Comfort in the Storm

Ok, so it's been quite a while since my last post. And much has happened since. So much turmoil over what is happening in America. Health care takeovers by the government, in spite of overwhelming opposition. And, no surprise because there is an apparent move to push immigration reform, which would result in a flood of new voters sympathetic to a nanny state.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. At all. One bit.

I'll admit -- it's gotten to me once in a while. The "we gotta stop it" frenzy. It's easy to fall into. But when I do it, it's because I've forgotten who's in control.

May we all have better memories.

Barack Obama's Dream for a Secular, Non-Christian Nation

Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored?

It was September of 2007 that a local pastor was discovered having an affair with a member of his church. This was no small thing, of course, but it was discovered that this had been going on for an entire decade! 

While the pastor was removed from the the pulpit at that church, he has since taken over as pastor at a different church. And it took less than a year for him to do so!

This, of course, raises the question which is stated as the title of this post. Consider the following from John MacArthur. The source can be found here.

Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored?

John MacArthur

It has always saddened me over the years as I've watched church leaders bring a reproach on the church of Jesus Christ. What's shocking to me is how frequently Christian leaders sin grossly, then step back into leadership almost as soon as the publicity dies away.

Some time ago I received a CD that disturbed me greatly. It was a recording of the recommissioning service of a pastor who had made national news by confessing to an adulterous affair. After little more than a year of "counseling and rehabilitation," this man was returning to public ministry with his church's blessing.

That is happening everywhere. Restoration teams--equipped with manuals to instruct the church on how to reinstate their fallen pastor--wait like tow-truck drivers on the side of the highway, anticipating the next leadership "accident". Our church has received inquiries wondering if we have written guidelines or a workbook to help restore fallen pastors to leadership. Many no doubt expect that a church the size of ours would have a systematic rehabilitation program for sinning leaders.

Gross sin among Christian leaders is a signal that something is seriously wrong with the church. But an even greater problem is the lowering of standards to accommodate a leader's sin. That the church is so eager to bring these men back into leadership is a symptom of rottenness at the core.

Some have claimed that a leader's failure makes him more effective in shepherding fallen people. That is ludicrous. Should we drag the bottom of sin's cesspool for the most heinous sinners to lead the church? Are they better able to understand the sinner? Certainly not! Our pattern for ministry is the sinless Son of God. The church is to be like Him and her leaders are to be our models of Christlikeness.

We must recognize that leadership in the church cannot be regarded lightly. The foremost requirement of a church leader is that he be above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2, 10; Titus 1:7). That is a difficult prerequisite, and not everyone can meet it.

There are some sins that irreparably shatter a man's reputation and disqualify him from a ministry of leadership forever. Even Paul, man of God that he was, said he feared such a possibility. In 1 Corinthians 9:27 he says, "I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified."

When referring to his body, Paul obviously had sexual immorality in view. In 1 Corinthians 6:18 he describes it as a sin against one's own body--sexual sin is in its own category. Certainly it disqualifies a man from church leadership since he permanently forfeits a blameless reputation as a one-woman man (Proverbs 6:33; 1 Timothy 3:2).

Where did we get the idea that a year's leave of absence and some counseling can restore integrity to someone who has squandered his reputation and destroyed people's trust? Certainly not from the Bible. Trust forfeited is not so easily regained. Once purity is sacrificed, the ability to lead by example is lost forever. As my friend Chuck Swindoll once commented when referring to this issue--it takes only one pin to burst a balloon.

What about forgiveness? Shouldn't we be eager to restore our fallen brethren? To fellowship, yes. But not to leadership. It is not an act of love to return a disqualified man to public ministry; it is an act of disobedience.

By all means we should be forgiving. But we cannot erase the consequences of sin. I am not advocating that we "shoot our wounded." I'm simply saying that we shouldn't rush them back to the front lines, and we should not put them in charge of other soldiers. The church should do everything possible to minister to those who have sinned and repented. But that does not include restoring the mantle of leadership to a man who has disqualified himself and forfeited the right to lead. Doing so is unbiblical and lowers the standard God has set.

So why is the contemporary church so eager to be tolerant? I'm certain a major reason is the sin and unbelief that pervade the church. If casual Christians can lower the expectations on their leadership, they will be much more comfortable with their own sin. With lower moral standards, the church becomes more tolerant of sin and less tolerant of holiness. The "sinner-friendly" church is intolerable to God--that is a frightening condition.

Conservative Christians have for most of the previous century focused on the battle for doctrinal purity. And that is good. But we are losing the battle for moral purity. Some of the worst defeats have occurred among our more visible leaders. The church cannot lower the standard to accommodate them. We should hold it higher so we can regain purity. If we lose here, we have utterly failed, no matter how orthodox our confession of faith. We can't win if we compromise the biblical standard of moral purity.

What should you do in the current crisis? Pray for your church's leaders. Keep them accountable. Encourage them. Let them know you are following their godly example. Understand that they are not perfect, but continue nonetheless to call them to the highest level of godliness and purity. The church must have leaders who are genuinely above reproach. Anything less is an abomination.

The Bible as a Fashion AccessoryPhil Johnson

From TeamPyro:

"Here are a couple of items that have been in my "maybe you want to comment on this" file since last December.

