Verse of the month

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe...

Ephesians 1: 17-19

Great songs

Subpar videos, but I'm posting them for the music. By a group called Sixpence None the Richer.

Merry Christmas

Apropos of nothing

Some random humorous pictures from across the 'net to lighten the mood.

And for the statistically inclined...

And of course the best for last...

A different "10 Commandments"

For the last couple nights I’ve been reading the Communist Manifesto. I suppose fewer people are compelled to read it than during the high tide of the Soviet Union, but it’s worth revisiting if only to gain some perspective on the current situation in America. Marx had “ten commandments”: ten objectives that would ensure an omnipotent, deified state:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes [see Kelo v. New London, eminent domain].
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance [so-called “death taxes”].
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank [the Federal Reserve].
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state [the FCC, Fairness Doctrine, TSA, DOT, etc].
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state [see Congress’s recent play for a share of GM, Ford, and Chrysler].
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies [Obama’s proposed national service corps, FDR’s civilian workforce initiatives].
9. Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools [and mandatory at that, unless you can jump through certain hoops to satisfy the government].

Clearly, many of these steps have been completely implemented by the U. S. federal government, and most state and local governments, as well. Some of them have been partially implemented. My own opinion is that the first 9 are impossible to implement without #10.

What’s the point? Nothing really, except to get people thinking about where their leadership is taking them if good people don’t pay attention; get them thinking about what the next generation might be learning. If the state can control your business, your property, your kids—then it can eventually control your freedom of speech, assembly and worship.

On the other hand, if a vocal minority of atheistic Marxists can be so successful in implementing their game plan, think of what could happen if the silent majority of freedom-loving Christians resolved to live out their own set of commandments. One result would be a culture where people look to God, rather than the state, for “every good gift and every perfect gift” (James 1: 17).

Verse of the month

"And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit..."

Mark 4: 18-20

Jesus and Marx

Perhaps you’ve noticed an annoying trend among leftist politicians: invoking the Bible to sell their socialist schemes.

We all remember Obama’s defenders pointing out that, like Obama, “Christ was a community organizer.” A political action committee formed by nominal Christians to support Obama calls itself “Matthew 25.” Matthew 25 says, in part, things like: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink…naked and ye clothed me.” Obama himself announced: “It's that fundamental belief—I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper—that makes this country work.”

Now on the surface this sounds great.

Didn’t Christ tell the rich gentleman to “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven” (Luke 18: 22)? Doesn’t the book of Acts tell us that “all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (2: 44, 45)?

But what’s the catch? How is Christ’s charity, as taught in Scripture, different from Karl Marx’s or Obama’s “charity”? How can you tell the difference?

Well, the main difference is that Marxist redistribution requires coercion.

Christian charity is voluntary—which is what makes it meaningful. Christ did not hold a gun to people’s heads and demand they share. He didn’t threaten them with fines or imprisonment. But Marxists do just that.

Obama is now proposing mandatory civil service for, among others, high schoolers and college students. He labels this “serving” to “meet the nation’s challenges.” In fact it is a sort of socialist draft. If you refuse, you could be punished by the federal government. This could include monetary fines, refusal to allow you to graduate or work, or even imprisonment. How charitable does that make you feel? [Update: since this post went up, the official Team Obama site has changed the words "a plan to require" to "setting a goal." Make of that what you will. Perhaps they caved to pressure.]

Another difference between Christian charity and Marxist “charity” is that the former requires sacrifice on the part of the distributor. In a Marxist government, the party that is being charitable (the government), sacrifices nothing of its own. Instead, it robs Peter to pay Paul.

If I stole your wallet at gunpoint, then distributed the cash to my neighbors, they might think I’m quite a charitable guy. I might earn their allegiance for years to come. But I have not sacrificed anything of my own. And you, as the victim of my theft, didn’t really exhibit charity. You simply had no choice in the matter.

It’s easy to give away things that aren’t yours, especially when you get the accolades for it. But, philosophically speaking, you can’t be charitable with someone else’s money.

One of my goals is to train my children to be attuned to the “advertising tricks” of the socialists. Are they using “sharing” and “fairness” as code words for “involuntary confiscation”? Are they substituting phrases like “Christian charity” for “government-imposed redistribution”? When celebrities and politicians speak of helping others or doing our fair share, are they advocating doing it with their own cash or with yours? And are they proposing a penalty if you don’t do it?

That’s the difference between Christians and Marxists: voluntary sacrifice versus third-party coercion. True charity, like just about every other human transaction, should be voluntary.

On the bright side

Some good news for Christians coming out of the election, from the AP:

"In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment—widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures—will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents."

Notice, students of rhetoric, how the AP calls them "ban gay marriage amendments"--an underhanded, negative portrayal--rather than "defense of marriage" amendments.

Oh well, either way, it's a victory.

So-called Christians

"For many shall come in my name...and shall deceive many."



Be sure to vote Tuesday and get at least 10 people from your church to vote, too.

Political Musings

“The powers that be are ordained of God.”

In light of the election coming up and the direction our country may head, what does that mean?

If it’s taken at face value and applied universally it means the status quo in government should never be challenged by God’s people. I heard a preacher say once that our Founding Fathers were sinning by breaking away from dictatorship (and consequently establishing religious liberty) because they challenged “the powers that be.” That’s one way to look at it.

But then Ehud was sinning also when he assassinated Eglon. And Joshua when he overthrew the Canaanites. And Esther when she tried to stop the genocide ordered by Haman. So it can’t mean God disapproves of us challenging evil governments.

We tend to think “ordained” means “authorized and approved.” It really means “arranged”—at least in this instance.

God has a plan and that plan involves not only His people, but His enemies as well. He is writing (actually has written) a great novel, and like any novel it would not be great if it didn’t have villains and tragedy as well as heroes and triumph. God arranged for Nebuchadnezzar to come to power—and He also arranged his downfall. He arranged for Hitler to come to power—and also arranged his downfall.

