 2500 years of history all of a sudden and think that God is now going to talk about something that is not going to have any effect upon any of the Israelites during Ezekiel's day, especially when everything He has said up to this point is about the Israelites of that day? Do we have God saying now from chapter thirty-eight to the end of the book things that do not concern at all the Jews in that time period? In essence, could God have been saying now, "Okay, you Jews, you can doze off now and not pay any attention to what I am about to say, because nothing now is going to occur in your lifetime and immediate future"? That is so incredulous, and it violates the cardinal rule of interpretation of context, context, context.

Even if that is not convincing enough, there is much, much more to come. A verse-by-verse study of these two chapters reveals some hefty arguments in favor of the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel as having already been fulfilled. (As a teaser, this is not to say that there will not be another Gog and Magog--as there was a World War I and later a World War II, there is a Gog and Magog I and a much later Gog and Magog II--which seems to be the case from Revelation 20:8-10.) What are the internals of these two chapters that tilt heavily in the direction of an immediate fulfillment from the time of Ezekiel's time period? That will be the focus of our next blog article, Lord willing, in my immediate future.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Will You Love Jesus After the Cheers Die Down?

2010-08-17T06:05:00.000-05:00

Summer is winding down, the vacations are mostly over, school is about to start, and that means also one other thing--summer church camps have all been wrapped up by now.

Before anyone accuses me of being down on all summer church camps, let me say at the outset that I have nothing against the concept of summer camps for children, youth and families. I refuse to be a killjoy and one who thinks a good, recreational time is "downright siiiiiinnnnful." I have been a camper as a youth, a college student and as an adult. I have gone to summer camps as a sponsor. My four daughters go to a church camp every year. My oldest daughter goes as a counselor now. In fact, most of them have been to camps in two or three different states. I am not starting a "ban the church camp" movement.

Children and youth can swim; play softball, volleyball, table tennis, pool, or darts; go fishing, kayaking, canoeing, shoot with bows and arrows (so long they aim at non-human targets); and do a host of other things that all children like to do.

The kind of church camps I prefer are those that have all the above fun activities, but they are also small and Bible-driven. Small, because with bigger crowds come bigger issues and bigger control problems. This goes against the grain of thinking that bigger is always better, but I know from personal experience that bigger can mean bigger headaches. Often goes unreported at these larger camps are all kinds of sexual misconduct, because if the word gets out what really goes on there, donations may dry up or heads will roll or a certain well-maintained prestigious reputation is damaged.

The lady who cuts my hair is a 70 year old plus Church of Christ lady. I have always heard that bartenders and hairdressers hear and know everything. I don't know about bartenders, but I do know it to be the case about hairdressers. People will often confide in them before they confide in anyone else. This lady has more than once come to the aid of my mom, now deceased, when this lady told me some things I needed to know about my mom, who was afraid to tell me but told this hairdresser friend instead.

Recently this lady, when she was cutting what little hair I have left, told me something that was not news to me. She said, "Chris, you would not believe all the stories I have heard over the years of girls who have lost their virginity at __________ (she named the camp)." The expression "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" should not be applied at any time to camps that identify themselves as Christian.

I am not saying that no bad things can happen or will happen at a smaller church camp setting (the human flesh is what it is), and I am not saying that nothing but bad things happen at bigger camps, but what I am saying is that the likelihood of things getting out of hand can occur with greater frequency at bigger summer church camps where there is more free time and much less supervision.

I also want a camp to be Bible-driven, rooted in good, solid theology. I just happen to believe that EVERYTHING the church is about should be based on sound doctrine. I can't find anywhere in Scripture that gives us the license to do anything for anybody in the church at anytime that is anything less than Bible-centered. If children and youth can learn biology, chemistry, algebra, trig and world history at school, then why can't they learn theology even at a church camp? Why give them milk when they should be able to eat meat? Why do we shortchange our children at church and at camp? Now we can make Bible and theology understandable on their level, and all of that does not have to be boring either.

I want the Bible taught and preached to my daughters when they go to camp, and that happens every year in our case. They memorize Scripture, they hear mission stories, they have regular devotions, and I love it all. Have fun activities, but also be serious about God and His Word.

If you really want to see, though, a good reflection of where contemporary American Christianity is, all you need to do is attend a summer youth church camp. In many cases I would venture to guess it is heavy on the music, light on any biblical teaching/preaching, major on the fun stuff, and get kids worked up in an emotional frenzy. Church camp is an extension of church life after all.

One year I talked a good friend, a parent of some youth in our church, into attending church camp as a sponsor. He was blown away by what he witnessed first hand. This friend had his eyes opened in a big time way. (As pastor of that church over 18 years ago, I had no choice but to be there at camp for some of the week. I began to dread it each year.) On one occasion, right before the main evening service was to begin, they were playing music videos on the big screens. I was reading my Bible and not watching the music videos, because to put it plainly, there were many things in those videos that young people or anybody should not be viewing, especially at a Christian camp. He came up behind me, tapped me on the shoulder, and asked me if I was watching the music videos. I told him I wasn't, and he in disgust said there were many sexually suggestive things going in those videos. I told him simply, "______ (his name), welcome to ____________ (name of church camp)."

Later on that week he and I had a good talk about other things, and he said to me that he figured out why there was a majority of "decisions" made during the altar call on Thursday night of camp week. From everything I had heard, over 75% of all decisions that are made that week from morning and evening services are made during the Thursday night service on a consistent basis every year. He told me that by Thursday the kids are all worn down physically and emotionally from a fun-packed week that they are simply putty in the hands of any effective presentation, no matter if it were biblically on target on not.

As sponsor during one week one summer, I had to counsel some of those who came forward during the invitation altar call. Every pastor who was back there doing just that were fit to be tied, because in nearly every case the children had no idea why they came forward. The speaker did not use the Bible in his sermon, but instead told one scary or funny story after another. We were being told in the back room by the authorities of this camp that we had to get the names of all those children down on a card, so they can get reported as being saved during the week. The total number of decisions would be impressive for wide-scale publication purposes.

One pastor in the state who preached at a summer youth camp one time told a group of us pastors that the lodge where he stayed on the campgrounds was the lodge regularly used by the guest preacher for the week. On the inside of the door was a chart that had the number of decisions posted for the previous weeks. He said the subtle message was "you got to match last weeks' results at least, or beat them preferably."

It does not matter if a camp is small or big in this case. If a summer church camp relies on "decisionism" evangelism, then it will pull every rabbit out of the hat to get kids to make a decision, even if the children have no idea what is going on, nor can they explain it 30 minutes later to anybody else what they have done, let alone have any fruit to show for it just 30 days later. But we are told all that does not matter that much, since the number of decisions is what matters most.

Jesus told us to make disciples not make decisions, though. It's amazing how the early church did it without our methodologies--just imagine, we might foolishly think, if Jesus and the apostles had at their disposal such things as extended altar calls, "we love Jesus, yes, we do; we love Jesus, how about you?" rah-rah sessions, repeat-after-me "sinner's prayers", and other psychological ploys.

It is easy to get people worked up, and that is clearly evidenced at a football game, a music concert, a political rally, or a highly-charged summer youth camp. All it takes is a leader with some imaginative charisma, and there is no telling what a crowd will do. Mob psychology can do all sorts of wonders.

But there is a huge difference between getting people WORKED UP, and Philippians 2:12-13, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed not as in my presence only but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who WORKS IN you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."

Jesus never said that you will know the true disciples by how loud they can cheer in a mob situation, but you will know them by their fruit. 1 John says over and over again that the way we tell who are those who are truly regenerated, born of God, is by such things as loving the brothers, loving God, obeying His commands, living the Christian life day in and day out. Walking an aisle, filling out a card, repeating a canned prayer, saying "I love Jesus yes I do" at the top of one's lungs, physically nailing your name on a cross, or any other regular camp ritual simply did not make the cut in the list of 1 John identifiable features of a born again person.

Jesus warned and scolded the Pharisees in their outreach methodologies of making their converts "twice the sons of hell." (Matthew 23:15) Once the son of hell by nature they are children of wrath, which all of us were at one time, and twice, by giving them false assurance they are all right with God simply because they did A, B and C. At church on Sundays or at summer youth camps or at other events, if we are not Bible-driven, we can be guilty of the same as the Pharisees. We can not shake this off as some insignificant matter. It is never the right thing to try to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, either in conviction of sin (John 16:8) by getting people to make decisions with high-pressured or emotionally-charged tactics or later in giving these same people an assurance of their salvation (Romans 8:16) by telling folks they are saved simply because they did our prescribed A, B and C.

We can do our prescribed A, B and C, and God grades us with an F, because only the Holy Spirit can bring conviction of sin (a necessity for every person's conversion) and assurance of salvation (a necessity for every person's sanctification).

My daughters have been after me for the longest to find them a biblically solid devotional workbook they can use in their daily Bible reading. I have called around and asked the experts in the publishing field, and there are none of those workbooks to be found, at least what my girls are looking for.

If I could write one myself, not just for my girls, but for all the post-summer campers at every church camp everywhere, I at least know the title I would use--Will You Love Jesus After the Cheers Die Down?

One of my instructors at seminary put it this way: It is not how high you jump that counts, but how straight you walk after you hit the ground.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

mormon.org/stillacult

2010-08-07T08:44:00.009-05:00

We interrupt our normal scheduled programming on Gog and Magog to bring you a special late breaking news item: In spite of a recent slick advertising campaign on radio and TV, Mormonism is still a cult.

While driving one day in between jobs, I first heard this latest Mormon advertising blitz on the radio. One immediately after another I heard brief testimonials or stories of people from different walks of life, and each person ended with a statement like "I'm Joe, and I'm a Mormon." (mormon.org/joe) Up until that last word, one could not tell what the commercial spot was all about. Then I saw the commercials on TV. They were all very well done from a professional marketing standpoint.

All of them were low-key with no mention of anything Mormon until the very end. One person is a person in hip-hop, another is a skateboarder, but the one I "like" the best is a man who is riding a motorcycle, and he is telling about the importance of his family. He says he can find nothing in the Bible that says one can not ride a motorcycle, and he loves to have dinner conversations with people who disagree with him over religion. In fact, he says he loves to have friends who pray to a different god than he prays to, and that is all very cool with him. Postmodernism has found its way into Mormonism.

When those commercials came on TV a couple of days ago and my wife saw them for the first time, her first remark to me was "Now what are we Christians going to do?" The more I thought about her question, it seems to me that a huge segment of evangelical Christianity has already done a whole lot. We have taught Mormons well. After all, who has championed and perfected the idea that in order to attract people to our churches we need to downplay what we believe, mention very little if anything about the scriptures, keep everything so fluffy, light and positive, highlight instead people's "felt needs" and personal stories, and throw in some postmodern psychobabble dribble to make it more palatable for the average American spiritual diet?

Upon further reflection, I have concluded also that Mormons have evolved (and that is a good word to use, since Elohim evolved from a man to a god, and we can evolve into gods one day ourselves) in their public relations and outreach strategy. In the former days, the Mormon church had all sorts of commercials and advertisements that would show a clean-cut close-knit Mormon family gathered in the family room of their home for Monday evening worship time. At the end of the commercial would be a picture of the Book of Mormon and an 800 number one could call to get a free copy sent to you. The Book of Mormon was another testament of Jesus Christ, which means the Bible is incomplete without the addition of the Book of Mormon.

When is the last time when anyone has seen a commercial spot that is promoting the Book of Mormon? Even better than that question, when is the last time the Mormon church has even mentioned anything about the Book of Mormon in a national advertising campaign? It's been a loooong time. Why is that? Could it be that through the efforts of so many faithful Christian apologists and those who have researched cults well, as well as the work of former Mormons themselves, the Book of Mormon has fallen on hard times, either in reality or in people's perception, regarding its fraudulent claims?

Joseph Smith and his theological heirs have always stated that the Book of Mormon is "the most perfect revelation" given to man. The Holy Bible can not be trusted because it has so many man-made errors in it, so says the Mormon hierarchy. However, it has come to light that over 3000 revisions have been made in the Book of Mormon since Mr. Smith found those golden tablets in New York. So much then for it being the most perfect revelation given to man. You do not need to know a whole lot about the Book of Mormon to carry on a brief intelligent dialogue with a Mormon missionary who comes knocking at your door. Ask the young Mormon to take the Book of Mormon in his possession, ask him to flip to the very back, and then ask him to try to find any maps. He can't do it, because, unlike most of our Bibles which have plenty of maps at the very back, there are no maps in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is so perfect, then why can't they find any cities or places cited in the book to put on a map for us to find through geographical, historical and archaeological research and verification? The Bible can do what the Book of Mormon can never do; case closed.

So, the Mormon church realized over time they had a public relations problem with the Book they so cherished and still do. They made a tactical decision to hide the Book of Mormon, and not talk about it so openly. Instead, their next batch of national advertising campaigns featured not the Book of Mormon, but the King James Version Bible, which you could get free by calling the 800 number on the TV screen. Of course, once they get your address, then expect to have some Mormons calling on you at your house someday in the near future.

This approach is also part of their overall philosophy that makes the cult of Mormonism different from most other cults. The Mormon church has always wanted to be received by people as being part and parcel of mainstream Christianity. They don't want to be seen or regarded as fruitcakes or oddballs. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, do not want anything to do with mainstream Christianity. When is the last time you heard of a Jehovah's Witness running for office or holding down an elected or appointed office, having a nationally syndicated radio talk show, being a sports figure, writing best-selling books, or being a celebrity in the music, movie or TV industry?

It is alarming, for example, how many of the contestants on the pop culture hits, American Idol and America's Got Talent, are active Mormons, which all go back to the days of the Osmond Brothers, who did so much in recruiting young people back then to join the Mormon church. Any collegiate football fan knows that when his team plays Brigham Young University in football or basketball that his team will be going up against players that are two to three years older, because the Mormon church requires two years of missionary service for all of its young men.

The Book of Mormon had a way of saying that Mormonism is not so much mainstream Christianity after all in the minds of people, but what can be more mainstream than a King James Version Bible? But times have changed, and so even the KJV Bible has to be shelved by the Mormon church in its next round of national advertising. This brings us to where we are today with this new crop of TV and radio commercials, which play right into the hands of a feel-good, religiously tolerant, anti-absolutism, postmodern society.

Subjectivism is the big selling point in these commercial spots. Notice that in each case by each person's different testimonial in these commercials, it is all about how that person lives his or her life, and the insinuation is that he or she has a good life because he or she is a Mormon, and look at all the things you can achieve and be in your life and being a Mormon can help you. Nowhere is it about, "What is the truth?" Nowhere is anything of a Mormon doctrine taught, nowhere is a scripture quoted even from the KJV Bible, nowhere is objective truth a standard for judging what is right or wrong. The commercials are all about helping you and me become better people by reaching our potential, and that's what religion is all about now anyway, right? If you don't believe me, just take a casual stroll through your Christian bookstore and see what kind of books are bestsellers and see how few if any are of any deep biblical substance.

The Mormon missionary will eventually challenge someone to read the Book of Mormon, because by reading it one will get an inward "burning sensation" that it is really true. It is true because we feel it to be true. That is subjectivism in a nutshell. I asked a Mormon missionary once how can I know if the burning sensation is not just indigestion or something else. I would hate to make a monumental decision in my life based upon what I ate for supper.