One is an article about Zondervan's "Bible Bunker," where publishing executives find ways to trick out the Bible and boost its market appeal. From the article: "Zondervan plans to keep stoking demand by making sure God’s word looks hip, sounds relevant and is advertised all over, including in Rolling Stone magazine and Modern Bride, on MySpace—even on a jumbotron in New York City’s Times Square."

To be clear, I have no problem with advertizing the Bible "all over"—including jumbotrons and magazines aimed at popular secular markets. I don't [Journaling Bible] seriously object to patent-leather or neon Naugahyde® on Bibles. The cover on Crossway's calfskin leather Journaling Bible is what motivated me to buy one, and I love it. If some teenage girl wants a Sanrio-inspired Bible cover, good for Zondervan..."

The article is here. . ..

At What Point Is It Complicity?

Ok. It's come to this. I have to put this out as an issue. I think it is that important.

There has been talk about Ray Comfort's speaking at conferences which includes "Word of Faith" leaders. Then there is Ravi Zacharias who is now becoming involved with Robert Schuller at "ReThink". But the issue I'm addressing here has become intensely personal. Here it is as follows:

It is no secret that my wife and I have been searching for a good church. You know, one that doesn't seek to entertain. One that doesn't play games with God's Word. One that sincerely serves the Lord and sits under a pastor who exposits God's Word.

I've heard it. You've heard it. You ask people about their church and they say "Well, our pastor preaches from the Bible. He uses the Bible". Note the word "uses". Yup. Lots of them do. To their shame.

Case in point:

Yesterday my wife and I sat in church and our pastor gave a "sermon". His launch pad was in 2 Corinthians 10, speaking of how we fight a spiritual battle. The main points were "We fight a spiritual battle. People are blinded by Satan. They can't be saved until they are given sight. See here in Matthew 12? Jesus drove out demons by binding Satan. We are to bind Satan. And if we pray believing enough, God has to do it because, after all, 'where two or more are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst. Also, 'whatever is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven. So if enough of us pray for someone, they will no longer be blinded and then can be saved!"

What utter rubbish! What plain old humanism! This clearly puts man in charge of the act of redemption, not our Sovereign God! Here a verse, there a verse. Everywhere a verse verse!

This pastor started with a decent premise. Yes, we do fight a spiritual battle. Yes, Satan does blind people to spiritual truth. However, in Matthew 12, Jesus was validating His ministry, not showing us a pattern to be followed. Furthermore, Matthew 18, the "two or more" verse, is a context of church discipline, as is the mention of ". . .where two or more are gathered in My Name".

What utter folly! How long are we to put up with such scripture twisting?

More importantly, the question becomes "As a Bible Believing, Regenerate Child of God, at what point am I personally responsible before the Lord for the teaching that comes from those who would call themselves my pastor or some other "teacher"?

It gets puzzling. Very puzzling. Especially when you know what's coming before you even walk in the building.

Yesterday, as we walked toward the front door of the church, my wife had to chide me for mumbling "I am not responsible for what the pastor says in his sermon. . .I am not responsible for what the pastor says in his sermon. . .I am not. . .". Yet, there comes, at one time or other, a certain sense of accountability for what is going on.

I've been wondering if there is someone who can draw a simple black and white cartoon that shows a hunched-over Christian, walking to the church door. A balloon over his head reciting the words I gave above, with the words "contemporary preaching" on the door. I'm serious! How many of us must be in the same situation!

Talk to the pastor? Doesn't answer emails. His home phone is answered by a modem or fax or something. Can't get him there. On the way out as you shake his hand with a line of people behind you? Not appropriate. Try to talk to him about anything at any other time? He always gives you a smile, a pat on the emotional back and a smile.

Let's cut to the chase. Each one of us is a priest in a kingdom of priests. A pastor is not some separate, untouchable elevated member of the kingdom. At what point are any one of us responsible before God for standing up, at least verbally, during the pastor's sermon and saying "Hold It! This Is Heresy! The Bible Doesn't Teach What You Are Saying! Please Shut Up And Sit Down!"

At what point do we become complicit in the pastor's error? At what point do we become an enabler to the pastor and complicit in his error by leading others in the pew to think that "all is ok" because we don't take a stand? At what point have we pulled a "Ray Comfort" or "Ravi Zacharias" in our own church?

How long do we have the liberty of silence? And at what point do we share in such abuse of Scripture out of "politeness"? At what point do we become responsible to "cleanse the temple"?

***Update*** To help keep the discussion focused, this is not about "just leave the church", or "Start your own". Sometimes you can't just change churches because there are not others in the area. Let's leave the topic of selling your home and moving for the sake of finding a good church for another post. The discussion I'm looking for is "At what point, if any, is it right and good before God to 'nail the theses to the wall'".

Shakespeare, Bo Peep, Dr. Seuss, and Biblical Preaching

If you're like me, you may well be frustrated over the lack of depth you hear from pulpits today. As I posted some time ago, my wife and I have renewed our search for a good church. It can be very frustrating, especially in a town of 35,000 such as ours.

There is an absolute lack of good expository preaching. Everything kept very shallow. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds but there is little being presented that can truly transform the mind of the believer because it lacks clarity and depth.

It was just this past week that I gave a pastor a copy of "The Existence and Attributes of God" by Stephen Charnock. I did this because he hadn't heard of Charnock (or Tozer, or. . .) and figured it might help him one way or another. His response? "It'll probably be just a waste of money, I don't do much reading". I gave it to him anyway with the hope that perhaps, just perhaps he'll see something that will get him thinking about some things.