If He arranges for a socialist raised in Muslim schools to become the nominal leader of America, that doesn’t mean He approves of Obama’s actions--or that we must all passively consent to every anti-American, anti-Christian proposal that comes out of his administration. It means it is part of the plot, part of God’s temporary arrangement.

We still have to play our own role in the story, regardless. Part of my role as a Christian will be to vote against Obama in two weeks. But I won’t be depressed about a negative outcome because God is writing a story for His people and it doesn’t always rely on politicians and nation-states.

In any event, we shouldn’t complain too much about media bias or crooked community organizing or leftist textbooks unless we’re willing to do something about it. The truth is, the anti-Christian leftists had a sense of dominion the last one hundred years and Christians did not. I’m not saying that Christians should focus exclusively on influencing civil institutions; but if we aren’t going to be the salt of world, we can't complain that the world has lost its savor. And it’s difficult to function as salt unless you put yourself in a saltshaker.

Do you think the early apostles, if they were alive today, would utilize the internet? Would try to get on radio or cable TV? Would go into schools and universities? Would publish? Would hold forth in front of a microphone on the steps of the U.S. Capitol? Not to advocate for political change; but to spread the gospel of the kingdom and change the hearts of men. Political change is secondary or even tertiary and won’t come about anyway unless the hearts of men are changed. That’s what happened in the American Revolution, which followed many years of spiritual revival in the colonies.

Anyway, I’m not sure I’ve done anything but muddy the waters further on this topic, but I’ll leave you with this anecdote:

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, ‘Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us’. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men’” (Acts 5: 27-29).

In this instance, who were “the powers that be”? The council or the apostles?

Verse of the month

Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Matthew 6: 25, 26

Taking a stand on baptism

[I said I wouldn't post until I had something important to say. Well now I do.]

Two words I would love to see retired: credo-baptist and pedo-baptist. People talk about “credobaptist” (baptizing believers) vs. “pedobaptist” (baptizing newborns) as if there are two different kinds of baptism to chose from, each with its own pros and cons. But the debate shouldn’t be, “Are you a credobaptist or a pedobaptist?” It should be, “Are you a baptist or not?” Pedobaptism is not baptism.

Baptism (from the Greek baptizo) means immersion, and in Scripture the only candidates for baptism were believers. Baptism is a public profession of Christ. It symbolizes His death, burial and resurrection—just as the believer was once dead in sins and has been born again. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6: 4).

How does the act of flicking a few drops on a newborn’s head fulfill this public profession? Not only is the mode of pedobaptism wrong, but the recipient of the mode is wrong as well. Pedobaptism is the sprinkling of an infant whom everyone would agree is a nonbeliever. Yet the word that’s used interchangeably with pedobaptism—christening—implies that it marks the moment the individual officially becomes a Christian. Ask a pedobaptist when they became a Christian and you’re likely to hear about an event they don’t even remember: their sprinkling.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find an infant baptized. Nowhere in Scripture will you find any unregenerate person baptized. “Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized…Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2: 38, 41). Certain Pharisees wanted to be baptized, but John the Baptist wouldn’t allow it because they offered no evidence of repentance.

Millions of people have been murdered throughout the centuries simply because they would not embrace the doctrines of pedobaptists over the Biblical model. It’s a historical fact that infant baptism is found nowhere for the first couple centuries after Christ. But slowly errors and misunderstandings crept into churches. Some confused baptism with regeneration; and if that were the case, why not administer it as early as possible? And since you can’t immerse an infant, why not sprinkle it?

The practice of pedobaptism spread. It was easier, more comfortable than what the Bible commanded. Ultimately it was institutionalized by the Roman-Catholic state as a way to ensure that everyone joined the state-church before they were even given a choice. Any family who refused was persecuted or executed. True baptists had to flee to the outskirts of the empire and live in hiding for many centuries. They found a little breathing room at the start of the Reformation, but in short order were persecuted also by those reformed state-churches that came out of the Roman-Catholic model (pedobaptists themselves). These true baptistic churches fled to Holland, Wales, England—and eventually to the New World, where they finally had an unprecedented opportunity to blossom and spread.

Now many churches from that same heritage are waffling about credobaptism vs. pedobaptism, or dropping the ordinance altogether, or offering “baby dedications.” They’ve not only forgotten their history, they’ve forgotten their Scripture.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the testimony of a former pedobaptist who finally read Scripture in context and realized it teaches credobaptism…er, baptism.

Time out

I’m taking time out from the blog for a while to finish a book project…and a few other projects that never seem to get done.

We’ve put an end to the church hunting saga and settled on a hundred-year-old multi-generational church that is proudly Baptist. So it’s a relief to finally stop looking.

Now we’re on a mission to simplify our lives for a while and catch our breath. Hence the whole time out from the blog thing. If the book ever gets made, I’ll post about it on here this fall. And if something strikes me as urgent or important I may put up a post. But for now, gotta focus on some other things. So in the meantime, enjoy some random pics of the family from this summer (and a few Fensterpickles thrown in).

Verse of the month

Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

John 8: 34-36

The "last days" catchphrase

A Jehovah’s Witness gave us this “Awake!” magazine not long ago. The eschatology in it isn’t too much different from what you get in Left Behind, or Chick tracks, or even a lot of Sunday school curricula.

Are we living in the last days? The implied answer is “Yes!” It’s so obvious, isn’t it? There are “wars and rumors of wars,” there are “perilous times.” These must be the last days.

The implied application is, “Straighten up, the teacher’s coming back, look to the skies…and whatever you do, don’t make any long-range plans.”

But is this Biblical doctrine, or a clever trick of Satan to paralyze our outlook?

