Thinking? or Believing!

A.W. Tozer was quoted as saying "Christianity has arrived at a point where if it were a poison it wouldn't kill anybody and if it were a medicine it wouldn't cure anybody".  All I can say is, a merciful God took him home in 1963. I can't imagine what Tozer would say today...

In 2007, Rob Bell's Mars Hill Bible Church (the Michigan church attracts 7,000 people each Sunday) put on an art exhibit about the search for peace in a broken world. An artist in the show included a quotation from Gandhi. A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." The incident got Bell thinking. Was Gandhi really in hell? How do we know?

Bell's book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived seems to be the result of these musings. Perhaps he should have "thought" less and "believed" more.

Bell suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal - meaning that, as his book's subtitle puts it, "every person who ever lived" could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be. He says he believes in Jesus' atonement...he is just unclear on whether the redemption promised in Christian tradition is limited to those who meet the tests of the church. Traditional biblical doctrine says "acknowledgment" that Jesus is the Son of God is the key. One either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell. 

Bell claims to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, was sacrificed for the sins of humanity but that the prospect of a place of eternal torment seems irreconcilable with the God of love

Here we have it: Bell builds his theology on what he "thinks" makes sense rather than on the words of scripture. We should admit that Bell is not alone. In his own words He says "I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian... something new is in the air."  Let me be clear: There may be a massive shift in what people "think" the bible says but there is absolutely no shift in what the bible actually says.

The enlightenment brought us many wonderful things. The ability to revere orthodoxy and tradition is not one of them. By its very nature reason stretches the boundries of convention...often beyond their natural limits. While it seems reasonable that we apply this paradigm to scripture it is not. Scripture tells us not to. Then again, our natural selves don't really like scripture telling us what we can...or cannot...do.

The notion that as our thinking changes the bible should change with it is humanistic. It places all power and authority on the reasoning power of mankind. This is no more evident than in the history of higher textual criticism. Proponents have redacted scripture to the point that it doesn't even remotely resemble the scripture that was handed down to us. It's based upon the best and brightest thoughts of man. The words of Christ have been gutted. Their product is no longer "the power of God unto salvation for all that believe." They have given us a bible that has less spiritual influence than "Star Trek". The exercise serves their ends...which are to remove authority from sacred scripture.

Bell, and his friends, should think less and believe more. I understand this sounds anti-intellectual. It's just that scripture says "therefore, being justified by "faith" we have peace with God". Not one passage of scripture dealing with atonement and salvation refers to "thinking" or "reason" as active ingredients in regeneration. 

So…must scripture conform to our good ideas or, must we conform to scripture? (that’s a rhetorical question!). One purpose of the Holy Spirit is to “lead us in to all truth”. A wise evangelical is not prisoner to the traditions of the church. He/she will, however, demand that any theological thought be able to attach itself to the body of sacred scripture in a convincing way.

Bell is flawed, in so many ways...

To begin…Romans 8:1 says  “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.  A few verses later  (Rom 8:9) Paul says  “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ”.

2 Corinthians 5:17 says “if any man is in Christ he is a new creation” That “new creation” seems most precisely defined as any human being…infused with the Holy Spirit.

 Technically, the thing that determines if we are “born again”  is if the Holy Spirit lives in us. If the Holy Spirit does not live in us…we are not “in Christ” which means we have not escaped condemnation. This is confirmed by V. 16 that says “For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God's children.”

So, I guess the pivotal issue here is…how does the Holy Spirit gain admittance to our lives? The apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior. Ephesians 1:13, 14 says “you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory”.

This means we receive the Holy Spirit (become born again) when we hear the claims of the Gospel and "believe" them. This, of course, runs contrary to Rob Bell’s speculation that that “the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal -  "every person who ever lived" could have a place in heaven.

Brother Bell could say the Holy Spirit has given him this new idea. But, what he actually has said is “N.T. Wright” has given it to him. We don’t need to worry about what N.T. Wright says….except to ask the Holy Spirit to confirm for us whether it aligns with scripture. Wright might be one of countless church spokesmen who got it wrong. I don’t know Mr. Wright. I have no reason to take his side against clear scriptural teaching. On the other hand…I know the Holy Spirit very well and humbly strive to be obedient.

Remember the two houses…one built on  a rock and the other built on the sand (Matthew 7:26)? Which one was destroyed? Might the “rock” be the Word of God while the “sand” is human opinion”? To the degree that “the words of Jesus” constitute scripture…the answer is self-evident.