Tragic though. Is it any wonder why true Christians starve while being served stones instead of loaves of bread?

In any case, TeamPyro has a post worthy of review which deals with issues like the above, or even worse. Check it out!

Obama's Slip: Reveals a deeper problem.

I'd like to thank Christian Worldview Network for picking up my previous post on the Obama lip slip. While I wasn't originally planning on commenting on the incident, I think I need to address a larger issue that surrounds this whole "I'm a Christian" claim by Obama or anyone else for that matter.

The issue I'm speaking of has to do with the watering down of the meaning of "Christian".

If you go to any given blog discussing Obama's claim to be a Christian, you'll invariably find the argument (express or implied) that Obama makes a claim to be a Christian, therefore he is one. If you go look at the poll threads at WorldNetDaily, you'll run into this.

Let's remove Obama from the mix. It's not about Obama. It's about what the Bible teaches. And the Bible gives us certain criteria to test the profession of faith from another individual. Note: this is not a standard I or someone else set up, it is God's standard.

Read the first epistle of John. There are a number of tests offered to the first century readers to help them separate the true converts from the false. At the time, the Gnostics were causing confusion theologically in the newly started Body of Christ.

One of the key tests that John said could be used to separate the wheat from the tares is the confession of Jesus as the Christ. This doesn't mean just saying the name of Jesus Christ and making some intellectual nod at Him. It means to continually (through your life) confess Jesus as Messiah, or "Annointed One". God come in human flesh. And, as John said "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?"

Indeed. Seems important to me. And it rightly should, for this is God's Word.

Again, it's not an issue of just standing up and saying at one time that "Jesus is the Christ". It's a pattern of life. It's ongoing. And it is a sign of a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the scriptures tell us that it is impossible to confess (as a pattern of life) Jesus as Lord except those who have been born of God.

Other tests? The test of love for fellow believers. Sure, we love all people but especially those who are believers. Then there is the test of purity. A person who really has trusted in Christ will show it in an increasingly holy life.

So, who are the real Christians? Those who openly confess with their lives that Jesus is the Messiah, the "Annointed One", the rightful God of the Universe Who came in human flesh. A person who has sincere sacrificial love for other believers and one who "purifies himself even as Christ is pure".

Look around. Who is doing this? Who isn't doing this?

Now, with regard to Obama. I will post here what I left as a comment somewhere else:

1. Lip Slips tend to reveal what has been hidden.

2. This is especially true of personally held beliefs. "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45).

3. It is unfathomable to me for someone who is born of God to lip slip as Obama did about "my Muslim faith", just as it is unfathomable to me to imagine a Muslim saying something like "my Christian faith". No. Don't think so. Possible, I suppose, but I don't think so. However . . .

4. Compounding this was that his interviewer had to correct him. Almost instantaneously. So, this had to be pointed out to him. It's not like he said "my mus- excuse me, Christian faith". No. he said what he said and it sat there until George Stephanopoulos corrected him.

5. If Barak Obama is really a Christian (as he claims) then let him openly and consistently claim Jesus Christ as Messiah, God come in human flesh. Of course, Islam would call that blasphemy. But to a real Christian, that is not an issue.

In summation, and to the point, what bothers me isn't so much that Barak Obama might be a Muslim. What bothers me most is the ease at which he (and others) can make the claim - - - and be believed - - - in spite of what the Scriptures teach. And this is a sad commentary on the legacy of "evangelicalism" in America.

Update:

Just found this over at One News Now. It's a comment in a thread there. While it is not all worded as I'd say it, I find it interesting in light of my third point (above):

""Please PLease! We as christians need to pray, pray! I hope you all saw the interview Sunday when George Stef had ask him about people refuting his faith.And he made a slip of the tongue. "Ah,ah, my muslim faith" George quickly corrected him"You mean your christian.....he replied"Ah..ah..my christian faith" When a person is truly a born again christian, your christian faith is the most important thing in your life! NO christian would make a slip of the tongue that slanderous about themselves if it wasn't true! I don't understand why people continue to defend him on this just because he says he is a christian. Well people lie everyday about everything to make themselves look better to the public.And he is not above lying!"" (Empasis mine). -tb

On Making the Uncommon Common

I knew it was coming. Mom has been emptying out her home of all the extra things that are there since my dad died two years ago this coming November. Giving away old books of his that I remember even from childhood. I helped her take some of them to the library for donation. . .after I sorted a few out of course.

But she's also suggesting that I take home a little of this and a little of that. Things that dad owned for decades. I hated to do this because, even at my age, the items he had are kind of, well, larger than life while they are in that house that he built at age 82. It's "separate" from a kind of "commonness" and as long as I don't bring them home as "mine", the legends continue to live.

But last night I gave in. Mom said something about dad's now nearly thirty year old 35mm camera and all the lenses. And there was also the nearly 20' leather bull whip dad bought in the summer of 1965 on our drive down Route 66 to Los Angeles for the International Lion's Club convention.

I brought all that stuff home last night. And I sat there remembering dad and all the memories. The fun he had with the bull whip and how we'd all tried mastering that thing. My brother, who died 40 years ago this past March, was one of them. Dad would use it for gags when he was president of the local lions club. (You could say he was a motivator).

There is a "largeness" to "dad's stuff". It's a kind of a feeling and a reminder that "I don't think I can fill those shoes".

