THE OVER CHURCHED

Watch out for the over-churched. He (or she) will discourage and depress you and, like a little leaven, will leaven the whole lump sooner rather than later. You can easily spot someone who's over-churched. There he sits, enduring another sermon as he glances at his watch. He knowingly nods and says to himself, “I’ve heard all this before.” Sometimes he's more crudely vocal, as the fellow who told his pastor, "You can't teach me anything; I've been to the seminary." You can spot him: he's the know-it-all who, if he does hear anything new to him, will reject it out of hand. Eliot Ness led the Untouchables; today there are the Unteachables, following in the path of the learned Pharisees.

A thinking teenager asked me a thought-provoking question, "In all your years of studying the Bible have you changed any of your beliefs? If so, which ones?" This opened the floodgates of thought that led to my oral admission, "Yes. Lots of them."  

But isn't this the way it ought to be? Isn't this exactly what the New Testament authors often wrote about, as encapsulated by Peter in his last divinely inspired words--"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." Peter also wrote, "Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,Wasn't it Paul who wrote, "But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ." 

Spiritual growth brings change because whether it's physical or spiritual, growth, means change: changed attitudes, changed lifestyles, changed beliefs as new truths in the Old Book which have been there all along leap off the page with impact on our minds and lives. 

Paul sets the tone. When writing his last epistle and near death, he begs Timothy, "Bring me the books, especially the parchments."  Dr. Charles Ryrie expounds on Paul's request:

"What were these books which Paul so greatly desired? Exegetical and historical works on the Old Testament, and undoubtedly nonreligious but nonetheless great literature of the world, for we know that Paul was acquainted with such.  

"Now this is a most intriguing request to my way of thinking for many reasons. First, here is a widely traveled missionary who felt the need for a personal library. Second, here is the great homiletician who had barrels full of sermons and little prospect of preaching them who still needed to read and study. Third, here is a man who was not content merely with a file full of notes or a library full of books unless they were used. Fourth, here is the man who under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit wrote a fifth of the inspired books of the Bible but who still sensed his need for learning from the writings of mere men. 

"I think every student and preacher should often remind himself of the well-chosen, though sarcastic, words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon who said: 'In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray to remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what He has revealed to others.'

"And finally, Paul’s example reminds all of us not to neglect the ancients. Do not by-pass the worthies of yesterday for the lessers or even greats of today. I shall never forget the thrill when I began to study in the National Library of Scotland. It was surpassed perhaps only by the occasions when I used

the library of the British Museum in London. 

"Practically any book that has even been published in the English speaking world, plus many others, can be found in those two libraries, and it is a genuine thrill to feel that you are sitting at the feet of all those whose books are contained in those two libraries. We do all too little reading today. Television, illustrated magazines, that which is euphemistically called visual education, discussion groups have all taken the place of plain, ordinary, but rewarding, reading. 

"Discussion reaps the limited knowledge of the participants. Reading reaps the limitless knowledge of the sages and of the ages. Do not content yourselves with less than these greats. And you will find them in books. Make much of . . . the library.

". . . books so necessary, [yet] the most important thing in Paul’s mind was the parchments. Most especially, he says, using superlative and giving top priority to these parchments. What were they? Parchments were dressed skins used for writing which were first made at Pergamum. That they were used in the first century and what they were used for is attested to by no less an authority than Sir Frederic Kenyon. He declares: 'It is true that skins had been used for the reception of writing in Palestine and elsewhere at an earlier date, and from the tradition recorded in the Talmud, which required all synagogue rolls to be so written, it is fair to conclude that the Old Testament books were habitually written on skins in the first century.'

Thus although papyrus was the common material used for writing, parchment was reserved for important and precious documents, like the Scriptures. The parchments which Paul was calling for, then, were his own personal copies of Old Testament books and perhaps some New Testament fragments. These had undoubtedly been carefully collected over the years and were probably annotated in the margins by his own hand. We who can buy a Bible in any dime store can scarcely appreciate how valuable these were to Paul, though anyone who has had to discard a favorite Bible which he has carefully marked for many years can begin to understand. One thing is perfectly clear: Paul considered the sacred Scriptures his most important possession. Do you?"

