Church: It's not an amusement park

A few months ago, I came across this blog by a local pastor. As he stood at the pulpit (or in his case, sat on a stool) and preached the word of God, he looked out over the congregation with which God had blessed him, and he noted some things that troubled his soul, things that made him wonder if those who called upon the name of Christ understood the gravity of joining with the body to worship Almighty God. 


I appreciate his courage in writing these things to his church. I include some of them below with a few comments in blue as a challenge to you and a challenge to me that, as you enter into worship in 2012, we might take a few of these to heart:

1. Put your clock and calendar on hold on Sunday. Don't hold God to the clock. Unless there's an emergency, you should never leave a service early. We rush around all week long, let's rest in the Lord on Sunday. (Might I add, go to Sunday school, too? The church is for the strengthening and building up of the body. Set your alarm and take advantage. As a Christian, don't use Sunday as your sleep-in day.)

2. GIve yourself time. Before you go to bed on Saturday night, plan to leave on time on Sunday morning. Don't start a day meant to be focused on Him, by a mad rush of berating your children and breaking the speed limit. (Yep. What he said.)

3. Unless you're a doctor or pilot, leave your cell phone in the car. Nobody is that stinking important. Take a break and bring in a paper Bible; actually turn the pages. (We are going more and more to Nooks, Kindles, and iPhones, so the paper Bible is a preference. The cell phone, though--turn it off, or at least to silent. Can you think of a text you must get during the service that trumps the word of God?)

4. Be on time. Being punctual is just being considerate of someone else's schedule. At Colonial, we start on time and when people drag in for the next 10 minutes, it creates a distraction. Worship involves learning but it also involves all of the life of the body of Christ. The emotional experience of singing and worship is as vital to us as the intellectual experience of learning and the volitional experience of obeying. Be in your seat when the service begins. (The time thing again. Is time important? You bet. Does your boss expect you to be on time? If you have an appointment with a doctor or plumber, do you expect them to be on time? Does it frustrate you when they're not? Time is a valuable commodity and how you use it shows what you believe is important. That's just the way it is.)

5. Be respectful of others if you have a crying child. A continual whining child becomes a constant distraction for others and frustration for the teacher who is grasping to keep everyone's attention. We have tons of dedicated spaces with TV's and live feed of the service. (Not all churches do, but most do have nurseries. Just a question of courtesy. Very thankful for the moms in our church who care for their kids and for the body in this manner.)

----- 

10. Don't, don't, don't CLIP YOUR FINGERNAILS. (Wow. Really? People do this during worship?)

11. If you insist in bringing a child to the adult service, they must behave. The purpose of bringing children into an adult environment, is to train them in adult ways. Playing a computer game defeats the purpose as well as being disrespectful. It also teaches a child to be irreverent. Our children's environments are the greatest in the city if not the entire region.Use them. (It's all part of training up your child (Proverbs 22:6), something fewer and fewer parents do in our country. In an MTV generation, rare is the child who is taught to sit and pay attention for longer than three minutes at a pop. Train your child to be such a person.)

12. Respect the building. Would you spit your partially chewed mints on the carpets of the White House? If you see a piece of trash, pick it up. When you use the restrooms, wipe down the counters and mirrors. Habits build character. (The church facilities are your facilities. It breaks my heart when we find graffiti in bathrooms or worse. Church is not the building, but the building has been given us by God for the ministry of the church. The church is the people. How we steward that which God has given us (the building) says a lot about us and what we think of God's provision for us).

(Taken from "Church Etiquette," by Terry Chapman)

Would you endure a few of my own?


13. Hold it. No doubt a few folks have bladder problems and require trips to the commode at thirty minute intervals. That's not most of us. That's not most kids either.  How do I know this? Because they can sit through a movie and they can sit through a couple of hours of school and they can play outside for a couple of hours and never think of it. Try this: go before the service and endure the hour or hour and a half. Your getting up and going out is a distraction to others. Most kids don't need to go. They just want to get up and move. That's normal. Discipline them to sit for a few more minutes. Please.


14. Nursery ≠ Infirmary. If your child has the sniffles or a cough, one parent should stay home with that child rather than starting a round of Flu Tag among the entire church. Really, that goes for sick parents and teens, too. It's not an excuse to ditch church but a loving act to not subject others to the misery you are enduring.


Some may think those cold and unfeeling. I would argue the opposite. They might be cold and unfeeling to you because you feel your toes being crunched, but they really exhibit a love and concern for your brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not about us. It's not about me. It's about preparing our hearts to gather together and worship the living God.


See you Sunday!

QotD: Bounds & "programs"

"We are constantly on a stretch, if not on a strain, to devise new methods, new organizations to advance the Church and secure enlargement and efficiency for the gospel.  This trend of the day has a tendency to lose sight of the man or sink the man in the plan or organization.  God's plan is to make much of the man, far more of him than of anything else.  Men are God's method.  What the church needs today is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use--men of prayer, men mighty in prayer.  The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods but through men.  He does not come on machinery but on men.  He does not anoint plans but men--men of prayer."

