Soulman

Church & Politics

2012-02-26T09:52:00.009-08:00

I recently did a survey of large Free Churches on the issue of how they handle politics and our faith. The following is a white paper prepared by Valley Church of West Des Moines, IA. Since Iowa is so cruicial to presidential politics, this issue has received particular attention from Valley Church. I have found their thoughts and position on the matter helpful. Though it is somewhat lengthy, I hope it proves to be a blessing to you.

The Church as Salt and Light

The Lord's Command: Jesus said to his followers: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)

Observations and Affirmations:
1. Salt and light: God's Word clearly declares that Christians individually and the church corporately are called to serve as a preservative from decay (salt) and as a guide to truth (light) in their respective cultures and settings. Clearly, God does call us to pray for our leaders, to be responsible citizens, to be change agents in society, and to not forget that we are called to carry out many social responsibilities as Christians and as a church.
2. Different approaches: Christians and churches have (often legitimate) differences of opinions, convictions, goals, priorities, approaches, and strategies concerning how to engage and influence their culture to the glory of God. God has honored many different approaches, as seen in biblical examples and church history.
3. Need for wisdom: Great wisdom is needed to determine the specific calling on an individual's life and ministry, as well as a particular church's calling and ministry.
4. God's calling: God may call different individuals and churches to differing kinds of involvement, priorities, and methods. We should, as far as the Scriptures and conscience allow, show respect to God's specific calling on that individual or church. Christian charity, respect, patience, and gentleness require that, as we develop our own biblically-based convictions, we give others the freedom to do the same. Where we find common ground, we can work together. Where we find differences, we agree to disagree agreeably.
Valley Church's Vision and Guiding Principles Vision: The church's primary vision is to help people become wholehearted followers of Christ. This vision is in line with the Great Commission given by Jesus Christ: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:19,20)
Certain guiding principles explain our core values and ministry philosophy. Specifically, the following two of our guiding principles shed light on the issue of being salt and light in culture: Outreach should be at the heart of all the church does. Like the heart, it drives the Body, and provides nourishment and vitality. We desire to reach as many as possible with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are focused outward, not inward (Acts 8:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:1-5). It is our goal to penetrate our community by presenting the good news of Christ and by demonstrating love to the needs of the whole person (spiritual, physical, emotional, relational, material, etc.). The integrity and love of Christians opens the door for authentic communication of the good news to those who do not yet know Christ. (Matthew 5:13-16; James 2:14-17).
Valley Church's Approach to Salt and Light Issues: Given our vision and guiding principles, the church will engage in salt and light involvement in our culture with certain priorities and strategies. The principles that follow represent our primary, though not exclusive, involvements.
1. We make a distinction between "the church gathered" (the visible Body of Christ gathered in public assembly) and "the church dispersed" (individual members of the Body of Christ dispersed into their daily activities). Clearly, God calls "the church dispersed" to fulfill many responsibilities (e.g. civic, social, political, armed forces, police, business, etc.) as individuals that he does not call "the church gathered" to fulfill. For example, God may call an individual Christian to become a member of the armed forces. But God does not call the church as a whole to armed conflict. (The remaining explanation of the church's approach to salt and light issue refers to "the church gathered.")
2. The highest priorities of the church in relation to the culture are the proclamation of biblical truth(evangelism and discipleship) and the demonstration of Christian love (compassion and service). It is our desire to avoid goals and methods that undermine these highest priorities.
3. Evangelism and discipleship are accomplished by many methods, including prayer, preaching, Biblestudy, personal witnessing, mentoring, apologetics, and practical training in the Christian life. The church must also teach and proclaim biblical truth regarding issues facing the culture. Examples include: abortion, euthanasia, bio-medical ethics, marriage, divorce and remarriage, sexual ethics, financial stewardship, violence, racial reconciliation, poverty, hunger, education, war, gender issues, and others. The goal in this instruction is to fully equip believers with a biblical worldview, so that they can interact in society with truth, godliness, integrity, compassion, and love. The presence of fully devoted followersof Christ in the society insures the fulfillment of Jesus' call to be salt and light.
4. Compassion and service are accomplished by many methods, including: our highest calling: to pray for all people, including those in positions of authority; personal acts of kindness, love, compassion, generosity, reconciliation and service; compassion and service ministries aimed at helping the poor, the abandoned, the widow, the orphan, the bereaved, the sick, the imprisoned, the unloved and unlovable, the estranged, the hated, the homeless, the hungry, the troubled, the broken, the sinful, the abused, the neglected, and all who need to experience a human demonstration of the love of the Savior, Jesus Christ. The opportunities for these kinds of ministries are limitless in our needy, broken, fallen world.
The Horse and the Cart: Let's say that the horse represents evangelism and discipleship and the cart represents compassion and service. Churches today may fall into any of the following four general categories.
1. "The cart but no horse" church. There are churches who pursue social action, compassion ministries, acts of service and kindness, but who ignore sharing the gospel and helping people to grow in Christ through biblical instruction. There are thousands of churches in America who perform many acts of kindness, but the good news of personal salvation through Christ is no longer believed or shared. When this happens (and it has happened often), the church no longer really is a church, but merely a religious social service agency.
2. "The cart before the horse" church. There are churches who do believe in evangelism and discipleship. But they so emphasize social service and action that the biblical priorities of evangelism and discipleship are either neglected or obscured. This dangerous practice can occur in evangelical and Bible-teaching churches. For example, some evangelical churches have so emphasized political action and legislative priorities that non-Christians identify the church with a certain political party or movement. Right wing politics become a barrier to the unbeliever hearing the good news of Christ. By its socio-political emphasis, the church alienates the very people it is called to reach! Paul said, "I resolved to know nothing among you, but Jesus Christ and him crucified." We must commit ourselves to never obscure the gospel by our social or political statements or actions.
3. "The horse but no cart" church. This kind of church preaches Christ and Christian discipleship, but completely ignores Christ's call to compassion and service to our neighbors. This church is suspicious of anyone who talks about social involvement, because they fear theological liberalism and apostasy or perhaps just spiritual drift. This suspicion is unfortunate because both the Bible and church history are replete with examples of believers who were engaged in cultural issues and who kept their biblical moorings.
4. "The horse and the cart" church. This kind of church is what we desire to be. We recognize the primacyof evangelism and discipleship. But we also believe that we must meet the needs of the whole person (spiritual, physical, emotional, relational, material). Evangelism/discipleship ministries and compassion/service ministries go hand in hand. In fact, they both foster growth for one another. Both are necessary. Both are attractive. Both are biblical. At Valley Church, we desire to greatly expand our ministries in both of these areas.
The Uneasy Relationship Between the Church and Political Involvement:
A special case arises when we talk about the church and its involvement in political issues. Admittedly,the topic is gigantic in scope, controversial in nature, and divisive at times. Nevertheless, the following comments can serve to help explain the posture that Valley Church has taken since its inception in this difficult and sensitive area.
1. Governments are ordained by God primarily for the securing of freedoms, protection of citizens, and punishment of evildoers. The ruler is called "a servant of God" because he fulfills a God-ordained role. It is a noble calling and one in which individual Christians, though not the church as a whole, may serve with God's approval.
2. Christians must remember that ultimately our citizenship is in heaven, that we are aliens and strangers in this world, and that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. At the same time, we are called to be good and responsible citizens, obedient to the laws of the state, and we may exercise (within biblical parameters) the privileges that our earth-bound citizenship may offer us. We are clearly called to be submissive to the governing authorities, except in the case when it conflicts with clear biblical commands.
3. The church's primary role in relation to culture is to make disciples of Jesus Christ (evangelism and discipleship). This is the highest form of love for our neighbor. We are also called as a church to show compassion, justice, and service within our communities. The church must reclaim these important responsibilities which we have largely abdicated to our government.
4. We distinguish between "the church gathered" as a Body and "the church dispersed" as individuals (see earlier comments). Individual believers may be called to serve in political roles and that is a noble calling. Individual Christians are also encouraged to be involved in political action and service, to vote, and to lovingly express their convictions in political discussions and forums.
5. For reasons of priorities, wisdom, missionary-sensitivity, and biblical unity, Valley Church is not active in a public, direct, political activity. Of course, the church must proclaim openly God's Word on (sometimes unpopular or controversial) subjects that may have a political dimension to them. But this proclamation of the Word is not the same as direct political involvement or confrontation. It is not the same as attempting to directly influence specific legislation or endorsing candidates or parties. These activities are ones we do not pursue. Sometimes, it may even be legally permissible to do so. But wisdom dictates a more careful, nuanced approach.
6. In its proclamation on controversial subjects that may have political dimensions, the church must be careful to present thoroughly biblical positions. Sometimes, the tendency is for churches to align themselves with a particular party or candidate, and uncritically accept their positions as the Christian position. We must resist this tendency.
7. We must realize the lack of consensus on many political issues, even among Bible-believing Christians. We must have the humility and courage to admit and recognize that our political positions are shaped not only by the Bible, but by our culture, personal experience and background, nationality, race, and more. We need to be sensitive to other Christians who may differ with us on political issues, and not make it a test of fellowship. We must also distinguish between a biblical command/principle and one's personal application of that biblical command/principle. Sometimes, Christians will quote a Scripture and then say: "That's why we must do this or that." But not all Christians may see that application. Or they may see it in a different way. Or God may simply call them to fulfill the command/principle in a completelydifferent (often non-political) way.
8. The church must never obscure the cross of Christ, nor put stumbling blocks before unbelievers. Thus, we must be extremely careful not to make it even appear that being a Christian means to hold to a certain political persuasion or position. Many churches have unwittingly done this very thing. To do so is a serious offense in the eyes of God.
9. The church should always present positive and compassionate alternatives to the world, rather than merely condemning ungodly behavior. We must present "a better idea" and back it up with compassionate action. This is irresistible influence.
10. The church must resist the temptation to believe that revival and awakening will come through political action. Government simply does not serve this function in God's plan. Many evangelical Christians have over-inflated the importance of politics. This tendency becomes clear when people make their political convictions just as important or more important than their theological convictions. Or when we believe that electing the right President, or getting the right Supreme Court Justice, or passing the right legislation will solve the ills of the world. Though these things are not unimportant, they do not bring ultimate change to human hearts and do not change the eternal destination of a single soul. In fact, such an undue emphasis may lead to a false sense of morality and security among unbelievers. It leads to a deadly and nominal civil religion that has some trappings of biblical morality, but lacks the power of a relationship with Christ.
11. The church must also resist the tendency to become hostile, mean-spirited, and self-righteous in its presentation of a biblical worldview. We must love and bless our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We must resist our selfish tendency to want to reclaim a biblical morality for our nation solely for our own comfort and enjoyment. Instead, we must be motivated by brokenness over our own sin and the world's sin and plead with God for mercy and forgiveness and restoration.
12. We must also realize that much of the Christian morality that once existed in our nation (but now does not) was first established because the vast majority of the people held to a Christian worldview. But nowadays, the vast majority of the people do not hold to a Christian worldview. Thus, attempts to change the morality without first changing the heart and the worldview will end in failure. The greatest need in our nation today is for individuals to hear and believe the good news of Jesus Christ. People need the Lord.

Voter's Guidance

2012-02-23T14:47:00.004-08:00

How are Christians supposed to determine who to vote for in crucial elections? Hopefully, the following ten guidelines will help. They are influenced by Stoyan Zaimov’s article published in the Christian Post Reporter on 12/26/11 (Iowa Pastors' Advice for Christian Voters as Caucuses Approach).
1. Pray. As Christians, we are commanded in 1 Tim. 2:1 to pray for our governmental authorities. Certainly this would apply to praying over the placement of people into these positions of authority. Before you vote, ask God to give you clarity and wisdom. Politicians are notorious for saying what we want to hear, not necessarily what they believe. Not all politicians are like this, but certainly many are. We need discernment to know who the real deal is and who is a fake.
2. Faith. I believe the most important freedom our country has is the freedom to practice our faith without government intrusion. If a candidate does not respect the Bible and the rights of our citizens to worship the God of the Bible, it would be unwise to vote for him or her. Pay attention to how the candidate talks about people of faith.
3. Life. If a candidate has little regard for the life of an infant or of the elderly, I will not vote for him or her. Admittedly, some candidates make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. That is to say, they want to eliminate abortion somehow and in some way, but prefer to look to medical science and/or social reform rather than a repeal of Roe vs. Wade as the means of ending abortion. Nevertheless, if a candidate does not see a fetus as a life or supports unfettered euthanasia, I have a hard time voting for that individual. Pro-life is a big one for me.
4. Poverty. If a candidate is overly focused on capitalism or wealth to the neglect of the poor, I am less inclined to vote for him or her. Our leaders should show concern for the poor. However, by poor, I don’t mean irresponsible. The Bible is clear that we are to expect our citizens to be productive contributors to society (2 Thes. 3:10). The government should provide help to those who have been hit by difficulties and are infirmed. But for able-bodied citizens, we should more frequently offer a hand up than a hand out.
5. Character. It stands to reason that a leader, if he or she is to lead well, must have a strong, moral character. The best indicator of future character is past behavior. If elected, this person is given a public trust. If that leader is not trustworthy, there will be problems keeping the trust! So, it’s fair game to look at a track record when it comes to marriage, family, fiscal responsibility, job performance, etc. Is this person a man or woman of integrity? What does the past tell us?
6. Family. The biblical standard of marriage as between a man and a woman is an important issue for me. This is not simply ideological, but practical as well. Society simply functions better when the family unit consists of one father and one mother in a faithful, healthy, sacred, and monogamous relationship. Redefining marriage in homosexual or polygamous terms (FYI, there is also currently a movement to recognize polygamous marriage) logically leads to redefining the ideals we pass on to future generations. Where a candidate stands on this issue will have an impact on my vote.
7. Economy. It is a biblical principle to pay back debt and to reward those who work hard. It is important to me, therefore, for a candidate to be fiscally responsible with state or national debt and to encourage economic development. If our government penalizes financial success with over-taxation and hikes up debt to pay for too many entitlements, our nation will not be prosperous enough to provide for the poor. The greatest institutions for helping the poor, our churches and other non-profits, will not have the income to provide maximum care because donations will be too low in a struggling economy. We do need governmental oversight to protect the public from corporate corruption (such as predatory lending), but we must be careful to allow a healthy free market to thrive. I want to know that my leaders possess fiscal understanding and have the leadership skills necessary to provide strong economic direction.
8. Military/Law Enforcement. Throughout biblical history, the government had the noble responsibility of protecting its citizens from attack. Strong, moral, and disciplined military and law enforcement agencies are necessary for the sake of freedom. Yet, these forces should be used only for just causes. In candidates, I look for men and women who respect the military and law enforcement and expect these agencies to abide by the highest standards of human decency.
9. Education. When it comes to educating our kids, the most important question is “What’s best for the children?” If a candidate begins the discussion with teachers’ rights or a strict separation of secular and private education, I’m less inclined to vote for him or her. However, I applaud those who want to encourage educational systems that reward educators who truly love kids and are gifted in training them.
10. Global. We are to be good neighbors to other countries in the world. I expect my governmental leaders to be ambassadors of good will, champions of freedom, well-informed, diplomatically savvy, and tangibly formidable when it comes to other nations. Israel, in particular, is an ally that must be given special attention due to biblical wisdom (Gen. 12:1-2) and strategic objectives (its alliance is crucial in the struggle against militant Islamic terrorism). If a candidate seems shallow, ignorant, naive, or feeble with regard to foreign policy, I’m less likely to vote for him or her.
These are some of the guidelines that help me filter candidates in an election. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. It also requires us to research where each of the candidates stand. But, perhaps, it will aid you as you ask for the Spirit’s discernment in the ballot box.

Financials in the Church Bulletin?

2012-02-10T12:19:00.000-08:00

Recently, I was asked by a faithful and very godly church member why we don't put a financial statement in the church bulletin every week. While the decision to remove it preceded me, I agree with the action for a number of reasons which I'll give in a moment. Let me first say that currently, we offer a financial statement at the information desk for anyone who requests it. We also have a line in the bulletin indicating this. But why not include an insert in the bulletin every week and eliminate the extra step of having to go get one from the info desk? Let me give four reasons why:
1. Confusion. In previous generations, church goers tended to give in a linear manner. That is to say, people would tithe weekly. Today, many people give in lump sums at various times of the year. For example, it's not unusual for churches to receive over 50% of all income around the month of December. For tax purposes, it is not uncommon for givers to donate large amounts before the end of the year. Many businesses and most individuals, however, do not have such patterns of income. Most people get a regular paycheck with a regular amount every two weeks. Therefore, when they look at their own finances, they can see linear income and expense patterns. If a church gives out a weekly giving statement, the months that are typically low giving months can give the impression that the church is in financial trouble when, in reality, it's simply a normal low giving pattern that will be offset later in the year as December approaches. I've found that every church is a little different in terms of its giving patterns, but I've never been at a church that had linear giving week to week. As one mentor of mine (a pastor of a very successful church) put it, "since most of us have a strong December, it makes things look artificially bad through most of the year. While that might be a good way to 'scare' some money out of people – it’s also a good way to insure that most of the year they think the leadership is financially irresponsible." Why introduce confusion to the church unnecessarily? Currently, we have quarterly business meetings where our finances are explained precisely by our accountant so there is no confusion. If we are struggling, this is stated and if we are not, the patterns of giving can be more adequately explained.
2. Visitors. One of the reasons good people disagree on this is their differing views on what, exactly, a bulletin's purpose is. For me, a bulletin is similar to a program at a concert or a menu at a restaurant. It is to orient visitors to the order of events and invite them into participation. It is not primarily for the insider. If I went to the Coronado Theater to see Fiddler on the Roof, I'd find it strange to have a financial statement from the Coronado stuffed in the program. That would seem to be more appropriate for its board of directors or its Coronado Arts Membership Society (if it has one). When a visitor goes to a church, he or she already feels like an outsider. If the bulletin is filled with "insider information" such as jargon that only members understand and announcements that are to already-assembled groups, the visitor gets the clear message that he or she is, indeed, an outsider. I remember a doctoral professor of mine who said he could tell within five minutes if a church was growing or dying. If he saw that the church listed its finances in its bulletin, he knew it was primarily aiming its ministry at insiders and was probably dying. Putting insider information in the bulletin to me is similar to showing my checkbook balance to our new neighbors when we invite them to dinner. It's not visitor sensitive and could give the impression that I'm hitting them up for money (something many visitors suspect churches are only about).
3. Stewardship. The truth is that most attenders have little if any desire to see this information. I've found that in churches where leadership is doing its job and has established a track record of integrity, there are virtually no requests for financial information. When there is such a low desire for financial statements among regular attenders, there is a stewardship of resources issue that arises. It takes time for a staff person to assemble figures every week, put these figures into a format that is understandable (the typical person cannot read the complicated spreadsheets of a large church), have it printed, and then have the document stuffed into a thousand bulletins. This also takes money for printing and paper costs. I find it difficult to justify the expense of staff time and church money on this if the vast majority of these reports will not be read and will, in fact, immediately end up in the trash. It makes more stewardship sense to have a smaller number of copies available for any who requests one.
4. Propriety. This reason is less weighty to me, but it's worth mentioning. I believe anyone who gives to the church has a right to see how the giving is spent. But I have trouble with giving out this information to just anyone. We've all met people who attend churches who are destructive critics. I've known of people who were, as Chuck Swindoll describes them, "savages" to local congregations. Jesus described them as "wolves in sheep's clothing" in Matt. 7. These are people who want power but who don't sacrifice and are not committed to God or the church. They wouldn't be caught dead tithing, but will show up at every business meeting with an agenda. Doesn't a church have a responsibility to protect its body against such malcontents? One friend of mine who is also a very successful and wise pastor told me that his church will not issue financial statements to anyone who does not actually give to the church. Other pastors have told me they will only issue that information to people who are actually members of the church after being adequately evaluated for membership through a solid membership process. I think there is wisdom in this. Recently, a good church in our area found itself as a major story in the local newspaper. Due to the economic downturn and its effect on church giving, the church leadership had gone through the painful decision to lay off staff. Soon after, a negative story was printed in the paper with slanderous comments from critics. I personally talked to the Pastor of the church and found that the leadership had been very responsible financially. Yet critics of the church took financial information that was nobody's business but the members of that church and splattered it on the cover of a newspaper hurting that church's reputation in the process. It seems to me that giving this information as easy-access to anyone who walks in off the street may be irresponsible, especially in this age of slander and attack against Evangelical churches.

These are some of the reasons behind my support of our current method of sharing financial information. We give the information freely out to members who request it and we give detailed financial reports to our members at our regularly scheduled business meetings. There is a weakness to this method, however. The weakness is that those who may be disposed to pray for our finances may forget to request a copy of the statements. One precious prayer warrior recently stated this as a reason for his concern that finances were not listed in the bulletins. In weighing the pros and cons, I'm still inclined to follow our current pattern while trusting that those who pray regularly will take it upon themselves to seek out this information. But, we will continue to evaluate this issue as we go along.

Thoughts on the Candidates

2012-02-08T15:54:00.000-08:00

The following is simply the personal thoughts of Rusty Hayes and not an official statement on behalf of any church or denomination.
Recently, I was asked by a major conservative campaign consultant which candidate I favored in the election. My answer at the time was that I wasn't comfortable with any of them for the following reasons:
Romney: Mormonism. I'm not crazy about the fact that Romney is a Mormon because Mormon theology teaches that man can become God. I'm not comfortable with any candidate who believes that I could, conceivably, become a god over my own planet. While I have tremendous respect for the lifestyles of many Mormons and don't necessarily believe that having a Mormon as the President would be a disaster, I prefer to have someone in the office who holds to a theology that recognizes God as THE only wise God, unique in His glory and deity.
Gingrich: Unfaithfulness. While I think Speaker Gingrich may be the smartest and most savvy politician in the room, I have to be honest. His infidelity is troublesome to me. It makes it difficult for me to trust him fully. I also have a hard time with the idea of a first lady being the first lady due to an affair she had with her husband that wrecked his previous marriage. Now, to be fair, I've been on the phone with Speaker Gingrich twice on a conference call. The first time was when he was leading a charge to deter Iran from their nuclear program. The second time was more recently when I took part in a call with other pastors in which he described the mistakes he made in his previous marriages. He was genuinely moving and repentant. I respect that and I respect him. I've also heard some wonderful things about his wife. In addition, I also understand that marriages usually fall apart due to many other factors. But in the office of President, I still feel uneasy with what happened the last time he was in office. Not trying to be judgmental, just being real.
Paul: Not much to say here except Ron Paul feels very liberal to me on a number of issues, especially his support of abortion. He seems naive about the threat of Iran as well.
Santorum: Perhaps Santorum is the candidate we've all been looking for. Initially, I didn't think he had a chance. His poll numbers were so low that it seemed he was campaigning for the Vice Presidency or a future talk-show gig instead of the Presidency. But he has risen in the polls dramatically and has a strong appeal to Evangelicals. He's been faithful to his wife, is sensitive to childhood disorders (has a child with one), has 8 kids, is very pro-life, is a fiscal conservative, and is a man of faith in the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ. I'm a little uncomfortable with his style at times since he can come across as adversarial. He is also a Roman Catholic, which could be problematic if the Roman Catholic Church ever takes a political position contrary to Evangelical theology (for example, most Evangelicals are not opposed to certain types of birth control within marriage that the RCC discourages).
Obama: Contrary to many of my Evangelical brothers, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. I recently had lunch with a well-respected African American Pastor and he affirmed Obama's Christian faith and noble motives. I happen to think President Obama is a decent man who genuinely cares about the poor. He's also faithful to his wife and a good father. But his position on abortion as well as other moral issues are hurdles I cannot cross. I also worry about his fiscal discipline.
Regardless of who wins, my prayers will be in this process. Ultimately, I don't believe our nation's future is in the hands of politicians. My hope and prayer is that revival will break out in the U.S. and draw us all back to the Lord. In the meantime, an election is coming and whoever wins will need our prayers.

Why Stories in Sermons?

