HANG HIM HIGH!

High school pep rallies before the big game were, as they were designed to be, an immersion into an emotional bath: there was the band, the fight song, the school song, the speeches, and the getting the student body hyped up with hatred for the enemy our team would battle under the Friday night lights. The opponent for that coming night was the enemy, no doubt about it. One of the highlights of a pep rally in the gym that I remember occured when we hung the star of our hated arch rival in effigy from the rafters. It was great fun. I enjoyed seeing that dummy dangle with player's name written large on it for all to see. I still remember that name.

Recently, just before the New Orleans Saints took to the gridiron to face the Los Angeles Rams for the NFC championship, the team gathered on the sidelines to listen to their quarterback scream, "This is our house! This is our house! No one comes into our house and . . ." And "We can do it; let's finish the fight!" Or something like that. You get the idea. They were hyped; they were yelling; they were jumping up and down with fanatical anticipation.

But come the middle of the third quarter and players on both teams had been hit, knocked down, piled on, and battered. They were exhausted, flat out worn out. No one was jumping up and down hyped by the "ra-ra" spirit. The emotion had worn thin and then . . . off.

Some people look on church that way--a pep rally of, "Get out there this week and do it! You can do it!" The music, the applause during the sermon are all geared to cause the congregation to leave the buuilding with that can-do attitude. They've heard over and over again, "Be strong. Be of good cheer. Be courageous."

But when the third quarter comes, as it does, maybe even before they drive their BMWs out of the parking lot, all the effects of their emotional baptism have vanished. They're back to living discouraged, deflated, and defeated.

God calls us to do the impossible--go into all the world and make disciples along many other impossible commands. If we're of the church-is-my-pep-rally-mentality, we'll fail every time, because we can't do the impossible.

Back when Israel was getting ready to enter the promised land, the 80-year old Joshua had the impossible task of leading them in and engaging in warfare, fighting alongside of a people whose parents had rebelled against God and had rebelled against Joshua and Caleb's report 40 years earlier. So how was Joshua to do the impossible?

God tells him how in Joshua 1 and it's the farthest thing from a pep rally talk. Yes, God does say "Be strong. Be courageous." But the the basis of the strength and the courage is different than trying to get Joshua to work up the courage and the strength.

In chapter one, God tells the reader how the strenth and the courage come:

1. Immerse yourself in God's Word. (Joshua had seen Moses write the first 5 books of the Bible.)
2. Soak your speech in God's Word. The conversations with family, friends, and others were to be immersed in God's Word. ("This book shall not depart from your mouth.")
3. Allow the words of the Book to shape your worldview. ("Meditate on them day and night.") 
4. Then do them. ("Be careful to do all that is recorded in them.")

How very, very far that's removed from a weekly pep rally based on emotinalism.

That's the type of person we look for to be our best friends, Bible-soaked.
 

NONE DARE CALL IT INSANITY

Who is David Mathis? David Mathis is one of the pastors of Cities Church in Minneapolis /St. Paul, Minnesota, and also works as the executive editor at “Desiring God,” an organization founded by John Piper, a popular speaker and author. Both Mathis and Piper are confirmed, certified, and card-carrying Calvinists.

Calvinism is a theological system with seriously troubling beliefs, one of which David Mathis articulated on August 30, 2007, in a 4-part series on "How to Talk about God's Sovereignty Over Sin." He wrote:  “. . . it seems to me that it is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin.” Whoa! Are there those who agree with that idea, or is he out on the fringe somewhere?

Yes, other Calvinists agree: “God wills all things that come to pass...God desired for man to fall into sin...God created sin.” (R.C. Sproul, Jr.) “All things that happen...come to pass because God ordained them...every evil thought, word, and deed in all of history....He has foreordained everything...the mistake of a typist —even sin....” (Palmer)

One Calvinist, endeavoring to mitigate the force of teaching that God is the cause of evil writes, “God decrees everything, foreordains everything, causes everything, including sin, all of which are accurate. However, the Calvinists that teach these things also say and teach that this does not make God the author of sin.” The problem with that self-contradictory statement is obvious: how God can foreordain, decree, and cause sin without being its author? Calvinists cannot escape the logical consequences of their teaching by simply denying it to be so.

This teaching leads to some monstrous conclusions such as it was God who planned and foreordained 9-11 for His self-glorification. From that perspective, to declare that 9-11 was a horrible event is to besmirch God’s plan. Going by this reasoning, the distinction between good and evil is blurred because God is the cause of both.

When it’s all said; when it’s all done, the Calvinist is left proclaiming that God causes the evil He forbids." As pastor Andy Stanley says, "Their answer to that is to throw it into the mystery bucket." And none within that system dare to call it "insanity."

No wonder historian Will and Durant wrote of Calvin: “We shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.”

HOW TO CHOOSE A CHURCH

There are thousands of churches in the large metropolitan areas of the United States, particularly in the South. You have a plethora of choices all over the place. Have you made the right choice?

