tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34438138390147943152024-02-08T07:11:38.693-05:00Still TodayBut exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Hebrews 3:13 ESVAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-20240284846144051462012-10-16T13:05:00.001-04:002012-10-16T13:06:01.475-04:00A Modernist Philosophy in a Post Modern Society<h2>
Introduction to Modernism</h2>
<br />
In the 19th century all across Europe a new philosophy crept into the halls of learning which has beforehand been dominated by Bible trained scholars. This new philosophy was unabashed in its challenge to the Bible. Indeed, the Bible seemed to be its principal target. Critics became the new intellectual elite. And as industrialization combined with the age of steel and the age of the locomotive and steam, scholars across Europe and even America adopted a new optimism that science and man could solve all the problems of man.<br />
<br />
The war that swept across Europe in the first decades of the 20th century seemingly killed this optimism and even the philosophy resulting in a new take on mankind and its potential. This new philosophy would become known in part as post-modernism. The shift was perceptible in more areas than the classrooms of the university. Professors could no longer say with a straight face that mankind can solve all its own problems by rejecting the old out-dated and out-moded fears created in religion and nurtured by superstition and instead embracing pure logic and science. The horrors of the world war were memorialized in film and could not as easily be forgotten as wars past. Further, the atrocities of war were only amplified by science and logic and the rejection of religion.<br />
<br />
Science had contributed to the unheard of death toll by the development of mustard gas, the tank, death from above in airplanes, phosphorus rounds and encased munitions capable of lobbying rounds 30 or 40 miles away. Logic had contributed by the use of Ford’s assembly line to mass produce munitions and the machines of war. Rejecting religion had produced a war that had no regard for the unique reflection of God in man - human life was completely disregarded. War always produced mass casualties, but without religion war took on an even more beastly tone. There was no refuge in the church, no honor among combatants, no regard for historic monuments and ancient buildings. There was no solace in defeating evil for evil was only a perspective.<br />
<h2>
Enter Post Modernism</h2>
<div>
<div>
Post modernism was at least honest in its recognition that modernism had failed to produce a solution to the problem of man. But post-modernism, like modernism failed to produce a better solution because it failed in a singular point. Once you reject Scripture, you have to redefine the problem of man. Scripture defined the problem as sin. Modernism defined the problem as oppression by religion and ignorance. Post-modernism would redefine the problem as well. Unlike modernism there was less clarity in the definition. It would include inequality, racism sexism, nationalism, and a few other -isms. But the core concept was that the problem was a lot of things other than sin.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Post-moderism produced another world war, nuclear war, a cold war, and more economic disparity than had ever existed anywhere. There were no solutions because all the efforts and energies were being focused to the wrong problem.</div>
</div>
<h2>
Enter a Billion Hungry People and the Solution</h2>
<div>
<div>
Today I received an email from a friend with the following statement:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!</i></blockquote>
<div>
It occurs to me that this is a return to modernism. The problem in the statement above is hunger, thirst and clothing. The solution is people. This is an extraordinary statement. Consider if we just change a couple words:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. <u>We have</u> the answer ... Us!</i></blockquote>
<div>
It would not surprise me if the vast majority of atheists in the world would agree with the second statement. And nothing has changed in the presentment of the problem or the answer. The only thing that changed was an innocuous statement placed in the middle which is almost unnecessary. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I changed the two words “Jesus sent” to “We have” to illustrate what the statement above states. The solution in both cases is human effort. The problem in both cases is human experience.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Consider this message as opposed to Scripture:</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”<br />
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness,wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1: 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.</blockquote>
Here we note that the problem is not defined in Scripture as homelessness, hunger, thirst or economic disparity. You could easily make the argument that hunger, thirst and economic disparity are results of the problem - but they are not the problem. Human depravity in heart and mind and psyche is the problem.<br />
<br />
So the statement forwarded to me by my friend is deficient in stating the problem. How well does the statement present the solution? Again, as someone who believes in the authority of Scripture, let’s go to Scripture for the solution:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1 John 2:1 (My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. 2 ) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
From the Scripture above, the solution to sin is not us. The solution is Jesus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let’s revisit the seemingly “Christian” statement my friend forwarded me:</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
After consulting Scripture we can see that not only is this statement not “Christian” but it is not even true. The problem is misstated and the solution is directed from the savior to us. It brings to mind Romans 1:25 “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Who is the solution to the “Christian” statement? US! The creation! The creation is being worshipped for it’s power. Who sends the solution in the statement? Jesus! But who sends the solution in Scripture? John 3:16 reveals that God the Father sends the Son. So, let’s revise completely the statement to make it comport with truth - with Scripture:</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Today Billions of people are given over in the desires of their hearts to impurity. They dishonor their bodies among themselves. They continually exchange the truth of God for a modernist and/or post-modernist lie! Remarkably, they worship and serve the creation - man and his power through government and program and charitable organizations rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! These billions are given over to dishonorable passions which they don't even know are dishonorable! Billions and billions are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. God has sent the solution - Jesus! For more information on how Jesus is the solution, see Scripture!</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Compare again to the original statement the contrast is apparent:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div>
Consider this, the shorter statement may easily be made by the following people:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Atheist</li>
<li>Hindu</li>
<li>Secularist</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
How can that be you ask? The first person doesn’t believe Christ is deity, but believes in the power of mankind to solve problems. However, hunger, thirst, etc.. are problems. If Jesus teaches that mankind can overcome his own problems - and hunger and thirst are the extent of those problems, then Jesus has taught the solution and thus given/sent the answer. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second person doesn't believe Christ is deity either, but like the atheist, the Hindu believes in the power of positive thinking and good karma. If Jesus teaches positive teaching - which according to Gandhi is the sum of Jesus’ message - then Jesus sent us the answer - US!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The third person doesn't care whether Christ is deity or not, but as a secularist, they believe that the ultimate solution for man’s problems is man. If Jesus teaches us to do good things, if Jesus is limited to a good teacher teaching positive things, then that person will agree with the statement as well.</div>
</div>
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
The conclusion is that the statement is a modernist view of the world crouched in a poor attempt to be a Christian statement. It fails as a Christian statement because it presents neither the problem nor the solution. This indeed is using the name of Christ in a vain attempt. It’s a modernist statement in that the problem ignores any spiritual element and denies the solution originating from any source other than mankind.</div>
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-29406363316872351852012-10-16T12:50:00.001-04:002012-10-16T12:55:51.797-04:007 Requisites for FreedomIt has been said that men have the freedom to choose, the freedom of the will. Particularly, this has been applied to the matter of salvation within the context of Protestant Christianity. In examining the action of man's free will, it occurs to me that the following 7 precursor requirements must be met, and be met by someone OTHER than the decision maker, before their will can be exercised freely and effectually:<br />
<h2>
Life</h2>
The decision maker must be alive. Dead people don't make decisions for God, they don't choose anything relative to this life.<br /><h2>
Consciousness</h2>
The decision maker must be conscious. Unconscious people are alive, and therefore better off than a dead person, but they still cannot make a decision or effect their "free" will, as they are unconscious. We don't decide on ice cream flavors, or when we'll leave for work, or who we'll marry while we're in a comma. Decision making - exercising "free" will requires us to be conscious - and like being alive - it is substantially beyond our own powers to make ourselves conscious. We don't decide one day to be alive (although we can decide to continue in that state) and we don't decide one day to be conscious (and we have less power over that continued state than we do living)<br /><h2>
Awareness</h2>
The decision maker must be conscious of the decision to be made - they must be aware. One can be alive, conscious and living in Iran and be completely unaware that a court in the US is awaiting their decision on whether to exercise their rights pursuant to a codicil in their great aunt's last will and testament. They have a few elements necessary to exercise their "free" will, but not enough - they lack awareness that a decision is required. Like life and consciousness, awareness is also something which the decision maker is completely powerless to generate. The decision maker cannot get awareness on their own - some one else must of necessity intervene to provide the awareness.<br /><h2>
Information</h2>
The decision maker must have information concerning the decision - its particulars, its parameters, its nature, what the decision requires, what the decision allows, what the entirety of the decision is. Receiving a letter from the Estate's Executor noting that the court is awaiting the decision of the beneficiary is insufficient for the decision maker. Indeed, the decision maker is now frustrated and the bubbling up of emotions contrary to the decision maker's will is evidence that the decision maker is now cognizant of his or her inability to fulfill the decision and possibly to miss out on the inheritance. He - the decision maker - needs more, and he - the decision maker - is incapable of meeting his own need. He must of necessity seek out the assistance of another - someone from whom the necessary information may be obtained. He is entirely dependent upon this other person. His "free" will is a slave to the whims of the information giver - to the life giver - to the consciousness giver - to the awareness giver.<br /><h2>
Comprehension</h2>
The decision maker must have appropriate comprehension of the decision - it is insufficient that one receive the information if one doesn't comprehend and understand the information. If the explanation is in Swahili and I don't speak Swahili, I have the information but it is incomprehensible. Again, the decision maker is entirely dependent upon another for the necessary comprehension of the details of the decision and what the decision requires. Without sufficient comprehension, the decision maker's success in making the correct decision is entirely a matter of chance.<br /><h2>
Appetite</h2>
The decision maker must have an appetite for decision - a desire to decide - an inward favor towards making the decision. Assuming the decision maker is alive, conscious, aware of the decision, has obtained the requisite information and comprehends the nature of the decision - he or she must still have an innate desire to decide. This is no small matter. Psychologist have for centuries noted the inability to decide in certain circumstances among certain people. Put them in the seat of a bus driver with 10 seriously disabled children who will never recover on board the bus driving down a road in the Amazon jungle and coming around the corner where precisely in the middle of the road is a parade of 40 young nuns dedicated to feeding the starving villagers around the area - they cannot swerve to the right - an embankment will throw them back into the middle of the road - the brakes are useless on this incline, to the left is a 1000 foot precipice. They must decide - 10 innocent but permanently and lifelong disabled youth who will never contribute to society or 40 active, young nuns particularly useful to society... etc. etc. you get the idea - some people freeze and they cannot decide because they lack the desire to decide. Their "free" will is held captive to an emotional need to avoid the pain and consequences their decision will invariably produce. This is not hypothetical either. Many people live decades with a close family member in bondage to sin - never saying anything that will produce conflict because their emotional need for peace prevents them from either approving or disapproving of the family member's life choices. To decide, one must have sufficient desire to enter into the decision process, and that is not something that can be taken for granted, nor something that can be produced sufficiently by the decision maker. You either have the appetite for the decision or you don't. Sure, something may happen along the line to cure your refrain, but the decision maker is in bondage to their own appetites - their "free" will is a slave to their desires.<br /><h2>
Capacity</h2>
The decision maker must have the capacity to decide. It is insufficient to pretend to decide something when one does not have the capacity to actually decide. One may, for example, be alive, conscious, aware with sufficient information and comprehension that they are being asked to fly or not fly - and they deeply desire to decide. But their capacity has already answered the decision. No matter what their "free" will might suggest, their nature and capacity prevents them from flapping their arms and taking flight (unless the decision maker is a bird, in which case, that bird has more "FREE" will than a human). The decision maker is entirely dependent upon another - the one who provides capacity. This is so often taken for granted. We're asked to decide whom to marry - but if we're 6 our decision is ineffectual as the law prevents us from marrying here in the US. If we are 26 and we decide to marry, we may deceive ourselves that the decision was all ours, but marriage takes the consent of another.<br />
<br /> Marriage Example Consider for a moment the 26 year old who marries. They believe in their mind that they have exercised their free will, but in reality here's the credit for the decision:<br />
<ol>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old life - after all, dead people don't get married</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old consciousness - after all, unconscious people may not enter into marriage</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old awareness - after all, you may not marry someone if you're unaware that marriage is an option</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old the information - after all, you may not marry someone if you don't know how to marry, the process, the institution, what it requires, the ceremony, etc...</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old the comprehension - after all, in most states, you may not marry someone if you don't understand and comprehend marriage. If you're of so simple mind that the idea of marriage escapes your comprehension, you may not marry - in order to give your informed and meaningful consent, you must comprehend the implications of the decision - the nature of the institution - the identity of the other partner, etc. etc.</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old the desire - after all, not everyone desires to be married. This desire is hidden within their heart and while external factors give rise to the desire and appetite for marriage, nothing intrinsic to the decision maker can give life to that appetite in and of itself</li>
<li>God for giving the 26 year old the capacity and the power to be married. If one attempts to marry a dog - they will lack the power to do so. If (in Texas or Missouri or a few other sane states) one attempts to marry another of their same gender, they will lack the power to do so. This power comes from without - from their maker. They cannot obtain unto the power themselves.</li>
</ol>
So lastly, the decision maker arrives at the alter, looks across at his bride (in the case of a Christian - across at the bridegroom - the very one who initiated everything - from life, to consciousness, to awareness, to information, to comprehension, to desire, to power, to the proposal itself) and pretends that the decision is one of their "free" will. Remarkably, this person looking across the aisle at God and gives himself credit instead of God.<br /><h2>
Review and Conclusion Let's review - here's what I did:</h2>
<ol>
<li>decide</li>
</ol>
Here's what God did:<br /><ol>
<li>give me life (Psalm 139) before new life in Christ I am dead in my trespasses</li>
<li>give me consciousness - more than alive, I am now no longer a sleeper, but awakened by the Spirit</li>
<li>give me awareness - more than alive and awake, I now hear - and have become aware of a Savior, and a desperate death in my own life - I am the Pilgrim who has read the book and learned I am unwilling to die and go to judgment, unable to face the judgment and wrath to come - unable to face my maker</li>
<li>give me information - the Gospel has now been shared with me - unlike 90+% of humanity that never and will never hear the Gospel, I have heard and that by the Gospel - information as to the requisite for repentance has come to my attention</li>
<li>give me comprehension - but more than information, I now have comprehension - the dead in the world do not understand the things of the spirit - for they are of the flesh - but I have been become born again, and received the spirit and now I understand and comprehend the things of the Spirit</li>
<li>give me desire - where before I loved sin and my master the devil, now my desires have been changed - suddenly I want to do something I cannot do, I hate doing the things I'm doing - my desires have changed, have become new - I am a new creation</li>
<li>give me power - and according to Romans 8:1 I now have the power to choose, I am no longer condemned - if God has chosen me - I can exercise a choice, I can choose God - I now have that power that alludes all of creation in slavery to sin and the devil.. and according to 1 John 3:9 - that is the ONLY thing I have the power to do - I don't even retain the power to decide against choosing God, for I am become a son of God</li>
<li>propose to me in the first place (John 6:37,44) No one comes to Jesus except that the Father call him first.</li>
</ol>
And I take the credit... funny in a sick sorta way.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-16977507820973867212012-10-16T12:47:00.001-04:002012-10-16T12:47:45.982-04:00Abigail and David, an Exemplary Romance or a Cautionary Tale?<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6194178697187454" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Recently I’ve heard a few sermons on the exemplary romance between David and Abigail the widow of Nabal. The sermon usually exhorts Abigail’s beauty and wisdom and David’s chivalry and justice. Sometimes wives in abusive relationships or who find themselves married to foolish men are encouraged to “pray for their David.” However, I'm not sure the story demonstrates anything good about Abigail or David. And I’m pretty sure that “praying for your David” will only lead to ruin.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The principal scripture we're dealing with is 1 Samuel 25. As a background I remind myself who the players are and what sort of people they are.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">David, not yet king. He had surrounded himself with men of ill repute - 1 Samuel 22:2 - debtors, malcontents and such. David wasn't the Messiah and he was far from perfect, even at this very young age. David was running from Saul, continually bouncing from fear of Saul and others on the one hand (1 Samuel 21:10, 12 - even pretending to be crazy) to trusting in the Lord on the other and all the while knowing that innocent people would die because he kept running 1 Samuel 22:22. While David was certainly much better than Saul, he was hardly the poster child of faith and Godliness.</span></li>
<li style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nabal, a man of wealth who behaved badly and was harsh (1 Samuel 25:3) While he was harsh and behaved badly, he is not the Anti-Christ. He took care of his family and his workers (verse 11). </span></li>
<li style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abigail, the wife of Nabal commended for her discernment and her beauty but never for her Godliness or virtue. </span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Herein is the story - David asks Nabal for protection money. It was a shakedown. David and his 600 men, mentioned before as malcontents and debtors who couldn't pay their debts, were continually running in fear for their lives from the lawful king of Israel. God had never yet displaced King Saul - God had not yet installed David as king. While living in the hills running away from the law - which act David was never explicitly told by God to do, and which acts cost the lives of many innocents including priests - David apparently made sure none of his men or any other men stole sheep from Nabal, and now he wanted payment. It is important that Nabal never asked for this protection. While it is undoubted that Nabal received benefit from David’s actions, the basis for David then demanding payment for that protection is dubious. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When Nabal rebuffed David's demand for protection money, David immediately and quite rashly told 400 of his men to get the guns out (swords actually - verse 13). What was he going to do? What had David put into his heart to do to Nabal, a man whose sheep did NOT belong to David and which the law provided nothing that David should have a claim on those sheep? David was acting horribly here! He was getting ready to massacre Nabal and Nabal's servants and family. If David is named "Don Corleon" and this is NYC in the 1950's we call this a mob hit. But because David was so often a man after God's own heart Christians are constantly mixing this up with righteous behavior.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the principles of Scripture interpretation is reading Scripture for the purpose it was written. History is to be read as history; poetry as poetry; didactic writings as teaching. 1 Samuel is history. Just as it would be foolish to say "well, Saul did it so I can too" it is just as foolish to say "well, David did it, so it must have been good." Nowhere in this whole passage is David commended by the writer (likely the prophet Samuel) for what he does - and there is clear evidence that David was not acting properly.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, what about Abigail? She's discerning. Discerning people get things - they see the consequences, they see the ramifications - they understand politics. Nabal has spurned the local mob boss's demand for protection money and now his hit squad is headed for town. Abigail gets it. She also knows that David's not been pillaging the area like others might. She discerns that a beautiful woman going out humbling might just keep everyone from doing something stupid - David included. And she does. Abigail exercises a great deal of worldly wisdom here. But Abigail also sins. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We don't know her sin from this Scripture - just as we don't know David's shake down for protection money is sin from this Scripture. But Scripture has to be read as a whole. It is sin to murder in Genesis and it is sin to murder in 1 Samuel. It is sin to dishonor your spouse in Ephesians 5 and it is sin to dishonor your spouse in 1 Samuel 25. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, remember - David is acting cowardly at this chapter of his life. He's feigning mental illness to avoid harm. He's hiding in caves. And now poor little Nabal has rebuffed his demand for protection money and he's all "I'm going to kill every male" - verse 22 and then he invokes the name of God and special privilege. David is out of control. If you doubt me, I'll demonstrate more of this in a couple paragraphs.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abigail knows he's out of control - just like she knows that Nabal is out of control. Nabal won't listen to anyone and David is acting rashly and with a hot head. So, she wisely interrupts David's plan to commit murder (remember, David is not above murder, see Uriah), and suggests that her husband is a fool (a sin per Ephesians 5 as it was unnecessary to her plan) and that God has prevented David from murder (verse 26) and that all David's enemies should perish. She feeds David's ego and wisely reminds him that God is in control here. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">David has several weaknesses, women, his pride and his love for God. Abigail hits on all of them. But I don't believe Abigail does this because she's a particularly Godly woman - that is omitted and we have no evidence that she was. She could have simply reminded David that God was in control - as Nathan did - and trusted in the Lord. But instead she also went to feeding David's ego by rebuking her husband and dishonoring him and the institution of marriage. Even though Nabal was a fool, it was wrong of her to so rebuke him. We know this because Paul refused to rebuke an ungodly High Priest. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abigail does save the day. And for her worldly wisdom I think everyone may commend her. But there is a very sad ending to this story.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, Abigail is deprived of her family - her husband dies. And if that weren't enough, all of Abigail's wisdom is thrown away when David asks her to marry him. Wisdom would have said "David, aren't you already married? Doesn't Hebrew law prohibit polygamy?" But she falls prey to her own worldly wisdom and accepts. Ironically David doesn't even marry her alone - he offends her dignity by marrying another the very same day. David is collecting a harem and Abigail falls victim to her own sin. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abigail sinned against God when she dishonored Nabal. And her punishment was spending another marriage with a man who would dishonor her by 1) marrying another the very same day, 2) breaking God's law and keeping multiple wives and 3) need we mention Bathsheba? Abigail bears David children but she also has to deal with David the home-wrecker, David the murderer (God would not prevent David from murdering forever), David the exhibitionist, David the adulterer, David the rager, David the fool. Abigail would have the indignity of seeing David do all of the things that Nabal did. In the end, Abigail was hardly better excepting that she exchanged one rich fool for another.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I recognize that David did have a heart for God. However, that heart for God did not characterize David's whole life. The verse is 1 Samuel 13:14. That was a statement concerning David before he disobeyed God concerning the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant which cost Uzzah his life and then railed against God for being Holy. Before he disobeyed God and numbered the people. Before he disobeyed God and accumulated horses and gold. Before he disobeyed God and took multiple wives. Before he disobeyed God and committed murder. Before he disobeyed God and committed adultery. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Please don't get me wrong - David is one of my heroes. But not because he was perfect and certainly not because he was such a great sinner. The marked difference between Saul - another king who sinned greatly, and David was not their sin - for they both sinned egregiously. But David was sorrowful over his sin. It broke his heart. He really did love God. He lived Romans 7.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So in the end, the tale of Abigail and David is more a cautionary tale than an exemplary tale of Godly romance. It is not OK to dishonor your spouse even if they really are a fool. And I caution those women stuck in back relationships to be careful what you wish for. God may indeed reward you with a David, and who wants to be married to a David?</span></b><script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-67444402504319926302012-04-17T11:14:00.001-04:002012-04-17T11:16:51.641-04:00IntroductionHello. My name is Kevin Ritchey and these are my random and oft inadequate attempts to cull out the dross of worldliness and reflect on deep draughts from the fountain of truth in Scripture. Herein I hope to meditate on God without reference to cultural shifts, popular thinking, humanistic philosophies or other extra-biblical distractions. Accordingly, as these are primarily my own reflections and meditations, you the reader should exercise caution, caveat emptor, examining and holding every assertion to the light of God’s word, accepting only those thoughts that can withstand the scrutiny of Scripture. Psalms 138:2 informs us that God’s word is exalted above even His own name. My prayer is that God will keep me from asserting error, quickly bring to me friends and counsel who will correct my error, and allow this space to the glory of God. Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}