But what I hate and fear worse than "not being able to fill his shoes" is allowing these special things that he owned to become "common". For example, about a year ago mom gave me dad's watch. I've been wearing it since. It's not expensive. It's just an "Indiglo" watch. But it was dad's. Lately, I've noticed that it is becoming more a regular part of my life and less of the watch that I saw them remove from my dad's wrist before they gave him the morphine that helped him relax just a few hours before he left this Earth.

All those things, removed from their original context, eventually take on a "smallness". Familiarity does indeed breed contempt. What was "bigger than life" and "uncommon" can easily become routine and less valuable to us.

Now, of course you know that I don't post things just to post things. Also, I don't believe in focusing on Earthly things. And you know I don't post about my dad just to post about my dad, who is now with the Lord. So let me get from my illustration to my greater point. How often do we take the "uncommon" things of God, "bring them home", then begin to reduce them from their "otherness" to a "commonness"?

We talk about revering God's Word, but all too often there is a "commonness" to it. We talk so glibly about "our walk with the Lord" but all too often we're just filling the empty air with comfortable noise.

We preach about evangelism but rarely do it. The urgency is gone. It's become part of our domain. "Something we believe" and only once had a passion for. Pastors "preach" about reaching out to the lost but you wonder if they mean it and those in the church nod their heads in agreement and then go on to other things.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Lukewarmness sets in.

There should be an abiding "specialness" about spreading the news of the One Who died for us. We have the most wonderful, transforming news that anyone could share but are we sharing it? Or have we put it all up on a shelf with other "momentos" so we can give them an occasional nod?

My dad died on November 11th, 2006. And at one time the things he left me and were passed down to me had a very pointed "specialness" to them. But that deminishes.

But even greater than that, Jesus Christ died on cross about 2000 years ago. He was buried and raised from the dead on the third day for my justification as well as yours and showed himself to hundreds of witnesses. For those of us who know Him, He gave us His Spirit. And He has given us a commission.

Has it all become "just a common thing"? Have the things that once were the center of our lives become part of the periphery?

To be continued . . .

Are Evangelical Pulpits About to Praise Islam?

Jan Markell has a good read over at Christian Worldview Network. This is kind of a follow up to a post I made months ago.

About the only thing I'll add to this is that this would come as no surprise. Evangelicalism has become a mere shell of religion, having little or nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. This has come to pass, at least in part, because of what has been referred to as a "fatal meltdown" through the influence of "leaders" such as T.D. Jakes, Brian McLaren and others. It's a "DUH" thing; if you don't have something definite to believe, you'll fall for anything. And what passes as "evangelicalism" has come to a point where it will fall for anything. I've seen it first hand and I'm sure many of you have as well. This is the reason why I still say, as I have said before, "I'm sick and tired of being associated with a "Christianity" that does not seem to care one whit about holiness or obedience to God's Word. Let me say this as perfectly clear as I can: I believe that "Christianity" in America is nearly totally apostate. Why? We have abandoned the vision of the Holiness and Fear of God."

And once you don't care about the Holiness of God, truth doesn't matter either. So, again I say "Is Jan's question really a surprising one?"

You can read Jan Markell's article here.

Richard Abanes: Suing Apprising Ministries for Defamation - Libel? ***UPDATED***

This is a follow up post for my last article. Apprising Ministries is back up! But you might want to read Ken Silva's article regarding the incident here.

Here's an update. A good article by Steve Camp at his blog.

John MacArthur: The Gospel and Politics

John MacArthur has done a great series at Pupit Magazine. I'd encourage you to give it a look.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Just a few observations that I will make. I do so, I think, because Christian Worldview Network has made an issue of John MacArthur's view on Christianity and politics. Apparently CWN thinks that MacArthur is going to embarrass the Body of Christ because of his views. They quote John MacArthur of saying that he isn't worried about Obama winning the election. Apparently, CWN thinks this is a derilection of duty on the part of MacArthur. I disagree.

As regenerate men and women, we are primarily citizens of a heavenly kingdom. As such, our charge is primarily a heavenly one. It is that of living a holy life and spreading the gospel.

Read the epistles. Were the Corinthians an example of godliness? No. No way. And what did Paul rebuke them for? Even more to the point, what didn't he rebuke them for? Certainly, he could have told them to be politically active to stop the corruption of the culture. He never did that. And in the seven letters to the churches, you don't see any rebuke at all about not "cleaning up society". It's about returning to first loves and obedience.

Yet listen to what passes as "Christian" radio. There is no end of programming that is constantly sending up flare after flare about "bill number 12345", and how "We all gotta get to our phones and call our congressmen or we'll lose our right to. . ." do whatever. Isn't that how the world works? That's certainly all they have!

You know what all this reminds me of? My preconversion days in 1998 when I became aware of the country's downward spiral. I remember being so upset about former president Clinton's executive order entitled "Federalism". And, in the earthly sense, it was scary. But my trust wasn't in Christ. At that time, my trust was in "we gotta save the country from the socialists". That is where my trust was. My trust isn't there now. It's in Christ. Do I still get some of those old spooky feelings that I got so long ago? Yes! But I realize that is a feeling of desperation that is my flesh fighting for control. We get scared because we think life should be like a Burger King where we "Have It Our Way".

