As a teenager I was a member of a mega-church, before they were even called by that name. We had on a few occasions the Chaplain of Bourbon Street come preach at our church. He was a famous evangelist in his time, with the flare and charisma to match anyone in his day. His comic routines were probably just as well-known as any of his sermons. One of his famous lines was that before he was saved, that he was so lost and so unschooled in the Bible, he thought that John 3:16 was the men's room on the third floor. That brought a good chuckle from the crowd, but now almost forty years later, I often wonder if a good bulk of professing Christians know much more beyond John 3:16. If that is so, then that is no laughing matter.
On numerous times on Sunday evenings or Wednesday evenings at church in previous pastorates, I would ask for volunteers in the congregation to quote one of their favorite verses in the Bible. Maybe it was something they had read the past week. Without fail, John 3:16 would be quoted right off the bat. Sometimes Romans 8:28 would be cited. On a few occasions, someone would quote or read something directly from the Bible. More times than that, there were long periods of silence. Embarrassingly, I was inwardly hoping somebody would say something to break the silence, even it were just, "Jesus wept," or the verse out of Hezekiah, "God helps those who help themselves."
John 3:16 is a beautiful verse. Who can deny that? But contrary to what I have witnessed through the years in the lives of too many professing Christians, there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. For example, there is a John 3:17. There is a John 3:1-15, where Jesus engages a religious leader on the need to be born again, a divine prerequisite before a man is able or willing to believe in Jesus, as is stated in John 3:16. Romans 8:28 is a special verse, too, but there really is Romans 8:29-30. God identifies for us who are the only ones are who can claim Romans 8:28 as a promise--they are the ones who are called, foreknown, predestined, justified and glorified by God. If we continue on through the end of Romans 8 and all the way through Romans 9, then we get a full-blown picture of what it means to be chosen and called by God.
Jesus did not start talking at John 3:16, nor did He stop there. Paul's first words were not Romans 8:28, and his last words were not Romans 8:28. While it is true that we shouldn't put a question mark where God puts a period, it is also equally true that we shouldn't put a period where God puts a comma; we shouldn't interrupt God while He is talking. That is simply not good manners, and more than that, it can lead to terrible theology if we are not careful.
By using John 3:16 in the title of this upcoming conference in Georgia (see last week's article), I know what the conference planners had in mind when they did that. They think that John 3:16 by itself is a death blow to the doctrines of grace. However, the opposite is true. The word "whosoever", so famously included in the KJV and most subsequent versions, is really not in the Greek. The literal translation from the Greek reads, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all the believing ones (participle in Greek) shall not perish, but have eternal life." It is a verse that sounds forth the perseverance of the saints--that all the believing ones shall not lose what they have but will have what they have from God forever. This is a constant note throughout the gospel of John.
Secondly, the word "world" has a variety of meanings. If we conclude beforehand that there is only one possible meaning for the word "world", then we will face enormous interpretation difficulties and glaring contradictions along the way. The apostle John has a special attachment to this biblical word, when we consider that "world" is used 105 times by John in his writings. The rest of the New Testament altogether uses that word 80 times. Of those 105 times by John in his five books, 78 are found in John's gospel.
Many times the "world" is used to denote the human race that is in opposition to God. Jesus would make a distinction between those who are His and those who are of this world. (13:1, 17:9). Sometimes it is used as a hyperbole, like in John 12:19. Whereas in John 3:16 we read that God loves the world, we read in 1 John 2:15-17 that we are not to love the world. Only when one understands how many meanings there are to the word "world" can we properly understand what is being said. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies under the power of Satan, but "world" there does not include every single person in the world, because believers are super-naturally exempted. They live under the power of God, and not of Satan. In fact, believers in Christ overcome the world. (1 John 5:4-5)
John the Baptist announces that Jesus is the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Can that possibly mean that Jesus takes away the sin of everyone, which would leave us with universalism, i.e. all people are saved and all will go to heaven? Certainly not. Then what does it mean? This eventually brings us to John 3:16.