2012-02-02T14:17:00.001-08:00

Dr. James Merritt is a dear friend and personal mentor to me. He is the Sr. Pastor of Cross Pointe Church of Atlanta and the former President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Recently, he wrote an article on preaching to the Post-Christian culture we find ourselves in today. The following quote from this distinguished pastor and leader articulates why I often infuse my sermons with personal stories:

"Having said all of that, my greatest fear is that we hear the term "post-Christian" and we get the shakes. We think 'Dear God, I'm not capable of reaching the post-Christian culture.' I hardly even understand what post-Christian culture is. How am I supposed to reach a post-Christian culture?
I have learned both by experience and by study of the Scripture that human beings tend to complicate the simple. When I read about Jesus I find that He came to simplify the complicated. There is a reason why, for example, Jesus spent the vast majority of his ministry telling stories. Almost two thirds of the gospel of Luke is a story—just one parable, one story, after another. If Jesus gave a seminar on preaching, I'm convinced one of the things He would tell us is 'Paint word pictures. Tell stories. Say truth in such a way that common, ordinary people, even little children, can understand it and get a handle on it.'"

Abortion from a Doctor's Perspective

2012-01-27T17:07:00.000-08:00

I've found Dr. Charles Inskeep to be a tremendous man of integrity. He has some powerful words to say on abortion in his video blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpwz5qRtYY

Rick Warren Chrislam Slander

2012-01-18T16:11:00.000-08:00

The slander continues against one of the evangelical church's greatest evangelists, Rick Warren. Just recently, several people at my church quoted material scandalizing Rick Warren while printing misquotes and twisting his words. Below you will find some of Rick's own comments about the ongoing mud slinging against him.

Rick Warren Does Not Embrace Chrislam, Say Pastors
Orininally Posted at http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastors-answer-does-rick-warren-endorse-islam-52833.

Mon, Jul. 25, 2011 Posted: 09:23 PM EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Christian leaders are attempting to squelch a persistent rumor that Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren “embraces Chrislam.”

Pastors Geoff Surratt and Brandon Cox have posted their defense online. Warren recognized the posts late last week on Facebook and Twitter where he stated, “The stupid Chrislam lie wont die. Here are 2 true articles quoting me.”

Televangelist Jack Van Impe, who recently left Trinity Broadcasting Network as a result of his accusations aimed at Warren and Robert Schuller, has been suggesting that Warren is pushing Chrislam. He points to an Islamic conference in which Warren was a speaker at two years ago as evidence. Others in the Christian community and beyond have perpetuated the claim.

Followers of Chrislam use both the Bible and Quran and see them both as holy texts. Although Chrislam appears to have a limited number of followers, the term is currently being loosely interpreted by some people, Impe noted.

Cox, who is planting Grace Hills Church in Arkansas and also manages Warren’s global network of pastors in an online community, said he's been wanting to write an article in Warren's defense for quite some time. However, he initially felt addressing the issue might bring more unwanted attention.

"When I saw Rick issue a tweet about it I felt the liberty to go ahead and address it publicly," Cox told The Christian Post. "It's as if both of us (Surratt and Cox) had that feeling of having had enough and wanting to stick up for a friend."

Surratt, who came on staff at Saddleback Church six months ago and is pastor of church planting, posted Warren’s recent response to the controversy. Surratt found Warren’s response in the comments section of a blog post perpetuating the Chrislam rumor.

Warren’s comment:

Several of the above comments are completely incorrect, based on believing 2nd hand false rumors instead of finding out the facts before speaking up. "Only a fool believes all he hears" Proverbs 14:15

The so-called "Chrislam" rumor is 100% false. If the guy who started this libelous myth, or anyone else who passed it on, had obeyed our Lord's command (Matt. 18:18-20) to come directly to me, and then asked what I actually believed – they would have been embarrassed to learn that I believe the exact opposite. As a 4th generation Christian pastor, my life & ministry is built on the truth that Jesus is the only way, and our inerrant Bible is our only true authority.

As an evangelist, I spend much of my time speaking to non-Christian groups. You cannot win your enemies to Christ; only your friends, so we must build bridges of friendship and love to those who believe differently so Jesus can walk across that bridge into their hearts. Besides, it is not a sin, but rather COMMANDED by Jesus that we love our enemies. In the past 10 years, Saddleback Church has baptized over 22,000 new adult believers – simply because we express love to those who don’t know Christ yet.

It is nonsense to believe that you must compromise your beliefs, or water down your convictions in order to love someone, or even just treat them with dignity.

Jesus was called "the friend of sinners" by the legalistic Pharisees because he hung out with (and clearly loved) unbelievers. I HOPE YOU will 1) Always believe that EVERYONE needs Jesus as their Lord & Savior. 2) Have the courage to associate with nonbelievers in order to love them and bring them to the Savior. 3) Consider being called "a friend of sinners" a Christ-like compliment. 4) Refuse to pass on rumors until you've checked for the truth with the person accused. The false statements above should be removed.

God bless you.
Rick Warren

Supporting the megachurch pastor and bestselling author, Surratt stated on Pastors.com, “Let me be very clear: Pastor Rick Warren does not believe in, promote or validate chrislam on any level. I have worked for Pastor Rick for the past 6 months, I have met with him on multiple occasions, I listen to him preach every weekend, I have read every book he has written, I have followed his ministry closely for almost 20 years.”

“Pastor Warren is not perfect; he is very open and honest about his challenges and flaws. But his theology is tightly bound to Biblical Christianity,” Surratt added.

Cox was more direct in his defense of the pastor by simply answering his own headline, “Does Rick Warren Endorse Chrislam?” with the first sentence “No. Period.”

“I’m proud of Pastor Warren for deciding to spend his time and attention on the spreading of the gospel for the redemption of the nations rather than defending himself against every false accusation,” Cox stated in his post.

“Make no mistake, Rick Warren loves Muslims deeply!! If you don’t, you have a problem with Jesus who loves Muslims even more than Rick does,” Cox added.

Alex Murashko

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © Christianpost.com. All rights reserved.

Tim Tebow's Fire

2012-01-12T08:36:00.000-08:00

My last entry explained John 3:16, the verse Tim Tebow is most associated with and, in my opinion, has been miraculously highlighted to millions through this young man's play. Below is a blog entry by Dr. Denny Burke. Thought you'd enjoy it (especially if you grew up with St. Elmo!).

Tim Tebow’s Fire
By Denny Burk on January 12, 2012 in Humor, Sports

There are lots of silly things on the internet, but sometimes you come across something that registers so high on the goofy-meter that you just have to share it. I’ve got one today.
Back in the mid-80′s there was a really popular movie called “St. Elmo’s Fire,” and one of the songs from the movie soundtrack reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 and received a Grammy nomination. The song was written and performed by John Parr and was titled “Man in Motion.” It’s quintessential 80′s fare, and there’s not a Gen X’er reading this that doesn’t know the song.

Well, here’s the goofy part. It turns out that John Parr is still alive and kicking and has become a fan of Tim Tebow. So he rewrote the lyrics to the song as an ode to Tim Tebow! John Parr explains,

I was inspired by Tim Tebow so I wanted to modify the lyrics…in his honor of the way that he lives his life as being a great example.

What are the new lyrics? You can listen to them yourself above, or you can read the lyrics below. But yes, he does change “St. Elmo’s Fire” to “Tim Tebow’s Fire.” He also says, “Gonna be a man in motion, all I need is my Broncos team.” Like I said, it’s high on the goofy-meter. Enjoy!

P.S. If that’s not weird enough for you, John Parr has written a whole new song in honor of Tebow. It’s called “Just a Man,” and you can listen to it here.

Tim Tebow’s Fire

Original Lyrics by John Parr

Growin’ up
Gotta keep your eye on the ball

Make it fly,

Give it everything, give your all

But maybe sometimes if you feel the pain
You’ll find you’re all alone
Everything has changed

Play the game
You know you can’t quit until it’s won
Soldier on
Only you can do what must be done

You know I’m out there

Down on one knee
a prisoner
And I’m tryin’ to break free

CHORUS:

I can see a new horizon
Underneath the blazin’ sky
I’ll be where the eagle’s
Flyin’ higher and higher

Gonna be a man in motion

All I needs my Broncos team
Take me where my future’s lyin’
Tim Tebows Fire

Oooh…

Burnin’ up
Don’t know just how far that I can go
(Just how far I go)
Soon be home
Only just 4 downs to go
I can make it
I know I can
You broke the boy in me
But you won’t break the man

(CHORUS)

I can see a new horizon
blazin on the Mile High
I’ll be where the eagle’s
Flyin’ higher and higher

Gonna be your man in motion

All I needs my Broncos team
Take me where my future’s lyin’
Tim Tebows Fire

I can climb the highest mountain
These Broncos cant be beat
I can feel St Elmo’s Fire burnin’ in me
Burnin’ in me

Just once in his life
A man has his time
And my time is now
And I’m comin’ alive

I can hear the music playin’
I can see the banners fly
Feel like a man again

I’ll hold my head high
Gonna be a man in motion
These broncos can’t be beat
Take me where my future’s lyin’
Tim Tebow’s fire

(CHORUS)

I can climb the highest mountain
Cross the wildest sea
I can feel St. Elmo’s Fire burnin’ in me

Burnin’
Burnin’ in me
I can feel it burnin’
Oooh, burnin’ inside of me

Love Came Down

2011-12-15T12:59:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the most famous verse in the world is John 3:16. For years, almost every sports event had someone holding up a sign with John 3:16 on it. It’s not uncommon for children to list it as their favorite verse. And even people who never attend church find it warmly familiar. But have you ever thought of it as a Christmas verse? Christmas, after all, celebrates the reality of God’s love. And John 3:16 specifically is about that topic. Let’s break the verse down into four Christmas principles.
1. Love came down for the world.
"For God so loved the world . . ." (John 3:16a)
Think about this first statement carefully. God so loved the world. The sentence in the original biblical Greek is constructed to emphasize God’s love. In other words, this phrase is saying, “God really, deeply, extraordinarily, from the depths of His heart loved the world.”
What makes this so remarkable is not that the fact that God loves. Certainly any conception of a good God would have to include love. But what makes this passage so remarkable is the object of God’s love . . . the world. The world is a bad place. Pick up your newspaper and you’ll read of murder, greed, lust, selfishness and a whole host of other major problems. We are creatures plagued with deep issues. We are not attractive to a perfect being. Yet, He so loves us!
Years ago, when my youngest daughter was three, she was in a school play dressed as a cow. Well, plagued with the thought that I would be a terrible dad if I didn’t videotape every play my kids ever performed in, I charged up the huge video camera we had then, focused the lens directly on her, and started to record. Imagine my surprise when the first image was of her picking her nose in front of God and all creation! It wasn’t her most attractive moment. But here’s the deal. Why did I take the time to bring her to the play, unpack a camera that could kill an elephant, and video tape her concert? Because I love her. I deeply, deeply adore her, from the depths of my heart. Or, to use biblical language, I so love her.
We’re part of the world that love came down for and we are messes. Every single one of us has flaws, and I mean deep flaws. There are things about us that are ugly and make us cringe to even think about. In some sense, we all have our fingers in our noses. But you know what. God adores us! Love came down for the world!
2. Love came down through sacrifice.
". . . that he gave his one and only Son . . ." (John 3:16b)
It’s remarkable that God loves us, but can you imagine how much God must love His son? If you read about the life of Jesus in the Bible, you can’t help but fall in love with Him. His life includes touching the sick, feeding the hungry, and loving the outcast. He is the kindest person to ever walk the planet. And he showed up on Christmas morning as a precious baby in a manger. Can you imagine how hard it must have been for God the Father to give up that child at the first Christmas? That’s how much love came down to us! What sacrifice!
You may be thinking, “God doesn’t love me. How could He love me with all my problems? I don’t even love myself.” Well, I want to encourage you to look at the manger and the cross. God so loved you that He gave His one and only Son to give you the great news that you can be forgiven and have peace with God forever. God gave Jesus to the earth to give us forgiveness and peace with Him.
3. Love came down to those who believe.
". . .that whoever believes in him . . ." (John 3:16c)
Have you ever found a perfect gift for someone and you just knew, “Yes, this is it! This is the best gift I could give!” Well, that’s what the gift of Jesus is like.
But, as with any gift, there is one requirement that you and I have to fulfill in order to get it. We have to accept the gift! The gift will not be ours until we actually reach out and receive it.
John 3:16 says that God has a present for you this Christmas and it’s an eternal, intimate, wonderful relationship with Him that will touch every area of your life. It will give you better health and meaning, improve your relationships, guide you to your purpose in life, and give you a pipeline to the greatest counselor in the universe, God’s Holy Spirit. But the requirement is that you have to receive the gift. The word “believes” above has the connotation of receiving. It means to trust that Jesus was the Son of God and accept His death on the cross alone as the payment for your sins.
You may not know God. You know about Him and admire Him; but you don’t know Him in your heart. Your inner life isn’t intimate with Him. It’s like you watch Him on television, but He’s never been in your living room. Yet somewhere deep inside of you there is a hole. You know something is missing. That void is Jesus . . . an intimate, life-transforming, deep relationship with God. And God is offering you that gift today.
If you haven’t accepted that gift, why not do it this Christmas?
4. Love came down to lift us up.
". . . shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16d)
What does it mean to accept the gift of Jesus, the gift of Christmas? It means eternal life starting now and moving on into the afterlife. It means having a big dose of God in this life and living in Heaven after death. It means God lifts us up eternally.
One of my favorite Christmas carols is “Hark the Herald Angels Sing.” Remember the line, “God and sinners reconciled?” That’s talking about the payment of Jesus on the cross so that we sinners can be reconciled to God. That’s why Jesus came. Christmas isn’t just about silver and gold, greeting cards, and Santa Clause. It is about eternal life. This Christmas, be lifted up because the love of God Himself actually came down for you. Merry Christmas!!!

Are We in the End Times?

2011-11-17T08:45:00.001-08:00

I’ve been in ministry for about 20 years and have often been asked, “Are we in the end times?” The question is usually connected with some current catastrophic event. When some major calamity occurs, the query is natural. The Tsunami, Katrina, the Recession, Global Warming, Social Unrest, and the Israeli/Arab Conflict have all solicited such questions. The world often seems to be in turmoil, so it makes sense to wonder if we’re close.
This question also was on the minds of the early church. For example, in 2 Thessalonians, the church had received news that the “day of the Lord” had begun. A false prophecy had circulated claiming that the world was in the terrible end times’ period known as “the tribulation.” The Prophet Daniel prophecied that a time of judgment would come that would be seven years long. Jesus referred to it in Matthew 24:29 as the tribulation as did other prophets throughout Scripture. It was also frequently called the “day of the Lord” by the prophets. The term “day” in this phrase had more of an “age” connotation to it (like when we say “your day is coming!”). Since the Thessalonian church was in a time of great persecution, they naturally were prone to believe that they were actually in the tribulation and had missed God’s deliverance from it known as “the rapture.” In a previous letter (1 Thes. 5:9), Paul had promised them that they were not appointed to God’s wrath (speaking of the tribulation), and therefore it is logical to assume that the church would be “taken out” before the tribulation by the rapture. So, if the false prophecy claiming the tribulation was upon them was true, then they must have missed the rapture’s rescue from the tribulation. To ease their fears, Paul writes 2 Thes. 2. His answers also provide clarity for us about the end times.

Check out vv. 1-4:
“1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes. 2:1-4).

Notice, Paul refers to “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him.” This is the rapture. They thought they may have missed it. But Paul calms them down. In v. 2 he encourages them to not “become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy . . . saying the day of the Lord has already come.” They thought they were in the end times and that the tribulation had come. And they were freaking out over it! But Paul says that they were given a false prophecy. Just recently, a radio personality and self-proclaimed Bible scholar predicted the coming of Jesus in May of this year and then again in October. He gave false prophecies and many people believed him, even selling their homes. That kind of thing has happened over and over again for thousands of years. Even while the Apostles themselves were still alive, people were making false prophecies and frightening many. But Paul corrects the error and says in v. 3, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way.” We’re to keep our eyes open for spiritual deception and counter it with biblical truth. Then Paul reminds them of what was predicted by Daniel hundreds of years earlier, namely, that the Antichrist will be clearly identified in the last days. Specifically, he will be “revealed” and will set himself up as God in the temple in Jerusalem (v. 4). Since that had not happened at the time of the Thessalonian church, they were assured that they were not in the tribulation, and, therefore, had not missed the rapture.

This teaching applies to us today as well. While the earth is in chaos in many ways and Christians are persecuted terribly throughout the world, we have not yet arrived at the end. How do we know? Well, the Antichrist has not been revealed yet and we have not seen him exalt himself in the Temple of Jerusalem and demand that the world worship him. However, just because we’re not in the tribulation yet doesn’t mean it’s not near. Scripture is clear that it could start at any time, like a “thief in the night” (1 Thes. 5:4). Therefore, it’s important to make sure you’re on God’s side because the end will not be pretty for His enemies. Take a few moments right now and make sure you are Christ’s. If you’re not, tell Him you believe in Him, repent of your sins, ask His forgiveness, and accept the gospel. Then get ready for the rapture!

Can We Support a Mormon?

2011-10-13T11:40:00.000-07:00

The recent controversy surrounding Mitt Romney's faith has stirred up confusion within the evangelical landscape. Below is an article by Dr. Wayne Grudem posted on townhall.com. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. For the record, Dr. Grudem is an outstanding evangelical theologian. I'll give my thoughts in a later blog.

Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney
By Wayne Grudem
10/18/2007 As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.

Best-qualified: The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record. Romney’s record is stellar:

Intellectual ability: He was in the top 5 percent of his class at Harvard Business School and simultaneously in the top 1/3 of his class at Harvard Law School. He is incredibly intelligent.

Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state. This also means he has a good shot at winning some New England states away from the Democrats in the general election.

Business success: He was hired by Bain & Company, one of the elite business consulting firms in the country, and was so successful that he became a partner. He then founded Bain Capital and made it a highly successful investment company. He built a personal fortune of around $200,000,000 in the process, an amazing business achievement. He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President. By contrast, no Democratic candidate has ever run a business, a state or even a city.

Chairman of Olympic Games: He also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. When he was brought in to run the Games he turned what was heading to a scandal-ridden financial and PR disaster into a widely-praised success. This involved massive skill in public relations, media management, diplomacy, morale building, and financial administration. This is Romney’s consistent track record: he solves large problems.

Conservative positions: Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative. On major issues such as protection of the unborn, a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, strong national defense and victory against radical Islamic terrorists, securing our border, a signed pledge of no tax increases, promoting school choice, and appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret law, not make new law, Romney holds solidly conservative positions. His positions are the ones the majority of evangelicals have supported in the past.

Some people object that Romney has “flip-flopped” on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated. He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative. I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal. (In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.) Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.

What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.

Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible. Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.

Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. God used Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to raise Joseph to a position of authority over the whole country, so he could save his people from famine (Genesis 41:37-57). God used Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, to protect and raise up Daniel and his Jewish friends to positions of high authority over Babylon (Daniel 2:46-49). God used Cyrus, King of Persia, to restore the Jewish exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 45:16; Ezra 1:1-4), and used Darius, King of Persia, to protect the Jewish people as they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:1-12). God used Ahashuerus, King of Persia, to raise up Esther as Queen and to give Mordecai high authority and honor in his kingdom (Esther 6:10-11; 8:1-2, 7-15). In the New Testament age, God used the peace enforced by the secular Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, to enable the early Christians to travel freely and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.

Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call “God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4).

People may object, “But a lot of people won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon.” I suppose there will be some people like that, but there are three current and historical facts that make me think that problem will diminish as the campaign goes on: First, look to Massachusetts, where Romney won the governor’s race in a very liberal state because people saw his competence and common decency and elected him, and his Mormonism didn’t matter to them. Second, consider the situation in Iowa, where there are a lot of evangelicals, and Romney remains the front-runner in the polls. Third, remember Michigan, where Mitt Romney’s father George was a popular governor from 1963 to 1969, even though he was a Mormon.

When people get to know who Romney is, his Mormonism seems not to be a big deal in a political election. The hypothetical question, “Would you vote for a Mormon?” is very different from, “Now that you have gotten to know who Mitt Romney is, would you vote for him?” The more voters get to know him, the more his Mormonism doesn’t matter much.

Ability to win: Romney grew up in Michigan, where his father was governor, and he still has strong name recognition there. This gives him a good chance at winning some Midwest industrial states, a key to the election. And he would make Massachusetts highly competitive, since he was recently governor there. In fact, by winning the governor’s race as a Republican in a solidly Democratic state, he has proven that he can win large numbers of Democratic votes in an election.

In addition, I think Romney would not just tie but win in presidential debates against Hillary Clinton: he’s smarter, more articulate, and more experienced. And the conservative values he stands for still resonate with the majority of Americans. In addition, nearly everyone who has known Romney finds him genuinely likable, which would work to his advantage over Hillary’s abrasive personality in the long months of a campaign.

There are other Republican candidates with conservative positions, but they haven’t generated anywhere near as much support as Romney, probably because more and more voters are deciding that Romney is much better qualified (my point above), and that he is simply the best candidate: articulate, persuasive, intelligent, mature, strong, successful in several fields and a genuine leader.

Therefore it seems to me that supporting Mitt Romney who has a very reasonable chance of winning makes more sense at this point than supporting someone who is not persuading many Republican voters, or speculating about supporting a third-party candidate who can’t win and who would effectively hand Hillary Clinton 2 to 4 Supreme Court appointments and thereby undo 25 years of pro-life work in trying to change the Supreme Court.

The situation as it looks today: Apart from Romney, I don’t think there is any other solidly conservative candidate who can beat Giuliani in the primaries. As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative. Among the “second-tier” candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isn’t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly “take off.” There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.

So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.

Wayne Grudem
Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona.

Kid Shows

2011-09-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

The following is written for Breitbart's Big Hollywood website (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/twood/2011/09/17/childrens-programming-not-so-innocent-anymore/) by a friend of mine and filmmaker, Tommy Wood. Tommy and I have worked on one film project and are currently discussing other film possibilities. He's a follower of Christ who has a very bright future in movies. Please pray for his success. This article has gained some attention and is an excellent example of how Christians should speak up in their sphere's of influence for the greater good of our culture. Check out Tommy's insights.

Children’s Programming Not So Innocent Anymore

Posted By Tommy Wood On September 17, 2011 @ 5:55 am In Culture, Featured Story, Politics, Television | 111 Comments

Editor’s Note: Please welcome Tommy Wood and encourage his return! — JN

Could it be that somewhere, someone is targeting our kids? Not with bullets made of lead but with surgical strikes of agenda. A scheme scripted and softly veiled (sometimes not) into the nonsensical programming they love so much. As if the ridiculous plot points and mind-numbing hyperactivity aren’t bad enough, there is something else in play that’s even more contrived than their recycled storylines. Some might think me hypersensitive, but consider this… if you see it in media, it is on purpose. It was written, rehearsed, shot, edited and delivered.

If it’s in there, it’s intentional. Never forget that.

[1]How about a date?

So what, then, am I so tweaked about? I’m a father of three children; ages six, eleven and thirteen. For years, it has troubled me that a selection of children’s shows were laced with strains of propaganda and amoral thought. Some suggest they have scientific proof that modern children’s programming dumbs one down. But, it has the potential to be much more dangerous than that. No matter what side of the political fence you are on, there is one thing upon which I think we can all agree. We don’t want our children exposed to certain subject matter before they are ready, much less have someone else’s opinion subconsciously embedded in their minds.

I’m guessing by now you would like an example. I’m cool with that. As funny as the show can be, one of the repeat offenders is Nickelodeon’s iCarly. They follow the standard “aimed at tweens” obsession with first kisses, gross-out gags, rebellion and celebrity status. The show is full of small desensitizing moments that include a half-naked chubby boy, made up “cuss” words and disrespect for adults. Not too long ago, an episode called iWant MY Website Back aired. Spencer, Carly’s crazy adult brother, dressed in elderly drag in order to hoodwink the grating Nevel. The affable Jerry Trainor, who plays Spencer, sold the gag and yes, it was funny when an older man was mistakenly taken with her… I mean him. If it stopped there, fine. Of course, it did not. Later in the episode the doorbell rings, and it’s the old man. With a desperate tone, he tells Spencer to put the wig back on, and they can try again. At a minimum, this brings into question sexual orientation. So many issues are layered in that moment that we almost have to applaud the writer’s skill at subtext (just kidding). Still, should this content be couched in a primetime kids’ show on a kids’ network?

Don’t answer yet.

I have an even more unsettling example. Remember … if it’s in there, it is on purpose.