Certainly Paul warned Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Timothy 3: 1). But when are the “last days”? If he was talking about 2,000 years in the future, how would that pertain to Timothy? Did perilous times ever come in Timothy’s lifetime?

If we dig a little deeper it appears that “the last days” mainly refers to the last years of Old Israel.

When many in the church were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter told the bystanders “…these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh…” (Acts 2: 15-17). So the prophecy about the “last days” was being fulfilled at that time—2,000 years ago.

In the opening passages of Hebrews we read, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (1: 1, 2).

John writes, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time” (1 John 2: 18). Surely his readers didn’t think he meant the last moments of history. Even if they did, we know that it wasn’t the “last time” of history. It was the “last time” of Israel.

Peter writes of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (I Peter 1: 20). So Christ and Peter lived in the “the last times”—the last days of Israel. (The nation of Israel, established by God, was permanently destroyed by God via the Roman army in A.D. 70—just a few years after most of the New Testament books were written).

So the meaning of phrases like “the last days” or “the last times” changes dramatically when they’re read in context. But that doesn’t keep many Christian “experts” from sensationalizing them—or even claiming that they refer exclusively to our own generation. How else can they scare people into buying books and turn their attention away from things that matter?

Encouraging News

Some random headlines you might have missed. Pass them along.

1) Sarah Palin a strong pro-life advocate

"As many as 80 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome become victims of abortion, but Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin didn’t let her child become a statistic…'We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives,' she said. 'We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.'"

2) Palin in favor of teaching creation science

"Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms....'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'"

3) Jindal signs "intelligent design" bill

"Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. The bill enjoyed surprisingly overwhelming support from lawmakers. It was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, and pased the state House by a vote of 93-4."

4) Ex-Muslim named president of Baptist college

"Caner, 37, is the son of a devout Islamic leader and most of his family, including his father, has disowned him. He converted to Christianity in 1982 with the help of a Christian friend who invited him to a prayer meeting at a Southern Baptist church."

Baptist Church vs. Bible Church

The church we’ve been attending has changed its name from Baptist Church to Bible Church. It has also changed its denomination: it now takes out an ad under “Nondenom-inational” in the local paper.

But we’re kind of hesitant to jump on board and toss aside the Baptist distinction without a good reason. Read “Trail of Blood” or any other Baptist history book to find out why. They’re called Baptists for a reason and they’re distinguished from every other denomination for a reason.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t good New Testament churches with nondescript designations: community church, chapel, bible church, etc. It’s one thing if you’ve always been a Bible Church and are still baptistic in principle. But I’m a little leery of a Baptist church that wants to stop being Baptist in order to intentionally become something more vague and innocuous.

We were told, “Baptist doesn’t mean anything anymore.” But does “Nondenominational Bible Church” clarify anything? Wouldn’t every denomination say they believe the Bible?

The problem with “nondenominational” is that it doesn’t mean a single thing…or it can mean everything. It’s a Rorschach ink blot. It’s like saying your college major is “Undeclared.” But I guess that’s appealing to a lot of people.

Are we wrong to think this whole change is somewhat odd?

Who controls this world?

I heard a pastor recently say that Satan is in charge of this world. This is a topic I’m continuing to study, but at this point I’d have to say I disagree with him. Of course, if you disagree with me feel free to say so.

Believing Satan is king of earth is a key com-ponent of dispen-sational theology, and it’s a good example of how dispensationalism can infect your entire worldview. In dispen-sational theology Satan is destined to gradually overtake the entire world and God’s kingdom can’t be inaugurated until after that happens.

Those who claim this is Satan’s world rely on verses like Ephesians 2: 2 which refers to him as “the prince of the power of the air”; or 1 Peter 5: 8 which says, “the devil, like a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” But they miss the bigger narrative.

Satan did have relatively unchecked power over the nations of this world…up until Christ came. In the ancient world, only a small enclave called Israel was even exposed to the redemptive promise of the Messiah. The rest of the nations had no choice but to follow Satan because that’s all they knew. At that time Satan was effectively the prince of this world.

But when Christ came everything changed. The kingdom was inaugurated and Satan’s power was significantly diminished. John the Baptist announced, “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1: 15), and Jesus proclaimed, “now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12: 31).

Remember when the Pharisees accused Christ of using the power of Satan to cast out demons? “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils,” He said, “by whom do your children cast them out?...But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house” (Matt. 12: 27-29). So Christ’s first advent signaled not just the inauguration of the kingdom, but the binding of the “strong men” (Satan and his demons).

How could this be? We know that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalms 24: 1). Prior to Christ coming, Satan was a temporary usurper. But God gave His Son the authority to reclaim His creation: “All power is given unto me in heaven and earth” (Matt 28: 18). “He that cometh from above is above all…The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (John 3: 31, 35).

By dying for the sins of all, Christ “…blott[ed] out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us…nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2: 14, 15). The principalities and powers he spoiled were Satan’s.

It is an ongoing conquest. The kingdom grows gradually (Matthew 13: 31-33), consuming all earthly kingdoms (Daniel 2: 34-44); it does not appear suddenly and full-blown on day one. Satan still has power, but he is not in control. He no longer owns entire nations. He is reduced to prowling at night, picking off individuals. With each passing century his dominion is decreased, even as his tactics become more desperate and blatant.

Since Christ’s resurrection, God has set Him “at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet” (Eph 1: 20-22). God the Father has told Christ “sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110: 1).

In the “fullness of times” God will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Ephesian 1: 10).

First Corinthians 15 tells us that when Christ returns to resurrect the dead, “then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.”

When Christ comes back He is not going to start His kingdom; it’s already started. He’s going to deliver His kingdom up to His Father and the kingdom will continue for eternity in Heaven. Until that time, I believe, He has given His followers authority to reclaim the earth—not by force, but by spreading "the gospel of the kingdom" and the promise of spiritual regeneration. The meek "shall inherit the earth”—not be raptured out of it while Satan expands his empire.