The Jews thought that God loved them only. The Jews wanted a Savior for Jerusalem. The Samaritans wanted a Savior for themselves. The Jews thought the Gentiles and Samaritans were so hopeless that they were beyond salvation from God. The Gentile nations in the Old Testament had their own local deities. Along comes Jesus who says He is the Savior of the world, and not just for the Jews. God loves more than just the Jews; His love knows no ethnic, racial, or geographical boundaries. All we have to do to see that this is the right understanding of the word "world" in John 3:16 is to keep reading until we get to John 4, where the first people group to proclaim Jesus to be the "Savior of the world" was a city full of non-Jews. (John 4:42)
God loved the world of Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, the poor, the rich, the slave, the free, the male, the female, the religious, the irreligious, the moral, the immoral, etc., so much that He proved it by giving His only begotten Son that all the believing ones out of this world of people are promised to have eternal life from God and that none of those who believe will ever perish or be lost again. To get the magnitude of the breadth of God's redeeming love and saving power, we read in John's last writing that His people come not from just one group of people, but from all over the world. (Revelation 5:9) Such was what was meant by Caiaphas' off-handed prophetical remark in John 11:50, as is explained in verses 51 and 52.
If John 3:16 is a death blow to anything, it is a death blow to Jewish provincialism, a narrow-mindedness that claims to have a monopoly on God. The gospel in John is a worldwide gospel. Matthew has long been recognized as the most Jewish of the four gospel books, and that is the reason why it is listed first in the New Testament. It serves as a natural bridge from the Old Testament to the New. Matthew begins with a Jewish family tree, but it ends with "He who is born King of the Jews" commanding His disciples to make more disciples out of all nations. This ever-expanding spiritual family tree has large Gentile branches all over the place. (Romans 11) Jesus is Lord and King over a world of believers.
Jesus Christ is the only Savior this world has. No other religious figure, past or present or future, will do. (John 14:6) Jesus makes this exclusive claim about Himself, and so should we. We have an exclusive Savior with an inclusive grace that saves all sorts of believing, repentant folks all over the world.
Like everyone else, I love John 3:16, but there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. There is much more to the gospel of John than just the sixteenth verse in the third chapter. Why not have a John 1:12-13 Conference, where we are told that a person can only receive and believe Jesus unless he is first born of God (see John 3 for elaboration), and that new birth no way involves the will of man? Why not have a John 5:1-9 Conference that ponders the question why Jesus only chose to heal one out of a multitude at this pool at Bethesda? Why not have a John 6:37,39,44,65 Conference that teaches that the only ones who can come to Jesus are those the Father has given and has drawn, and all those like that will come and none will be lost forever?
Why not have a John 10 Conference that lays out in systematic fashion that Jesus lays down His life specifically for His sheep? Why not have a John 17 Conference that demonstrates that Jesus' prayer life is limited in its scope, i.e. He prays only for His own; He does not pray for the world. (Hey, I thought He loved the world! Why then does He not pray for the world?) He only prays for those whom the Father had given to Him, the same group for whom He would die.
The planners of this conference did not have this as their intention, but the very name of this conference may be a subtle indictment of where too many of our church members are. They are stuck primarily on John 3:16, and they have not progressed much farther than that. They tend to be milk drinkers without the appetite for solid food.
All of the above is preliminary point number two. Now we are ready to look at the five major points regarding the redemption of sinners from a sovereign, gracious Savior of the world. Let's leave our straws behind, and let's grab a fork and knife to dig into the meaty dishes God has placed for us at His banqueting table.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
A TULIP by any other name is still a TULIP
The John 3:16 Conference to be held at Woodstock, Georgia, on November 6-7, promises to be a humdinger or a hullabaloo. The men who are speaking at are well-known and have served the Lord well in their lives, so I am not here to throw any mud their way. The express purpose of this conference is to give "a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism." Apparently there is a growing concern that a resurgent Calvinism is going to take over the Southern Baptist Convention, and these speakers want to head it off at the pass.
With the leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and like-minded professors there, most graduates from that school would probably adhere to 5-point Calvinism. In fact, a recent survey revealed that over 30% of all seminary graduates from all of the Southern Baptist seminaries now subscribe to Calvinism. These facts may have many in the denomination quaking in their boots, for fear that their convention is going to be taken away from them by people who follow some strict, unevangelistic, unbaptistic, new doctrine. While there will be speakers at The John 3:16 Conference from other seminaries, not one speaker will be from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. That is not by accident.
Since the speakers at this John 3:16 Conference are planning on addressing each of the five points of Calvinism, I thought I would do the same over the next several articles which I plan to write. I don't know how the speakers will tackle each point, but I have a good idea how I want to approach each point. Others far more capable and gifted have written extensively on this subject, so what I have to say will pale in comparison, but I will give it my best shot.