Listen. It's not about "our rights". The Christian life is about maintaining our first love, living a holy life and spreading the Gospel. To the radio announcers who spend so much time promoting lobbying I would ask "How much time have you spent spreading the Gospel?" I don't mean talking about the Gospel, I mean actually going out of your way to spread the Gospel. If I had my way, I'd have a rule that says something like "For every congressman you call, you must first share the Gospel with five lost people". Of course, I can only apply that to myself. But to someone who would object, I'd have to ask "Why?".

I was reading around on various blogs recently. One commenter said in so many words that "the gospel isn't enough".

I beg to differ. Not only is the Gospel "enough", it's all we have! It is the Gospel that transforms a human heart. You can legislate all you want and produce an outward conformity to a list of rules but you haven't done what God has told us to do -- share a message that changes the human heart. And if you change the heart, the rest follows.

We have substituted outward morality for Godliness. In our efforts to win through political lobbying, we show that we are merely concerned with the outside of the cup. And if you clean the outside of the man, the inside still goes to hell without Christ.

Give them the Gospel. The heart changes. The desires change. The society changes. All according to God's will.

Vote? Sure! But I'm not sure that I will. If you do vote, vote biblically. That will be a tough decision for me. I feel strongly about the issue. But whether I vote or not, that doesn't mean I'll major on minors.

We render to the government what is required but we give to God what is God's. And I've yet to see where God requires us to reform our country from the outside in. Rather it is to be done from the inside out through the Gospel.

Cue The Handwringing

Here we go again, focusing on what the devil is doing instead of what we should be doing.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate it when the FRC and other organizations stand up for the unborn and the infirm. But I get so very tired of the "Oh my, what shall we do?" talk when it comes to the oncoming criminalization of Christianity. I get so tired of the use of the word "rights", especially when it is used in reference to things that Christians have been given clear instructions on.

I got this from the Family Research Council this morning:

"FRC held a standing-room-only panel discussion this morning about the California same-sex marriage ruling and its effects on religious liberty. Many religious organizations in California and elsewhere are worried about the possible erosion of their First Amendment rights and religious liberty protections. The panel addressed key issues being asked by religious organizations: Will churches be able to refuse to marry homosexual couples? Will they be able to deny access to their facilities? Will other Christian organizations be able to retain their religious identity and beliefs in light of the court's decision?"

This sounds rather like the psalmist who said "...if the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" (Psalm 11). Problem is, the psalmist wasn't asking that question but quoting those who would mock us as if to say "what 'cha gonna do now that we've had our way?". And here, the voices of what we would loosely call "christianity" are saying "ooohh. . .if this all goes bad, we're gonna be in trouble!" Wow. What leadership.

This kind of non-faith is why I stopped listening to much of what passes for "Christian radio". The constant "call your congressman and protect your own hide" kind of garbage.

What is going on here? We are worried about getting permission to stand up for what is right? No, I don't think that is it. I think it's more of "I want to know I can live out what I believe without it demanding any real faith, please don't arrest me!"

I remember getting phone calls from the American Center for Law and Justice. I got lots of them. Jay Sekulow wanted me to help "fight for my rights". Excuse me? I don't have "rights". I have responsibilities given to me by God.

I mentioned that to the last person from the ACLJ that called for a donation. She sounded rather stunned when I suggested that perhaps, just perhaps, we should spend less time being like the world (that continually fights for its "rights") and simply do what we have been told to do regardless of the consequences. Yes, stunned. And she ended up indicating that I had a good point. Well, it is a good point. It's a Biblical one.

Daniel was "denied the right to pray". He did anyway. And Paul didn't have the "right" to preach in Rome. He did anyway. And he didn't even appeal to other Christians to "call your political leaders and demand a change".

Let's call this "I demand my rights" stuff what it is; worship of self. You want to say you "believe" but you want it on your own easy terms. Meanwhile, the Lord uses circumstances to show how real your faith is.

Is your faith in the Lord? Does it lead to obedience regardless of the personal cost? Or is it a sham, good only for displaying on Sunday mornings or in another "friendly environment"?

James would say such faith is useless.

Let me give you Psalm 11, without the remarks of the taunters in the first couple of verses:

"1 In the LORD I take refuge. . .

4 The LORD is in his holy temple;

the LORD is on his heavenly throne.

He observes the sons of men;

his eyes examine them.

5 The LORD examines the righteous,

but the wicked [b] and those who love violence

his soul hates.

6 On the wicked he will rain

fiery coals and burning sulfur;

a scorching wind will be their lot.

7 For the LORD is righteous,

he loves justice;

upright men will see his face."

God knows what is going on. His wrath is delayed by His mercy; but it will come. Justice delayed is not justice denied. Read Psalm 11.

When will we get a clear vision of this and stop all the hand-wringing?

Has God Sent This Delusion?

Just got this in my email. And yes, I think she is right:


HAS GOD SENT THIS DELUSION?
By Jan Markell
I quote my good friend and ministry colleague Jim Hutchens of "The Jerusalem Connection International" when he says, "The veiled anti-Israel action by the Presbyterian Church USA is nothing less than blatant anti-Semitism." I also agree with him. So what is the issue?

As I write truthful but unpleasant comments about the Presbyterian Church, I know many Presbyterian readers of this do not agree with their church leadership. But at the recent Presbyterian Church USA annual meeting a number of Presbyterian leaders pled passionately for a declaration of solidarity with the Palestinian Arabs. The appeal included a recommendation to adopt a series of anti-Israel measures, including proposals for divestment and for backing a suspension of American military aid to the Jewish state. In essence they called for Presbyterians to side with the Palestinians and take serious shots at the Israelis.