“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace,” Christ said. “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Verses to encourage home educators

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up (Deut. 6: 5-7).

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding (Proverbs 9: 11).

Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD (Psalms 34: 11).

Choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD (Joshua 24: 15).

He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed (Proverbs 13:20).

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: for they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck (Proverbs 1: 7-9).

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22: 6).

And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children (Isaiah 54: 13).

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen (Jer. 10: 2).

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6: 4).

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate (Psalms 127: 3-5).

I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth (I John 1: 4).

Verse of the month

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

2 Chronicles 7: 14

Lean on me

I’m an advocate of Christians making their voices heard in society.

Yesterday we were treated to this news: “After an outpouring of protest from homeschooling advocates and politicians, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles reversed its Feb. 28 ruling that could have reclassified most homeschooled children as truants.” The same court that had basically outlawed homeschooling came to the “realization” that it had made a mistake. If no one had leaned on them, the decision would’ve stood.

Many Christians are too timid about taking a positive role in society. The world seems so big, and so many struggles feel “wordly” and, frankly, insurmountable.

I remember reading once an interview with a TV network executive who said that every time he gets a letter from a viewer he assumes that 1,000 other people feel the same way but just didn’t bother to write letters. So in his case, one Christian writing a letter decrying an anti-Christian show would equal one thousand and one voices of concern.

In our small community last year the president of the local college decided to remove the cross from the campus chapel. He said it was an intolerant symbol. I had never cared about the icon itself, but here was a government official labeling Christianity offensive and setting a dangerous precedent that all visual reminders of Christ should be purged.

My instinct was to make my family’s voice heard, since this was our “backyard”: so I wrote letters to the newspaper and the Board of Visitors; we took the kids to a candle-light vigil on campus in the freezing rain; my wife and oldest son signed petitions; I was even interviewed by the local TV station and the daily newspaper. If it had just been us speaking out, we might not have made any difference. But thousands of other Christians did the same thing, and the combined effect sent an unmistakable message. The president put the cross back…and even lost his job over the matter.

Around that time a sweet and humble woman in my church named Raquel wrote a letter to the editor. She was troubled that no local pastors had a word to say about the controversy. This was happening in their own community and getting national attention, yet they were silent. They were focused inward, living their monastic lives, quietly complaining that the world around them was getting worse. This wasn’t even a political issue where pastors might have endangered their beloved tax exemption by speaking out. Her point seemed to be that the people in the pews had more gumption than the “professional” Christians.

I understand some Christians are uncomfortable about getting involved in messy things like the media, politics, education issues, etc. But thankfully many Christians aren’t. Without William Wilberforce the slave trade would not have been abolished in early nineteenth-century England. Without Roger Williams the concept of separating civil government from religious coercion would not have taken root in colonial America. Without John Leland there would probably be no Bill of Rights securing our freedom of religion, assembly and speech. And without thousands of ordinary Christian parents leaning on the leadership of California, homeschooling would be effectively illegal in that state.

This is God’s world, not Satan’s. And “with God all things are possible.”

(Sorry for the long post).

Anyone want to start a Christian homeschool in Malibu?

Who is the Antichrist?

According to the 1970s horror flick “The Omen,” it’s a bratty little boy named Damien. According to a bratty little boy in my third grade class, it was Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 letters in each of his 3 names: 6-6-6). According to a traveling evangelist speaking in our fundamentalist church a few years ago, it’s a slick European politician. Whoever it is, according to Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey, he’s almost certainly in our midst right now, on the verge of great political power (of course they’ve been saying that for decades).

So how can we ever know?

Actually, when you stick to the Bible you realize the whole question is wrong. There is no THE Antichrist. Antichrist is not a single “who.”

The word antichrist is used only 5 times in the Bible:

“Little children, it is the last time [the last days of Israel]: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time” (I John 2: 18).

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (I John 2: 22).

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (I John 4: 3).

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (II John 1: 7).

So antichrist is not a single man, but a belief: the belief that Jesus is NOT God’s son, the one and only Messiah. That’s all. That makes Oprah Winfrey’s philosophy antichrist. That makes Muslims antichrist. That makes Jehovah’s witnesses and Judaists and Unitarians antichrist. “These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you,” John says about the spirit of antichrist.

Lumping all Biblical references to evil into a composite future person named The Antichrist misses the point that that spirit is all around us and needs to be confronted every day in mundane settings.

Become a better ewe

Let Joel Osteen shepherd you through the gospel....



Of course, it's hard to get the message right when you're not sure what religion you belong to...

True or False?

Okay, I know this is an urban legend, but it's still a fun party trick.

In 1611 the King James Bible was completed. William Shakespeare was a favorite of King James and (the legend goes) was brought in to put the finishing poetic touches on some of the translated passages. During the process, Shakespeare wanted to leave his "signature" somewhere in the text.

So if you open your Bible to the very middle (Psalms) and find the 46th chapter and count 46 words down, you will come to the word "shake." If you count 46 words up from the bottom of the chapter you will find the word "spear."

And why 46? Because William Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time the project was completed.

So next time you inadvertently stumble into a Bible translation debate, you can relay this senseless story to confuse everyone before you make your escape.

(Hey, I should write a novel called "The Shakespeare Code").

Church Succession

Okay, Cindy brought this topic up so I thought I’d open the door on it so she—or anyone else—could comment. But I’m no expert and am not sure I have a dogmatic opinion on it. The issue is church succession: how should churches be started...and how have they been started throughout history?

Some claim that churches should reproduce new churches. In fact, they say, God’s true type of church has been propagated this way since the days of the apostles. I suppose this is called unbroken succession.