But before we begin with the first point in the acronym TULIP, I feel compelled to take a much needed digression over two other points. The first preliminary point before we get to the first point is: What do we mean by Calvinism? A person can use the same vocabulary that we do, but end up using a different dictionary than we use. That being said, we need to define our terms very carefully.
Often when I am asked if I am a Calvinist or not, my initial response is, "How do you define Calvinism? or, What do you think a Calvinist is or believes?" More times than not, after I hear the answer, I say something like this, "If that is what you mean by Calvinism, then count me out!" Stereotypes, like old habits, are hard to die.
When I was a pastor near Cleveland, Ohio, with the name "Southern Baptist" in the name of the church where I served, I encountered some of the strangest ideas from folks in the community what Southern Baptists were. Many of them quickly associated us with snake handlers. Why was that? Because south of Ohio were the states of West Virginia and Kentucky from where many Buckeyes had migrated, and in West Virginia, particularly, there were quite a few snake handlers in worship services. So Southern Baptist meant to lots of people in Ohio snake handlers or some other odd cult.
I knew better, but that was the stereotype or the association that was stuck in people's minds. The same can be said in regards to Calvinism. "If you are a Calvinist, that means you don't believe God cares for everybody; man is nothing more than a robot; you don't believe in prayer; you don't believe in evangelism; you don't believe in missions; you are strict and legalistic; you are following the teachings of one man, John Calvin; you relish theological arguments; you are divisive; you have cold, lifeless, highly liturgical worship services; you believe some new doctrine, etc., etc., etc." Again my quick reply is, "If that is what a Calvinist is, then count me out!" But that is not what Calvinists are or, maybe I should say, should be. If any who calls himself a Calvinist, but can be identified with the above descriptions, then he needs to have his head and soul examined. Those are the negative stereotypes, but they do not represent historical fact. That is why we must define the terms first, which I hope to do in coming articles.
Calvinism is simply a nickname. Some of us grew up with nicknames, and in some cases our nicknames become our names. We see a lot of that in the world of sports. When the volleyball teams, swimming teams, or basketball teams were competing in this summer's Olympics, we often heard the chant in the crowd from American flag-waving fans, "U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A." Not once did we hear, "United States of America, United States of America, United States of America." The reason is obvious. We can use, and I do use and prefer to use, other descriptive terms to describe what is meant by Calvinism, such as the doctrines of grace, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, or the sovereignty of God in salvation, but since human nature likes to keep things short and simple, people came up with the nickname "Calvinism".
John Calvin did not invent the doctrine, nor did he coin the nickname, so don't lay the blame at his feet. He was probably the one that best articulated the truths surrounding the salvation of sinners at a time when there was much doctrinal error in the church and at a time when God was raising up men to bring people back to the authority and sufficiency of God's Word. I follow no man. I don't carry a picture of John Calvin in my wallet, nor do I have a picture of him hanging on my wall at my home. I do not preach Calvinism; I preach Christ and Him crucified. There are other things that John Calvin believed that I would take issue with, but when it comes to the central issues of the salvation of sinners, he expressed what the New Testament seems to teach consistently.
Some might raise a good question at this point--"Why do we need labels in the first place? Doesn't the label Calvinist or Calvinism do more harm than good in the body of Christ?" I would tend to agree at one level, but when you stop to think about it, we live with labels every day of our lives. We have a can of Libby's corn in our pantry, we use Tide detergent, we rinse our mouths out with Scope, we wear Nike shoes, we drive a Ford to work, we shop at Wal-Mart, we bank at Chase, we eat at McDonald's, we root for the Cowboys, Sooners, Longhorns, Cornhuskers, Crimson Tide, Gators, Bulldogs, Wolverines, Trojans, Fighting Irish or whatever, we vote for Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we live on Elm Street, we go to a church that has a name or label attached to it, and the list goes on and on. I am a conservative Christian, and that's a label. I don't think any of us want all the stores to start ripping off all labels from their food and clothing products. Labels or names are just an inescapable part of life. I use "humdinger" and "hullabaloo" at the beginning of this article; if you don't know what those labels or names mean, then you are nothing but a young whipper snapper (another label or name).