Is not much of evangelical Christianity subjectivism? Our young people are certainly not being taught biblical doctrine for the most part. There is not enough time to do that in between the trips to amusement parks, pizza parties and other entertaining outings. Look at churches' web sites, billboards, hand flyers, or other advertisements, and see if subjectivism does not reign supreme in so many cases. "Come to _____________Church because this is what we offer for your children, look at all we have going on for your family, see all the programs and activities we have, hear our music, etc., etc." We object to objective truth, and we subject ourselves to subjectivism wherever we turn. If we get to the Bible, it may be more along the lines, "What does this Scripture mean to you?" We are as good as hiding the Bible or whispering it beneath our breath as the Mormons are about the Book of Mormon.

So, yes, we have taught the Mormons well. That is what much of evangelical Christianity has done about this recent round of Mormon commercials.

Mormonism is still a cult, a heresy, started by Satan who disguises himself as an angel of light. It is a shame that the Mormon church can follow our example in its newest, clever, subjective, postmodern outreach by disguising itself even more.

These latest Mormon commercials say hardly anything at all about the Mormon church, but they say a whole lot about us.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Gog and Magog I: Before There was Hitler, There was Haman (part two)

2010-07-22T13:22:00.014-05:00

How did we ever live before there were microwaves, cell phones, and google? In preparation for this article, I relied heavily upon the last one, but to my surprise, I came up empty. I googled, "How many Old Testament prophecies where fulfilled in the Old Testament?" After scrolling down through several pages of google results to my search, all I ever saw was something along the lines of how many prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the life of Christ. That is a very worthy study, of course, and it can be said that Jesus Christ lived during the era of the old covenant ("He was born under the law," Galatians 4:4), so what I retrieved was not off the mark from what I googled.

But more pointedly, what I wanted to find was a list of prophecies that were made in the pages of the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the pages of the Old Testament, or were fulfilled in the era of the Old Testament leading up to Christ. I did not find any paper, article or research that had been done with that specific topic in mind. I am sure there is one somewhere, or possibly several, but here goes my hurried attempt to give a very partial list of the numerous prophecies that were made somewhere in the Old Testament pages, and were fulfilled somewhere else in the pages of the Old Testament.

In Genesis 6:3, God said that there would be a 120 year period of time before He would judge the world. That was fulfilled in the very next chapter when the flood waters drowned every living creature, except those eight humans inside Noah's floating zoo. In Genesis 15:18-20, God told Abram the geographical parameters that his descendants would occupy. 1 Kings 4:20-34 we read of the vast extension of Solomon's kingdom that is a direct fulfillment of Genesis 15. In Genesis 18 God said that Abram and Sarah would have a son in their old age, and in Genesis 21 Isaac was born. Earlier God had told Abram in Genesis 15:13 that his descendants would be strangers in a foreign land for 400 years, and surely everyone is familiar with the story behind the book of Exodus.

The plagues visited upon Egypt were all first words spoken by God through Moses to Pharaoh, and all those plagues became reality just as God had said. God even used a Balaam, and a donkey before him, to speak the truth. His four prophecies in Numbers 23 and 24 were all lived out in the pages of the Old Testament. The conquests under Joshua were fulfillment of what had God promised to the Hebrew children. The birth and life of Samson in the book of Judges were foretold by God to the wife of Manoah.

In 1 Samuel 2, God initiates a prophetic judgment against Eli's household, and everything came to pass, including the death of Eli's sons on the same day (1 Samuel 4). The prophet Samuel told disobedient King Saul that his kingdom would not continue and that God would raise up a man after His own heart. Such was fulfilled in the death of Saul, his household and the beginning of the reign of King David, all fulfilled within 40 years.

The prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 confronted David after the incident involving Bathsheba and Uriah, and he told him a series of prophecies that were headed his way, such as unending violence in his household, his newborn would die, which did occur in the same chapter, and a son would cause an insurrection, namely Absalom. All those prophecies came to pass, again within the pages of the Old Testament.

After Elijah in 1 Kings 21 told Ahab of his future, he then told the wicked queen Jezebel what awaited her. True to form, the prophecies about Ahab came to pass, and in 2 Kings 9 we read of how Jezebel died, just as God had said. Along came King Jehu, and through him God fulfilled many earlier prophecies. A chapter earlier in 2 Kings 8, Elisha had foretold an incredulous Hazael that he would become king, and that he would wreak havoc upon Israel.

The prophecies are too numerous to mention about all the times God had said that the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah would meet their demise, first by the hands of the Assyrians and then by the Babylonians. The Old Testament prophets carried those messages of dire warning. Jeremiah 25:11 and Jeremiah 29:10 both state that the exact time of the bondage to the Babylonians would last 70 years, and so it was to the exact year. (Daniel 9:1-2). The prophecies are also too numerous to mention about all the times God had said that he would restore the Hebrew children back to the land after their exile. One example is in Isaiah 44:28-45:1,where God even names the king-yet-to-be-born who would do the Jewish people a big favor, fulfilled in Ezra 1:2-4, 6:3-5.

In the book of Isaiah, such as in 16:14, 20:3, 21:16, 23:15, and 37:30-35, we read of how God would act in human history regarding different nations and people groups within a specified period of time. All those were fulfilled within the era of the Old Testament. The book of Daniel is the revealing of God's schedule of events that would come to pass during the four successive world empires leading up to the Messiah Himself. Just reading Daniel 10 and 11 should cause our heads to swim, because there we are told in exact detail the upcoming stratagem of warring kings that would ensue in the Greek empire as it effected the Jewish homeland. Someone has calculated over 100 details of prophecies are made here, all of which played out in the course of history within the Old Testament time period.

We can add all the prophecies made about the coming of the Messiah, which google does provide, and we end up with a large amount of prophecies made in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the Old Testament time period. So where does this all lead us? For our purposes right now, it leads us to the story of Esther and Mordecai, two brave Jewish cousins whom God used to prevent a Jewish holocaust long before there was a Hitler.

In Esther 3, Haman, an Agagite, a descendant of King Agag the Amalekite, hatched a plan to destroy all Jews throughout the entire Persian kingdom on the 13th day of the 12th month. I would consider this to be a very significant event. Not even Hitler and Stalin could have pulled off this plan, but Haman could. There were no Jews living in New York City or Chicago or Miami or Rio de Janeiro or Toronto or London during Haman's time, if you get my drift. Practically all Jews were confined within the borders of the vast Persian empire. They were conveniently fenced in, powerless against Haman's evil conspiracy. In Esther 8 and 9, as the story of Esther unfolds, we see how this holocaust was prevented by God's providential intervention. Instead, 75,000 enemies of the Jews were killed. It was such a dramatic rescue and such an earth-shattering historical development that Jews since then have celebrated the feast of Purim, as a celebration of their deliverance from extermination.

Imagine for a moment if Haman were successful. If all Jews were killed, then how would the Messiah be born--the Lion from the tribe of Judah (which with all other tribes would be extinct), the Son of David (whose family line would be extinguished), the promised Seed of woman who would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)? Haman was not acting alone, anymore King Herod was acting alone when he ordered the slaughter of the innocents (Revelation 12). Satan was the director-producer of this real life drama.

Of course, God would not allow Haman or anybody else to be successful. God's prophecies would come true, and man and Satan could not prevent the inevitable. Satan is the Big Loser.

Here is where we are going. Considering the vast number of prophecies made in the Old Testament about all sorts of things--some we may esteem more important than others, but regardless, God made those prophecies--and considering the long list of prophecies made that were fulfilled during the Old Testament itself, should it not surprise us if Haman's scheme of Jewish extermination and God's deliverance from it were not somewhere prophesied earlier in Scripture? Let me state it in another way. Why would God completely not mention anywhere else in the Old Testament what would later happen in the book of Esther, since it would involve the entire Jewish people, their destiny and the future Messiah? You mean to tell me that God made no prophecy at all about what Haman would conceive and try to carry out, that God just skipped over talking about the possible elimination of His entire chosen people?

This to me is a very, very significant point. It is not the only point, but it is a point worth making, that I would tend to think, considering God's long string of prophecies made in the Old Testament, that somewhere in the Old Testament, prior to the time of Esther, God would prophesy about what would come down the road. That was God's method of operation over and over again--He would foretell His people what would happen to warn them, to prepare them and to assure them. God told His people ahead of time about the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., but most Jews escaped the clutches of death then. The Babylonians didn't want to kill all the Jews anyway. In Haman's case, though, he did not want one Jew to be left alive. And God would not prophesy about that, but He would about 586 B.C.?

This lays the groundwork for us to look in the next article at the place where God did prophesy about the extremely serious series of events that would play out in the book of Esther.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Gog and Magog I: Before There was Hitler, There was Haman (part one)

2010-07-17T08:09:00.013-05:00

It seems today that the predominant world mindset is that the Palestinians can do no wrong, and the modern state of Israel can do no right. The latest case in point is the the incident involving the "peace flotilla" of six ships that broke the naval blockade that Israel had imposed for its own security purposes. Five of the ships obeyed Israeli military, unloaded their cargo in Ashdod, the cargo was properly examined, and all peaceful cargo was promptly transferred to Gaza, its original destination. The sixth vessel took a different tact; the "peace loving" Turks on board offered violent resistance, a melee ensued, and the Turks were killed by the Israeli commandos in self-defense.

Once again, Muslim terrorists would be hailed as brave martyrs, while the nation of Israel was condemned worldwide as being the bloodthirsty villain. In any conflict, there is always enough blame to go all the way around at times (no one has ever said "war is heaven"), but the united sentiment against Israel by the great majority of the nations around the world, including our own now, is unjustified to say the least. From the PLO to Hamas to Iran and other neighboring Muslim nations, their defined purpose is to see Israel swept away into the sea.

The hatred against the modern nation of Israel stems from many causes, and while one can point to many parallels between present day animosity to the anti-Israel story line of the Old Testament era, the dissimilarities between the two are more striking. Modern Israel is almost totally secular in nature. Religious, orthodox Jews make up a tiny minority in Israel. It is a secular state carved out by political intrigue and historical circumstances in the late 1800s and through the mid 1900s. The Israel of the Old Testament was a theocratic nation; the Temple was foremost the center of national life; whereas today it is the Knesset. People in the Old Testament could trace their lineage back to twelve tribes; today, due to holocausts, intermarriage, destroyed documents and other factors through the centuries, no Jew today can tell you from what tribe they are descended. Jews today are mainly either Sephardic or Ashkenazi Jews, and much confusion and disagreement exist over their related histories. (This lack of genealogical verification on the part of current Jews bears greatly on the proper interpretation of the identity and time period of the 144,000 sealed Israelites mentioned in Revelation 7! But I digress. . .kind of.)

God made a special covenant with Israel in the Old Testament, because through that nation would come the promised Seed, the Savior of the world. It was an unconditional covenant on God's end, in the sense that nothing would interfere with God's plan to execute His plan of redemption through His Son, the Messiah. For that reason, He would not forsake His people, because He could not forsake Himself. (1 Samuel 12:22) In Genesis 15, God made that point in dramatic fashion to Abram when God Himself passed through the divided animal sacrifices. It was AS if God was saying, "May I be cut asunder like these sacrificed animals if I do not hold up to my end of the covenant!" Old Testament Israel did not come into existence because it sought to be God's people; Israel became God's people, beginning with Abram, purely on the basis of God's sovereign choice. (Genesis 12:1-3) God does not change by the way. (John 15:16, Ephesians 1:4-6)

At the same time, it was a conditional covenant on Israel's end, in the sense that if they did not hold up to their end of being faithful to God's laws, then Israel would face the consequences. Deuteronomy 28:15-68 enumerates the consequences, all of which played out in the life of stubborn, disobedient Israel in the pages of the Old Testament. The prophet in Amos 4 says that God brought all these promised disasters upon Israel, yet "you (Israel) have not returned to Me." The tragedy of all tragedies, the disaster of all disasters, the consequence of all consequences was the final one mentioned in Deuteronomy 28: banishment from the land of Israel. The northern kingdom of Israel experienced that in 722 B.C. at the hands of the Assyrians; the southern kingdom of Judah, through which the Messiah would come, experienced that in 586 B.C. at the hands of the Babylonians.

Since we live under the new covenant established by Christ and His shed blood for those who are His own, the old covenant is no longer in effect (the book of Galatians and Hebrews, in particular, expound on this truth). There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that warrants the idea that God will reinstate the old covenant with anybody or any nation at any time. Jesus is not going to rebuild what He tore down by design. (Ephesians 2:11-22) The best temple in the world now is not confined to a geographical plot of land in the Middle East; it is the eternal, blood-bought church of Jesus Christ, the one body of believing Jews and Gentiles. No one can improve on what Jesus did at the cross.

Another salient contrast between modern Israel and old covenant Israel is that the modern state has been giving up land left and right, land that it conquered in wars from 1948 on. Be it the West Bank, the Sinai, the Gaza strip, or the Golan Heights, at first glance, it has all the appearance that modern Israel, the size of New Jersey, is determined to get smaller and smaller all the time. We can question the wisdom and politics behind such moves, but the fact remains that old covenant Israel, when it lived under God's favor and before it was the recipient of God's wrath, had a vast territorial kingdom. Some would argue the point that old covenant Israel did not fully receive all the property God had promised to it in Genesis 15:18-21. It is very hard to make that case when one reads such passages as Joshua 21:43-45 and 1 Kings 4:20-25. After Solomon's rule, and after subsequent periods of apostasy, the land mass of old covenant Israel began to shrink in size, once again as a direct fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28, until the nations of Israel and Judah ceased to function in 722 and 586 respectively.

God always means what He says, and He says what He means. Judah would fall under the rule of

four successive world empires. This was identified by Jesus as "the time of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24. Those four empires were Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. From 586 B.C. at the first destruction of the Temple by a foreign power (Babylon) until 70 A.D. at the second and last destruction of the Temple by a foreign power (Rome), the nation of Jews had not the freedom it enjoyed like it did in its Golden Era. Except for a brief period of time when the Jews gained their independence under the Maccabeen revolt during the Greek era, the Jews were subjugated to foreign rule for 650 years.

This is where the book of Daniel comes in, because no other prophet gives so much detailed specificity of what would transpire during those six centuries of foreign domination. It all began with Daniel 2 when the teenage captive Jewish boy, through God's revealed wisdom, was able to calm Nebuchadnezzar's paranoia by telling him the meaning of his upsetting dream. A statue with four parts to it would unveil the four successive empires that would control the world stage. During the fourth empire (Rome), God would establish His enduring kingdom, unlike the four temporary earthly kingdoms that set up shop shortly at God's discretion. So in the days of Caesar Augustus, the Roman emperor, Christ would be born, and before the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, Jesus would say, "My kingdom is not of this world."

The rest of the book of Daniel, for the most part, is God revealing major significant events which would occur when these four powers would hold sway over the Fertile Crescent and over the Jews in particular. The most amazing prophecy of all is when God told Daniel in 9:24-27 the EXACT TIMING of when the anointed one (the Messiah, the Christ) would be baptized, 26 A.D., and when he would be crucified, 30 A.D., all during the fourth world empire.