THE NO-NOs

But first things first: there are criteria you shouldn't consideer. One of those wrong criteria is the question: is the pastor a good speaker? Now, certainly, every teacher of the Word of God should be seeking to impove his skills in communication, both spoken and written, but "is he a good speaker" is not a criterion for choosing a church.

Then there are those people who look for a church in the same way they choose a mall or restaurant. Many people look for adequate parking, great facilities, and exciting youth programs, even video games for kids, but this, of course, is basing one’s choice on the wrong things. One man chose a church because, he said, "The pastor's funny." (Did Paul's resume include, "I can tell jokes that make people laugh.")

NUMERO UNO

The number one issue is to find a biblical church. This is a church that holds to the historic, fundamental or evangelical grace-oriented teachings of the Bible. As we read the Bible, we see that there's a strong emphasis in the pastoral epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) on the importance of sound (healthy) doctrine.

At this point, many have learned a hard lesson: the church's doctrinal statement may say and the teachers may say that they believe that salvation is a free gift, but upon further examination, that's not what they teach at all because, when pressed, they'll add works to the gospel, saying, "There just has to be more than faith by itself." Although their doctrinal statement says, salvation is a free gift, you'll hear additions such as "turn from your sins," "feel sorry for your sins," "ask Jesus into your heart," "make a public confession," "count the cost," and even the illogical, "salvation is free, but it costs you everything," and a host of other additions. The leadership of your prospective church has to be questioned, especially in regard to what the gospel is NOT.

NUMERO DOS

A church should be committed to the preaching/teaching of the Bible as the center and foundation of its ministry. It's God’s Word that that changes lives as people are confronted with, learn, and believe in the Scripture. (1 Thess. 2:13.) Is that teaching/preaching for the most part, expository (going verse-by-verse through the Bible, keeping everything in context) or is the congregation fed on sermonettes, allegorizations, morals, and popular topics that seek to make people feel good or address one's so-called self-help/self-esteem needs? Since God’s Word is relevant and deals with life as we find it in any age, verse-by-verse teaching will take care of our real needs (not our wants) as it enhances our walk with the Lord and, through the ministry of the Spirit, enable us to experience Christ-like change and spiritual growth and maturity.

Do those who teach the Bible do so from a dispensational framework? If not, the chances are good that they will put you under the bondage of the Mosaic Law and demand "a tenth of your money and a seventh of your time." But if they really, really want to follow the Law, they would be demanding three tithes, so that every third year, they would demand that you give the church 33.3% of your income and 20%, not 10% annually, except that third year. We live in the grace age, not the age of the Law.

NUMERO TRES

Look for a church that has a focus on body life or some kind of fellowship in the sense of caring for one another--Christian fellowship is that which focuses on Christ.  Is there an avenue for you to exercise your gifts in that local fellowship? Are there small groups of some kind for the purpose of fellowship, Bible study, prayer, and caring for each other? This can take many forms, but the body life should put you on an avenue for ministry (service) to the body in some way in accord with your gifts.

NUMERO CUATRO

Is the church seeking to reach its community for the Savior? Is the leadership (pl.) of the church an example to the flock of evangelistic endeavor? (I Peter 5:3)

Obviously, there are other things we might like to see such as an effective ministry to youth, nice facilities, good music, but these should not take precedence over the above issues. One mother joined a church which denied the Trinity because "It has a great youth program."

ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Be on guard for those churches where the focus is on a charismatic leader who tends to dominate and become dictatorial to the leadership and congregation. (III John 9) The biblical form of church government is one that has a plurality of leadership in men called “elders” who function as servant leaders, not rulers.

What if you can't find such a church? How about starting one?

THE IMPACT OF A DRUNK

If ever there was a case of someone's not understanding the impact of what was taking place, Pope Leo X is it. He was reacting to some obscure monk named Luther posting the Ninety-Five Theses on the Whittenburg door, the small school where he taught. When a copy of the theses finally made its way to Pope Leo X down in the Vatican, Leo X quipped, “Ah, the ramblings of a drunken German monk. He’ll think differently when he sobers up.”

Leo X significantly and seriously underestimated what he was dealing with in this "drunk" monk. Little did he know, Luther would never sober up. This was only the beginning of the movement that changed the Western World.

Prior to that, there was another group of "drunks" who changed the world. On May 24, 32 AD, the church age began as the Holy Spirit came to indwell the 120 believers in that Upper Room. When He did, the public reacted to them with the same words as Pope Leo said, "And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?^' But others were mocking and saying, 'They are full of sweet wine.'

Just as with Luther, those of the early church never "sobered up." From that day forward, the gospel spread "from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth." 

The world has no understanding of the impact of the Word of God on this planet and if, on the rare occasions when they do, they ignore it, as if straining to hold a beach ball under water. How much space do world history textbooks give to Moses, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul? Yet these men, used of God, had such an impact on the world that we are still experiencing it today. 

The early disciples and Luther weren't drunk with wine; they were filled with the Spirit. That's the need of the day, believers under the control of the Spirit the One who will bring the impact.

 

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.