jump to navigation

Are You Getting with the Program or Watching It? November 07, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I will confess that I am a consummate daydreamer.  My mind not only drifts off into curiosity on things tangential to what is taking place or being taught, but I am also prone to rabbit trails when I am in the role of teacher.  I never realized just how frustrating that must have been to my parents (who were trying to get me to do homework, etc…) until I became a parent and found that my son is prone to the same thing—the apple does not fall too far from the tree.  One of the phrases that my parents used to use commonly was, “Come on, Win, get with the program.”  What they meant by this was to get focused and to be a part of the task (the program) that was at hand.

Our Lord also gives a “program” to the church.  After Peter’s confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Jesus utters the following words:

“And now I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

This is one of those passages that contains a tremendous amount of theology, but essentially Jesus is saying that the confession of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God—the confession of the Gospel—is the rock upon which the church will be built.  So, what is the church’s “program”?  The program is to take this confession of Christ and use it to batter down the gates of hell—essentially to use the gospel of Jesus Christ as a tool by which the fortifications of the Devil that exist on this earth are destroyed.  To use military terminology, the church is being portrayed as an army on the march in enemy territory. 

Now, there are many things that the church does, we are called in the Great commission to make disciples by baptizing and teaching all that Christ has taught (Matthew 28:19-20), we are called to care for the widows and orphans and to keep ourselves unstained by the sinful things of this world (James 1:27), we are to be ready with a reasonable defense of the Truth that God has given us (1 Peter 3:15-16), and we gather to worship (Hebrews 12:28-29).  Yet, all of these things fall under the heading of engaging the enemy’s strongholds and battering in their gates (the primary place where an invading army would focus their attack).

Yet, as I look at the church today, I wonder whether we have allowed ourselves to daydream.  For some it may be about the busyness of life; for others it may be their comfort or reputation.  Some spend so much time thinking about the world to come that they are distracted from the task at hand.  Regardless of the reason, a soldier who is distracted during a time of war usually becomes a casualty (and others are often wounded or killed because of the soldier’s distraction).

The question we must ask of ourselves is whether or not we have “gotten with the program” and are a part of the task.  My concern is that there are too many confessing Christians who are watching the program as if it is on television, seeing church as entertainment or a social club, not as an army at war in enemy territory, besieging the fortifications of the Devil.  How the church needs to “get with the program” and stop trying to watch it from their easy chair.

“No one who serves as a soldier becomes entangled in the affairs of life in order that he might please the one who has enlisted them.”

(2 Timothy 2:4)

A Mocha-Frappe-Latte Society October 10, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

“The Christian faith has not been tried and found lacking; it has been found difficult and been left untried.”

-George Macdonald

I must confess up front that I am not a coffee drinker.  I neither like the taste of it nor the smell of it, nor do I have any compulsion to infuse it with a variety of sweeteners to try and mask its otherwise awful taste.  This is not a criticism of those who like coffee (my wife is one of them), it is simply a statement of fact, and to set the record strait, it is not that I do not also have a morning crutch, but for me it is tea—“Earl Grey, hot,” as Captain Picard used to say.

All of that being said, what I find interesting is the popularity of the specialized coffee drinks in our society.  People flock to one of dozens of corner coffee stores to buy the latest “Chunky-Monkey-Sola-Frappe” concoction or if they are more frugal, they will get a designer coffee machine for their home to whip up their favorite concoctions.  Now, I see nothing inherently wrong with this practice (I like stacking onions, pickles, lettuce, and ketchup on my hamburgers), what I find interesting is that by the time everything is said and done, one can barely taste the original coffee flavor—and for some, I know that is the objective.

Imagine a world, for a minute, where coffee is only ever served in this fashion (this should not be too hard as we are close to that now).  Imagine that you have never tasted “black” coffee, but that it has always been filled with the additives that we might see at a specialized coffee place.  And imagine that this is the way coffee has been served for several generations.  You may have heard stories of coffee being served black, but only in the old days when the people were so poor or backwards that they did not know any better.

Then imagine, one day, something changed in the world around you.  Imagine that you, and everyone around you, were served black coffee—no milk, no sweetener, just straight brewed coffee.  What do you imagine might be the response.  My guess is that most people would quickly spit it out in disgust.  They might curse what they were served and leave in search of “real coffee”—or at least coffee that was diluted with the sweeteners that people were used to.

I imagine, though, that there might be a few people (likely a very few), who will have something confirmed in their hearts.  Deep down, while they have been drinking all of the concoctions, they have sensed that there must be something more out there—that that there must be something stronger and more robust in this thing called coffee than what was being served.  The taste might not totally agree with them, but they know deep down that this coffee, black and strong, is what they have been looking for all along and for them to go back to anything else is something they have no desire to do.