These four world kingdoms were placed in power by God's providential plan. Ol' king Neb had to learn that lesson the hard way in Daniel 4:28-37. In the book of Isaiah, king Cyrus of Persia would be called "God's shepherd." The one and only reason why Neb came to power, why the Medes and Persians overtook Babylon and King Cyrus began to rule, why Alexander the Great marched across the Middle East in rapid fire speed, or why Caesar reigned from Rome is because God put those men there for a reason and for a season. With that being said, it is also true that Satan was at work in all this as well, but not as some independent competitor to God's sovereign rule. The devil is always on a leash, and God has firm hold of the leash.

What Satan hoped to accomplish through these four world kingdoms was to destroy the nation of the Jews, because in so doing he would destroy then the Promised Seed who was to come. This all goes back to Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy made in Scripture, made by God Himself without the intermediary of a prophet of His. Satan heard God's remarks then, because they were directed at Satan himself, and from that moment on until the coming of this Seed of woman, he would make it his number one preoccupation to thwart God's claimed purpose, so stated in Genesis 3:15. The rest of the Old Testament to the coming of Christ can be viewed from a spiritual warfare angle--Satan is trying his devilish best to prevent Genesis 3:15 from being fulfilled. It all began with Cain killing Abel, a satanic plot hatched in the mind of Cain who was of the wicked one. (1 John 3:12) That plan did not succeed; Seth was born, through whom would come the Promised Seed. The omniscient God was always several steps ahead of Satan.

Satan does not give up so easily. The world population would grow at a fast pace, and in Genesis 6, in order to corrupt the entire world, not knowing who was carrying the Promised Seed, fallen angels, "the sons of God" (Job 1-2), intermarried humans, and produced a diabolical hybrid, the Nephillim, from whose death would come the demonic spirits that roam the earth and would possess some people. The world became an increasingly unbearable place, and Satan thought he had won the day, and Genesis 3:15 would be history. Again, Satan failed to take into consideration that God knows all, foresees all, and determines all. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and due to God's sovereign grace, Noah and his family would be spared from a worldwide judgment, and from Noah's son Shem would come the Promised Seed of woman. Satan is foiled again, but he does not give up so easily.

When God called Abram, it then becomes crystal clear to Satan where he needs to spend his most energy from now on. Now he takes his focused aim, from that moment on in the history of the Old Testament, on the descendants of Abraham, and in particular the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8-12). The rest of the Old Testament can be understood from this vantage point--what is Satan doing to or with God's chosen people at this particular time to undo and prevent Genesis 3:15 from being fulfilled? Read the story of Pharaoh, for example, and his decision to have all Hebrew male children killed. (Exodus 1) Was that just Pharaoh's idea, or was there some sort of sinister power at work in his life as well that helped him concoct such an evil plan? I see Satan's fingerprints all over Exodus 1. We are told at various places in the Old Testament that when Israel became infatuated with worshiping other gods, that it was not just a simple, harmless matter of changing one's religion or adding something to what they already had. Who or what was behind it all? Psalm 106:36-37 inform us that sacrificing to other gods or idols was tantamount to sacrificing to demons, which are the spirits of the deceased Nephillim. God had long ago told them that would be the situation in Deuteronomy 32:16-17.

Many examples could be cited from familiar Old Testament stories and passages that illustrate well this Satanic design to beat God at His own game and stop Genesis 3:15 from becoming reality. The last thing Satan wanted was to be crushed underfoot, and he was not just going to sit idly by twiddling this thumbs or polishing his pitchfork while all that come to pass under his eyes.

This brings us to the "time of the Gentiles." These four world empires became tools in the hands of Satan to stop God dead in His tracks. We all know the story of how Herod the Great (representing empire number four) tried to kill all male children two years and under in and around Bethlehem. Was that just an isolated case of a madman going more off his rocker? Not according to Revelation 12. The devil was behind it all.

Whether it was King Neb of Babylonian fame, or Antiochus Epiphanes of Greek fame, the "little horn" in Daniel 8, Satan was at work, doing whatever he could to halt Genesis 3:15 from being fulfilled. What we are not told in Daniel, though, is how Satan would specifically be at work in hatching a plan during the Mede-Persian empire to prevent that first prophecy in Scripture from becoming reality. In fact, as we learn from Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persian kingdom allowed willing Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild Jerusalem and their beloved Temple.

There is a good reason why there are 39 books in the Old Testament, and not just 38. Enter the book of Esther, and enter the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 and 39 about Gog and Magog I, which came to pass in the book of Esther. What Hitler did to the Jews in our recent lifetime, all of which led to the creation of the modern nation of Israel, Haman tried to pull off on a bigger, most dastardly scale in the Old Testament during the days of the second world empire.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

(Part two will be forthcoming.)

The "New and Improved" Ecumenicalism

2010-07-11T18:24:00.014-05:00

I had an aunt who could not pronounce "aluminum." To hear her try brought laughter from us all when we were kids. She joined in the fun, and I too struggle with the pronunciation of some words, like "ecumenicalism", which may be a good thing, because that word is a bad thing. Webster may define it as the idea of promoting Christian unity around the world, but history proves it to be the idea of perverting Christian doctrine around the world. It is the Rodney King approach to breaking down the walls of denominationalism--"Why can't we all just get along?" It is the big World Council of Churches campfire where all hold hands and sway back and forth to the singing of "Kum Ba Ya."

Conservatives fought tooth and nail the liberal ecumenicalism that swept over the American church landscape like a tidal wave through much of the 20th century. It was a necessary fight, because as much as Jesus wants unity in His body of believers, unity can never be achieved at the sacrifice of truth. (John 17:17) In Daniel's great confessional prayer on behalf of his fellow Jews, he says "we have not entreated the favor of the Lord our God, turning from our iniquities and giving attention to your truth." (Dan 9:13) Of all the things we can think of what Jesus could have said to Pilate for His reason to coming to earth, He made it abundantly clear when He announced, "for this reason I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Me." (John 18:37) Every person in the pulpit needs to heed the words of the veteran pastor Paul to the rookie Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Tim. 4:16)

As we told the liberals back then and as we must tell ourselves today, truth is not a bargaining chip. Negotiations, give-and-take deliberations, deal making, and hammered-out compromise may suit the corporate boardroom and the halls of Congress at times, but God's truth is not up for negotiation anywhere anytime by anyone. Even if I had no problem rolling the word "ecumenicalism" off my lips, I sure don't want to subscribe to any part of it. Deal or no deal? It should be "no deal" for any of us who are followers of the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Pretty soon, though, what once was their problem can become our problem. A new ecumenicalism has resurfaced in recent years, and it has reappeared in many forms. What makes this different breed of ecumenicalism so insidious and hard to detect is that it is OUR OWN home-grown ecumenicalism. What I say may not endear me to many people, but I am convinced there is a word of caution that needs to be sounded forth before the conservatives among us imbibe too much from the intoxicating beverage of this "new and improved" brand of ecumenicalism.

As like probably everyone who reads this, I am deeply troubled and very dissatisfied with the current direction our country is taking under this present administration in our nation's capitol. I am a theological conservative and a political conservative as well. Christians should be involved and not sit idly by on the sidelines. We should pray for our leaders, pray for our country, and pray for ourselves. If the apostle Paul was writing Romans 13 under the auspices of our kind of government and not Nero's in Rome, I am sure he would tell us believers to be informed where the candidates stand on the issues and don't stay home on election day.

The liberal ecumenical movement was wrapped around a certain political agenda and ideology, be it solving world hunger and eliminating hunger through social programs, or reducing overpopulation and pollution around the world, or combating AIDS with the free distribution of condoms, to fighting global warming of today. The tag "social gospel" has been given to this reduction and seduction of biblical Christianity. It is far more social, as in social-ism, than it is gospel. As I stated earlier, conservative Christians in the evangelical community locked horns with this big swing to the left. The gospel was at stake, and the gospel is always worth living for, fighting for, and dying for.

Guess what has happened? What once was public enemy number one among conservative Christians has become the darling among conservative Christians. The new ecumenical movement is wrapped around a certain political agenda and ideology, although now it is our own political agenda and ideology, which of course makes it so much better and okay, so we think. If we can talk more glowingly about Sarah than the Savior, exactly what does that say about us? If we think a certain political candidate is the salvation of our city, state or nation, what does that say about us exactly? If we know the hot-button issues of our day more than we know all the precious doctrines taught in the book of Romans, then what does that say about us? If we find it much easier to speak about political matters and candidates to strangers than we do about the Lord Jesus Christ, then what makes our ecumenicalism any different or better than the liberal variety?

Glenn Beck may be an outstanding political commentator, but he is a Mormon. Sean Hannity may be a detailed analyst of the ins and outs of our nation's politics, but he is a devout Catholic. Rush Limbaugh may be number one radio personality in America, but his attendance of church is non-existent, and he recently married wife number four. Just last year Jerry Falwell's college in Virginia had a Mormon speak at their school's commencement. If a liberal religious school had invited an ordained homosexual minister come speak at its school, we would roll our eyes in disgust and speak out in protest. But when Mr. Beck spoke at Liberty University, hardly a word was said or a body movement made. You know why? Because it is OUR ecumenicalism at work, and that makes everything A-OK. When it is THEIRS, we have our guns ablazing. At one time when he was alive Mr. Falwell was leading the charge against liberal ecumenicalism. Times have changed, and so has the brand of ecumenicalism.

I am not suggesting that Christians should not listen to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, Newsmax, or any other conservative source of information. I tend to agree most of the time from what I glean from those various sources. I am only issuing a strong word of caution--if the liberals can be guilty of putting a political agenda ahead of the gospel, can we conservative Christians not make the same sort of mistake? The GOP does not stand for God's Own Party, and the gospel is still the only hope for us. The gospel is always worth living for and fighting for, even if we have to fight for it within our own camp. God may be using elements of the tea party movement today to awaken Americans to an understanding of our Constitution and heritage, but in the final analysis, the tea party movement can not save Americans from their sin any more than the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, President Obama, or any other element of the left wing movement in our land.

This new ecumenicalism did not just spring up within the past year or so; it was alive and well in the 1970s and 1980s. Anybody out there remember the Moral Majority? With that name in place, the Pharisees could have easily joined that group. Need I remind you who Jesus' chief antagonists were? God always seems to do His best job when it is only a faithful godly minority, a remnant, a Gideon, a David, a Daniel, an Elijah, a Jeremiah, a John the Baptist.

While in the highly charged election year when it is becoming increasingly fashionable for churches, Christians and pastors to align themselves with certain political candidates, we need to take a quick refresher course in history. It was Constantine that legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire, and it became its official religion. No more persecution and nothing more to fear by Christians finally. Good news, right? Not a chance. History confirms that the marriage between state politics and the church was the beginning of the church's demise. The church lost its message and witness, and to be "Christian" or a "church member" was just a necessary step one must take up the political ladder.

In more recent times, Ronald Reagan has been hailed as the greatest president in our lifetime by the new brand of ecumenicalism. This is not to denigrate his presidency or his accomplishments, but do you know that President Reagan was the President that established political ties with the Vatican, that he was the President that nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, whom proved to be bust on the bench in her pro-abortion votes, and that he advocated a plan of amnesty for illegal immigrants? This is the danger we face when we become too closely identified with any political candidate and when we hitch our wagon to any political star, so that we lose impartial judgment in the process.

Billy Graham was a man in the latter part of his ministry that was given to both brands of ecumenicalism. This was by his own admission, and it was his design in the organization of his crusades. Even Billy Graham had to learn the lesson the hard way during the Nixon years. Mr. Graham closely cozied up to a sitting president probably unlike any other religious figure in our nation's history had done prior to the Nixon presidency. When Watergate became full-blown and after the release of the audio tapes that had President Nixon using every sort of vulgarity and profanity, Mr. Graham was deeply embarrassed and tarnished somewhat by that disclosure. From that moment on, Billy Graham had said in numerous interviews that we would never make that mistake again of becoming too attached to any one office holder.

Politicians can disappoint us. They can let us down big time. Some of the worst cases of marital infidelity and political corruption have come from the conservative side of the political aisle. Jesus will never disappoint us; He will never embarrass us; He will never let us down; He will never become something He is not. And He owns no political favors. And He can not be bought. And His truth is not up for sell to the highest political contributor. Let us not drape the American flag, a donkey or an elephant around the cross of Jesus Christ. The universal, international gospel needs no props or embellishments, which only take away from its glory anyway.

I am eager and ready to go to the polls on primary day here on July 27, and I have four registered voters now in my household. It is an American privilege we should never take for granted. If my choice of candidates win or lose on primary day or come November, there is one thing any of us can not afford to lose, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ usurped by any political platform or movement. As Vance Havner was fond of saying, "The parents of Jesus lost Jesus at church one time, and they were not the last people to lose Jesus at church." Well, we can lose Jesus at a political rally as well.

It's not worth losing Jesus anywhere, even if our slate of candidates come out on top. Beware of any ecumenical movement, liberal or conservative, where Jesus gets lost in the crowd and commotion.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

P.S. I am still planning on writing about "Gog and Magog I--Before There was Hitler, There was Haman."

A New Name. Possibly a New Place. But the Same Message.

2010-07-04T21:33:00.004-05:00

In September 2003, Heartland Baptist Church of Oklahoma City conducted its first worship service at the Hilton Hotel in northwest Oklahoma City. Much has transpired since then, and for the past four plus years we have been meeting at the Warr Acres community center. Our church's name does not do an adequate job in reflecting our geographical location, and that will still be the case if we decide to move to the east side of Oklahoma County in the coming months. With that being said, Heartland Baptist Church of Oklahoma City will be changing its name in the near future. What our new name will be has not been determined yet, but that change is coming soon. Change can be good, even for Baptists. Remember the familiar joke? "How many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?" The response is, "CHANGE?!?"

We believe our church is entering a new phase, and maybe this is a great time to change our name anyway. We are planning to start meeting on Sunday evenings in the Midwest City-Del City area starting possibly the second Sunday in September. This will be in addition to our Sunday morning worship services at the community center. The Sunday evening times will be more along the lines of what the apostle Paul did in Ephesus as he held "theological discussions" for the lost and the saved in the school of Tyrannus for a span of two years. (Acts 19:9-10). These Sunday evening gatherings (and I haven't come up with a name for them yet; we have a lot of naming to do on our hands!) will not be anything like a typical worship service. They will be low-key, informal, give-and-take discussions, but yet well-planned out talks on some very deep, intriguing, challenging doctrinal subjects that in many cases have been too long ignored in many places. The very first series of talks will be on the doctrines of grace, such as the doctrines of man's total depravity, God's unconditional election of sinners, Christ's definite atonement on the cross, the Spirit's effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints.

I heard the testimony of a young Christian who remarked that he was tired of going to church where all he needed was a straw; rather, he was craving for a place where he could come bringing a steak knife and a fork to dig into God's meaty dish.

One purpose of these Sunday night gatherings is "to test the waters", so to speak, to see what the response might be on the east side of Oklahoma County. If after much prayer and evaluation our church determines we need to move permanently to the Midwest City-Del City area in the foreseeable future, then we will make that move, trusting the Lord to lead us every step of the way. We have all sorts of ideas and plans of how we will promote and advertise these Sunday evening gatherings, and just one of these avenues will be this blog site. We will keep everyone posted as we get closer and closer to September, and once we determine the exact place and time we will be meeting on Sunday evenings.

Your prayers will be much appreciated. We need God's wisdom, and in all things "God must increase, and we must decrease."