I'm not asking you to "step out in faith" and believe it. Jesus is.

Did the Progressives hear?

If a tree falls in the middle of the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

Certainly not. Falling trees do not make noises…they make waves. Until those waves are received by a listening device (like our ear) they are silent.

If voters claim they profoundly dislike the ideological policies of this administration and there is no democrat around to hear it, is it true? Apparently not…

Unfortunately for the democrats, there were plenty of other people around to hear it.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s WSJ analysis of the recent election is stunning in its failure to “hear the noise”. She says “Conservatives in both parties who claim the vote represented an ideological shift to the right are plain wrong”. She wants this to be true. Democrats need this to be about economics or communication and not values. If she can make this case, it allows the progressives to think they are still in step with the American people. After all, who isn’t worried about the economy? And really…if they can simply say the American people “don’t get it”, they can continue to proclaim the virtue of their policies.  And…if they are “in step” with the American people, all they need is more time.

I won’t argue her point that this was an unearned win for the republicans. Elections are generally against something more than they are for something. In fact, as much as Ms Vanden Heuvel might like to claim we voted for “hope and change” two years ago we probably didn’t. We voted against a tired republican administration that seemed ineffective, unresponsive and secretive. “Hope and change” was nothing more than an alternative to that. To see any electoral victory as a mandate is to misunderstand the dynamic. An electoral victory is nothing more than an opportunity to do things better than your predecessor.

She continues to say “the quickly congealing conventional wisdom is that President Obama tried to do too much and was too liberal. The opposite is true: Voters were alienated because they didn't believe his team had fought aggressively enough for the interests of working- and middle-class citizens” I can only scratch my head. I am a poster child for middle class America…therefore all my friends are middle class as well. We have never thought what she claims we think. It is far more accurate to suggest that no matter how much Obama cares for the middle class, and he may, his policies have resulted in a greater burden for us. The middle class wants an administration that will try something else.

She makes my case when she reveals her solution for our economic woes. She wants a tax on more than a trillion dollars of corporate cash reserves. I realize getting her hands on money in that amount is very tempting but its not the government's money to take. It’s stealing. By this reasoning progressives could come into our houses and confiscate some of the money under our mattress (our cash reserves)…simply because they believe they can put it to better use than we can. Never mind the fact that it is not their money. She can call theft a “tax” but it’s still theft. And she thinks this is about communication? She is communicating fine. I hear her clearly and I don’t like what I hear. Her values are not my values. Most Americans believe in private property. She and her friends do not. So…I don’t trust them.

So, it has to be about the economy…or failure to communicate. This mantra has become so pervasive that it has become a form of tinnitus for democrats. It has become a continual noise in their ears…resulting in damage to their political hearing. I, for one, am fine with this. Progressive tinnitus pretty much ensures they will learn nothing and will remain poles apart from the rest of America in their ideology. As long as they continue down this path the future looks bright for conservatives.

SIN: Noun or Verb?

“The Big C.” Cancer, as a word, is so distasteful that we feel more comfortable euphemizing it…as though another name will render the disease less deadly. The medical term is malignant neoplasm. It is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues), and sometimes metastasis (spread to other locations in the body via lymph or blood).1 Cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells. These abnormalities may be due to the effects of carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents. Other cancer-promoting genetic abnormalities may randomly occur through errors in DNA replication, or are inherited, and thus present in all cells from birth.2

In the United States, cancer is responsible for 25% of all deaths. While many forms of cancer are treatable the overall survival rate is 50/50 at best.4 So, no matter what we call it, Cancer feels like a “death sentence.” In fact, in many cases it is. Would we feel better if the physician called it something else? In truth…no matter what we call it…the diagnosis is still frightening, and often fatal.

“Sin” is a word like cancer. It troubles us to the degree that we prefer calling it something else, like “mistake.” We somehow feel less threatened by sin’s existence if we call it something else. The reality is simple…no matter what we call it…it’s just as deadly. Actually, worse than cancer, it’s 100% fatal. I’m particularly troubled by the possibility that euphemizing the term “sin” may lead to underestimating its deadly power. On the other hand, calling it what it is allows us to appropriate the sure hope that is ours in Jesus Christ. This is the point Timothy Keller (The Reason for God) makes in chapter 10. After all, Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead for our sins. I don’t know that He did that for our mistakes.

