How faithful a friend are you?

Faithful are the wounds of a friend,

But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. Proverbs 27:6 NASB

I sat in the office of the education minister at my church. He and I had only known each other for a few months, but had become fast friends. We share several common passions, ranging from music to God's Word and seeing men become true disciples of Christ.

As we talked, he asked me if he could speak plainly about some things that he'd seen in my life. I looked him in the eye and with a wink told him that I remembered reading "faithful are the wounds of a friend" somewhere.

He told me that he thought that I had an overall solid grasp of the Christian life and God's Word....but that he saw signs of arrogance in me. It hurt my pride to be criticized, but I knew it was true. Since he told me that, I've tried to be aware of it. Quicker to listen and slower to speak. More open to the words and ideas of others.

I'm very grateful to my friend and to God for bringing him into my life. But I can't help but ask if I'm as faithful to my friends. We have a responsibility to our brothers to speak the truth in love and help them identify the specks in their eyes. But I think most of us are AFRAID that they will lovingly do the same.

Would you let a fellow soldier go into battle if he didn't wear his armor correctly? Or if he consistently shot 3' high and 5' to the left, would you tell him? It is time for the men of Christ to put aside our FEAR and love our brothers enough to be faithful!

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

Modern day Balaams

As I was preparing to teach on Numbers 22-24, the lesson plan and commentary talked a great deal about the prophet Balaam.

Most of the discussion centered around whether or not Balaam was a good prophet who fell, or a false prophet who God used despite his pursuit of money & fame.

There are many modern day men who seem to me to be modern day Balaams. Those men who know the truth & the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet are more interested in their financial gain and the accolades of man. Men who wear the title of Reverend but haven't spoken the name of Jesus to anyone in years. Men who wear the title of Pastor yet speak only of being happy and fulfilled instead of becoming more like Jesus.

For myself, I pray that I never fall prey to the temptation of Balaam. May God never have to use a talking donkey to get me to see Him and obey Him!

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.2

A heart that burns

As my pastor was preaching a Christmas message from John 1 last night, I saw a note I had written a few years ago about the story of Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-32.

After the resurrection, Jesus appears to some of His disciples as a stranger as they were walking. He begins talking to them and joins them in a discussion about His death. Then in verse 27, He explained what Scripture told about Himself.

He joins them for dinner and as He blessed the bread and gave it to them, their eyes were opened and they recognized Him.

Verse 32 says "They said to one another, 'Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?' "

My note by that verse was a simple question: How can my heart burn if I don't listen to Him and read the Scriptures? All to often, I find that I am guilty of performing the Christian life instead of walking with my Master with a burning heart.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.2

What now shall we call ourselves?

As I begin arranging my thoughts for this post, the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and many other sources are all abuzz about the prospect of a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention. Almost immediately, the battle lines over the name change were drawn. Discussions for the name change, against the name change, and even if the SBC President had the authority to even form a committee to THINK about changing the name.

My first observation was that the more enthusiastic supporters of changing the name were young, and those vocal for keeping the name were 40 and older. Sadly, the simple age of the respondant looked to be highly important. Both offered solid reasons for their position:

FOR changing the name - One young Tweeter in NYC made the comment that when he mentions that he's from the SBC, the typical response is "good, then go back there". The SBC certainly has a reputation. Others made the comment that we cannot have a regional identity and reach the world.

AGAINST changing the name - I saw comments about the storied history of the SBC. I saw comments about how "we didn't pick you to change the name, just steer the ship". I saw comments about how "you can't MAKE us change our name!" You could make the case that the Southern Baptist Convention is three offenses for the price of one. The SBC does have a storied (and checkered) past. Formed over the issue of slavery, but long past that issue. We now work aggressively to fight "human trafficking" as we call it in today's PC terms. We DO have a regional identity, and Southerners are not universally liked. We talk funny, eat grits, still wave the Stars & Bars occassionally, and even create words like y'all! The term Baptist is divisive as well. With hate-filled groups like Westboro running around, the old reputations are not likely to go away. We're known for thumping our Bibles, clucking our tongues, being against everything that the world considers fun, and we're typically mad at or about SOMETHING. Then there's that wonderful word Convention. Every year we get together and argue about this resolution or that resolution. And then we go back home and act just like we did BEFORE the Convention, except that now we're building our case for NEXT years resolution.