"The situation in Palestine is dire. The call from our Palestinian brothers and sisters has fallen on deaf ears," a Presbyterian minister, Reverend William McGarvey of San Francisco, said. "The American Christian church has largely watched this catastrophe continue as if we did not care."

Some Presbyterian leaders spoke out against the anti-Israel proposals and offered alternatives calling for a "nonpartisan" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But a Palestinian religious leader attending this annual meeting said, "I urge you to get your hands dirty, to take sides."

Six senators who are Presbyterians urged the church not to endorse the proposal to cut off defense help to Israel. "We are adamantly opposed to the call for the U.S. government to temporarily suspend military aid to Israel," Senators Kyl of Arizona, Bond of Missouri, DeMint of South Carolina, Carper of Delaware, Shelby of Alabama, and Inhofe of Oklahoma wrote. "We ask that you take no action that would make a case for moral equivalency between the Israeli military, which is fighting to keep Israel safe, and Palestinian terrorists, who seek to destroy it."

A former American negotiator in the Middle East, Dennis Ross, also warned against taking the Palestinian side in the long-running dispute. "If your church is going to adopt a position that is one-sided in favor of the Palestinians, it takes no account of what the Israelis have done," Mr. Ross said in a videotaped message to delegates. "I find the resolution on divestment from companies doing business with Israel and the others who criticize Israel to be divorced from reality. They don't take into account the price the Israelis have paid or the concessions they made or the many times the Israelis in negotiations have been prepared to go very far and not found responsiveness on the other side."

With these men weighing in with truth, doesn't this all sound just a bit delusional?

So, in a sense, whether any bill passes this year or next, the Presbyterian Church USA has declared war on our only ally in the Middle East. This is what happens when denominations hold to Replacement Theology; that is, that the Church is now Israel. The Church has replaced Israel in all New Testament references. It remains a mystery to me how they deal with Romans 9 - 11.

But the Presbyterian Church USA and others who think like they do miss the most important point. It is not Israel making the Palestinians miserable; it is the Palestinian leadership and the United Nations who keep them in bondage so they can be political pawns.

Also, it is difficult to find a more neglected story than the relative satisfaction of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel -- about 20% of the population in Israel -- as revealed by a recent Harvard study. Researchers asked Palestinian Arabs if they would rather live in Israel than any other country in the world. Dream away, folks. You can fantasize that they said they would rather be in Dubai or the U.K. or the U.S. But nearly 80% said they like Israel best. These are Arabs living in Israel who are under Israeli rule, not corrupt Palestinian rule.

Arabs in Israel are not subject to compulsory military service though they may volunteer to serve in the military and some do. So we have some Arabs living in Israel serving in Israel's military while the Presbyterian Church USA suggests America suspend all military aid to Israel! Have I fallen into Alice's Wonderland or has the Presbyterian Church USA fallen down the hole? Where's the Mad Hatter?

This issue will not die. Other denominations are following suit and making similar proposals at annual meetings. In the past there have usually been enough in high church leadership to denounce these proposals, but it is my belief that will not always be the case.

Is it any wonder that the church today is in a mess? All Mainline Protestant denominations hold to Replacement Theology. I am not saying all Mainline Protestants hold to the proposals stated above. But Mainline Protestants and Catholics today almost universally adhere to the false teaching that the Church today is the new Israel. A remnant in these categories would disagree with this theology.

The Bible says, "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear: But they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not" (Isa. 66:4). So it begs the question: Did God send them this delusion because in their hearts they just have serious issues and are blind to the truth about Israel's miraculous rebirth? The Bible indicates that when one remains firm in a lie and rejects the truth, they will become blinded. (2 Thess. 2:11)

The desire to harm a nation that is a friend and ally and a nation that remains God's Chosen People, makes little sense in the natural.
RADIO: Both hours of this past weekend's radio provide provocative commentary. Dr. Michael Coffman explains the hidden agenda behind the man-made global warming myth. The real agenda is global government. Hour two is for anyone discouraged about reaching a loved one with the gospel who refuses to hear or see biblical truth. These are found at "Radio Archives." For podcasting, check this link. For more radio information including outlets, go here.

Awaiting His return,

Jan Markell"

A word about constantly-mutating evolutionists, skeptical philosophers, and speculative theologians

From TeamPyro:

"Here's some background on Spurgeon's argument below. In 1890, William Platt Ball published Heredity and Evolution.; Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? An Examination of the View Held by [Herbert] Spencer and [Charles] Darwin. Ball was himself an evolutionist, but he (along with others in the same vein) departed from Darwin—and even more so from Herbert Spencer—on the question of whether and how our parents' and ancestors' behavior influences the characteristics we inherit from them. Will the offspring of a hardworking man who uses his muscles inherit any benefits from his working out? Or if the tails of Cocker Spaniels are clipped for enough years so that generation after generation of dogs never use their tails, will a breed of naturally tailless Spaniels eventually result through the evolutionary process?

Spencer, for one, seemed to think so. He pointed to giraffes as proof of the "use and disuse" theory, claiming giraffes could never have evolved such long necks unless their tendency to stretch ever higher had some effect toward actually lengthening the necks of their offspring across many generations. Thus Spencer (and evolutionists who followed him) argued, evolution is a hopeful doctrine for the future of humanity. It suggests that humanity will eventually get better if we act better. That was the standard evolutionary doctrine of salvation through the 1870s or so.