Most of what troubles us about the notion of sin is that it makes us feel so guilty. Why? Because we understand “Sin” as a verb. Sin, as a verb, alludes to all of our bad behavior…and there is plenty of that. Who wants to be reminded? While the notion of sin is surely verbalized in scripture, it seems helpful to recognize its earliest and most frequent occurrences in scripture appear as a noun. For example…"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it" (Gen 4:7). In this passage, “Sin”, or chatta'ath (חטאת), is a feminine noun that means “a condition of guilt”. “Guilt”, or avon (עָוֹן), is a masculine noun that means “perversity or depravity. So, to get both genders involved, sin is “a condition of perversity or depravity.”

The noun “Sin” can become a verb. Chatta”ath may be verbalized by shortening it to chatta (אטת). In this sense, “sin” acts a lot like a gerund, or a participle. New Testament references to sin are similar. Amartia (ἁμαρτία) is a feminine noun while amartano (ἁμαρτανω) is a verb. The former mean “a condition of having missed the mark or having been mistaken” The latter means “to miss the mark or to be mistaken”. This is what both confuses us and repels us. We don’t want to be responsible for activities that result in a condition of depravity.

Why is this important? Because virtually all the references to “sin” in the book of Romans are nominative. When Romans 6:23 says “the wages of sin is death (or thanatos θάνατος)” the text uses the nominative (or conditional) for of the word. An exception to this is Romans 3:23 where “all have sinned” is a verb. What is most instructive about this juxtaposition is that either way we are dead. As Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin(noun) entered into the world, and death through sin (noun), and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (verb)” We have all been born with a condition of sin and we are all guilty of sinning. However, it is the noun that kills us, not the verb. The verb is simply the evidence of the noun

So…get over it.

But it doesn’t end here. As Keller infers from Romans 7:24-25…if our problem is “sin,” (the noun) we actually have hope for a cure. “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” I know of no other fatal disease that can make this claim. To put it bluntly, Jesus died for the noun, not for the verb.

Just how is this accomplished? Here is how another verb makes all the difference in the world. Romans 5:1 says “Therefore, being justified (declared blameless δικαιόω) , by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The simple act of faith…believing the testimony of scripture…that Jesus Christ’s death paid the penalty for our sin (the noun) results in us “being declared” blameless. Not, "in fact," blameless but "declared" blameless. The practical results are the same but the nuance of difference is the difference between life and death.

We are “declared righteous” by the work of Christ. This means our condition of blamelessness depends solely upon Christ. And, as Hebrews tells us, “but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them." (7:24, 25) So…if we trust the sacrifice of Christ to declare us righteous we are declared so eternally. If, on the other hand, we hope to be declared blameless by our own works…the probability of success is reduced to zero. Which, of course, is why we don’t like to talk about it.

Does this mean we are always sinners (noun)? Yes…just like some people are always alcoholics. Fortunately, our faith “declares us righteous” in spite of it. Like all good things, this can be abused. What is to prevent us from freely continuing to sin (verb) if the condition of depravity has been removed? Romans 6:1 says “God forbid!” Paul goes on to remind us that the death and resurrection of Christ has liberated us from the power of sin. We should “present ourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” (Rom 12:1). So, the life of a person of faith is devoted to holy living. Not so we can be declared righteous but “because” we are declared righteous. There is nothing in scripture that tells us sin (the verb) can ever overcome what Christ has done to destroy sin (the noun)

I believe I’ll choose the noun over the verb.

The Kübler-Ross model, in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying,[1] identified what is now commonly known as the five stages of grief. Kübler-Ross originally applied these stages to people suffering from terminal illness. It describes, in five discrete stages, a process by which people deal with grief and tragedy, especially when diagnosed with a terminal illness or catastrophic loss. The progression of states is:[2]
1. Denial – "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of situations and individuals that will be left behind after death.
2. Anger – "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; "Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Any individual that symbolizes life or energy is subject to projected resentment and jealousy.
3. Bargaining – "Just let me live to see my children graduate."; "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..."
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time..."
4. Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die... What's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect oneself from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.
5. Acceptance – "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with their mortality or that of their loved one.

The meaningful question, as it applies to “sin” as a terminal illness is…which stage describes you today? Your answer to this question will reveal your level of confidence in the atoning work of Jesus Christ…the sure and perfect cure for what ails us. I suggest we boldly proclaim “I am a recovering sinner,” the AA model that recognizes the disease is present but no longer destructive…or “I have sin, but I’m in remission,” the cancer model that acknowledges the disease is no longer fatal. Either way, we embrace the reality of what Christ has accomplished for us while we strive to make lifestyle changes that honor him.

Israel or Palestine?

Israel or Palestine?

