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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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

"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