It is imaginable, that the majority of the “coffee” drinkers would take offense to those who began serving and drinking black coffee.  They might see them as unsophisticated and seeking to undo great social advances.  It is imaginable that the majority might even legislate to try and restrict the “black coffee drinkers” from being able to proselytize and win others to drinking black coffee.  There might even be some that would go back to drinking the stylized coffees just to more comfortably fit into their communities.  There may even be some that would become secret black coffee drinkers, drinking the concoctions in social settings for the business contacts, but only drinking black coffee at home.  There would be some who would even go to the other extreme, gathering with other black coffee drinkers and living separate from non-black coffee drinkers to eliminate any outside influence upon their families.  Yet there would be some who, despite regulations and litigation against the black coffee establishments, would continue drinking their black coffee while remaining in society, being willing to have the honest discussion about coffee and to answer questions from the skeptical but curious who still are drinking the fancy mixes.

Okay, so what does this have to do with Christianity?  If you haven’t anticipated it, my suggestion is that we have a lot of “doctored up” Christianity in our culture today.  It may have at its most basic root, genuine Christian belief, but because true Christianity is vibrant, strong, and offensive to the broader culture, churches have been quick to dilute it with all kinds of sweeteners and additives to hide the taste.  C.S. Lewis called this kind of liberal Christianity as “Christianity in water”—something almost unrecognizable as Christianity because it has been so diluted.  It is no wonder, given our culture has strayed so much from “straight-black” Christianity (to keep the coffee analogy), that so many people react so violently against the preaching of the wrath to come and the need for Christians to take up their cross and die daily to this world.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ has been reduced to love and fuzzy feelings rather than about a mighty God who chose to take on flesh and live in the midst of wicked, fallen, and hateful men to redeem some of them to glory, bearing the judgment for their sins on his shoulder.  All we are, we owe to him.

Drinking this kind of “coffee” will earn you the title of being intolerant, unsophisticated, and backwards.  It requires a whole new view of the world.  But this is true Christianity.  Lewis argued that while most people would be reviled if they were confronted with real Christianity, there would be some who would find that it was what they were looking for all along and find the real stuff to be “red meat and strong beer.”  How many of our churches look more like Starbucks in their theology and social stance than like the strong, black coffee of the Scriptures.

No Nice Christians! August 22, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I don’t want any nice Christians in our church!  In fact, I don’t want to see nice Christians anywhere in the world!  Okay, now that I have your attention, let me explain what I mean.  The English word, “nice,” comes from the Latin word “nescire.”  Nescire has as its root word, “scio,” which is the verb, “to know.”  The “ne” prefix negates the term.  Thus, the term “nescire” means “to not know” or “to be ignorant.”  When the term originally came into Middle English, it meant the equivalent of “stupid.”  Over time, the usage of the term changed from being stupid to being unthreatening (someone who knows nothing is not a threat!) to being pleasant to be around.  Slowly, the term continued to change in its usage to the way we use the term today (pleasant or agreeable).

Thus, at least in the original sense of the word, I don’t want to see nice Christians in my congregation or even in the world.  I want Christians to know what they believe and why they believe what they believe.  I want them to be strong enough in what they do know to stand against those who would challenge their beliefs.  In fact, I would argue that part of the reason the American church is in the mess that it is in is because of nice Christians—at least in the original sense of the term.

God speaks of this very thing through the prophet Hosea.  In the fourth chapter of Hosea, God begins by lamenting that there is no knowledge of God in the land (Hosea 4:1) and as a result, the people’s lives are filled by swearing, lying, adultery, and bloodshed (Hosea 4:2).  And when we get to verse six of the same chapter, God makes a devastating statement: “My people are ruined because they are without knowledge.”  In other words, the knowledge of God (understanding that true knowledge comes through a relationship with God—Proverbs 1:7) is what keeps us healthy and whole as God’s people—it prevents us from utter ruin.

But look at what else Hosea records in this verse: “Because you have rejected knowledge, so I reject you from being a priest to me; and because you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.” This is covenantal language, as when God makes his promises to his people, he consistently makes them with their posterity (Genesis 12:7; 17:19; Deuteronomy 12:28; Acts 2:39), thus the threat of discipline is not only pronounced against God’s people, but also against the generations that will follow them.  In addition, Jesus uses similar language in Matthew 10:32-33, where he says that those who confess him, he will confess before his Father and those who deny him, he too will deny—all connected to the lack of knowledge of Him.

Now, it is fair to say that as Christians, we ought to be pleasant people to be around, but pleasant should not be our goal—loving should.  So nice really should not be something that we strive for as an attribute even in the modern usage of the term.  More importantly, though, we should strive to be knowledgeable in the things of God.  To cite the old King James language, “study to show yourselves approved” (2 Timothy 2:15) because the Scriptures are profitable to prepare you for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  Strive never to be nice—be loving, but also be knowledgeable in the Truth so that you will always be prepared to make a reasoned defense of the hope you have within you (1 Peter 3:15).

Inalienable Rights July 18, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

On July 4, 1776, 56 men gathered to sign a document that would swiftly plunge the 13 colonies that they represented into a war for independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was designed to be a clear statement of their justification for rebellion against the world’s dominant empire. This document, from the beginning, lays out these men’s fundamental presupposition: that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable rights guaranteed by mankind’s creator.