</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-35494152631463769832011-08-12T13:20:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:19:55.292-04:00Notes on the Deficiencies of Youth Part 4 or 4<h2>
It’s all about worship</h2>
<div>
<div>
The last and most particularly dangerous expression of naivete that comes to mind is the "it's all about worship" expression. And by worship, these young Christians have in mind song and corporate music and all the accouterments thereof. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem with this expression is not the focus on worship - for worship is of primacy in the believer’s life. The problem is the distortion of what it means to worship God. Scripture teaches us that worship begins with and ends with obedience. We worship God when we obey him first. the OT teaches us so often that great emotional worship services are worthless, even vile in the mind and face of God, if there is no obedience. God despises worship services from those who do not obey His word. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One way to think about worship is to see it as the ascription of worth to another. We cannot make God out to be worthy in our lives and minds and hearts if we despise his commands. The mature begin with the commandment. the young and naive begin with the emotional expression. Again, it's not that they're evil or bad Christians (if in fact, they are Christians - something we should never take for granted); they're just immature and inexperienced and their emotions are going to be so useful one day, when obedience guides them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A good analogy is young love. We all remember that teenagers fall more deeply "in love" than anyone - e.g. Romeo and Juliet. But without maturity, that powerful emotion leads to not to true love, but death as Shakespeare demonstrates poetically if not figuratively. The mature love is one that is guided by principal first and allows the emotion to express it, not define it. It is universal to see youth get particularly emotional in worship service only to sink into sexual sin and worldliness the next day and I wonder, when and how will they learn to seek Godliness first? I see young men confuse lust for love and clamor for an ungodly woman they're not suited for simply because their hormones are confused and excited. I see young women confuse emotional immaturity and neediness for love and desire ungodly men. These children in the faith have not thought it through, prayed it through or obeyed it through. They're not seeking Godly advice or parental guidance. They're being carried away, as Scripture says, with every enticing doctrine and style of expression. And they feel OK about it because they can have a powerful worship experience on Saturday night or on Sunday at the contemporary service.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But emotional entanglements with the opposite (or indeed, in today’s church - same) sex is only one sin that so easily entangles our young in the Faith. The principal sin I see ubiquitously tolerated and embraced by Christians everywhere is the sin of worldliness - that sin of taking what the world gives and embracing it into our hearts and minds. Television, romance novels, morbid fascination with blood sucking vampires and morphing beasts and teens, movies about torture, movies about adultery, movies about deception, immodest dress, uncouth speech, lack of respect for elders, disregard for serious study of Scripture - all of these things more mark the average youth group in today’s churches than do the fruits of the Spirit. And sadly, these are the marks of so many older Christians who have no excuse for their immaturity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sinful disobedience prevents true worship. If you have sin in your heart that you have not fully repented of - turned away from - hated in your heart - confessed to your sisters and brothers - abhorred in your spirit, devised plans to prevent yourself from falling back into - if this sin still infects your heart - God does not hear your singing praise songs... He does not delight in your waving of flags or spilling of tears; God is not amenable to your ministry work, your evangelism, your short term ministry trips abroad, your digging of wells, or your feeding of the hungry. God despises and desires obedience. Get over yourself and stop sinning.</div>
<h2>
Concluding remarks</h2>
<div>
The Gospel is simple in that you sin, God hates sin, God provides a sacrifice for sin, God wants you to stop sinning. The Gospel is divinely complicated and mysterious insofar as it involves God Himself acting of His own accord, accomplishing all that is Salvation - giving us faith - giving us the Spirit and providing a means out of sin. It is simple from ten thousand miles away, but the closer you get to God, the bigger He is - the more majestic He is, the more mysterious He is, the more Glory He has, the more Godlike He becomes. If your god is simple - you’re still too far from God - stop sinning and go to God. Therein are the deep waters. Therein are the mysteries.</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-84103228326976218492011-08-11T13:19:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:19:36.198-04:00Notes on the Deficiencies of Youth Part 3 of 4In this four part series on the deficiencies of being young in the faith and the traps that Satan lays out for us, we have so far examined the first lie which so often besets our youth - the "everything is simple" lie. The second deception most often follows on the footsteps - the rationalisation that "none of that stuff is important, I don't think about that.. I just try to love Jesus." It sounds great, but we examined how it's so destructive to the Christian life. Today we look at a close cousin of the first two lies.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>
<br />
<h2>
You just need Jesus - that will fix everything</h2>
<div>
<div>
The third of the naive expressions I'll address herein is the "hey, you just need Jesus - that'll fix everything" expression. For the naive, Jesus only came to save people from hell, feed the hungry, heal the sick and make people happy - their best them now. For the naive, Jesus came to give everybody a better life by doing away with all the rules and making it simple and all about them. For the naive, Jesus came to heal everyone - if they just have enough faith; to bless everyone with wealth - if they just claim it; to bless everyone with happy relationships, if they just love each other. For the naive, it's all about a "personal relationship with Jesus" - a phrase found nowhere in Scripture. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Persecutions perplex these naive ones, as do afflictions and trials. The Christians who die every day by being hacked to death for their faith, who die of sickness and disease, who are afflicted with poverty, who are divorced by hateful spouses, who are abandoned by loveless parents, who are unjustly fired by greedy bosses, who are misunderstood, who are condemned, who are ostracized - these Christian are the exception to the rule. But Jesus himself promises persecutions, afflictions and trials. Jesus promised that the World will hate us. Jesus promised that we would be tried as it were by fire. With the exception of John, every Apostle was martyred. The one who penned by the Spirit that all things work together for good was shipwrecked beaten to within an inch of his life, stoned, imprisoned, rejected, ostracized, publicly humiliated and impoverished. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus did not come to make our lives better as we understand it - but to make our lives better in one way - by the killing of sin in our hearts and souls (Matthew 1:21). However, these naive ones, these little Christians who need patience and instruction and care, these little ones forget that the principal and determinative reason why Jesus came was "sin" - they forget that in the end it’s all about sin because that is what separates us from God. The simple gospel gives lip service to sin, but does not address sin in the believer’s life. It’s as though sin were not really important. The puritan father John Owen famously said "be killing sin, or sin will be killing you.” Today the simple mock and deride the puritans and live in bondage to sin because sin isn't even their focus; it's not even on their radar. If they truly have faith that God will take away their sins, they're not evil (they're redeemed) - they're not bad Christians, they're just young and inexperienced and immature. We, as older mature Christians, should suffer them and love them and instruct them - disciple them towards Godliness. However, if their faith does not involve a desperate hope that God will indeed remove the sin from their hearts - if instead their hope and faith is that God will make their lives better, heal their marriage, provide wealth and comfort, heal their bodies, and guarantee them a ticket to heaven - then they do not have saving faith.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That is a remarkable statement, I know, these days. Principally it is remarkable because the gospel has been so distorted by so-called evangelicals. I could write tomes arguing why they do not have saving faith, but instead I will only point to one example.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When the rich young ruler came to Jesus, he asked one thing - “how do I obtain eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). Jesus does not invite the young ruler to ask Him into his heart. Jesus does not invite the rich young man home to supper with him - the beginning of a life-long personal relationship with Christ. Jesus does not give the young man a sinner’s prayer. Jesus does none of these things. Instead, Jesus requires absolute and complete adherence to the Law in every respect. The rich young ruler should have been devastated! He should have seen the iniquity in his heart and his own inability to do anything about it. He should have known how evil he was when no one was looking, that he never for even one moment truly sought after God. But he didn’t. He really thought he was doing well. Jesus had to give him an extreme example to even get his attention. Only then did the rich young man come to terms with some grief, but it was grief over money not sin. The rich young man leaves that day without salvation - even though he desperately needed and wanted it - because he didn’t think sin was a big deal. Million and hundreds of millions of pretend fake Christians in America today desperately need and want salvation and they think they have it because of 4 Spiritual Flaw booklets - but they lack and they die and they perish forever in hell because they do not really think sin is a big deal. This is the perennial birthmark of the immature.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even the immature Christian, who knows that sin is a big deal, will be deceived by sin into forgetting how important sin is in their lives and the primacy of killing sin daily in their lives. (Hebrews 3:13) It is not compassion to these young in the Faith to ignore their irreverence for God’s Holiness and indifference to their own sinfulness. It is indeed, the most harsh hatred to fail to admonish these youngsters to stop sinning - to kill sin daily - every day - while it is still called today. Don’t go to bed tonight if you haven’t yet admonished a brother to stop sinning.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This mark of immaturity - this expression of naivete - is akin to the others in that it relies upon a half-truth. For indeed, Jesus is the answer and He will fix everything - if by everything you mean the sin and hatred for God in your own heart.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-59489373312802864052011-08-10T13:15:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:19:20.141-04:00Notes on the Deficiencies of Youth Part 2 of 4<div>
In my last post we examined the first marked deficiency of being inadequately trained up in Christ - the "Everything is simple" mindset. Today we'll look at the next trap set for our young people.</div>
<h2>
None of that is important.. I don’t think about that, I just try to love Jesus</h2>
<div>
<div>
The second expression common among the naive and immature Christian is "I don't think about that, I just try to love Jesus" -- or "just be like Jesus and everything else will fall in line.” It’s the simple "it's just Jesus" line. This is a particularly deceptive lie because it combines profound truth with simplistic expression. It really is, after all, all about Jesus. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From where do we get this idea? The Revelation of Christ given to John tells us that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus himself tells his disciples “I am the Truth.” In this regard, because Christ is God - it is all about Christ. But we cannot commune with Christ as we are. Something is in the way - sin. Yes, it’s that old fiend which constantly rears its head while we’re just trying to worship God. It’s an irritation - a constant source of trouble. And often, we attempt to circumvent dealing with sin by making it just about God - just about Jesus in particular. This is the error of the new prophets like Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo. The particular problem that accompanies this error is the failure to know anything about Jesus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One can study Scripture for 100 years every day and not know enough about Jesus. However, most often, it’s not the failure of diligent study of Scripture which leads to a lack of understanding of Jesus, it’s the arrogant refusal to submit to the Holy Spirit as a guide to learn about Jesus. The Breath of God gave us Scripture - all of it. All of Scripture reveals Jesus. However, the new prophets stick only to the Gospels. And indeed, only to the parts of the Gospels they like.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To these new prophets, Scripture is a supporting reference for their Jesus. They go to Scripture like a fat man goes to a buffet. The fat man ignores the vegetables and the healthy meats and goes instead straight for the fried chicken, the buttery rolls and the dessert bar. The new prophet goes to Scripture likewise, ignoring the law, ignoring the Righteousness of God, ignoring the Holiness of God and goes straight to the Grace of God and the Love of God. To the new prophet, these are the only source of nutrition and just as the fat man becomes fatter and more useless, the one who comes to Scripture without submitting himself to all of Scripture becomes a fat and useless Christian.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The reality is that the Jesus of Scripture is not simple, and he’s not an impotent emotional wreck trying his best to get everyone into heaven but being frustrated by the omnipotent free will of man. He’s not someone who takes everyone just as they are, requiring no change, requiring nothing of man - only willing to give everything of Himself so that man can commune with God just as he is - in the pig pen, in the filth that is his sin, in the mire of grotesque disobedience and hatred of all that God really is. Indeed, to the new prophet, we still hate all that God is, so rather than deal with that sin lying prostrate on our faces seeking new hearts, we instead change God to something we don’t hate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Knowing God is not easy. Aside of learning new things that stretch our minds, knowing God requires two things that are equally impossible for anyone aside of the indwelling work of the Holy spirit. First, it requires an understanding of the things of God. Paul teaches us that we are spiritually dead and incapable of understanding the things of the Spirit. It is, in fact, impossible to know the things of God without God’s divine work in our hearts. And lest anyone believe in a god that is excited to do that in every one’s heart - let’s remind ourselves that Jesus confounds the simple and wicked - he hides the truth in parables only revealing the truth to his disciples in private. Jesus tells us the reason for his parables, and it’s not to make things more clear! It’s to intentionally hide the truth. Shane and the new prophets do not know this Jesus. To them, Jesus uses parables to make things more clear. To them, the use of parables is an instrumental tool of discipleship - never mind that Jesus did not use parables for his disciples and no one else after Jesus uses parables as a discipleship tool. To the simple, to the naive, to the new prophet, Jesus is simple and knowing him is simple. The truth is, that Jesus himself teaches us that He is not simple, that the Father is not simple and that knowing Him is hard and consists of knowledge of Scripture, fellowship with the Father, the Son, the Spirit and other believers and obedience to His will - particularly loving the brethren and hating the world. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus confounds us on every level and in every dynamic of living. The naive want to reduce Jesus and simplify Jesus - they make Jesus into the man in the pictures in their childhood bibles sitting on a rock wearing a perfectly spotless white robe with a blue sash smiling and entertaining children on his lap, that's Jesus to them. To the simple, anything complex about God, anything difficult about God, anything mysterious about God is an iniquity - a defect - a problem to be solved rather than a virtue to be emulated. They have a deep seated problem with God being anything but like themselves.. simple. Their sin has so infected their thinking that they rebel against the Holiness of God in their minds and theology and living. They don't want to think about a Jesus who curses trees, curses cities, leaves rich young rulers without answers, drives money changers out of the temple, refuses to give the gospel to gentiles, hides truth in parables, requires absolute obedience to the law, allows money to be spent on worship of Him rather than feeding the poor, a Jesus who comes in judgment on a white horse with a sword killing all who sin. They don't want to talk about Jesus who specifically refuses to pray for the lost in the last recorded prayer (John 17:9). They want only to worship a jesus who loves everybody the same all the time - grandpa jesus... Santa Claus jesus... Ghandi jesus... buddha jesus... any jesus except Jesus!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Someone recently pointed out that this sounds like the Rob Bell "there is no hell" controversy. To be fair, Rob Bell does not argue that there is no hell, but he does argue that in the end, hell is unnecessary, trivial, of little consequence and eventually unneeded. The naive forget that Jesus is God! And as God, He is creator of hell. As God, He is the one on the road to destroy Sodom when He speaks with Abraham. He is the one to destroy all living creatures, man and beast alike, in the deluge. He is the one who judges and eventually passes sentence. He is the one whom the world will run from in terror, hiding in caves and in darkness. He is infinite! He is Holy! He is majestic! He is mysterious. He is terrifying to anyone and everyone who still has any small amount of sin in their heart. If He is not terrifying to you, right now, then you don’t know Jesus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My eight year old son recently felt this pain of terror when he realized that one of his best friends would be destroyed by Jesus if Jesus were to come back today. This truly hurt my son - to think that God would kill and destroy forever his friend. I am reminded that if we love our father, our child, or our friend more than we love God, then we are unworthy - we do not love God, we cannot be said to love God in any way or fashion. And most of us are stuck at this place my eight year old son finds himself. He has compassion for his friend! The question is whether my son will be able to embrace and cherish and love the Holiness of God more than his compassion for his friend. It is not iniquity to have compassion - indeed, it is a virtue. The iniquity is putting that compassion at the forefront and despising God’s Holiness. The iniquity is in changing God so that His Holiness is not a problem - robbing God of His Holiness and Righteousness. The iniquity is in loving the World. If any man loves the World, the love of the Father is not in him. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the simple will cry out “God so loved the World!” They will race as fast as they can to a cross where Jesus dies for everyone but is impotent and might have died for no one because it’s not really up to Jesus in the end, the all powerful and determinative force which ultimately figures in where a person spends eternity is not Jesus, but a person’s own free will. They cannot see different kinds of love in God. They require God to love equally in all respects. They require God to set aside His Holiness and His Righteousness in order to satisfy an inherent right to salvation available to all men. In the end, they require God to be fair.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is remarkable that they do so. The hallmark of immaturity is a focus on fairness. Every school yard child will evoke the doctrine of fairness, and every adult knows that it is a rues meant to disclaim responsibility for the true doctrine underneath “fairness” - “me too!” It should not surprise us that the hallmark of Christian immaturity is also an appeal to the doctrine of fairness. No where in Scripture do we find God saying “I’m fair.” He’s truth. He’s justice. He’s righteousness. He’s love. But no where do we find that he’s fair. The doctrine that God loves all people at all times in all places equally is an appeal to fairness. It does not survive even the most inexperienced rational observation though. No one would suggest that those who perished in the holocaust experienced the same grace from God as those living the good life in twenty-first century America. Fairness is simply not. It does not exist. God is not fair in his distribution of wealth, he is not fair in his distribution of grace, he is not fair in his distribution of the Spirit and he even makes it a point to illustrate to his disciples that He is not fair! The parable of the workers coming at different times during the day illustrates this truth. Some work for a very small period of time and receive the same reward - God does not have to be fair. The simple will twist this to mean that God is fair and everyone deserves the same regardless of what they bring... Well, some people are going to argue that the sky is green no matter what you say.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus is beyond our simple understanding. He is not fair. He comes in judgment. He kills people. He refuses to pray for the lost. He whips people. He creates hell. He begs not to have to go to the cross. He rebukes his best friend Peter and lets Peter fail miserably. He leaves Paul with a debilitating illness. He lets Lazarus die and his sisters suffer in pain. He destroys Sodom. He doesn’t do enough for Tyre - knowing that if He did more, they would be saved (Matthew 11:21). He removes lamp stands. He refuses to allow repentance after death. He gives the Gospel to some countries, leaving others without it for centuries and even millennia. He is not what the simple expect, nor what they desire. He is not the God of the simple. And the simple must be instructed in who God is, and how He is to be worshiped and how we are to commune and fellowship with God. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus is the answer - He is the Alfa and the Omega. However, that does not make it any less difficult or simplify the matter at all. In fact it requires more. The Christian life becomes more challenging the more we understand that it is all about Christ.</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-9896442514464283192011-08-09T13:13:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:19:01.966-04:00Notes on the Deficiencies of Youth Part 1 of 4I've recently had occasion to recall the deficiencies of youth in their Christian walk. By youth, I mean those Christians who are inadequately trained up in their faith. In fact that often means youth in age - as in pre-teens, teenagers and twenty-somethings. However, it also means older Christians as well, even those in leadership, pastors and authors and speakers nationally well known for their exposition of Scripture or things of the Faith. If indeed, these persons are inadequately trained up in their faith, they will be immature Christians and exhibit serious and marked deficiencies in their fruit and usefulness to Christ and his Church. For that purpose I’ve set forth to quickly and most inadequately enumerate a few of these deficiencies and how they are marked in a young believer’s life. My hope is that someone more skilled in doctrine and communication will take up the banner and better communicate these truths.<br />
<br />
Before I entertain the markings of immaturity, it should be pointed out that maturity in Christ does not mean perfection. Any mature Christian will still have defects - notable and serious often. As a mature man or woman still has defects, so too does a mature Christian. Maturity is the expression of the whole and admits that parts are still lacking. We continue to mature in Christ all our lives and in some expressions all of eternity; for while our spirits will one day be perfect without sin and our bodies perfect in resurrected glory - we will always, for eternity, be creation incapable of completely knowing creator in His infinitude and complete perfection. We will know perfectly in truth but not perfectly in scope. That is the glory and anticipation and hope of eternity - to continue to worship God anew every new day in a New Jerusalem because there is yet more to God, more to His Glory, more to His Perfection, more to His Deity that we have not yet experienced. And so, we will in that sense, mature for all time. <br />
<br />