The actual progeny of that brand of humanistic optimism, however, was a whole new species of evolutionists, including William Ball. They pointed out a stubborn fact: the laws of genetics mitigate against our inheriting the effects of our parents' behavior through any kind of purely biological process. As an illustration, Ball pointed out that Jewish men have practiced circumcision from time immemorial, and Jewish infants are nevertheless still always born with fully intact foreskins. Ball insisted that evolutionary changes needed to be explainable by some more scientific means than the theory of use and disuse. He wasn't sure how animals evolved fantastic traits, but he insisted the process could not be explained by the use-and-disuse theory; that was simply unscientific.

Those who held the older evolutionary opinions employed human morality as a counter-example. The use-and-disuse theory is the only way to account for human guilt in the evolutionary paradigm, they insisted. They pointed to the immoral proclivities so evident in human behavior as undeniable proof that we have inherited behavioral influences from our animal ancestors. Suddenly some of the same modernists who had long scoffed at the idea of original sin were now acknowledging the ubiquitous manifestations of original sin in order to prop up their now-outmoded evolutionary theories.

That debate was raging when Spurgeon preached this sermon, and it explains the setting in which these comments were made. Spurgeon seems to indicate that he expected the theory of evolution itself to be debunked and replaced by some other fallacy in a very short time. If so, he would be disappointed by the tenacity of that theory today. In the most important respect, however, Spurgeon was exactly right: evolutionists have never found a stable, tenable theory to explain the most fundamental difficulty of their system: how did ordered information get programmed into the genetic code in the first place, and why are there zero observable instances of positive mutations in which additional information is added to a species' genetic code by some "natural" process? In their quest for answers to that question, evolutionists keep changing their story, and the textbooks still have to be completely rewritten every three years or so. Spurgeon observed this trend more than 130 years ago.

And for good measure, he threw in a rebuke aimed at the trendy, emerging, modernist church leaders of his day who aped the style of secular scientists and philosophers by shifting their opinions every three years or so to suit the times. Don't miss that part in the closing paragraph of this excerpt."

The rest can be found here. . ..

Bob DeWaay's Visit With Rick Warren:An appeal to preach Christ

An excerpt from an article at Christian Worldview Network:

"In May, one of the pastors at Saddleback Church invited me to attend a Purpose Driven conference—at Saddleback’s expense. Their only caveat was that I say nothing until the end, at which time I would be able to comment about why I disagree with the Purpose Driven movement. I declined on the grounds that I had already studied the movement and had no need to hear more from its proponents. When I saw the lineup of speakers I realized that it would have been exasperating to listen for hours to what I have already rejected. Rick Warren’s chief of staff e-mailed back and offered to have me come only on Thursday in order to talk to Warren in person. Since the Bible says that we should be ready to give a reason for our hope in the gospel (1Peter 3:15) I decided to go..."

The rest of the article is here.

Paul Washer: Jesus Christ Is Not a Yuppie's Accessory

This is a great video and can be very convicting, as much of Paul's preaching is. As highly as I view evangelism, I am reminded that our first priority is not evangelism. Our first priority is the pursuit of God. 

Do you have a heart that seeks after God before all else? Or do you seek to "do" for God first. Yes, we've been called to obey Him but cold obedience to task-oriented religion is not Christianity. Do you have a passion to know God? 

It can be  easy to fall into a trap where we seek to "convince the lost" of their need for Christ and all the while merely be wishing to win an argument. Another notch on the belt. Yet our first priority is not "winning the lost" as important as that is, but our relationship with Him. 

Yes, contemporary evangelism is weak and errant. Yes, we spend too little time reaching out with the Gospel to those who need it. But how often do we substitute routine for relationship with God. . .or even worse, use evangelistic activities to obscure a starved relationship? 

Paul's point is that a real Christian will have a passion for God. He argues that love is not just "a verb". It involves the emotion. Yes, if you love someone, the actions will show but it's not just performance based religion. 

So,  I pose the question to you. How high a priority is your passion for the pursuit of God?

How's Your Spiritual Pitch Recognition?

Lately I've been looking around for my tuning fork. I used to carry one a number of years ago. It was for the pitch of "A". 

I didn't carry it because I'm a musical sort (although I am a 'musical sort'. . . I enjoy playing trumpet, cornet, flugelhorn and even a marching French horn that I was fortunate enough to get on ebay a year ago or so). I carry it as a reminder. 

See, it served to be a reminder to me that there are absolutes. After my conversion I was, for some time, struggling with a certain amount of spiritual and intellectual confusion. And working in "the real world" had its own challenges which at the time seemed daunting. So, I carried a tuning fork. Every once in a while I'd pull it out of my pocket and tap it on something to remind myself that there really is an absolute, that God had helped me come to understand at least some of them, and that they didn't change regardless of my circumstances.

It was  a reminder to me. No, not so much that "A = 440", but that just as "A = 440", God's Word is the Truth. That what God has to say is authoritative. 

No orchestra would be able to produce a proper performance if each musician decided to decide that "A" was some arbitrary pitch. A = 440! There would be no meaningful harmony. There would be no tonal center. 

Lately, I've been upgrading what I refer to as my recording studio. It's nothing big, but it does what it is supposed to do. And I've been investing some time in practicing tonal recognition. You know, where someone plays a note on a keyboard and you can say "That's an A4" or "that's a low concert C". I've got a long way to go. Hopefully, some day I'll be able to tell someone what note they are humming while they look at the lima beans at the local grocery store. 