Others say God’s true type of church has always existed at any given point in history, but that the genealogy has not followed an unbroken chain of succession. That is, just before a good church faded from existence in the Alps, another one might have sprung up in Wales to keep the flame alive. I guess this is called church perpetuity.

Still others say that the New Testament church got off track and basically went out of existence for several centuries when the Romans melded it with the pagan state religion; but thankfully the Reformers tinkered with the Catholic model a little bit and--voila!—God’s church was resurrected from the dead. This is the Protestant view.

So does it matter? Does it matter how churches are started or who leads them? Some people start home churches from scratch. This can occur out of pride, or desperation, or even necessity (I’m thinking of underground home churches in China). Others think a church needs to be “planted” by a mother church. And the present reality is most churches are actually started by seminaries or mission boards that may be only nominally affiliated with any church.

As to the historical angle, here is Charles Spurgeon’s opinion:

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.”

Ziza

It may sound like a saucy Brazilian woman, but it’s actually a new Christian website. Hard to explain it, but it’s one of the handful that I click on frequently to see what’s new. Its subtitle is “Christian News and Views.” It’s like a Christian Drudge Report, except you can post your own headlines with links to news articles or good blog posts.

Some of the links are informative or newsworthy. Some are just entertaining: like the boater who called the police because a church baptism service was blocking the boat ramp (and the authorities sided with the church). It’s a nice break from the predictable news selections you get on the mainstream media sites. Here's the link (also found over on the right).

Actually I'm not sure if it's Ziza or ZIZA...but whatever. At least I spelled it right.

Verse of the month

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

I John 5: 4

Amusing quote

“That man smokes a pipe, and that man drinks liquor—but I do believe he is a Christian.”

Ultra-fundamentalist Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. after meeting C. S. Lewis

Did Christ establish two kinds of churches? (Part 2)

(Summary of Part 1: Scripture doesn’t teach a “universal church”).

But isn’t the church the “body of Christ,” and aren’t all Christians part of “the body of Christ”?

Yes, it is. And no, they’re not.

Paul uses the metaphor of the human body (eyes, ears, hands, feet) to describe the ekklesia, the summoned assembly: different members with different gifts working together as one functional unit. “[T]he body is not one member, but many…whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it” (I Cor. 12: 14, 26). The members of a local church are one body for Christ, one body in Christ, one body established by Christ. “Now ye [the church at Corinth] are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (I Cor. 12: 27). So the “body” metaphor refers to each individual assembly—not a composite of all those assemblies.

You are not in the same ekklesia as a Christian man in China. If he suffers, you cannot suffer with him. You don’t even know him. If he is unrepentant about a public sin, you cannot “tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). Who are you going to tell? The two of you are not members of the same functional body. Such an amorphous affiliation as a “universal church” can never be the organized, effective unit that Christ intended when he said “I will build my church [ekklesia]” (Matt. 16: 18).

But aren’t all Christians somehow “related”?

Of course. We are all part of the Kingdom. We have one King presiding over us from Heaven. We are each members of our own ekklesias, which are orderly assemblies meant to spread the Kingdom. We don’t all belong to the exact same ekklesia, anymore than all schoolchildren belong to the same school. But we are all in the same Kingdom and share the same purposes, which are to be achieved through our individual ekklesias, each working in its own sphere of influence and encouraging the others. One day, too, we will all be members of a larger assembly—a general assembly of all saints in Heaven. But all the saints won’t constitute a summoned assembly until then.

Why does it matter anyway? What’s wrong with teaching a “universal church”?

Well, if you are automatically a member of Christ’s “universal church” then joining a local ekklesia becomes an afterthought. This is why Satan triumphs when Christians buy into the idea of membership in the “universal church.” The allegedly-ideal “universal church” sure beats the local assembly with its personality quirks and flaws, doesn’t it? So many Christians become slack in seeking out an ekklesia where they can grow in the Word, edify each other, and spread the Kingdom.

The individual local assemblies, weakened by their own identity crises, give way to para-church organizations that appear to offer better “central unifying principles”: associations, conventions, seminaries, and national youth groups. Ekklesias have been redefined as mere buildings where these para-church groups hold sway, while self-professed members of the “universal church” float aimlessly in and out of them, receiving no discipleship or doctrinal training from the church leadership itself. For many modern Christians, the ekklesia has become the red-headed stepchild of God’s ultimate plan.

But the ekklesia--the functional local assembly--was the sole institution created by Christ to spread the Kingdom to all nations until “every tongue shall confess God” (Rom. 14: 11).

For more on this topic here are good articles by Thomas Williamson and Glenn Kerr, and a good book called Ecclesia by B. H. Carroll.

Did Christ establish two kinds of churches? (Part 1)

Pop quiz: is this a) an ekklesia, b) a kirche, or c) a universal church?

Most pastors I know teach that there are two kinds of churches. Once you are saved, they say, you automatically become a member of Christ’s church, which is an invisible organism composed of all believers worldwide, living and dead. They call this the “universal church.” Later, if you wish, you can join up with a more quaint and less pure local assembly, which is also called “the church.”

But does the Bible really teach two kinds of churches? Specifically, does it speak of a “universal church”? I don’t think it does. I think the idea of two churches is confusing and self-contradictory and ultimately weakens the institution that Christ established to spread the gospel message.

The words “church” and “churches” appear about 115 times in Scripture. With one exception, the word is always translated in the original Greek as ekklesia (in one instance, the English translators loosely used the word “churches” in reference to particular buildings--specifically, pagan temples). So ekklesia is the only word used to describe the New Testament church. Ekklesia has a specific meaning: it literally means “called out” or “summoned.” Christ did not invent the word: it was commonly used in that time to refer to “a summoned assembly”—such as the “town council” meetings in ancient Greece. The disciples would have interpreted it to mean not just “an election” but “an assembly of the elect.” Today we might use a term like “congress.” Of course a nebulous universal affiliation cannot assemble or convene.