Rev. Voight recently wrote an opinion column in the Denver Post. He refers to Israel as an "occupier" of Palestinian land. I'm sure he does just fine with Theology but, he may want to reconsider his foray into geopolitical thought. His characterization of Israel built upon ignorance. It is incendiary and obfuscates the real issue.


Calling Israel an "occupier" is incendiary because the term confers an illegitimacy upon Israel that does not stand the test of history. My first question is...which occupation? The current one? The occupation that began under Joshua 3400 years ago? The occupation of Abraham generations before that? And, to be fair, doesn't this characterization make us Europeans in America occupiers as well? How about the English? For Rev. Voight, I suppose, the year 1066 simply marks the beginning of the Norman occupation. He may actually take that position but the rest of the reasoning world is a bit more nuanced. I don't know anybody who seriously suggests the Normans return to France...or the American-Europeans return to their homes of origin. So...what makes Israel different, that we should hold her to a different standard? Oh, I remember. Israel is the only one of the three nations whose founding was sanctioned by the international community.

"Occupier" also obfuscates the real issue. It implies the only real solution is for Israel to "get the hell out" as Helen Thomas so graciously articulated. Say what he will...that really is the implication of his position. This position defies every notion of political history. First, what do we do with Israel? Second, who takes Israel's place on that real estate? Really, we can't turn the land over to the Palestinians. They must go as well. Isn't it ironic that the term "Palestinian" derives from the Hebrew word "Philistine" which means "occupier"? Do we trade one occupier for another? I suppose we can round up some remaining Hittites or Amalekites and give it to them.

Which reminds me. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim to worship the God of Abraham. What this boils down to is a family squabble. The Palestinians are basically upset that their father Abraham chose Israel's brother Isaac over their own brother Ishmael. Why on earth would we jump into the middle of a family squabble? That has never been a good strategy. Inevitably, both brothers will turn against us. The Palestinians already have. Actually, I think our government has it about right. We should somehow hope that a two state solution can work. They need to learn how to live side by side. We need to set aside all the "he said...she said" justifications for violence. After all, if we accept the notion that reactionary violence is permissible, I guess we'll go all the way back to Cain and Abel.

Also, I have to reconsider my first statement that Rev. Voight may do just fine with Theology. I don't think that's the case. As a Christian minister he is familiar with the Davidic Covenant that promises the land to David and his descendants forever. It's found within the pages of his own sacred book. In order to call Israel an "occupier" he has to either discount his own sacred writings or he must claim that God has no authority to give away land that He himself created. Either case is not a strong foundation for theological thought.

Scripture tells us not to call anything unclean that God has called clean.To paraphrase that command I'd suggest we not call somebody an "occupier" who God has already called a "owner."

What is an Evangelical?

 What is an Evangelical?

My friend Fred and I have been having a running debate on the term "evangelical." Fred had decided to divest himself of the modifier because he believes the term has been co-opted by our culture and is too often misunderstood. Fred's a smart guy so I have had to give this some serious thought.

Here goes...

The term evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news." ευαγγελιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message." In that sense, to be evangelical would mean to be a believer in the gospel, that is the message of Jesus Christ.

Now I ask you (Fred too)...if I have an uncompromising devotion to the story (Good News) of Jesus...the story that tells me the historical Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and his gracious sacrifice has washed away my sins forever...what then should I be called...if not evangelical?

Fred says our devotion is more appropriately attached to the person itself rather than the story about the person. While I agree our personal devotion must be to Christ himself, I don't know how we come to that devotion without the "Gospel." My entire relationship with Christ is based on my faith that the story is true.

Maybe Fred and I can agree if I make the point (which I believe) that the story is the vehicle God uses to turn people to the person of Christ. In that sense Fred is right.

However, this is more than academic. Scripture warns us against preaching "another gospel." this tells me there are many possible stories about Jesus...some of them not authentic. The results of believing an undependable story of Christ are potentially catastrophic. So, I'm back to being an "evangelical." Getting the story right is critical.

Which story?

Romans 1:16 says "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." The power of this verse cannot be overestimated. It tells us the "Gospel" (Good News) has enough power residing within it to effect salvation for anybody who believes it. The power resides in the story (Good News)...not in the teller...simply by telling the story, the power of God is unleashed into the life of the listener. Should the listener's spirit be receptive, the story has the power to turn them toward Christ. This is huge!

I'm saying the right story is the story that is infused with the power of God...