However, on this earth, and in this time, while we await the redemption and glorification of our flesh, we battle against flesh and its lust to obtain Godliness in our daily walk. This is our purpose here - Hebrews 12:1-2 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross, despising its shame and has sat down at the right hand of God.” Hebrews 3:13 “But exhort one another, day after day - while it is still called Today! lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” Sin is deceitful and it easily entangles us. We are to lay aside sin and walk in perfection. We are to spend our days working together corporately to kill sin and avoid the inevitable hardness that unmortified sin occasions in our lives. This is maturity in Christ. What follows is simply a distillation of this one truth - that sin is deceitful and hardens the Christian’s heart who is not actively engaged in a daily fight to the death against sin.<br />
<br />
It is perhaps best to remember that the young Christian experiences Christianity through naivete. Naivete is sometimes attractive and even put forth as a virtue. There are those who misunderstand the command to hinder not the little children from coming unto Jesus. In Matthew 18 Jesus commands his followers to come to him as a child does. But the analogy Jesus uses is only useful in context. The disciples were arguing about who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven! They were speaking of ambition, accomplishment, glory in a creation. Jesus rebukes them to see how a child comes to Christ. The child comes for different reasons, the child is not coming for personal gain, for glory, for commendation, for reasons of personal ambition. The child comes from a position of need. In this way, the mature Christian comes to Jesus from a position of need - our greatest need is the removal of sin in our lives for it is sin and only sin which prevents us from coming to the Father. It is sin within our hearts, unmortified sin, hidden sin, unknown sin, which makes us enemies of God. Our Savior dies to cover that sin and the Breath of God comes to live in our heart to mortify - to kill that sin. We are a Church given to each other to daily commend each other to kill sin. <br />
<br />
But naivete leads to something else. Naivete, as a virtue ignores sin and attempts to suggest that maturity is unnecessary - the greatest Christian is the immature naive Christian because Christ commands us to come to him as children. This is indeed a most unfortunate distortion of Matthew 18. And it always leads to mortal danger.<br />
<br />
I've rarely met a mature Christian younger than 30. I've met knowledgeable Christians younger than 30 and I've met experienced Christians younger than 30. And I have met two or three in my life who were mature. But even Christ himself waited till he was 30 before he started teaching and ministering. There's just so much a young Christian needs to learn that transcends Bible knowledge and ministry experience - which requires years of time in the desert. We can take Paul’s time in the desert as an example - the disciples years walking personally side by side with Christ as an example.<br />
<br />
I have been asked, on occasion what I mean by "it always leads to mortal danger?" This is a fair question and to be helpful I will explain how naivete can be expressed in different ways and how those ways lead one to mortal danger. What follows here is a particular but incomplete list of only a few ways and the particular danger that accompanies that naive expression.<br />
<h2>
Everything is simple</h2>
<br />
The first and often most insipid expression of immaturity and naivete is the "everything is simple" argument. This is the young Christian that believes the Bible is simple, the Gospel is simple and only troublemakers and those that would confuse the church make it hard with doctrine. Indeed, doctrine is most often the enemy of Christian growth to these Christians. Instead of growing up in doctrine, these children in the Faith see maturity as pursuit of service, of evangelism and worship. It’s all simple and doctrine only confuses things, brings division and stifles true Christian love and spiritual growth.<br />
<br />
The problem is it isn't simple. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever say it's simple. Rather it's a mystery, it's hidden, it's deep calling unto deep, it's maturity that requires searching and study<br />
and even then Peter, as a mature Apostle of our Lord and elder of the Church acknowledges that many of Paul's teaching are just down-right hard to understand! (2 Peter 3:16) Peter does not rebuke Paul for making it hard. Rather he calls them wisdom and warns against twisting them. What is more twisting to the deep things of Scripture than the admonishment that they are unnecessary?<br />
<br />
Jesus confounds the crowds with parables, and then patiently explains them to men who knew Scripture. It is never simple. Only the naive think so, and the mortal danger that accompanies the refusal to submit to the complexity of God is 1) arrogance, 2) ignorance, and 3) indifference to the mysteries of God. We will plumb the mysteries of God for eternity!<br />
<br />
Arrogance arises in our hearts when we pretend to “get it.” We fail to head Peter’s admonition to not be “led astray by the error of [ ] unprincipled men and fall from [our] firm grasp on the truth.” (2 Peter 3:17) We fail to “make every effort to be sure of [our] calling and election [so that we might] never stumble into sin.” Indeed arrogance is most often seen in a failure to engage in the battle against sin. Rather than fight sin we do everything possible to avoid that battle. We attend worship services, we seek the gifts of the Spirit, we participate in book studies, we go to fellowship meetings, we listen all day to Christian music, we teach Sunday School class, we witness, we go on short-term missions, we dig wells, we feed the hungry, we smile and greet one another with an empty and shallow sincerity because we never know our own battle much less our brother’s battle against sin. We have run as fast as we can away from the battle against sin seeking anything that can provide a sense of security that we are seeking Christ without attempting to mortify sin in our hearts. This is the rotten, fly infested, putrid fruit of arrogance. Instead of falling on our knees in humble admission that God is a mystery and His words are deep waters to ponder and meditate on daily, that our purpose is to build up His word into our hearts for the singular purpose that we might not sin - instead of this posture, we walk boldly into the throne room of God with putrid and defiled clothes rank with feces and and the odor of vomit as if nothing were wrong. Arrogance most deceives us in the state of our own need of a Savior. This indeed is the deceitfulness of sin.<br />
<br />
Ignorance is a necessary consequence of thinking everything is simple. When we refuse to recognize that God is immense, complex, infinite, we fail to see God for who He is. We fall into an idolatry of believing in a simple god who isn't there. This is a most quick spiritual death. The mortal error of ignorance is a lack of true worship. We go through the steps of worship, but we must continually seek higher emotional experiences to fill a void left because we are never meeting the true God of Scripture instead substituting a simple god of our own making. The addiction of emotion-driven worship is one consequence of taking a Majestic God and substituting a simple god. Like the alcoholic dreaming of his next drink, like the drug addict willing to do grotesque things with her body to get the next hit, like the sex addict sacrificing family and friends to get that next comforting high - the worship addict seeks to find god in an emotional experience sacrificing true knowledge of God found in the revelation of God in Scripture.<br />
<br />
Indifference is the last of my short enumeration of consequences to the “everything is simple” expression. When we allow the young in the Faith to believe the lie that everything is simple, these young become indifferent to the mysteries of God. They are inconsequential to their experience of Christianity. Indifference is manifest in a believer who fails to open Scripture on a regular basis; who fails to admonish themselves or others when they see sin creep in - indeed they begin to fail to see sin for what it is - the abject denial of God’s sovereignty. When we sin, we rush headlong into the throne room of God, violently shoving God from the throne, seating ourselves and calling for the death of God for imposing His will on our lives. When we live in indifference, we don't even know we're trying to kill God - we don't see sin - we don't know sin - we don't know God - we are, in perfect spiritual death, become dead to God and the things of God. <br />
<br />
Indifference is usually the last of the consequences of this error. We see this most often in the young in the Faith when they walk away from the Church, abandoning the Faith of their youth. They're usually not overtly hostile to the Gospel, just indifferent. They stop going to church. They see little problem with having more and more ungodly friends. They stop reading Scripture. They die day after day and they don't even know they're dying. Indifference is the saddest of the consequences of believing “everything is simple.”<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-12443714783471710302011-05-31T18:40:00.001-04:002011-05-31T18:40:09.635-04:00Book Review: Radical by David Platt Part II<p>In the course of examining the first couple chapters of the Book <em>Radical</em> by David Platt, I’ve realized that more needs to be touched upon. This is part 2 of a multipart analysis of this book.</p> <p>I should note that, so far, through 5 chapters I’ve not read anything I believe to be heretical or unorthodox. While I strongly disagree with the hyper-evangelical bent of the book and the pharisaical creation of a new commandment (and no we’re not talking about John’s admonition to love one another) to evangelize the world – I find that the sentiments of Pastor Platt fall relatively in line with what most churches in America today believe regardless of whether they practice the same. However, I believe most churches in America today to be wrong on this point.</p> <p>On page 58, Pastor Platt makes reference to a so called Great Commission. Wherein does this Great Commission lie? Matthew 28:16-20 is a commission given by Jesus to eleven disciples – those who would be called Apostles because of this very commission. Mark 16:14-20 is of doubtful authority, but even if admitted is again directed only to the eleven. Luke 24:44-49 contains an allusion to a commission which admits easily an interpretation of a specific commission to the eleven, as only the eleven were present. Acts 1:4-8 contains a direct commission to the eleven as well. There is no general commission to other believers here, and there were certainly more than the eleven, as can be seen by the upper room happenings a few weeks later. Additionally, you have the problem that no women were ever present for the so-called great commission. John 20:19-22 also notes that only the Apostles were present for the commission. There were clearly other believers. Why does Jesus limit his commission to the Apostles?</p> <p>I believe the answer is found in Paul’s testimony. In Romans 1 Paul sets himself up as an Apostle – one called by God personally. There were already 11 (or 12) Apostles throughout the church and certainly some objection would have been made had the commission given to Paul been a general commission applicable to all. However, I don’t believe that to have been the understanding of either the other eleven Apostles or the general Christian community. That Paul was called by God to be a witness – called personally by Christ – (Galations 1:1) not as a result of his calling by the Holy Spirit through the elders of the church at Antioch – was proof sufficient for the first century believers and the other eleven Apostles. Indeed, the word Apostle means one called by God. While we are all in a sense called by God, the twelve were specifically called (commissioned) by God for the purpose of taking the Gospel to all nations. While we have the privilege of continuing that endeavor, it is not our commission to seize upon.</p> <p>I argue that it is this commission specifically that makes the Apostles the Apostles. If everyone is commissioned, then everyone is an apostle. The fact that we call it a “commission” is instructive. A commission is simply put; the authority to perform a task or certain duties. The task is to take the Gospel to the ends of the world; the duty is to be a witness for Jesus. This task and duty was a grave and serious duty which commanded the submission of the church general. </p> <p>The idea that the commission was great is not found prior to the 17th century in Christian writings. Common usage of the term was not ubiquitous until the 20th century. I can find no use of the term in the writings of Luther, Calvin, Edwards et al. The first usage of the term that I can find is in the 19th century among the contemporaries and likes of Charles Finney. Indeed, John Calvin seems to note in his commentary that the commission was limited to the original eleven Apostles as it was given directly to them.</p> <p>This is not to say that a non-great commission person doesn’t believe in missions. John Calvin and others certainly believed in, participated in, and devoted their lives to evangelism and missions. The difference is the purpose of the Christian. It’s subtle I grant, but important. If I live my life to be pure and holy unto God, loving my brother whom I see and with an eye to the perfection of my faith, I will certainly evangelize and pronounce the gospel. However, the same cannot be said in reverse. If I live my life to evangelize, it does not follow that I will focus my will and heart towards obeying God in all matters of heart and body and spirit and mind. It does not follow that I will love my brother whom I see – rather, if my primary goal is missions, I will instead love the stranger over the brother – the heathen over the Church. </p> <p>The great fallacy and error of hyper-evangelism is not that it seeks to evangelize the world with the Gospel of Jesus, but that it attempts to supplant the purpose of the Church – to glorify the Father and Son with another purpose – to convert the world. Does evangelism glorify God? Certainly it almost always glorifies God. But that is not the only means of glorifying God, and if an unrepentant man convinces his soul that it need not concern itself with the mortification (killing) of sin in his heart because his principal goal is the ministry of evangelism then that man cannot be said to glorify God even while evangelizing. </p> <p>Pastor Platt’s devotion to missionary work above sanctification can be shown in the following quotes:</p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 16: “While Christians choose to spend their lives fulfilling the American dream instead of giving their lives to proclaiming the kingdom of God”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 17: “Consider the cost when Christians ignore Jesus’ commands to sell their possessions and give to the poor”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“The cost of believers not taking Jesus seriously is vast for those who don’t know Christ and devastating for those who are starving and suffering around the world”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 18: “For the sake of more than a billion people today who have yet to even hear the gospel, I want to risk it all. For the sake of twenty-six thousand children who will die today of starvation or a preventable disease, I want to risk it all”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 21: “We will discover that our meaning is found in community and our life is found in giving ourselves for the sake of others in the church, among the lost, and among the poor”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 49: “Meanwhile, Jesus commands us to go. He has created each of us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, and I propose that anything less than radical devotion to this purpose is unbiblical Christianity”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 52: “It’s a foundational truth: God creates, blesses, and saves each of us for a radically global purpose”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 54: “But where in the Bible is missions ever identified as an optional program in the church? We have just seen that we were all created by God, saved from our sins, and blessed by God to make his glory known in all the world”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“In this way we choose to send off other people to carry out the global purpose of Christianity while the rest of us sit back because we’re “just not called to that”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“[ ] each follower of Christ in the New Testament, regardless of his or her calling, was intended to take up the mantle of proclaiming the gospel to the ends of the earth. That’s the reason why he gave each of them his Spirit and why he gave them all the same plan: make disciples of all nations”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 55: “Every saved person this side of heaven owes the gospel to every lost person this side of hell”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“But what if we don’t need to sit back and wait for a call to foreign missions? What if the very reason we have breath is because we have been saved for a global mission? And what if anything less than passionate involvement in global mission is actually selling God short by frustrating the very purpose for which he created us”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">From page 56: “When we say we have a heart for the city we live in, we confess that we have less than 1 percent of God’s heart”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“In all this missions talk, you may begin to think, Well, surely you’re not suggesting that we’re all supposed to move overseas. That is certainly not what I’m suggesting (though I’m not completely ruling it out)”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“Meanwhile, flying right in the face of this idea is Scripture’s claim that regardless of where we live—here or overseas—our hearts should be consumed with making the glory of God known in all nations”</font></p> <p><font color="#4bacc6">“[ ] from cover to cover the Bible teaches that all the church—not just select individuals, but all the church—is created to reflect all the glory of God to all the world. Because every single man, woman, and child in the church I pastor is intended to impact nations [ …] there is a God-designed way for us to live our lives here, and do church here, for the sake of people around the world who don’t know Christ”</font></p> <p>I could go on and on throughout this book, but I believe the number of quotes above makes it indisputable that Pastor Platt believes the principal purpose of man is to glorify God through the act of evangelism. One wonders what the purpose of man will be after Revelations 22. Indeed, the purpose of the church and everything the church does is for the sake of the unsaved – never mind glorifying Jesus or ministering to Jesus (see “to the extent that you’ve done it to the least <em>of these my brethren,</em> you’ve done it unto me”). Pastor Platt would convict us that if we don’t subscribe whole-heartedly to his understanding of missions, we’re practicing an unbiblical Christianity – more that if we’re not radically committed to world missions we’re practicing an unbiblical Christianity. </p> <p>Really Pastor Platt? Really? If I’m saved while fighting drug addiction, I should set aside that fight against the flesh and take up missions? If I’m saved while having several immediate family members still unsaved, I should put foreign missions above my own family and immediate sphere of influence? If I’m saved, I should put foreign missions above personal sanctification and holiness? Really Pastor Platt? You really have a large church of people redeemed from the bondage of sin who believe this too?</p> <p>On page 18 Pastor Platt equates the needs of a spiritually dead person with a child suffering from starvation or a preventable disease. This is the hidden error that most grieves my heart. While we can all have a heart for suffering, it is Christianity alone that provides enough glimpse at the holiness of God wherein we find the alarm over a person’s bondage to sin and eternal damnation to so outweigh the present needs of our bodies that we turn away from everything to gain that propitiation that alone can buy peace between us and God. Comparing a lost soul to starvation and disease is like comparing a single grass hopper to a swarm of deadly locusts. One can harm a little – the other kills you. Starvation and disease can kill your body, but sin kills you eternally.</p> <p>Think about that Pastor Platt and all those who would put social needs on the same par as spiritual needs. If I feed someone with food today, I’ve met a temporal needs that they will forget forever after 30 seconds in hell. In fact, if I feed them today and tomorrow and for the rest of their lives, if I give them money for college, if I teach them a foreign language, if I introduce them to the spouse of their dreams, if I bless them with 110 years of productive happy life – all of that will be forgotten eternally within the first 30 seconds of hell.</p> <p>But let us go further. Let me turn it on myself. If I spend my life feeding the poor, and evangelizing the lost and spend not enough time on personal sanctification and holiness – if I enter heaven with less personal holiness because I was out evangelizing – I will regret it for eternity! For no one will ever be in heaven because I was out evangelizing. God saves by His will, not mine. No trick of my mind or intellect can grant someone faith. I will certainly have the honor and treasure left for doing the will of God, but even that is in peril if I didn’t do it for the right reason. If I evangelize because I imagine it’s my personal calling when it isn’t.. if I evangelize because I deceive myself into thinking I can change the eternal destiny of someone.. If I evangelize for any other reason than to give glory to God, that reward is lost eternally.</p> <p>Our works will be tried by fire and many good works built of straw, hay, stubble and sticks will be consumed. The man who is committed whole heartedly to eradicating sin from his heart brings immensely more glory to God than evangelizing ten thousand souls and leaving his own stained with sin. For what power is their in salvation if we continue to live in sin? What does Christ accomplish at the cross if we simply become a Christian and move right to evangelism as the principal aim without first understanding that above all, our obligation is personal holiness?</p> <p>Pastor Platt asserts that the Holy Spirit is given principally for missions. I don’t find that in Scripture however. Instead I find the Holy Spirit given for many reasons, not the least of which is the sanctification of the believer. To put one reason above another is to pretend to know the mind of God where God has not revealed it. I don’t doubt but that some are given the Spirit to powerfully pronounce the gospel, and I hope that I and my son are among those. However, I also know that the Spirit is given to everyone to kill sin in our lives and I know that my son and I are called to do this. In the words of John Owen, “Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you.”</p> <p>More on Chapters 6 et seq to follow.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-24171282618034863582011-05-31T11:08:00.003-04:002011-05-31T12:47:00.715-04:00Book Review: "Radical" by David Platt Part II've been recently asked to review the book <em>Radical, Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream</em>, by David Platt and feel that posting a simple blog entry might be more helpful than trying to give my thoughts in the interrupted and disjointed context of a conversation. It's not that I don't wish to hear feedback on my feedback - rather, I'd like to have the advantage of hearing a response to the whole of my understanding and opinion rather than piecemeal understandings of what I might have just said. The art of conversation is lost in our generation because we're too impatient to have a long enough conversation to warrant listening. By the way, it is entirely a fair criticism that I am writing a review before I'm finished reading the book. This is a chronilogical review and should be understood as such. To the extent that any errors I note are corrected in later chapters shame on me. To the extent I misunderstand something that is made more clear in later chapters, again - shame on me.<br />
<br />
<br />
This book, <em>Radical</em>, is now selling well - according to the New York Times and therefore warrants a bit of discussion and criticism. I don't mean criticism in the usually understood negative connotation, but rather, criticism in the sense of thinking critically about what the authors says.<br />
<br />
So, here we go - first chapter. If the sense and gist of a book can be captured from its first chapter, then this is a book about feeding the poor. Pastor Platt begins by - literally - by noting his status as the youngest pastor of a mega-church in history. I don't believe he does this in pride, although it is brought up so often that one wearies of hearing it, rather, Pastor Platt seems to be stating his purpose in writing as a personal crisis of faith subsequent to becoming pastor of a mega-church. The irony here is not lost on me. "My biggest fear, even now, is that I will hear Jesus’ words and walk away, content to settle for less than radical obedience to him." And herein, we see the genesis of the title. It is hard to criticize someone who writes about being radically obedient to Jesus. From the onset, Pastor Platt has preemptively dissuaded any real critical examination of his argument because, after all, who wants to argue against radically obeying Jesus.<br />
<br />
As I noted, this first chapter is about feeding the poor. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying the book is about feeding the poor. I am simply noting what the conclusion of this first chapter is. Before we get there, I would like to note a few fallacies of logic and clear thinking. Pastor Platt begins with a few unspoken assumptions that are put forth as axiomatic, but which I would suggest are not only suspect, but far from logical. The first is his discussion of a small nuclear group of pastors in an Asian country who meet in an environment hostile to the corporate practice of Christianity. In this context Pastor Platt makes the following assumptions - 1. these Christians are being persecuted for their faith, 2. these Christians are more spiritual/devout because of their willingness to be a Christian when the consequences for corporate practice are severe, and 3. these Christians are to be commended for their authentic emotional expressions and simplicity of faith.<br />
<br />
This morning I had a discussion with a friend who noted that there are some who believe that Christians under persecution act differently than Christians who aren't being persecuted. However, it is my opinion and observation from Scripture that all Christians are persecuted and being persecuted. Jesus does not say "the world will hate some of you" or "the world will hate many of you." We, all of us, as followers of Christ and those who have faith in him for the atonement of our sins, are now being persecuted by this world. Many in the West have been deceived into believing that because our mortal lives are not being attacked, that we're safe. I would posit, however, that we in the West are as much under attack as any other church at any other time. The enemy of Christ is rarely so foolish as to believe that the most effective means of combating Christianity is a head on attack on the lives of the faithful. The lesson was learned more than 3000 years ago in the life of Job. The lesson was re-learned during the Roman persecutions. There are times when the enemy is effective using the threat of life, but most often, the more effective threat is not against mortal life, but against Spiritual life. We are never so much hampered in our realization of our faith than when we are deceived about our faith. In this, while Pastor Platt makes what I believe are erroneous assumptions, we both agree on the conclusion - there is something wrong about Christianity in America. We agree our faith, has been altered into something un-Christ like. Pastor Platt incorrectly assumes a purity in a church that is being mortally threatened. There is little in Scripture, if anything, to suggest that believes who are being mortally threatened, are somehow better off spiritually, or more spiritual, or more holy or more anything. To criticize comfort for comfort is to naively understand the grace of God. To some are granted mortal peril, to others spiritual peril. But the world will and does hate God and those who follow God. If we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are not being persecuted, then the enemy has already won a great battle. We are a steer who still thinks he is a bull.<br />