Disney just launched a new series called Kickin’ It. (Speaking of new Disney series… Disney, please cancel A.N.T. Farm. It just sucks. I digress.) The third episode of Kickin It contains a suggestion I would never have expected to see in a kids’ show. Ever. One of the characters, Jerry, claims to have the ability to talk to dogs. Because he was raised by wolves. In the episode, Dummy Dancing, Jerry distracts a police K-9 dog, so his friends can sneak into an office and steal a flash drive. Jerry talks to the dog. The dog just sits there, as you would expect. Then, with romantic undertones, Jerry tells the dog, “My perfect day would end with a moonlit walk on the beach.” Next, a policewoman walks up and the conversation goes like this…

POLICEWOMAN – What are you doing with my dog?
JERRY – I’m just getting to know her.
POLICEWOMAN – You know he’s a boy right?
JERRY – This is really awkward.
Cue the LAUGH TRACK
POLICEWOMAN – It is for all of us.

I agree. Awkward.

Am I going to point to sexual orientation here? No. At least not the way you might think. This moment in the story is nothing short of a subtle implication towards bestiality. Call me crazy, but it’s in there. It’s on purpose. The suggestion is that if this dog were a female… maybe Jerry has a shot with her. Liberal or conservative… this is wrong. Not right. With some people in this world trying to remove the stigma of pedophilia, I have no doubt there are those who have no limits.

Parents should not have to be on guard concerning children’s programming. They should be able to feel comfortable about leaving their kids in front of the TV for thirty minutes. I want to commend a couple of shows that, in my opinion, give them that. Even though many times they follow the recipe of talking louder than the last person who spoke, shows like Good Luck Charlie, So Random and Spongebob Squarepants give parents that level of security. At least for now.

We all have to be aware. Turn it off it you deem it wrong for your family. Don’t just accept it. Demand better. Support the good stuff. Let the producers know what matters to you. And, if this doesn’t matter to you… it should.

Full Episode of iCarly – iWant My Website Back [2]

Full Episode of Kickin It – Dummy Dancing [3]

Priesthood of Believers

2011-08-19T12:55:00.000-07:00

Proponents of congregationalism often cite 1 Peter 2 in support of the idea that every member of a local church is to have authority with regard to the decisions of the church. The texts quoted are:
"4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-5)
"9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Pet. 2:9).
The Evangelical Free denomination (EFCA) states “based on the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9), we believe that the will of Christ for his church is best discerned through the collective understanding of the congregation. Therefore, the congregation is the highest governing authority under Christ for the local church.” (Evangelical Convictions, p. 261).
But is this what the phrase actually means in Scripture? I’m not so sure. The Holman Bible Dictionary indicates that the priesthood of the believer primarily refers to two aspects: 1. Believers have direct access to God and can respond to the Spirit’s activity in their lives without the need for a professional priest to mediate their contact with Him. 2. Believers have the right and responsibility to minister directly to one another and the world. A professional priest is not the only one who can be a direct channel of God’s Spirit to others. In the Old Testament, usually only the professionally ordained priests could directly hear God for the people and communicate to the people on God’s behalf. Now, since the death and resurrection of Christ, anyone who is a true Christian has direct access to God. What a wonderful blessing!
But, personally, I believe the EFCA statement above takes the doctrine too far when it suggests that this phrase pertains to local church government. The 1 Peter passages listed above say nothing about church government or decision making in a local body. On the contrary, Peter is very specific about the implications of this priesthood. He states that it is a position where “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5) and where “the praises of him” are to be “declared” (1 Pet. 2:9). This corresponds to Holman’s explanation above. However, later in the same publication, the EFCA qualifies its interpretation by stating that the Scriptures clearly teach that pastors and elders are given the mandate and authority to lead local churches. Specifically, the denomination states that “an EFC (Evangelical Free Church) entrusts much of the decision-making to godly leaders who are trained, trusted and allowed to lead.”
Where do I land? Well, I believe that the priesthood enables any believing member of a local church the possibility to hear directly from God. I also believe that God has clearly indicated that the Sr. Pastor, other elders (often in the form of a Church Council), and the staff of a local church are entrusted with the authority and leadership of local churches and that such authority is ordained by God and not man. In light of this, I think any Sr. Pastor of a local church would be wise to have a system of prayerful congregational participation for major decisions under the guidance of ordained leaders. Specifically, I think a church should have congregational membership meetings covered in prayer with biblical rules of order where the church membership should inform decisions regarding five areas: 1. Selection of the governing board. 2. Selection of the Sr. Pastor. 3. Alterations in the Constitution/bylaws. 4. Approval of the Annual Church Budget. 5. Approval of major purchases. This, it seems to me, offers a balance between hyper-democratic church government (which so often leads to stagnation and a least common denominator, popularity-based decision process) and an extreme hierarchical church government (which leaves the clergy with little accountability).
No system of church government is perfect this side of Heaven. It also seems to me that the Bible is purposely vague on the particulars of church government at times, leaving each local body and branch of Christ’s Church to turn to His Spirit for guidance in how to function most effectively for its particular community and time in history. Ultimately, it’s all about Him and regardless of what government a church has, if the Pastor and the people are passionate about Christ and submissive to His leadership, God will bless the fellowship. May we all seek this blessed ideal!

Congregational Voting

2011-07-14T16:59:00.000-07:00

In my last entry, I suggested the possibility of a mature membership, thus negating many of the problems Dr. MacDonald correctly addressed in many, if not most, congregational structures. But my argument has a weakness, namely it does not provide a biblical example of such a membership. We will, therefore, turn to three of the most cited passages in support of congregationalism: Acts 6:2-5, Matthew 18:17, and 2 Cor. 2:6. Once again, I will use a conversational format to engage with Dr. MacDonald’s blog. Let’s start with him:
(Dr. MacDonald’s Blog). Voting Is Not Biblical
The right to vote may be an American right given by the Constitution, but it is not a kingdom right given in the Word of God. It may be a tradition of some wonderful streams of church history, e.g. Baptist, but it is not biblical. There is not a shred of biblical evidence for a congregation voting on what its direction should be, but many church members believe it is their ‘God-given right’ to stand in judgement over the Pastors and Elders that are seeking to lead them. Even Mark Dever, a personal friend, champion for congregationalism, and credible scholar admits, “But the functioning of a purely congregational system is both unwieldy and lacking biblical support. Instead the establishment of a body of elders to serve in the day-to-day leadership in spiritual matters, serving at the pleasure of the congregation, enables us to maintain both the traditional distinctive of congregational life and the clearly biblical structure of elders.”
****(Rusty). Dr. MacDonald is correct in his assertion that much of what we call congregationalism is simply a sanctified form of American democracy. But I do not agree that there is not a shred of biblical evidence for voting. There is, at least, a shred. Let’s look at the three above mentioned passages.
Acts 6:2-5: “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group.”
In this passage, the Twelve Apostles asked “all the disciples” (v. 2) to “choose seven men from among” them to be the first deacons (v.3). Granted, the passage doesn’t say there was a vote that happened, but some democratic mechanism for choosing was certainly used. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a congregation of committed “disciples” (that is, mature believers who are serious about God) should be involved in the selection of officers for the church body. It should also be pointed out, however, that the Apostles (who at the time were in the role of Elders) held final veto authority on the selected candidates. In Acts 6:6, we see the Apostles (Elders) confirming the vote by praying and laying their hands on the candidates. So, this was not an extreme democratic procedure, but a congregational affirmation process. Recently, at First Free, we made a motion to do away with a purely popular vote process of appointing candidates for our elder level roles at the church (Council and Elders) and moved to a more exhaustive screening process complete with congregational nomination, congregational affirmation, and pastoral/elder confirmation.
Matthew 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” This passage shows the culmination of the quintessential scriptural process of church discipline. The context gives a normative pattern for conflict: 1. Go to the offender privately. 2. If unresolved, take one or two godly witnesses (many argue these witnesses should be elders). 3. If still unresolved due to unrepentance, present it to the church. Clearly, the passage indicates that the church body has some role in the discipline of an unrepentant, disruptive member. But, again, no vote is specifically indicated. When combined with other passages (ie. 1 Tim. 5:17), it seems reasonable that the leaders of the church who serve and represent the congregation should handle the mechanics of this process and at some point present such situations to the congregation in a report format. Recently, at First Free, we had an unrepentant member removed from church membership due to disciplinary action on the part of the Elders. During our business meeting, we asked all non-members to exit the room and then reported the action to the church body. While no vote took place, the congregation was made aware of the situation appropriately and in accordance with the clear instruction given in the passage to “tell it to the church.” This passage, however, is admittedly weak if used as a defense for a congregation voting on all decisions of the church.
2 Cor. 2:6: “The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.” Again, we have a situation concerning church discipline in which the congregation is clearly included. There can be no doubt that some sins are of such a severity that it becomes necessary for an entire congregation to be made aware of them. We know from 1 Tim. 5:19-20 that gross sin by a Pastor is definitely to be stated publicly to the congregation. Other examples also seem to apply (as in perverse sexual sin, see 1 Cor. 5). Voting may be a part of the idea here as in a congregation voting to remove the one disciplined. This could arguably be an application of the idea of punishment being inflicted on him or her by the majority. However, the passage does not state any procedure of congregational voting and more naturally lends itself to appropriate “shunning” by a congregation for blatant and damaging sin to the body. For example, a Sr. Pastor caught embezzling large amounts of the church’s finances or an Elder abusing children in the church without remorse or repentance should feel the strong disapproval of the church body. This is a “punishment” that Paul teaches as appropriate in certain egregious situations. But, again, voting on all church decisions is not clearly articulated or endorsed by the passage.
Since these three passages are often prominently used to support congregationalism, MacDonald's theological disagreement with congregationalists is understandable. However, just because these passages don’t clearly promote voting per se, we can't make the argument that they forbid voting. And they certainly do endorse the idea of congregational participation, or, at the very least, congregational affirmation. I, therefore, do not agree with Dr. MacDonald that congregationalism is necessarily satanic or that it is without a shred of evidence in the Bible. But I am persuaded that many of the congregational patterns in our churches are counterproductive, inefficient, and, at times, sinful and should be seriously evaluated.

Another passage that is also cited as a primary scripture in favor of congregationalism is 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
I will elaborate on this passage in my next entry.

What if the "Congregation" is all Mature?

2011-07-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

In response to Dr. MacDonald’s Blog entry on Congregationalism, I felt it would be best to directly interact with it in a conversational style. That is to say, I’ll post his blog in thought units and then respond immediately to them. My comments will be marked with the following ***. I will also deal with each point in separate blogs, so this subject will be on our radar for some time.

Dr. James MacDonald - Blog
"NOTE: the tone of this post is intentionally aimed at influencing those who are engulfed in this system of church government that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.

***(Rusty)I think it’s important to note that Dr. MacDonald qualifies what he is talking about. Specifically, he’s addressing a church government “that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.” In another blog article, Dr. MacDonald further defines this government as one in which the congregation actually rules the church, trumping all elder and pastoral authority to the point where Robert’s Rules of Order are more important than the Bible itself. He is addressing a form of extreme democracy in the church where issues of theological importance are left in the hands of a voting system where every member has equal authority regardless of spiritual maturity. He is not addressing a church government with leaders who encourage congregational participation and even voting on certain issues (ie. the selection of elders). Note the following quote from Dr. MacDonald, “Clearly the congregation has a role in church life. Those who believe in Elder rule should recognize this participation by the congregation and the need to bring them into important church actions. However, a role of participation is a long way from final authority, voting, and Robert’s Rules of Order. Congregational participation under Eldership is not congregational government and the conversation would be advanced if proponents would stop using this passage (Matt. 18) to defend the most common configurations of congregationalism today.” It should also be pointed out that Dr. MacDonald’s post is, by his own admission, a “rant” and not an exhaustive theological treatise on the subject. Make no mistake about it, James MacDonald knows the Bible well and is highly intelligent. It is likely that most of us would be smashed to pieces in an actual debate with him and end up sucking our thumbs and crying “MaMa!” afterwards. This is not to say he’s correct. Just because someone is an excellent debater doesn’t mean he’s right. But, he’s no theological novice and his arguments should be taken seriously. Note his response to some vicious criticism that came his way after this post, “Many commented demanding I refute the biblical passages used to defend congregational government, as though I had failed to do so because I was not able. Oh please, it was a rant, not an air-tight argument (as many rightly observed). Ranting is okay on a blog, isn’t it? (Crazy how even some blogs that pride themselves on their hyperbole and sarcasm can’t see it in others.)”

MacDonald Blog again: That’s right! It’s actually the title to a book I have had percolating in my mind for a long time. After almost 30 years in ministry I have come irreversibly to this conclusion: congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. So there, I have said the strongest part of the message first; now some commentary.
1) Congregational Meetings Are Forums for Division:
When church life is going well, the leaders of a church struggle to get a quorum for decision making. When things are going wrong, every carnal member lines up at a microphone to spew their venom and destroy the work of Christ in the church. I saw it growing up, and I have seen it since in churches that are fighting to survive and do something courageous for their future. Good people being held hostage by bad people, minorities hijacking the majority because a set of ‘by-laws’ get higher regard than the Scriptures. Satan does want to rip church unity to shreds like a devouring lion (1 Peter 5:8). He is accomplishing that again and again through a system of church government which elevates the fleshly and the worldly—often even those who no longer attend—to a status of influence equal to the most spiritually and biblically-minded in any congregation.

***(Rusty)When I interviewed at First Free, Rockford, I was asked how I thought a church should be run. My answer was that I believed the best way was to follow a “Staff Led, Elder Protected, and Congregation Fulfilled” model. It has been my experience that every healthy church I’ve ever seen or served in had a similar model of church leadership and I made it clear that this would be the ideal I would influence First Free toward. Dr. MacDonald states, rather vividly, some reasons why I believe in this model. Recently I was talking to another pastor of a large church in our area about their church government. After years of hard work and uncomfortable church meetings, he had finally led his fellowship to an efficient and effective leadership model. As we were discussing it, he stated the problem with the church’s previous government succinctly with a memory of his childhood. He said, “When we were kids, we’d sit in the balcony during business meetings. We loved it because we got to watch our parents in the circus down below.” He described memories of church members assaulting one another during business meetings and the microphone being handed out indiscriminately to anyone who wanted to share “their concerns.” For the kids, it was a show full of drama, posturing, and appalling attacks the likes of which would make Congress blush. I’ve seen this in churches I’ve attended and have no doubt such displays are disastrous for the church and grievous to the heart of a loving God. There can be no doubt that any church government that encourages such a travesty in the Body of Christ is, at best, dysfunctional and, at worst, sinful. I completely agree with Dr. MacDonald on his point that our churches cannot in any way elevate fleshly and worldly voices to a place of influence that Scripture clearly assigns to the most spiritually mature. However, what if all the members of a church had a level of maturity that would be considered highly developed? What if the membership process was carried out so skillfully that only those who are truly devoted to Christ and His Word have a voice in such meetings? I think Pastor Rick Warren’s insights into the three concentric circles of every church is helpful here. There are three groups that overlap in every church: The crowd, the congregation, and the core. The crowd includes everyone who shows up for Easter. The church is their church insomuch as when they attend church, they go to this particular church (however, this may be as little as once a year or quarter). These are usually not the mature Christians of the fellowship, and often they are not saved at all. The congregation consists of those who regularly attend the church weekly, but are not involved in the programs greatly. They value worship on Sundays and may even be growing spiritually, but they are not committed to the fellowship enough to give sacrificially or serve in any meaningful capacity. These are typically more mature than the crowd, but probably do not possess leadership-level maturity. The core is the faithful, sacrificial, regular, and biblical members of the church. They are sold out for Christ and have demonstrated as much through their lives. These people are the mature and are, typically, in healthy churches, the leaders of the church. The church’s leadership posts are usually filled by such people and, biblically, they should indeed be given greater authority. Also, it should be noted, that Pastors, Staff, and Elders (or Church Council in First Free’s structure) should be heavily screened and tested to ensure that they embody this group and are, therefore, the most mature (or, at the very least, represent well the most mature) in the church (see 1 Tim. 3).
The problem I see with Dr. MacDonald’s critique at this point of the discussion is that he doesn’t seem to make allowance for the possibility that the core (which may number more than the Pastor, Staff, and Elders—that is to say, there may be more mature people in a church than offices they can fill) could conceivably be the membership, and, therefore would be led of the Lord in a congregational business-meeting setting. This is one of the issues with which I’m currently challenging our leadership. I want to know that all leaders are very serious about God and are spiritually mature. I also want to have a more excellent process by which to evaluate the maturity of those we nominate for office. And, I’m pushing for a more rigorous membership process. There have been times I’ve been puzzled with how individuals could have possibly become members of our church when serious flaws in character are so readily apparent by their actions. Due diligence is often not followed when it comes to membership, and this should be taken more seriously in all of our churches. Dr. MacDonald’s blog further strengthens my resolve to move away from popularity contests for leadership positions and hyper-democracy (ie. anyone can go to the microphone, even if clearly dysfunctional) in the future.

Is Congregationalism Wrong?

2011-06-15T13:44:00.000-07:00

Dr. James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel recently posted the following on his blog regarding congregational government in churches. While I highly respect Pastor MacDonald, I don't agree with everything he says here. But, he does make some interesting observations. I'd be interested in your feedback. What do you think? After I hear back, I'll give some comments of my own. Here's his post:

Dr. James MacDonald - Blog

"NOTE: the tone of this post is intentionally aimed at influencing those who are engulfed in this system of church government that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.

That’s right! It’s actually the title to a book I have had percolating in my mind for a long time. After almost 30 years in ministry I have come irreversibly to this conclusion: congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. So there, I have said the strongest part of the message first; now some commentary.

1) Congregational Meetings Are Forums for Division:
When church life is going well, the leaders of a church struggle to get a quorum for decision making. When things are going wrong, every carnal member lines up at a microphone to spew their venom and destroy the work of Christ in the church. I saw it growing up, and I have seen it since in churches that are fighting to survive and do something courageous for their future. Good people being held hostage by bad people, minorities hijacking the majority because a set of ‘by-laws’ get higher regard than the Scriptures. Satan does want to rip church unity to shreds like a devouring lion (1 Peter 5:8). He is accomplishing that again and again through a system of church government which elevates the fleshly and the worldly—often even those who no longer attend—to a status of influence equal to the most spiritually and biblically-minded in any congregation.

2) Voting Is Not Biblical
The right to vote may be an American right given by the Constitution, but it is not a kingdom right given in the Word of God. It may be a tradition of some wonderful streams of church history, e.g. Baptist, but it is not biblical. There is not a shred of biblical evidence for a congregation voting on what its direction should be, but many church members believe it is their ‘God-given right’ to stand in judgement over the Pastors and Elders that are seeking to lead them. Even Mark Dever, a personal friend, champion for congregationalism, and credible scholar admits, “But the functioning of a purely congregational system is both unwieldy and lacking biblical support. Instead the establishment of a body of elders to serve in the day-to-day leadership in spiritual matters, serving at the pleasure of the congregation, enables us to maintain both the traditional distinctive of congregational life and the clearly biblical structure of elders.”

3) Eldership Is Sometimes Unpopular
Elders are responsible to “shepherd the flock” (1 Peter 5:2), which is often a very dirty job. Calling out sin, dealing with those who have fallen and seeking their restoration (Galatians 6:1-4), these responsibilities put Elders in positions where doing the right often means doing the unpopular. To then force the Elders to submit to a referendum on their actions is crushing to good men and destroys the work of God in a church. Rather, coming under a group of godly men will always be the best opportunity for a church to live in submission to God’s Word and Spirit. In recent years we have seen many churches taken captive by a few vocal people who, like Alexander the coppersmith exposed by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:14, do “much harm.” The Elders spend the majority of time trying to keep these blasphemous enemies of the gospel in line and often finish their term of leadership crushed by the weight of unrelenting criticism.

4) Congregationalism Crushes Pastors
Statistics tell us that Pastors move every 2-3 years and that a pastor typically leaves a church because of 8 people. If you wonder how just eight people can so resist and refuse and ruin the calling of a gifted and trained messenger of the gospel then you have not spent much time in congregational settings. Just one elder’s wife, or one women’s ministry director, or one chairman of the building committee can consume a pastor and erode the support he needs to serve the church well. A lot of the men writing today in favor of congregational government defend it as a tradition, and are so effective as leaders that they are able to suppress the inevitable uprising of carnality—but that is not so in the vast majority of small congregationally-stifled churches. I could retire now if I had banked a hundred dollars for every time a Pastor wept to me on the phone or in person about the crushing weight of a local ‘church boss’ who would not listen to Scripture or reason or God’s Holy Spirit. Many of the Pastors who have come into Harvest Bible Fellowship these past years have come seeking a new model of church government that frees them from the tyranny of the untrained and untrainable.

5) Priesthood Not Eldership of All Believers
A significant plank in the platform of biblical protestantism has been the priesthood of all believers. This is the idea that all of us as followers of Christ have equal standing before God and do not need a clerical intermediary in our relationship with the Lord. Sadly, though, this has led in many congregations to the Eldership of all believers—where each person, regardless of training, giftedness, fruitfulness, experience, etc., considers their thoughts about the future of a given congregation to be of equivalent value. Satan uses this expectation to create in people a demand to be heard, an insistence that their thoughts on the future of a church—no matter how quickly formed, or singularly held—receive validation equal that of a Pastor/Elder. When the vote takes place people are polarized, and factions sit back and wait for the plans they did not support with their vote to fail. (Sadly similar to the way most people view a president for whom they did not vote). It’s impossible to reconcile that process with:
Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”
Down with congregational government. Not the people who believe in it or appreciate its history, not the good or bad people who try to function well in a bad system—down with the system itself. Let’s send congregational government back to hell where it came from. It’s unbiblical, unhealthy and too often a tool of Satan for the discouragement of good Pastors, godly Elders, and local churches everywhere.

You are welcome to engage in this discussion. Let’s stick to biblical defenses of congregationalism (which should be a short section) and anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. I expect also to hear from Pastors who have suffered under its tyranny." -Dr. James MacDonald

Three Keys to Blessing: Key 3

2011-05-25T11:26:00.000-07:00

A Final Key to Blessing (other than not listening to false prophets like the dude who keeps predicting Christ's return!) is Ministry. If you want to be blessed, be a blessing to others. Now, I'm not just talking about "the ministry" as in pastoral ministry (although it's a great profession and an honorable calling from God). But ministry, at its essence, means "to serve." When we serve others, it comes back on us. God commands us to serve one another many times in Scripture. One that stands out to me is John 13:13-17: "13. You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, because that’s what I am. 14. And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other’s feet. 15. I have given you an example to follow. Do as I have done to you. 16. I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message. 17. Now that you know these things, God will bless you for doing them." Jesus stoops down and washes His disciples’ feet. I find it amazing that He not only washed those who were following Him, He washes those who would betray Him! Jesus washed the feet of Judas! Wow! But notice what He promises for those who follow His example: "God will bless you." If we serve, we will be blessed.
So, have you picked up a towel lately? What about with that mean neighbor or that coworker who is a jerk to you every day? How can you serve those people without encouraging their sin? Is there a way you can show them grace? Such is the pathway to blessing.

Is May 21 the Day?

2011-05-18T11:15:00.001-07:00

Recently, my oldest daughter asked if the world will end on May 21. I asked her why she thought it might and she told me that her school is abuzz about a prophecy recently given by some personality (probably Harold Camping, who's made similar predictions in the past, which obviously didn't pan out). My answer to her was, "I hope so. I can't wait to get to Heaven!" And she said, "That's right!"
It amazes me how much ink is spilled and hands wrung over the timing of Christ's return. If you are His, then what are you worried about? I love Randy Alcorn's response quoted below on this topic. May it bless you!