So...in it's purist form, "evangelical" is neither theologically nor culturally based. We can be Evangelical Christians and be republican, democrat or independent. We can be evangelical and be (don't freak out) Communist or captialist. What makes us evangelical is we derive our convictions from the sacred story (Gospel). This allows evangelicals of differing views to engage in meaning constructive dialogue...because we defer to the sacred story as our authority. So, I love debating Fred because he is an evangelical (don't tell him I said so) devoted to the authentic story. "Iron sharpens Iron." I come away from my time with Fred wiser and hopefully more closely aligned with the gospel.

However, as we begin to unfold the history of the term Fred starts to get uneasy...and I respect his concern. I defer to Wikipedia...

By the English Middle Ages the term had been expanded to include not only the message, but also the New Testament which contained the message, as well as more specifically the four books of the Bible in which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are portrayed. The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale, who wrote "He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth."

By the time of the Reformation, theologians began to embrace the term evangelical as referring to "gospel truth". Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche or evangelical church to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, and especially among Lutherans, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense. This can be seen in the names of certain Lutheran denominations or national organizations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Church in Germany.

The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical vs. fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism. Evangelicalism has therefore been described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals." However, according to Christianity Today, “The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. It would not be unfair to call it postmodern evangelicalism.”

While the North American perception is important to understand the usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider global view, where the fundamentalist debate was not so influential.

Can you see why Fred is concerned? I can. He says we need to be "re-branded" because our culture has corrupted the authentic meaning of "evangelical." My response to Fred is that "evangelical" is not a label or brand that can be removed or changed.

"Evangelical" is a product line within the framework of the Christian brand. It is an expression of Christianity based upon the sacred story. Liberal and fundamental are other product lines. These product lines can be found in other faith traditions as well. An Islamic fundamentalist is known as a "Jihadist."

This distinction between brand and product line is important. If I use the analogy of the dairy case at my supermarket I'd say Sintron is a brand of milk. I can choose from many brands and some folks would say there is no difference. However, last week as I picked up a dozen eggs a customer stopped me cold. "Don't buy that brand" he said. "They taste terrible!" Hmmmm who knew?

Some people approach religion the same way as they approach milk. All brands are the same. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. I can understand the notion...each is a religious expression that promises peace with God. We know the misperception is there, but it's not true. The brand is critical.

Let's return to the dairy case. Now that I have settled on Sintron I see that more decisions are required. I can buy chocolate milk, whole milk, skim milk, 2% milk, buttermilk. While the label Sintron makes a general promise to deliver milk, the product lines say something very specific about themselves. Chocolate milk is milk with chocolate added. If we remove the chocolate we no longer have chocolate milk. 2% is the same. If we take away fat we have skim milk...a different product all together.

You cannot fiddle with a product line and continue to have the same product.

Back to Christianity. The Crusaders were "christians." That product line doesn't work for me. Adolph Hitler was a "christian." That's a product line I cannot buy. Its a fact that he was correctly called a christian because in our cultural terminology he chose a faith expression focused on Jesus. But we call them "Chinos" (Christians in name only). Karl Barth was a Christian...but he denied the humanity of Christ. Another product line I cannot buy. Liberals redact scripture and take a bunch of the sacred story out (another gospel?). Another product line I cannot buy. Fundamentalists are pretty certain you and I need to be republicans. Can't buy that one either.

So...evangelical...as a product line is a type of Christianity that adheres to the sacred story as handed down through the church. We work diligently to ensure we have the story right. We are careful to neither add nor subtract from the text. We labor to de-conflict possible discrepancies in ancient texts. Evangelicals are devoted to a story that is historically and textually authentic. Any effort to dilute the story strips it of it Divine power. When we do that it becomes just another product line. It is only a story...and its ability to save people is suspect.

So where Fred and I diverge is he would like to divest himself of the term "evangelical" because of all the cultural/political baggage attached to it (republican, pro-life, 2nd amendment, strict constructionist, fiscal conservative, small government) The baggage was inevitable once we christians entered the political arena as a significant voter block. I respect Fred's reaction. I prefer to stand up and protest any mischaracterization of my "evangelical" product line. The moment culture...or even well meaning Evangelicals...adds or subtracts from the story they have another product line. I demand to be heard.

Why? Because we evangelicals claim to be "keepers of the sacred story." That is what the term means. I'm not trying to be presumtious or exclusive but...by definition...we are the ones who claim devotion to the authentic story. Our efforts every day revolve around "getting it right." It means we study hard. We do honest research. We labor tirelessly to ensure pieces are neither inadvertently missing nor surreptitiously inserted. If we allow ourselves to be removed from influencing the dialogue...what story (Gospel) is the world going to believe?