~ E. M. Bounds

The silenced pulpit

The one place folks should expect to go and get a clear barometric reading on the political scene is the church, but for fear of losing their tax-exempt status, most churches have been bludgeoned into a pledge of silence over issues political.

Constitutionally, this should NOT be so, and in actuality it is not so.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the white-hat version of the ACLU, has done the leg-work for pastors and church members for determining what you really can and cannot do in church.  You'd be surprised.  This link will take you to a wealth of information for ensuring your church keeps its people informed and does not run afoul of the ever-growing Big Brother.

The failure of "Christianity"

Once again the Roman Catholic church finds itself up to its clerical collar amidst a flood of institutional sexual abuse.  As a victim of this torrent, I'll not use silly terms like "alleged" or "allegations."  It is very real.  Because of the moral failings of many within clerical Catholicism, many who have never looked into Christianity have ample reason to never do so.

Please, no spears.  My language in the preceding paragraph makes plain that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles.  It also does not absolve Protestant pastors of similar abuses.  Do you remember Ted Haggard?  All such failures within that which calls itself "the Church" or a "church" becomes another check against Christianity for those who have never tried it.

The repugnance that many show toward all things Christian stems not only from its failures.  This past summer, my eldest son had the opportunity to witness in the front row the heresy that is Benny Hinn.  My son attended because he was doing mission work in Kenya and with the talons of the "Prosperity Gospel" embedded within impoverished Africa, he wanted to see it first hand.  What did he find? 
You can read more about Hinn and his ilk through my son's posts here, here, here, here, here and here.  My son is not the only one from within the church railing againt the peddlers of prosperity.  John MacArthur, one of our nation's finest expositors of the Bible, speaks with great passion against that which masquerades as part of the church in a lengthy article here.

"To go to Uganda and see Benny Hinn and Company steal roughly $800,000 from the poorest people in the world made me furious, and still does. Even more heartbreaking was how ready these people were to give their money under the lie that God would return to them a hundred times what they had given."

Who's going to want to become part of a community where the successes pillage impoverished peoples and where the failures take horrifying liberties with those entrusted to their care?  Were I atheist or agnostic today, I don't know that Christianity would be where I would turn if all I knew of it consisted of pedophiles and used-car salesmen, not that strapping C4 to one's chest seems a much better worldview.

Here's where getting back to basics comes in.

When assessing what Christianity has brought to the world in terms of charity, hospitals, education, civilization, stability and rule of law, it has much to commend it.  Even those things are superficial.  From what do these things come?  Now we're getting somewhere.  What do the founding documents say?  How does the Bible compare to those who so grotesquely misrepresent it?

Biblically, sexual immorality has no place among those who call themselves Christians (Matthew 5:27-30, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20).  How does the Bible speak of those who falsely teach what God has said?  Paul suggests that such folks are accursed.  So riled did this get the preacher that he spit it out twice (Galatians 1:6-10).  Jesus referred to them as false prophets and likened them to wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15, 20), suggesting that many will believe themselves to be part of the church ("Lord, Lord") but will find that on the Day of Judgment, Jesus did not know them (vv. 21-23).

So why the disparity between the pure teaching of the Bible and what has become of the Church today?  Two key issues.  One would be entropy.  Whoa, hey, don't go physics on me!  Sorry.  We live in a fallen world.  Sin holds sway.  That natural state of man is to move further and further away from God's designs and to kick all the harder against God's rules.  The Bible makes plain that becoming a Christian does not suddenly make one pure in heart never to sin again.  It does give the believer the power NOW to overcome sin in their lives.  That's why Paul kicks the church at Rome with such passion to live their lives as slaves to righteousness vice slaves to sin (Romans 6).  Whereas before Christ, a person cannot be expected to live in a godly fashion (Romans 3:10-18), one whose life has been bought from the pit by the blood of Jesus Christ ought to live their lives in devoted obedience to the One who saved them (Romans 12:1-2).

The second reason the Church today bears little resemblence to its ancestors is because it no longer holds to the Word of Truth that birthed it.  Paul warned against those creeping into the church and distorting its message (2 Timothy 3:1-9, esp. vv. 6-9).  He later prompted Timothy in the same letter to be careful to preach the word properly (4:1-4).  Peter also testified to the importance of the written word of God (2 Peter 1:16-21).  I referenced the infection of the Church that began in Europe under the guise of Higher Criticism in my last post.  Through nothing much more than whim, scholars began to declare the Bible as unreliable with regard to history and unreliable concerning things supernatural.  If the Bible is false and is not authoritative, then Jesus becomes anything we want him to be.  To Benny Hinn, he's a cash cow.  To pedophile priests, he's the condoner of their sin.  After all, God is love, right?

When the Church fails to fight internally against the sin of a fallen world and when it rejects the only standard of truth by which it can right itself, it becomes irrelevant to a world in desperate need of salvation.  The lost reject the Christ, the only avenue for wholeness, because his ambassadors have failed at their task.