"Some Christians are obsessed with prophecy literature. I myself was as a young Christian in the 1970’s when all of us were reading The Late Great Planet Earth and proving to each other that Christ had to return by 1980. Our youth group leaders taught us that this was an absolute certainty, confirmed by God’s Word. Obviously they were wrong. Ever since then, it’s been hard for me to get excited about popular evangelical interpretations of current events as related to the Bible. I’ve heard a string of dozens of “men who must be the Anti-Christ” during the forty years since I became a Christian as a teenager. You will pardon me if I don’t have much interest in the latest theories.
When believers put too much emphasis on issues such as the timing of the rapture or the identity of the Anti-Christ, it distracts us from our more important callings, such as loving God with all our hearts and loving our neighbors as ourselves, and living lives characterized by justice, mercy and humility. The primary focus of each day should be, 'God, as I seek your face in prayer and through your Word, and as I yield my life to you, please use me for your eternal purposes and for your glory,' not, 'Here’s why I believe the rapture/second coming/judgment will happen on this day, and never mind that Jesus said that can’t be known.'
2 Peter 3:10-14 says, 'But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. …the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. … But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.'
The important thing is that we believe in the return of Christ, and that we live lives of eternal perspective and godliness in light of our imminent deaths and His imminent return."

www.epm.org/blog

Three Keys to Blessing: Key 2

2011-05-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

Key #2 is Unity. The Bible teaches that unity is crucial for God's favor. Jesus prays this in His priestly prayer in John 17:33:
"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me" John 17:23. Paul reaffirms the principle in Ephesians 4:3 and elsewhere: "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
If we are to get along with God's work, we must learn to get along with each other. Unity requires humility. It asks the Spirit to search my heart and see if I'm being prideful or selfish with respect to my brother or sister in Christ. Unity also apologizes for any wrong.
Throughout the ages, when God's people made unity forged around integrity to God's Word and humility before His Spirit a non-negotiable of their daily lives, great blessing was poured out. So, how are you doing? Does the age of rugged individualism and rebellion move you more than God's heart? Maybe it's time to forgive or to say, "I'm so sorry." It's a key to blessing!

Three Keys to Blessing: Key 1

2011-05-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

Most people want the blessing of God. I've noticed that even unbelievers, when in crisis, will usually not turn down prayer. Often, their view of blessing is found in rituals of some kind. If I wear this bracelet, if I say this chant, if a minister touches me and says a prayer, if I do the hokey pokey and turn myself around, etc, etc, then I'll be blessed. But the keys to blessing are MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL than dry, external, religious formulas. If you or I want to have the favor of God upon us, there are some very specific ways to position ourselves in the river from which all blessings flow. Let me share three keys to blessing that are obvious according to God's Word:
1. PURITY.
Throughout the Bible, blessing is often impeded when sin goes unchallenged and is tolerated. For example, in Joshua 7:1, a man by the name of Achan takes some pagan items into his home and compromises not only his own holiness, but that of the entire nation of Israel. Take a look: "But the Israelites acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things; Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the LORD'S anger burned against Israel." Joshua 7:1. Due to this toleration of sin, God actually gets angry and Israel experiences defeat in battle soon after. If we want blessing, it is imperitive that we are serious about sin. We must periodically audit our spiritual lives through prayer and, when discovered, confess our sins before God while asking Him to give us a delight in holiness. Just recently, God spoke to me about a sin I had committed through thoughlessness and an off-colored joke. I felt the Holy Spirit point out the sin and I sensed God's displeasure in it. And the Lord didn't let me off the hook immediately. For a few days, the ugliness of my words to the ears of a holy God was acute in my conscience. The Spirit then led me to confess it to Him directly and then to my wife. Immediately, I felt His forgiveness as I have so many times in the past. And the truth of 1 John 1:8-9 was felt in my heart. An impediment to the flow of blessing was removed. Are there any sins of which you need to repent? Is there a blockage to blessing in your heart? Follow God's Word, repent, and confess. It is a key to blessing.
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:8-9.

Spurgeon's Easter Hope

2011-04-20T14:05:00.001-07:00

Charles Spurgeon was one of the greatest preachers in history. He pastored in London during the late 1800's, where God granted him a tremendous ministry. The following is an inspiring segment of a message he gave on Easter and how it relates to the future of all who trust Christ:
"One more doctrine we learn . . . the doctrine of the resurrection. Jesus rose, and as the Lord our Saviour rose, so all his followers must rise. Die I must—this body must be a carnival for worms; it must be eaten by those tiny cannibals; peradventure it shall be scattered from one portion of the earth to another; the constituent particles of this my frame will enter into plants, from plants pass into animals, and thus be carried into far distant realms; but, at the blast of the archangel's trumpet, every separate atom of my body shall find its fellow; like the bones lying in the valley of vision, though separated from one another, the moment God shall speak, the bone will creep to its bone; then the flesh shall come upon it; the four winds of heaven shall blow, and the breath shall return. So let me die, let beasts devour me, let fire turn this body into gas and vapor, all its particles shall yet again be restored; this very self-same, actual body shall start up from its grave, glorified and made like Christ's body, yet still the same body, for God hath said it. Christ's same body rose; so shall mine. O my soul, dost thou now dread to die? Thou wilt lose thy partner body a little while, but thou wilt be married again in heaven; soul and body shall again be united before the throne of God. The grave—what is it? It is the bath in which the Christian puts the clothes of his body to have them washed and cleansed. Death—what is it? It is the waiting-room where we robe ourselves for immortality; it is the place where the body . . . bathes itself in spices that it may be fit for the embrace of its Lord. Death is the gate of life; I will not fear to die . . ." ("The Tomb of Jesus": Delivered on Sabbath Morning, April 8, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon At Exeter Hall, Strand).

"51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.' " 1 Cor. 15:51-54

Is Rick Warren a Heretic?

2011-04-14T13:40:00.000-07:00

The term “heretic” can be defined simply as “a person claiming to be a Christian who teaches doctrines contrary to biblical orthodoxy.” This begs the question, what is “biblical orthodoxy?” Well, throughout the history of the church, three creeds have been used as foundations for Christian orthodoxy: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. All three creeds were written after a rigorous study of Scripture (which is the only inerrant source of true orthodoxy). They attempt to summarize what it means to be a true Christian. Today, most evangelical churches have a form of such creeds called a “statement of faith” or “doctrinal statement” that provides guidance for legitimate biblical doctrine. For example, the church that I pastor (First Free, Rockford IL) adopts the one stated for the Evangelical Free Church of America (http://www.efca.org/), which is excellent in that it lists the essentials and allows for differences when it comes to doctrines that can be diverse under the umbrella of biblical orthodoxy (such as which holidays to celebrate or Arminianism vs. Calvinism). When a pastor willfully promotes a teaching that is contrary to orthodoxy, especially as it relates to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Salvation, that person is a heretic. Some notable heretics in history were Hymenaeus and Philetus whose teaching is described as “gangrene” that destroyed truth faith. They altered the doctrine of the resurrection in ways that subverted the Gospel itself. We see the Apostle Paul go after them with great force in 2 Tim. 2:17-18. Another heretic was Arius (A.D. 256-336). He denied that Jesus was fully God and tinkered with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witness theology is very similar to this today (which is, indeed, heretical).
But I digress. Suffice it to say that throughout history, there have always been heretics who deny the Trinity, that salvation comes through Christ alone, that He rose bodily and that His followers will as well, that the Bible is the only inerrant Word of God, the reality of an eternal Heaven and Hell, etc. The question before us is, “Does Pastor Rick Warren fit such a description?” I emphatically and categorically would say “ABSOLUTELY NOT!” Take one look at the statement of faith of Dr. Warren’s church (Saddleback Church) and you will find biblical orthodoxy on all key doctrines without equivocation. Since Rick Warren founded the church and is its Sr. Pastor, there can be no question that he both agrees with and affirms his own statement of faith.
Yet rumors persist that Rick Warren is a heretic! Entire websites are dedicated to proving this idea. Some have tried to demonstrate this to me directly by attacking Dr. Warren’s character with vicious accusation. I’ve looked at the so-called evidence and here is, basically, what I’ve found: 1. Slander. 2. Guilt-by-Association. 3. Misunderstanding. Without writing a book, let’s take each of these in turn.
1. Slander. Many have taken an isolated article, talk, or quote by Rick Warren and slandered him as promoting New Age spirituality (which is a theology that basically teaches we’re all God and have to learn to worship ourselves—that’s heretical). For example, years ago, Rick wrote an article for Ladies Home Journal and asserted that, in order to have self-esteem, one must love herself. Critics took that to mean that he was teaching a form of self-worship (i.e. heresy). Yet they didn’t stop to consider that Jesus Himself recognizes a biblical “loving of ourselves” in Matthew 12:31 that stems from the greater love of God. Could it be that Rick Warren was whetting the appetites of lost readers for the greater love of God that he clearly articulates countless times in his sermons and writings elsewhere? Just because he didn’t give a treatise on the nature of biblical love or a lesson on theological anthropology doesn’t mean he is a heretic! This kind of slander happens over and over again with Rick Warren. In seminary, we called this “the argument from silence.” Basically, it says “Look, that teacher was silent on the full teaching of this topic; therefore he must not believe the full teaching.” That’s a slanderous accusation. Maybe he just didn’t feel that the venue was appropriate for a full lesson on theology. If I say “God loves you,” am I a heretic if someone takes that to mean the Universe has affection for me? Of course not! To say that I was promoting such an idea would be an argument from silence. I didn’t fully clarify who God is and what biblical love is, therefore I must be a heretic. In seminary, any time we gave an argument from silence, we definitely didn’t get a silent grade. I can imagine what Dr.s D.A. Carson or John Walvoord (both professors of mine) would have done to an essay of mine founded on such arguments. It would have been shredded! Such tactics were unacceptable and strongly discouraged. Side note: I’ve noticed that many (if not the vast majority) of Warren’s heresy accusers who engage in this type of slander have not been exposed to the rigors of serious seminary training.
2. Guilt-by-Association. There can be no question that Rick Warren is an evangelist. His longing is to see people come to know Christ as Lord and Savior. So, he builds friendships with all types of people. On occasion, he has declared his friendships with Muslims, heretics, immoral celebrities, politicians, etc. He even signed a document (mistakenly in my opinion) that encouraged Muslim and Christian cooperation in peace and justice efforts. He’s also had questionable people speak at this church in an effort to show them good will (case in point, the presidential debates of the last election). These types of associations have led many to call for Warren’s head. For example, some have noted that the above-mentioned document he signed referred to God as “Allah” when speaking on behalf of Muslims, and therefore Rick Warren must be equating Allah with the God of the Bible. The problem is that the word “Allah” in the Arabic language is the generic word for God. In other words, when the Bible is translated into Arabic, the word for God in the Arabic Bible is, indeed, “Allah.” Some time ago, I spoke to a pastor who had done considerable work evangelizing Muslims in the Middle East. He indicated that many Muslim clergy are turning to Christ but are not openly stating this due to the fear of death to themselves and their families. Yet when they preach to others of Christ, Jesus is referred to by the word for God in their own language, “Allah.” Since I’ve studied Rick Warren for many years, and since he so blatantly has stated that he believes Jesus Christ to be the only true God repeatedly, I know that Rick is seeing the term “Allah” generally in the document as a translation of our word for God. He is not, in any way, saying the Muslim-Koran “Allah” is Jesus! Nor is he promoting some sort of merger of the two religions. He is undoubtedly using this document as a launching pad for sharing the true Gospel when he speaks to Muslims and in support of Muslims who are turning to Christ. Personally, I think he made a mistake in signing it because it can easily look like he’s endorsing Islam, especially to his critics. But a mistake does not make a heretic (and, since I haven’t had the opportunity to actually talk to Dr. Warren about his reasons, I may be mistaken myself on this issue). Having a lost person speak at his church is also problematic, for it can come across as an endorsement of that person’s beliefs. But I don’t see it as heresy when the host actually shares the gospel in front of his church while the guest speaker is watching! I’ve seen Bill Hybels do this for years at his Leadership Summits. He’ll have an expert on leadership who is lost speak and then, right in front of the assembly, share the gospel with the guest. Very powerful! Rick Warren has a similar ministry philosophy. We may question the wisdom of the technique, but just because an evangelist has befriended lost people (or asked them to speak) doesn’t mean he has embraced their philosophies. Jesus was called a “friend of sinners” and often associated with the lost (Luke 7:34). Praise God for that or I would have no hope of Heaven (and neither would you)!
3. Misunderstanding. Many people misunderstand Rick Warren’s techniques. Warren’s philosophy has often been to start with the felt-needs of people and slowly introduce them to a deep relationship with Jesus Christ. So, his sermons are often designed to ignite the spiritual appetites of lost listeners. Therefore, he may have a message series on parenting, success, health, or some other value that most lost people long to experience. He then uses that series to show the practical wisdom of the Bible, touches a longing to know more, and recruits the lost into deeper discipleship vehicles (like small groups or classes where doctrine is, indeed, taught). Many misunderstand this technique as a watering-down of orthodoxy. And some would disagree that it is an effective technique. But the heart behind it is certainly not heretical. Several weeks ago, my wife and I spoke to a children’s class. Undoubtedly, there were kids in the class that didn’t understand the Gospel and were not saved. We started our talk with a drama about a mean coach and a kind coach (I played both coaches). The kids loved it and it exposed them to the heart of God in a way they could understand (God is like the kind coach). Rick Warren started his ministry in one of the most lost areas of our country. His community was biblically illiterate and, often, openly antagonistic to Scripture. He did what we call all our missionaries to do. He gave the Bible in bite-sized pieces and in ways the culture understood. When you’re feeding infants, you don’t give them steak (Heb. 5:12-14). There are legitimate differing opinions on this in terms of ministry effectiveness, but these are not issues of heresy vs. orthodoxy.
Others have written and commented on the integrity of Pastor Rick. Recently I came across a blog post by Michael Patton (ThM-Dallas Seminary) that is helpful regarding this topic as are Dr. John Piper’s (outstanding theologian) comments on YouTube. These can be accessed via: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/give-rick-warren-a-break/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlxRKLXk1WE.
I’ll close with a quote from Patton: “Folks, if we are hanging out on theology corner looking for a fight, we can find one. We will also always have an audience who is willing to watch and cheer as we beat someone up. But what we will find is that we become blood thirsty after a few rounds. The cheers of the crowd will become our heroine. However, in the end, we might discover that we are punching the face of our brother . . . We need to be theologically discerning. We need (to) ‘appraise’ things. But when we realize that this is all we are doing, I think we need to appraise ourselves.”
I wrote this entry because I’m weary of these attacks on a man who has done so much for the Kingdom. Rick Warren has introduced countless people to Jesus Christ and discipled many as well. He is a man of deep integrity who loves God’s Word. I know this from his explicit words, his doctrinal statement, the abundant fruit of his life, and from several of my own personal, godly, and well-versed friends who know him and vouch for him. For some reason, we as the Body of Christ often attack a pastor or Bible teacher when they become famous. This has happened frequently throughout history. D.L. Moody was criticized for his evangelism techniques and accused of shallow theology as was (and is) Dr. Billy Graham and virtually every other great man and woman of the Christian faith who became notable. I will not take part in this activity. For what it’s worth, I think Rick Warren is a man of God and unless I see him actively and knowingly promote heresy, I will continue to thank the Lord for him.

Natalie's Joy

2011-04-12T12:54:00.000-07:00

My daughter, Natalie, is a poet. She's only 14, but has shown a giftedness in this area that blesses me. I thought I'd share one of her poems that I found written on the back of a discarded paper. She was just doodling and came up with this. I call it "Natalie's Joy".

Natalie's Joy

If life were a beach,
I'd be playing in the sand getting a tan.
If life were fast food,
I'd be the happy meal.
If life were a fairy tale,
I'd sprout my wings and fly.

The Shack

2011-04-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

Several years ago, a woman who attended my church gave me a copy of a book called "The Shack." She told me it was great and helped her understand God and recommended it highly to me as a sort of with-it explanation of how the Trinity works. Since I had a stack of books ahead of this one on my "to read" list, I didn't get around to it. But from the moment she gave it to me, something didn't feel right. I don't doubt her sincerity. From what I recall, she was an involved person in our church, although I do not remember her name. At any rate, since that time, this small book has become a best-seller among Christians. While I still haven't read it, I have learned enough about it to know that the Spirit was pushing a caution light in my soul for a reason. From what I hear, the book masks itself as a profound understanding of the Trinity but commits some serious error doctrinally (as in goddess worship and modalism). Pastor Mark Driscoll has read the book and gives commentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y. I encourage you to listen. Here's a lesson on all of this. When a book or teacher comes out with a popular new way of seeing central doctrines of the Christian faith, our first instinct should be suspicious. Then we are to test the teachings according to the Word of God. "Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world." 1 John 4:1. If they pass the test of biblical accuracy, by all means, promote them. But if you're not sure, take your time and test. It's best to test.

The Elephant Experience

2011-04-01T11:43:00.001-07:00

The Elephant Experience
Yesterday, I attended "The Elephant Room" live in Aurora IL and, somehow, ended up on the front row a few feet from Pastors James MacDonald, Perry Noble, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Steven Furtick, Mark Driscoll, and Greg Laurie. I even fist bumped Platt (which demonstrates that I was the most uncool guy in the building for fist bumping is sadly becoming a relic of the past--I am singlehandedly fighting for its return). The event was shot in a state of the art facility with a studio audience while being simulcast throughout the country. The idea was to put a group of influential pastors in a room together and talk about "the elephants in the room." These elephants ranged from methods of worship to poverty theology to the satellite church strategy. I found the experience exhilarating and ingenious. Whoever thought up this idea wins the cigar (and may smoke it in this crowd). Let me share what I liked and what I didn't like.
Liked: Honest, deep, engaging, and sometimes heated conversations about primary issues affecting our churches today. It was fascinating to watch different generations, theologies, techniques, and personalities engage one another on controversial subjects. My favorite segment had to do with whether it's spiritually mature to give away all your resources for ministry endeavors even when doing so may negatively affect your family. MacDonald made a strong case for enjoying the benefits of God's blessings while also being generous in the Spirit of Christ. He also pointed out the terrible wastefulness of missions programs in many churches and effectively questioned the traditional methods of missions allocation. Platt was inspiring due to his clear heart for "the least of these" and his challenge to the affluent to dethrone the god of materialism. I also enjoyed the banter between the participants. Driscoll's comment to Furtick that his reading list was similar to a "meat-loving vegetarian" was classic. But there were some lines crossed at times, which brings me to my dislikes.
Didn't Like: There were a number of times when some of the guys semi-cursed and made off-colored jokes. Listen, I'm no prude. I grew up in Redneck Louisiana. Swamp People is not just a television show for me. It's home! Cussing is my native language! But God has been urging me to be more holy for many years now and has convicted me on course jesting and the use of questionable words. It wasn't helpful to me to see pastors I respect push the envelope here. Case in point: all participants agreed that joking about homosexuality was not helpful. Yet MacDonald, the host of the event and clearly a mentor to the younger guys, jokingly states that Driscoll has a "man-crush" on Chandler. Funny, but didn't feel right. Although, I must admit, I laughed--couldn't help it.
Surprises: It's worth mentioning a final category of surprises. I was surprised at how witty Driscoll is. Some of his one-liners seemed to come from alien intelligence. It was like watching Spock with a personality. When he referred to God speaking through a donkey as “the Shrek verse,” I thought I saw pointed ears. I was also pleasantly surprised at Platt's humility. His heart for the hurting, quiet persona (MacDonald even had to ask him to speak up), and his kind demeanor were refreshing. I walked away convinced he is the real deal.
I'd like to see them do another one in the years to come with a new line-up. It would have been interesting to see greater stylistic and generational diversity. For example, a Chuck Swindoll with a conservative, Evangelical Anglican would have been interesting as well as racial diversity. But overall, it was an awesome experience.

The Hell of Bell

2011-03-17T15:29:00.000-07:00

The following is a strong response by Pastor Kevin Deyoung to Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins." It's long, but a worthy read. And, oh, by the way, Bell is terribly and dangerously wrong on this one. He's embraced heresy. Pray for him because he will give an account before the Lord (James 3:1). Again, that's why I read the old guys. PR

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins” by Pastor Kevin Deyoung. Originally posted at at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/
Note: This post is long.

Love Wins, by megachurch pastor Rob Bell, is, as the subtitle suggests, “a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Here’s the gist: Hell is what we create for ourselves when we reject God’s love. Hell is both a present reality for those who resist God and a future reality for those who die unready for God’s love. Hell is what we make of heaven when we cannot accept the good news of God’s forgiveness and mercy. But hell is not forever. God will have his way. How can his good purposes fail? Every sinner will turn to God and realize he has already been reconciled to God, in this life or in the next. There will be no eternal conscious torment. God says no to injustice in the age to come, but he does not pour out wrath (we bring the temporary suffering upon ourselves), and he certainly does not punish for eternity. In the end, love wins.

Bell correctly notes (many times) that God is love. He also observes that Jesus is Jewish, the resurrection is important, and the phrase “personal relationship with God” is not in the Bible. He usually makes his argument by referencing Scripture. He is easy to read and obviously feels very deeply for those who have been wronged or seem to be on the outside looking in.

Unfortunately, beyond this, there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.

A Few Preliminaries

Before going any further with a critique, a number of preliminary comments are in order. A few opening remarks may help put this critical review in context and encourage productive responses.

One, although Bell asks a lot of questions (350 by one count), we should not write off the provocative theology as mere question-raising. Bell did not write an entire book because he was looking for some good resources on heaven and hell. This isn’t the thirteen-year-old in your youth group asking her teacher, “How can a good God send people to hell?” Any pastor worth his covenant salt will welcome sincere questions like this. (“Good question, Jenny, let’s see what the Bible says about that.”) But Bell is a popular teacher of a huge church with a huge following. This book is not an invitation to talk. It’s him telling us what he thinks (nothing wrong with that). As Bell himself writes, “But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19).

Two, we should notice the obvious: this is a book. It is a book with lots of Scripture references. It is a book that draws from history and personal experience. It makes a case for something. It purports one story of Christianity to be better than another. Bell means to persuade. He wants to convince us of something. He is a teacher teaching. This book is not a poem. It is not a piece of art. This is a theological book by a pastor trying to impart a different way of looking at heaven and hell. Whether Bell is creative or a provocateur is beside the point. If Bell is inconsistent, unclear, or inaccurate, claiming the “artist” mantle is no help.

Three, I’m sure that many people looking to defend Bell will be drawn to a couple escape hatches he launches along the way. As you’ll see, the book is a sustained attack on the idea that those who fail to believe in Jesus Christ in this life will suffer eternally for their sins. This is the traditional Christianity he finds “misguided and toxic” (viii). But in one or two places Bell seems more agnostic.

Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires. (115)

These are strange sentences because they fall in the chapter where Bell argues that God wants everyone to be saved and God gets what God wants. He tells us that “never-ending punishment” does not give God glory, and “God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (108). So it’s unclear where the sudden agnosticism comes from. Is Bell wrestling with himself? Did a friend or editor ask him to throw in a few caveats? Is he simply inconsistent?

Similarly, at the end Bell argues, rather out of the blue, that we need to trust God in the present, that our choices here and now “matter more than we can begin to imagine” because we can miss out on rewards and celebrations (197). This almost looks like an old-fashioned call to turn to Christ before it’s too late. When you look more carefully, however, you see that Bell is not saying what evangelicals might think. He wants us to make the most of life because “while we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again” (197). In other words, there are consequences for our actions, in this life and in the next, and we can’t get this moment back; but there will always be more chances. If you don’t live life to the fullest and choose love now, you may initially miss out on some good things in the life to come, but in the end love wins (197–198).

For anyone tempted to take these few lines and make Bell sound orthodox, I encourage you to read the whole book more carefully. Likewise, before you rush to accept that Bell believes in hell and believes Christ is the only way, pay attention to his conception of hell and in what way he thinks Jesus is the only way. Bad theology usually sneaks in under the guise of familiar language. There’s a reason he’s written 200 pages on why you must be deluded to think people end up in eternal conscious punishment under the just wrath of God. Words mean something, even when some of them seem forced or out of place. Take the book as a whole to get Bell’s whole message.

Four, it is possible that I (like other critics) am mean-spirited, nasty, and cruel. But voicing strong disagreement does not automatically make me any of these. Judgmentalism is not the same as making judgments. The same Jesus who said “do not judge” in Matthew 7:1 calls his opponents dogs and pigs in Matthew 7:6. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8). Disagreement among professing Christians is not a plague on the church. In fact, it is sometimes necessary. The whole Bible is full of evaluation and encourages the faithful to be discerning and make their own evaluations. What’s tricky is that some fights are stupid, and some judgments are unfair and judgmental. But this must be proven, not assumed. Bell feels strongly about this matter of heaven and hell. So do a lot of other people. Strong language and forceful arguments are appropriate.

Five, I am not against conversation. What I am against is false teaching. I did not go to the trouble of writing a review because I worry that God can’t handle our questions. The question is never whether God can handle our honest reappraisals of traditional Christianity, but whether he likes them.