When the Lord blessed us with daughter number four, who was born on my father's birthday and my birthday, my wife and I let our three older daughters name the child. They came up with the name Rose. We liked it, and we went with it. Although, jokingly, I did tell the girls there was another flower name I preferred, but Rose does sound better than Tulip. We have come up with cute nicknames for Rose, more or less a play on the name of Rose, like Rosie, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
The same goes for Tulip, the acronym that explains the five points of Calvinism. If one prefers a different label or term or word than Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. You would get no argument from me. For those who have received my articles for five plus years, one knows that I hardly ever use the word Calvinist or Calvinism. It does not come up in my sermons either. Since the "C" word is such a lightning rod word, and since it is so misunderstood, I shy away from mentioning it much of the time. Other words or terms will suffice, but a Tulip by any other name is still a Tulip.
In fact, I have probably never used the word Calvinist or Calvinism as much at anytime as I have in this article. The only reason I have done so here is because The John 3:16 Conference raises the issue, and it would be hard to address something without using the appropriate words so used. In coming articles on this doctrinal matter, the "C" word will fall by the wayside. My chief concern will be, "What does the Word of God say?"
Preliminary point number two before we launch into the five points will have to wait until another posting, but as I close this article, let me state something very emphatically. I refuse to let my blood pressure go through the roof over this issue. I have better things to do with my life than to get my stomach tied up in knots when people want to have a heated argument over these matters. My overarching goal in life is not to make everyone a Calvinist. I consider myself a fun-loving person, and I want to keep it that way. So, if you disagree with future postings on this subject, I will not lie awake at night wondering if you are really saved or not. Nor will I slug it out with you with email diatribes. Feel free to ask questions; in fact, I welcome them. Mental aerobics is good exercise. If the truth, any truth, can not stand up to any rigid examination, then how can it be the truth?
Yours in Christ,
Chris
With the leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and like-minded professors there, most graduates from that school would probably adhere to 5-point Calvinism. In fact, a recent survey revealed that over 30% of all seminary graduates from all of the Southern Baptist seminaries now subscribe to Calvinism. These facts may have many in the denomination quaking in their boots, for fear that their convention is going to be taken away from them by people who follow some strict, unevangelistic, unbaptistic, new doctrine. While there will be speakers at The John 3:16 Conference from other seminaries, not one speaker will be from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. That is not by accident.
Since the speakers at this John 3:16 Conference are planning on addressing each of the five points of Calvinism, I thought I would do the same over the next several articles which I plan to write. I don't know how the speakers will tackle each point, but I have a good idea how I want to approach each point. Others far more capable and gifted have written extensively on this subject, so what I have to say will pale in comparison, but I will give it my best shot.
But before we begin with the first point in the acronym TULIP, I feel compelled to take a much needed digression over two other points. The first preliminary point before we get to the first point is: What do we mean by Calvinism? A person can use the same vocabulary that we do, but end up using a different dictionary than we use. That being said, we need to define our terms very carefully.
Often when I am asked if I am a Calvinist or not, my initial response is, "How do you define Calvinism? or, What do you think a Calvinist is or believes?" More times than not, after I hear the answer, I say something like this, "If that is what you mean by Calvinism, then count me out!" Stereotypes, like old habits, are hard to die.
When I was a pastor near Cleveland, Ohio, with the name "Southern Baptist" in the name of the church where I served, I encountered some of the strangest ideas from folks in the community what Southern Baptists were. Many of them quickly associated us with snake handlers. Why was that? Because south of Ohio were the states of West Virginia and Kentucky from where many Buckeyes had migrated, and in West Virginia, particularly, there were quite a few snake handlers in worship services. So Southern Baptist meant to lots of people in Ohio snake handlers or some other odd cult.
I knew better, but that was the stereotype or the association that was stuck in people's minds. The same can be said in regards to Calvinism. "If you are a Calvinist, that means you don't believe God cares for everybody; man is nothing more than a robot; you don't believe in prayer; you don't believe in evangelism; you don't believe in missions; you are strict and legalistic; you are following the teachings of one man, John Calvin; you relish theological arguments; you are divisive; you have cold, lifeless, highly liturgical worship services; you believe some new doctrine, etc., etc., etc." Again my quick reply is, "If that is what a Calvinist is, then count me out!" But that is not what Calvinists are or, maybe I should say, should be. If any who calls himself a Calvinist, but can be identified with the above descriptions, then he needs to have his head and soul examined. Those are the negative stereotypes, but they do not represent historical fact. That is why we must define the terms first, which I hope to do in coming articles.