Yours in Christ,

Chris

P.S. My plans are to write more regularly on this blog site, and the next article that is coming soon will be "Gog and Magog I: Before Hitler, There was Haman"

When Satan and His Third Were Shown Heaven's Exit Door

2010-05-07T17:39:00.011-05:00

The three avenues of learning involve 1) learning new things which we have never known before, 2) relearning familiar things we may have forgotten or have failed to put into practice, and 3) unlearning things we have picked up along the way that do not stand under further scrutiny.

All three of those are part and parcel of the subject matter of Satan and the forces of evil. Some popular misconceptions related to the devil and his ilk are that demons are the same thing as fallen angels, that 1/3 of the angels followed Satan at the beginning and were cast out of heaven then, that Lucifer is another name for Satan, that Satan and the souls of unbelievers are in hell right now, that Christians can be possessed by demons, and that prayer is the means by which we engage the enemy and win the victory in our spiritual warfare. There are more, but that will do for now.

To unlearn some things is not an admission of failure on our part; it is the road we must all take to get to the place where we will learn some new things we may not have known before. The biggest challenge to tackle is which one of those listed above we should look at first.

Only in Revelation 12 are we confronted with the teaching that 1/3 of the angels along with Satan were cast out of heaven. Nowhere else is that mentioned in all of Scripture. Therefore, what that chapter says should determine when that event actually occurred. As one reads that chapter, it becomes very obvious that the point in history when the rebels were given the heave-ho was not at the beginning, i.e. before the serpent's temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It was rather at the time of Christ and the cross.

Speaking of the near future, Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18) The week of His death Jesus would say, "NOW is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be CAST OUT." (John 12:31) It is in Revelation 12 we are given the added information that Satan was not cast out alone when Jesus triumphed over the devil and his subordinates at the cross. (Hebrews 2:14-15, Colossians 2:14-15) Not only did Jesus' death secure the salvation of the people who would come to believe in Him, but it also spelled the ultimate defeat of Satan. Christ's death had an effect on earth in regards to people, and it had an effect in heaven in regards to angelic beings.

In the Old Testament period, Satan and his followers are seen in the courts of heaven as Satan converses with God, as he brings up accusations against God's people, and as the rebellious angels are dispensed to do God's bidding on occasion. (Job 1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, 1 Samuel 16:14, 1 Kings 22) The cross event changed much of that. Even though Satan still does his share of trouble in the world and in the lives of people, including believers, his career of being the accuser of God's people has come to a screeching halt. (Revelation 12:10) We overcome Satan by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of our testimony. (Revelation 12:11) Greater is He that is IN us than he that is in the world. The wicked one can not even touch us now in regards to any sense of condemnation or accusation, because the blood of Christ is the justifying cleanser of our hearts. There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:18). Unbelievers still lie under Satan's grasp, and they must endure the accusations of Satan until they come to faith in Christ and are forgiven of their sin.

Satan is not a happy camper when he walks into court and sees one of God's children standing next to Jesus, who is his advocate, a defense attorney who has never lost a case (better than Perry Mason!), and on top of that, this defense attorney is calling the Judge "Daddy." Satan knows he is licked. His days of being the accuser are over.

Satan is not in heaven any longer, but he is not in hell either, at least not yet. Nor are the souls of unbelievers in hell yet. Hades is the place where disembodied spirits of unbelievers go at death. It is a place of torment, as Luke 16:22-24 clearly bring out. Hades is the Greek word equivalent of the Hebrew word Sheol. Hell is the future eternal depository of Satan and all souls who are in Hades. Whereas Hades is the place specially made for the souls of unbelievers, Gehenna (hell) or the lake of fire, or eternal death, or the second death, is the place specially made for bodies and souls. (Matthew 10:28) At the end of this world, according to Revelation 20, Satan and those souls in Hades and Death (resurrected bodies of the souls in Hades) will be cast into hell. That is still yet to come.

In the meantime, Satan walks about on the earth, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8). He is the prince of the power of the air, but He no longer has access to God's throne in the third heaven or Paradise. (2 Corinthians 12) Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." The souls of believers go now to be with our Lord and Savior in Paradise. As good as that is, it only is going to get better (2 Corinthians 5:1-10) because there is coming a day when resurrected, glorified bodies will unite with souls in Paradise, and all God's children will dwell with God in a new heaven and a new earth. (Revelation 21 & 22)

So the counterpart of Paradise or Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22) is Hades. The counterpart of a new heaven and a new earth is hell or the lake of fire. Satan was in God's presence at one time, and at a future time he will be in Gehenna (hell). The souls of unbelievers are in Hades now, and they will be in hell later with their resurrected bodies. The souls of believers are in Paradise now (or we can call it heaven as in the third heaven; the atmosphere is the first heaven, outer space is the second heaven, and God's throne is the third heaven), but they will be in a new heaven and a new earth with their resurrected bodies.

No matter how good it is in this life for unrepentant unbelievers, the worst is yet to come. No matter how bad it may get in this life for repentant believers, the worst is always behind them and the best is yet to come.

The 1/3 angels were cast out with Satan at the cross. We are doing battle against this army of evil, called authorities, principalities, powers, spiritual forces of wickedness, etc. Misconceptions abound about the topic of spiritual warfare, and how we actually do battle against Satan today. We will save that for another day.

There is Hades. There is Hell. But there is something else called Tartarus or the bottomless pit or the abyss. Satan is not there either, but somebody or I should say many spirits are there. Who are they, and where did they come from, and why are they there? Even if you didn't ask those questions, I'm glad I did, because now I have something to write about next time.

Things That Go Bump In the Night

2010-03-17T22:06:00.003-05:00

When Frank Peretti came out with his gripping, watershed fictional books on demons in the 1980s, it ushered in a new heightened level of discussion on demonic activity. Angels and demons have always been a topic of interest, and even a recent movie by that name only suggests that the curiosity has only grown over time. As is the case in most situations, though, polarizing and contrasting viewpoints blur the true story. Sensational accounts of demonic possession and territorial demons have caused in many Christians either panic or over-the-top fascination to total disbelief of anything demonic or Satanic in nature.

In our Sunday morning Bible study through the gospel of John, we landed on 8:44 one Sunday several Sundays ago. We have not been able to proceed, in John that is, past that one verse, simply because what we learn there ties together so many "loose ends" about Satan, fallen angels, and demons, and their whole scheme from the beginning to disrupt and impede God's initial prophecy in Genesis 3:15. When one takes into account that Satan is out to prove God wrong, i.e. no Seed of woman is going to bruise his head, then everything from Genesis 3 to the time Satan is thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 20 can be seen from the vantage point of a diabolical attempt to overthrow God's plan of redemption. In the Old Testament up to the time of the appearance of the Seed of woman, Jesus Christ, Satan's dirty fingerprints are seen in the Old Testament and New Testament stories that we learn from our earliest days of Sunday School.

Satan is called a murderer and a liar, by Jesus Himself in John 8:44. That is the only time those titles are given to Satan in Scripture. The serpent did lie to Eve, and Adam and Eve's spirit died at the moment of their disobedience, just as God had forewarned. Physical death would follow spiritual death. Satan is out to kill the body, the soul and the mind. Examine church history and you will see how Satan tries to subvert God's plan by 1) persecuting and killing Christians (he is the murderer) and/or by 2) filling Christians' minds with false doctrine (he is the liar). Examine how much of the New Testament is written to counteract false teaching. Why so? Why do we read about deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons in 1 Timothy 4:1? Start in Genesis and trace Satan's method of operation all the way through the Old Testament, and behind it all you will see his murdering, lying schemes over and over again, and especially more so at the time when Genesis 3:15 comes to full fruition in the person of Jesus.

Satan does not give up so easily, even when Jesus defeats the enemy and bruises his head at the cross. (1 John 3:8, Colossians 2:15). From Jesus' resurrection, ascension and the birth of the church in Acts 2, Satan has a new enemy, so to speak, and that is the spiritual offspring of the Seed of woman, i.e. the church of Jesus Christ. Such is the synopsis in Revelation 12. Up until the birth of Jesus, Satan throughout the Old Testament is out to prevent the birth of the Seed in the first place. Why else do we read that Cain killed Abel, especially in light of 1 John 3:12? God's sovereign will can not be overcome, and a future birth of Seth is the line through which the Seed would come.

In Genesis 6, Satan has an all-out frontal assault on the human race. To cover all the bases and to make sure he got the line of Seth out of the way, he corrupted the world through the intermarriage of mankind with "sons of God" (fallen angels as we learn in Job 1-2), who took human form (angels, the good and the bad ones, often took human form in the Old Testament, and even Hebrews 13:2 teach this) and married the "daughters of men". We read of Jesus paying a special visit to these fallen angels who took human form and who died, and who disobeyed in the days of Noah. According to 1 Peter 3:18-20, Jesus after His death and before His resurrection went to preach to these wicked spirits in prison.

Satan's plan might have worked, since the world became exceedingly corrupt in Genesis 6, but Satan forgot to take into account God's sovereign grace. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 3:15 marches on, but Satan is no quitter. When God called Abram to be the father of the nation that would give birth to the Seed of woman, Satan knows where to direct his aim from now on. True, Satan is very active in the affairs of the pagan nations in the Old Testament, but he saves his heavy artillery for Israel. Read the Old Testament from Genesis 12 on in the light of how Satan here and there is trying his devilish best to prevent Genesis 3:15 from being carried out. The Old Testament, from this perspective, as it is played out is more than just a collection of disjointed memorable stories. It is the stage on which Satan is attempting to marshal his forces to thwart the first prophecy in Scripture, from which all other successive prophecies proceed.

King Herod wanted to kill the baby Jesus. Was that just his idea, or was Herod a willing pawn in the hands of something or someone more sinister? Why all of a sudden do we read of numerous encounters with demon-possessed people in the gospel books, something we don't read in the Old Testament? Why is Jesus tempted by Satan directly right after His ministerial inauguration at His baptism? Why did Jesus have to say to Peter at one juncture, "Get behind me, Satan"?Why do we read of this epic struggle between Jesus and Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane (the first Adam failed in a garden; the last Adam would triumph over the devil in a garden)? What exactly was going on in the spiritual realm when Jesus died on the cross? The God of heaven in His Son met the "god of this world" on his home turf, and Satan threw everything he had at Jesus during His earthly sojourn, because the Seed of woman had finally made his long-awaited appearance.

Ironically, the nation of Israel, which was the brunt of Satan's attack in the old covenant era, would become the principle tool in the hand of Satan in the New Testament. Now that Jesus had come, and the bulk of the nation of Israel had rejected the Seed, their promised Messiah, Satan would use the first century nation of Israel as a means to beat up on the spiritual seed of Jesus, the church. This is why Jesus told the Jewish leaders in John 8 that their father was Satan. In the book of Acts, most of the persecution of believers came from the hands of Jews up until the time of Nero. In Revelation 2 & 3 in two of the churches, Jesus identified the Jewish synagogues as the synagogues of Satan. The indictment could not be more stinging.

The above is a very quick overview of the main points we have covered so far on Sunday mornings. Right now we are going through all the demonic encounters, one by one, that Jesus and the early Christians had in the first five books of the New Testament. Keeping everything in its proper perspective, we understand why all this flurry of demonic activity is occurring all at once. The Seed had come, and the spiritual seed of that Seed had come. Looking at these fourteen demonic possessions in the New Testament, we learn a lot that will separate fact from fiction, truth from over-hyped sensationalism in some popular Christian literature and Hollywood productions.

There is not a demon behind every bush; we are not commissioned to identify demons by name and cast them out appropriately; Christians can not be demon-possessed because greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world; we should not cringe in fear before Satan and his hosts, because if we submit ourselves to God, and resist the devil, he will flee from us. At the same time, it is equally dangerous to pretend that Satan has waved the white flag of surrender, and that demons have gone into hiding.

But where do demons come from? We may assume that demons and fallen angels are one and the same. But that is not the case. Scripture nowhere equates the two. Reaching back to the pivotal account in the opening verses in Genesis 6, we discover the answer. We see where demonic activity is strongest in the Old Testament, and we understand why demons in the New Testament crave a body to possess, even it happens to be swine. And there is so much more we can possibly piece together, like what about occultic practices and those things that go bump in the night?

Claiming victory over Satan by the blood of the Lamb,

Chris

(I may write more on the above after I teach on this subject a few more Sundays in the near future.)

The Ebullition over Eccentric Education

2010-03-05T09:36:00.011-06:00

"When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out."

-- New York state Sen. Eric Adams, urging his colleagues to set aside

religious convictions and join him in voting for a gay-marriage bill.

The New York Times, Dec. 2, 2009

Yesterday while I was out driving around doing my various retailing jobs, I heard a local news update on the radio that got me chuckling and yet shaking my head in disgust. Before I get to that, I have to set things up. Our state legislature is currently proceeding ahead with a bill that will allow schools to offer elective courses in the Old Testament and New Testament. The backers of this bill emphasize the classes are strictly elective and are not required by students, and such education in the Scriptures is necessary to understand our country's founding and much of past literature, such as Shakespeare, Milton, and many others.

Part of me says it is about time that we get back to the basics in education. Yet the other part of me says "I don't know about this." Look how our current educational structure has mismanaged teaching history (history revisionism), science (evolution, global warming, etc.), social sciences (Heather has Two Mommies, "safe" sex, etc.), civics (the superiority of political socialism over capitalism), just to name a few. Now just imagine what they will do to Scriptures. How can an unregenerate high school teacher, for example, properly teach the Word of God to students? How many would want a professing, practicing Mormon to teach the Bible to young impressionable minds? But again, if it is an elective course, those matters I suppose could be researched and found out by parents before their student enrols in a class.

Laying aside for the moment the discussion whether the bill is good and necessary or fraught with possible difficulties, I turn now to the news update that had me laughing and rolling my eyes at the same time. One state senator, who is known for being very liberal, and who recently lost his bid to become mayor in Tulsa, said in opposition to this bill that our country had a secular beginning. Perhaps he thinks the Pilgrims came over here with copies of Mein Kampf. Our educational system did a great job in giving a degree to this state senator! He makes the point more forcefully than any proponent of this bill that we need this bill, and we need it in a hurry. What we really need is a total educational makeover.

I wish I had the opportunity to be a state senator for just one day yesterday. After I repented of my backsliding, I would return to my normal life after that one day. I would love to have asked this state senator from the senate floor what percentage of our country's beginning was secular in nature (I am sure he had the Enlightenment in mind, and people such as Thomas Paine, unless of course the senator was talking out of blind ignorance or prejudicial bias, which could be the case.), and what percentage of our country's founding he thinks was religious in nature. I would have loved to hear his answer. Even if he would have said that 95% of our country's beginning was totally secular in nature, which would be a greater admission of his colossal ignorance, I would not argue that point with him. Instead, I would respond back by saying that since our educational system has for generations now been almost totally taken over by a secular humanistic approach, is it not only fair and right that we take 5% of our time, with an elective course, to teach about our religious beginnings.