On the subject of conversation, it’s worth pointing out that this book actually mitigates against further conversation. For starters, there’s the McLarenesque complaint about the close-minded traditionalists who don’t allow for questions, change, and maturity (ix). This is a kind of pre-emptive “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” approach to conversation (cf. 183). In essence, “Let’s talk, but I know already that the benighted and violent will hate my theology.” That hardly invites further dialogue. More practically, Bell includes no footnotes for his historical claims and rarely gives chapter and verse when citing the Bible. It is difficult to examine Bell’s claims when he is less than careful in backing them up.

Six, this is not an evangelistic work, not in the traditional sense anyway. The primary intended audience appears to be not so much secularists with objections to Christianity (á la Keller’s Reason for God), but disaffected evangelicals who can’t accept the doctrine they grew up with. Bell writes for the “growing number” who have become aware that the Christian story has been “hijacked” (vii). Love Wins is for those who have heard a version of the gospel that now makes their stomachs churn and their pulses rise, and makes them cry out, “I would never be a part of that” (viii). This is a book for people like Bell, people who grew up in an evangelical environment and don’t want to leave it completely, but want to change it, grow up out of it, and transcend it. The emerging church is not an evangelistic strategy. It is the last rung for evangelicals falling off the ladder into liberalism or unbelief.

Over and over, Bell refers to the “staggering number” of people just like him, people who can’t believe the message they used to believe, people who want nothing to do with traditional Christianity, people who don’t want to leave the faith but can’t live in the faith they once embraced. I have no doubt there are many people like this inside and outside our churches. Some will leave the faith altogether. Others—and they are in the worse position—will opt for liberalism, which has always seen itself as a halfway house between conservative orthodoxy and secular disbelief.

But before we let Bell and others write the present story, we must remember that there are also a “staggering number” of young people who want the straight up, unvarnished truth. They want doctrinal edges and traditional orthodoxy. They want no-holds-barred preaching. They don’t want to leave traditional Christianity. They are ready to go deeper into it.

Love Wins has ignited such a firestorm of controversy because it’s the current fissure point for a larger fault-line. As younger generations come up against an increasingly hostile cultural environment, they are breaking in one of two directions—back to robust orthodoxy (often Reformed) or back to liberalism. The neo-evangelical consensus is cracking up. Love Wins is simply one of many tremors.

Where to Begin?

With those as preliminaries, you know this won’t be a brief review. The hard part is knowing where to begin. Love Wins is such a departure from historic Christianity, that there’s no easy way to tackle it. You can’t point to two or three main problems or three or four exegetical missteps. This is a markedly different telling of the gospel from start to finish. To fully engage the material would require not only deconstruction, but a full reconstruction of orthodoxy theology. A book review, however, is not the place to build a systematic theology. So where to begin?

I want to approach Love Wins by looking at seven areas: Bell’s view of traditional evangelical theology, history, exegesis, eschatology, Christology, gospel, and God.

1. Not Your Grandmother’s Christianity

Perhaps the best place to start is to show that Bell routinely disparages the faith of traditional evangelicalism.

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (viii)

At least Bell is honest. In the next chapter, not even his grandmother gets off unscathed. Bell reminisces about the scary picture in her house of a floating cross-bridge to heaven. He likens it to a joint project from Thomas Kinkade and Dante or like Dungeons and Dragons, Billy Graham, and a barbecue pit rolled into one (22–23). He and his sister were freaked out. This story of leaving earth to go to heaven by means of faith in Christ is not the story he wants to promote anymore.

Later, Bell allows that traditionalists can believe their story of heaven and hell, but “it isn’t a very good story” (110). Traditional Christians have inferior news to share because in their story so many people end up in hell. “That’s why the Christians who talk the most about going to heaven while everybody else goes to hell don’t throw very good parties” (179). Not only are they bad at parties, traditionalists are bad at art: “An entrance understanding of the gospel rarely creates good art. Or innovation. Or a number of other things. It’s a cheap view of the world because it’s a cheap view of God. It’s a shriveled imagination” (180). So much for finding beauty or delight in Western civilization. I’ll leave it to the art critics and the partygoers to determine if it’s true that, second to blondes, universalists have more fun.

What’s interesting is that Bell struggles to leave his evangelical upbringing behind. He knows the temptation to be embarrassed that “we were so ‘simple’ or ‘naïve,’ or ‘brainwashed’ or whatever terms arise when we haven’t come to terms with our own story” (194). And yet, he believes it’s important to embrace past understanding of the faith, even if people like him were shaped by a certain environment and reared in certain experiences that can be easily deconstructed (e.g., praying the sinner’s prayer) (193–95). Again, we sense Bell is trying to reconcile an earlier faith with his present trajectory. The result is an awkward attempt to claim his past while still wanting to evolve out of it. This presumes, of course, that the Christian faith is not a deposit to guard or a tradition that must not change (2 Tim. 1:14; 2 Thess. 2:15). Much of Bell’s polemic fails if there is a core of apostolic teaching that we are called, not just to embrace as part of our journey, but to protect from deviation and defend against false teaching (Acts 20:29–31).

2. Historical Problems

Bell maintains he is not saying anything new. And that’s right. The problem is he makes it sound like his everyone-ends-up-restored-and-reconciled-to-God theology is smack dab in the center of the Christian tradition.

And so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of Christians who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody, because Jesus says in Matthew 19 that there will be a “renewal of all things,” Peter says in Acts 3 that Jesus will “restore everything,” and Paul says in Colossians 1 that through Christ “God was pleased to. . . .reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” (107, ellipsis in original)

It’s important to Bell that he falls within the “deep, wide, diverse stream” of “historic, orthodox Christian faith” (ix-x). Therefore, he argues that “at the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins” (109).

This bold claim flies in the face of Richard Bauckham’s historical survey:

Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated. . . . Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of the universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. (“Universalism: A Historical Survey,” Themelios 4.2 [September 1978]: 47–54)

Universalism (though in a different form than Bell’s and for different reasons) has been present in the church since Origen, but it was never in the center of the tradition. Origen’s theology was partly anticipated by his fellow Platonist Clement of Alexandria and later shows up in the Cappadocian Gregory of Nyssa. But according to William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Gregory’s theology of hell is hard to pin down. He makes much of God being “all in all” and evil being eradicated, but he also warns of the final judgment and the flames ready to engulf the wicked (NPNF ser. 2, 5:16). Whatever Origen’s influence on the Cappadocian fathers (and it was considerable), Origen’s views were later refuted by Augustine and, as Bauckham notes, condemned in 543 in a council at Constantinople.

Bell also mentions Jerome, Basil, and Augustine because they claimed many people in their day believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God (107). But listing all the heavyweights who took time to refute the position you are now espousing is not a point in your favor. Most egregiously, Bell calls on Martin Luther in support of post-mortem salvation (106). But as Carl Trueman has pointed out, anyone familiar with Luther’s creedal statements and overall writing, not to mention the actual quotation in question, will quickly see that Luther is not on Bell’s side.

Universalism has been around a long time. But so has every other heresy. Arius rejected the full deity of Christ and many people followed him. This hardly makes Arianism part of the wide, diverse stream of Christian orthodoxy. Every point of Christian doctrine has been contested, but some have been deemed heterodox. Universalism, traditionally, was considered one of those points. True, many recent liberal theologians have argued for versions of universalism—and this is where Bell stands, not in the center of the historic Christian tradition.

3. Exegetical Problems

Some people may be impressed by the array of biblical texts Bell employs. But there is less here than meets the eye. Time after time, key points in Bell’s argument rest on huge exegetical mistakes.

A partial list—an even ten—in no particular order:

One, Bell cites Psalm 65, Ezekiel 36, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Philippians 2, and Psalm 22 to show that all peoples will eventually be reconciled to God. He does not mention that some of these are promises to God’s people, some are general promises about the nations coming to God, and others are about the universal acknowledgement (not to be equated with saving faith) on the last day that Jesus Christ is Lord. Not one of his texts supports his conclusion.

Two, similarly, Bell lists a number of passages that point to final restoration–Jeremiah 5, Lamentations 3, Hosea 14, Zephaniah 3, Isaiah 57, Hosea 6, Joel 3, Amos 9, Nahum 2, Zephaniah 2, Zephaniah 3, Zechariah 9, Zechariah 10, and Micah 7 (86–87). Anyone familiar with the prophets knows that they often finish with a promise of future blessing. But anyone familiar with the prophets should also know that these promises are for God’s covenant people, predicated on faith and repentance, and fulfilled ultimately in Christ.

Three, Bell seems to recognize the covenantal nature of the promised restoration, so he goes out of his way to point out that the restoration is not just for God’s people. To prove this point he cites a passage from Isaiah 19 where it is predicted that an altar to the Lord will be in the midst of the land of Egypt. Bell concludes that no failure is final and that consequences can always be corrected (88–89). But Isaiah 19 is not remotely about postmortem opportunities to repent. The text is about God’s plan to humble Egypt to the point where they cry out to Israel’s God for deliverance: “The Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them” (Isa. 19:22, ESV). God makes no promise that every soul in Egypt will be saved. Rather he promises, like the prophets do time and time again, that if they call on the Lord he will have mercy on them. There is no thought that they will do this calling in the afterlife.

Four, Bell makes no attempt to understand John 14:6 in context. After acknowledging that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and the only way to the Father, Bell quickly adds, “What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through Jesus. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through Jesus will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him” (154). Even a cursory glance at John 14 shows that the through in verse 16 refers to faith. The chapter begins by saying, “Believe in God; believe also in me.” Verse seven talks about knowing the Father. Verses nine and ten explain that we see and know the Father by believing that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in him. Verses 11 and 12 touch on belief yet again. Coming to the Father through Christ means through faith in Christ. This is in keeping with the overall purpose of John’s gospel (John 20:31).

Five, Bell thinks the rich man’s question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” has nothing to do with the afterlife. He isn’t asking about how to go to heaven when he dies (30). He’s simply wondering how to get in on the good things God is doing in the age to come (31, 40). Again, Bell ignores all contextual clues to the contrary. Given the resurrection discussion alive in Jesus’ day (see Mark 12:18–27), the rich man is likely asking, “How can I be sure I’ll be saved in the final resurrection?” He is thinking of life after death. That’s why he says “inherit” and why the previous section in Mark discusses Bell’s dreaded “entrance” theology (Mark 10:13–16). What’s more, verse 30 makes clear that some of the blessings in following Jesus come in the next life, what Jesus calls “in the age to come, eternal life.” If eternal life is equivalent to saying the age to come (31), then Jesus is the master of redundancy. But the two terms are not identical. Eternal life here means life that lasts forever.

Six, Bell reads too much into Paul’s discipline passages. Paul handed over Hymenaeus and Alexander to teach them not to blaspheme. He disciplined the man in Corinth so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. Therefore, Bell reasons, failure is never final (89–90). But stating the purpose and hope of discipline (as Paul does) is one thing, assuming the repentance happened is another, and thinking any of this opens the door to postmortem second chances is a thing the text never hints at.

Seven, sometimes Bell just ignores the verses that don’t support his thesis. While arguing that we should be extremely careful about making negative judgments on people’s eternal destinies, Bell cites Jesus’ words in John 3:17 that he “did not come to judge the world but to save it” (160). This Jesus, Bell says, is a “vast, expansive, generous mystery” leading us to conclude hopefully that “Heaven is, after all, full of surprises.” Bell’s lean into universalism here would be significantly muted had he gone on to Jesus’ words in verse 18: “Whoever believes in him [i.e., the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Likewise, according to John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Eight, Bell’s overview of Revelation skims along the surface of the book in a way that misses all the hard parts he doesn’t want to see. Bell explains that Revelation is a book written for God’s people during a time when they were being persecuted. As such, there are lots of pictures of wrongs being righted and people being held accountable (112). But, he says, “the letter does not end with blood and violence” (112). It ends with the world permeated with God’s love (114).

This is not a bad summary, but the three points he draws from this narrative are problematic. First, he explains the judgments by reminding us that people often reject the love and joy in front of them and “choose to live in their own hells all the time” (114). But even a cursory read through Revelation shows that violent judgments issue from God’s throne. They are poured out from bowls and thrown down on the earth. Christ comes on a war horse with a sharp sword in his mouth. There’s no sense that the wicked are suffering only from their poor decisions in life. They wail for fear because the one whom they pierced is coming with the clouds for recompense (Rev. 1:7).

Second, Bell suggests that maybe the gates in heaven are “never shut” because new citizens will continue to enter the city as everyone is eventually reconciled to God (115). This interpretation is clearly at odds with the rest of Revelation 21-22 which emphasizes several times that there are some accursed ones left outside the city (21:8, 27; 22:3, 14–15, 18–19). The theme of judgment carries through right to the end of the book. What’s more, those facing this judgment will be thrown into the lake of fire where torment never ends, which is the second death (20:10; 21:8). There is never a hint of postmortem second chances and every indication of an irreversible judgment decreed of every soul at the end of the age. The gates are open as a sign of the city’s complete safety and security, not as an indication that more will be saved after death.

Third, according to Bell, the announcement “I am making all things new” suggests new possibilities. This, in turn, means we should leave the door open that the final eternal state of every person has not been fixed (116). Again, this is a supposition without any warrant in the text, where the newness of heaven speaks of a new holiness, a new world, a new pain-free existence, and a new closeness with God. Heaven is not new because people in hell get new chances to repent.

Nine, what Bell does with Sodom and Gomorrah should make even his most ardent supporters wince. Really, you have to wonder if Bell has any interest in being constrained by serious study of the biblical text. In one place, Bell argues from Ezekiel 16 that because the fortunes of Sodom will be restored (Ezek. 16:53), this suggests that the forever destiny of others might end in restoration (84). But it should be obvious that the restoration of Sodom in Ezekiel is about the city, not about the individual inhabitants of the town who were already judged in Genesis 19. The people condemned by sulfur and fire 1,500 years earlier were not getting a second lease on postmortem life. The current city would be restored. And besides, the whole point of Sodom’s restoration is to shame wicked Samaria (Ezek. 16:54) so that they might bear the penalty of their lewdness and abominations (Ezek. 16:58). This hardly fits with Bell’s view of God and judgment.

If that weren’t bad enough, the other discussion on Sodom is even worse. Because Jesus says it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for Capernaum (Matt. 11:23–24), Bell concludes that there is hope for all the other Sodoms and Gomorrahs (85). Bell takes a passage about judgment—judgment that will be so bad for Capernaum it’s even worse than God’s judgment on Sodom—and turns it into tacit support for ultimate universalism. Jesus’ warning says nothing about new hope for Sodom. It says everything about the hopelessness of unbelieving Capernaum.

Ten, not surprisingly, Bell frequently harkens back to the Pauline promise in Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1 that God is reconciling or uniting all things together in Christ (149). These are favorite passages of universalists, but they cannot carry the freight universalists want them to. Take Ephesians 1, for example. Paul says that God’s plan in the fullness of time is to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth (Eph. 1:10). The Greek word for “unite” is a long one: anakephalaiōsasthai. It means to sum up, to bring together to a main point, to gather together. It is like an author finishing the last chapter of his book or a conductor bringing the symphony from cacophony to harmony. It’s a glorious promise, already begun in some ways by the word of Christ. But we know from the rest of Ephesians that Paul does not expect all peoples to be reconciled to God. He speaks of sons of disobedience and children of wrath in chapter two. In chapter five, he makes clear that the sexually immoral and covetous have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. In Ephesians 5:6 he warns that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. The uniting of all things does not entail the salvation of all people. It means that everything in the universe, heaven and earth, the spiritual world and the physical world, will finally submit to the lordship of Christ, some in joyful worship of their beloved Savior and others in just punishment for their wretched treason. In the end, God wins.

One last general point about Bell’s exegesis: Bell has a reputation for being brilliant and creative, and he probably is in certain spheres. But his use of Scripture exhibits neither characteristic. In fact, it is naïve, literalistic biblicism. He flattens everything, either to make traditional theology sound ridiculously inconsistent or to make a massive point from one out-of-context verse. He makes no attempt to understand metaphors, genre, or imagery (either in Scripture or in his grandmother’s painting). He does not to try to harmonize anything that might rot his fresh take on the Bible. He loves Jewish background and context, but he shows very little familiarity with the actual storyline and the shape of the Old Testament. His style may be engaging to some, but look up the passages for yourself and then pick up a reputable study Bible or a basic commentary series. You’ll seriously question Bell’s use of Scripture.

4. Eschatological Problems

Bell’s eschatology is muddled. On the one hand, he goes to great length to argue that eternal life is not really forever life, just abundant life or life belonging to the next age (57, 92–93). He maintains that the images of hell refer to the pain we create for ourselves on earth and to the impending disaster on Jerusalem in AD 70 (81). Bell sounds like an overwrought preterist at times, having no place for end-times judgment or an unending existence after death. But on the other hand, he seems to leave all these arguments behind later when he talks about an eternal postmortem existence. He does believe in heaven after you die, and he believes in hell.

But in a strange bit of logic arising out of the parable of the prodigal son, Bell maintains that heaven and hell exist side by side. It’s not always clear what Bell thinks, but it seems he believes everyone goes to the same realm when they die; but for some people it is heaven, and for others it is hell (170). If you don’t accept God’s story about the world and resist his love, heaven will be hell for you, a hell you create for yourself. We are supposed to see this in Luke 15 where both brothers are invited to the same feast but one can’t enjoy it. Heaven and hell at the same party (176). To call this is a little stretch is like calling pro wrestling a little fake. Jesus told all three “lost” parables to explain why he was eating with “sinners” (Luke 15:2–3), not to posit a thoroughly un-Jewish notion that the afterlife is whatever you make of it. If the parable of the prodigal son teaches Bell’s theology of heaven-and-hell-at-the-same-time, then the Bible can teach anything Bell wants it to.

In a similar vein, Bell seems unaware that theologians of various traditions have talked about the two sides of God’s will (or two lenses through which God views the world). To be sure, there is mystery here, but it’s common to distinguish between God’s will of decree, whereby everything that he wills comes to pass (Eph. 1:11), and his will of desire which can be rejected (Matt. 7:21). And yet one of Bell’s main planks in support of universal reconciliation is that if God wants all people to be saved, then all people must eventually be saved. “How great is God?” Bell asks. “Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do, or kind of great, great most of the time, but in this, the fate of billions of people, not totally great. Sort of great. A little great” (97–99). The strong insinuation is that a God who does not save everyone is not totally great.

All this is built on the statement that God wants everyone to be saved. There’s no exegetical work on the meaning of “all people” and no discussion on the dual-nature of God’s will. In Bell’s mind, if all people do not end up reconciled to God its tantamount to God saying, “Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot, and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure” (103). Bell has taken one statement from 1 Timothy 2:4 (God desires all people to be saved), avoids any contextual work on the passage (e.g., all probably means “all kinds of people”), and refuses to bring any other relevant passages to bear on this one (e.g., Rom. 9:22, “What if God desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”) The result is a simplistic formula: “God wants all people to be saved. God gets what he wants. Therefore, all people will eventually be saved.” This is a case of poor theologizing beholden to mistaken logic. If it is “the will of God” that Christians “abstain from sexual immorality” (1 Thess. 4:3), does that mean God’s greatness is diminished by our impurity?

In the blog buzz leading up the release of Love Wins, there was a lot of discussion about whether Bell is or is not a Christian universalist. After reading the book, I see no reason why the label does not fit. Now it’s true, Bell believes in hell. But he does not believe that God pours out his wrath on anyone forever (I’m not sure he thinks God actively pours out wrath on anyone at all). Hell is the sad suffering of this life (71). Hell is God giving us what we want (72). Postmortem hell is what we create for ourselves when we refuse to believe God’s story, when we resist his love (170-71, 172, 177). There is hell now and hell later. “There are all kinds of hell because there are all kinds of ways to reject the good and the true and the beautiful and the human now, in this life, and so we can only assume we can do the same in the next” (79).

So why do I say Bell is a universalist if he believes in hell? Because he does not believe hell lasts forever. It is a temporary “period of pruning” and “an intense experience of correction” (91). Bell’s hell is like purgatory except his “period of pruning” is for anyone, not just for Christians who die in a state of grace as Catholicism teaches. For Bell, this life is about getting ourselves fitted for the good life to come. Some of us die ready to experience God’s love. Others need more time to sort things out. Luckily, in Bell’s scheme, there is always more time. “No one can resist God’s pursuit forever because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (108). Bell does not believe every road leads to God. He is not a moral relativist. You can get your life and theology wrong. Heaven is a kind of starting over, a time to relearn what it means to be human. For some this process may take a while, and during the process their heaven may feel more like hell. But even those who get everything wrong in this life, will eventually get it right over time in the next life. In Bell’s theology, ultimately, everyone will be saved. If he’s right, most of church history has been wrong. If he’s wrong, a staggering number of people are hearing “peace, peace” where there is no peace.

What’s wrong with this theology is, of course, what’s wrong with the whole book. Bell assumes all sorts of things that can’t be shown from Scripture. For example, Bell figures God won’t say “sorry, too late” to those in hell who are humble and broken for their sins. But where does the Bible teach the damned are truly humble or penitent? For that matter, where does the Bible talk about growing and maturing in the afterlife or getting a second chance after death? Why does the Bible make such a big deal about repenting “today” (Heb. 3:13), about being found blameless on the day of Christ (2 Pet. 3:14), about not neglecting such a great salvation (Heb. 2:3) if we have all sorts of time to figure things out in the next life? Why warn about not inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10), about what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31), or about the vengeance of our coming King (2 Thess. 1:5–12) if hell is just what we make of heaven? Bell does nothing to answer these questions, or even ask them in the first place.

5. Christological Problems

Most readers of Love Wins will want to talk about Bell’s universalism. But just as troubling is his Christology. Bell has a Joseph Campbell “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” view of Christ. Jesus is hidden in various cultures and in every aspect of creation. Some people find him and some don’t. Some call him Jesus; some have too much baggage with Christianity, so they call him by a different name (159).

Bell finds support for this Christological hide-and-seek in 1 Corinthians 10. This is where Paul calls to mind the Exodus narrative and asserts that the rock (the one that gushed water) was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). From this Bell concludes, “There are rocks everywhere” (139). If Paul saw Christ in the rock, then who knows where else we might find him (144)? Jesus cannot be confined to any one religion, Bell argues. He transcends our labels and cages, especially the one called Christianity (150). Christ is present in all cultures and can be found everywhere. Sometimes missionaries travel around the world only to find that the Christ they preach was already present by a different name (152).

This does not mean Christ is whatever you want him to be. Some Jesuses should be rejected, Bell says, like the ones that are “anti-science” and “anti-gay” and use bullhorns on the street (8). But wherever we find “grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness” we’ve found the creative life source that we call Jesus (156, 159).

Elsewhere, after describing a false Jesus “who waves the flag and promotes whatever values they have decided their nation needs to return to,” Bell offers the promising alternative: “the very life source of the universe who has walked among us and continues to sustain everything with his love and power and grace and energy” (156).

These [Eucharist] rituals are true for us, because they’re true for everybody. They unite us, because they unite everybody. These are signs and glimpses and tastes of what is true for all people in all places at all times—we simply name the mystery present in all the world, the gospel already announced to every creature under heaven. (157)

This is classic liberalism pure and simple, a souped-up version of Schleiermacher’s feeling of absolute dependence. This is all immanence and no transcendence. This is not the objective gospel-message of Christ’s work in history that we must announce. This is an existential message announcing a rival version of the good news, the announcement that you already know Christ and can feel him in your heart if you pay attention.

To suggest the Lord’s Supper unites all people makes a mockery of the sacrament and the Christ uniquely present in the bread and the cup. The Table is a feast for those who trust in Christ, for those who can discern his body, a family meal for those who together will proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again. It brings us together under the sign of the cross. The sheep “not of this pen” are not adherents of other religions who belong to Christ without knowing it (152), but Gentiles who can now fellowship with Jews through the blood (Eph. 2:11–22).

And let’s not forget all of this rests on an illegitimate reading of 1 Corinthians 10. First, the fact that Paul found a type of Christ in the Old Testament does not give us warrant to find whatever types we like in the world. Second, Paul did not mention the rock willy-nilly because it seemed beautiful to him. The gushing rock was a picture of God’s provision and salvation for his people in the Old Testament just like Christ is for the church in the New Testament. Third, the rest of 1 Corinthians 10 militantly opposes everything Bell wants to get out of the chapter. The reason Paul brought up the rock in the first place was as an example, “that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor. 10:6). Paul wants the Corinthians to avoid being “destroyed by the Destroyer” (1 Cor. 10:10) and to “take heed lest [they] fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). There’s no thought that the Corinthians should find Christ in ten thousand places. The whole chapter is a warning against idolatry, to flee from it (1 Cor. 10:14), not to embrace it in the name of mystery.