<br />
The first assumption, that these Asian Christians are being persecuted for their faith is wrong. I'm not saying that they are not being persecuted for their faith - I am saying that we cannot presume they are. The fact is they cannot meet corporately to practice their corporate Christianity without threat of mortal peril. Granted. However, we would need to know more. In many countries it is permissible to meet corporately under license of the government and this restriction is imposed against all religions. In this context worshippers are not persecuted for their faith, they're persecuted for having any faith - Islam, Buddhist, Christianity, Jew... it matters not. You can hardly say someone in such a country is persecuted because they follow Jesus - they're persecuted because they follow anyone. Also, it denies the fact that all Christians everywhere and at all times have been and will be persecuted by the ruler of this world. It makes artificial classes of Christians - those who are persecuted and those who are not. Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that the mere proclamation of faith in Christ is what is being denied. What we are told is that to meet corporately is what occasions peril. Fellowship is a key and integral part of the Body of Christ - to be denied fellowship is a harsh measure of Grace. And there are those Christians who will risk their lives to gain fellowship - but that is different than risking your life to proclaim your faith in Christ. It is also different from risking your life to evangelize. Each persecution is real and harsh Grace, but each occasions different responses. We are all going to be persecuted and the mode of that persecution is largely not our choice - rather it is a Grace of God. It is, therefore, simply not logical to assume that because one person or group is prevented from congregating that their ideas of Christianity, that their expression of Christianity, that their understanding or Christianity is more pure, more holy, or better in any facet or quality than anyone else' Christianity. Pastor Platt makes a grievous error in making the first and second assumptions.<br />
<br />
The last assumption, the deference and honor given to these Believer's expressions of worship due to their hardships falls quickly when we note the fallacy of the first two assumptions. In reality, there is no measure of the Holy Spirit given to various Believers on account of their situation. All true Believers worship God in truth, all Believers struggle with sin, all Believers proclaim their faith. All are members of the same body, and to suggest that those under mortal peril are somehow "eyes" while those who live in relative mortal safety are somehow "dishonorable parts" is to deceive ourselves about the body and the Head and the Grace of God. Pastor Platt begins his book with three insupportable assumptions which form the basis of a great deal of erroneous thinking later on as we shall see.<br />
<br />
While illogical argument is bad, there are worse things. Perhaps Pastor Platt will remedy this in the chapters that follow, but it cannot be excused until such time and there is always a lack of responsibility in teaching an incomplete doctrine hoping that the reader will hang around for the correct completion. I am of course referring to Pastor Platt's teaching on the Rich Young Ruler.<br />
<br />
Pastor Platt completely and inexcusably omits the first communications between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler (RYR). He skips to the "sell everything you have" language and makes that the focal point and purpose of this dialogue. Never mind that no where in any other Scripture do we have a command to sell everything and give to the poor. Pastor Platt fails in his adherence to the discipline that Scripture interprets Scripture. There is no context given to these words. I take this opportunity to correct an older brother in the faith, hopefully in meekness and humility. Pastor Platt - Jesus first words to the RYR are most alarming - "Keep the commandments." You note how much Jesus fails in his salvation message with "sell everything" but you fail in your understanding of Jesus' salvation message by omitting, intentionally or negligently, Jesus primary teaching - "Keep the commandments." The command of Jesus for that RYR to sell everything is a response to the RYR's arrogant, self-delusional and false proclamation that he had indeed kept the commandments. Jesus was illustrating that man's heart. It is not fair to suggest that Jesus is giving a general command to all believers at all times to sell everything and give to the poor, or that Jesus is teaching the rich to do this. How do we know this? For one, Jesus, nor any other prophet or writer in Scripture, ever commands anyone else to do this. Secondly, the righteous and/or wise are blessed by God with riches (see Job and Proverbs, and Abraham, and Solomon). Thirdly, we see examples of the rich worshipping God without feeling compelled to give everything they have to the poor - Mary's vial of perfume which she poured on Jesus was worth a years' wages. Who has that kind of money? Judas, the false disciple, complained that the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor. I wonder if Pastor Platt realizes how much his teaching echo Judas instead of Jesus with regard to selling everything and giving to the poor.<br />
<br />
Before I am blasted by those who don't know me; let me state for the record my beliefs about the poor and giving. Proverbs alone teaches more than any other book about the poor. In this book God reveals his heart for the poor. We are taught that to despise the poor is to despise his maker. There is everything commendable about giving to the poor, about having a heart for the poor. It is a mark of a heart for God that one has a heart for the poor. And to the extent that Pastor Platt condemns American greed and commercialism/materialism because we do not have a heart for the poor he couldn't be more right. But to confuse one moment in Jesus' life, one conversation, one teaching on the law and our depravity and our ability to keep the law, as a general teaching to eradicate poverty, as a church-purpose to alleviate poverty in the world, is simply indefensible from the Scripture.<br />
<br />
This chapter is so full of errors that it may take as many words to rebut them as Pastor Platt has used, and for that I apologize. Let me assure you that Pastor Platt's second chapter is one to be commended as one of the most elegant pronouncements of the Gospel that I have ever read. But we are not there yet, we are still dealing with the errors of Chapter 1. <br />
<br />
Pastor Platt has, in my opinion, a distorted view of Jesus' calling of sacrifice. He confuses both the scope and the actuality of the sacrifice called for. Jesus' requirement is everything - agreed. We are commanded to give our very lives so we can hardly have right to complain should our property or relationships or security be imposed upon by God's Grace. However, the realization - the actuality of the sacrifice is not the same in every instance. While all are called to give their lives to Christ, very few will die a martyr's death. Pastor Platt apparently conceives this in that he is not admonishing everyone to die a martyr's death. However, Pastor Platt fails to understand that while we are all called to give our lives to Christ, few are required to give every possession to the poor. Nowhere in Scripture, the example of the RYR notwithstanding, are we called to poverty in material goods. We are called to be impoverished in our own righteousness. Ananias and Saphira as noted examples. The Holy Spirit does not kill them because they fail to give everything to the poor. Indeed, it is noted that while it was theirs it was theirs to do as they wish. Is the Holy Spirit through Peter contradicting Jesus?<br />
<br />
One last example from this chapter illustrates the inconsistent and immature logic of Pastor Platt. Lest I be unfair I'll give the exact quote and admit that (hopefully) he is trying to make a point by being extreme. "A Jesus who would not expect us to forsake our closest relationships so that he receives all our affection." In this quote Pastor Platt attempts to describe what Jesus requires - and he notes that if we disagree we are idolaters, molding Jesus into our own image and worshipping ourselves. However, Pastor Platt has committed the same error he cautions against. The easiest refutation against this teaching is regarding marriage. Nowhere are we called to forsake marriage so that Jesus receives all of our affection. In fact, husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. If a husband is to so love Christ that his love for his wife looks like hate, then how can he at the same time love his wife as Christ loves the Church. This is an example of immature reading of Scripture. I am not meaning to suggest that Pastor Platt is an immature person or lacks responsibility in his pastorate or personal life. I am suggesting that when we approach Scripture, we are to understand these are the thoughts of God. Some of them are hard to understand, and we should not approach Scripture with a simplistic "it means what it says" while restricting ourselves to one verse only. Scripture interprets Scripture because only God knows the mind of God. <br />
<br />
This first chapter is so replete with poor logic, bad eisegesis, and inflammatory statements that it is hard to even take it seriously. Perhaps I spend too much time reading scholarly works that I cannot see this for what it is. It may be that Pastor Platt has intentionally written a provocative and inflammatory chapter to hook the reader into reading more. I can certainly understand why the social gospel proponents are chomping at the bit after reading this chapter. Pastor Platt has become their new poster child. Honestly, it was hard to keep reading at this point and I would have stopped if not for the promise I made a couple friends to provide feedback. I am glad I did because Chapter 2 is one of the best chapters I have read from any Christian author in the past 10 years.<br />
<br />
Chapter 2 is an eloquent, informative, accurate, concise and beautiful expression of the Gospel. Pastor Platt covers Scripture from the Fall in Genesis to the Atonement on the Cross to the ultimate glorification in heaven. Pastor Platt recognizes accurately God's role in salvation and man's role. His teaching reveals the sovereignty of God in salvation and is bound to make more than a few northern liberals uncomfortable in his pronouncement of depravity and grace. I wish I could excerpt this chapter alone, and I hope that Pastor Platt has many more thoughts on pronouncing the Gospel.<br />
<br />
In reading chapter 3 and quickly realizing that Chapter 2 was a brief respite from the chaotic thinking - it does occur to me that Pastor Platt has at least one thing in so many writers who are confusing Christians today. He fails completely to understand the principal will of God in a believer's life.<br />
<br />
Pastor Platt's hobby horse is evangelism and he has fallen into the error of extremism I refer to as hyper-evangelicalism; that is, believing the entire purpose and will of God for a believer's life is evangelism to the entire world. However, his error is but one of many who fail to understand God's will for our lives. In seeking to replace God's will, men will grasp onto anything they can and particularly those things that bring them personal comfort. Some see that thing as health, wealth and prosperity. Some see it as peace between the nations; some see it as being some sort of protestant Mother Theresa. And some like the late Bill Bright, Billy Graham or Pastor Platt as evangelism.<br />
<br />
Again, I have to realize that someone may read this who doesn't know me. Allow me to explain. I am a strong proponent of evangelism. I've personally witnessed to hundreds of unbelievers in my life. I have crafted my elevator speech/2 minute personal testimony. I've practiced mass evangelism, one on one evangelism, written evangelism and defensive/apologetic evangelism. There is without a doubt, a commission given by Jesus just before He ascends to His Father. The Church is to be made of all peoples in all nations and tongues. There is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no black or white in the Church. We are all of us, redeemed sinners saved by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ. Evangelism is the highest calling.<br />
<br />
However, it is just that. Not all are called to be evangelists. Not my words. If Pastor Platt doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but the Scriptures clearly teach that not all are called to be evangelists. Pastor Platt tries to get around this by suggesting that we are all called to be personally involved in evangelism.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether Pastor Platt is right or wrong - he fails to recognize the singular most important thing a Christian can ever be doing. In his distortion of the traditional statement of the purpose of man - he makes it the singular purpose of the church and man to witness. His words are "enjoy his grace and extend his glory" This is a subtle change in the traditional understanding "glorify God and enjoy him forever." The subtle change is "extend" <br />
<br />
It would take paragraphs and paragraphs to fully explain the purpose of man and why it is not to "extend the glory of God." However, I think it sufficient to mention a few things. First, the singular activity which Jesus, over and over again requires, which every single NT author requires, is NOT and is NEVER evangelism or witnessing. It is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE the eradication of sin in the believer's life - the mortification of sin in our hearts and minds, the sanctification of the believer. The commission Jesus gives is to make disciples - a sanctification procedure above all. But Jesus teaches that we do not love God if we don't keep his commandments. Note that Jesus, and Paul and John do not teach that we don't love God if we don't evangelize. That is only one commandment given at one time to one group of believers. The so-called "Great Commission" (I laugh that Pastor Platt capitalizes it as if it were a name of God) is given to one group of believers. Jesus is not found teaching this to everyone. No where in the NT do we find any other teacher giving this commandment to another group of believers. If we as Americans have failed to understand Jesus' principal teaching as "go forth into OTHER nations and witness" then so has Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude. <br />
<br />
The commission is a commandment - given to one group of believers. And many other believers are commanded to go forth through the ministry of the Holy Spirit; see for example Paul's commission at Antioch - indeed on the road to Damascus. However, not every Christian is so called and Pastor Platt's attempt to read this into Scripture is simply bad eisegesis. You cannot make a theology by capitalizing something. <br />
<br />
Every Christian is called to live a holy life. We read this in almost every book of the NT. Why does God give us this commandment, often and everywhere - but hide the commandment to go into all nations in one teaching to one group of believers? Is God obtuse? Is God's will hidden? The entire purpose and error of this book so far is revealed in a quote from Chapter 4:<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Jesus commands us to go. He has created each of us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, and I propose that anything less than radical devotion to this purpose is unbiblical Christianity.<br />
<br />
Wow. Really? Does Pastor Platt really believe he has adequately supported this from Scripture? Based on one teaching from Jesus to one group of believers? If I don't have a radical devotion to taking the gospel to the ends of the earth, I'm an unbiblical Christian. Never mind that I spend hours in prayer fighting sin in my life and working towards holiness. Never mind that I recognize my first and primary mission field is my family and those God has brought into my immediate sphere of influence. Never mind that I am called to server and love the brethren first and foremost. Never mind that I am trying to learn the mind of God by studying Scripture. If I don't have a "radical devotion" to world evangelism then my Christianity is unbiblical. Really Pastor Platt? <br />
<br />
Throughout this book Pastor Platt continually gets so many things right. He accurately teaches the Gospel, he accurately denounces the American Dream as unbiblical. He accurately condemns a biblical understanding/gospel that puts us at the center of the Gospel instead of Christ. But he also fails completely to understand the nature and purpose of sanctification. We bring glory to God first and foremost by repentance and the fight against sin. Angels can pronounce the Gospel and they will one day. Only man can glorify God through the abandonment of sin and the turning to Grace. Only men can glorify God through faith in Christ. Our purpose is to be sanctified and live according to God's will. For many, that will includes evangelism - for me it does. But for many it simply does not. Children are called to be sanctified - they don't have to wait. They are not called to be missionaries or to have a heart for missions. We simply see no evidence of a so-called Great Commission in Scripture. If it is "great" because it comes from Jesus, then we deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the Inspiration of Scripture and might as well only live the red letters. If it is great because it is the last commandment, then we deny the continuing Lordship of Christ and the many commands he has given the Church since the ascension. It is only "great" because some rightly or wrongly have a great heart for missions and mistakenly project that ministry onto every one else. Simply because the Gospel will go to all nations and tribes and tongues, does not mean that every Christian is responsible to make it happen. It's bad logic, it's bad exegesis, and it's bad theology.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-12381117305734937992010-06-30T15:50:00.001-04:002010-06-30T15:51:43.559-04:00Job's Friends Part 5<h1>Job's Friends Part 5 </h1>From the book of Job, Chapter 1 verse 5 we read:<br><br><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px"><div><i>J<font size="2">ob 1:5</font></i></div><div><i><font size="2">And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed </font><font size="2">God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.</font></i></div></blockquote><br>If you read my last installment, you will be familiar with my understanding that the children were not partying every day, but rather were feasting on particular set celebratory occasions, such as a birthday or a set day for each son. Here is further proof which supports my understanding. Apparently, each feast would last more than one day. And when these days were done, that is, the feast was concluded, Job would step in. Herein is order. The feast had run its course, there was design about the festivities. And herein is wisdom. Job as the patriarch recognizes that when there is wine and food and celebration, occasionally there are things said or done that a more sober mind would have avoided.<br><br><div>Job enters the pictures as a spiritual janitor - a priest to his family. He would "send and consecrate them." I appreciate the blanket treatment here. Job is not acting as inquisitor and judge. Rather, as a loving father, he send and consecrates all his children. There is no indication that the children resent this, or rebel against it or avoid it. After order and wisdom follows obedience. </div><br><div>The word used by the English Standard Version is "consecrate." It is not a word we use daily in our lives, and therefore bears a closer scrutiny. To consecrate something is to dedicate it. The Wikipedia project defines consecration as "the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service" of a thing or person. In this sense, Job is dedicating his children, each of them, to a special purpose or service. I wonder what purpose Job intended for his children. As we will see, that purpose will not be fulfilled, as God has another plan for Job and his family. Nevertheless, Job does not know that and he is busy preparing his family for God.</div><br><div>Righteousness does not happen accidentally. Consecration is not haphazard. We often hear the words "prayer changes things" when in fact, it is most often not simply prayer, but effectual prayer, prayers of a righteous man, much prayer and fasting, that changes things. I'll leave for another day the discussion of whether God responds to our prayers in such a way that makes us the ultimate arbiter of our fates and destiny, or whether our prayers when instructed by the Holy Spirit conform themselves to the will of God such that we begin to desire what will be God's will in any case. For today, it is enough to remark that Job was not satisfied with the baby dedication. Indeed, he consecrated his children often and regularly and routinely. This was his habit and his method. This is reinforced by the last phrase "[t]hus Job did continually."</div><br><div>And what was the result of Job's continual intercession for his children? As I pointed out in the last installment, his family were still together, they expressed both filial and brotherly love. There was order and hospitality. There was responsibility and importantly, there was no outward cause for rebuke. Remember, Job thought "it may be ... in their hearts." Job is uncertain as to the spiritual state, at that moment, of his children. For while he had nothing for which to accuse them, Job was still concerned about the circumstances - as a wise father is. Even when his children are doing very well, Job is thinking ahead, out of the box, and in protective mode.</div><br>How is it that Job consecrated them? Sin is a brutal matter. It separates us from God, from the love of God and exposes us to his wrath. Romans 1:18 This wrath is more intense than anything in all of creation. God is not put off by sin. God is not inconvenienced by sin. God is not saddened by sin. God is angry, wrathful and furious. Hell fire was created because of sin. And the only atonement that will appease the wrath and purchase peace is the blood of Christ - a perfect sacrifice capable of carrying the sins of the world. Genesis 3:15, 3:21, and 4:3. Job believes this. He sacrifices burnt offerings to the Lord in faith that God will relent any anger and hold fast to his own covenant established with Adam, that one day his seed would crush Satan and sin and death.<br><br><div>It is possible to do a burnt offering without killing anything. One could offer as a burnt offering a prized possession or food or money. Indeed, the grain offering of Leviticus 2 was a burnt offering. However, the grain offering usually accompanied an animal sacrifice and the atonement for sin offering was an animal sacrifice. Job is concerned about sin here and I believe he was killing his livestock here.</div><br><div>This bears noting. When Job made a sacrifice, it was not an investment in missions or a building or the salary of a pastor. When Job made a sacrifice - it was simply gone. The only reason to make such a sacrifice would have been if you earnestly believed in your heart that God was watching, directing and approving of your actions AND that there was an agreement between God and man that would hold God to the relenting of his anger. This was true sacrifice. I wonder what it would look like in my life were I to sacrifice something. Perhaps not an animal.. the family cat is safe. But what about something that means a lot to me? What about a dream that means a lot to me? </div><br><div>It should be noted that the sacrifice Job made was not of something that shouldn't have been in his life anyway. Giving up television is not that much of a sacrifice. For while it may be difficult, the denial of television will improve your overall quality of life in any regard. Similarly, giving up fattening foods or shopping binges will not be much of a sacrifice either, as God will see that you're improving your life through the sacrifice and we will always wonder what our primary motivation for the sacrifice was. A sacrifice of a healthy productive animal to a farmer is the equivalent of sacrificing a good modern laptop to a computer technician; sacrificing a your best power tools to one in construction; sacrificing your best suit to a minister. You see, the animal was the rancher's livelihood - not only was it an animal, it was his income. When Job sacrificed the animal, he realized an immediate poverty of sorts. There was no remuneration for the animal. He was not allowed to choose sickly animals. He also lost the potential within that animal, for it was most likely able to produce offspring for Job as well.</div><br><div>Lastly, I note that the sacrifice was completely unto God. It was not a sacrifice to God and given to others. Now, before those of you who may ever read this complain to me about the Levitical rights of the priests, I understand how many sacrifices in Israel were meant to provide sustenance to the priests as well as honor God or appease his anger. However, many of the sacrifices were whole burnt offerings, as is suggested here. The text certainly allows that Job sacrificed part of the animal, but the question remains, which part? He would still have been deprived of the benefit of offspring from that animal. He would still have been deprived of whatever part was burnt, and a quick read of Leviticus suggests that the best parts were burnt. God still took the best. This was a true sacrifice set apart unto God and no other.</div><br><div>Now contrast that with what most of us call sacrifices today. Giving money to the church is no sacrifice. It may be a tithe, it may be a gift, but it is certainly no sacrifice, because it is not given to God alone. Certainly, the widow's mite seems to approach that quality as in her heart the money was lost to who knows what cause and it would never benefit her, a widow. But how many times have I said in my heart: I don't want to give to this ministry because I'm not happy with what they would do with the money? Job isn't asking how God is going to use his burnt offering. The sacrifice is complete when we lose control of the item we are sacrificing.</div><br>Finally, before leaving this verse, it is important to my heart to acknowledge the picture of Christ our Intercessory Priest here. As Job's children were living, Job was interceding. The allusion is to the intercessory role Christ plays on our behalf. While Job's sacrifices were animals and continual, Christ's sacrifice was his own body and blood and was once for all. We see the father's love for his children just as we see our Heavenly Father love u<font size="2">s so much that His only son is given upon an instrument of torture and death. This is what makes Job the kind of man of whom God boasts "<i><font color="#0B5394">[h]</font></i><font color="#0B5394"><i>ave you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?</i></font>" Job 1:8</font><br><br><div><font size="2">Oh to have my Lord boast over me! What more can glory afford? Today my challenge is to continually intercede for my son. While I no longer make sacrifices to atone for his sin, I can still make intercession for him by calling upon our Great Interceder, our Lord who makes peace between God and man, appeasing and atoning the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Fathers, is there something else that more warrants our time and energy? Note that Job did this early in the morning, before doing anything else. Before shaving, before brushing our teeth, before working out, before breakfast: the most important thing we can do during our day is to be on our knees before God interceding for our children, turning away from evil, and worshiping God.</font><br></div><br>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-29396687572941636382010-04-09T17:41:00.001-04:002010-04-09T17:41:48.693-04:00Job's Friends Part 4<h1>Job's Friends Part 4 </h1>From the book of Job, Chapter 1 verse 4 we read:<br><br><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px"><div><i>Job 1:4</i></div><div><i>His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.</i></div></blockquote><br><div>Of the verses that we have examined thus far, this one is perhaps the most interesting and difficult to understand. But we will take it word for word, idea for idea and I hope to make out the understanding of what the Holy Spirit is communicating to us.