I am a big proponent of education, the right kind that is. Today we are stuck with eccentric education. Eccentric means "departing from an established pattern, unconventional." The established pattern or norm for education in our country at one time was far different than what we are getting from Pre-K to PhD today. My wife and I have been making the rounds in visiting various colleges that are interested in our graduating high school senior, and ones that our senior has expressed interest in attending. One of these colleges, which shall remain nameless, made a pretty good impression on me initially. They all have their own sales pitches, but this one had some things in its favor--for one thing, they offer a full scholarship to my daughter, their costs are much lower than other state schools, their graduation rates are much higher, but the best thing that caught my attention was their educational philosophy.

This state, non-private, college is a liberal arts college. They have identified one big glaring problem of higher education today, and that is we have a fractured, highly specialized, compartmentalized educational assembly line that churns out graduates with degrees in specific fields, but graduates who lack a well-rounded knowledge in many fields. The tragic result is that they are unable to find jobs beyond their specialization when the economy takes a downturn or when technological changes or cultural shifts cause a movement toward other fields and away from other fields. A liberal arts degree is intended to prepare a student with a broad knowledge, beyond one's particular "major", and a knowledge that ties all the fields together in a comprehensive whole. The student with a liberal arts degree then can make adjustments more quickly in the future job market should situations warrant it.

Liberal arts education was the established norm in this country at its beginning. Today we are eccentric. We no longer have universities. We have "multi-versities"--the political science department teaches one theory of man, the psychology department teaches another theory of man, the history department teaches another theory of man, the biology department teaches another theory of man, and never the two or three or one hundred departments on a typical college campus ever meet anywhere at any time. Our society is so fragmented and divided, not because of right-wing Bible-thumping religious zealots as some would claim, because we have been teaching ourselves that man is fragmented and divided.

A professor at this college gave an illustration from her own educational past. She took a class in college entitled 20th Century Female Poets in China. All she learned in that class was very specialized in nature. Did she learn anything about the history of China during that time period? No. Did she learn anything about the changing political climate in China? No. Did she learn anything about other aspects of cultural life in China during the past century? No. Her educational heritage, like so many, was eccentric in nature. Over her lifetime as she saw the numerous disadvantages in her own educational journey, she became a convert to liberal arts education, the once-established norm.

Liberal arts education will have, for example, a class on American history that every college student must take. During the course of that semester class, a professor from the music department will come over to lecture maybe one or two days about the development of music styles during that period of time. Another day a science professor may lecture in that history class about the scientific advancements made during that period of time and their ramifications on American life. Another day an economics professor will talk on the various economic cycles that occurred during the time in question, and how that impacted Americans in general and legislation in particular. Such is the wisdom behind a liberal arts education.

It was a very compelling story this college professor told. . .but something was missing. As we walked across campus, I told my wife that this school is on to something very big. They have identified a problem and they are addressing it, sort of. What is missing was what was THE BIG established norm in our educational system. Theology was called the "queen of the sciences." It was the unifying, over-arching study that brought every field of study under it. At one time we did have uni-versities. Diverse studies were all brought together under a unified biblical worldview. I would kindly ask this liberal state senator to examine the beginnings of Yale and Harvard for example, and he would see that theology and not secular humanism was the established norm.

And for this state senator from New York whom I quoted at the top, I would simply say when the college student at Yale and Harvard in the 1700s walked through the college doors, they always carried their Bibles with them. How we have arrived at a day when a New York or an Oklahoma state senator can expose his eccentric views without anyone batting an eye only goes to show what a theology-devoid educational system can do to any civilization over time.

And the same applies, even more so, to the church's educational system. Even if the entire higher learning culture in our country goes to hell in a hand basket, the church should be the one place where the queen of sciences is taught with due diligence and extreme care. The first church put first things first, and we would be foolhardy to do anything else. "And they continued steadfastly in the APOSTLES' DOCTRINE and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42) Is the modern church by and large following that example? Or are we rather being bombarded by a steady diet of self-help motivational sermons topped off with a little divinity to make it appear legitimate? We may know how to put the sizzle back in our marriage, but we may know next to nothing about justification. We may know the "steps" or "keys" or "principles" to establish a healthy financial future, but we may know very little about the means of personal sanctification.

What is embarrassing is to compare what school children had to know in the 1700s compared to what they know or are being taught today. Do a study sometime and you will find your head reeling when you see how far we have fallen. Here is something more embarrassing. Discover what children learned in our churches at one time from their catechism classes (Bible and theology instruction, the pre- crayon-coloring, puppet-show, video-games days) to what church adults or long-time church members know today.

It is kind of hard to fault the multi-versities out there on college campuses, when we have more of the same in our church houses. We have a highly fragmented, fractured system of learning where children are segregated from youth and youth are segregated from adults, and adults are further fragmented by classifications of singles, senior adults, young marrieds, etc. What is taught over there can not be the same as what is taught over another place, because felt needs and life situations have replaced "the apostles' doctrine." We have no unifying queen of sciences.

The eccentric education at our places of higher learning has reached a boiling point, an ebullition. More and more graduates at our multi-versities are painfully learning that what they have learned may not have adequately prepared them for the future. Just recently riots have broken out again on numerous college campuses because of cutbacks in education. We have a free Pre-K to PhD mentality. We consider education, like health care, a guaranteed right--another travesty of our eccentric educational system that has failed to teach what exactly is in the Bill of Rights and what is not. Since the federal government has become heavily involved in our educational system, the costs of education have risen five times the national rate of inflation.

A good sign for revival in our day would be a growing, non-violent, ebullition among God's people over the eccentric education in our churches. When there is a holy uprising among God's people for not being adequately fed from God's Word, then there is tremendous hope for change, not from DC but from Heaven. It may take a "supreme sacrifice", for example, for families to take their children out of large youth groups where they are being babysat, entertained and spoon fed dribble, and then take their families to a church, big or small, where there really is a uni-versity in place.

At times I am extremely hopeful, but then at other times I am left to wonder. This week our entire family went to the annual end-of-basketball-season banquet for a Christian basketball organization, of which our youngest daughter was a part and a player on an older girls' team. After the pizza was all gone, we all then headed to the worship center of the church where we were meeting. We had a recognition service where the customary celebratory remarks were made and awards given. Then there was a keynote speaker with a speech to be followed by a devotion, as it was called in the printed program. We heard lots of things, but never a word of Scripture was spoken. To top it off, at the end of the devotion, quickly we were all asked to bow our heads and the devotion speaker led us all in the sinner's prayer. We were to repeat silently what he said out loud. Children (and adults) were encouraged to fill out a card, check the appropriate box, and then turn the cards in, because there was going to be prizes given for cards that were randomly drawn later.

The men who spoke were good-hearted men. They were not evil in their intentions. But what they did, all under the appearance of religious sincerity for the salvation of others, was ask people to do something very important without any scriptural content at all. This is what happens when the queen of sciences has been dethroned in our churches. This is the outcome of a cataclysmic shift in the church's educational system.

As I walked back to my vehicle after the meeting was concluded, the thing I kept asking myself was this, "How many in that large gathering of folks was really bothered by what they had just seen and heard, or have we become so accustomed to something like this, that we consider it just standard procedure?" Have we become so attached to our own eccentric education that we see it as the established norm, and when what was really the once established norm is pursued by someone or some church, we consider those people odd and eccentric? (Isaiah 5:20)

The prayer of our day should be that there would be a growing ebullition over the eccentric education in our churches. In case that terminology does not light our fire, here is a simpler way to say it (for the benefit of all of us who have graduated from our multi-versities): When are we going to be fed up for not being fed?

With such royalty as King Jesus and Queen Theology in place, the church can lead the way, educationally speaking and in all other ways, which is what the Head had in mind all along when He said we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. (Matthew 5:13-15)

Yours for the teaching of the Truth,

Chris

The Politics of Religion and the Religion of Politics

2010-01-21T19:01:00.014-06:00

"I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

"Some trust in chariots (or, elephants), and some in horses (or, donkeys): but we will remember the name of the Lord our God." -- King David

Back room deals.

Political posturing.

Twisting arms in committee meetings.

Winning by intimidation.

Stuffing the ballot box.

Slander and innuendos.

Power-hungry control.

Follow the money trail.

Voting blocks.

Now the question is, "Do the above things happen just in the District of Columbia, or might it happen also in a Deluge of Churches?"

Many a seminary graduate with idealistic eyes and big dreams envision pastoring their first church where everyone loves one another, loves Christ supremely, desires to follow the Word more than anything else, and where they will esteem their pastor in the highest regard. How many times has someone like that will have their fantasy world come crashing down upon him, only to encounter disillusionment of all his cherished hopes and dreams. Eventually he makes the painful discovery that politics is alive and well within the local church.

For those who believe that democracy should determine the day in local church polity, many a pastor comes to the realization that just because he won an 80% vote of confidence in a business meeting (what U.S. Senator would not like to win by that margin?) does not mean that his job status is secure. It all depends who the 20% are. Or who controls the purse strings. And there goes the concept of majority rule. So much for democracy, a flawed system anyway wherever it has been tried. (We have a representative republic in our country.)

Then there is the scenario where people on the membership roll who never have darkened the doors of the church in years all of a sudden show up at a business meeting. Talk about stuffing the ballot box. It's like the dead people who vote in Chicago.

The Politics of Religion is a blight and curse. One pastor I know very well, who weathered an unbelievable storm at a very difficult church that resulted in his forced resignation, was "comforted" or "counseled" by a deacon who told him, "Your problem was you were never a good politician." Too bad Paul didn't include that extra qualification for elders in his list in 1 Timothy 3.

A part of me would say, being someone who has been a pastor for almost 30 years, that most church members would be shocked, surprised and saddened if they would learn all the political shenanigans that goes on behind the scenes in what is supposed to be a spiritual body of Christ. Then again a part of me would say that maybe many would accept it as just part and parcel of the way things should get done. After all we have been force fed for years now that the church should take its cue from the world in so many ways, so why not follow the rough-and-tough world of politics as well? If the shepherd of God's flock has been transferred into the model of a CEO of a large corporation, then why not make him into President of a large number of constituents?

In Ephesians we read how the church is compared to a body, a building and a bride. Not once do we read anywhere that the church should be comparable to a bloated bureaucracy with busted budgeted items on frivolous expenses (I heard about a local church that bought a Hummer for its outreach program. Gone are the days of the bus ministry I guess.), nor is it likened to a conglomeration of segregated voting blocks of people who must be appeased at every turn or else (staff, deacons, charter members, the golden-agers, the young married couples, twice-divorced left-handed blonds from Scandinavian descent, and last but not least, the heavy financial hitters). When a church or denomination is known more for its robust political machinery, then it ceases to function as a spiritual body, a spiritual temple of the Lord, and a spiritual bride prepared and adorned for her Husband.

What should be forewarned about the corruption of the church by the infusion of worldly politics should equally be sounded about the inherent dangers of the Religion of Politics.

I, like so many others, have been greatly discouraged over the direction of our providentially-privileged country over the past year or so. Some would almost advocate a total withdrawal of Christians from the nasty world of politics. Jehovah's Witnesses follow that course, along with some evangelical Christians. Without embarking on a full-scale discourse on the role of the church in state affairs, I would only direct people's attention to three prominent Old Testament characters who played pivotal roles while serving in heathen governments--Joseph, Esther and Daniel. The story line of redemption would have had a very different ending had God not placed these people in key leadership roles in the "nasty world of politics." Their situation is understandably different than those Christians today who run for office and who get elected in our form of government, but the principle remains the same--we need more Christian politicians, just like we need more Christian doctors, Christian school teachers, Christian policemen, Christian judges, Christian engineers, etc.

I want more and more Christians who have a solid biblical worldview and are highly qualified personally and professionally to serve in office, on the local, state and national levels. (Martin Luther once said something to the effect that he would rather be ruled by a smart Turk than a stupid Christian.) What good is it if believers stand on the sideline and let the pagans determine the rules under which we must live? We have nothing to complain about if we stay disengaged. Rev. Martin Niemoller's remarks in Germany in 1945 bear repeating: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

Salt that stays in the saltshaker is being the salt of the salt but it is not being the salt of the earth. In other words, Christians should be informed and involved.

The apostle Paul used political knowledge to his advantage in more than one occasion ("be wise as serpents") in Acts 16:36-39 and Acts 21 and the chapters that follow. I must respectfully reject the opinion that advocates Christians should only put their noses in the Bible and turn their faces away from "secular worldly pursuits", such as the political issues of our day, especially those that intersect biblical truths. For example, I am very much opposed to socialized health care or any other big government endeavor or take-over of segments of our economy, if for no other reason it is a clear violation of the commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me." We should steer people away from having an attitude toward government that says, "My Government shall supply all your need according to the riches in D.C. (or really China, if one understands our national debt) by your elected official." Paul had something else in mind when he wrote Philippians 4:19.

While Christians should be informed and involved, there is a danger, and an ever-growing one in this heightened and emotionally-charged political season, of Christians and churches being infatuated and intoxicated with political pursuits. Our hope is not in Barack, Hillary, Sarah, Mike, Scott, or anybody else. When people come to our church, they should hear the gospel and not the latest political anti-this-person banter. People should not mistake us for a political action committee. God does not ride the back of an elephant or a donkey. Elected officials will let us down, even the good ones. Having the right person in the White House is not near as important as having the King of Kings set up residence in a person's heart. Big government can not save your soul, and neither can having the Right government save your soul. (Although having the "right" government can provide a better climate for free gospel propagation. But then again, look how much the early church was able to accomplish under Nero and how Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds today in such places as China and North Korea.)

If a Christian is so caught up in a political movement and they become more energized and animated in their conversation and daily activities about a political issue or a political figure than they do about Christ, His Word, and what God has been doing in his or her life lately, then that Christian has fallen prey to the Religion of Politics. Yes, we should be the salt of the earth (informed and involved), but if the salt loses its distinctive flavor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled upon under the foot of man (we should not be infatuated and intoxicated). It's a sad state when a Christian can know more about the upcoming election or the passage of a bill in Congress than they do about a passage on the doctrine of election in Romans. Wherein lies the passion of the Christian? Let it never be said that when people hear us talk that they think our first affection or loyalty lies with this or that candidate. Instead, it should be said about each one of us, "For to him and to her to live is Christ."

Beware of the dual dangers of the Politics of Religion and the Religion of Politics. One can do just as much damage to the soul of a church and a Christian as well as the other.

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." -- Will Rogers

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from where we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Philippians 3:20

Tiger is Not Out of the Woods Yet: An Illustrative Failure of Postmodernism

2009-12-12T09:14:00.003-06:00

"Television isn't the truth; it's an amusement park. We're in the boredom killing business.

We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We deal in illusions; none of it is true,

but we're the only thing the viewer knows and you're beginning to believe it."

movie line by an aging network program executive, Max Schumacher, to

a young, ruthless program director, Diana, in the seventies satire, Network

While working for Duracell batteries one day at a local Wal-Mart, I noticed the tabloid headline about Tiger Woods' supposed long-standing "affair" with a cocktail waitress. This was a couple of days before the news hit the internet, radio, and TV. I did not know whether to believe this nationally-read tabloid newspaper at the time, but at the same time, I said to myself then that it would not surprise me one bit if the allegations were true. I am not a golfer--I gave up golf because I was having trouble with the windmills--nor do I follow golf that much. Although like the rest of non-golfers out there, I have been amazed at the athletic skill of Tiger Woods. What we see play out away from the golf course in the life of Tiger illustrates so well the dilemma of postmodernism and the utter failure of any philosophical approach toward life that denies the moral absolutes expressed in divine revelation, namely the Holy Scriptures.

