Dear John, Your Uneducated Peasant is The Intelligent Being

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

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

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

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

Here is my Dear John letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Chris Humphreys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we more like Jonah than we care to admit?

Yours in Christ,

Chris

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

The Problematic Parable that Puzzles Prophecy Pundits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Undercover God (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Christ,

Chris

Undercover God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joyfully yours,

Chris

Gog and Magog: The End of the Beginning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Christ,

Bro. Chris

The Dirty (and Necessary) Business of Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Yours in Christ,

Chris