</div><br>The verse begins with "his sons" referring back of course to Job. Job had seven such sons and apparently they were all at home. In today's culture such a phenomenon is unheard of in itself. To have so many children is one thing, for them all to remain at home is almost ethnic in that it is a stranger to normal American experience. Today children grow up and move far away, they leave the nest, they move on. Can one imagine what Thanksgiving would be like in Job's day? The roads would be abandoned! Unlike today's world, there would be almost no holiday traffic, as all the children would still be home.<br><br>There is something to be said for staying home. While I can hardly speak to the virtue, having moved more than a thousand miles from my homeland, I can attest to the warmth, comfort and security of having family near-by and the loneliness and solidarity of being separated from those who love you most. We should not misunderstand the culture of Job's day - not everyone stayed home to live with their parents. Proverbs teaches us that a neighbor close by is preferred in the day of calamity than a brother far off in another land. Abram left his kin in Ur. Jacob and Esau lived in different parts of the world. Paul left Tarsus. Jacob went down to Egypt. Joseph was no longer living in Bethlehem. While the world was much smaller than it is today, apparently people still moved and traveled and were separated from family.<br><br><div>However, in Job's family - everyone was still there. And that says a lot, in my opinion, about Job's patriarchal provision. His children were not confined to the family estate, rather, they chose the family estate. And apparently, from the next few words, we find them happy to be at the family estate. As a father I can think of no greater blessing than the idea that my son would find my patriarchal provision sufficient that he would be able to be distinct and protected at the same time.</div><br><div>That last idea bears exploration. Many children leave fine homes because they feel the need to spread their own wings. While they are in the nest they live under a shadow of their parents that represses their own individuality and personality and dignity. They don't dislike home, they just need room to be themselves. What I find surprising, is that Job among all his other talents and righteousness, knew how to protect his family and at the same time give them freedom to be themselves. They remained home because Dad didn't suffocate them. Dad didn't impose himself on them. In short, Dad didn't exacerbate them.</div><br><div>His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day. There are no momma's boys here. See this young men? None of these sons still live under the same roof as Mom. We have no clue as to whether they are married or not, Scripture does not tell us. But each had his own house. One of the secrets to the harmony of this family, I believe, is without a doubt the ability to sustain a household by each one of the sons. They, each of them, understood the economics of maintaining a home. They, each of them, understood the mechanics and stewardship of owning a home. How many young women would do well to consider this when considering a husband. Does he maintain his own home?</div><br><div>This is especially important in the matter of bachelors. I have owned a home as a bachelor and as a married man and they are two very different things. As a married man, you have someone there who has a vested interest in the home - in fact, often the woman has a superior position in the home. This is not to say that she usurps her role as God ordained, rather, that her husband wisely understands this role is as a steward, not as a servant. As a steward, she has more control than the master. As a servant, she has less control. A servant does what the master says. A steward determines what is best for the master. In any case, a bachelor has no steward, no partner, no one who is at least as interested in the home as he is, if not more. A bachelor who owns a home exercises something many men don't find attractive - home economics. Many men I know, if single, and while single, would prefer to rent an apartment. We simply don't nest well. </div><br><div>However, Job's sons all had their own homes. However it was that they came about them, we know them to be responsible, independent home owners - of sufficient sized homes that any of those homes could house a party of 10 with spouses and children and friends and servants. We find out later that, indeed, servants were present in these homes. </div><br><div>Our friend Job is a father among fathers. His sons are not just independent, but full of brotherly love - love for their siblings. And these boys are gentlemen too! Did you catch it? They invited their three sisters too. This is not stag night. This is not boy's night out. These children don't believe in gender based fun. There were no crude jokes, inappropriate humor, or sexists comments. </div><br><div>So what do we have here? Riotous partying? Maybe. Excessive libations, indulgences and entertainments? Perhaps. Permissive diversions and distractions? Doubtful in mixed company. The worst that could be said were that the children were accustomed to excess and wealth on a level that few ever enjoy. It is not a sin to be wealthy. It is no sin to party. However, we will see later, that such endeavors do expose us to the risk of sin.</div><br><div>The confusing part of this verse, the part that is obscure to me, is the frequency of the parties. Scripture does not tell us that anything inappropriate happened at these parties. We can freely assume the best of these children knowing the Godly nature of their parents.</div><br><div>When I first read this verse I assumed that there was a party on every day of the week - for there are seven sons, and there are seven days. But is that what the verse says?</div><br>"<i>each one on his day</i>" does not necessarily mean Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday... Does it? The NET bible says "<i>each one in turn</i>". The New Living Translation says "<i>when Job's sons had birthdays</i>". The NIV says "<i>His sons used to take turns</i>." As I've noted before, I'm no master of Hebrew and I won't attempt an analysis of the original language. But I will point out that the translators considered most credible and qualified for those translations did not translate the verse to read that the sons were partying it up every day of the week, rather that they had parties, they shared the responsibility of hosting and like good hosts, they made sure their sisters, who may or may not have had a home of their own, would be invited and included. This looks to me like a healthy, loving, Godly family. Who wouldn't want to be one of those brothers and sisters?<br><br><div>I think there is something here beyond family harmony though. There is provision, there is security, there is love, and there is a resource for all of this. These sons grew up to be like their father. Job cared for his family and servants, and here we see his sons doing likewise. My respect and admiration for the man grows every day. And I can hardly imagine the pain and loss that we're coming to eventually. In fact, this is the happy part of the story, the part we don't want to end. For those fans of "Lord of the Rings" this is the picnic celebrating Bilbo's 111th birthday in the Shire. For fans of "War and Peace" this is Anna Pavlovna's soirée. For those fans of "The Titanic", this is the party in the lower quarters. It is difficult to even read further, as one wants this picturesque landscape of family harmony as God designed it to last forever. God blessed Job, and here we see the deepest blessing, one we may all envy with equal desire.</div><br><br><br>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-25994209747599645172010-04-07T10:12:00.001-04:002010-04-07T10:14:27.376-04:00Job's Friends Part 3<h1>Job's Friends Part 3</h1>From the book of Job, chapter 1 verses 3 and 10:<br><br><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px">Job 1:3<div><i>He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east.</i></div><br><div>Job 1:10</div><div><i>Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.</i></div></blockquote><br><div>It is not my intent to bounce around Job cherry picking nuggets of wisdom; much less to continue mixing my metaphors. My point in skipping ahead and including verse 10 is because I believe it gives context and meaning to verse 3. For we see that Job is a rich man. Yesterday I was speaking with one of my best friends, a man whom I'm proud to call friend, a farmer who was explaining to me that even today a man who owned so many animals would be a great man indeed.</div><br><div>And herein lies a problem for me personally. I struggle against those who would preach a prosperity gospel, but here we read about a God fearing man who avoid evil and who is blessed by God in very material ways. This has got to set free prosperity gospel preachers and give wings to their delights. I can just hear preachers excusing mansions and mega churches with these two verses. Indeed, how can we see it otherwise without looking to other Scripture?</div><h2>Numbers</h2>Is there any significance to the numbers 7,000, 3,000 and 500? Again, I think those who see numerology within everything would have a field-day here. Seven is often the number of perfection. Three is identified with the triune Godhead. And I'm tempted to point out that there are five fingers on a hand which allows us to grasp and work. But is the Holy Spirit trying to teach us anything from these numbers, or are they there just to say simply that Job was a very rich man? <br><br><div>Sheep are sustenance. They provide no labor, they consume resources and labor; however, they provide sustenance in the form of wool and food. In that regard they are God's provision for us. His provision to Job is marked out by the number 7,000. Job's sustenance was large indeed. One might say it was figuratively perfect. If we believe Satan's representation in verse 10, and it is important to recognize that God did not correct him, then indeed the numbers were determined by God himself and not by chance or fortune. In any regard, God has blessed Job with a great number of sheep.</div><br><div>Camels can be both sustenance and labor. Camel hair is of generally fine quality and can be used in the production of felt and other clothes. Additionally, Job's camels were the ATVs of the day, the farm truck and 4 Wheeler combined into one. Unlike the relatively smaller herds of sheep that I saw while I was in the area of Northern Arabia and Western Iraq, where presumably Job lived, Job had vast herds which could not be managed by shepherd boys on foot. Water was scarce so camels were particularly valuable in that climate. Job had 3,000 camels. One wonders, how did he feed so many camels? The sheep would subsist on the grass in that part of the land. The camels would be able to eat the grass as well, but Job's family would need grain in addition to the meat their stock provided.</div><br><div>In addition to the animals, Job was responsible for a great many servants. These are people who are, like Job's family, dependent upon Job for their very lives. One cannot help but remember the story of the prodigal son, who in desperation and fear for his life when starving thought to return to his father's house as a servant when he remembered how his father cared for his servants. It is entirely reasonable to understand that Job was just as righteous in his dealings with his servants. It is not only reasonable, but expected that Job's servants were well cared for, that Job loved them and prayed for them and considered their welfare and that of their families. In this regard Job was more than a family man and a farmer, he was a business man capable of managing the affairs of many.</div><br><div>I suspect that Job was more than a herdsman; that in addition to livestock he also had fields of grain that are not mentioned but which are implied. How are they implied? Why else would Job need 500 oxen? Sure, oxen are a food source as well. But they require a lot more grass than the desert would provide. It is uncertain what the climate was like in that part of the land. Indeed, it is even disputed where exactly in northern Arabia or western Iraq Job lived. But there are rivers there now and there were rivers there in Job's time. It is possible that Job lived near enough water to grow crops to support the oxen and supplement the diet of the sheep, camels, donkeys and his own family and servants. Indeed, I believe it is more than possible, but implied by the numbers themselves.</div><br><div>Better than implications, however, is the notice we are given in verse 14 where a servant tells Job that "the oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them." I am impressed by the diversity of Job's farm operation here. He is practically self reliant in that his operation provides grain, wool, meat and other food stuffs. Job is not to be taken lightly. I imagine if we were to meet Job today, he'd have a Masters of Science degree from Penn State University in Animal Husbandry and Farm Operations. These are not simple folk from a bygone era, rather, Job is a sophisticated businessman capable of understanding diversification, human resource management, farm management, production capacities, resource management, building design, farm implements, textile production, risk management, and other skills necessary for such a large operation.</div><br><div>This observation is necessary as we will eventually be analyzing Job's arguments and philosophies in light of his intelligence and education. I believe we will be wise to understand Job as a renaissance man. </div><br><div>And this renaissance man was the greatest of all the people in the East. That is quite an observation. Was it Job's wealth that made him great? Is the Holy Spirit here stooping to modern valuations of man which look only at the pocket book? I don't believe that in light of all that we have seen about how Job came about his wealth and the remarkable diligence and skills that were necessary to produce and maintain that wealth. I have known rich people who came about their wealth with ease producing things of little lasting worth. I have also known rich people who came about their wealth through diligence and hard work with an ever lasting interest in those whom God has put in their charge, who have a generous nature and a kind disposition but who are intensely interested in being the best steward of what God has given them. I believe Job was the latter kind. Job was the kind of man that despised gambling in all forms, who appreciated life and human dignity. Job was the kind of man who was generous and who looked out for the best interests of others - as we shall see in a few verses. Job was a righteous man who saw himself for what he was - a steward of God's property.</div><br><div>My last observation on verse 3 is that all that Job had was from God. Verse 10 teaches us that God blessed the work of Job's hands and his possessions increased accordingly. Job worked. He was not a lazy man, or a man given to idleness or trivial entertainment. When others were playing, Job was working; and then when they were sleeping Job was offering sacrifices. But hard work alone does not provide anything. That is what a servant of God is expected to do. The increase in Job's wealth was entirely from God. God saw fit to give, and later he sees fit to take away. In chapter 2 verse 10 we see that Job understands the source of all his wealth to be from God. And so, that Job was wealthy and powerful and influential were all blessings from God.</div><br><div>Is this prosperity Gospel? Satan certainly thought so, as we shall see in a few verses. However, we will suspend our analysis of that question till then. In the meantime I will pray that God blesses me with a proper understanding of these verses and the question of whether God does or does not bless righteousness with material wealth and power.</div><br>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-16580419162215820222010-03-30T13:14:00.001-04:002010-03-30T13:14:17.780-04:00Job's Friends Part 2Job's Friends Part 2 <br><br><div>From Job, chapter 1 verse 2:</div><br><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px">"There were born to him seven sons and three daughters."<br></blockquote><br>Scriptures remind us that a blessed man has a full quiver. Children are a blessing from the Lord, as any new parent can attest. I wouldn't recommend asking too many parents of teenagers though. In any case, the first pronouncement of Job's wealth, status and blessing from God begins with a list of his children. He had seven son and three daughters.<br><br><div>In this age and time it is likely that Job would have had to pay to marry off his daughters, what would later be called a dowry. However, it is also possible that someone would have to pay him for his daughters, cf. Jacob and Leah/Rachel. In any case, there is an immediate pecuniary benefit to having seven sons. We know that Job was an agrarian; a farmer. In this trade a son would work all day and not require labor wages. That is to say, there was no out-of-pocket expenditure for his day of labor. Additionally, the son would be trusted more than a day laborer or hired hand. I'm of the opinion that private capital leads to better management of resources. This is certainly not a universally held position, but the Bible supports private ownership and here we see private ownership as a blessing from God.</div><br><div>Having seven sons to help on the family farm, Job had seven captains, if you will, to manage the servants and hired hands. Instead of having to personally care for everyone, he could delegate and spend his time investing in the education, training and care of seven who would then train and manage others. In this manner Job was able to have a sizeable farm by any age. There are farmers today who make a living on fewer livestock than Job had with better technology.</div><br><div>There is an interesting ratio here as well. In most societies women outnumber men. They out-live men but are more prone to disease. However, in most cultures there are more female babies born than male babies and for all of humanity, cultures have embraced males while slighting the female children. The males were educated, given an inheritance, put in positions of honor. And other men would judge a man by the number of boys he sired. Science would later affirm that indeed, it is the father who determines the sex of the child. It's just human nature. And this passage is a recognition of Job's masculinity of sorts.</div><br><div>But Job's home wasn't without the grace and beauty of femininity. He had three daughters to compliment his wife. Job's wife is not portrayed completely in Scripture. We know little to nothing of their love, of their commitment to one another, of their fidelity and spirituality. We know that in extreme hardship - the kind none of us will ever experience - Job's wife doesn't give the best advice. But neither do his friends, nor does Job hold fast to the best positions and ideals.</div><br>It may be that Job's wife was ungodly. It may be that like all other aspects of Job's life, his wife was a blessing too. We simply don't know. In any case, she has borne Job ten children and that much alone is more than any other Godly man I can recollect from Scripture. Job was blessed.<br><br><div>A family is a precious gift. We receive it from God and hope that He lets us enjoy them for the entirety of our lives. I had a sister when I was a child. God's grace was such that he allowed me to enjoy her for 15 years. And in God's Providence she is now home with the Lord Jesus Christ and I am left here to carry on. I had a wife when I was younger. God's grace was such that he gave me a wife for 8 years. God has allowed a divorce and broken our family. So that when I read about Job's family, I know the blessing of family. I know the heartache of loss. I don't know these things on the same scale as Job, but the flavor is in my mouth and I can recollect the memories of having a sister and having a wife. I have a son and he is still a blessing in my life. I know the love of a son and I know the love of a father. <br></div><br><div>Job is not an abstract. Job does not exist in a vacuum. His righteousness and humanity is not given to us in parable form, rather it is demonstrated through relationships - real relationships with people who have names and loves and hurts. His children aren't named for us, as his friends are, but we see something of them and their relationship to their father in the next few verses. What I find here though is enough for some deep thought.</div><br><div>Job had ten children, seven sons and three daughters. Job knew the fear that a father knows regarding the safety of his children. Job knew the hopes and dreams of any parent. Job knew the delight in a daughter or son bouncing on his knee. Job had a family. And he was blessed.</div><br><div>This is an appropriate place to start. I need to remember that Job had a family. For everything else that I will read about his arguments has to be placed in perspective. He had a loving family who played together, who worshiped together, who were his very own. When that family is taken away there is going to be some serious pain. I think those of us who have lost greatly can empathize with Job; indeed we may be able to sympathize with Job. I know I can. After seeing this part of Job's family scrap-book, I am hesitant to condemn anything Job says after he loses his family. After all, who wouldn't give Job grace upon grace at that time. Who knows his pain?</div><br><div>We all know the end of the story. Job loses these children but gets more in the end. That tells me more about Job's wife - they're in a healthy sexual relationship which produces a lot of offspring. But he memories will last with him for a life-time. I have new brothers and sisters today - in the form of my former brothers and sisters-in-law. But the pain of loss of my little sister, now gone home almost 28 years ago, will never go away completely.</div><br><div>And the two shall become one... It is interesting to note that Job does not lose his wife. It may also be instructive that Satan doesn't ask for this either. Perhaps it is because Satan felt he could use Job's wife against him? Perhaps it is because the two had become one and God had already said that Satan would not be able to take his life. If it is the latter, consider the reality of the two flesh becoming one.</div><br><div>When Job married his young bride, they became one flesh. When one would die, a very real part of the other would die as well. God sees them as one. He joins them together, not a preacher, not the State. God joins them together, he ordains the relationship and it is unique among all others. They become one in a way that is different. When God tells Satan that he may not harm Job's body, that includes his wife's body. When he tells Satan not to kill Job; that includes Job's wife (or at least that is a possible understanding of the prohibition if not an absolute necessary understanding).</div><br><div>Job doesn't get a new wife. And I believe Job doesn't need a new wife. Trials come and trials go. One thing we learn from Job and the trials God allows in his life is this: Children are not the end-all of families; rather, marriage is. He lost his children and God gave him new children. But God never allowed Satan to take away his wife. Let no man divide or separate what God has joined together - not even Satan. </div><br><div>Today we are tempted to worship our children, and even to put them in front of our marriages. I cannot help but see a spiritual truth here in Job though - Job's children were expendable. Job's marriage was not. Job's children were a blessing - Job's marriage is a covenant between God and man not to be broken by any man.</div><br><div>Please don't misunderstand me to say that divorce is always wrong; for it is. But while wrong, it is sometimes allowed - particularly in the case of marital infidelity or sexual immorality. But marriage is so sacrosanct that God would not allow Satan to severe the marriage so that it could be used against Job in the most severe test of man ever recorded. For God instituted marriage. He does not break it - even to make a point. He keeps his promises.</div><br><div>Men, we should treat marriage no less seriously. Nothing is more important than our marriages. No career, no child, no personal need is more important than our marriage. No ministry is more important than our marriage. When it comes down to it - all else other than the worship of God takes second stage to our marriages. If we, as men, would do this and honor it, how would it change marriage today? I'm not suggesting that there would be no divorce. For women are sinners before God too. But we have the power men, to at least change 50 percent of the problems in marriage today.</div><br><div>I have lost a spouse. It hurts more than the loss of a sibling. It hurts more than the loss of practically anything I can imagine. And it doesn't stop hurting with time alone. God's grace is sufficient and He heals all hearts of all hurts in His Providential timing. I believe God is a God of reconciliation and restoration; but I also believe He is a God of repentance and holiness. Sometimes he allows reconciliation and restoration - sometimes He does not. In any case, we are to work for, to aspire for, to yearn for, to long for God's best. My job is to repent. My job is to be the best servant of God that I can be - in all my relationships.</div><br><div>Job didn't have ten children in an unhappy home. There's no indication of an unhappy home here. My admiration of Job continues to grow. And we're only two verses into the book.</div><br>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-49388476069563883792010-03-25T18:13:00.001-04:002010-03-25T18:13:17.829-04:00Job's Friends<h1>Job's Friends<span style="font-weight:normal"> </span></h1>In course of my current path of repentance, I'm studying the book of Job. It is not that I see my life as a trial, or that I have experienced any particular hardship. Rather, what I find is that Job suffered for two chapters and for the next forty chapters we learn nothing more about the trials and suffering of Job. It is difficult for me to believe that the book of Job is about suffering when I see that forty chapters of the book recount nothing about his suffering, but rather are a collection of arguments about suffering, the nature of God, the nature of man and assorted other topics. At first blush, there seems to be a lot one could garner from the book of Job about counseling; particularly Christian counseling. For, if I remember correctly, Job's three friends are that helpful in their well intended efforts to assist their wounded friend.<br><br><div>Accordingly, what I endeavor to do now is to examine the arguments of the book of Job, in turn and with an eye to applying them in my own life. I am not a counselor, but I am a friend, and a son, and a father. Perhaps there is something to be learned from these in-artful counselors of one of the most famous biblical characters.</div><br><div>The color of submission suggests that Scripture presents itself in a form which was designed by God. Thus, I submit myself to Scripture and begin at the beginning, rather than what I wish to do - which is to jump to chapter four and begin with Eliphaz's arguments.</div><br><h2>Chapter 1:1</h2><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px"><p>There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. NASB</p></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Introductions in the Bible are various and curious. We're introduced to Paul - Saul at the time, as a footnote during the stoning of Stephen, the main character. We're introduced to David in 1 Samuel 16 as the least of his brothers out taking care of sheep whom the Lord had not yet filled with his spirit. We're introduced to Abraham as one called from Ur. And here we're introduced to one of the most famous men of all time, for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and Atheists all know the name of Job. In introducing Job, the writer tells us that Job was in he land of Uz. No one knows for sure, but many suggest that the land of Uz was located to the East of Israel and south of Edom. Today this is a desolate place, but history also suggests that this was not always so. If this is the patriarchal time, then the date would be between 1400 BC and earlier. </p><p><br></p><p>And so we meet a man not living in Canaan, who was blameless. And we was turning away from evil. The juxtaposition of these two statements about Job encourages me. For Job was not perfect in being, but perfect in direction. His life isn't blameless in every account, but rather the author is accounting for Job's life with a static forward/present looking perspective. It is not that Job has lived perfectly, but rather, that Job is turning away from evil. The NET and ESV versions translate the Hebrew as "turned away from evil." The NIV reports that Job "shunned evil" and the NLT says that Job "stayed away from evil." I am illiterate in Hebrew and rely upon the translators to provide an accurate meaning. The idea that Job repented, and turned away from evil is realistic in experience; consistent with Scripture - all men must repent. Job is not blameless because he has lived a perfect life. Rather, just as Abram had to obey God through faith and leave behind the worship of the moon; just as Moses had to repent of murder; just as David had to repent of adultery and murder; just as Paul had to repent of murder and hate - so we now find Job repenting.