And that brings me to what the Holy Spirit spoke to me about the name change. Will it really CHANGE anything? If we do change the name, we'll still be known for years as the guys who USED to be the SBC. One witty post suggested the name "The Baptists Formerly Known as Southern". But will the name change ACCOMPLISH anything? Sadly, I believe not. I see us as an episode of those tv shows about the people fighting the issue of hoarding. We keep everything we have, nothing gets thrown out and we just get crowded with more and more STUFF. More programs. More "ministries". More initiatives. We can whitewash the outside of the tomb, but we all know what is really inside.

One of my favorite books is Joel, I'm one of those weirdos who just LOVE the OT. So when someone Tweeted yesterday that what the church NEEDED was for every Christian to read and live out the book of Joel, I read it again last night. And Joel told the Israelites in verse 2:13, "Rend your heart, and not your garment". What if the MEMBERS of the SBC were to return to God with weeping and fasting and mourning over OUR INDIVIDUAL sins and experience personal revival? What if we showed the world what GOD wanted the SBC to look like? What if we cast off every old stereotype and preconceived notion of who we are, where we came from and why we're here? What if were were more concerned about being known as disciples of Jesus Christ than Southern Baptists?

He said WHAT!?!

A friend of mine recently posted this as his Facebook status: "I can't wait to get my family back!" I immediately responded with "Is there a ransom involved? Can I be the team sniper?" Another of his friends posted the comment "And with the help of Celebrate Recovery, you can!" A little joking went on, and I posted that I also could have taken it that he was going to exact some level of revenge on them, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So one single statement could be taken at least four different ways. Basically, there can be a HUGE difference between what is said, what is meant, and what is heard.

Scripture talks repeatedly about the tongue. It's referred to as a deadly poison, a fire and an unruly evil. Even words spoken carelessly can do harm, which is why we will be held accountable for every idle word.

As Christians, we have several responsibilities regarding speech, whether verbal, written or electronic. First, we must always speak the truth, but it should be said in love, not condemnation. Our words should point others to Jesus, not make ourselves look better than someone else. Second, we must be careful with our choices in how and what we speak. We must never condone sin, but that does not mean that we are called and charged to point out everyone else's specks. Listen to the Holy Spirit. HE knows the condition of the other person's heart and will guide you in what to say. As part of that, try to put yourself in their place. Imagine how you would want someone else to speak to you. Finally, eliminate any misunderstandings. If there are four ways that your sentence can be taken, confirm which way you meant it!

And lastly, if someone else has said something that hurt you, try to give THEM the benefit of the doubt! Love always thinks the best and hopes the best about someone else. Of you must assume anything, then assume that YOU heard incorrectly or misunderstood. Sure, there are people, and even Christians, who are slaves to their tongues and say things knowing that they will hurt. But I'm convinced that our own doubts, insecurities and fears cause much more damage than anything else.

Speak the truth, speak clearly, listen well!

What Is Your Flavor?

Have you ever had someone ask if you are "religious", or heard it said that someone "found religion"? What about those that are called religious "nuts" or "fanatics" or "zealots"? Followers of Jesus often make the statement that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion".

But do we even understand what a religion is? We use terms such as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. We say that these people believe this, or those people believe that. But is it possible to define religion based on those beliefs?

All religions have teachings about where we came from. Christians and Jews believe that God created the world and man, Hindus believe that Brahma is their creator, Muslims attribute their existence to Allah, and so forth.

From the previous list, we can also see that religions have beliefs about the existence of God or gods. Not to mention angels, demons, demi-gods, genies and spirits.