Calvinism is simply a nickname. Some of us grew up with nicknames, and in some cases our nicknames become our names. We see a lot of that in the world of sports. When the volleyball teams, swimming teams, or basketball teams were competing in this summer's Olympics, we often heard the chant in the crowd from American flag-waving fans, "U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A." Not once did we hear, "United States of America, United States of America, United States of America." The reason is obvious. We can use, and I do use and prefer to use, other descriptive terms to describe what is meant by Calvinism, such as the doctrines of grace, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, or the sovereignty of God in salvation, but since human nature likes to keep things short and simple, people came up with the nickname "Calvinism".
John Calvin did not invent the doctrine, nor did he coin the nickname, so don't lay the blame at his feet. He was probably the one that best articulated the truths surrounding the salvation of sinners at a time when there was much doctrinal error in the church and at a time when God was raising up men to bring people back to the authority and sufficiency of God's Word. I follow no man. I don't carry a picture of John Calvin in my wallet, nor do I have a picture of him hanging on my wall at my home. I do not preach Calvinism; I preach Christ and Him crucified. There are other things that John Calvin believed that I would take issue with, but when it comes to the central issues of the salvation of sinners, he expressed what the New Testament seems to teach consistently.
Some might raise a good question at this point--"Why do we need labels in the first place? Doesn't the label Calvinist or Calvinism do more harm than good in the body of Christ?" I would tend to agree at one level, but when you stop to think about it, we live with labels every day of our lives. We have a can of Libby's corn in our pantry, we use Tide detergent, we rinse our mouths out with Scope, we wear Nike shoes, we drive a Ford to work, we shop at Wal-Mart, we bank at Chase, we eat at McDonald's, we root for the Cowboys, Sooners, Longhorns, Cornhuskers, Crimson Tide, Gators, Bulldogs, Wolverines, Trojans, Fighting Irish or whatever, we vote for Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we live on Elm Street, we go to a church that has a name or label attached to it, and the list goes on and on. I am a conservative Christian, and that's a label. I don't think any of us want all the stores to start ripping off all labels from their food and clothing products. Labels or names are just an inescapable part of life. I use "humdinger" and "hullabaloo" at the beginning of this article; if you don't know what those labels or names mean, then you are nothing but a young whipper snapper (another label or name).
When the Lord blessed us with daughter number four, who was born on my father's birthday and my birthday, my wife and I let our three older daughters name the child. They came up with the name Rose. We liked it, and we went with it. Although, jokingly, I did tell the girls there was another flower name I preferred, but Rose does sound better than Tulip. We have come up with cute nicknames for Rose, more or less a play on the name of Rose, like Rosie, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
The same goes for Tulip, the acronym that explains the five points of Calvinism. If one prefers a different label or term or word than Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. You would get no argument from me. For those who have received my articles for five plus years, one knows that I hardly ever use the word Calvinist or Calvinism. It does not come up in my sermons either. Since the "C" word is such a lightning rod word, and since it is so misunderstood, I shy away from mentioning it much of the time. Other words or terms will suffice, but a Tulip by any other name is still a Tulip.
In fact, I have probably never used the word Calvinist or Calvinism as much at anytime as I have in this article. The only reason I have done so here is because The John 3:16 Conference raises the issue, and it would be hard to address something without using the appropriate words so used. In coming articles on this doctrinal matter, the "C" word will fall by the wayside. My chief concern will be, "What does the Word of God say?"
Preliminary point number two before we launch into the five points will have to wait until another posting, but as I close this article, let me state something very emphatically. I refuse to let my blood pressure go through the roof over this issue. I have better things to do with my life than to get my stomach tied up in knots when people want to have a heated argument over these matters. My overarching goal in life is not to make everyone a Calvinist. I consider myself a fun-loving person, and I want to keep it that way. So, if you disagree with future postings on this subject, I will not lie awake at night wondering if you are really saved or not. Nor will I slug it out with you with email diatribes. Feel free to ask questions; in fact, I welcome them. Mental aerobics is good exercise. If the truth, any truth, can not stand up to any rigid examination, then how can it be the truth?