</p><p><br></p><p>He shuns evil, he hides from evil, he is turning away from evil. Proverbs 22:3 teaches us that the wise man, the prudent man sees danger and hides himself from it. A wise man anticipates trouble. The heart of trouble begins with temptation.</p><p><br></p><p>Addicts are taught to recognize their own frailty by examining themselves and learning their own nature. The acronym H.A.L.T. is helpful. Hungry - Angry - Lonely - Tired. A man who senses that he is hungry knows that his body is weak, his constitution compromised, his mind distracted, his defenses down. A wise man sees that hunger and anticipates trouble, he anticipates temptation. Further, a wise man treats the hunger, in an appropriate way, so as to defeat the enemy before even experiencing the temptation. If he is angry, he knows that his heart is troubled, his emotions stirred and turbulent, his rationality diminished. He humbly recognizes the weakened state and shores up his defenses by addressing the anger in an appropriate way. If a man is lonely or tired, he will again have his defenses compromised. And a wise man anticipates this and responds accordingly. Job hid himself from evil. Job turns away from evil.</p><p><br></p><p>Job was both a wise man, and a repentant man. This makes for an "upright" man. Almost all translations use the term "upright" here. The NLT says Job was a man of "complete integrity" and the MSG interprets the Scripture to say that Job was "totally devoted to God." When I hear the term "upright" I cannot but help think of the evolution charts I saw constantly as a child in school. You see the monkey to man chart and all but the last one are bent over. They are not upright. I also think about tent poles. Having camped a lot in my life, more than almost anyone I've ever met, I know a few things about tent poles. I know, for example, that if the tent pole isn't upright - you're going to have problems. A tent pole at any angle creates imbalance and instability. They are difficult to stabilize with lines. They are practically useless.</p><p><br></p><p>So, when I think of a man who is not upright, the image in my imagination is that of a monkey - or a creature who is less than man - an instable, imbalanced creature. I don't believe in the theory of evolution and find the idea remarkable on any level. So, these are images that are fantastic. But even in art we see the devious portrayed by the one hunched over. We imagine the criminal mind hunched over his papers scheming and hiding. </p><p><br></p><p>Recently I had occasion to meet two young boys of 15 and 16 years old. They each wanted to date one of my friend's daughters and each left a distinct impression upon me by their stature. The older was taller than the other, but his height was diminished by his stature, for his was shifty, sneaky and devious in presentation. He did not look you in the eye and if you were successful in soliciting a handshake, it was one of those limp feminine handshakes without eye contact. In contrast, the younger boy approached me, made an introduction which while presumptive was bold and strong. He shook my hand heartedly with good eye contact. The impression was made and will not be easily undone. The one is upright - the other less than upright. And less than upright is not good.</p><p><br></p><p>Job is an upright man. We get the sense that he's direct, forthright, honest, able to look anyone in the eye because he has dealt fairly with all men. He walks straight and tall because he has nothing to be ashamed of, he is hiding nothing. What he has done wrong, he has already repented of, and he's familiar with his fellow man - he knows what is in the heart of man and knows that no one is perfect. Having repented he can walk straight.</p><p><br></p><p>But walking upright and repenting doesn't occur in a vacuum. There is within this one verse a <i>raison d'étre</i>. For Job is not <font size="2">an upright man if he does not fear God. Job does not repent if he does not fear God. Job is not blameless if he does not fear God. In fact, all that Job is, is due to his fear of God.</font></p><p><br></p><p><font size="2">The Hebrew word here (yare') means</font><font size="2"> to fear, revere, be afraid, stand in awe of, be awed, honour, respect, be dreadful, to cause astonishment and awe, be held in awe, to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe. I've heard teachers suggest that God is not someone we should fear, but rather revere with honor and respect. Certainly, the word allows such a limited interpretation. I believe, however, that when we see how people respond to being in the presence of God - or hearing God call them to account - we will see that the word is more accurately held to mean awe and fear. One cannot be in the presence of the divine and not be unchanged. And Scripture teaches us that the most common response of people from Adam to the Apostle John - from Genesis to Revelation - is that a man is overcome with his own sin and want to hide his face. No one in this world rushes into the presence of the Father like a 2 year old and hops in his lap. That's just not Scriptural reality. We are encouraged to call upon the Father with a Daddy like name - Abba Father. We are encouraged to see his love and his tenderheartedness. We are pointed to his mercy and his grace. But these all exist within the power and the being of the most High, the most powerful, the only pure, the only righteous God. Those teachers can rush into his lap - I'm probably cognizant of my sin enough to hide.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">I'm not suggesting that those teachers are wrong - I just believe it to be a super-human ability to know all of our sin - to see his righteousness, justice and power - to see Jesus' propitiation and still stand on our feet, much less hop into his lap. John the Apostle fell before an Angel! I agree that we have the right - because of Jesus' propitiation to enter the throne room of God and call upon him as Abba Father, but I also recognize that until such time as my sin is done away with completely in whole in perfect sanctification here on Earth - I'll hide, I'll fear, I'll stand in awe of God. Rather, hopefully I'll do these things. If God grants me repentance; if God grants me fear; then I will be blameless too. Then I will walk upright.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">Job is not Superman. Job is not a movie super hero. He's a man, chosen by God, to walk in righteousness. He is what any Christian can be, and what all Christians are called to be. When I read Job 1:1 I am reminded that I should be able to write in my journal for my son:</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="border:none;margin:0 0 0 40px"><p>There was a man in the land of Pennsylvania whose name was Kevin; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. JoK (Journal of Kevin)</p></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Later we will examine Job 1:2.</p><br>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-34976227340337132192010-03-09T12:13:00.002-05:002010-03-09T12:19:09.051-05:00WelcomeI welcome any and all persecution and criticism. Your criticisms communicate that at the very least I’m thinking about something important. Accordingly, if you wish to point out how ignorant, simplistic, banal or stupid any of my thoughts, opinions or ideas are, I welcome them. Please send them to my email address which is ljsdaddy with the obligatory gmail portion added on at the end. But I think we’d all enjoy it more if you’d leave a comment below.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}
</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-37343959657058998352010-03-09T11:46:00.000-05:002010-03-09T11:46:21.705-05:00Submitting to GodI am recently moved in heart and mind to the topic of submission. Submission necessarily involves the act of submitting; usually surrendering ones power to another. To submit is to yield to the control of another. In the case of submitting to God it is then to yield our will, our direction, our belief, our passion, our intellect, and our freedom to the control of God. To accomplish such we require three things requisite. First and foremost we must be cognizant to some extent of our own will, our own predetermined direction, our own chosen beliefs, our own passions, our own intellect, and our own favored freedom. With regard to each, but with particular attention to our will, I do not mean to suggest that a complete and accurate information of our own will is necessary, but rather that we must be familiar with and aware of our own will before it can be submitted to another. Secondly, in order to submit, we must be cognizant of the will of the one to whom we are to yield our will.<br />
<br />
To illustrate, let us examine the case of an enlisted soldier of inferior rank receiving a lawful order from a higher ranking soldier. In order for the soldier to obey the order and yield his own will to that will expressed within the order the soldier must be aware of the will expressed within the order and his own will. Further, in order to yield control there must be a dissonance between the soldier's will and the will expressed in the order. For if there is no disagreement, no dissonance, no lack of harmony, then the soldier will be able to accompany the terms of the order without yielding control. In this case the inferior soldier will be cooperating with the superior officer. There is harmony, there is agreement and there is obedience; but there is no submission in that there is no necessary yielding of control. <br />
<br />
In review we see that before submission can be effected there is required: a knowledge of our will; an awareness of the will of another; and, a dissonance between the two. At this point submission requires an act. The act required is that of yielding and yielding requires change. Our will and intention has predetermined a course of conduct or non-conduct and to yield is to adopt a different course. If we are predisposed to sit and we rise in yielding to another, we are said to submit. If we are running and we stop in deference to the will of another, we are said to submit. But if we are running and we find ourselves in agreement with the will of another, we are not submitting; rather, instead we are cooperating. It is no sin to cooperate and agree with the will of God. But reality and creation teaches us that our wills rarely coincide with the will of God, and our nature is opposed to the will of God without direct intervention by God himself. While cooperation is possible, submission is rather the norm in the experience of most.<br />
<br />
It might be argued in opposition that to yield control does not require dissonance. It might be suggested that to yield control does not even require information and awareness, but can be the sort of yielding that a soldier exhibits when that soldier enlists in the service in the first place. I will admit that this is an expression of the intent to yield. I will admit that when the armed forces had the power and will to enforce orders under penalty of being shot, that the choice to enlist required a much deeper sense of yielding control. However, the counter argument is that an intention to yield is not yielding until a dissonance arises. The soldier may be said to have submitted upon enlistment, but the character of that submission will not be seen until such time as the soldier receives instruction and direction which is contrary to that soldier's own will and persuasion. If the soldier at that time regrets the decision to enlist and chooses not to yield control and follow the order, the initial enlistment can no longer be characterized as submission. If the soldier serves the entire term of service without having received an order which creates disharmony but rather serves out the term with complete harmony of purpose and direction, can that soldier be said to have submitted? Rather, I believe the soldier has cooperated in purpose and direction and provided service. However, there is no reason to believe the soldier has yielded any control.<br />
<br />
With regard to the three requisites, the first - an information and awareness of our own will - comes about by intelligent meditation and consideration. A haphazard life distracted by the diversions of entertainment and society will not allow for such an intelligent meditation and consideration. For this reason alone it would be wise to spend some time each day soberly with a mind to know our own intention, bias, predisposition and will. However, as I hope to demonstrate, this is not necessary to the extent one might suppose if one will spend time daily in a sober reflection upon the will of the one to whom we are to yield control. For the second requisite is that we have an accurate information and awareness of the will of God. It is a peculiar aspect of humanity that when we learn the will of another, our own spirit will reveal quickly the extent and breadth of our own will's agreement with that being revealed to us.<br />
<br />
In order to understand the will of another we must first be aware of that will. Subsequent to becoming aware of the will, we must understand accurately the content, import, intention and force of that will. The content of the will is simply that instruction and character of the will. The import of the will involves that applicability of the will to our own circumstances and direction. The intention of the will reflects the purpose behind the will or the expression behind will. The force of will comprehends those elements of direction such as timeliness and energy. An awareness of the will of another is rarely complete without some appreciation for the character of the one to whose will we are to submit. When a hospitable man requires an empty room, his will is reasonably seen as quite markedly different than when a covetous man requires an empty room. For the intention of those two wills is so diverse that while the appearance of the will of each is similar on the surface, knowing the character of the different men makes the intention, import and force of the wills quite different. For the covetous man we might appease his will by supplying a simple room for another and opulent room for himself. For the hospitable man we might appease his will by supplying an opulent room for another and a simple room for himself. It is in the knowledge of the character of the man that we learn the character of the will.<br />
<br />
There are generally recognized two reliable sources of the character of God, and one reliable witness to the will of God. With regard to the will of God, that will is expressed reliably in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. With regard to the character of God, that character is revealed accurately in both the Scriptures and his creation unspoilt by sin. If we agree with these three sources and admit no others as authoritative, then we will confine ourselves to the study of God's Word (Scriptures) with reflection on his creation as well. If we admit other sources, such as feelings, emotions, experiences and other writings, then we will find ourselves in doldrums; in irons; or even in a circuitous eddy which throws us round about without direction and assurance.<br />
<br />
This last point is critical. We can hardly be said to accurately understand the will of God if our sources do not admit an objective understanding. Accuracy is lost as well if the sources of understanding are contradictory in nature. Accuracy is impossible if the source of understanding is enmeshed in subjective and transient emotion. Accuracy is meaningless if the source of understanding hides within the contradictory, subjective, transient, and oft-misinterpreted experiences of others or ourselves. Accordingly, when one sets out to understand and comprehend the will of God, one must reject all sources as authoritative except Scripture and creation. To the extent that other sources do not disagree with Scripture or creation, that source might be accurate - but it is impossible to know with authority the accuracy of that revelation. <br />
<br />
Having defined the source of information of God's will we can look at the nature of divining God's will from Scripture. This is not as mysterious as some might make it out. First and foremost we must subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture. We have not the right to take Scripture piecemeal in order to support our own will. Scripture is a reflection of the mind of God... indeed it is the very mind of God communicated to men. To hear only parts of the mind of God, disjointed and taken out of context is to do more than misunderstand God, it is to do violence to the authority of Scripture. And, it is to disregard the will of God.<br />
<br />
I doubt that the will of God can be understood without reading it first in context and in whole. For God begins a thought, God begins an expression of his will; and we read it in part and stop where we believe appropriate and move on to conclusions that may or may not be accurate. In doing so we risk misunderstanding God. In doing so we reject the authority of Scripture. We reject the authority by determining in and of ourselves when and where we will start reading and when and where we will stop reading. We determine where God begins to express his will and where God has stopped expressing his will. The authority for this determination is no longer Scripture itself but our mean methods and intents. <br />
<br />
When we come to Scripture with the intention of finding an analogy or story to illustrate a sermon, we show the utmost disrespect to Scripture for we presume to take it piecemeal in support of our own ideas and conclusions. This is quite different from divining different analogies and stories from our independent study of Scripture as scripture - verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book, as it was revealed to humanity. <br />
<br />
And herein, is the beginning of submission. God has revealed his will to humanity. His method of revelation was through the written words of his prophets and apostles. These words were not given piecemeal and hodgepodge but rather, each was given in the form of a history book, a compilation of songs, a chronological record of genealogies and histories, an oral recitation of civil and religious law, an exhorting epistle, or a revelatory prophecy of future judgments. While the whole may seem disjointed to the casual observer, one who endeavors to read the whole sees a unity of purpose, a unity of story, a unity of character - indeed a unified message. This is the will of God. When we yield control to that will, we study the Word of God as given to us - book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, thought by thought. We take it as we find it - wholly and completely. The control we yield is how we read Scripture.<br />
<br />
When we study scripture intently on a daily basis without regard to our circumstances, resisting the temptation to use book studies and topical studies, we begin to know the mind of God. But when we limit ourselves to searching through a concordance finding verses which contain disjointed thoughts about the topic we feel is appropriate in our lives at that moment, we do violence to the will of God. We presume to know his will by taking parcels of his thoughts and building them into a house of our own making. We presume to know what the Spirit will say to us when we limit our reading to that which interests us alone. And in the end, we may very well conclude whatever we like about the will of God.<br />
<br />
And in the end, this is what we observe in reality. Those who reject the teaching of Scripture regarding authority, divination, sexuality, morality, worship or some other teaching do so by limiting their exposure to Scripture. They begin with the concordance and call it serious bible study. They incorporate historical writings of other men to interpret the natural reading of Scripture against itself. They appeal to modern sensibilities to interpret scripture against tradition. In this sense, those who would do violence to scripture use the same tools as those who submit to the authority of scripture.<br />
<br />
For when one submits - yields control - they too will use concordance, historical writings, natural observation and the study of the original languages. However, these are tools that help them understand what they are already reading and are subject to the natural understanding of the text itself. They appeal to these extraneous tools when the meaning is unclear, not when they dislike the natural meaning. To be sure, a study of the original languages assists in understanding any word, sentence, phrase and meaning. The study of ancient cultures provides context. The reading of philosophers reveals information that is helpful in applying scripture. Reading the writings of other theologians challenges us to re-read scripture in a new light, with new understanding. But in the end, the one who submits and yields control reads scripture and yields to scripture.<br />
<br />
A basic illustration is that of the issue of homosexuality. There are today those who would reject that scripture reveals God's will opposed to that act and lifestyle of homosexuality. To do so they have to reject many explicit directives in the old and new testaments. Additionally, they have to reject declarative statements about the judgment of God and the character of saints. In order to accomplish this they resort to two methods. First, they take scripture piecemeal. They appeal to particular verses about the love of God, about the freedom in Christ, about the new covenant. Secondly, they appeal to ancient writings about culture to limit the import and force of the otherwise declared will of God. They make the will of God subject to cultural expressions determining beforehand that God's will changes depending upon the culture of the time. At some times homosexuality is wrong, at other times it is no longer wrong. With this relativistic view of God's will they interpret scripture in the way that best suits their predetermined conclusions. <br />
<br />
While most of those who call themselves Christians will see the obvious violence to scripture and the understanding of God's will with the above illustration, I mean to point out my own failing; a failing I fear is pandemic in today's church culture. For the meanness of approaching scripture piecemeal, topically with the assistance of a concordance is the norm, not the exception. I rarely begin with an intent study of scripture as revealed to humanity other than my daily reading of Proverbs. My own experience affirms the value of studying scripture in a more submissive posture - verse by verse, chapter by chapter. I have undertaken this endeavor with the books of Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, James, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Revelation, John, Genesis, Proverbs, and a few others. My understanding of God's will from these books alone have changed from the intent verse by verse study. As an example, I spent years attempting to understand 1 John 3:9 and found my understanding materially different after a few years of reading the whole book through on an almost nightly basis from that understanding I had upon an initial reading of that one isolated verse. <br />
<br />
So today I observe that the beginning of submission to God begins with submission to scripture; in how we read it, and how we study it. I note that submitting to scripture means comprehending scripture and revelation generally - how it is given and how it is meant to be received. I note that submitting requires yielding my will to that of another - yielding control. Indeed, we forfeit all control when we yield to our own temptation to use scripture for our own means rather than approaching scripture humbly with intent to be taught whatever scripture would teach us, whenever scripture would teach us, however scripture would teach us.<br />
<br />
In short, to submit to God is to stop using scripture trivially for our own ends, our own messages, our own philosophies, and our own endeavors. To submit to God is to bend the knee and read scripture, study scripture, meditate upon scripture as it was revealed to us - book by book, chapter by chapter. We cannot expect to understand the will of God before we are willing to begin here. And we can hardly submit to the will of God if we are unintentionally, willfully, negligently or recklessly ignorant of that will.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-83371710324065043992010-02-20T14:57:00.000-05:002012-10-16T14:59:29.003-04:00Mad About Haiti; a Respite and Repose in ProverbiumFor over six months now I've been working my way through Proverbs on a daily basis reading the chapter corresponding to the day of the month. An unexpected consequence was the sorrow that inevitably accompanied such an endeavor to which I was naively indifferent. The man who sits in the life raft in the midst of the ocean crying “water! water! everywhere! and not a drop to drink!” knows the peril of learning a proverb. For in the revelation of wisdom there is the stark contrast between what ought to be, and what is in my heart. Shock sets in, inevitably followed by despair unless one of two things is accomplished first.<br />
<br />
There are those who will invariably have not a little success through the efforts of their own will. These self assured souls might persist steadfastly for years and years, if not a lifetime, in the work of becoming a more wise person. And then there are those who will see something different in the proverb which escapes the natural man. The heart of the man is revealed in proverbs; that is, the heart of a humble man looking into the mind of God. I have looked into the mind of God and it is a fearful thing. And I have been humbled.<br />
<br />
For this reason I revisit my frustration with Haiti and those who love sinners more than brothers and sisters. While my frustration has not subsided, rather it is more hot than ever, I see the rashness of my words and understand now that fools will not hear wisdom; lovers of the world will not recognize correction. My words are wasted if I intend to change the heart of one who loves the world more than they love God within their brother. Yet, sadder than this is that I have left myself open to criticism by unnecessarily including harsh language. My speech has not been seasoned with grace and love and patience. I regret this.<br />
<br />
And so, after respite I see that energy spent in frustration at fools is energy wasted. After repose I understand that regardless of the rightness or wrongness of an invocation or exhortation – including harsh words risks undermining the efficacy of the encouragement by allowing smaller minds to be diverted into criticism instead of listening. Proverbs has humbled me yet again. I have seen wisdom and played the fool. Shame on me.<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-35623468212844291372010-02-18T14:56:00.000-05:002012-10-16T14:57:25.728-04:00Purpose of the Church Part 2I am a member of one of those churches that believes its mission is to save everyone. They have adopted the mentality that the purpose of the Church is to seek and save the lost – every one of them. They have taken one command of our Lord, a very important command at that, and determined that the last commandment is the most important. More remarkably, they have determined that the last commandment is the only one that shows us our purpose. As if our Lord hid the purpose of the Church from the disciples and apostles until the very last minute. For no where else can I find anything that even approaches limiting the purpose or the primary purpose of the Church to evangelism.<br />
<br />
Scripture tells us many things. We are told true religion is to minister to the poor, to the widows and to the orphans. We are told to give to the saints. We are told to love our brothers and sisters. Consequently, we are never told to love the world – in fact, we are told that to love the world is to NOT love God. We are told that if we do not love our brother, we do not love God.<br />
<br />