Next, religions have beliefs about Man's interaction with these beings.

On top of that, they all have some belief about what happens to us when we die. Heaven, hell, or reincarnation.

Finally, each religion has commandments, rules or guidelines for how to live, and speak to what we use as the source of morality. The Bible, the Torah, or the Koran.

To sum up, consider this definition of religion: An individual's beliefs regarding the origin of Man, the existence and attributes of supernatural beings, Man's interaction with those beings, the state of Man's existence after death, and the manner in which the individual should live their life.

Now, does the definition fit all examples? Muslim? Yes. Jew? Yes. Hindu? Yes? Darwinist? Yes.

Did you just do a double-take? That's right, Darwinism/secular humanism/atheism is a religion.

Origin of Man-check. Beliefs about supernatural beings-don't believe in them. Therefore no interaction. Existence after death-none. Rules for living-leave the planet in better shape than you found it for the benefit of all of the other accidental organisms on the planet, since they have just as much right to their existence as you do. The source for morality is popular opinion...get enough people to claim that driving drunk is moral, it suddenly IS moral.

I submit that EVERYONE has a religion. Some act more in line with what they SAY that they believe than others. But to try to remove any reference to Jesus while indoctrinating school children to secular humanism isn't freedom of religion. It isn't even freedom FROM religion. It's the clear case of making it the state religion.

Redefining Victory

What sources do you see as trustworthy? Newspapers? If so, which ones? Television? If so, some networks more than others? The internet? Do you trust all blogs and sites equally? What about Wikipedia?

If we are honest, any book, article, sermon or even this blogpost must be evaluated to determine what is fact and what is opinion. As a Christian, I know that the only exception to this is the Bible. The sixty-six books of the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate and without contradiction or error in the original languages. These words were not penned by the thought of man, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to recount the history of man's relationship with God and to share the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Recently, a book has been released that caused a considerable amount of controversy and discourse: "Love Wins", written by Rob Bell, the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Before the book was released, word spread that Bell's book espoused his belief that everyone goes to Heaven when they die. I was intrigued by panel discussions and interviews that talked about the book and its teachings. The doctrine described in the book was labeled as both "Universalism" and "Inclusivism". Universalism is the belief that "all roads lead to God", where Inclusivism is the belief that it is possible to experience salvation through Jesus without actually knowing who Jesus is or that you even needed salvation.

Since I'd previously watched two of Bell's Nooma videos and actually liked them, I didn't want to completely discount his book without investigation. So I bought the book and read it. In some ways, I was slightly relieved by what I read. In a nutshell, Bell is neither a Universalist nor an Inclusivist. While he affirms that salvation only comes through personal intentional acceptance of Jesus as Savior, he claims that we still have that opportunity even if we die without Christ and go to Hell. At any point, a lost sinner in punishment can bow his knee and claim Jesus as Lord, which removes him from Hell and delivers him into Heaven. He makes the point several times that we can have as much of Hell as we want, so his belief is that a lost person could choose to spend eternity in torment. If any label is applied to Bell, either “Extensionist” or “Infinitist” might be worthy attempts. While not as far from Biblical truth as Universalism or Inclusionism, his views are not founded or backed by Scripture, so they are still heresy.

That being said, I was just as troubled by the background of the book as its primary thesis. While described as “a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived”, it revealed more about Bell’s view of God than anything else. Bell repeatedly makes the inference that if God sends the lost to Hell who never heard of Jesus or who didn’t like “the Jesus” that was shared with them, then He is mean, cruel or vindictive. What the Bible SAYS about God is that He is our Creator, and He is righteous and holy. We were made for the purpose of knowing God and to have fellowship with Him. Adam and Eve lived in such a state until he chose sin over obedience. At that point, sin and death entered the world and became the nature of all men. Romans 3:23 tells us that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord”.  He is (as Bell over-emphasizes) love. He sent His Son to serve as a perfect, blameless sacrifice so that we could either choose to be restored to our intended relationship, or choose to follow our nature of sin and death. While no Christian should take pleasure or satisfaction in the eternal destination of the unrepentant, shirking away from Biblical truth does not honor God, nor does it help those who have not repented. It is, in fact, heresy. Bell’s claim of post-mortem salvation cannot stand under the light of Biblical examination. In short, we must see God as the Bible reveals Him, not remake Him into a portrayal that we can “accept” or “tolerate”.