6. Gospel Problems

This review is too long already, but I really must say something about the two most grievous errors in the book: Bell’s view of the cross and his view of God.

According to Bell, salvation is realizing you’re already saved. We are all forgiven. We are all loved, equally and fully by God who has made peace with everyone. That work is done. Now we are invited to believe that story and live in it (172–73).

Bell is not saying what you think he might be saying. He’s not suggesting faith is the instrumental cause used by the Spirit to join us to Christ so we can share in all his benefits. That would be evangelical theology. Bell is saying God has already forgiven us whether we ask for it or not, whether we repent and believe or not, whether we are born again or not. “Forgiveness is unilateral. God isn’t waiting for us to get it together, to clean up, shape up, get up—God has already done it” (189). This means the Father’s love just is. It cannot be earned and it cannot be taken away. God’s love is simply yours (188). Heaven and hell (however Bell conceives them) are both full of forgiven people.

So what does Bell believe about the atonement? He starts with the familiar refrain that there are many images for what the death of Jesus accomplished and none of them should be prized more than another (though he claims Christus Victor was the dominant understanding for the first thousand years of church history). The point is not to argue about the images. “The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is” (129).

You may wonder where the sacrificial system is in all this. After all, as a friend reminded me, years ago Bell was best known for being the pastor who started his church by preaching from Leviticus. I’m not sure what Bell taught back then, but now it appears his understanding of sacrifice is almost entirely negative. Sacrifice in the ancient world (and he fails to distinguish between Israel and other nations) meant “Offer something, show that you’re serious, make amends, find favor, and then hope that was enough to get what you needed” (124). Sacrifice is a kind of plea bargain, not a substitution.

Consequently, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was a generic doing-away of all sacrifices. It means “no more wondering if the gods were pleased with you and or ready to strike you down” (125). Notice, Bell does not say that Jesus’ death appeased the anger of God/gods, only that his sacrifice shows us we don’t have to wonder any more if the gods are angry. Sacrifice, whether in the Old Testament or on the cross, is not about loving divine self-substitution, but the divine manifestation of love already present in the world, a love whose only obstacle is our ignorance of it and unwillingness to receive it. For all the talk of social justice, there is apparently no need for God to receive his justice.

Bell categorically rejects any notion of penal substitution. It simply does not work in his system or with his view of God. “Let’s be very clear, then,” Bell states, “we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer” (182). I see no place in Bell’s theology for Christ the curse-bearer (Gal. 3:13), or Christ wounded for our transgressions and crushed by God for our iniquities (Isa. 53:5, 10), no place for the Son of Man who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), no place for the Savior who was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), no place for the sorrowful suffering Servant who drank the bitter cup of God’s wrath for our sake (Mark 14:36).

In Bell’s theology, God is love, a love that never burns hot with anger and a love that cannot distinguish or discriminate. “Jesus’ story,” Bell says, “is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love and it is for everybody, everywhere” (1). Therefore, he reasons, “we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he’s anybody else’s” (152). This is tragic. It’s as if Bell wants every earthly father to love every child in the world in the exact same way. If you rob a father of his unique, specific, not-for-everyone love, you rob the children of their greatest treasure. It reminds me of the T-shirt, “Jesus Loves You. Then Again He Loves Everybody.” There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to. The good news is that in love God sent his Son to live for our lives and die for our deaths, suffering the God-forsakenness we deserved so that we might call God our God and we who trust in Christ might be his children. The sad irony is that while Bell would very much like us to know the love of God, he has taken away the very thing in which God’s love is chiefly known: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

7. A Different God

At the very heart of this controversy, and one of the reasons the blogosphere exploded over this book, is that we really do have two different Gods. The stakes are that high. If Bell is right, then historic orthodoxy is toxic and terrible. But if the traditional view of heaven and hell are right, Bell is blaspheming. I do not use the word lightly, just like Bell probably chose “toxic” quite deliberately. Both sides cannot be right. As much as some voices in evangelicalism will suggest that we should all get along and learn from each other and listen for the Spirit speaking in our midst, the fact is we have two irreconcilable views of God.

Here’s how Bell understands the traditional view of God:

Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way according to the person telling them the gospel, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would insure that they would have no escape from an endless future of agony.

If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services immediately.

If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether a being like this could ever be trusted. Let alone be good.

Loving one moment, vicious the next. Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye.

Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die?

That kind of God is simply devastating. Psychologically crushing. We can’t bear it. No one can. . . . That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable. (173–75)

Of course, this is a horrible caricature that makes God seem capricious and vindictive. No one I know thinks God is loving one minute and cruel the next. But God is always holy. And holy love is not the same as unconditional affirmation. Holy love is more terrifying than even Bell thinks and more unbelievably merciful and free than Bell imagines.

Bell’s god is a small god, so bound by notions of radical free will that I wonder how Bell can be so confident God’s love will melt the hardest heart. If God’s grace is always, essentially, fundamentally, resistible (72, 103–4, 118–19), how do we know some sinners won’t suffer in their own hell for a million years?

Bell’s god may be all love, but it is a love rooted in our modern Western sensibilities more than careful biblical reflection. It is a love that threatens to swallow up God’s glory and holiness. But, you may reply, the Bible says God is love (1 John 4:16). True, but if you want to weigh divine attributes by sentence construction, you have to mention God is spirit (John 4:24), God is light (1 John 1:5), and God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). The verb “is” does not establish a priority of attributes. If anything, one might mention that the only thrice-repeated attribute is “holy, holy, holy.” And yet this is the one thing Bell’s god is not. Having preached through Leviticus he should remember that holiness is the overarching theme. The sacrifices are a pleasing aroma in God’s nostrils because they satisfy his justice, making way for a holy God to dwell in the midst of an unholy people. That Christ’s sacrifice is the same pleasing aroma to God (Eph. 5:2) undercuts Bell’s insistence that God did not need to rescue us from God.

It would be unfair to say Bell doesn’t believe in sin. He clearly does. But his vice lists are telling: war, rape, greed, injustice, violence, pride, division, exploitation, disgrace (36–37). In another place, he says that in heaven God will say “no” to oil spills, sexual assault on women, political leaders silencing by oppression, and people being stepped on by greedy institutions and corporations (37-38). These are real problems and throughout the book Bell mentions many real, heinous sins. But all of these sins are obvious to almost everyone in our culture, especially progressives. What’s missing is not only a full-orbed view of sins, but a deeper understanding of sin itself. In Bell’s telling of the story, there is no sense of the vertical dimension of our evil. Yes, Bell admits several times that we can resist or reject God’s love. But there’s never any discussion of the way we’ve offended God, no suggestion that ultimately all our failings are a failure to worship God as we should. God is not simply disappointed with our choices or angry for the way we judge others. He is angry at the way we judge him. He cannot stand to look upon our uncleanness. His nostrils flare at iniquity. He hates our ingratitude, our impurity, our God-complexes, our self-centeredness, our disobedience, our despising of his holy law. Only when we see God’s eye-covering holiness will we grasp the magnitude of our traitorous rebellion, and only then will we marvel at the incomprehensible love that purchased our deliverance on the cross.

Bell begins the book by noting how fed up he is with the traditional story about Jesus. He insists on telling a different story. And he does. His story, as I’ve noted before, is “first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love and it is for everybody, everywhere” (vii). On the right lips, this might possibly be a fine statement. But from Bell it signals a deviation from the Bible’s plotline. Look at God’s people in the garden, then kicked out of the garden; God’s people in the promised land, then booted out of the promised land; God’s people in the New Jerusalem, then the wicked and unbelieving locked outside the New Jerusalem. Trace this story from tabernacle to temple through the incarnation and Pentecost and the coming down of the new heaven and new earth and you will see that the Bible’s story is about how a holy God can possibly dwell among an unholy people. The good news of this story is not that God loves everybody everywhere and you just need to find Christ in the rocks all around you. The good news is that God over and over makes a way for his unholy people to dwell in his holy presence, and that all these ways were pointing to the one Way, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

At bottom, Bell’s vision of heaven and hell doesn’t work because his vision of God is false. I cannot imagine the angels singing “holy, holy, holy” or Isaiah crying out “woe is me” at the feet of Bell’s god. I see no place for divine wrath or divine justice in Bell’s theology. All our punishment, in this life and the next, is manmade. We get what we want and it makes our lives miserable, now and for a while in heaven. There is some truth to this. The pain of hell is our fault. But it’s also God’s doing. Hell is not what we make for ourselves or gladly choose. It’s what a holy God justly gives to those who exchange the truth of God for a lie. The bowls of wrath in Revelation are poured out by God; they are not swum in by sinners. The ten plagues were sent by God, they were not the product of some Egyptian spell gone wrong. God’s wrath burns against the impenitent and unbelieving; they do not walk into the fire by themselves.

Bell’s god is wholly passive toward sin. He hates some of it and says no to it in the next life, but he does not actively judge it. There’s no way to make sense of Nadab and Abihu or Perrez-Uzzah or Gehazi or Achan’s or Korah’s rebellion or the flood or the exodus or the Babylonian captivity or the preaching of John the Baptist or the visions of Revelation or the admonitions of Paul or the warnings of Hebrews or Calvary’s cross apart from a God who hates sin, judges sin, and pour out his wrath—sometimes now, always later—on the accursed things and peoples of this world. God is God and there is no hope for non-gods who want to be gods, except through the God-man who became a curse for us.

That’s bad news for some, and unfathomably good news for all those born again by the sovereign Spirit of God unto faith in Christ and life eternal.

A Concluding Pastoral Postscript

The tendency in theological controversy is to boil everything down to a conflict of personalities. This is the way the world understands disagreement. This is how the world sells controversy. It’s always politician versus politician or pastor versus pastor. But sometimes the disagreement is less about the men (or women) involved and more about the truth.

This is one of those instances.

I have not spent hours and hours on this review because I am out to get another pastor. I may be a sinner, but with four young children and a very full church schedule, I have no time for personal vendettas. No, this is not about a single author or a single church. This is about the truth, about how the rightness or wrongness of our theology can do tremendous help or tremendous harm to the people of God. This is about real people in East Lansing where I serve and real people an hour down the road in Grand Rapids where I grew up. This is about real people who have learned from Bell in the past and will be intrigued by his latest book, wondering if they should be confused, angered, or surprised to hear that hell is not what they’ve been told.

No doubt, Rob Bell writes as a pastor who wants to care for people struggling with the doctrine of hell. I too write as a pastor. And as a pastor I know that Love Wins means God’s people lose. In the world of Love Wins, my congregation should not sing “In Christ Alone” because they cannot not believe, “There on the cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” They would not belt out “Bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood.” No place for “Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted” with its confession, “the deepest stroke that pierced him was the stroke that Justice gave.” The jubilation of “No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in him, is mine!” is muted in Love Wins. The bad news of our wrath-deserving wretchedness is so absent that the good news of God’s wrath-bearing Substitute cannot sing in our hearts. When God is shrunk down to fit our cultural constraints, the cross is diminished. And whenever the cross is diminished we pain the hearts of God’s people and rob them of their joy.

Just as damaging is the impact of Love Wins on the nonbeliever or the wayward former churchgoer. Instead of summoning sinners to the cross that they might flee the wrath to come and know the satisfaction of so great a salvation, Love Wins assures people that everyone’s eternity ends up as heaven eventually. The second chances are good not just for this life, but for the next. And what if they aren’t? What if Jesus says on the day of judgment, “Depart from me, I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23)? What if at the end of the age the wicked and unbelieving cry out, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16)? What if outside the walls of the New Jerusalem “are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Rev. 22:15)? What if there really is only one name “under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)? And what if the wrath of God really remains on those who do not believe in the Son (John 3:18, 36)?

If Love Wins is wrong—if the theology departs from the apostolic good deposit, if the biblical reasoning falls short in a hundred places, if the god of Love Wins and the gospel of Love Wins are profoundly mistaken—if all this is true, then what damage has been done to the souls of men and women?

Bad theology hurts real people. So of all the questions raised in the book, the most important question every reader must answer is this: is it true? Whatever you think of all the personalities involved on whatever side of the debate, that’s the one question that cannot be ignored. Is Love Wins true to the word of God? That’s the issue. Open a Bible, pray to God, listen to the faithful Christians of the past 2000 years, and answer the question for yourself.

Delight or deception, suffering or salvation—yes, even heaven or hell—may hang in the balance.

Why I Read the Old Guys

2011-02-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

One of the frustrations I have with my generation is the plethora of new books out criticizing the church, the faith, the traditions, previous generations, etc, etc, etc without posing helpful solutions. On the one hand, my generation is very skilled at expression. We are artistic, creative people who can wordsmith with incredible speed and finesse. I'm amazed at our ability to formulate expressions in cyberspace that can go viral within hours! Phrases like "wassup!" and "that was off the chain" appeared out of nowhere and just as quickly were replaced with techno shorthands like LOL (laugh out loud) and MLAS (my lips are sealed). The problem is that we use these communicative skills lazily and with the attention span of a humming bird on caffeine. Because we're products of the high-speed Internet age, we tend to formulate opinions without thoughtful research or informed reason. Without naming any names, I've recently been perusing a number of writers from the so-called "emergent church" movement. Very expressive, colorful, even entertaining! But there is often an air of arrogance and rebellion implicit in their assertions. Everything sacred is up for inspection. Questions are raised about orthodox theology, institutional church, forms of worship, hermeneutics, seminaries, revelation, and any number of other precious topics. But the questions posed are given no solid answers. It's as if these writers are high school kids given an opportunity to meet a five star general and encouraged to say, "What's up, dude?" when they meet him. That's why I tend to shy away from the latest best seller. I want to know that an author is truly an expert in the field, someone seasoned through rigorous training and a life well-spent. I want to know that the work he or she has written is more than colorful language with a dose of clever. I need, our world needs, substance. And substance usually comes from older or dead people who lived long lives of deep devotion and study to God's Word.

Spirit Talk

2011-01-21T08:22:00.000-08:00

Recently, I've been studying the idea of a "prompt" from the Holy Spirit. Scripture seems to indicate that God will lead us to certain good works and even miracles if we listen to Him. As a matter of fact, the church age is to be characterized by "keeping in step" with the Spirit and following his "prompts" (see Gal. 5:25, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit" and Rom. 7:6-Amplified Bible-"So now we serve . . . under obedience to the promptings of the Spirit"). So how do we evaluate a “prompt.” Well, a helpful grid is the BCS of prompts. 1. Is it BIBLICAL? God will not contradict Himself. If you feel you are getting a prompt from the Holy Spirit and that prompt is telling you to rob a bank, that’s not God. God will not tell you to violate one of the Ten Commandments! Years ago, I had a woman tell me God was leading her to divorce her husband and marry another man. Wrong! There were no grounds for biblical divorce in that situation. Her prompt wasn’t a God-prompt. 2. Is it “CHRIST-WARD”? Does it move someone to Christ? God’s miracles usually move people to Jesus. If a prompt doesn’t seem to be moving people toward the true God, something is wrong. For example, if you get a prompt to take someone to a movie that is ungodly, that’s probably not the Holy Spirit. That’s probably you being lonely and wanting someone to go to the movies with you. I was recently asked by a woman if she should allow her house to be used by a relative for a spiritual meeting. The relative asked her to use her home for a spiritual study. But the study implied that Jesus was just one of many manifestations of God and that we are gods ourselves. That is not a Christ-ward prompt. That’s a false-god-prompt. And I told her she shouldn't do it. 3. Is it SELFISH? God alone gets the Glory. A prompt from the Spirit will not be a prop to elevate your ego. The Spirit of God will bring glory to God. He’s not about making you into a celebrity (ie. someone who gets celebrated). He’s about giving glory to God. God gets the credit. That’s why I have a lot of trouble with many faith healers. You turn on the television and they're wearing extravagant clothing with rhinestones and have big hair and loud makeup and they’re running all over the stage drawing a lot of attention to themselves and I’m asking, “where’s Jesus in all of this?!” A friend of mine years ago had a health problem so he called up a faith healer. And just as an experiment, he wanted to see something. So he said, “I’ve got this health problem and I was wondering what I need to do to be healed.” And the person said, “well, you need to write a check for this amount and give it to this ministry and Brother Robert will pray over your need and you’ll be healed.” Then my friend said, “Well, there’s a good church down the road here that is struggling. Can I just write the check to them?” And the woman said, “No, it has to be written to this ministry.” That’s not a Christward ministry. That’s a celebrity ministry built for the ego of its founder. By the way, that faith healer ended up in the slammer for fraud! If you feel a prompt to do something, ask yourself, “Is this about getting attention, or is this about Jesus?” And by the way, one way you’ll know is that you’ll feel like you might look like a fool. If there is a chance you’ll look like a fool if you act on it, it may really be from God because God wants us to be willing to look like a fool for Him.
So, if the prompt passes the BCS test. If it’s consistent with the BIBLE, if it will move people closer to CHRIST, and if it’s not SELFISH, here’s my advice to you. Go for it! Take the chance! God blesses people who take risks for Him.

Christmas Hope

2010-12-09T11:15:00.000-08:00

In my last entry, we stood on God's Presence as a solid reason for Hope. Obviously, God becoming Incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ is a magnificent display of God's Presence. Emmanuel, a title given to Christ, literally means "God with Us!" He's with us! And because He's with us, we have hope. But His presence isn't always pleasant. Sometimes God loves us so much He hurts us. The great Bible Teacher, Warren Wiersbe, says God will hurt His own, but He will not harm his own. What does that mean? Well, when Christmas tree farmers grow their trees for the season, they often have to prune them. In other words, they cut off diseased or unnecessary branches in order to grow healthier trees. Sometimes God prunes us.
Listen, God doesn’t just give us His presence and make promises in order to give us a free pass to be stupid and lazy. Hope requires disciplined cooperation with Him. That’s called pruning.
Dr. Rick Warren says the following:
“Pruning involves cutting off not only dead branches but also living ones as well in order to improve the shape of the plant and stimulate growth. Pruning is essential for increased productivity. It’s not optional . . . If you’re going to be productive . . . God will put you through times of pruning. God prunes you for fruitfulness . . . You might struggle to understand why, but the reason is He is preparing you for even greater ministry.”
Jesus says in John 15:2:
"He also prunes every branch that does produce fruit to make it produce more fruit." John 15:2 (GW)
Christmas (or any other season for that matter) can be a time of pruning. So if you’re struggling with hopelessness this season, remember God’s Promises, trust in God’s Presence, and submit to God’s Pruning and you will find hope really does have its reasons! God will produce fruit in your life.

More Hope Reasons

2010-11-04T08:15:00.001-07:00

In my earlier post, we stood on the foundation of God's Promises as our first reason for hope. Another great reason for hope is God's Presence.
God has not abandoned the human race. He sees us and, if we let Him, He’ll see to us. Some time ago, there was a very painful situation in my life. It was excruciating to me and it felt as if every close friend in my life had abandoned me. So one day, I did a Forest Gump and started running. As I ran, I prayed desperately to God for help. After I stopped, I bowed before Him and tearfully put my forehead on the ground. Tears were coming down my face mixed with sweat and grime. But then I felt it--the Presence of the Lord. In that moment, my spirit heard God whisper, “It’s going to be okay Rusty because I’m here with you.” And guess what, He was faithful. Years later, I've found that every whisper from God during that painful period proved to be true. God was with me the whole time and continues to be my greatest source of tangible hope.
Look at what Caleb and Joshua tell a frightened Israel:
" . . . the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them." Num. 14:9 (NIV)
Hope has its reasons because God does not abandon His people! He is with you.

Hope's Reasons

2010-10-15T10:40:00.000-07:00

Rebecca Pippert, in her book entitled Hope Has It’s Reasons asks the question, “Is life merely one long absurd pursuit of things we can never have, or does hope have its reasons?”
Good question. Is hope really something on which to base our lives? Evidence everywhere suggests otherwise. For example, we just ended the bloodiest century in history. The economy is crippled with tremendous debt. Children are shooting each other in our schools. And we are still at war (will it ever end?)!
Someone said, “I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.” Is life just a big joke that we don’t get? Or does hope actually have its reasons?
Well the answer is a resounding “Yes!!!” And there are at least three reasons why. Let me share the first in this post and give the other two later:
1. God’s Promises.
God has never violated a promise, ever! I wish I was like that. I’m a man of my word, but I’m not perfect. Months ago I promised myself that I would lose ten pounds. Guess what. I gained ten!
But God always keeps His promises!
A few of my favorites for His people are:
"The Lord is close to the brokenhearted;
he rescues those who are crushed in spirit."
Psalm 34:18 (NLT)
And Jesus says: [14:1] "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in Me." John 14:1 (NIV)
God’s promises give hope because He always keeps them!

Tithing

2010-09-30T12:06:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, I was challenged by a church member concerning the concept of the tithe. The assertion behind the challenge was, basically, that the tithe was an Old Testament law that is no longer in force with Christians. The following response from me may prove helpful in the discussion: Let me begin by thanking you for attending our church and giving sacrificially to this ministry . . . As for your study of the tithe, you make some good points. However, for me personally (and, I want to be clear, this principle is something I both preach and practice), the fact that the pattern of the tithe preceded the law (as did the pattern of the Sabbath rest), that Jesus reaffirmed it himself in the Gospels (which I consider a post Old Covenant dispensation, otherwise Jesus’ would not have made such radical claims of fulfillment of the law at the time-see John 6:29 where Jesus clearly presents belief in Him as the basis for salvation before He dies and before Pentecost--Some scholars describe the period of the Gospels as sort of an intermediate dispensation with elements of the Law still in force and elements of grace newly in place. I would say that the radical nature of Jesus new commands (ex. Jn 13:34) suggests that from the moment of His birth, a new dispensation occurred), and the clear teaching of the Epistles to give “bountifully” or “generously” (ex. 2 Cor. 9:6) suggests that a tithe is a minimum amount. Paul clearly had this in mind when he uses the pattern of Old Testament tithing as the New Testament pattern of local church support (note the pattern of tithing under the law in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14: “Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? IN THE SAME WAY, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.”). It is true that the Bible does not teach the tithe, it suggests that the tithe is just the beginning of giving. Actually, Jesus wants it all. It is hard for me to fathom one day standing before the King when He says “How did you give for my Kingdom purposes and provide for my Bride with the resources I gave you?” and answering “I gave less than $1 out of every $10 You gave me.” I don’t want to say that at the Judgment seat of Christ. I’d rather say “I gave abundantly.” The overwhelming testimony of the early church fathers (that is, the disciples of the disciples, some of whom sat at the feet of the original 12) is to, at a minimum, tithe. For example, historian Collin Hanson states: “The early church's views on tithing foreshadowed many of today's stewardship debates. The Eastern Church began tithing out of obligation because they believed Jesus' conversation with the rich young man demanded sacrificial generosity. Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus pleaded with the church to surpass even the Old Testament tithe since Christ had freed them from the Law. Later church fathers—John Chrysostom, Cyprian, Origen, and Augustine among them—complained from time to time that their followers lacked Christian charity. Chrysostom even shamed his stingy church for marveling at those who tithed. He contrasted their amazement with the dutiful giving of Old Testament Jews. The early church's expectation that every Christian would tithe found formal expression at the Synod of Mâçon in 585 . . “ Another pastor writes: “Irenaeus, was a disciple of the Apostle John & Polycarp. He wrote that “systems of giving like tithing never ceased to be taught” ...but that the focus was not on "what's the minimum amount the Bible commands us to give." Rather, he writes: “Instead of being taught the tithe, we were taught to give all our possessions...” (See Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-36). Other historical writings show that the Apostles taught tithing as a "starting point" for those whose faith was too weak to give more than 10%.” I think the early church fathers got it right. Certainly God expects His church to be more generous than the Israelites under obligation to the law! (Matthew 5:20: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” ). But, you’re right, it’s your decision and is between you and God. Pray about it and do what God tells you. My job is to teach what I believe fully to be consistent biblical teaching, for which I will give an account before God. Your job is to evaluate said teaching before the Lord and do what He tells you to do. May the Lord bless you brother. Again, thanks for the honor of pastoring you! In Him, Pastor Rusty

Christian Liberty

2010-08-26T09:28:00.000-07:00

"Someone may say, 'I'm allowed to do anything,' but not everything is helpful. I'm allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth." 1 Cor. 10:23 (GW) Recently, I've been engaged in a discussion involving Christian liberty. Questions have revolved around two primary behaviors: the use of alcohol and profanity. Is it permissible for a Christian to drink and cuss? Well, the answer is "it depends." For example, it certainly would not be wrong for a believer to drink actual wine during communion and if, for some reason, a Christian felt led of the Lord to speak a strong word to a persecutor, cursing may be allowed. For example, if a missionary was being murdered by Osama Bin Laden and felt he needed to warn OBL that he was headed for Hell, I doubt anyone would believe it would be wrong for the missionary to say, "Mr. Bin Laden, if you continue this ungodly violence, your soul will be damned." Some could argue that the word "damned" in such a context is a curse word and, yet, is not sinful in that context. I would agree. I also have no problem with a believer partaking in the use of alcohol in certain circumstances (i.e. privately, as a medication--ex. Nyquil, without drunkenness, and apart from settings where it is likely to lead to pain--such as where alcoholics are present or a sinful atmosphere is being promoted). But the bottom line is this: what is wise? In most contexts, the best that can be said of both behaviors is that they are dangerous and clearly lead to sin. This means that people will get hurt. And in many cases, these behaviors are without a doubt sinful in and of themselves. The Bible overwhelmingly condemns cursing because it overwhelmingly is crude and offensive to the ears of a holy God. The Bible also is very clear that drunkenness is a huge problem for hurting people, so why take the chance of drinking with a potential alcoholic in the name of some noble motive? (For example: "I'm going to drink at a bar to reach people for Jesus.") Wayne Grudem, theologian extraordinaire, says the following about profanity (which has obvious implications for drinking):

ESV Ephesians 5:4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude
joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
ESV Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
ESV Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
“Using the words commonly thought to be offensive in the culture seems to me to be sort of the verbal equivalent of not wearing deodorant and having body odor, or of going around with spilled food on our shirts all the time. Someone might argue that not wearing deodorant or wearing dirty clothes are not morally wrong things in themselves, but my response is that they do give needless offense and cause others to think of us as somewhat impure or unclean. So, I think, does using words commonly thought to be ‘obscene’ or ‘offensive’ or ‘vulgar’ in the culture generally. Plus it encourages others to act in the same way. So in that way it brings reproach on the church and the gospel.”
When I was younger, I pushed the limits of these behaviors. My attitude was that I'm a believer and nobody has a right to infringe on my freedoms. So I cussed every now and then and I drank openly. Then some people got hurt. An alcoholic who I drank with continued to struggle with alcohol and almost lost his family. The people I cussed with often engaged in unethical behaviors that hurt many. And I was ashamed. And God convicted me of my reckless attitude. As believers, our goal is to draw others closer to Christ. My freedom or the need to be seen as one of the guys is not worth the substantial risk of hurting others. And it's unnecessary. Ask any football player, construction worker, or sailor which guy they respected the most on their team, at the site, or on their ship and they will usually tell you it was the guy who worked hard, was brave, was not judgmental, and, you guessed it, didn't cuss or go to the bars. Matt. 5:17 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

Got Spirit?