 

CLINTON, TRUMP, AND ARISTOTLE

According to a recent survey, one of the main reasons that Christian youth leave their churches once they're on their own is because of seeing the lack of credibility in Christian adults. To say it another way, the reason they take leave of the churches of their raising is hypocracy among the grown-ups they've respected.

Before we dismiss this reason out of hand, let's think about it.

Aristotle wrote a guide for public speakers on the subject of persuasion. He said that there are three elements to persuading the listener: 1) the speaker must have a message; 2) the speaker must have a passion for his message; and 3) the speaker must have personal credibility. It's that credibility that leaves no room for hypocracy.

Historically, the greatest example of hypocrisy occurred in a garden, the one called Gethsemane, when Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss of greeting as if they were friends. Since then, because of such heinous hypocracy, people haven't named their sons "Judas" in over 2,000 years.

In 1998, a writer wrote about a scandal that had erupted about Bill Clinton in the Wall Street Journal: “If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin.”

Those are wise words, words that made the reader think back then when the moral scandal blew up that shocked the nation. But there were those who took an opposite stance about the immoral matter by writing, "That’s for him and his wife to deal with," and going on to tell us, "It's nobody's business."

However, recently scandalous allegations have erupted against the current President, Donald Trump. Writing about the scandal, one author said, “That’s for him and his wife to deal with, it's nobody's business."

OK. We've heard all of that before. But let's look again at the statement in 1998: "If he [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin.”

Now let's look again at a recent statement about President Trump in 2018: “That’s for him and his wife to deal with, it's nobody's business." We've heard that before, back in 1998.

But what's diffent is this: The statement about Clinton in '98 and the statement about Trump in 2018 were made by the same person. In 1998, the writer said one thing; in 2018, he said the opposite. Where's the credibility in that? In 1998, because the writer didn't like Clinton, he took the position that if he would lie to his family, he'd lie to us and we can't trust him. In 2018, because the same speaker likes Trump, now it becomes a private matter, which he said it wasn't in 1998.

So, what does all this have to do with Christianity and credibility? A great deal. The writer who wrote one thing in 1998 and the opposite in 2018 is Franklin Graham. There's an old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." Or better yet, we might say, "Politics makes strange hypocrites."

Moral: Don't lose your credibility over politics.

KARL MARX FORGOT TO MENTION

Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and a host of other atheists are both clever and tricky. They have conveniently forgotten to mention something important. They all propagate the idea that humanity's belief in God is nothing more than wish fulfillment. What they mean by that is that we have an inner longing for God, a protecting, loving, benevolent God who is there to help us in trials, tribulations, and the buffetings of life in general. We have an inner need for such, so we wish one into existence. We invent one such god.

What would we Christians say about that? Three things, at least.

First, the God of the Bible isn't a god man would invent. Who would "invent" the concept of the Trinity? One God in three Persons, each with the same and equal essence? No, we would never think of such a God.

Second, mankind would not invent a god who saves the evilest of men by grace alone through faith alone. Every religion in the world is a testimony to the fact that man can only conceive of a god who saves through a person's production of enough good works.

Third, yes, the God of the Bible is loving, protective, and prayer-answering. But He's also righteous, holy, and just, so much so that He cannot and will not overlook our sin. He won't overlook our sin, the Bible says, to the point of His coming in judgment one day and holding man accountable for rejecting His Son. That's not a god we would wish for. That's a god we would flee.

But that's not all the atheistic warriors have neglected to mention. They ignore the proverbial saying,  "What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, meaning, what applies to one, applies to the other. An example of the proverbial statement is this sentence: "After her husband went off with his fishing buddies for a week, she decided to take a vacation without him-what's sauce for the goose, you know."