Throughout “Love Wins”, Bell seems to read into the Scriptural text his own ideas, views and biases. This practice of eisegesis is apparent in several places in “Love Wins”.  

Bell uses cultural and/or historical arguments to suggest that first century Jews had an understanding of heaven as being more about a better life than about post-mortem existence. The argument that this was the motive of the mother of James and John when she asked for them to sit at the right and left hand of Christ doesn’t seem to be viable, since the other ten apostles clearly saw it as we have traditionally read the passage.

Another example of Bell reading into a story is the Luke 16 account of the rich man and Lazarus. According to his understanding of the story, the only reason that the rich man remains in torment is that he’s asking Abraham to allow Lazarus to bring him water, which means that he still hasn’t gotten rid of his prideful attitude. He wants Lazarus to serve him, so he hasn’t learned humility. Now, to be fair, taken in context with his view of possible infinite salvation opportunities, I can understand how he might see that. However, since Jesus tells this as a STORY and not a parable, it would be a perfect opportunity to make it clear that the rich man could repent and go to Heaven.

Bell repeatedly makes the observation that Christians either seem to be concerned about Heaven later, or suffering on Earth now, but rarely both. I’m honestly not sure if he was speaking against both extremes, but it felt like it was geared more towards those of us focused on evangelization. Again, given his views of salvation, you might be able to say that it’s more important to make sure kids have clean water than tell them about the Living Water. But his views are not Biblically accurate, and therefore both heretical and dangerous.  Indeed, a perfect situation would be to have clean water now and to enjoy the crystal sea later. But if I have to choose, I’d take a lifetime of dirty water now and live with the great promise of the crystal sea later.

My biggest concern about Bell’s “infinity” interpretation of salvation is its impact on evangelization! Just as Hyper-Calvinism leads to the discouragement of evangelization since God will save everyone who He has elected to save, will not the “infinite opportunity” interpretation lead to discourage evangelization and emphasize social activism? If you are convinced that everyone can repent their way out of Hell, doesn’t it make more sense to focus on making life better now?  “They’ll find out about Jesus when they die, and we’ll have clean water and no nukes today.” Intended or not, the logical and catastrophic end to Bell’s infinitism is the death knell of evangelism. He is attempting to re-write the “story” of Christ’s redemptive work into one that “feels” and “seems” better. The truth, however, is that God speaks of very serious consequences to those who spread a different Gospel than the one that the Bible reveals.

So where does this leave us? Scripture does not allow the latitude taken by Bell for such a view of infinite salvation opportunities.  While I do not doubt that he is a Christian, I do see an obvious departure from the Word of God in his theology.  And therein lays the dilemma: We MUST hold to the Biblical standard. Every teaching must be measured and tested, and then either accepted or rejected according to its agreement with God’s Word. Like the men of Berea in Acts 17, we cannot be lead astray by fanciful arguments. We must know and search the Scriptures. We must cast off every vain imagination and well packaged lie as the heresy it truly is.

I’ve never met Rob Bell. I think that I’d probably enjoy sharing a meal with him and discussing our views. I know I’d enjoy the opportunity to share with him..and with  you, that love DID win. Not in a pretty image or story, but in a bloody cross and an empty tomb! The ultimate victory over death, hell and the grave has been won, and you can share in the spoils of that triumph!

But despite Bell’s idea, your choice to join Christ in victory does not extend past your last breath. As Hebrews 4:7 says, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart”.