[The English word “church,” by the way, is taken from the German kirche which refers to an actual building, making the whole discussion even more confusing since nowadays we wrongly think of a church as a building.]

There is no separate Greek phrase in Scripture connoting a “universal church” as opposed to an ekklesia. This fact alone is enough to do away with the teaching of a separate universal church. There is no passage in Scripture that claims there are two different kinds of churches. There is no passage that explains the differences between two such “churches.” There is no passage that suggests the word ekklesia is to have more than one definition.

The confusion comes when the word “church” is used in the singular. Christ and the New Testament writers sometimes use the generic singular to describe something that is plural. For example, “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5: 23). Here Paul is using the idea of a generic church rather than one specific local assembly. He no more means that there is a “universal church” than he means that there is a “universal husband.” In fact, the concept of a universal husband is as much an impossibility as the concept of a universal local assembly. So this usage is the generic singular: each husband is the head of each wife, even as Christ is the head of each ekklesia. Here is another example: “…if he [the unrepentant church member] shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). He doesn’t say, “tell it unto the church at Jerusalem,” or some other specific local assembly, because He means the principle to apply to all churches, plural.

Yet another example is found in Mathew 16: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). This does not mean “I will build one church only,” but rather, “I will build my (generic) kind of assembly.” If God had said in the Garden of Eden, “I will establish the family,” we would plainly understand that He was using the generic singular to describe multiple units of one type. The same applies to “the church”: an ideal type, manifested as multiple real individual assemblies.

Once we understand the usage of the generic singular, the doctrine of a “universal church” becomes less tenable and less necessary.

Speaking of...

...Schoolhouse Rock, we bought the entire collection on DVD and the kids love it. It's a great supplement for math, history, science and grammar. It's amazing to think that these were shown on network TV instead of commercials. Maybe the network felt guilty for feeding us a steady diet of junk like "Jabberjaw" and "Captain Caveman," and this was their penance.

Here's one of my favorites: "Three is a Magic Number" by jazz musician Bob Donough.

And for some hilarious comic relief, here's a knockoff called Public Schoolhouse Rock.

If you liked that, there are two more here and here, with some mild bad language.

Schoolhouse Rocks

The transformation is complete. The old red dining room is now the new blue schoolroom. (And it didn't even cost the taxpayers one cent).

The expected class size this fall is three students, with a fourth showing interest.

Who is Abraham's seed?

This is a vitally important question, because Abraham’s seed is to be the recipient of great promises. The Bible says all the nations of the world will be blessed by Abraham’s seed. It says his seed will number as the stars of the sky and inherit the world. So who is it?

Unfortunately, many Christians interpret the phrase carnally. To them the seed is the Jews and national Israel. To them the seed is spread not by the Spirit but by sperm. How many times have you heard that the Jews are God’s chosen people, or, more incredibly, that Christians must act reverently and deferentially toward the current inhabitants of political Israel—regardless of their relationship with Christ?

The problems with this view are numerous.

One obvious problem is that Abraham had many children, yet the seed was passed only to one: Isaac. Ishmael was a carnal seed of Abraham, yet tradition tells us he was the father of the Arabs. After Sarah died, Abraham remarried and had many more children who had nothing to do with Israel. God “hated” Abraham’s grandson Esau and excluded him from the line of blessing. So right off the bat most of Abraham’s carnal seeds were out of the running.

So what does it mean to be of the seed of Abraham? Rather than me rambling on, let’s see if Scripture makes it clear.

“Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Galatians 3: 7).

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 26-29).

“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9: 6-8).

“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Romans 4: 13).

Pretty straightforward. The seed represents faith in Christ. If one of your children believes, he is of the seed. If another of your children doesn’t believe, he is not of the seed. It actually has nothing to do with genetics. The genetic descendants of Abraham are not necessarily God’s people. In fact, they never were. They were only considered so on an individual basis if they were saved by grace through faith in the Messiah.

The Sunday school song actually gets this right:
“Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons had Father Abraham.
I am one of them and so are you, so let’s all praise the Lord.”

That’s not a song to be sung by ethnic Jews only, though they can certainly sing it if they are saved. And one day, most of them will sing it (Romans 11: 26)--along with the majority of the world (Psalms 22: 27; Isaiah 2: 2; Habbakuk 2: 14).

So if Christians are the seed, they will number as the stars of the sky, they will cause all nations to be blessed through the “gospel of the kingdom,” they will inherit not just a sliver of dry land in the Mideast, but the world. It will not be a political dominion but a spiritual one.

Kind of changes the perspective doesn’t it?

Dispensationalists have to devise a theology that takes Christians off the map (the imminent Rapture) so that national and carnal Israel can supposedly receive all those promises. But the promises were never given to national Israel or Abraham’s fleshly offspring. They were given to those who, like Abraham, have faith in Christ.

Caption Contest

Okay, who can come up with the best caption for this picture?

The Preacher Behind the Bill of Rights

[This biographical sketch first appeared in The Pillar].

On March 22, 1788, James Madison had reason to be distraught. He had just gotten word that the popular Baptist preacher John Leland was going to oppose his election as a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention. “Then I am beaten," Madison soberly reported to the messenger. "Yes," came the reply, "unless you can convince him."

Leland had been a champion of religious freedom since his conversion to the Baptist faith in 1774, and he feared the rumors (spread mostly by Madison's opponents) that the distinguished politician was lukewarm about securing that freedom for all citizens. Madison set off on his horse that cold March morning and rode toward Orange County, Virginia, where he was told he could find the strong-willed pastor, to set the record straight. The two met on a road six miles out of Fredericksburg and sat down in an oak grove on the side of a hill.

