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."

APPLYING A FOUR-YEAR BANDAGE

There was once a candidate for sheriff in Alabama (where else?) who, when a reporter asked him why he was running for the office, replied, "There's a lot of graft associated with the position and I want to get me some." At least he was honest.

I hope you vote whenever the occasion arises; I always do but I always refuse to wear the "I Voted" sticker with a Georgia peach on it, because, compared to those at the Alamo, at Bunker Hill, at Valley Forge, and at Gettysburg, I've done nothing commendable, so for me to say, by means of a sticker on my shirt, "LOOK AT ME. I VOTED!" That would be a travesty. But that's just me. You do what your conscience dictates.

WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE VOTING

That aside, my opinion is that we need less and fewer people voting, but you're different, I hope you always vote. That's because most people have a pitiful knowledge of the Constitution, and in fact, don't care about it like you do. That said, let's look at voting from a biblical perspective and ask, "In the long run, will voting solve the problem(s)?"

I want to suggest to you that the answer the Bible would give is, "No." Let's examine my suggestion for a moment. To do so, let's set up a scenario: let's say that you vote for just the right people and your people get into the corridors of power. Now they're in control. You like that, and rightly so. Things are looking good. Your candidates do their job and they vote to put an end to what you've wanted stopped for decades--they make abortion illegal. All abortions cease and desist.

Part of this scenario is that once they vote to declare abortion illegal, mobs take to the streets. The mobs march with placards demanding their right to choose. There are uproars across the land. 49% of the people are furious. The mobs harass the candidates you and 51% of the other folks elected. They vandalize and destroy their property, they surround their homes and chant their slogans at them all night long, and hordes of them follow their every public movement, making it impossible for them to even eat in peace. They are bitter to the max. They don't stop.

Then, four years later, it happens: the 49% has become 51% and they take control. They now have entered the corridors of power. They hold the gavel. They begin to reverse everything your political party and your elected candidates have done the last four years.

The Bible explains what's happened, or better yet, what's not happened: voting can't change the human heart. Voting, at best, is a temporary solution. It's a band-aid. One party gets "in," the party that's out works hard and a few years later gets in and changes everything. The newly party that's out starts working immediately to get back in so they can reverse things once they get in. The cycle continues ad infinitum.

But there's one thing and only one thing that's not a temporary solution and that's Christian evangelism and discipleship, that is through Spirit-worked changes in the heart and through the teaching and understanding of the Word of God, God changes the human heart.

SO . . .

By all means, vote every time you can, but when you cast that ballot, remember, you're administering a bandage to buy time to evangelize and make disciples.

A VERY UNHAPPY THANKSGIVING

There has been a text that troubled me for a while until I started to see people live it out, like live it out right now, today. But before we get to that, let's go back to one of the greatest men that ever lived--George Washington.

One of the things President Washington did was to issue a proclamation declaring a national day of Thanksgiving, a proclamation which he began with these words on October 3, 1789:

"By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Our country had just come through the Revolutionary War during which they had sacrificed their lives and treasure to defeat the most powerful nation on earth. It was a time of deprivation and hardship for them, the likes of which none of us living today have experienced or even understand. No one living, military or civilian in America, has fought a seven-year war on their homefront, battling day in and day out in rags, in the snow and ice, and with meager supplies, fighting an invasion from a nation far more powerful than they.

And, yet we read of that proclamation from a nation grateful to God.

Now we come to our day and find that we've turned into an ungrateful nation, a nation which, of all things, contains a growing population of ingrates who are ashamed of America, its present and its past. Our universities and public schools are mass-producing a generation of unthankful people.

The arrogant ingrates tear down statues of great men, change the names of streets, and remove the great history of our country from textbooks. In addition, they are in a perpetual and sometimes violent pique over something and anything, engaging in high-tech lynchings should anyone dare to violate the canons of their groupthink, demanding an open and public apology and humiliation from the violator.  (e. g. the forced apology of astronaut Scott Kelly)

And this brings us to a Scripture in the early portion of the greatest letter ever written, the book of Romans: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (1:21) That "nor give thanks" is in the portion of Romans which lists the symptoms of a society that turns away from God and His Word and one of those symptoms is a heart the refuses to give thanks. In addition, they become "insolent" and "arrogant" as evidenced by their sitting on their imagined Mt. Olympus, hurling thunderbolts down on such great men as Washington, Jefferson, and a host of others.

Romans 1:21 troubles me no more; we're living in it.