Since the initial story broke, the news cycle has been having a hard time keeping up with the latest young lady who is coming forward with her own story involving Tiger. It first began with a car wreck outside Tiger's palacious estate, and now the wreck on his life, marriage and career has become the focus. Who would have thought that Tiger would become like he is today endless fodder for late night comedians and internet jokes? Who would have entertained the idea a few weeks ago that Tiger might not be playing golf for years to come, if ever again?

The salacious, titillating details of Tiger's personal life is not where my interest lies. A high-profile athlete, politician or celebrity involved in infidelity is not a news story anymore. It has become the expected norm to so many people. So what makes the Tiger story so different from the rest? It is simply this, that Tiger Woods worked hard not only on his golf game, but he worked just as hard crafting an image for public consumption that left us all in appreciation for his strong allegiance to his family. As we have found out, it was all a pretense, a deceptive trick. Tiger did everything possible to carve out the image that he was a private individual, keeping himself and his family out of the spotlight, when he was away from work. We envisioned him going home to his wife every time, another trophy and millions more in hand, and spending all his spare time dolling out hugs and kisses on his family.

What the average Joe did not know for the past decade, nearly all those on the golf circuit knew exactly what was really going on for years behind the Tiger facade. Somehow his wife did not find out, until just recently, if we can believe all the published reports. Whether Tiger can save his marriage, I do not know; whether he will pick up a golf club ever again, I do not know; whether there will be a string of more revelations on Tiger's personal life, I do not know. I can hear my mother-in-law quote one of her favorite verses, found in the book of Numbers, which she used on her four children while they were at home, "Be sure your sin will find you out." That we do know for certain from this story.

Like the movie line quoted above from Network, Tiger Woods lived an illusion, which is all we have left if we do not stake our lives upon the Truth. This story is about the failure of postmodernism to live up to its billing, just like modernism was discovered as a fraud for what it was. A manufactured persona does not have the long-term stability to endure the truth whenever it comes around. On the other hand, truth does have that inner fortitude to withstand anything, because it does not rely upon man-made props to hold it up. Postmodernism is left with image building that shoves moral absolutes to the side for the purpose of accentuating the tolerant diversity of man's lifestyles. But when the image comes crashing down, then what is there to pick it back up? Or how does postmodernism attempt to justify the behavior of Tiger Woods without sounding and looking ridiculous to the average man? Or how does postmodern society come to any critical analysis of Tiger's conduct without betraying the central tenet of postmodernism, and that is there are no authoritative rights and wrongs?

One blogger said this in defending Tiger: "We should cut Tiger a lot of slack, because his wife should have known that Tiger needed more than she was providing at home. It was her fault that Tiger had to go elsewhere to find his sexual fulfillment." How does that strike a chord with just the postmodern women out there? While listening to a professing Christian local sports radio personality talk about this, someone who attends a megachurch known for its downplaying such things as preaching against sin or preaching for repentance (in other words, a postmodern church), I was taken aback a little when all he had to say on the matter is, "Well, we all make mistakes." I wonder, again, how many postmodern women out there, would think along these lines, that infidelity on the part of their husbands was simply a mistake. After all, we should be tolerant of other people's lifestyles, even with those within our own home, if we are going to march consistently to the beat of the postmodern drum. Who are we to make value judgments? Who are we to judge others? "He who is without sin should cast the first stone." I wonder if Tiger used that verse on his wife. I wonder how many spouses would have all their worries and fears abated if their unfaithful partners would use that out-of-context verse for its intended postmodern purposes.

Postmodernism is failure that has happened, or is about to happen in one's life. An illusion of any kind is only a delusion; the truth is the only solution. I pray that Tiger will call it like it is, like David did in Psalm 51. It is not a mistake, it is not a personal lifestyle choice, it is not a spouse's fault, it is not the pressures of life. It is a sin against God who has revealed His authoritative Truth for all to read, hear and obey. May Tiger and all other postmodernist sinners come to see that all that image making in the world will catch up with them one day and overtake them and destroy them, but it is only the Truth in Jesus Christ that will set them free. Tiger may not be out of the woods yet, but he can be forgiven and reconciled to God by grace alone through faith in Christ and repentance from sin. Postmodernism or any other philosophy offers no hope when our personal world comes crashing down on us. The gospel does, so why should the church today forsake the one thing that offers hope when the lives of postmodernists are in shambles?

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part six)

2009-10-09T08:58:00.012-05:00

All I remembered about John Dewey, I thought, was the Dewey Decimal System. If I were going to use the library at school, I had to learn where to find 972.110. However, I had the wrong Dewey in mind. I should have known that by looking up that information up at the school library, since I knew where to look, thanks to Melvil Dewey.

John Dewey was a philosopher, psychologist and educator. He was and is the most representative intellectual proponent of the spirit of modernism in the North American context. His philosophy of education permeated the public school system in our country. Dewey advocated four fundamental changes from pre-modern times to modern times, with which all public school children must be indoctrinated from the earliest possible ages.

First, modernity is no longer preoccupied with the supernatural, but rather delights in the natural, the this-worldly and the secular. There can be no room for the teaching of "intelligent design" in high school biology, simply because the supernatural has been removed from consideration. Matter is eternal, and nothing else matters.

Secondly, instead of the emphasis on submission to authorities, such as those who teach the Word of God, there is a growing belief in the power of the individual mind, guided by man's reason, experience, reflection, and observation to come to truths on his own. No wonder that most of the time those in the clergy are portrayed as buffoons, villains or hypocrites in all fields of the arts.

Thirdly, the modern period is characterized by belief in uninterrupted progress. The best is yet to come, thanks to man's advancements and accomplishments in all realms. The only thing needed is the courage, intelligence and effort to shape man's own fate. This is the era where we celebrate and reward our idols with all sorts of awards, even if they win the Nobel Peace Prize after only nine months of being in office as President. It should not surprise us that many church-going kids may have to scratch their heads trying to think of what rock group Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are members.

Lastly, to achieve all the goals mentioned above, man must use every means to study nature, control nature and subdue her forces for social use. Radical environmentalism is born, and climate change is championed. Man is destroying this planet, and only man can save this planet. (See point #1.)

John Dewey's modern man is self-assured and in control of his own destiny. He has no authority outside himself. He needs no salvation, because he has liberated himself from past traditions and superstitions. He just needs the courage to follow his reason wherever it leads. This is modernism in a nutshell. This is man without God.

But modernism did not live up to its billing, as was explained in last week's article. A high level of disillusionment set in with all this talk about progress and coming to unquestionable truths from man's reasoning abilities. The first signs of this unrest about modernism was the cultural shift in the 1960s. Anti-establishment meant not only the church, but also the government, the sciences, the universities, and other institutions lauded by modern man. Timothy Leary came up with the rally cry of "turn on, tune in, drop out", and modernism began to lose many followers from the Vietnam generation.

This brings us to the present state of postmodernism, the current prevalent approach to life. Trying to define postmodernism is sometimes like nailing jello to the wall, but there are many salient points in postmodernism that distinguishes itself from modernism, and which makes it an even more energetic enemy to authoritative divine revelation.

Postmodernism is generally an understanding that we can have no understanding of anything for certain. A biblical worldview says we understand objective truths because they are revealed first and foremost by God in His Word and in His world. Modernism says "no" to the previous statement, in that we know objective truths by man's intelligence and reason apart from the supernatural. Postmodernism says "no" to both of the previous statements, because the subjectivity of the human mind makes knowledge of objective truth impossible. Everyone then is entitled to his own definition of truth.

Since we can not know anything for certain, then the notion of evil or sin does not fit in the postmodern scheme of things. Anything that smacks of a universal, absolute truth is regarded as a severe case of judgmentalism and dogmatism that must be denied. Postmodernism is a triumph for relativism--the view that truth is not fixed and certain, and that each person determines his or her own reality. All this is a determined attempt to eliminate morality and guilt from human life, because there are no bedrock standards of right and wrong.

Postmodernism elevates tolerance and ambiguity over anything else. It is marked by suspicion and skepticism of anything that makes a clear claim to authoritative truth, whether it be Deity or Darwin, whether it comes from a Bible or a bibliography or a bigwig. In fact, even if we had video and audio recordings of a past historical figure, let's say George Washington, we still can not determine if what he did and said are really factual and true.

Postmodernists reject all metanarratives. A narrative is a story; "meta" means big, overarching, comprehensive. A metanarrative is simply an overarching transcendent view of the world that tries to make sense of how this world works. A biblical worldview has a metanarrative; Darwinists and modernists have a different metanarrative. They try to explain the world on purely materialist and naturalist terms. Postmodernists consider both groups arrogant and wrong in their assumptions that they can know truths about the world. Postmodernists hate all metanarratives (except their own).

Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do not realize that they have a real battle on their hands, and it is not coming from those "Bible-believing Christians." Even though Dawkins has said that Darwin has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, he is not convincing enough people to his cause. After years and years of intense indoctrination and government-funded propaganda, well over 90% of people still believe in a God (more about this statistic is forthcoming, though). That percentage has remained pretty constant through the years. Sam Harris says that 93% of scientists do not believe in God, but he never cites his source. I have read, for example in the book The End of Reason, that as many as 40% of scientists believe in God, and what's more the statistic doubles when one just counts the scientists that are closer to people interaction, such as medical doctors, and not just those who work only in lab coats. It's also interesting that a higher percentage of Eastern scientists believe in God than do Western scientists. One Chinese scientist remarked that he finds it startling that he can not question the government but he is free to question Darwinian evolution, but in the West while scientists can question the government they are not as free to question Darwin.

The modernist militant atheist has his own metanarrative, which is at odds with the biblical revelation, but it is also at serious odds with postmodernists, who discount all metanarratives, including the highly revered Darwinian evolution theory. So while Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and others write their books and lecture on college campuses, they are drawing fire from the current growing crop of postmodernists, who deny Darwinian dogma almost as much as they deny the biblical account.

So what does this have to do with us who hold to the absolute certainty of God's revealed truth? We have a challenge on our hands, and we need to be aware of what that challenge consists. We have come to a cultural fork in the road, and as Yogi Berra said, when you see a fork in the road, take it. We as a church are up against the leftovers of a modernist culture and a booming postmodern culture.

It would be a revealing enterprise for anyone of us to evaluate much of Hollywood's latest productions to see how they are commentaries or propaganda pieces on modernism or postmodernism. Do not be fooled into thinking that Hollywood or Broadway or MGM or any entertainment outlet is only there to produce harmless movies, plays or TV shows with no worldview in mind. How do such things as Harry Potter, The Matrix, The Transformers, Twilight, The Mentalist, The Ghost Whisperer, The Vampire Diaries, and many others reveal modernist or postmodernist philosophy? One can make a very strong case that The Truman Show is a movie that has a postmodernist axe to grind against the highly structured, "progressive" yet phony world of modernism.

Postmodernism says there is no ultimate meaning in any text of any piece of literature, and that includes the text of Scripture. The postmodern challenge to the authority of Scripture comes down to this relativist statement: "Isn't it all a matter of interpretation?" Have you not heard on occasion something like this, "You don't mean to say that you take the Bible literally, do you?" If you have ever sat in a Bible study class where the teacher or leader asks each person in the class, "What does this verse or passage mean to you?", then you have witnessed the encroachment of postmodernism in your Bible class. If you have heard from the pulpit constant feel-good dribble without any doctrinal content, then postmodernism has found a welcomed home in that church.

I heard Josh McDowell in person a few years ago quote another troubling statistic. He said twenty years ago the most cited verse of Scripture among young people was John 3:16. Today he said it is now Matthew 7:1, ripped out of context, "Judge not, lest you be judged." Why is that? Non-judgmentalism is the cornerstone of postmodernism. John 3:16 (or John 14:6) is too definite, too certain, too dogmatic, too exclusive. What about those people who never heard the gospel? Postmodern preachers have said that Buddhists can still go to heaven, even if they never believe in Jesus.

When modernism was top banana, much of the evangelical church took the wrong fork in the road. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. As a result, much of the church adopted theistic evolution, and fashioned a social gospel that was more social and less gospel. We accommodated the gospel to the metanarrative of modernism.

Has much of the church today taken the wrong fork in the road now that postmodernism is king of the hill? Just google Emergent Church Movement, and see what you come up with.

We are told to preach the gospel in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). We may be in the "out of season" time period, but even so, we are still to preach the gospel. Modernism and postmodernism are failures that are about to happen. So when a large segment of the church now combats global warming, fights AIDs by joining forces with totalitarian regimes, tries to eliminate world poverty and push for government-controlled health care, ordains homosexuals to the ministry, refuses to preach against sexual deviancy since it is a hate crime, prefers dialogues on Sunday mornings over traditional sermons, placates children and youth with all sorts of postmodern entertainment venues, refuses to make any definitive doctrinal claims, then it is high time for the church to do a gut check.

He who dines with the devil must bring a long spoon.

Yours for the sake of truth,

Chris

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part five)

2009-10-02T19:15:00.005-05:00

"In the past, the difficulty in accepting Christianity was its second point, salvation. Everyone in pre-modern societies knew sin was real, but many doubted salvation. Today it is the exact opposite: everybody is saved, but there is no sin to be saved from. Thus what originally came into the world as 'good news' strikes the modern mind as bad news, as guilt-ridden, moralistic and 'judgmental.' For the modern mind is no longer 'convinced of sin, of righteousness and of judgment' (John 16:8). Yet the bad news is the only part of Christianity that is empirically verifiable, just by reading the newspapers." -- Peter Kreeft

Before there was anything that was modern or postmodern, there was the whole world that had one language and a common speech. United by their technological ability and their cultural atheistic aspirations, they decided to build a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that they could make a name for themselves. Confident of their human abilities, these engineering marvels embarked on building a society where Reason reigned supreme. The Lord would have none of it.

A united, highly sophisticated human race would be unlimited in its capacity for evil. The Lord shattered their plans and brought their famous tower to ruin. It is apparent that reason, science and technology today have not solved all of our problems. Those in our day who lived in the ivory palaces of modernism saw their restructured society come tumbling down, just like those in Genesis 11. A materialistic, rationalistic, anti-God experimentation has ended in ruin.

In judgment upon the first attempt at modernism, God said, "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were unified in disuniting a people by undermining the faculty that made possible their temporary success--their language. "So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

The human race became a disjointed, fragmented, scattered group of babbling fools, with no common reference point and no common language. Totalitarian unity had given way to chaotic diversity. Postmodernism was God's curse upon modernism. That was then, and that is how it is now. The curse of Babel is still with us today. We are living on the ruins of a fallen modernism, only to be overtaken by the confused, babbling nonsense associated with no common moral compass.

God the Father sent God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to undo Babel's affliction of misery upon the human race. First, God the Son atoned for man's open defiance of God's authority. Human autonomy was dealt a death blow on the cross. Our individual modernism that runs through every human heart was slain, and each one of God's merciful recipient of His work of propitiation knows the joy of being freed from the enslavement of Self.

On the day of Pentecost, next God the Father sent God the Holy Spirit through the gracious gift of intelligible utterances to reverse what Babel did. People groups from every language and culture were now joined together in all its diversity because of the work of the one Savior of the world. The gathering of the Church from all nations was underway.