"Get God out of Religion"...Really?

'Can We Please Get God Out of Religion?'  Barrett Holmes Pitner, May 24, 2015

 Mr. Pitner posits his plea based on the latest Pew poll that reveals “Millennials” are fleeing (his words) organized religion. He gleefully reveals his part in the exodus the following way: I still remember when I graduated from children’s church when I was a tween and could now attend the sanctuary with the adults. But instead of being fixated on learning more about Christianity, I just wanted to take a nap. I loved it when I had soccer matches on Sunday and could skip church. By the time I was a junior in high school, church no longer interested me at all, and when I left home for college, the idea of waking up early on a Sunday to attend church had become laughable. I am most certainly part of America’s cumulative religious decline. I have helped bring the “nones” to the fore.

Really? I hardly know where to begin. But...since it’s “Pentecost Sunday” I don’t have to dig too deep before figuring out what went wrong with Mr. Pitner’s faith journey. As has been said, “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sitting in your garage makes you an automobile”.

Pitner recruits a few authors, to support his argument… including Lisa Miller, The Spiritual Child: The New Science on Parenting for Health and Lifelong Striving. Ms. Miller’s thesis suggests “spirituality—which she describes as religion minus the belief in dogma, the veneration of prophets and deities, and the fixation on the afterlife—is an innate human trait that needs to be encouraged and developed”. To fortify her position she cites a number of studies that suggest spirituality encourages children to believe in something greater and more powerful than themselves and, as a result, they develop more resilience and less anxiety throughout life. People who engage in spirituality, she finds, are 40 percent less likely to use and abuse substances, 60 percent less likely to be depressed, and 80 percent less likely to have dangerous or unprotected sex, according to her findings.

No mention of “eternal life”…a benefit I’d consider mentioning.

In fact, Ms. Miller is correct about the earthly benefits of spiritual health. Robert Woodbury, Professor at the University of Texas has worked in the area of “Spiritual Capital” for over a decade and his research confirms these findings. Woodbury, however, found these results derive only from devout religious practice…regardless of faith tradition…exactly what Ms. Miller conveniently eschews.

I will digress in order to make a salient point. Religion and spirituality are inextricable. Religion is, in fact, the body of rituals, activities and dogmas that our spiritual journey demands. This is exactly what Mr. Woodbury’s research confirmed. Ms. Miller is entirely wrong in suggesting her spirituality benefits from a religion that requires nothing from her.

So…as a Christian…I benefit most when my life is invested in the dogmas of Christianity. I refer you to the Apostle’s Creed and suggest Christianity demands “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Universal church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting”.

Since Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, Let me see Mr. Pitner “get God out of that!”

Back to “sitting in my garage…”

The glory of Pentecost is the difference it makes.  Pentecost brings us the Holy Spirit and that makes all the difference.

The Holy Spirit makes us a “NEW CREATION” by which we are joined with God in an eternal relationship. Ephesians 1:13, 14 says  In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Of course, If Mr. Pitner and Ms. Miller (or, anybody) hasn’t first “believed” they have never received this Holy Spirit. Is that a problem? Not if they don’t care to “be sealed” for eternity…or understand the significance of God.

Jesus, Himself, tells us exactly how this Holy Spirit benefits us beyond our gift of eternal life.

1.       "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.  (John 15:26)

2.      And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment. (John 16:8-11)

3.      When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. (John 16:13)

In sum, The Holy Spirit comes directly from God and affirms the veracity of all Christ taught…concerning sin, righteousness and judgement….as well as many truths this world can never comprehend.
Now tell me…why would I want to get God out of anything?

Or course, I shouldn’t be surprised that non-believers are “hell-bent” on doing so.

Live boldly out there today...

3 John

 I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth”. The Pulpit Commentary tells us this is greater reason to believe the previous letter was not written to a specific woman. If John named the person in this letter…why not do so in the previous letter?

Gaius was a common name so we cannot be confident this is the same Gaius mentioned four other times in the New Testament. At any rate…we certainly know this Gaius was a man devoted to TRUTH. As such, he was a man whose soul was prospering.

Ever wonder what it means that our souls are “prospering”? The Greek for "prosper" (εὐοδοῦσθαι) means exactly to "have a good career."

So…how does my soul have a “good career”?

I imagine it begins when my sin-riddled soul is washed clean by the Blood of Christ. It continues when I’m “acting faithfully in whatever [I] do for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers” (traveling missionaries); and is characterized by my “love before the church”.