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Mr. Joseph Goes to Washington
In the 1939 classic movie, Mr. Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, goes to Washington and soon encounters a corrupt political system run by the good ol' boys network of career politicians. The no-nonsense, common sense common man Mr. Smith refuses to be tainted by the system and shows how one man with backbone and conviction can effect real positive change.
In the day when talk of a $700 billion financial bail-out is being debated in our nation's capital, it would be a nice thing if some no-nonsense common sense about billions and billions dollars worth of taxpayers' cents would surface among our career politicians, who seem to know very little about basic economics, the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly, the relevancy of God's holy Word on some issues that effect us all.
I do not pretend to know a whole lot about all the fine details behind this bail-out bill that is being voted upon in the U.S. House as I type this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that most of our elected leaders do not have the foggiest idea either. The current bill passed by the Senate is 451 pages long. How many Senators have actually read all the way through that novel? It is a reassuring thought, is it not, that most of our elected leaders vote on things they have no idea what they are voting on. One of the required readings before anyone is sworn into office should be Adam Smith's The Wealth of the Nations, the grandest explanation and defense of free capitalism that has ever been written.
I had a few courses in economics in college, and I quickly learned that when you have two or three modern economists in a room, there you will have four different opinions. I heard today on the radio that someone, tongue in cheek, has labelled the current bail-out bill as the Armageddon Avoidance Act. A large proportion of the American populace, and sadly a large number within the Christian community, seem to swallow hook, line and sinker the latest doomsday scenario that comes along. Even when big government is the cause of a problem, if big government can come along and present itself as the savior of the problem it has created, then once again we will be tempted to fall prostrate before Washington and give more homage to the federal god that has come to rescue us all. It is far more likely that cancer will be stamped out before idolatry will or can ever be.
Things may get bad in our economy, at our job, regarding our health, and everywhere else in our lives, but for believers in Christ, of all people, the word panic should not describe us at any time. Fear and anxiety are totally incompatible with trusting in a good, sovereign God.The only reason I can think of why many Christians seem to fall prey continuously to knee-jerk panic-mode prognostications is because the prognosticators know that there is money to be made at people's expense when people are quaking in their boots. Bad news always outsell the good news (gospel), even at religious bookstores.
All this came to a moment of sanctified serendipity last night when I read parts of Genesis 41 in our evening devotional time with my family. There the dreamy-eyed man Joseph in bondage in Egypt told sleep-deprived Pharaoh about a coming economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression. It was a sure word from the Lord, but no-nonsense common sense Mr. Joseph remained calm through it all with a solid trust in his God and was promoted to a very high-level cabinet position in the Egyptian government, where he served with honor and distinction.
Mr. Joseph proposed a 20% flat tax rate across the board. I could live with that, especially when all my taxes combined are over double that amount. Next he proposed that the government do not spend the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors, with apologies to drunken sailors, in the seven years of economic prosperity that was coming Egypt's way. Under Mr. Joseph's orders, the government set aside revenues to the government's treasury during the seven good years for the seven years of economic downturn that was coming around the bend. It was not really a Rainy Day Fund; it was more like a Famine Relief Fund.
As I told my daughters last night, this is basic Home Economics 101 or Government Economics 101. Don't spend more than you make, save a good amount of what you earn, don't live beyond your means, learn to practice contentment, expect financial emergencies or downturns and plan accordingly, don't try to rectify one financial headache with a bigger one, look to God and not your government to be your one and only Savior.
If our leaders in our nation's capital pictorially represent the vast conglomeration of American households, then that may explain largely why our nation's economic house is not in order. We are told that many Americans average $10,000 in credit card debt alone. Far too few homes know anything about the discipline of saving money. Their paycheck is spent before they cash it. In fact, it may be that to many S-A-V-E is a dirty four-letter word, when in truth, the dirty four-letter word should be D-E-B-T. How many Christian couples and families can't experience the joy of giving to the Lord and His work because they don't have much, if any, money left over after they pay all their indebtedness each month?
For those at Heartland, some of the above will be repeated in my upcoming sermon series on FAITH AND FINANCES, starting sometime in November. So I will stop now before I give it all away. I had to write something, though, on this subject since the events of the day and our family Bible reading all came together last night.