This past sabbath, I heard a good partial message on giving and generosity. The teacher gave a four point message on generosity, pointing out that generosity reflects God, glorifies God, tests our spirits, and blesses each of us. The teacher took as inspiration II Corinthians 8 and 9. It was a good session of teaching but it was incomplete. For in II Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul is specifically speaking of giving to the saints. This is brought out multiple times in each chapter. But the conclusion of this teacher was that our generosity is to be towards unbelievers. Remarkably, the whole point of the object of our giving is missed – rather more than missed in that it is noted incorrectly. An omission would have been better than an incorrect conclusion.<br />
<br />
And herein is the point of all our love. If we do not love our brothers and sisters FIRST; if we do not love the saints MORE; if we do not love the Church BETTER; we do not love God. Jesus came to give his life for his Church. Jesus, in his most earnest hour of need refused to pray for ANYONE other than the church. It is not that Jesus did not have compassion for others – rather, it is that he loves the Church FIRST, MORE and BEST. Should we love differently?<br />
<br />
We have taken one command of our Lord and replaced all the commands to love one another with this other command. Our cautionary statement should be found in Jesus’ warning words. To those who were being judged – to those who were to imminently face hell’s fire and God’s rage he says: “To the extent that you did not do it to the least of these my brethren, you did not do it to me.” Let us stop. Let us please stop. Please stop. Consider what is it to visit the ones in prison, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked. Jesus wasn't talking about the reprobate sinners in Haiti – he was talking about our brothers and sisters in Haiti. Jesus wasn't talking about unwed mothers in Seattle – he was talking about unwed mothers who are our sisters in Christ in Seattle.<br />
<br />
We live in a country of excess. I believe that no other people in all of human history has had more excess than the United States of America in 2010. If one were to argue to me that our excess allows us to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters AND the unsaved – I would say “amen.” And if I saw my brothers and sisters doing just that I would have no reason to be alarmed. But be honest. This is NOT what is happening. This is NOT what is being taught. And this is NOT what our brothers and sisters experience generally. Generally speaking, Christians are second class citizens when it comes to church giving – it is the world they stand behind hoping to gather crumbs from the table. How far we have moved from Jesus’ teachings. How far we have removed the love of Christ from his children. How sad it is to see our churches refuse to love Jesus instead loving those who are at war with God.<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-52330625121269015572010-02-16T14:55:00.000-05:002012-10-16T14:56:23.669-04:00Purpose of the Church Part 1Today I am pressed down. On all sides there are those who believe, who teach, who forcefully declare that the singular purpose of the Church is to pronounce the Gospel and save souls. Broad evocations of parables and allusions to the so-called “Great Commission” are all used to support what is seen as an inescapable and universal conclusion. In fact, if one questions this teaching one is considered suspect from the very start. The question is not open to debate.<br />
<br />
However, I am a child of the evangelical generation. My generation is unique in that a larger percentage of my generation was involved in para-church evangelism during our formative years than any other generation before us or after us. No other generation of Christians has been so separated from the local body while simultaneously growing in doctrine, in understanding, in worship and in fellowship with our fellow believers. No other generation has spent more time outside the local church body than inside the local church body.<br />
<br />
Some will be quick to defend the para-church organizations by pointing out that where two or more are gathered, there Christ is with them. They will infer that a para-church organization is a type of church. And if we do not look deeper we may be tempted to agree.<br />
<br />
While I do not mean to criticize any particular para-church organization, I do want to distinguish between a para-church organization and the local church as established by the apostles and church fathers. I do not mean to refer to the universal Church as established by Christ, but I do mean to speak to the quality of the universal Church as expressed in the form of the local body of believers as taught by the apostles, by the church fathers and by Christ. This local body was not homogeneous in any way other than location. There is no indication that believers were separated by doctrine, by age, by race, by socio-economic status, by gender, by education or by any other factor other than distance.<br />
<br />
Contrast that with the para-church organization which exists solely for the purpose of focusing on something less than the total needs/purpose of the local church body. Whether it be a para-church organization for building homes, ministering to college students, promoting a social agenda or simply providing a unique outlet for worship – they are by their very charter and existence and purpose a means of dividing the local body of believers one from another.<br />
<br />
Many para-church organizations will defend this division by encouraging their members to attend a local church in addition to their activities. They will refrain from any type of activity on the sabbath. They will promote attendance by example and persistent encouragement. But in the end, they will divide the attention, the energy and the love of their members from that attention, energy and love they should be giving to the local church.<br />
<br />
Other para-church organizations will defend the isolation as necessary due to some deficiency within the local body or some inability for the local body to meet a certain need. However, there is usually a complete lack of evidence of attempts to obtain to their goals within the local body.<br />
<br />
However, again my intention is not to deride the para-church in general, but point out that my generation grew up more in the para-church than in the local body. Is it any wonder then that they have adopted the mentality of the para-church when addressing the purpose of the local body? Most all para-church organizations are focused on evangelism. Whether the evangelism is promoted through face to face meetings, through indirect ministries of love, or through worship – the intention is to evangelize. And how, my generation has adopted that mentality wholly into their hearts and minds and having outgrown their para-church organizations have now brought this evangelical focus into the local body.<br />
<br />
But is this right? Is this Godly? Am I crazy to question this assumption?<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-47016416997147938582010-01-06T14:42:00.000-05:002012-10-16T14:43:42.931-04:00Mad about HaitiI’m mad about Haiti, but maybe not the way you’d expect. This week I've been deeply saddened by the so-called Church’s incessant disregard for the needs of our brothers and sisters in favor of ill-suited feelings of love for the world. I’m speaking of the tragedy involving Haiti. Although the tragedy I’m thinking of may be different that one most of the world is lamenting.<br />
<br />
People the world over are decrying the injustice, the inhumanity, the lamentable suffering the people of Haiti are enduring at the hands of nature this past month. An earth quake has been blamed for the death of thousands. People in my church are praying weekly for those suffering in Haiti. And yet, I’m unmoved. Why am I unmoved? Am I heartless, mean-spirited, fanatical? Indeed, I am none of the above – and I might suggest that those of my so-called brethren who are spending so much time on those in Haiti are all of the above. They are heartless, they are mean-spirited and they are fanatical.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>How so? Quickly, they are heartless because even the most wicked can be moved to sympathy by thousands of dead people in a very short time. It is no demonstration of sympathy or compassion to feel the loss and the tragedy. I mourn as do all sensible people – wicked and righteous alike. It is no credit to so-called Christians that they pray for the people of Haiti. But it is heartless to only pray for them when really bad things in this temporal world happen. This world if fleeting away like a whisp of smoke and the only thing important to these so-called Christians is this life here on earth. They are not lamenting that the vast majority of the dead are now at this very moment in hell. They are not lamenting the injustice of those who blame God for this tragedy. They are not lamenting the blatant refusal to acknowledge God as God even after this tragedy by the vast numbers of Haitians. They lament that life was lost. They are life-worshippers -and not the life that God gives that is eternal, but rather, they worship the life of this world.</li>
<li>They are mean-spirited, in that they are right now ignoring the needs of their brothers and sisters whom they know and see every day in favor of strangers whom they neither know nor are related to. I’m speaking of the tragedy that these so-called Christians love heathen strangers more than their Christians brothers and sisters. Rather than being known for their love for one another, they are now known for their love for the world, and truly this world is perishing. They are the most mean-spirited in the sense that their spirits are poor, or insubstantial worth and of suspect quality.</li>
<li>They are fanatical in their pursuit of universal salvation. In their hearts they decry the injustice in God in that He only chooses a few. They would do it differently and choose everyone. And so they work toward that end. Instead of feeding the sheep, the feed the goats. Instead of loving the brethren, they love the world. Instead of praying for their brothers and sisters, they pray instead for strangers. Instead of loving their neighbors, they love strangers. They are everything that Christ was not, and they are so passionately. They blaspheme the name of Christ by associating his name with indiscriminate compassion. They change the nature of God and exchange it for a santa claus god that loves everyone and is powerless to help them – therefore he needs our help.</li>
</ol>
<br />
I am sick of them. They are useless and vile. If some of them were not my deceived brethren I would be done with the lot of them. They are, for the most part, a glob of senseless unthinking religious zealots who worship Pan and hedonism.<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-69987976617063509582009-10-09T15:07:00.000-04:002012-10-16T15:07:40.317-04:00Omar KhayyamOn the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, on the dawn of victory, stopped to rest and resting died.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-10014964270618060442009-07-16T13:49:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:13:42.761-04:00Evaluating the Results of Decisional Evangelism versus Faith Evangelism, ConclusionIn this fifth and last installment I will endeavor to conclude the examination of the competing evangelistic approaches by highlighting the comparisons we have noted; summarizing the effect the competing approaches have had on the church; and calling for a more academic study and comparative analysis.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Decisional evangelism and faith evangelism differ more in their approach and emphasis than their content, however, decisional evangelism often attempts to evoke a response from the consumer of the Gospel message in the form of an intellectual decision affirming the truth of the Gospel. Faith evangelism, on the other hand, is more concerned with the communication of every element of the Gospel message and leaving the response up to God often looking for more of a change in behavior or heart than a change of mind. This is not to say that one is superior to the other, that is the basis of a different treatment. What I have attempted to do is to highlight the different results of the approaches.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first consequent effect is the eternal salvation of the respondent to the competing messages. I noted, and suspect that each school of thought agrees, that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Decisional evangelism attempts to mark that faith by memorializing it in a decision. Faith evangelism leaves the marking of faith up to action and change in the life of the purportedly new believer. In any case, whether one makes a decision or not is not determinative of their salvation, rather whether they have faith or not is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second consequent effect following from the competing sales pitches touches upon the sanctification of the purported new believer. I now use the term purported because of lately we have seen many false converts to the Christian faith similar to how much of the world was of the Catholic faith prior to the Reformation. It seems as though one can almost be a Christian if one is born in America. Sanctification, however, is unique to those whom God has chosen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I noted the competing approaches to sanctification flowing from the competing gospel messages. Indeed, this point was recently underlined at my home church where a Godly minister preached about the possibility that one could be saved and yet never have any part of her life change, she would be simply carnal. While those who teach faith evangelism would readily admit the possibility of a believer acting carnal for a time, they would reject whole-heartedly the concept, abhorrent to their hearts, that a believer would never realize any sanctification in their lives. For the faith evangelist sees sanctification as a process that God is in control of, as God acting on us. Indeed, we do agree with, cooperate with, submit ourselves to this process. Indeed, the faith evangelist argues, we can hamper this process, frustrate this process, slow this process, but in the end we are the objects of this process not the authors.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Decisional evangelists see salvation and beginning with God and ending with our decision. In their doctrine, we are both the object and subject. We are the object first and foremost in that Christ died for us while we were still yet sinners. We are the subject in that we have to “do something” as my Pastor recently preached. The something which we must do varied upon the messenger, such as receive, accept, pray, make a decision, repent or join the church and be baptized. This view of the sinner as cooperating with God in salvation, something theologians call synergistic salvation, permeates into their doctrine of sanctification.</div>
<div>
<br />
Put more shortly, the decisional evangelist and those who believe they are Christians because they did something, believe they are sanctified principally because they did something. They are first and foremost the subjects and only secondarily the objects of sanctification. Thus, it is entirely possible for someone to be a Christian and have absolutely no fruit apparent in their lives at all, other than the claim that they once did something to become a Christian.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even more importantly, however, the decisional evangelist treats his brothers and sisters in Christ much differently. This is the singular more distinctive consequence of decisional evangelism as against faith evangelism. The decisional evangelist is so convinced of their ability to effect their own hearts, and accordingly through wiley argument and persuasive messages, stories and music the hearts of others, that they will sacrifice nothing to the end that they pour all of their energy and import into the evangelism of those whom God has called them out from among.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Put more succinctly, the decisional evangelist loves the world more than he loves his brothers and sisters in Christ.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Next we looked at the consequences of decisional evangelism opposed to faith evangelism in the realm of worship and glorification of Jesus Christ and God the Father. We noted how any attention to our part in the process of salvation detracts from and reduces in quality, kind and glory that work of God in our salvation. We also noted that a delusion of the Gospel message, changing the Gospel message, distorting the Gospel message can never glorify God. Consequently, no one who fails to present the truth of the Gospel as revealed in God’s Word can be said to worship God in truth and deed. And we noted that to worship God is to give all worth to him but to give worth to a decision, indeed to make it the sine qua non of salvation is to give worth to man instead. Decisional evangelism’s great failing is that it lifts man’s purported free will above God’s election, predestination, calling and saving work. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally we examined the different approaches to the Church and to living among the brothers and sisters in Christ. We saw the different views of carnality and so-called second blessings. It became apparent that discipleship was sorely lacking and that in the decisional evangelism church, discipleship was reduced to the same kind of carnal means whereby the convert was drawn in. We saw how the emphasis on obedience was markedly different among the competing messages. And we noted how disparate the message of forgiveness is today within church buildings in America and how this might arise from our soteriology. </div>
<div>
I do not, for a moment, expect complete agreement with my observations. First, they are simply that, observations. I have not conducted any methodic surveys among the various evangelists or churches. There has been no formal analysis of the life styles of congregations from the competing views. Consequently, I expect there to be disagreement and my prayer is that people with different observations will make them known to me. In the light of Solus Christus et Soli Deo gloria, this work cannot glorify God and Christ unless there be truth in it, permeating it, filling it as a sponge is filled with water to overflowing. I have no interest in perpetrating a fraud and therefore welcome any competing observations, whether supportable or not, to the end that God’s Church is edified, God himself is glorified, Christ is put above all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To that end, I call on my Christian brothers and sisters in academics, particularly the sociological and ecclesiological studies to come to my assistance in denying or affirming the veracity of the claims I have made herein. I call on Pastors and Elders to note the severity of the consequences I have drawn out. This is not merely a case of “we can agree to disagree” but a case that effects the very ability of a man to worship and glorify God, to love his brethren, and to be sanctified from sin. This is not an issue on the periphery of our lives, but rather, the central and determinative issue which affects the quality of the so-called church in America and its efficacy, its honor and its purity. We have allowed the Devil a strong foot-hold in our front pews in the name of reaching the lost and expect there to be little to no consequence. I am calling on all Christians everywhere who read or hear of this to wake up. Arise oh sleeper from your slumber. As the Pope once reproached a Godly man, there is a fox in the vineyard, yet this time it is competing Ideologies, Theologies, Christologies, and Soteriologies that are so different from one another that we can hardly be said to have the same religion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If, however, I am mistaken and have polluted the minds of readers with exaggerated claims and observations, then rebuke me kindly but forcefully as a brother. For to stumble into error through faulty thinking and meditation is neither my gain nor yours. As the writer of Hebrews calls us to exhort each other today, I echo that calling to everyone who might read this – exhort me by affirmation or by contradiction or by encouragement or by education. But do not ignore this most important of discussions – the implications of these competing messages. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Years ago I was challenged by one who loved me much then, to explain why it matters. She asked me to account for my passion for how a person becomes saved. She questioned whether it matters in the long run which doctrine is taught. She inferred that both churches love God, both are filled with Christians, both are good people. Is it not then, a small matter, a decisive matter unworthy of Godly men? Are we not called to put away endless genealogies and legal technicalities? Are we not called to be at peace with all men, so much that it depends on you? This small work is my attempt to answer those questions.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-29979492601720155442009-07-07T13:46:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:15:46.440-04:00Evaluating the Ramifications of Decisional Based Evangelism versus Faith based Evangelism Part 4In the last section, we explored the ramifications in a believer’s life regarding the glorification and worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. We looked at the false god of man’s free will. We looked at the purpose of man in light of God’s word. And we examined the inability to bring glory to both God and man at the same time. This section will inspect the ramifications of the two competing forms of evangelism with regard to the church. I note the use of a lower-case ‘c’ when spelling church. This is to distinguish the local group of people calling themselves believers from that Church which Christ is calling to himself, saved for himself, prayed over, and is in the process of perfecting for his own glory.<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>
<br />
<h2>
Regarding the Church</h2>
<div>
<div>
The Church is a group of believers from all times, from all places, from all ethnic groups and without respect to age, gender, race or socio-economic standing. A church too, is often a group of people proclaiming belief in Christ without respect to age, gender, race or socio-economic standing. So, why do I make the distinction?</div>
<div>
<br />
Jesus predicted, even foretold, that the world would know his disciples by how they treated each other. Paul likened the Church to a body, with all members part of that body, different yet dependent upon one another and one although different. The eye is not the ear but they are part of the same unity.</div>
<div>
This body which is known to the world by its love towards one another looks very different from the local churches which are known in the best ways for the way they love the world. Indeed, the Apostle John does teach us that to love the world is inconsistent with a love of the Father. Yet, our churches today endeavor to do just that. There is no excuse offered for this approach other than, we are to love our neighbor.</div>
</div>
<h3>
Faith Evangelism and the Church</h3>
<div>
<div>
A faith based Gospel emphasized the total depravity of the sinner, the identity and holiness of God, the sufficiency and perfection of the atoning work of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in renewing us, regenerating us, indwelling us, empowering us, and completing us in Christ. A faith based Gospel emphasized the need, the requirement of faith in the believer, but the faith based Gospel goes further to acknowledge that this faith itself comes as a gift from Christ.</div>
<div>
<br />
Evangelism to the faith evangelist is an act of glorifying God. Every element of that Gospel points to the benevolence and glory of God. Whether there is ever a response from sinners is irrelevant, for the preacher of that gospel will preach loudly and fervently in a desolate forest because it brings God glory. He does not change the Gospel according to the consumer in mind. He does not adjust the message to account for generation, gender, socio-economic stand, race, or station in life of the consumer. To this evangelist, all hearts are the same, and the message of the Gospel is the message of Peace between God and sinner to everyone.</div>
<div>
<br />
Having brought the same message to all, the faith evangelist sees all as the same in Christ. There is a unity because all were able to bring the exact same things to the altar of God prior to salvation, that is, nothing. The faith evangelist believes that the consumer, the sinner is equal on all footing regardless. The same message is preached to a child rapist as is to the president of the local Rotarians. The same heart is at stake. And when the work of regeneration occurs, the same results are expected.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Carnality, Second Blessings, etc..</h4>
<div>
<div>
When the same is brought, the same work effected, and the same result obtained, there is an expectation of faith. Just as James is flabbergasted that one would purport to have faith without works, the faith evangelist is assured in his heart that faith always produces the same results. </div>
<div>
<br />
Consider the impact of this expectation for a moment. While we think about it let us consider the various doctrines that have cropped up to account for the apparent varieties in the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. We have the doctrine of persistent carnality. We have the doctrine that allows for the loss of our salvation. We have the doctrine of the second blessing. We have the doctrine of the subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have all the various doctrines which point to the abundant life and how to obtain that life.</div>
<div>
<br />
However, the faith evangelist attributes the entire work of salvation to God. The sinner brings absolutely nothing. The works of the Spirit is the same. The faith is the same because it is always a gift from the Son. Accordingly, the faith evangelist expects every believer to start off the same, to have the same potential, to be complete in Christ and to need only one thing – further obedience to the word of God.</div>
<div>
<br />
This is remarkable in its effect in this, that the faith evangelist encourages all and every Christian to do one thing – obey. What is the principal command to obey? To love each other. They are not concerned with whether our investment portfolios are reflecting the abundant life. They are unconcerned with our satisfaction with our marriage, or our singleness. They are focused entirely on our obedience.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Decisional Evangelism and the Church</h4>
<div>
<div>
When one believes that one makes a decision for Christ, one necessarily believes that different people require different proofs, arguments, persuasive techniques, emotional appeals. Because different people bring different gifts, sins, cognitive abilities, etc.. to the sale of Christ, they will require different messages and they will begin their walk with God at different points.</div>
<div>
<br />
The decisional evangelist looks around him or her and sees such a variety of conversion effects that something is required to explain such a diversity. They have variously introduced the doctrine of persistent carnality, the second blessing, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the loss of our salvation and the various means to obtain the abundant life.</div>
<div>
<br />
Accordingly, after the conversion the principal message of the decisional evangelist is to bring the consumer into a alignment with what should be the effect of regeneration. Always the decisional evangelist is working toward the regeneration of the old man. For the decisional evangelist, every work is trying to get so-called Christians to act, feel, and look like real Christians. However, the appeal cannot be to obedience because they were not won with a message of obedience.</div>
<div>
<br />
Paul Washer has said “if you win them by carnal means, you will have to keep them by carnal means” which goes a long way to explaining the sermons within seeker friendly churches today. They are about everything but obedience. And their principal aim is not that the world would know us for our love for one another, but our love for visitors and strangers and the lost.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Implications of the Loss of Emphasis on Obedience</h4>