Diotrephes stands in contrast to Gaius. He was more interested in being the “Alpha Male” of the congregation and sacrificed the teachings of the Apostles in pursuit of his personal aspirations. For this, John mentions…if he visits…he’ll call attention to him.

His misdeeds..?

·         Unjustly accusing the Apostles with wicked words
·         Refusal to receive the brethren and he forbidding others to do so.

Why on earth would a Christian do such things? In this case there’s an easy answer. The Apostles and the Missionaries were “rock stars” in the early church. If I wanted to be “number one” (like Diotrephes) I’d probably do a lot to demean the status of my competitors.

The contrast is clear. Gaius was a man of humility…willing to serves others. Diotrephes was arrogant and self-centered. One’s soul had a “good career” while the other’s? Not so much.

I wonder what John would write about me…

Live boldly out there today…

2 John

I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.  Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Commentaries disagree on the identity of the “Elect lady”. Many suggest she is a specific woman (along with her sister) while others suggest the term refers to a specific congregation while her sister refers to another congregation.

I believe it’s the latter…simply because the Apostle Paul uses the term “elect” several times to refer to Christians in general. Either way…the message remains the same.

When John says “I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth” we are confronted with a sobering truth…that every member of a Christian congregation may not be walking in the truth.

By which we mean…obeying God’s commandments.

Already…within a generation of Jesus living among them…people who claimed to be followers were denying core truths about Him. Docetism, the belief that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die, was emerging and affecting the Church.

The big problem…Docetism denies the Trinity…a doctrine always accepted by the apostles. So, why would anybody want to change what had been generally accepted from the beginning?

Maybe because the truth is difficult to believe?

I concede. Much of what we believe about Jesus is difficult to accept…in human terms. This, of course, is why salvation comes to us by faith…not by sight. However, our inability to stand firmly (and confidently) on faith does not privilege us to fiddle with what God has proclaimed. John tells us not to even let this teaching enter our houses. He says “anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God”. 

John reminds us. When we struggle with our faith the best response is to remain obedient to God’s Word…not well-intentioned friends and neighbors.

Live boldly out there today…

1 John 5:13-21

This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I can’t overstate the importance of John’s statement, “ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life”. It’s critical that we understand it’s possible to “know” we have a relationship with God…through Christ.

Which is why John spoke about sin in the first chapter. We know that “no one who is born of God sins”, but we understand the construction of this statement (Present, Active, Indicative) to mean “makes a habit of constantly sinning”. We also know that he who is born of God is kept safe (by God) and the evil one does not touch him.

All of this comes to us because the “Son of God has come, and has given us understanding”…something the world does not enjoy. Most of the world will tell us we can NEVER know our salvation for sure. They’re wrong… Ἀγάπη proves it…because ἀγάπη is humanly impossible.

I’m curious about John’s following statement: “This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him”. So…what would a person who “loves God obediently” ask for?”

And…how could God refuse?

What we should have is, Christians constantly asking God for a more perfect obedience and God dependably granting their requests…resulting in more people coming to faith (because we know "perfect obedience" is always fruitful). This would generate a geometric progression of salvations that would easily consume all of humanity.

I can’t say I’ve noticed such a surge…probably because we’re busy asking for things that don’t lead to loving God more obediently.

So…am I part of the solution, or part of the problem? I don’t have to guess. I already know. But, guess what?  “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness”…right back to chapter 1! We could recycle this Epistle in our lives constantly and do quite well.

Live boldly out there today…

1 John 5:1-12

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“A more perfect ἀγάπη”? John says this is our “raison d’etre”…

I think I know how I’ve been going wrong. I tend to focus my ἀγάπη on those I hope to influence. John says we need to re-focus our efforts…off of sinners and unto God. Ἀγάπη doesn’t look so much like preaching, evangelizing, witnessing or other spiritual disciplines. Ἀγάπη looks like “loving God obediently”.

I think this is why Paul says “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”.  The power to save is not in me…as the storyteller. It is in the story (of Christ) itself.  If I expend my energy loving God obediently the testimony will be so powerful it cannot be ignored.

Now, obedience may entail preaching, evangelizing, witnessing or other spiritual disciplines but only if our obedience to God directs us that way. I hope we understand the difference. Preaching…or, teaching, or witnessing, or evangelizing…as acts of obedience to God will always be more fruitful than preaching as an act of human devotion.