In the meantime, I can dream, like Joseph did on occasion, that someone like a Mr. Joseph could go to Washington and knock some sense in the heads of our elected leaders. But then again, maybe the best place to start is not in Washington, but in the homes of so many Americans in financial bondage all across our great land. If only Mr. Joseph could go there. We wouldn't have to make a movie about it. The Book would be enough.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
In the day when talk of a $700 billion financial bail-out is being debated in our nation's capital, it would be a nice thing if some no-nonsense common sense about billions and billions dollars worth of taxpayers' cents would surface among our career politicians, who seem to know very little about basic economics, the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly, the relevancy of God's holy Word on some issues that effect us all.
I do not pretend to know a whole lot about all the fine details behind this bail-out bill that is being voted upon in the U.S. House as I type this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that most of our elected leaders do not have the foggiest idea either. The current bill passed by the Senate is 451 pages long. How many Senators have actually read all the way through that novel? It is a reassuring thought, is it not, that most of our elected leaders vote on things they have no idea what they are voting on. One of the required readings before anyone is sworn into office should be Adam Smith's The Wealth of the Nations, the grandest explanation and defense of free capitalism that has ever been written.
I had a few courses in economics in college, and I quickly learned that when you have two or three modern economists in a room, there you will have four different opinions. I heard today on the radio that someone, tongue in cheek, has labelled the current bail-out bill as the Armageddon Avoidance Act. A large proportion of the American populace, and sadly a large number within the Christian community, seem to swallow hook, line and sinker the latest doomsday scenario that comes along. Even when big government is the cause of a problem, if big government can come along and present itself as the savior of the problem it has created, then once again we will be tempted to fall prostrate before Washington and give more homage to the federal god that has come to rescue us all. It is far more likely that cancer will be stamped out before idolatry will or can ever be.
Things may get bad in our economy, at our job, regarding our health, and everywhere else in our lives, but for believers in Christ, of all people, the word panic should not describe us at any time. Fear and anxiety are totally incompatible with trusting in a good, sovereign God.The only reason I can think of why many Christians seem to fall prey continuously to knee-jerk panic-mode prognostications is because the prognosticators know that there is money to be made at people's expense when people are quaking in their boots. Bad news always outsell the good news (gospel), even at religious bookstores.
All this came to a moment of sanctified serendipity last night when I read parts of Genesis 41 in our evening devotional time with my family. There the dreamy-eyed man Joseph in bondage in Egypt told sleep-deprived Pharaoh about a coming economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression. It was a sure word from the Lord, but no-nonsense common sense Mr. Joseph remained calm through it all with a solid trust in his God and was promoted to a very high-level cabinet position in the Egyptian government, where he served with honor and distinction.
Mr. Joseph proposed a 20% flat tax rate across the board. I could live with that, especially when all my taxes combined are over double that amount. Next he proposed that the government do not spend the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors, with apologies to drunken sailors, in the seven years of economic prosperity that was coming Egypt's way. Under Mr. Joseph's orders, the government set aside revenues to the government's treasury during the seven good years for the seven years of economic downturn that was coming around the bend. It was not really a Rainy Day Fund; it was more like a Famine Relief Fund.
As I told my daughters last night, this is basic Home Economics 101 or Government Economics 101. Don't spend more than you make, save a good amount of what you earn, don't live beyond your means, learn to practice contentment, expect financial emergencies or downturns and plan accordingly, don't try to rectify one financial headache with a bigger one, look to God and not your government to be your one and only Savior.
If our leaders in our nation's capital pictorially represent the vast conglomeration of American households, then that may explain largely why our nation's economic house is not in order. We are told that many Americans average $10,000 in credit card debt alone. Far too few homes know anything about the discipline of saving money. Their paycheck is spent before they cash it. In fact, it may be that to many S-A-V-E is a dirty four-letter word, when in truth, the dirty four-letter word should be D-E-B-T. How many Christian couples and families can't experience the joy of giving to the Lord and His work because they don't have much, if any, money left over after they pay all their indebtedness each month?
For those at Heartland, some of the above will be repeated in my upcoming sermon series on FAITH AND FINANCES, starting sometime in November. So I will stop now before I give it all away. I had to write something, though, on this subject since the events of the day and our family Bible reading all came together last night.
In the meantime, I can dream, like Joseph did on occasion, that someone like a Mr. Joseph could go to Washington and knock some sense in the heads of our elected leaders. But then again, maybe the best place to start is not in Washington, but in the homes of so many Americans in financial bondage all across our great land. If only Mr. Joseph could go there. We wouldn't have to make a movie about it. The Book would be enough.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)