<div>
<div>
To obey is better than sacrifice. In other words, let us not sing songs of praise to the Father if we are not willing to and actively working towards obedience to that Father in all areas of our lives. Many will say ‘amen’ and ‘amen’ to this charge, but how many of us spend our lives, our time, our energy in discovering how to obey, what rules to obey, and what we should be doing to cooperate with the Spirit towards obedience? It is simply not enough to say “let us obey” without endeavoring to discover in which ways our Father wants us to obey.</div>
<div>
<br />
Imagine the son who portends to obey his father but never asks his father what his father would wish him to do. Meanwhile, that father has drafted detailed instructions to his son in a letter. The letter goes unread, unattended to, and neglected. Would anyone reasonably suggest that the son is obeying the father? When we so neglect the Scriptures, we are neglecting the instructions of the Father. When we spend all of our time in four or five different parts of scripture we can hardly be said to be obeying.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Primary Obedience</h4>
<div>
<div>
The first and greatest commandment is that we love the Father with all of our hearts, soul, mind and body. This is the beginning point for anyone regenerated by the Holy Spirit. We are given new hearts and minds. And we are to present our bodies as a holy sacrifice, acceptable to Christ. </div>
<div>
<br />
However, can we be said to love the father with all of our heart and mind if we do not know who the father is. This is a principal failing of decisional evangelism in that they fail to introduce the Father to the consumer. The beginning point is to create a problem. To be sure, the decisional evangelist does begin with the creation or revelation of the problem, the raison d'être or need for a decision. And in doing so, they might introduce the holiness of God or the character of God, but the examination today is short and trivial. I do not doubt that in times past when people had longer attention spans, that the character of God, the thoughts of God were examined in depth. But today, the consumer is not interested and, therefore, the character of God is passed over in favor of that which will grab the attention of the consumer, herself or himself.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Forgiveness</h4>
<div>
<div>
One of the remarkable fruits of being a child of God, that which is always present, is the forgiveness of others – particularly the brothers and sisters in Christ. There was a time when I believed that forgiveness was as any other command, that I was to obey the command, but its absence or presence reflected nothing about my spiritual state.</div>
<div>
<br />
Then I read the parable of the servant who is forgiven much and I became alarmed that Jesus taught that if we do not forgive others, God will not forgive us. After struggling with this teaching I was tempted to arrive at a conclusion that the forgiveness Christ was talking about was temporal. That is to say, that while I enjoy eternal forgiveness, that forgiveness which I experience here today is dependent upon how I forgive others. In exploring this idea, the natural path was to make it all about me. For example, I began to suspect that forgiveness was really an attitude about myself. If I did not forgive myself I would not be able to forgive others. And if I did not forgive others, I would not be able to experience the forgiveness of God. That in the end, while I would be forgiven, I would not feel forgiven.</div>
<div>
<br />
However, two scriptures prevented me from such a gross and erroneous conclusion. Firstly I found in the epistle of 1 John the teaching that all have sinned, and that if we ask God will forgive us. This forgiveness is not dependent upon our forgiving others. There is immediately an apparent discrepancy between Jesus teaching that our Father will forgive us if we forgive others, and John teaching that our Father will forgive us if we ask. Caution reminds me that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Caution reminds me that Christ is not double minded, and that the apparent discrepancy is in my mind, not in scripture.</div>
<div>
<br />
And so I returned to the parable of the servant who was forgiven much. And I asked the question, is this a story of causation or is this a story of characterization? In other words, does my forgiveness of others cause God to forgive me, or do I forgive others as a reflection of – a characterization of – the fact the God has forgiven me? Which came first? If I read the story as one of causation, that we forgive others because God forgave us, then again, I still have a problem. The servant who is forgiven much does not forgive his fellow servant. But he is then turned over to the jailor and is tortured and punished until he should pay back what he owed. Was the original forgiveness rescinded? Or is this story saying that he was never forgiven, else he would have forgiven his brother? Or is this story saying something else?</div>
<div>
<br />
Before I was able to throw up my hands in defeat, I remembered the Lord’s Prayer. In this prayer, the Lord gives an example of how to approach the Father in prayer. And perhaps the most difficult part, the part that causes me to stumble most, is that I am to ask God to forgive me, as I forgive others, to the same extent as I forgive others, in the same manner as I forgive others, in the same quality as my forgiveness of others. This is indeed a damning prayer. Who can pray such a prayer? What man is there about us who forgives others as much as he desires to be forgiven?</div>
<div>
<br />
I have not arrived at any conclusion in this manner, but there are a few things that are inescapable. First, that I, as a child of God, should be interested in being forgiven. Indeed, one can hardly be said to have faith in Christ that Christ will remove our sins if we are not first interested in forgiveness. Secondly, that this forgiveness is somehow tied to the way and the manner in which we forgive others. In which case I should point out that forgiveness is of the utmost importance in a Christian’s life. It is the only discipline mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer other than perhaps the acknowledgement of God’s preeminent will and our call to honor God’s name above all else. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
How does this touch upon our current discussion? I believe that the forgiveness of our brothers and sisters is an absolute requirement in Christian life. It is not optional. In this case, how do the two competing evangelisms compare?</div>
<h4>
Decisional Evangelism and Forgiveness</h4>
<div>
<div>
If I am taught nothing about forgiveness except that it is free to any who should ask, as it is, without more I will become convinced that forgiveness is a once and done proposition. I have been forgiven – again, this is true. But I am to be forgiving, continually, as an act of worship. For, are we not bringing worth to God when we continually bring attention to the worth of God’s work in forgiveness?</div>
<div>
<br />
However, a formulaic gospel looks only backwards and does not consider how this salvation affects the believer. There is no challenge to question your salvation. There is no cause to ponder, struggle with, or work out our salvation. In failing to examine our salvation beyond asking ourselves whether we said the magic words, we fail to see the correlation between God’s forgiveness of us and our forgiveness of our brothers and sisters. Whatever that correlation is, we miss it entirely.</div>
</div>
<h4>
Faith Evangelism and Forgiveness</h4>
<div>
<div>
The faith gospel begins with God and ends with God. Man is an object in the process of salvation, not the author of his own salvation. He is not the center of the story. He is not the subject of the sentence. God seeks, he does not. Is it any wonder that the faith gospel lends itself to teaching about God’s forgiveness and how it is related to how we forgive others?</div>
<div>
<br />
This is not to suggest that salvation is not of faith and faith alone. Sola Fide. It is to suggest that forgiveness is one of the indispensable fruits of salvation. Jesus taught us that the world will know us by our fruit. Jesus also taught that if we do not bear fruit that the branch would be cut away and removed. My theology is incomplete in this area, but I believe today that Christians will always exhibit three fruits, otherwise they would not be Christians. Firstly, they will exhibit the fruit of faith. Faith is a gift of God. Christ is the author of and he perfects of our faith. Secondly, all Christians will have the fruit of repentance. True faith leads to repentance. This is sometimes referred to as Lordship salvation, but I believe that regardless of what it is called, repentance was preached by John the Baptist, Christ, Peter, Paul and John the Apostle. Repentance was preached by Stephen and Jude. Repentance was preached for thousands of years and only very recently did salvation come without repentance.</div>
<div>
<br />
This again, is not to suggest that salvation is by repentance. Salvation is by faith, <i>Sola Fide</i>. However, a fruit of salvation which is always present is repentance. We see repentance in the thief on the cross. We see repentance in Saul on the road to Damascus. We see repentance in every conversion story in the Bible.</div>
<div>
The third fruit that I believe every Christian has is forgiveness of others. We are not forgiven because we forgive others, otherwise grace is not needed. We are not forgiven because of anything we do – even asking – but when we are forgiven, we do forgive others and we do seek out and desire forgiveness from God. When we are forgiven, when we are transformed, when we are brought to life, we will forgive others and we will seek forgiveness from God.</div>
<div>
<br />
Faith Evangelism does not necessarily teach the forgiveness of each other, nor does it follow that decisional evangelism omits the teaching. It is apparent that faith evangelism lends itself more easily to teaching. I suspect that when one begins and ends the salvation message with God, that forgiveness of others is more likely to be touched upon. I do believe that churches that participate in faith evangelism put more emphasis on the fruits of salvation and therefore teach about forgiveness and its requirement in Christians. Again, forgiveness of others is not optional. Forgiveness is not a feeling. Forgiveness is not easy.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443813839014794315.post-35213630883709132772009-07-02T13:40:00.000-04:002012-10-16T14:16:01.106-04:00Evaluating the Ramifications of Decisional Based Evangelism versus Faith Based Evangelism Part 3The last post in this series explored the eternal effects of the two principal competing evangelical methodologies, that is decisional evangelism and faith evangelism, to our present sanctification. I will not spend time here explaining what I mean by the two, competing forms that is addressed in the Introduction in Part 1. We have now discovered, assuming my logic and observations are sound, that there is much more at stake than the simple disagreement between styles. We have learned that the selling of the Gospel as though it were a good to be purchased by wary buyers not only affects the message, but affects our sanctification in that we are drawn to other purposes other than our principal purpose of loving one another and that frustrates and grieves the Holy Spirit who is working our sanctification within us.<br />
<br />
In this Part 3, I will examine the eternal effects of the two methods with regard to our worship and glorification of our Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
<h2>
The Eternal Effects of the Two Methodologies Regarding Worship and Glorification of our Lord Jesus Christ</h2>
<br />
The Westminster Shorter Catechism begins with the question “What is the chief end of man?” For millennium men have asked the question “Why?” Why am I here? Why was I made? Why am I different from all other creation? I have enjoyed for some time the curious way the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts this collection of why questions into one question. Asking what the chief end of man is acknowledges that there is more than one purpose for man in the heart of God. The catechism also acknowledges that there is purpose. The answer is inferred before the question is even through being asked by the word choice of ‘chief end’. The question does not allow a randomness, it rebukes evolution before the idea was formalized by men who rejected God.<br />
<br />
Our examination today centers on the answer to this question and how our answer is in part affected by whether we believe we came to Christ by decision or by faith. For those of us who are struggling to remember our Sunday School answer to the first question I will repeat it now. “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.” Before my more modern friends remind me that the catechisms are not scripture, nor is there a universal consensus to their accuracy, I will readily acknowledge same. My copy includes two Scriptures in support of this answer, and there are others. But I admit that there are those who would repudiate this statement as too simple and lacking the real substance of the purpose of the church today.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV<br />
Whom have I in heaven but you?<br />
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.<br />
My flesh and my heart may fail,<br />
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. Psalm 73: 25-26 ESV</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
Rather than argue the merits of this particular catechism, today I would like to keep it simple and admit that there are different purposes to man. I will also admit that there are different scriptures used to support these different purposes and that there are those who believe one superior to another. For example, there is that group of believers who focus on the so-called great commission given by our Lord just prior to his ascension into heaven to go into all the world preaching the Gospel and making disciples. See Matthew 28:16 <i>et seq</i>.; Mark 16:14 <i>et seq.</i></div>
<div>
<br />
However, whether I live in such a way that my chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever or whether I live in such a way as to make converts is quite a different matter. As we have noted decisional evangelism is marked with salesmanship. It focuses on the consumer; upon their tastes, their preferences, their notions of God, their notions of right and wrong and what is fair, their needs and desires. In order to sell them onto the idea that Jesus is the answer to all their problems, the decisional evangelists acknowledges, at least tacitly that their problems are the most important ones.</div>
<div>
<br />
Contrast that with the answer to the first catechism. The most focus is turned to God. Our purpose is not to solve our problems, but rather to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. A faith evangelistic message introduces God first, his glory, his righteousness, his purity, his holiness and his anger with sin. The decisional evangelistic message introduces or reminds man of his problems and how God wants to take care of those problems for him. In one essence, the decisional evangelist may unwittingly introduce God as a servant to the consumer, as a genie in a bottle waiting to be called forth by a magic incantation or magic prayer, to do the bidding of the master – a man. I am reminded of Pastor Ronnie Stevens’ admonition and challenge to ask ourselves “Do I pray as a sovereign to a servant, or as a servant to a sovereign?” And to my dismay I admit that while I was a decisional evangelist, my prayers at least sounded like a grocery list, like a sovereign giving instructions to a servant and remembering to seal it with the magic words “in Jesus name, Amen” such that God would have to do it. Today I repent of the hardness of that heart and am brought to sorrow that I so egregiously violated the third commandment in almost every such prayer, for I now believe to invoke the name of our Lord in such a way as to make it common, without thought, and meant only as a sort of notary seal to guarantee that the prayer is heard and answered by God is to take that name in vain and use it for vanity upon vanity.</div>
<div>
<br />
Now, whether one is a decisional evangelist or faith evangelist, if he or she is a believer, they will admit that at least one of our purposes is to glorify God. They might even suggest that the principal means whereby we glorify God is to obey God. Indeed, to obey is better than sacrifice. And both evangelist will admit that obedience includes the necessary and appropriate attention to the great commission. I commend my decisional evangelist brethren for their passion to obey God in this matter. I advise anyone who is not passionate about our Lord’s instructions to take the Gospel into all the world to rethink how they became a Christian. Romans 10:19 teaches us that no one becomes a Christian without the Word of God. How does the Word of God come to us but by the efforts of an evangelist. Truly blessed are the feed of those who bring us such good news.</div>
<div>
<br />
However, in attempting obedience to this command, we must remember that simply bringing some form of good news is not necessary bringing the Good news, and whenever we corrupt the Gospel we twist and distort the work of God. How can such good news be glorifying to God?</div>
<div>
<br />
An example. Man is occasionally tempted to define love apart from God. We create an abstract in our minds of what love ought to be. We say in our hearts “love is insuring that everyone gets what he or she wants as long as it does not hurt anyone else.” Or perhaps we will use other language, but the point is, we determine what love means. Then we ask the question “How can a loving God send people to hell?” Because our definition of love does not allow eternal everlasting torment, we become confused because Scripture declares that God is love. See 1 John 4:7-8. To resolve this conflict we have really only three possible alternatives.</div>
<div>
<br />
The first is to reject God and/or scripture. We either have to say that if there were a God, he would be loving, and since Scripture says that he condemns people to everlasting torment, the God of Scripture is not real. Or we say that there is a God, he sends people to hell, and I want nothing to do with that God.</div>
<div>
The second alternative is to reject what scripture says about hell. This is becoming fashionable today, but it has puzzled the minds of decisional evangelists for decades. C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce rejects the ideas of hell as taught by Scripture in order to make God more loving. In The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis makes hell a choice as well, and every one in hell chooses to be there. This excuses God from sending people to hell and keeps him loving. Today, people are just as quick to either deny the existence of hell as a place of everlasting torment where there is gnashing of teeth, grinding of tongue and where the worm does not die; or to suggest that those descriptions of hell are only analogies, word pictures meant to illustrate how important it is to find God; or lastly to deny hell altogether adopting a form of annihilationism.</div>
<div>
<br />
The third alternative is to get on our knees and to repent of creating false gods. What do I mean by this rather strongly worded sentiment? A false god is not always made of wood or stone or jewels. Today’s false gods are made of words or ideas and theories. We create an abstract in our minds and announce it as truth. We say “this is what love is …” and then pronounce that abstract idea as an eternal truth separate from creation and man. When instead, we ought to say “This is what God is, as revealed to us through creation and through his revelatory Word.” When Scripture says that God is love, what we ought to learn is that we do not define God by looking to a man-made abstract we call love. Instead, we define love by looking to what God is through creation and through his revelatory Word.</div>
<div>
<br />
As R.C. Sproul is fond of asking, the question is not so much “How can a loving God send people to hell?” but rather “How can a holy and just and righteous and pure God allow people into heaven?” While I submit that the question reveals a heart that needs to repent of making false gods, it is important to also note, as Dr. Sproul does, that the question also entirely misses the point. The first question “how can a loving God send people to hell?” assumes that man does not deserve hell. It assumes that man’s rightful place is somewhere else. It denies the total and complete depravity of man’s heart, his will, his being and his actions. It makes man out to be the determiner of his own fate. In the end, it sets down man as the object of worth and glorification and requires of God a just explanation for not having treated man as he is due.</div>
<div>
<br />
The arrogance of the question alone reveals a heart at enmity with God, however, we see also a real failure to see the character of God. Which of us, in seeing the true glory of God, would be moved to suggest that God do something differently? But that is exactly what we are doing when we question the existence, creation and appropriateness of hell. We are coming into the throne room of God, and demanding that he trade places with us, while we are the judge and he is on trial.</div>
<div>
<br />
Can you now see and understand how difficult it is to glorify God, much less enjoy him forever if we are constantly questioning how he does things? In this highest of minds, we have again stormed the throne room of God requires explanations and ignoring the rebuke of God to Job:</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7 ESV</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div>
Were we to truly understand how we offend God’s glory with our impudence we would shudder in our shoes. That is not to suggest that there are not genuinely sincere and puzzled Christians, who in all humility approach the throne of God trembling and inquire as to how love can be consistent with hell. But these gentle babes in the Lord have yet to discover who God is. And instead of being taught who God is, his fashion, his worth, his mind, his thoughts, his likes and dislikes, his favor and disfavor, his worth, his glory and his character – they are instead deceived daily and weekly by sermons about how to make more money, or how to enjoy sex more, or how to have more success in life. They are instead deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing who are pouncing on their hearts and distracting them from their true purpose – to glorify God and instead getting them to at best inadvertently glorify man.</div>
<div>
<br />
I know these gentle babes – they are confused by God and frustrated that they are not receiving the blessings that they feel entitled to. Indeed, there is a very real entitlement attitude. After all, they prayed the prayer of Jabez, they asked in faith and with good motives, they claimed the promise of life and that more abundantly. They have a right to the good life. All the while they have never been taught that eternal life, that abundant life, has little to nothing to do with wealth, health, happiness or success. True life is the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Father who sent him. See John 17:3.</div>
<div>
<br />
In the end, the prevalence of decisional evangelism leads to men holding God accountable for his lack of blessing or healing, for his questionable use of hell, or at least his reckless use of language that confuses us about hell’s real nature. But if this were the only condemnation of the results of decisional evangelism, we could excuse it and rehabilitate those dear and gentle babes who have been so misled. But instead there is a much graver iniquity to lay at the feet of decisional evangelism and its unique ability to keep us from glorifying God and being able to worship God as God.</div>
<div>
<br />
For decisional evangelism puts man’s will above God’s will. Here is how it works. God’s will, according to these teachers, is that all men be saved. Again, this discussion and examination will not go into the specific arguments against or for faith evangelism versus decisional evangelism. We are, today only, looking at the ramifications; the necessary consequences. In the end, the decisional evangelist sees God’s will as subservient to man’s will. In the end, they will assert, the only thing keeping you out of heaven or out of hell is your will. In the end, you decide where you will spend eternity. In the end, the most powerful force in the universe – that which itself and only itself can now affect your eternal place of abode – is your will.</div>
<div>
<br />
We call this freedom of the will, and we set it up on an altar and worship it as the only omnipotent cause and power. God would will that you be in heaven, but he cannot quite do it on his own, he needs the assistance of your will. Now, to be fair, some will suggest that God has done almost all the work. That our contribution is so small that it can hardly be called a work. In essence, he has done 99.99999999999999999999 ad infinitum of the work. But as any first year math student can tell you, 99.99999999 ad infinitum is not equal to 100. No matter how small our contribution is, it still remains the sine qua non of our own salvation – that without which we cannot be saved.</div>
<div>
<br />
And this leads us to the glorification and worship of ourselves. We have seeker friendly churches. The Bible teaches that no man seeks after God. The Bible teaches that God seeks after man, that he seeks and finds that which is lost. But when we talk of seeker friendly churches we have turned the tables, and are talking about churches that are friendly to people, not necessarily to God. We are talking about churches who think, believe and see men as seeking for God – even though Scripture is very clear that man does not seek after God. See Romans 3:11. But we know in our hearts that it is our will that is important, so we schedule church so as to accommodate the will of unrepentant unbelievers. We design our worship so that it will not be offensive to unbelievers or their will, rather than designing our worship so as to glorify God in heaven. We exchange our best clothing in favor of more comfortable clothes, so that we can be more authentic and so that unbeliever’s wills will not be adversely put off. We design our teachings around an unbeliever’s will. We bow down to the unbeliever, and their will daily in our seeker-friendly churches, and we don’t even know that we have substituted the God of the universe for a dirty towel.</div>
<div>
<br />
How can someone who has laid down with the harlot of will worship pick up his cross and worship God? Can he divide his worship between himself and God? Can he give worth to God and man at the same time?</div>
<div>
Worship is giving worth to someone or something. When we bring our worship to God, but instead spend all our time with announcements, man-centered songs, man-centered teachings, man-centered theology, and man-centered evangelism – how are we giving worth to God? We even reject his words, excusing them as allegories, mere word pictures, appropriate for that time and that age, but not meant for us today.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
The most damning ramification of decisional evangelism is that is diverts worship and glorification of God to worship and glorification of man’s will and worth. We conclude, inaccurately and sinfully, that man is worth more than hell, and that his will alone will guarantee our eternal salvation. Is it any wonder that so many babes in Christ are so unhappy in their Christian walk, so adverse to bible study because they find it confusing and hard, so willing to read books written by man about man (e.g. Become a Better You or Your Best Life) instead of a book written by God about God?</div>
<div>
<br />
Faith evangelism announces God, his character, his worth, his words. Faith evangelism denounces man’s worth (aside of that worth God ascribes to him), denounces his ability giving credit even for our faith to Christ. Faith evangelism looks to God’s will instead of man’s will. And faith evangelism seeks to glorify God in our churches and in our hearts. </div>
<div>
<br />
The next section will examine the ramifications of decisional evangelism versus faith evangelism in the Church and in churches.</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4275070-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07312238961833593233noreply@blogger.com0