They could not have been more different. The small, well-dressed Madison had attended Princeton and (with Washington and Jefferson now in Philadelphia) was the most celebrated and respected leader in Virginia. Leland, on the other hand, wore only homespun suits, was uneducated, and spent his days walking from county to county preaching the gospel.

They talked through the afternoon. The sun went down. They talked into the night. At length, Leland sprang to his feet and declared he was now convinced of Madison's intention to establish religious freedom and would support him.

"The rank and file of his counties will follow him," a close friend previously reported to Madison. And they did. The Baptist support of Madison, led by John Leland, nudged him into victory over Patrick Henry and consequently secured the narrow passing of the U.S. Constitution. Madison had heard Leland's previous complaints: “there is no Bill of Rights," Leland pointed out. "What is clearest of all — Religious Liberty is not sufficiently secured." It is no surprise, then, that it was Madison who personally introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, complete with Leland's demands for freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

The story of John Leland's life is as rich as any novel—full of humor, adventure, intrigue, and crisis.

But how did Pastor Leland, born into humble beginnings in Massachusetts, come to be such a prominent influence among Virginia villagers and aristocrats alike? The simplest answer is: the zeal of his preaching. Shortly after his salvation, Leland became a Baptist pastor and moved to Virginia with his wife. He became an itinerant preacher, travelling across counties--and even states--to declare his belief in the Baptist principles of salvation by grace, believer’s baptism, and the individual's liberty of conscience concerning religious matters.

But it was an uphill fight. As late as 1714 there were no Baptists in Virginia. When the Baptists did arrive and began to preach freely they were fined, imprisoned, and sometimes whipped by the authorities of the church-state. Leland's tenacity in overcoming these odds became more and more evident and eventually found its way into the state's folklore. He decried state religion, saying, "The Gospel Church takes in no nation, but those who fear God, and work righteousness in every nation." He welcomed slaves into his services as spiritual equals. He performed a baptism while threatened at gunpoint by angry relatives of the candidate for baptism, and preached an entire sermon under these same conditions.

The establishment churches in Virginia tried desperately to discredit him, but by the time they took pastors like Leland seriously, the Baptist revival had gained too much momentum. Virginians had had too much of the dry and barren pedantry of the High Church. "The great doctrines of universal depravity, redemption by the blood of Christ, regeneration...are but seldom preached by them," Leland wrote. By the close of the 18th century, the Baptists were the largest denomination in Virginia, due largely to John Leland's ministry and example.

In his later years, Leland lamented the encroachment of committees and organizations within the Baptist church and gained a reputation for railing against these systems of church government. In 1792 he took his ministries back to Massachusetts and continued his powerful, down-to-earth preaching in several churches there. When he died in 1841 the colorful and controversial John Leland left behind a legacy of incessant witnessing, Bible-based revival, and religious freedom—a legacy to which all Christians are indebted.

Family Discipleship

Some thoughts from Voddie Baucham.

Christians imprisoned for homeschooling

This is what happens when you give the state too much power. Here's the article. You'd expect as much from Germany, but the same trend is unfolding in California where a court recently declared homeschooling illegal unless conducted by a state-licensed, state-approved educator. The implication is that parents do not have a right to educate their own children (as instructed by Scripture) but must surrender them to government schools for indoctrination into a humanistic worldview. You could have a Ph.D. in mathematics or history but would still not be qualified to instruct your children.

There are between 2 and 3 million homeshcoolers in America, the vast majority of which are being taught by Christian parents. This terrifies many people: teachers unions, atheists, socialists. So be prepared for more attacks as homeschooling gains popularity. The Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has done a good job over the years of protecting homeschooling on a state-by-state basis. They deserve more support. And our legislators and judges need to be constantly reminded that our government was created to protect individual liberty, not usurp it.

Christian Doctrines

Some excerpts from a refreshing old book called Christian Doctrines by Baptist scholar James Madison Pendleton.

On church:

“In answer to the question, What is a church? It may be said, A church is a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, acknowledging him as their Head, relying on his atoning sacrifice for justification before God, depending on the Holy Spirit for sanctification, united in the belief of the gospel, agreeing to maintain its ordinances and obey its precepts, meeting together for worship, and co-operating for the extension of Christ’s kingdom in the world. If any prefer an abridgment of this definition, it may be given thus: A church is a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, united in the belief of what he has said, and covenanting to do what he has commanded.”

On the resurrection:

“As to the period of the resurrection, the whole tenor of Scripture indicates that it will take place at the end of the world, at the second coming of Christ, and as preparatory to the general judgment.”

On baptism:

"The commission of Christ, as understood and exemplified in the apostolic age, requires the baptism of believers, disciples; and the baptism of all others, whether unbelievers or unconscious infants, is utterly unwarranted. There is, as Paul has written in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism.' The one Lord is the object of the one faith, the one faith embraces the one Lord, and the one baptism is a profession of the one faith in the one Lord."

On Abraham’s seed:

“As to the seed of Abraham we may learn much from Paul, who says, ‘Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.’ The apostle under inspiration seized hold of the important fact that the seed of Abraham is Christ, in whom all nations are blessed. Thus the promised Saviour was known to Abraham, of whom Jesus said to the Jews, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.’"

Innie or Outie?

Is your church an “innie” or an “outie”? Does it focus inward or outward? My wife made this observation the other day, and I thought it was pretty profound. (I try to get her to write on this blog but she never wants to). Anyway, we were researching local churches on the internet and she said, “You know, this church seems like it’s focused more inward and not outward.” Their website was full of all the activities they offer if you join their “family” but had nothing about their beliefs, their mission or their local outreach.

I had never really looked at churches from that perspective before. Or maybe I had but just couldn’t quite put it into words. But she articulated it in a simple way that summed up some of the vague feelings I’ve been having about church.