Kind of sad -- while I was in college getting my bachelor's in Computer Science, I took three courses in music. . .one in Music Theory. But I still have a problem reading music. Hopefully that will change.

Jesus said that His sheep know Him and follow Him. From John 10:

"27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

He also said in John 16 that the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) will lead those who are regenerate to the truth. 

"13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority. . ."

Those are related verses. We follow Him by discerning and obeying the truth. 

How's your spiritual tonal recognition?

Lately I've become aware of so many who have demonstrated a problem with their "spiritual tonal recognition." People saying one thing and tolerating another. Pastors discovered to be in decade-long affairs. Others (some who call themselves pastors) who preach against various sins to others while they allow and even excuse the same patterns in their own lives and families. And, of course, that is disappointing. But this stuff is way beyond the pale of what I'm referencing. In this post, I'm talking about the subtleties of the human heart.

See, as I work on my musical tonal recognition I find myself driven to work on my spiritual "tonal recognition". What is it in my own spiritual life that is contrary to God's standard. In what way am I trying to tell the Lord that I've decided that "A = 335" and not 440?

It's a challenge. 

Jesus said in Matthew 7 that there will be many who cry out "Lord, Lord. . ." but will find that they were not truly converted. What was the evidence? A lack of obedience which betrayed them as false converts. 

. . .and it all starts with what is in our heart. What we allow, or deny. Do we really, really in our heart of hearts believe that Christ is Lord of all? If so, our lives will show it. And it is an ongoing decision, even moment by moment. 

Regardless of what our lips say, if we tolerate deviations from what we know to be the truth, then we are denying the truth at that very point. There is no wiggle room from this, and that is as God intended it. Jesus did say that "the way is narrow", not just the gate.

We defect. By little bits at first. But we defect. It's part of living. It's all part of the testing. "What will we decide when this or that happens". 

Years ago, someone said something that we all could do well to tuck away in our hearts. To quote, "The words 'No' and 'Lord' are mutually exclusive". And the false converts in Matthew 7 found that out. If you say "No" to what God says, you are saying He is not your Lord, for Lordship involves masterhood. 

We all must, as Paul said in 2 Corinthians, examine ourselves to see if we are really in the faith. One local pastor said that we do that at communion time. Well, that may be true but it had better be more often than that. 

Where is the line between "self examination" and "morbid introspection"? I'm not sure. I'm still working on that one. But I'd rather over-examine myself than treat my "test results" as if they were blow-off quizzes. 

So, once in a while and hopefully more often than not, periodically pull out your spiritual tuning fork and see if your tonal recognition is working. If it isn't, shouldn't that be an alarm you hear?

Brian McLaren at Willow CreekBrannon Howse and Bob DeWaay

From Christian Worldview Network:

"Pastor Bob DeWaay joins Brannon to discuss Brain McLaren's presentation this past weekend at Bill Hybel's Willow Creek Church. Brian told the young people to lessen their passion for eternity and live in the here and now. Brian then went on to talk about the myth of hell, the return of the Lord to conquer His enemies and how those that believe in these things are not surprisingly violent people. Brannon and Bob also discuss Rick Warren's continued moves to the left."

Listen Here...

Is Your Life a Reproach to the World?

The past month or so has been an interesting time. See, I began listening to Messianic Jewish radio. And I like it.

I like it not because it is "different", or "strange" but because of the God and Scripture centeredness of it all. It puts regular "Christian" programming to shame, easily. Most all the music is saturated with Scripture. And there is a sense of "Hey, this is the way it was supposed to be from the beginning!" because the message of salvation was entrusted to the Jews who were to share it with the Gentiles. So it is, in a sense, a restoration of God's intended order.

And you learn some things that you never understood before.

Recently, Johnathan Cahn has been speaking of the scandal of the cross. Nothing new there. We all know that. But let's step back a second and take a fresh look at something else....

Remember the plagues that led to the freedom of the Hebrews? What did they do in preparation for the last plague? Yes, they put blood on their doorposts. Nothing new, you say? Well, that's what I thought. But it wasn't just something they did out of obedience and faith to God. It was more than that.

See, the painting of the blood on the doorposts would have been a reproach to the Egyptians. In a real sense, they were showing their allegiance to God and saying "We are separate unto the Lord" and the act of putting the blood on the doorposts would have been a reproach to the Egyptians.

Can you imagine how difficult it may be to do something like that? Yet they were obedient. They didn't try to just "go along" and "get along". They did what the Lord commanded, even though it was offensive to their captors.

And we are called to be separate to God. We are called to show that we are separate unto God. And we preach the Cross, which is a reproach to the world.

The Cross is a scandalous thing, just as their was scandal on the doorposts before the Hebrews were set free.

If we live rightly, we are a rebuke to the world. And the world will hate us, sooner or later. In one form or another.

So, it was no light thing for the Hebrews to act in faith, painting the blood on their doorposts. It was no casual thing. And neither should our lives be as they depict the scandal of the cross.

So, You Say You Are a Christian?

Paul said to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Corinthians). Jesus warned that the devil would be planting tares (false converts) in the church, and He warned that many will believe themselves to be converts when they really aren't.

I'd recommend that you click here.

. . .and be honest with yourself.