2010-07-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was asked why we don't celebrate the Holy Spirit more. Why do some movements within the Evangelical church not have holidays like Christmas and Easter for the Holy Spirit (i.e. Pentecost)? Let me offer one possible explanation. The Spirit, by His vey nature, tends to shy away from attention. His role in the Trinity is often to magnify the first two persons. I’m not sure He would want a holiday for Himself, although to honor Him is certainly not unbiblical.
An example of the Spirit’s role is seen in Galatians 4:6
“Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who cries out, ‘Abba’, Father.” Note what the Spirit does once He is in our Hearts; He points to the Father and causes intimacy.
But the church universal has different views on this. For example, the Charismatics, in my opinion, tend to focus disproportionately on the Spirit while the“high church” rarely teaches on Him at all. I think there is a balance between the two extremes. Several years ago, I actually took a prayer retreat and spent the entire time talking to the Spirit. I thanked Him for the great work He had done in my life. As Sanders puts it, He is often the "silent Partner" of God's providential movement in our souls. It certainly couldn't hurt to thank Him for such marvelous grace from time to time.

Delightful Openings

2010-07-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

The famous theologian, Henri Nouwen, gave the following insight about discipleship: "The word discipleship and the word discipline are the same word -- that has always fascinated me. Once you have made the choice to say, 'Yes, I want to follow Jesus,' the question is, 'What disciplines will help me remain faithful to that choice?' If we want to be disciples of Jesus, we have to live a disciplined life. By discipline, I do not mean control. If I know the discipline of psychology or of economics, I have a certain control over a body of knowledge. If I discipline my children, I want to have a little control over them. But in the spiritual life, the word discipline means 'the effort to create some space in which God can act.' Discipline means to prevent everything in your life from being filled up. Discipline means that somewhere you're not occupied, and certainly not preoccupied. In the spiritual life, discipline means to create that space in which something can happen that you hadn't planned or counted on."(source: "Moving from Solitude to Community to Ministry" by Henri Nouwen). Although I don't always agree with Nouwen's theology, his understanding of the disciplines is profound. Recently, I found myself in a rut when it came to the daily discipline of what we as evangelicals call "quiet times." For years, I followed a daily Bible reading/prayer program and journaled. These times provided great strength for me as I connected with the Lord. But lately I've found a dullness creeping into the routine. The delight of spending time with my precious Father was being replaced with feelings of drudgery and guilt. Something was missing. So I've shaken things up a little. Since moving to Rockford, I now have a 20 minute commute (40 min roundtrip) daily. I'm using it to have open conversations with God. Instead of instinctively turning on the radio and filling my mind with the latest sports news on "King James," I'm talking to the real King and letting Him into the deepest places . . . the places where there's a little boy afraid of being a grown up, or where there's a wound of the heart that needs the Healer's touch. These prayer times are precious! I can feel Christ engaged with my soul and my delight in Him is awakened. I'm still regularly reading the Word, but these prayer times are lubricating the process with grace and opening my heart to more of the one who makes life work.

New Calling

2010-04-29T17:18:00.000-07:00

It is with great excitement and thankfulness that I have accepted a call to be the new Sr. Pastor of First Evangelical Free Church of Rockford IL (Chicago area). After months of seeking God's will, this past weekend brought with it great clarity as Judi and I visited with this wonderful church and went through the final stages of the search process. As I preached to the congregation, God's anointing was evident as was an immediate sense of connection and love between the congregation and ourselves. We plan on being fully moved and engaged with the church starting June 15. But along with the excitement comes the realization that we will be leaving so many friends at the Bridge and the home we've enjoyed for almost a decade. As with any great move, there will be tears, farewells, and appropriate grieving. I'm reminded of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 20:36, "When he had said this, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. 37They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. 38What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship." There are people in Atlanta that Judi, the kids, and I love as deeply as our own family. It's possible that we will never see some of them again. It's certain that we will not live next to them again. Such good-byes are, I'm convinced, a result of the fall. One day, in Heaven, we will never have to say farewell again. In some mysterious way, I'm positive we will be able to be with any of our loved ones in an instant. In the meantime, however, we struggle with the unsettled nature of this world. We've learned so much from the people of Sugarloaf, Stonemill, and the Bridge. God has taught us through high mountaintops and deep valleys, great accomplishments and youthful mistakes. We've literally grown up here as a ministry family. For this, I will forever be thankful. Atlanta, thanks for everything! God has used you greatly and fruit will be the result for His great glory. Blessings to you!

Transitions

2010-02-01T08:53:00.000-08:00

Now that the people of Stonemill are safely a part of The Bridge (it's estimated that 90% made the transition and attendance is at an all-time high), Judi and I are fully engaged in the search for a new calling. Currently I'm in discussions with six churches, three of which are in the final stages. I preached last month at a wonderful church in Charlotte and will preach on the 14th in Dallas at another. Last week, I worked at the FBC Woodstock Men's Conference for one of the speakers, Dr. Bob Reccord. This week, we begin renovations on our house and will soon put it on the market. To put it mildly, we're in transition.
I've been reading Exodus for my devotionals and have been struck with how many great things happen during transitions. Moses becomes a man of God while he's on "the back side of the desert" watching the sheep of his father-in-law. Can you imagine what it must have been like for the "prince of Egypt" to be reduced to a sheep herder employed by his wife's dad? That's a transition! But that is when God began the process of transforming Moses into a warrior for God that defeated the dominant world power of his day. Transitions can feel like a waste of time. They shake our identities and force us to see life in entirely new perspectives. You think a lot during transitions. Who am I? Where am I going? What am I supposed to be doing? Surely Moses asked these questions as he sheared sheep and stared many a night at the Midian sky. But God was working, putting together an epic plan of redemption that would be THE definitive God-story most recalled from the Old Testament.
If you are in a transition, know that God is using it. Not only is He transitioning your situation, He's transitioning you. In the unseen realms of His providence, you are being changed for His great purposes. Just trust. God's not done. As a matter of fact, He may be just beginning!

HALLOWEEN

2009-10-01T18:20:00.000-07:00

Why do it? There are all sorts of false claims perpetuated about Halloween by Christians—really bad history.

It’s like we get into this weird conspiracy mindset and actually invent history to promote our view.

I’ve heard so many different ideas of the history of Halloween that I don’t know what to believe! Some say it is Satan’s holiday and others show that it has been celebrated as a church holiday used to celebrate the early saints (“All Saints Day”) !

Nevertheless, there is no question that the current celebration of Halloween has a lot of junk associated with it. So, when our kids were all very little, we didn’t participate in it. Instead, we had a special movie night and ate pumpkin pie together.

Now that the kids are getting older, we let them participate as a family witness. For example, we've given out candy with scriptures on them and the kids dressed in fun outfits, not dark ones. Joshua dressed up as a Chik-fil-a cow (I called him a bull!) one year. He was adorable!

I discourage decorating according to dark/evil themes. But pumpkins and fall decorations are appropriate. In other words, don’t celebrate evil in any way. But as long as people are knocking on your door, give them something from the Lord and use it as an evangelism opportunity.

“SUPRA” and “INFRA” LAPSARIANISM

2009-07-04T18:14:00.000-07:00

Supra what? Infra who? Someone once asked me what my view was on supralapsarianism. And why do we care?

Supralapsarianism means “before the lapse of the Garden.” It's the idea that God decreed, even before the Fall, that some would be saved and others lost.

Infralapsarianism means basically that God made his decisions concerning salvation “after the Fall.”

Doesn't seem to be much difference between the two because both still teach that God ordained who is lost and saved. He permitted the Fall in the infralapsariansism view, while He sort of planned the Fall in supralapsarianism. But practically speaking, the results are the same, as are the major objections.

God certainly has the right to decide who will be saved without sacrificing His character. It makes philosophical and logical sense. But (and this is a big but), it doesn't gel well with passages where God shows deep sorrow over the poor decisions of humanity.

Scripture suggests that God in some way suspended His absolute sovereignty to enable real choices in the human race, otherwise it is illogical for Him to weep over the lost (see Luke 13:34)

[34] "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" and Hosea 11:8 " [8] How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart is turned over within Me, All My compassions are kindled."

Why would God's heart be in so much sorrow and why would Jesus long so much for Jerusalem's repentance if it was all decreed before existence? The typical hyper-Calvinist response is that these biblical references are anthropomorphisms and not actual descriptions of God's emotions.

I think that does violence to the Text. At any rate, I think there are probably certain situations where God suspends his sovereignty in some ways (ex. the incarnation itself, the crucifixion, in the realm of prayer--prayer really does move the heart of God, and in some way with the choice to accept or reject Him . . . I do lean toward prevenient grace--the idea that with the cross, the Spirit enabled the world to accept Christ as a real choice, though, technically, even the ability to choose comes from God).

How's that for an answer?

WHY DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE?

2009-07-01T07:47:00.000-07:00

First, let me honest. I don't know why.

But I do know Who. God will make all 'wrongs' right one day. I don't have all the answers, but I know the One who does and rest assured, He will repair all the damage that this fallen world has caused. We will see that whether it's this side of Heaven or the next.

When I was a boy, my father was killed in a tragic car accident. That event caused me tremendous pain and damage. But God has used that damage to make me more insightful as a pastor and more dependent on Him in my spiritual walk. One day, I'll see my father again and all the pain of the incident will be forever gone, so much so it will be as if it never happened. You see, the epic of history is not over yet. We live for such a brief time compared to eternity. One day, we will see God fix it all and we'll understand. Until then, we must trust. And when we need more faith, we are to run to Jesus for it. He may not give us understanding, but He will give us faith . . . and that is so much better!

When the enemy of your soul attacks during a catastrophe, look to God’s Word for protection and grow in faith.

OCCULT

2009-06-30T07:44:00.000-07:00

Recently I received the following request:
The occult, specifically witches, palm readers and spiritualists are common in our community today; please send me some scripture references in this area.

Below one of the strongest references that we can stand on from the Bible:

[9] When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. [10] Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, [11] or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. [12] Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. [13] You must be blameless before the Lord your God.
[14] The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. Deut. 18:9-14 (NIV)

YOU CANNOT OUTGIVE GOD

2009-06-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

A single mother once wrote me that she was "tired of hearing (of) the need to give more money" to the church. She went on to say that she was a faithful tither, so much so that it caused her to sacrifice having the funds to fix her shower that had been out of order. And she was frustrated with others who weren't tithing.

I could relate.

For all of my married life, Judi and I have tithed faithfully as well as given sacrificially above and beyond. These decisions have been tremendous sacrifices for us but the joy that comes from being faithful to our Lord makes it worth it!

The Lord reminds us, "Everything you think you own is really on loan. And everything you give is given back to you at greater value."

I can honestly say that every cent we've given to the Lord has blessed us more than it cost us. Sometimes the blessing is in seeing His provision in other ways (like when He miraculously answers specific prayers). Sometimes the blessing is in the loosened grip materialism has on us, and especially on our children. Materialism can't have power over us when we honor God with our giving! Sometimes the blessing is in the tangible sense that God is smiling. I can actually feel God smiling on me at times because of our giving! Nothing is better than that!!! Sometimes the blessing is the ability to be satisfied with simpler things.

But whatever it is, God always, always gives us back more than we give Him. This is without fail. We have never been able to out-give God!

The Bible repeats this principle over and over again. Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:21).

The truth is that if you aren't giving at least 10% to the Lord, you probably have less than 10% of your heart with Him. And, therefore, your life greatly lacks intimacy with Him (which is one reason you're not living a full life).

As a Pastor, I am compelled to preach the truth as it is written in God's Word. You may not like it and I may not like it, but the truth must be spoken if we are to live life to the fullest. And make no mistake about it; money is not what life is about. God is. But money (and how you use it) can tell you if God is what your life is about!

WHAT’S IN IT FOR GOD? Part 2

2009-06-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

We get hung up when we see “rewards” as opposed to “God’s Glory.” If someone does something for a reward, we assume it must be selfish, self serving & therefore not glorifying to God. But the Bible teaches that godly reward and God’s glory are not mutually exclusive. They flow from each other or, as John Piper puts it, deeds & rewards in God’s kingdom are "organically related.”

In other words when we do something that honors God & are rewarded for it, God is even more glorified when the reward is given because the deed & reward are, by nature, glorifying to God.

For example, you cannot love out of selfish motives, not if it’s pure, biblical love. But we are promised a “reward” for loving (Luke 6:35). You see, God wants us to follow Him not out of duty, & He would rather we follow Him out of more than just obedience. He wants us to follow Him out of delight. And when we do so, we are rewarded with more of Him.

In other words, there are two types of rewards in scripture: pure “reward” flowing from pure motives and sinful “reward” flowing from selfish motives (as in a mercenary doing something good simply to be paid).

Let me give you an example from my wedding anniversary. Let’s say I buy Judi a dozen roses, chocolates & take her out to dinner. While I’m at dinner, she asks me, “Why did you do this?” If I say, “ I did it because I’m supposed to . . . it’s my duty to appreciate you. I must be unselfish.”

How do you think that would make her feel? It would not mean much would it? But if I said, “Because I’m absolutely in love with you & it’s delightful to be your husband!” she would beam. And a pure reward would follow: Deeper love. Pure love leads to the reward of more pure love. And there’s nothing wrong with pursuing that & wanting it. Some rewards are pure & are purely pursued.

One of the rewards of Heaven, the top reward as a matter of fact, is intimacy with God. That is the highest pleasure of Heaven. The rewards of possessions & power also will be organically related to this intimacy.

In other words, the possessions will be pure possessions & have no selfishness attached to them. My bible is a pure possession. I enjoy it because it gives me intimacy with God. Our power, possessions & pleasure will be pure in Heaven. They will stimulate us to the glory of God. C.S. Lewis writes about this in his excellent essay "The Weight of Glory."

Read the following quote carefully because it accurately & profoundly represents biblical truth on this subject. "The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves & to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ, and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire.

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good & earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant & the stoics & is no part of the Christian faith.

Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward & the staggering nature of rewards promised in the gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink & sex & ambition when infinite joy is offered us. Like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

A great, classic book on this topic is John Piper’s "Desiring God." I highly recommend you read it. It will change your life! It did mine!

Check out my first post on this topic What's in it for God? Part 1

WHAT’S IN IT FOR GOD? Part 1

2009-06-20T17:58:00.000-07:00

Someone once asked me: Is it is biblical to not store up treasures on earth, but to store them up in Heaven? Doesn’t this mean to invest in things that have eternal impact such as spreading the gospel, love, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc.?

Yes storing treasures in Heaven or investing in the buried treasure is investing in God’s agenda. Primarily, that agenda is fulfilled through His church (1Tim 3:15). And is carried out through the ministries of the church which include sharing the gospel, love, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc…

If the church is not fulfilling these ministries, God will hold us accountable (which is why churches are called to task in Rev. 1-3). The church is given the responsibility & accountability to carry out God’s agenda for the world. *Side note: the church is the ONLY institution empowered to do so. (The gates of hell shall not prevail against us – Matt 6:18).

In Matthew 13 it seems clear that Jesus is speaking about financially investing in Heaven (ie. monetary giving) because he returns to the topic again in Matthew 19 where it is specifically identified as money.

Now that does not mean that money is the only thing we are to give. We are also to do good works (which, by the way, will also be rewarded in Heaven). But in these particular passages He’s talking primarily about how we financially give/invest in kingdom enterprises.

Yet, our motivation must not be self-serving to the detriment of others. If it is in anyway selfish, it cannot glorify the Lord. It is not, however, inherently selfish to long for a reward. God has wired us to long for rewards and it is He who places them before us. Nowhere in Scripture will you find God against rewards or upset with his children for longing for them.

If it were true that rewards or longing for them were wrong, then it would make no sense for God to say that they are waiting for us as a motivation (for example in Matt 6:4 when Jesus says that the Father will reward secret giving… “Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you”). This is Jesus’ language, not selfish, sin language. God offers rewards & He expects us to be excited about them. He offers rewards as incentives & sees nothing selfish in the pursuit of them.

Check out my next post What's in it for God, Part 2

DO DEMONS WIN?

2009-06-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

A church member once asked me if demons had won the battle for her husband. He passed away after a long fight battling an addiction.

I don’t know if evil won in this case. If the husband had backslid away from God's direction and gave into drugs again, demons may have won that battle. But remember, the war isn't over. Satan does win battles in our lives with, sometimes, deadly consequences. But he loses in the end.

Demons have no power over us after death. And one day, every victory Satan has won will be not only reversed, but obliterated by Christ. There is cause for grieving, but not for despairing.

Eventually, we win in the end. History does have a happy ending!

CAN WE BE SEEN FROM HEAVEN?

2009-06-11T17:53:00.000-07:00

There is biblical evidence that our loved ones in Heaven are aware of our lives on earth. Hebrews 12:1 suggests that the residents of Heaven "witness" our lives. But we are given no biblical right to contact the dead.

GOD’S TIMING IN CALLING PEOPLE HOME

2009-06-09T17:49:00.000-07:00

Why would God choose to call someone home who is doing good for the kingdom here on earth?

I can't answer this question specifically because only God knows why He takes us when He does.

But let me point you in the right direction. The Bible says that God takes people home for a number of reasons. Here are three:

1. To protect them from future pain. In Isaiah, God tells us that sometimes He takes a person to Heaven to spare them the agony of greater pain in life. "The righteous man is taken away from evil. He enters into peace (Isaiah 57:2)."

2. Their job is through. Sometimes God takes people to Heaven because their earthly assignment is over. He had a purpose for their lives on this side of Heaven, and when that has been accomplished, He takes them home.

When the Apostle Paul was at the end of his life, he said, "The time of my departure has come . . . I have finished the course." (2 Tim. 4:6-7).

3. Discipline. Sometimes God takes believers home because they've made such a mess of their lives that He rescues them by taking them to Heaven. Just because someone becomes a Christian doesn't mean they can't make huge mistakes that are deadly.

An example of this is King Saul in the Old Testament: "[13] Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance" 1 Chron. 10:13 (NIV). I have prayed that if I ever fall away from Christ as a Minister, that He would take me home rather than allow me to bring reproach to His Name.

JEHOVAH WITNESS CALLING: Part 4

2009-06-05T17:21:00.000-07:00

The Jehovah's Witness belief behind Christmas and birthdays is a biblical stretch.

Yes, it's true that there has been pagan influences on holidays. But the church spit in Satan's face when it took such holidays away from him. Imagine how angry Satan had to be when Constantine (the Christian Roman emperor) took a pagan holiday (the celebration of the solstice on Dec. 25th) and declared that it would honor Christ from that day forward! That, to me, declares that all holidays are Christ's and will honor Him from now on.

It would be like a Rock star coming to know Christ and using his guitar for worship from now on. To say that Christmas is 'unholy' because there was a pagan ceremony originally, is like saying we can't drink our water because it was once polluted even though it has since been purified (reclaimed).

Or like saying I can't drive my minivan because a dysfunctional family may have owned it before I did. That's ridiculous.

To transform and reclaim something that was wicked into something that celebrates the Lord is at the essence of our faith. We are all sinners saved by grace.

Do we not baptize because of wicked things done in water in our past?
Do we not sing because of wicked songs our vocal chords have sung before?
All throughout history, the nation of Israel celebrated holidays and would even use pagan occasions to proclaim God (look at Elijah with the prophets of Baal).

And why wouldn't we celebrate birthdays? The Bible is full of celebrations when children are born! John the Baptist is celebrated when he is born. Jesus is celebrated at His birth. And Hannah celebrates the birth of her son.

Here's the point. Your faith has substance, true, deep, and profoundly Scriptural substance. Stand on it. Don't be intimidated. And approach the Jehovah Witnesses that cross your path with gentleness and humility. In the end, God will bless you.
Check out the rest of my posts on Jehovah Witness Calling, Part 1,2,&3

JEHOVAH WITNESS CALLING: Part 3

2009-06-01T17:20:00.000-07:00

So many times, the JW's give the impression that they are more biblical than we are. They cite Scripture to support their positions and act like they are more educated and more true to God's Word.

What they don't tell you (and, to be fair, what most JW's don't know) is that there are huge problems in the JW organization and, with just a little research, you'll find that there are huge problems with their theology. Let me give you a few examples:

1. They changed the Bible. Their New World Translation of the Bible has actually altered the text to fit their beliefs.

An example of this is John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
In their translation they wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." They insert the little word "a."

Now, why did they do that? Because they don't believe Jesus (who is "the Word" in this passage) is God. They believe Jesus is the Archangel Michael. So, in order to keep their belief, they changed the Bible!

Now, how can a movement be biblical if it changes the Bible?
They will argue that the Greek has an "a" there. But I've had five semesters of Greek and I can tell you that no Greek scholar in the world would translate this passage like they do.

And that's pretty easy to prove: If you ask a JW to show you the list of Greek scholars and their academic credentials who worked on their translation, you won't get anything. That's because no Greek scholars worked on their translation!

But you can easily find the list of names and credentials for the scholars who worked on legitimate translations like the King James and the New International and the New American Standard and even the Catholic American Standard.

2. They gave false prophecies. The Bible is real clear about any person claiming to be prophetic: if the prophecy doesn't come true, drop them like a hot rock (okay, that's my version of it, but look at Deuteronomy 13:1-4 which says basically the same thing).