6+4+3=2

It may appear at first glance that mathematics is not a part of my skill set. Although that statement about my math skills is true, nonetheless the above formula is absolutely, totally, 100% correct. But before we get to that, let's look at the parable of The Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

By telling this parable, Jesus will correct the confidence the Pharisees were putting in their own righteousness. False doctrine must be corrected, especially if it’s a false gospel because a false gospel has never saved anyone. The story revolves around two men, one of whom is a Pharisee. 

To the Jews, the location of the prayer is important—the Temple. God’s special presence was in the Holy of Holies; God had commanded the people to assemble at the Temple from time to time, at certain times of the year. Therefore, the people thought that if you prayed in the Temple, God was more likely to hear you. Israel was to worship God in the Temple and prayer is a part of worship.

The other man is a tax collector, but to understand the difference in these two men, we have to go back to the culture in which they lived.  

The Pharisee was renowned for his dedication to the Law, for fasting two days of the week, for loud and public prayers, and for trying to keep the smallest details of the Jewish traditions. The Pharisee was a person of supreme religious confidence in himself. In fact, he admired himself very much. (Know any Christians like that—their speech betrays an admiration of themselves.) Some people are like the famous author who was talking to a friend, telling him that he had speaking engagements in D. C., NYC, and Philadelphia. Then he said to his friend, “Well, that’s enough about me, what do you think about my latest book?”

To get the feel of the people for the tax collectors, one word will suffice: “traitor.” The Jews looked upon them as traitors, those who worked for Rome and against the people. In WWII, then Hitler took over France, there were Frenchmen who cooperated with the Nazis in running the country. They were called, “collaborators.”

But to really get the pulse of the Jews for their countrymen who were tax collectors, let’s use another word: “Gestapo.” The Jewish tax collectors abused their own people for profit. They would charge the people above and beyond the tax rate Rome required and pocketed the excess for themselves. This is what Zacchaeus was doing until he met Christ.

The Pharisee in the story has a particular way he stands that indicates how much he admires himself. Self-righteousness and arrogance go hand in hand. He had come to believe that his righteousness set him head and shoulders above others. We see this in the way he stands and by what he prays as he thanks God that he’s not a “robber, and evildoer, and adulterer, or a tax collector.
 

He cites the two reasons why he’s righteous—he fasts two times a week and he tithes. Yet early in Jesus’ public ministry. In the Sermon on the Mount, He had stressed to the people that external practices do not count for a right standing with God. The right standing comes from the inner man, not an outward show of piety.

We would also note that the Pharisee wants the people in the Temple to know just how good he is, so he prays in such a way so that everyone can hear him.. By this we see that in his prayer, he’s not really worshipping God, but he’s praising himself. Jesus noted that the Pharisees love to pray so others can hear them. The Pharisee is obsessed with honoring, not God, but himself.

THE CONTRAST

Jesus contrasts the attitude of the tax collector with that of the Pharisee. Even his stance is different: he “stands afar off.” This indicates that he recognizes that he is unfit to stand before God, so he doesn’t even go inside the Temple. Not only that, but also, he would not look upward; he drops his head and lowers his eyes. In addition, he beats his chest as a sign of his contrition.
His prayer isn’t ornate; it’s to the point: “Oh, God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” This is something the Pharisee would not admit. By this one sentence, we see that he’s not asking God to overlook his sin; he wasn’t asking God to change His attitude toward sin or toward him.
 
THE ONE WORD

The word he uses for “merciful” is the same word we read in I Jn. 2:2: “propitiated.” The word means “satisfied.”

Because of this, Christ pronounces the man to be righteous. But this is not a prayer for those living after the Cross. As I John 2:2 says, God is now satisfied. He’s not satisfied with our righteousness, but with the death of His Son, and therefore, God is satisfied. The context of the prayer is pre-cross. After the death of Christ, God is satisfied because His righteous and holy demands have been all completely met in the death of His Son.

It's the historical context of the prayer that makes it an improper one today. There's no need to plead with God to be saved. He's been satisfied. The only requirement for salvation is "believe," not "plead."

Now to mathematics. If you had trouble understanding why the formula is correct, it's because you're placing it in the wrong context. The context isn't math. The proper context is baseball. On the baseball diamond, the positions of the players are assigned numbers as a means of keeping score as the game goes along. 6 represents the shortstop. 4 represents the second baseman and 3 represents the first baseman. So the formula is saying that a double play occurred when the shortstop (6) fielded the ball and threw it to the second baseman (4) who threw it to the first baseman (3) and that resulted in 2 outs.

Context is king!