We hear this language a lot, but what does it mean that these things are “inalienable” and why did these men believe that such rights were guaranteed by their creator? To begin with, the word inalienable (also written as “unalienable” at times, these are just two spellings of the same word) means that these things can neither be taken away nor can they be given away. In other words, our forefathers understood that these three rights were part of our very makeup as human beings and there is nothing one could do to remove or sacrifice these rights. I can no more give up these rights than I can change my species.

So what makes these rights inalienable? The immediate answer, which comes right from the text of the Declaration of Independence, is that such rights come from and are guaranteed by God, our creator.  But why? In Genesis 1:26, God says: “Let us make man in our image and after our model.” This verse is the basis for what is known as the doctrine of the “Imago Dei,” or that mankind is made after the image of God. In other words, what is being taught is that human beings have some of the same attributes that God has. Certainly there are some attributes that belong to God alone: his infinity, his omniscience, etc…, but many traits we share. Thus, when we talk of God having intelligence, will, and a freedom to pursue his pleasure, we recognize that, as image bearers, the same language applies to us as well. Thus, the reason that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is because God has these rights in his very being.  For us to be human and in the image of God means then, that we too have these rights.  In turn, if a government or an institution seeks to usurp those rights or treats us as if we do not have those rights, they are no longer treating the people as if they are human.

As we celebrate the Fourth of July this year, it is worth remembering that the reason we have dignity and certain inalienable rights is because we are image bearers of God, yet what happens when a government rejects the very notion of God as foundational? What happens when a society is no longer taught the doctrines that undergird some of these ideas? Friends, while many of our founding fathers were not what we would define as evangelical Christians, all of them had a clear understanding that Biblical principles were an essential part of the foundation of a free society and if you lose those principles you will lose the society that the principles protect. Currently, the government, the ACLU, the teachers unions, and many other secular groups are working hard to eliminate God’s word from our classrooms and from our government.  What happens if a generation grows up thinking that either there is no God or that if there is a God, he has no relevance to life in society? As such takes place, we will lose those freedoms that our founding Fathers understood to be inalienable and grounded in the fact that we bear God’s image in our persons.

Pray for our nation. Pray that God will convert our political leaders who are not born-again Christians. But just as importantly, pray that those in influence will once again realize that if we are going to preserve freedom in America, we need to preserve the Biblical foundation for the rights that our founding fathers understood to be inalienable.  My fear is that people no longer desire to be “human” by God’s definition, but want to be human by their own definition—Man made in man’s own image.  If that is true, we will cease to be “human” and will lose the freedoms that we have.  As Christians, we have the knowledge of the truth—it is a shame that so many in the church keep silent about that truth.  Let us be bold and outspoken and let us call for reform to our very wicked government lest we be in a situation where Abraham must stand before God once again and say, “if I can find just 10 in America…”

Is the Bible Inerrant? July 04, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

One of the things we talk a lot about in church circles is the authority of scripture—that it is given by God and is designed to instruct us in every area of life.  One of the terms that we use when we speak of why the scriptures are authoritative is the term “inerrant.”  But I have found that while we often throw that term around, a lot of times, people aren’t entirely sure what the term means.

To be “inerrant” means far more than something has no errors in it.  When I was in school, I regularly had “error-free” mathematics tests; when I was in seminary, many of my Hebrew vocabulary tests were found to be “error-free,” but none of these were inerrant.  The word inerrant means not only that something has no errors, but that it is incapable of making an error.  The Oxford American Dictionary defines “inerrant” as “incapable of being wrong.”  One writer described the inerrancy of the scriptures in this way: “They are exempt from the liability to mistake.”

So why do we ascribe such a nature to the scriptures?  To begin with, they are God’s word, and if God is incapable of making a mistake, then his word also must be incapable of making a mistake—remembering that those who wrote down God’s word were “moved along by the Spirit” as a ship is blown by the wind filling its sails (2 Peter 1:21).  In the language of the Apostle Paul, scripture is exhaled by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and thus is the source of all training and guidance for the believer.  These are God’s words and not man’s and thus we ought to expect them to carry the authority and attributes of God’s character and not man’s character.

It is granted that there are many these days that doubt the inerrancy of scripture.  For some, it is a plain matter of unbelief.  For others it is misinformation or not having studied the evidence.  For others it is the fear that if one acknowledges these words to be the inerrant word of God then one must submit one’s life to scripture’s authority and demands, and such is true.  Regardless of the reason that people doubt, Scripture has withstood every test and challenge that has been leveled at it.

There is one other thing that is worth noting about such a book as we have.  Not only are the scriptures our only guide for faith and life, but they are the only book to guide us as we go to our deaths.  The Bible shows us Jesus Christ, our need for him as a redeemer, and his promise that if we trust in him in life, confessing him with our lips and believing in him in our hearts, he will confess us before the Father and guarantee us eternal life in paradise.  For the one who is facing death, this is the kind of knowledge that brings peace and enables them to leave this world with grace and not fear.  It is no wonder that the Scriptures are what most people ask to have read to them on their deathbeds, and not Shakespeare or Coleridge.  The Bible is the one book that transcends death because it was written by a God who died and rose again—promising that he would do the same for us.