JW's hierarchy gave three false prophecies in 1889, 1922, and 1966. In 1889, the Watchtower (JW publication) predicted that the great day of God Almighty from Rev. 16:14 would end (follow me here):

in 1914.
Then they prophesied that it would happen in 1925.
And then they predicted the return of Jesus would happen in 1975

Thousands of JW's sold their homes and gave away their money thinking that the end of the world would happen on these dates. When nothing happened, there was a mass exodus from the organization with many finding out the hard way that the organization was a fraud.

3. They misread Scripture. For example, where on God's green earth are they getting the idea that the three wise men wanted to kill Jesus and that the star was satanic? There is no evidence in Scripture of this at all! It's clear that the wise men were guided by God (just look at Matthew 2:11-12 where the text clearly says they "worshiped Him" and that they were "divinely" guided).

Check out the rest of my posts on Jehovah Witness Calling: Parts 1,2&4

JEHOVAH WITNESS CALLING: Part 2

2009-05-28T17:19:00.000-07:00

Read 2Timothy Chapter 2 again.

Notice the descriptions Paul uses:

kind
able to teach
not resentful
gently instruct
in hope

You will get nowhere if you fall into an emotional quarrel with these folks. When it goes that direction, excuse yourself humbly from the conversation.

As Paul says, "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments."
Why?
"Because they produce quarrels," he says.

But Paul doesn't say we're supposed to abstain from talking about our faith. Talk with them if:

the spirit of the conversation is a true search for truth
someone comes to you & asks, "Why do you believe what you believe?"

You are to be ready to give a solid, biblical, and thoughtful answer. Paul says we're to be "able to teach."

So, do your homework on Jehovah's Witnesses and be prepared to have a civil conversation about your faith.
Check out the rest of my posts on Jehovah Witness Calling, Parts 1,3&4

JEHOVAH WITNESS CALLING: Part 1

2009-05-23T17:17:00.000-07:00

Help! What is this Jehovah Witness thing all about??! Many of us have been caught in the trap of hearing the doorbell ring & answering the door before it hits us “Jehovah Witness calling!” And then it's too late. Here's my advice. Do what 2 Timothy 2 says:

[23] Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. [24] And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. [25] Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, [26] and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2 Tim. 2:23-26 (NIV)

This is a very appropriate passage for us in this situation because the context is dealing with a group of people who hold to very a similar theology as that of JW's. For example, 2 Tim. 2:17-18:

[17] Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [18] who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 2 Tim. 2:17-18 (NIV)

These guys, Hymenaeus and Philetus, believed that the believers' resurrection of the end times had already happened and was only a spiritual resurrection (which means that they logically believed Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual as well).

This is a hallmark of JW theology. The JW's do not believe Jesus rose physically, just spiritually. And Paul strongly rejects this teaching. Jesus was resurrected physically. At any rate, the point is that Paul is dealing with JW-like people in the passage and he gives the advice of 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
Check out the rest of Jehovah Witness Calling, Parts 2,3&4.

ALTAR CALL: Part 3

2009-05-21T15:28:00.000-07:00

We do have an evangelism philosophy. We call it “seed sowing” and “harvesting.” During the year, we have seed sowing events for the community (chilli fiesta, Stonemill 5k, etc, etc). These are designed to serve the community with the love of Christ, no strings attached.

We also have harvesting events where we have an evangelistic presentation and a call for a response (I do this on Sunday mornings about twice a year, also VBS, Youth, and our other ministries in the church offer these).

So, if anyone stays around the church for a while, they will hear the gospel and receive an invitation to respond. The last time I did an altar call, it wasn’t as effective as simply boldly preaching the Word and leaving the drawing up to the Lord.

We do have a place on our communication cards where people can mark that they want to talk about knowing God, which we follow up on individually.

We want to be effective in this area. Altar calls are rarely, if ever, found in the Bible. I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

But there is a lot of evangelism that happens through individuals leading others to the Lord and simply as a natural overflow of great discipleship (check out Acts 2:42-47). The early church gave great spiritual meals of strong biblical teaching and v. 47 says that they gained the favor of the lost in their region and “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” The Lord was the one who saved folks through an ongoing exposure of the Word and worship.

Throughout history, that adding of the lost to the church took the form of altar calls, camp meetings, raising of hands, door to door invitations, small group discussions, promise keeper events, etc, etc.

We’re trying to find the most effective means of evangelism for our community today. We’re still searching and experimenting. Who knows, maybe altar calls will make a come back in our region. I’d love to see them effective again like they were in the earlier half of the last century (God changed the nation through them). That would be great because they’re measurable, public, and encouraging. But this method hasn’t worked as well as other methods have for us in this region.

Please keep praying for us. For now we will continue to have elders available each Sunday after our services to give spiritual counsel and prayer to those seeking.

ALTAR CALL: Part 2

2009-05-18T14:54:00.000-07:00

Check out my last post for Part 1 on Altar Call.

There is another reason we don’t do altar calls a lot. And that is what we consider our ultimate philosophy for our Sunday morning worship services.

We believe that our audience is not the seeker or the believer.

We believe the audience is God.

Our services are 'worship services' designed to please Him. Our primary goal is to make Him the focus. Worship in the OT or NT was not primarily evangelistic, but sacrificial. In the OT, it involved actual sacrifices to please God. In the NT, it involved the sacrifices of praise through the proclamation of God’s Word and the fruit of worship (“worship” meaning to “recognize God’s worth”).

Also, we’ve found that altar calls in this area are not that effective at leading to “true conversions.” Often, people will walk the aisle out of emotion or a need for attention or some other less-than-authentic reason. When I was growing up, people would walk the aisle every week, often the same people! It became a rote part of the service and these “conversions” didn’t seem to stick. These folks would often walk the aisle but not make Christ their Lord. They were “converts” but not disciples and not a fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Now, having said all this, know that we’re constantly evaluating our services and ministries.

Check out my next posting for the final part of "Altar Call".

ALTAR CALL: Part 1

2009-05-13T08:15:00.000-07:00

I was once asked why we have no altar call at Stonemill Church?

A good question I get from time to time. Let me expound: I grew up in a S. Baptist church in southern Louisiana and every Sunday we had an altar call with “Just As I Am” playing in the background. I have very fond memories of people walking to the front and giving their lives to the Lord, so I want you to know I’m not opposed to altar calls at all. I have done them during our services at Stonemill from time to time.

But here’s the reason we don’t do one every Sunday (and, by the way, this isn’t a criticism of churches that do . . . it’s just what we believe God has called us to do).

One of the great needs of this region is biblical depth. I have found that the average person attending Stonemill is illiterate concerning the Word of God. So, one of my primary hopes in the service is to expose people to the magnificence of God’s Word and give them an encounter with the Lord. The Bible says that worship services should be places where the entire Word is preached so that it will penetrate the hearts and minds of those who hear it:

[2] preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 2 Tim. 4:2 (NASB)

[12] For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 (NIV)

So, one of our main goals is to expose everyone that comes, not just the lost, to God’s Word plus sincere worship and make way for the Spirit of God and the Father to use the Bible to draw folks to Himself

[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 (KJV)

[8] The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." John 3:8 (NIV)

I guess what I’m saying is that we believe that evangelism is a natural overflow of discipleship. In the great commission, we’re told to make disciples, not just converts.

[19] Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

We don’t believe a person’s salvation depends on an altar call. We believe it depends on the Spirit of God drawing people to Himself via the preaching of the Word, worship, discipleship, and direct encounters with Him.

Check out my next post on Altar Call: Part 2

ARE YOU A “SPEAK WORDS OF LIFE” OR “DESTRUCTION” KIND OF PERSON?

2009-05-09T08:14:00.000-07:00

I can be both of these, depending on the day.

Proverbs 13:2-3
From the fruit of his lips a man enjoys good things, but the unfaithful have a craving for violence. He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin.

The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about how the things we speak affect our lives. The first part of verse 2 says that good will come to us by the things we speak. Gracious words will bring favor to those who speak them, while an evil, disrespectful mouth will produce the opposite.

We all like to be around people who are kind and considerate, while we try to avoid those who speak rudely and crudely. Words are creative. Good words create an atmosphere of love. On the other hand, evil words create the opposite kind of environment; one that is offensive. God Himself, created the world by the words that He spoke. In the beginning He spoke and it was so. Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

If we speak the things that the Bible declares are true, we will be agreeing with God's Word, and by so doing we will create an atmosphere where faith can rise in our hearts.

However, if we speak doubt and unbelief, it will destroy our faith. What comes out of our mouths reveals what is in our hearts. Therefore, if we find things coming out of our mouths that are not edifying, we should repent, and ask God to cleanse our hearts.

Things just do not accidentally come out of our mouths. Those things were in our hearts, even though we might not have been aware of them. Words of evil -- such as jealousy, lying, gossip, fear, doubt, hatred, resentment, pride, selfishness, etc. reveal those very things in our own hearts. We all, at times, slip and say things that we wished we had not said. Each time we correct our speech and repent for those kinds of things, we will find that soon good things will be coming out more abundantly than evil things.

If we align our words with the Word of God we shall be blessed, however if we just allow anything to come out of our mouths, verse 3 in Proverbs 13 tells us that it will cause us ruin. We must guard our mouths and not allow the devil to use our mouths to speak evil things that bring destruction on us and others.

We can be cursing others by speaking wrong things against them or about them. I am asking God to help me keep my mouth from saying wrong things like David did in Psalms. “Set a guard over my mouth, O LORD; keep watch over the door of my lips.”

DIVORCE

2009-05-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

Is divorce biblical? The answer to this has been debated relentlessly. On a blog such as this, I won't attempt to give a 'final answer' to such a question. But rather, if you find yourself in a tough marriage, begin with these questions.

First of all, I'd have to ask “why the divorce”?
Has there been an affair by the husband or wife?
Is the affair continuing?
Have there been attempts to work out the marriage fervently with the guidance of professionals in the field?

If the spouse has been unfaithful repeatedly, a divorce may be permitted according to Scripture.

But more importantly, I would love the chance to work with you and your spouse to see what the Lord has for you both. You can contact me through this blog.

SUICIDE

2009-05-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

The idea that suicide prevents someone from going to Heaven is not a biblical one. The issue is whether a person ever accepted Christ as his/her Savior. If so, nothing can take that salvation away because it's not given based on merit, but on grace. So, we are assured that those who know Christ as their Savior do not “disqualify” themselves from Heaven, nor do we worry about suicide being the unpardonable sin.

Do you grieve for someone that has taken their own life? Well, you need not worry about God's heart for that person. God loves people infinitely more than we can imagine. But I will say this: Suicide is NOT PLEASING TO GOD. I want God to smile when I get to Heaven, not have some 'splainin to do!!!

FRUSTRATION: Part 2

2009-04-28T08:08:00.000-07:00

Our Protection from Frustration: Joy in a Huge God.

Take a look at verses 1:5 and 3:17-19. God says:

“5. The Lord replied, ‘Look at the nations and be amazed! Watch and be astounded at what I will do! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it.” (Hab 1:5. NLT)

God says, “Trust me. You can’t understand what I’m up to, but trust me and find joy in that.” And Habakkuk does trust him and gives us this remarkable psalm of praise in 3:17-19. “Even though the fig trees have no blossoms, and there are no grapes on the vine; even though the olive crop fails, and the fields lie empty and barren; even though the flocks die in the fields, and the cattle barns are empty; 18. yet I will rejoice in the Lord! I will be joyful in the God of my salvation. 19. The Sovereign Lord is my strength! He will make me as surefooted as a deer and bring me safely over the mountains.” (Habakkuk 3:17-19. NLT)

Habakkuk says, “Look, even if every resource in my nation, the crops, the cattle, the entire way of life . . . even if all of that is wiped out, I’m making a decision to trust the Sovereign Lord with my future. And I will rejoice in the fact that no matter what, we win in the end.

FRUSTRATION: Part 1

2009-04-24T08:06:00.000-07:00

Frustration is a feeling of anxious helplessness. It’s that terrible feeling you have when you want to change things but you can’t. Have you been frustrated by tragedy? I have. Every time I replay it in my mind, I want to reverse time so that it never happened. But I can’t, and it’s frustrating.

The ancient prophet, Habakkuk, had the same feeling. He lived in a country that God had prospered known as Judah. But the country had become corrupt. In response, God told Habakkuk that he was raising up the Babylonians to conquer the country. Habakkuk felt helpless. On the one hand, he was frustrated with his country because it had become so evil. On the other hand, he knew the Babylonians were worse and would do terrible things to his people. He was between a rock and a hard place and you can almost touch his frustration when he talks to God. Take a look at Hab. 1:2-3. He says:

“How long, O Lord, must I call for help? But you do not listen! ‘Violence!’ I cry, but you do not come to save. 3. Must I forever see this sin and misery all around me? Wherever I look, I see destruction and violence. I am surrounded by people who love to argue and fight.” (Habakkuk 1:2-3. NLT)

That’s his own country. Then he points out what’s going to happen:

“14. Are we but fish to be caught and killed? Are we but creeping things that have no leader to defend them from their enemies? 15. Must we be strung up on their hooks and dragged out in their nets while they rejoice? 16. Then they will worship their nets and burn incense in front of them. ‘These nets are the gods who have made us rich!’ they will claim. 17. Will you let them get away with this forever?” (Habakkuk 1:14-16. NLT)

Can you hear his frustration? He feels horribly helpless. But God answers him and gives him protection from frustration. The Lord reminds Habakkuk how big He is and that he can trust Him to work all things out at the end. In other words, God reminds Habakkuk to have joy in his huge God even when things are frustrating.

Check out my next post for Our Protection from Frustration

FALLING AWAY

2009-04-20T08:02:00.000-07:00

When tragedy hits, it’s easy to run to temptation for escape. Some, in the face of tragedy, are so full of pain that they turn to anything to numb the ache. People turn to, among other things:

alcohol
drugs
sexual immorality
over-eating

But the problem with this is that it only adds misery to misery. Sin can’t deliver in times of real hardship. It’s not solid enough.

Job struggled with this tendency. We all know that Job experienced pain greater than most. He was a rich man with 10 children, 7 sons and 3 daughters. In an instant, his estate was looted by terrorists, his children were killed in a catastrophe, and he was struck with a skin disease that produced terribly painful boils. Yet he had done nothing to deserve all of this.

He was a good man. But in his pain, he became tempted to turn away from God to sin. A friend of his, the only friend of his who actually gave him solid advice, says to him in Job 35:21:

“Beware of turning to evil, which you seem to prefer to affliction.” (Job 35:21)

And then he tells Job how to protect himself by telling him to audit sin’s cost. If we want to protect ourselves from escaping to sin, we need to audit sin’s cost.

Our Protection: An Audit of Sin’s Cost. Take a look at verses 5-8.

“5. Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. 6. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? 7. If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? 8. Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men.” (Job 35:5-8)

Job’s friend is telling him, basically, that if he sins he’ll only add misery to misery in his life and in the lives of others. Sin messes up the mess even more and messes up others in the process.

PRAYER IN TRAGEDY

2009-04-18T07:55:00.000-07:00

The Apostle Paul was so persecuted and so beaten down by his adversaries that he felt like quitting. The tragedy in his life was overwhelming. I know some of you have dealt with terrible tragedies in your life. You’ve already walked through a lifetime’s worth of pain. And then the other shoe drops. Your loved one gets ill. Your kid joins a cult …You lose your home and net worth. …Our economy & our government go full tilt! It makes you want to give up. That’s the way Paul felt in 1 Cor. 1:8-9. Take a look:

“We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. 9. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death.” (2 Corinthians 1:8-9a)

Paul talks about a time where tragedy broke him. It was beyond his ability to endure. And he says that he despaired and felt as if he had been sentenced to death. But he doesn’t stop there. He also describes his protection against this devastating enemy of despair. The protection is: prayer to a reliable God. Take a look at vv. 9-11:

“9b. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead . . . 10. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11. as you help us by your prayers.” (2 Corinthians 1:9b-11)

Paul says that all of the tragedy had an effect on him. It brought him to the end of himself so he had to rely on the supernatural power of God. And the vehicle he used to tap into that power was what? Prayer! Look at v. 11, he received God’s help through the prayers of his congregation.

We need to be praying during these times. If you feel like you can’t make it, call someone up who knows God and pray with them. Pray, pray, pray!!! Prayer feeds your faith and protects you from despair. If you’re struggling with despair, fight it off with prayer! Fight despair with prayer!!!

FEAR: Part 3

2009-04-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

Jesus says:
“If you don’t know Me, if you are not a Christian and don’t have a personal relationship with Me that acknowledges Me before men as God, you have something far worse to fear than the death of your body, you have the fear of Hell to worry about. You’re to be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell.” He’s talking about God the Father.

Are you sure you’re going to Heaven when you die? If you don’t know your Maker, the Bible says you need to make a decision right now to know Him. Because the truth of the matter is that if you don’t, you’re going to a place that has a lot more heat than a flaming building. If you do know the Lord, the death of your body is just a doorway into God’s house.

If you’re afraid and you’re a Christian, stand strong. If you’re right with God, nothing can touch you that is out of His hands and every pain that you feel in this world will be turned into joy in the next. That’s as sure as the fact that there is a God in Heaven.

If you’re not a Christian, I appeal to you to accept Jesus Christ right now as your Savior and be released from the fear of death. The Bible says the fear of death is slavery. Make a decision to accept Jesus as your Savior. Believe that He was and is God and that He paid for your sins on the cross, confess that you’re a sinner, and ask for His forgiveness.

FEAR: Part 2

2009-04-09T07:51:00.000-07:00

Our Protection: A Personal Relationship with a heavenly God.

“28. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32. Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in Heaven. 33. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in Heaven.” (Matthew 10:28-33)

Jesus lists two fears in this passage.

One is de-fanged and one is sharpened. The de-fanged fear is found in verses 29-32. Here he says,

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32. Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in Heaven.”

Jesus is saying here that if you’re a person who acknowledges Him before other people, in other words, if you’re an obvious Christian, your life is in God’s hands. Nothing can kill you unless God wants it to. And if something or someone does kill you, it just means your job on Earth is over and you’re going to Heaven.

Every single Christian who has a real relationship with God in those WTC buildings died exactly when and where God wanted them to. Their deaths did not surprise Him and they’re not grieving their deaths now. They’re in Heaven with Him. If you’re a Christian this morning and your children are Christians, and if you’re living a life for Him and are close to Him, there is nothing that can happen to you that isn’t a part of God’s perfect plan for your life and that He won’t use some day for absolutely good purposes. If you are close to God, it is impossible for you to die in vain. God promises this over and over again in His word. So, you have nothing to fear. The wolf is defanged. He really has no ultimate power over you.

But there is another fear in the passage that Jesus doesn’t de-fang. And that’s the fear of the afterlife for those who don’t know Him. Take a look at v. 28. He says, “28. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell”

Check out the 3rd part of this topic on my next post.

FEAR: Part 1

2009-04-03T07:49:00.000-07:00

Fear is one of the first things that strike’s our hearts when tragedy occurs, especially if the tragedy is an act of terrorism. Its very design is to spread terror.

It may cause you to have more fearful thoughts: What if terrorists get their hands on a nuclear bomb or learn chemical warfare? Will my life end in a ball of flames one day? And what about our children, are they really safe in the environment we are creating for them? Some of you may be worried about the end times. You fear that the end of the world is approaching. And everything stable and safe in your life suddenly feels frail and insecure.

Jesus talked about these fears when He sent his disciples out in the world to do ministry on His behalf. He recognized the evil in the world and talked to his followers about it in Matthew 10:16. Take a look:

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.” (Matthew 10:16)

There are wicked elements of this fallen world that that can best be described as ravenous, blood thirsty beasts bent on consuming goodness. But Jesus doesn’t leave us hanging. As our shepherd, he defangs the wolf in verse 26 where he says:

“ . . . do not be afraid of them.” (Matthew 10:26)

Jesus says, “don’t be afraid of the big, bad wolf.” And as you read it, you think, “Why not? Why shouldn’t I be afraid of him? He can kill me with those big teeth and razor claws. His jaws just bit our largest building in the world in half and a bunch of sheep died. Why shouldn’t I be afraid, Jesus?” And Jesus answers, “You don’t have to be afraid because I’ve offered you protection. And that protection is a personal relationship with a heavenly God. A personal relationship with the Almighty heavenly God of all creation defangs the wolf. Take a look at vv. 28-33.

Check out my next post about "Our Protection"

WHY THE NAPKIN FOLDING?

2009-04-01T17:56:00.000-07:00

John (20:6-7) Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Why did Jesus fold the napkin at the tomb? No one knows for sure. The Lord could have done it to show that His body had not been stolen, as some officials would later claim. Thieves would not take the time to fold His burial cloth." (This is my humble Rusty view)

Regardless of the reason, it meant something or John wouldn't have noted it. One thing is for sure, it proved Jesus rose again.

ECONOMY GOT YOU DOWN? Part 2

2009-03-21T18:09:00.000-07:00

A friend shared with me she had just finished reading a book called “The One Thing You Can’t Do in Heaven.” She noted that the author was a “bit over-the-top by human standards”, but he was a modern day Paul.

The quote she shared with me was very inspiring & I want to share it with you. It is called “Fellowship of the Unashamed”:

I am part of the “Fellowship of the Unashamed.” The die has been cast. I have stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I won’t look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, and my future is secure.

I’m finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tame visions, mundane talking, cheap giving, and dwarfed goals.

My pace is set, my gait is fast, my goal is Heaven, my road is narrow, my way is rough, my companions few, my Guide reliable, my mission clear.

I won’t give up, back up, let up or shut up until I’ve preached up prayed up, paid up, stored up, and stayed up for the cause of Christ. I must go until He returns, give until I drop, preach until all know, and work until He comes.

And when He comes to get His own, He will have no problem recognizing me.
My colors will be clear. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Rom. 1:16

She remarked “What a place this would be if Christians actually lived like this?”

Well I challenge you- why not live like this? Live out loud the calling God has placed in your heart. After all, doesn’t change begin with you?

Check out the first part of this post Economy Got You Down? Part 1

ECONOMY GOT YOU DOWN? Part 1

2009-03-21T18:07:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was reading in my devotional time and I was reminded of a very encouraging passage in Matthew 17.

Peter is asked for tax money by some officials. What's interesting is that the disciples had very little. Often, we see them with only the clothes on their backs wandering from town to town following their seemingly poor Lord. Where would they get the money? How could a group of rag-tag fisherman without two nickels meet this bill?

Well, Jesus tells Peter to do something unusual. He tells Peter to go fishing and the first fish Peter catches has money in its mouth. That money pays their bills! Jesus answers the need with a miracle!

As I talk to other Pastors, a theme is clear across the country: Churches are struggling financially. One prominent Pastor I talked to recently shared that his church is hundreds of thousands of dollars behind in their giving. Two days ago, I heard of another church laying off four of its Pastors due to low finances. Times are hard for everyone. People are not able to give like they could in the past. The downturn in the economy has caused us to turn down ministry opportunities.

But here's the good news. God is still our Leader. Throughout history, the Church, more than any other institution, has shown remarkable resilience. As a matter of fact, the Church often is at its best during hardship because hardship forces us to rely on God more. Difficulties remind us that all comfort, all prosperity, all that we hold dear comes from one source, Jesus Christ.

Check out the rest of this post in Economy Got You Down? Part 2

Why Blog?

2009-03-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone! Welcome to my blog.

To be honest with you, I didn't want to have one. First of all, I find it difficult to believe that people would want to take the time to read it. Why read a blog by your's truly when there are so many more worthy writings out there? I'd rather read C.S. Lewis than R.B. Hayes any day!

I also didn't think I could keep up with another responsibility. Four kids, a growing church, attending the grand opening of my garage door . . . life is busy!

But my staff convinced me that people may want to know me more and might actually read this thing. And my outstanding assistant, Sheila Long, pointed out that numerous questions have come across my email account that represent real questions on the hearts of so many. For years, she has kept files on my pastoral responses to such questions.

So, as a start, the following blog contains a collection of topics based on snippets of email discussions between a pastor and his congregation. I offer it as a beginning. As my blogging skills grow, I'll add to this body of information with journal entries, random thoughts, poetry, pictures, and whatever else I can think of. Hopefully, you'll be blessed and God will be glorified.

Thanks for your interest and Happy Reading!
Grace,
Rusty