There is also in man an intense desire NOT to be held accountable for anything. He seeks a way out of judgment, calling sin nothing more than "oversights," "mistakes," and due to heredity or environment. After all, if there is no God, then there's no absolute standard to define sin and there's no accountability.

So, could not atheism simply be a wish-fulfillment on the part of man, an intense desire to avoid judgment? Peter Hitchens, an atheist, was struck by an old painting depicting "The Last Judgment." The artist depicted naked men and women being cast headlong into hell. As Hitchens viewed the famous painting, he thought, "How do I know that's not going to happen--that it's not going to happen to me?" Thus began his quest into Christianity. He was essentially saying, "How do I know my philosophy that there is no God is simply a wish-fulfillment on my part?" Good question. Few ask it.

But this wish-fulfillment of an atheist has dire results. When the truth transcendent Being of a personal-infinite God is erased from a society, something must fill the spiritual vacuum. Something must become transcendent. In our society, the transcendent value is political correctness and diversity and all must worship at their altars. If they don't genuflect, the penalties are severe. That's what we're seeing here and now.

Atheism has consequences.

DON'T FENCE ME IN

I was in the midst of watching some exciting college football game (I remember neither the teams nor the score) when 7x70 commercials interrupted my concentration on the players, the referees, the quarter, the down, the yard line, and the coaches. Among the 490 commercials, I remember only one. It had the tagline, “Be Devoted.” It was promoting a jewelry store. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTi18xmMnwY)

I’ll let a professional group’s publication describe the ad: “Jared® Jewelers embraces change with a bold campaign via agency McKinney that celebrates love and devotion in a world where people of all backgrounds “Dare To Be Devoted.” Diverse representation is [an] essential part of the campaign, which was edited by Cut+Run’s Sean Fazende and Directed by Golden Heart Films’ Ryan Booth.

“The spots depict moments where couples are ‘daring to be devoted’ in ways that depart from what might be considered traditional. Roles reversed, reimagined, and reconstructed in moments of celebration both quiet and exuberant: a nightclub engagement; an unexpected moment of surprise in front of strangers; and a couple’s love creating a blended family in a morning campsite proposal.”

All of the “spots” had their problems in my opinion ( the reference to the “nightclub engagement” is quite the understatement)  but the one telling the viewer “to be devoted  by means of a surprise move in front of strangers” was also especially troubling—it showed a young woman on bended knee proudly showing an engagement ring in its open case in public, proposing to her boyfriend. (You read that correctly; a woman proposing marriage to a man.) He accepts, puts the ring on his finger, and boldly holds it up in front of strangers. (In real life, I hope the man would feel silly with a diamond engagement ring on his finger.) It is, as the above article states, a “role reversal.” But, is it more than that? Can it be dismissed with words so simple?

Let’s compare the traditional role of the man on bended knee offering an engagement ring to a woman as a proposal of marriage which she may accept or reject to a fence. A proposal is just that: it is an offer, an asking of permission. In this case, it is the man asking the permission of the woman to enter into the most intimate of relationships with her for the rest of her life.

Such a traditional proposal illustrates the elevation of the woman to a position of respect and honor. It's the honoring of her "Yes," and her "No." The traditional proposal is a statement: "a woman's consent is valued more than a man's desire." (David Marcus) There are fences around marriage, erected around the divine institution (Gen. 2) in order to sanctify it. They're important. The fences aren't just for us; we're to erect them and pass them on to the next generation.

Yet, it is in the fallen nature of man to have an inborn desire to tear down the fences godly generations have erected to protect God's institution of marriage as sacred. Although on a different subject and taken out of context, the theme song of the human race since the Fall is "Don't Fence Me In," sung with a clenched fist pointed heavenward. Fallen man doesn't like to see his desires and plans twarted. But we must be careful.  G. K. Chesterton said, "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."