The make up of this different kind of community called the Church is in stark contrast both to the unified autonomous humanism seen in the modernist Tower builders and to the alien, fractured groups like the postmodern Babelites. Modernity assumes that unity is accomplished only through forced uniformity; postmodernism celebrates diversity at the expense of any absolute authority. Only the Church of the redeemed through Christ can obtain true unity while retaining the rich diversity of various cultures.

A person with a biblical worldview and a modernist each say there is a body of truth that can be known, but they come to different conclusions as to what that truth is and how to arrive at it. A postmodernist says, "Why should I believe in anything at all?" Deity, Darwin or Despair. The Christian gets his source of Truth from Deity; the modernist marches to the beat of the Darwinian drummer; the postmodernist has thrown up his arms in desperation and despair, because the only thing that can be known for certain is that there is no certain truth that can be known. This is the challenge of us Christians today as we witness in this cultural environment of hopelessness and meaninglessness.

Christian scholar Thomas Oden maintains that the "modern age" lasted exactly 200 years--from the fall of the Bastille in 1789 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. For historical novel purposes alone, Charles Dickens did us a great favor in writing A Tale of Two Cities, which chronicles the eye-opening bloodthirsty anarchy of a godless French Revolution. Even Thomas Jefferson was epileptic in praise over the Revolution in France at first, because he thought that the French Revolution was a mirror image of the American Revolution. As time went along, it became obvious to all that the French Revolution was a totally different creature than the American Revolution, in that the latter was framed upon a biblical understanding of man and society, and the former exalted the rights of man to the dismissal of Christianity.

During the course of the French Revolution, the Goddess of Reason was installed in the Notre Dame Cathedral. In the modern period, human reason would take the place of God, solving all human problems and remaking society along the lines of scientific, rational truth. What once was considered the Queen of the Sciences, Theology had been stripped of its glory, tossed outside the imperial residence of man's enlightened mind, and left abandoned to die in the back alleys of time. The Age of Enlightenment had arrived.

Rene Descartes in the seventeenth century did more than anybody else to divorce knowledge from revelation. He laid the foundations upon which many after him would build. Descartes sought to establish certainty by doubting everything that could be doubted (and that includes God) in order to reconstruct knowledge on unquestionable foundations. Basic certainty in the modern enlightened era is no longer centered on God and His revelation, but on man. Both modern man and postmodern man prescribe to the idea that whatever exists out there can be discovered apart from any divine authority. Human beings are a law unto themselves.

In our universities, for example, human reason was treated as the final arbiter of what was true. The modern mind discounted the idea of the supernatural and looked for scientific and rationalistic explanations for everything. There are absolute and universal truths to be known that apply to everyone, but scientific methodologies became the chief means by which modern people sought to gain that knowledge.

The new "savior" for the modern era was Charles Darwin, and the new "bible" was his The Origin of Species. From this seminal work spawned a string of humanistic ideas and worldviews, from Freudian psychology to Marxism to socialism to fascism to "pro-choice advocacy" to sexual liberation to theological liberalism. A new world could be created by man in his march toward the truth discovered by Reason.

Modernity offered so much, but delivered so little. The twentieth century was a never ending story of modernism's failures. World wars, social unrest, mass genocide, escalating worldwide poverty, a long ideological cold war, and other human atrocities and injustices all added up to a dismal record of performance by the modernists and their utopian pipe dreams. The symbolic death of the modern era was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the more imposing monuments to modern ideology. The demolition of that wall and all that it represented signaled the death of a worldview that had enthroned Man and Reason.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall parallels the fall of the Tower in Genesis. And with what are we left? Just like in the Genesis account, we are left with the curse of a confused, scattered worldview called postmodernism that is hard to pin down, because it relishes in being hard to pin down.

What can Christians take from all this? The Bible has already given us everything we need to know to confront the errors of modernism and postmodernism, or every other -ism that comes down the pike. We must realize we are engaging in a philosophical/cultural war on two fronts. Yes, there is still the battle to be waged against such things as Darwinian evolution (modernism), but to think that is the predominant battle field today is to miss the cultural revolution (postmodernism) that is going at break neck speed right under our noses. A fuller discussion on the features of postmodernism will be discussed next time.

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." -- Martin Luther

Yours for the sake of truth,

Chris

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part four)

2009-09-26T10:05:00.006-05:00

Three baseball umpires go out to eat at a New York City restaurant after a baseball game. In conversation, one says, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way they are." Another responds, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way I see 'em." To which the third says, "There's balls and there's strikes, and they ain't nothin' until I call 'em."

The first umpire above represents objective realism. In other words, there are non-negotiable things such as balls and strikes, good and bad, right and wrong. Their reality do not depend upon the observer, the environment, social conditions, cultural norms, political agendas, or anything else. They are what they are.

The second umpire is certainly more subjective in his outlook. It all depends on how the observer sees the world around him. Each person can use his own reasoning ability to come to different conclusions, but still there are such things as balls and strikes, but it just differs from person to person. We might call this position subjective realism, or modernism.

The third umpire takes the subjective angle to the extreme. How do we know anything at all? Is there anything we point to that is "real" beyond our judgments? There are no absolutes in life, just contrasting perspectives where we should bend over backwards to extend tolerance of all views of life. Nothing is anything until I say they are, and what I say may be different than what you say, and that's cool. This is postmodernism, the prevalent philosophical approach to life today, that can be witnessed in everything, from entertainment to politics to business to religion to architecture to literature to art, you name it. Postmodernism leaves no stone unturned.

Postmodernism is a new name, but it is as old as the last verse in the book of Judges: "every man did what was right in his own eyes." Man is the captain of his own ship, the maker of his own ship, the course for his own ship, the rules for his own ship. "There's balls and there's strikes, and they ain't nothin' until I call them." Man creates his own reality, he lives by his own definitions, and nobody can say that he is wrong, because there is no absolute wrong.

How well do we recall a former President's line, "It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Many of us shook our heads in disbelief, as we tried to figure out what he was saying. For those who are like umpire number one, that line made no sense. But for those who are like the third umpire, it resonated with them like nothing else in contemporary life at the time. Postmodernism had found its way in the office of the Presidency (along with many other things).

Right after the President's comments, reporters were sent out onto the streets with the question of the century. This part may have been forgotten by most of us, but the question was, "Do words have a fixed meaning (umpire number one), or may we give them any meaning we choose (the position of the third umpire)?" Of course, how could that question have any definite meaning if words have different meanings to people? The postmodern dog is chasing his postmodern tail.

With that aside, though, to the surprise of the surveyors, most people seemed to agree that words can sometimes mean different things to different people. That prompted a second question by the reporters: "Is morality an absolute or a private matter?" The overwhelming response came back that morality is a private matter.

These two questions became the lead-in on a CNN news report. First, words only have personal meaning. Second, that morality is a private matter. Ironically, the third item on the news that day was that the United States had just issued a stern warning to Saddam Hussein that if he did not stop playing word games with the nuclear inspection teams we would start bombing Iraq.

All of sudden, words did matter. Instantly, we did not want someone else to live by his own ethic or his own rules, and we did not want him to write his own dictionary. At the same time, we were going to make sure that our citizens could write their own dictionary, and live by their own ethics, and write their own rules. Perhaps the next most famous line of that day should have been, "It all depends on what the definition of "hypocrisy" is."

Before we look more closely at the differences between modernism and postmodernism, it may be a good thing for Christians, churches and church leaders to take a long, hard look at themselves. These articles are not just a critique or analysis of the way things are out there. Frances Schaeffer once said, "Find out what the world is doing today, and that will be what the church will be doing seven years from now." He may have been off five or six years, but the point is well made.

Many Christians who are appalled at the direction our culture is going seem to be content in the direction their own particular church is going, and they both may be heading down the same road of postmodernism. In Bible study groups or Sunday School classes, is the overarching concern and goal of teaching is "What does the text say, and what does it mean?", or is it, "What does this say or mean to you?" Does personal interpretation always seem to take center stage regardless what the text says, or is it of much more importance that the teacher brings out the true meaning of the text through disciplined study, and then only from that is there any genuine application made? Will umpire number one or umpire number three feel right at home in your Bible study class?

Is there a healthy emphasis at one's church with verse-by-verse (expository) preaching and doctrine, or is it a never-ending stream of topical sermon series with catchy titles over felt needs that people have and where doctrine is not that high on the list because it is too messy, too controversial and too confrontational? How many megachurches or megachurch wannabes have been built by men with strong entrepreneurial skills and weak exegetical skills?

Perhaps a person has not seen it in this light before, but postmodernism may have found a welcomed home at the neighborhood church. Truth has given way to the golden calf of "relevance." To be hip is more a factor than to be holy, and to speak tolerance is more a driving force than to speak truth. Anything that is new and flashy is to idolized at the expense of the ancient and true. Jesus' half-brother wrote that we should contend for THE faith, but has that been rewritten in postmodern jargon to mean that we should be comfortable with whatever faith each one of us perceives it to be?

(Come to think of it, after looking over again the above three paragraphs, maybe the church has been ahead of the postmodern curve for a very long time now.)

If one has heard of the Emergent Church Movement with such spokesmen as Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo and Doug Pagitt (and one has to wonder at Rick Warren and Bill Hybels), then one has already been acquainted with the this movement's marriage to postmodern philosophy. (I would strongly encourage all concerned Christians to find out where their church and church leaders stand in regards to the tenets of this movement. If a church is following this new wave of doing church, then my advice is to get out while the getting out is good.)

Listen to Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, as he spoke to a gathering of 1100 Emergent Church leaders (this is no fringe movement!) in 2004, "Preaching is broken. Why do I get to speak for 30 minutes and you don't?" (That is to say that each one of us are equally-qualified umpires.) He continued, "A sermon is a violent act. It's a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it." (Why should I call balls and strikes? All joking aside, maybe it is The Ten Suggestions and not the Ten Commandments. Maybe it is "this is what God recommends for your consideration.")

Brian McLaren has called for a five-year moratorium on making any pronouncements about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. "In five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak. If not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection." In his book A New Kind of Christian, Mr. McLaren writes, "I drive my car and listen to the Christian radio station, something my wife always tells me I should stop doing ("because it only gets you upset.") There I hear preacher after preacher be so absolutely sure of his bombproof answers and his foolproof biblical interpretations. . .And the more sure he seems, the less I find myself wanting to be a Christian, because on this side of the microphone, antennas, and speaker, life isn't that simple, answers aren't that clear, and nothing is that sure."

Brian McLaren would add, "I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."

Many emergent-sytle congregations have done away with pastors altogether and have replaced them with "narrators." The sermon dinosaur is extinct in those places; a free-ranging dialogue where no one takes a leading role may be the norm. Authoritative pronouncements from Scripture have been swept aside, and in their place have been inserted non-threatening platitudes that could have easily come from Rev. Oprah.

Hopefully and prayerfully, the great majority of "conservative evangelical" churches have not ventured this far into the Emergent Church fold. Something tells me, though, that the numbers are more than we care to think, and there are much more churches flirting with this movement, even if they have not yet formally tied the knot. Departure from sound doctrine is hardly ever a wholesale abandonment over night; rather, it is a methodically slow, insidious, subtle baby step after baby step walk in the wrong direction.

We need to stop the baby steps before they become giant leaps. That postmodern plank needs to be taken out of the church's eye. The "tea parties" nationwide have rallied American citizens to say a common refrain, "We want our country back. We want our Constitution back." Maybe now is the time for peaceful church tea parties. "We want our Bible back. Away with all this postmodern craze and foolishness. Just give us the Word. Tell us, leaders, what we need to know from the holy Scriptures, and then tell us what we need to do based upon what the we know to be true."

Recently my wife alerted me to two different forms of communication that asserted we need to pray for Muslims around the world to come to know Christ. I'm all for that! In both forms of communication, though, it was stated that since Muslims pay special homage to visions and dreams, we need to pray that Jesus will reveal Himself to the Muslims in dreams and visions. My heart was broken, because maybe these people do not realize that what they are doing is undermining the objective reality of God's Word and playing right into the hands of postmodern subjectivism with things such as dreams and visions. The "Jesus" who reveals himself to one Muslim in a dream may be different than the "Jesus" who reveals himself to another Muslim in a dream, so who is to determine which "Jesus" is right? Or maybe each "Jesus" is right; we are right smack in the company of the third umpire again.

Will the shock and outrage by us over a former President's deconstruction of language carry over to the shock and outrage we should feel over the deconstruction of the sacred text that is done "in God's name" Sunday after Sunday, from Bible study group to Bible study group, from bestselling book to bestselling book, from church program to church program, from pulpit to pulpit?

Yours for the sake of truth,

Chris

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part three)

2009-09-19T07:45:00.005-05:00

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C.S. Lewis

Sam Harris sees it his mission in life to eradicate every semblance of Christianity. In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris calls faith "nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." That is one of the more milder attacks against Christianity and religion in general in his scathing diatribe. It is Richard Dawkins who piles it on by defining faith as "a kind of mental illness", and he describes Christianity as an attempt to make a virtue of believing "not only in the absence of evidence, but in the teeth of evidence." At least for Harris, Dawkins and their ilk, we don't have to wonder where they are coming from. There is not a pretentious bone in their bombastic bodies.

Do Christians believe in God, like some people believe that the earth is still flat, or that man really did not go to the moon but landed in the Arizona desert, or that the moon is made of cheese and if man really did go to the moon they should have come back to earth with mozzarella on the bottom of their boots?

Sam Harris frames it this way: "Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."

Has science superseded Scripture? Maybe at one time man in his caveman days needed some superstitious ideas to make sense of the world, and so out pops of his kooky cranium a wide range of diverse explanations, chiefly among them a belief in gods and goddesses who control the universe and the destiny of mankind. Over time, one "god" emerges as supreme, and self-acclaimed sacred literature began to be developed to perpetrate this hoax on pre-Darwin man. But now since science has dispelled so many false notions and theories of how the world works (aren't you glad that your doctor does not practice bloodletting?), we can also dispose of all the myths and legends all under the umbrella of "religion." And since Christianity is the world's largest religion that holds more sway upon man, it is this particular myth that must be rigorously opposed and exterminated for the betterment of society and the full advancement of man.

What I have just described is the marching orders of intellectual atheism that finds many willing disciples in the field of academia, the very field that shapes the minds of impressionable, confused, and dumbed-down youth on our university campuses.

The engaging and bright college professor can use a convincing power point presentation in class that delineates on one side "faith" and on the other side "facts." He tells his class of freshmen that religion for example dwells on the side of faith, but education and their future careers depend upon the study of "facts", those things which are observable and verifiable. Faith is totally subjective and can not be proved, and what his class will learn in this higher institution of learning is totally objective and has facts and not myth on its side.

So what is a freshman who grew up as a church kid going to do? Will he melt under pressure, will he begin to doubt all he heard in his Sunday School classes, Vacation Bible School days, numerous church camps and mission trips, and youth group gatherings, will he come home one weekend to his parents a totally changed individual with cynicism and skepticism running through his veins to the shock of his parents, or will he be able to know how to stand his ground, defend the gospel and articulate his faith in a hostile environment?