If somebody asks me why I am in the ministry my answer should be “I’m not sure…it’s where God and I ended up”. The same could be said of teaching English or flying airplanes. I understand God often sets out markers that we recognize as “His will”. I’m convinced, more often, God says “let’s take a walk and see where we end up”.

“Can two walk together unless they agree?”

I’m going to step out on a limb and suggest…if we aren’t seeing significant fruit (people coming to faith in Christ) as a result of our obedience…we’re probably being “lovingly obedient” to ourselves more than to God.

It shouldn’t be a source of discouragement. It should motivate us toward a more obedient love of God…“A more perfect ἀγάπη”…whatever that looks like.

Live boldly out there today…

1 John 4:7-21

“By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit”.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I’ve never really contemplated it in this way: The Spirit, in Christ, that drove Him to the cross (for our salvation) is the same Spirit that God put into each of us believers.

We really can "be like Jesus".

So we could be wiser, holier and more powerful than our neighbor? Of course not. Wisdom, holiness and power may be by-products but they aren’t the point. The defining Spirit of Christ is none of these. The defining Spirit of Christ is ἀγάπη…“intentional love”. The “intention” being the redemption of lost souls.

This is the Spirit God put in us when we believed. Why would he do that? So we will love others into the Kingdom of God like Christ did.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t suggest we can “save” people. Only the blood of Christ can do that. I am suggesting the ἀγάπη that God put in us can drive people to Christ like Jesus, Himself, was driven to the cross.

I don’t often feel that kind of spiritual presence…which can be disquieting.  But, John’s lofty words aren’t intended to create apprehension. On the contrary, "we love, because He first loved us” is so certain it’s actually a tautology…intended to stimulate pursuit of a more “perfect” ἀγάπη.

Here is the operative question for each of us. Has my ἀγάπη been the catalyst that built faith into others?

Am I letting God's Spirit drive me to that end?

Live boldly out there today…

1 John 4:1-6

 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The world hates us and yet we’re challenged to work diligently on behalf of the world. In doing so we’re told to avoid the temptations of the world without removing ourselves form the world.

We walk a thin line between godliness and worldliness. It’s messy. It reminds me of the phrase in a Def Leppard song…”When Love and Hate Collide”

“You could have a change of heart, if you would only change your mind”

We want desperately for the world to change its mind about Christ. With everything at stake we might be tempted to make compromises in order to be effective. Whenever I ask pastors why they make certain changes in their church or worship the answer is, invariably, “so we can be relevant”. Really? That’s it? What could be more relevant than a Savior who died for a lost world? Why must we fiddle with that formula?

And…as a result…to quote A.W. Tozer: “Christianity has come to a point where if it was a medicine it wouldn’t cure anybody and if it was a poison it wouldn’t kill anybody”

I’d say the devil has us exactly where he wants us…

To avoid this fatal flaw John tells us to test every idea to confirm it comes from the heart of God. He says “by this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist”. Based on this test I’ve met more than a few antichrists. And…the further the frustration, “he who is not from God does not listen to us”.

It’s enough to make me throw in the towel…except for the promise, “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world”.

Love boldly out there today…

1 John 3:1-24

See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So, the first couple of chapters have been intended to help us put some distance between ourselves and the world. God has a good reason for this. The world, in spite of being God’s creation, is fallen from grace and serves only as a vehicle to turn us from God. We might be tempted to scoff at this notion and say “some of my best friends live in this world!”

I assure you , we have no friends in this world. John says the people in this world don’t even know us. They have no clue how to work in our best interests. How can they really be friends?

The sad truth is…the world is only interested in deceiving us into believing right is wrong…and wrong is right. You see, we are at odds with the master deceiver…and his minions. The world is so devoted to deceit that it doesn’t even recognize truth anymore. It doesn’t recognize Christ so how could it recognize us if we look like Christ?  Do you think I’m exaggerating?

What about Hobby Lobby?

What about Majestic Bakery?

What about the Pizzeria in Indiana?

We might be tempted to “check out”, but we’re told not to.  God intends us to work diligently on His behalf…demonstrating His love for a world that has no clue.  John says “let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth”. I know it’s tough to offer a glass of cool water just to have it thrown back in our face. Still…that’s what we’re told to do. It might be humanly impossible but…”when we do this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

The good news is this: A day will come when Christ returns to this earth and the entire world will recognize Him for who He is. In the interim, can we turn some of these scoffers into disciples? That’s what Christ has in mind.

Can we really do this if we look so much like the world we hope to influences?
Live boldly out there today