The “innies” are more common than the “outies.” The “outies” focus their attention on the Great Commission: they evangelize, they publish, they broadcast, they teach, they give. One church we’ve been visiting (which I’m not 100% on board with yet) is—I must admit--an “outie.” They just had a food drive for the poor, they started a prison visitation ministry, they witness to their neighbors, they give their members doctrinal insight to be effective ambassadors for Christ. Even though they’re small in number, they’re more focused outward.

Who knows, maybe they’ll become more focused inward when they get bigger. Maybe that’s the fate of large churches: too busy trying to keep the members happy to fulfill the Great Commission.

“Innie” churches aim to please. They promote shiny things for those inside. Once you join, they usually don’t ask you to participate in spreading the gospel or push you too deeply into the Word of God. They might write feel-good checks to foreign missionaries in exotic places, but don’t do much for the harvest in their own town. Instead, they make their church the evangelical equivalent of a “Chuck E. Cheese” party, and it’s a great distraction so long as you’re busy busy busy within the church compound. They want you happy. They want you comfortable.

For the record, I’m not comfortable reaching out. I’m a terrible public speaker, would dread “cold-calling” someone about the gospel, and have no desire to be a “mini-pastor.” So it’s tempting for me to become just a spectator in an “innie” church. But God gives us all a few gifts and a few decades to use them. Some are orators. Some write. Some make music. Some build. Some cook. Some research. Some sew. Some teach.

Is your church using the gifts of its members to reach out and advance the Kingdom? Or is it focused on keeping everyone entertained so that the “professional Christians” in the “church family” can justify their salaries? Is it an “innie” our an “outie”?

If that’s got you thinking…thank my wife.

On Education

"The purpose of education is not happiness; it is not social integration. Its purpose is at once the discipline of the mind for the vocations of life and the cultivation of the mind for its own sake. These ends are to be achieved through the mastery of fundamental subjects which cluster around language and number, the two chief instruments by which man knows himself and understands his relation to the world."

Allen Tate, American author

Goodbye To All That

Leaving a fundamentalist church is like escaping an abusive relationship. You try to justify it while you’re in it, and you don’t realize how bad it is till you’re out of it.

Christian fundamentalism started out with good intentions. A hundred years ago many liberal theologians (mostly out of Europe) were openly challenging the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. Many of their teachings were heretical. A group of conservative Christians, therefore, decided to outline and define themselves by “the fundamentals”: basic teachings to which all true Christians must subscribe in order to call themselves Christians. These included the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace, and the inerrancy of Scripture. So far, so good.

But like so many well-meaning movements in history, Christian fundamentalism was hijacked by men who lost sight of the movement’s raison d’etre. They began adding things to the list of “fundamentals.” Four or five bedrock principles suddenly became hundreds of new laws—most of which weren’t even found in Scripture. Like the Pharisees before them, they added countless letters to the law, but rejected the spirit of it.

Before long, people were judged not by their metaphysical relationship with Christ, but by their external conformity to these man-made laws. In fundamentalism, one’s righteousness can easily be determined by eyesight. For example, if you wear sandals and a long beard and don’t shower regularly, your salvation is questionable at best.

See any problems with that? I do. It describes John the Baptist, one of the most righteous and faithful men in history.

Fundamentalists tend to attack the appearance of sin rather than sin itself. Rather than addressing the problem of addiction, for example, they find it easier to shun those whose appearance might suggest a proclivity toward substance abuse. To attack the root sin itself would require an aggressive engagement with the outside world—something fundamentalists could never tolerate. You see, rubbing elbows with those who appear to be sinners condemns you to the appearance of sin, as well. They would wince at Christ talking to prostitutes, adulterers, lunatics and thieves. Their man-made laws force them into a monastic existence and they often create “safe zones” for themselves within their own networks from cradle to grave.

These are some actual “laws” we have been taught in fundamentalist churches:

--A man’s hair should not touch his ears or his collar.
--A woman should not wear short hair because prostitutes in Bible times wore short hair. (Never mind that most prostitutes today have long hair).

--Facial hair is unrighteous. (Ooh--even our Savior doesn't make the cut).
--Women should not wear pants. (No word yet on whether men can wear skirts as they did in Bible times).
--A woman should not wear any top that creates a “shadow” (cleavage) in the center of her chest. (Never mind that some women could wear turtleneck alpaca sweaters and by heredity or obesity still have a “shadow”).
--Hollow-bodied guitars may be played in church, but solid-bodied guitars may not.
--Any music with a drumbeat is ungodly. (The actual lyrics are less relevant).

You get the point. None of these “laws” are found in Scripture. Like the Pharisees, they are “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Matt. 15: 9).

This pastor has an excellent series renouncing modern fundamentalism. I would encourage you to read it. He is a graduate of Bob Jones University—the bastion of Pharisaical fundamentalism--but he saw the light and escaped "the Matrix," as he calls it. All of the above “laws,” incidentally, were taught to us by Bob Jones graduates.

Paul said, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (I Cor. 6: 12). If Christians can keep their eyes on Christ rather than men, they can steer their consciences through all the minutiae of “doubtful things” and not succumb to any fundamentalist checklist of righteousness.

D-Day

June 6th is the anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion that led to the liberation of Europe.

Eisenhower ended his pre-invasion speech to the Allied Expeditionary Force with: “Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”

In the end the atheistic Nazi regime fell and, shortly thereafter, the Shinto empire of Japan fell. God uses even catastrophes and wars to advance His will and create opportunities for His kingdom to grow. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to study human history in light of the growth of God’s kingdom. For example, would there be as many Bible-believing churches in Japan today if Pearl Harbor never happened? Maybe someone will write a history series from that perspective one day. How did God use Charlemagne, or the printing press, or the African slave trade to advance His kingdom?

Here’s our 9-year-old’s version of D-Day. It was his history project last week.