It is not just college freshmen who need to sanctify the Lord God in their hearts, to give an answer or defense of the hope that is within them who asks them, and to do that with gentleness and grace. (1 Peter 3:15) The co-worker who says that all religions are the same and all believe in the same God, the cousin who dabbles in the occult, the new church down the road that says that preaching "thus saith the Lord" is archaic and demeaning and should be abandoned for a more conversational dialogue with no definitive doctrinal parameters, and the friend who has converted to Buddhism, are all prime examples of why if we don't know what we believe and how to express it rationally and passionately to an overly tolerant society, then we are blindly steering our ship to crash head on into the rocks of postmodernism.

This is why we need to have a Christianity for the Tough-Minded. And this is why we need to understand such things as modernism, postmodernism, world religions and intellectual atheism. We stand exactly in the same place as the apostle Paul when he entered Athens in Acts 17:16-34. The more things change, the more things remain the same. What we encounter today is not much different than what Paul witnessed on the campus of Athens University.

Our journey continues next time with a look at the challenges of modernism and postmodernism.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part two)

2009-09-08T07:00:00.006-05:00

"I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out."

Ravi Zacharias

To have a tough mind, one must first have a mind.

The acknowledgement that we have a mind we must use for Christ is a necessary first step for anyone who will give a reasoned defense of the great truths of Scripture to a growing number of postmodern skeptics.

Let's use an analogy from the current debate over government-controlled health care. I have read lots of emotional appeals from evangelical pastors, no less, who think it is a compassionate thing that our government provide health care for all our citizens and non-citizens. Emergent Church pastor Brian McLaren has not come to the conclusion yet that homosexuality is a sin, but many in the Emergent camp are certain that it is scriptural that health care should be provided to all as a guaranteed right. That only goes to show that natural man will see things he wants to see and will not see things he does not want to see.

If it is compassionate to provide health care, then is it not also compassionate to provide cars to all citizens and non-citizens so that they can have a way to get to the health care they need? What good is it to have health care if one is stuck at home without transportation? Of course, the government could provide clunkers to all those who don't have cars, but alas, we got rid of all those recently so that many Americans could buy mostly foreign-made cars to help the sagging American automobile industry.

Four prominent questions come to mind when I think of the rush to let government be our savior in terms of health care:

(1) Can anyone show me anywhere in the world where government-run health care has been a raving success? United Kingdom? Canada? Cuba? France? Where? What is the ratio of people coming to our country for medical treatment compared to U.S. citizens leaving here to go to places like the U.K. or Canada or Cuba for medical purposes? When our high-priced politicians need medical help, where do they turn? Mayo Clinic or Castro's Clinic?

(2) Can anyone show here in this country of ours anything that our government has run that has been a raving success? Cash for clunkers program? Post office? Medicare? Social Security? The Great War against Poverty? Housing projects? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? All those programs are boondoggles. We are broke. Is it not revealing that the same people who push and promote pragmatism ("if it works, let's do it") in the church can be the same ones at times who will not evaluate government programs in terms of pragmatism? Instead, if it does not work, who cares, so long we have the best of intentions.

(3) Can anyone show me the number of elected officials in our nation's capital that would be willing to give up their current medical coverage for any sort of government-controlled health care system? Why not? Hmm. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or maybe our politicians already know that what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander, and the debate is not really about health care primarily but about an ever-growing power grab by the federal government.

(4) Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government has the right and power to provide health care to all its citizens? Here, to me, is the most important issue at stake. For all of us who were educated in our government-controlled schools, I need to explain what I mean by the U.S. Constitution. It is that marvelous document hammered out by many of our Founding Fathers on my birthday, September 17, but not in the same year. It is the Caesar we are to render unto. It is the document that informs us what the national government is allowed to do and what it is mostly forbidden to do.

We already had a constitution before the Constitution, but many figured the Articles of Confederation were simply unworkable, so a Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 was convened in Philadelphia so that the delegates from different states could form a lasting document to steer our country forward. Nearly all the delegates and all the states were scared to death of granting too much power to the central government, so they were meticulously careful to spell out only those things the federal government can do, which were very few in number (provide for the defense of the country, being a chief one). Anything not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution was off limits and reserved to the people or the states. Even then, the promise was made that a further Bill of Rights would be tacked on to the Constitution to make double sure that the federal government would be reigned in and kept in check. Without that Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Constitution would not have been ratified by the states.

Then how in Sam's hill (I still haven't found out where this hill is) have we arrived to the highly-bureaucratic, ballooning, sprawling, monstrous federal government today that has its hands in about every aspect of our lives? Because there were some people, most notably Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and some others, who interpreted the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) to mean about anything under the sun. That is why the government welfare program is called welfare by the way.

Originally, if New York wanted to build a railroad or canal, then it was up to the people in that state to do it. It was not the prerogative of the federal government to ask the citizens of Georgia to subsidize by increased taxes the building of a railroad or canal in another state. But through the twisting of the words that the government should provide for the general welfare of the people, then lawmakers, or I should say lawbreakers, came up with the idea that the government could demand that the citizens of Georgia provide for the citizens of New York.

Is that what is meant by "general welfare" though? Not according to the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, who wrote in Federalist Papers #45,"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (Notice how Bro. James put "federal" in small letters, whereas he capitalized "State" governments.) Elsewhere he wrote, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

What is never brought up in this round of health-care debate is this fourth question. I have yet heard any leading proponent of government-controlled health care talk about how a government-run health care system is constitutional. I have not heard too many opponents bring up this argument, and they should, if they knew the U.S. Constitution. Such things as the costs of the program, the payments for abortions, end-of-life counseling, the future rationing of health care, the demise of private insurance carriers, and other matters are all matters worthy of discussion, but behind it all stands the unconstitutionality of it all.

The reason why proponents will never bring up the constitutional angle is because they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. They are just hoping that Americans never find out what the Constitution says, or that they do not care what the Constitution says. because the weekend ball game is more life-changing and who is going to win on Dancing with the Stars is more interesting. In other words, they hope many citizens will be just as uninformed as they the politicians are.

Now how does all this have anything to do with Christianity for the Tough-Minded? It sounds like it is Civics or History for the Tough-Minded instead. I began by saying this is an analogy, however imperfect it may be. The arguments above are examples of how to interact with anybody who has serious reservations or objections about Christianity.

We can kindly show the internal fallacies of other people's positions, once we know what they are. The first three questions do that above. We take what the other side holds dear and expose its weaknesses by asking thought-provoking questions that demand more than just a quick emotive response. I have always wondered what a college prof, who is deeply immersed in the postmodern philosophy that says there is no objective truth, that what is true for you may not be what is true or right for me, would say to a tough-minded student who is quick on his feet. When that prof hands out the results of the exams given the week before, and the student notices he missed five on the test, what would the prof say to the student when he asks the prof, "But, Dr. Hughes, what you might think is true is not true for me, and what you think is wrong may be right with me?"

Most importantly, though, we as Christians need to know really, really, really well our founding document, the Word of God. Most people out there have the wrong ideas of what the Bible says on this or that subject. They are either misinformed or have been indoctrinated with an anti-Christian bias somewhere along the way. "I don't believe in a God who all he wants or cares about is people's money." That guy got his cues about God from watching TBN and not from reading the Bible. You can lovingly say in response, "Well, I don't believe in that kind of God either. Here, let me show you from Scripture what the real God is all about."

More frustrating to me than talking to non-Christians about these issues is talking to some Christians, and even Christian leaders, about matters of eternal importance. In my lifetime I have met quite a few Christians who can say all sort of slanderous things against the likes of men I admire, such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Dr. Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, John MacArthur and others too many to mention, because of "where they are coming from doctrinally." I know what they mean by that and what issues irritate these Christians, but so far I don't think I have met very many who would be willing to go eyeball to eyeball with any gentle Christian mentioned above or someone like them they know more personally and have a scriptural/doctrinal discussion on matters they disagree with him about. They can talk "ill will" from a distance, in an email, on a blog, in a newsletter, in a sermon, but when it comes to having an honest friendly give-and-take of opposing ideas or doctrines, then they may end up heading "for the tall grass" (which may be somewhere over Sam's hill). Could it be they know deep down inside they don't have much of a scriptural leg to stand on?

It is appalling to read what some pastors and other Christian leaders write on their blogs, in their church newsletters, or in other forms of communication, and how little Scripture is used at all. Sometimes it is just a disjointed babbling of opinions or cute illustrations with no reference to God's Word. Have we come to the place where we really are "ashamed of the gospel"? (Romans 1:16-17)

While it is to be applauded that a person is an original intent constitutionalist, far better is it to be known as an original intent scripturalist.

We need to have a burning passion to know God's Word and to sanctify the Lord God in our hearts. More than anything else that is what it takes to have a Christianity for the Tough-Minded.

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word,

it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

Yours for the sake of truth,

Chris

Christianity for the Tough-Minded (part one)

2009-09-02T21:43:00.013-05:00

Fat bodies, thin minds. That is how one author evaluates the current crop of Christians in our modern church culture. We are obese by stuffing ourselves on the junk food of "theotainment", and our minds are starving to death. One negative effect of this is that our young people who are brought up on such standard fare are simply not prepared to handle the onslaughts that will come their way when they enter the college classroom or the workforce.

Somehow or another all those pizza blasts, rock concerts, and video games in our church "activities centers" do not equip a young person to "give an answer, or make a defense, of the hope that is in him" (1 Peter 3:15) and to "contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) How surprised should we be that we are losing more youth today even before they get to college than we can ever gain through our increased frenzied attempt to get more by fattening the bodies while depriving the minds?

In many states the obesity of our youth has become such an alarming statistic that more and more school districts are removing vending machines from the schools. Since the church gets its M.O. often from following the trends in the world, when is the church today going to do something to address what is causing the spiritually flabby bodies and weakened minds on our bloated membership rolls? The vending machines in our small groups and behind the pulpits need to be removed.

It is not just the youth I am concerned about; fat bodies and thin minds know not age or gender barriers. In today's post-Christian postmodern American scene, the longer we go on ignoring the reality around us, the more insignificant will be our witness, and the number of our casualties will continue to increase. We need what we see in Jesus and in Paul--a Christianity for the Tough-Minded.

Picture this: a freshman in college, away from home for the first time, sitting under a flamboyant, very intelligent college professor, who in nearly every lecture presents another "reason" to shelve everything the Bible teaches. Since this naive freshman has lots of fun memories from his church youth days, but he does not have much biblical knowledge, a solid doctrinal foundation, or a consistent, comprehensive Christian worldview to sort through the difficult issues in life, then it is not hard to imagine that this freshman will be taken in by the persuasive logic of this professor who certainly knows more than his parents back home, his youth minister, his church friends, or his pastor.

If we as Christians disregard the mind now, we only leave the door wide open for Satan and the world working in tandem to capture the mind later.

How do we start developing a Christianity for the Tough-Minded? In the TV reality show, Biggest Losers, from what I can only speculate, two steps are taken if the fat is going to come off. Number one, the contestants need to stop doing what they have always been doing which has been the cause of their weight gain in the first place, and number two, they need to start doing what they have not been doing. The same holds true for the Christians with fat bodies and thin minds. We need to "exorcise" those things that have been contributing to the problem, and we need to "exercise" our minds to godliness. (1 Timothy 4:8) That may call for too much a radical surgery for some churches to take, and it may cause some Christians to stay satisfied with their fat bodies and thin minds. Nevertheless, the only option left for us is a Christianity for the Weak-Minded, which does nothing to advance the honor and glory of God. Our Lord is no dummy, and neither should we be.

Some identify what I am talking about as "apologetics", which comes from the Greek word, apologia (1 Peter 3:15, for example), which means "defense." The field of apologetics is giving a reasoned defense of why you believe what you do. I prefer to think of it along the lines of Christianity for the Tough-Minded, because while it does heavily involve apologetics, it goes beyond that. It is concerned about developing a lifestyle that will fully engage the mind in conversing confidently with those who have opposing ideas and worldviews. I need to add here that Christianity for the Tough-Minded is also a Christianity for the Gentle-Hearted. We are not out to win arguments, or to make the opposition look silly, or to show off our knowledge, but always, with gentleness, humility and patience, we seek to point people to Christ. (2 Timothy 2:24-26) All of our well-thought-out lines of reasoning can not by themselves change one person's heart, and Christ can use the stumbling and stuttering lips of a believer to bring the gospel to anyone lost in sin. But all that, at the same time, is no excuse for us not to make our minds sharper and our lips smoother. "If the ax is dull, and one does not sharpen the edge, then he must use more strength, but wisdom brings success." (Ecclesiastes 10:10)

We need not back down from what we believe, once we know what we should believe, and we need not be intimidated by others who may seem to know more than we do. Actually, in day to day experience, we will rarely have conversations with a person who has a PhD in astrophysics. Rather, we will have conversations with someone who heard something from someone who read something from someone who has an ax to grind against Christianity in general, or we will encounter one who has a lifestyle that wishes there was no God with whom he would be accountable. There are intellectual atheists, and there are moral atheists, and the latter group outnumbers the former group. Much of the time we will hear the same old arguments or cliches, and we can know how to answer them with straightforwardness and grace.

In future articles, I want to illustrate from random examples how we can tactfully speak the truth in love to those who have some erroneous, illogical ideas about God, the Bible, what it means to be a Christian, or anything else related to our belief system. Postmodernism is severely flawed internally, and we can help people see through the emptiness of believing that there is nothing worth believing. Evolution leaves us with more questions than answers, and we don't have to wave the white flag of surrender when a professor of biology begins lecturing about the "incontrovertible facts" of evolution. Respectable agnosticism or militant atheism may have its gullible disciples, but the evidences of an Intelligent, Personal Designer far outstrips the blind faith in which nothing times nothing equals everything. Other religions do not have the historical certainty and verification we find in God's revelation of Himself in Holy Scriptures.

For those who were present at my last Sunday's sermon, I ventured into this realm somewhat when I ended on the note on how do we know there is a heaven. (It was based on the text, "Today you shall be with Me in Paradise.") The critics and skeptics say it is an infantile belief like the tooth fairy or the jolly fat guy in the red suit or Grimm's Fairy Tales. Just like we grew out of believing those make-believe figures, we need to grow up and grow out of believing there really is such a thing as heaven and hell. Another well-rehearsed argument is that the idea of heaven is only a psychological wish fulfillment on the part of losers in this life. Just because we wish something to be so, in this case heaven, does not mean it is so.

Others will say if they are willing to concede there is some sort of existence after this life, then why should we believe just what the Bible says on the subject? Are there not other religions and beliefs out there that will say something entirely different about the afterlife? Then how should a person know which one to believe, if any? I will pick up where I left off when I preach next on this text, but those are questions, objections and arguments that can be reasonably addressed and answered if we are willing to have a Christianity for the Tough-Minded. The same can be said about John 7, the chapter we are in now in our Bible study class, because in this chapter we find 2009 postmodern American culture highlighted like nowhere else, and Jesus provides us the clear direction we need to steer our way through the fog of muddled opinionated thinking.

I close on one more important note. The best way a truth can be personalized as one's own is to let that person come to understand the truth himself. Instead of spoon feeding everything to a doubter or inquirer, we give him enough food for thought and enough questions to chew on that he leaves mulling things over in his mind. That way when he comes to a right conclusion on his own hopefully over time (of course, we know that the Spirit of God illumines the mind), it becomes his, and we don't have to spend time then trying to help this type of person overcome his fat body and thin mind. He's already on the road of knowing what it is like to have a Christianity for the Tough-Minded.

Yours for the sake of the truth,
Chris