To those who have never dipped their big toe into Christianity, please do not think you know the Christ because a few of those who claim to be his followers have corrupted his image and misrepresented him.  Go to the source of Christianity.  Go to the Christ made known to the world today in the pages of the Bible.

It is the Easter season after all.  Taste and see that the Lord is good.  And so is his church...as it honors him.

Answering the skeptic

My company’s Christmas party – yes, they still call it that – was a nice event. I did not, though, have the greatest of times. A very bright woman at my table made a few comments disparaging the veracity and message of Christianity. I felt it necessary, with as much grace as I could muster considering the festive atmosphere, to provide her evidence for the truthfulness of God’s word and the authenticity of its message.

With every support I erected, she would counter with another argument, factoid, or “what about,” a scenario that would seem to invalidate Christianity in the mind of any thinking person. Israel’s annihilation of the Canaanites is a favorite by which the sophisticate feels free to loathe the God of the Bible.

Anyway, the conversation went on. And on. I don’t feel I upheld the grace of the Christmas message. And I know I didn’t sway the mind of the skeptic.

As the sun’s rotation has moved me further from that day, the conversation continues to haunt me. Yes, I consider my manner. Yes, I consider what I might have said. More than that, I consider the skeptic.

Prior to the time of the Civil War, few in the Western world questioned the veracity or the authenticity of the Bible. Even the “skeptics” of the Revolutionary era, the Jefferson’s, Madison’s and Franklin’s, held a higher view of the Bible than did the skeptic across my table. What has happened? What has brought us to this post-biblical age?

I know the history. I’m familiar with the dismantling of the Bible that began in Europe in the nineteenth century. I also know the history of the men who have successfully dismantled the argumentation of the biblical skeptics. I know the decay and rot within Christendom as denominations have embraced a neutered Scripture. I am also aware of those who continue to hold a high view of God’s word and the power He has to redeem and restore.

Still, the serpent has injected his poison. Most Protestants and many Catholics do not believe that the entirety of Scripture is the word of God nor do they believe it to be true. But many do not know why they believe that. To most, the Church has become suspect; they have an axe to grind or something to hide from the masses. And the feeling continues that if the Church is corrupt, its source-text must be false, too. Any PhD to support that only lends credibility to the argument despite the evidence to the contrary.

An example. During the Christmas party debate, I mentioned fulfilled prophecy as evidence for the unique and amazing nature of the Bible. Taking the season in hand, the skeptic seized the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 which states, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” She noted, and rightfully so, that the Hebrew word for virgin is the same word for young woman or woman of marrying age not necessarily meaning virgin. Still, that Hebrew word is translated as virgin most of the time in the Old Testament and in most translations. Beyond that, a young woman of marrying age if so referenced in the Old Testament era was, unlike our day, presumed to be a virgin. Consider the two synonymous.

The virgin birth is significant for deity to become humanity. Protestants and Catholics differ as to its theological and Christological significance (we can talk about that through another medium if you’d like). Anyway, Matthew in writing to a predominantly Jewish audience cites the Isaiah prophecy, a messianic prophecy, to indicate the identity of the child. Writing in Greek, Matthew uses the specific word virgin in translating the Isaiah prophecy.

Or he quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament done after Alexander the Great Hellenized the world. Seems the Jews, with no axe to grind, translated that troublesome verse in Isaiah 7 as virgin, too.

The point? While many will cite the corruption of the Bible by saying the passage in Isaiah could be translated young woman, it would be textually wrong to do so for a myriad of reasons. This is true for many of the questions and problems skeptics have with the Bible and Christianity.

For the skeptic, there will always be another question.  There will always be the men and women of letters to support their position.  And yet as 2010 dawns, G. K. Chesterton’s challenge to the skeptic remains as powerful as ever. “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Episcopalian pablum

At their annual meeting, the Episcopal Church (in America. The African Episcopal Church wants nothing to do with the American variety) has moved toward full recognition of homosexual marriage and the ordination of homosexual bishops (here).

This isn't surprising really. The same thing is going down in the Lutheran Church as well (how Martin Luther would shudder to see what's become of the denomination that donned his name). Why are formerly mainline denominations, denominations that are losing membership in droves, embracing as normal conduct that for centuries they rightly labeled sin?

Here's your challenge du jour. First, set aside what you think. Second, go to the Bible and see what it has to say about homosexual conduct. If it gives such behavior a pass, the Episcopal Church is good to go. If it labels such conduct as sin (i.e. rebellion against what God has made plain), then we get to the third part of the challenge. Does the Bible indicate that ordination and a warm embrace are what the church should offer those who practice sin or should the church take a different tack?

Before you label me a homophobe, this indictment would hold for any church that endorses any sinful conduct (gossip, gluttony, and girl-watching are three that come to mind that the church has been mostly silent on, too). But then, the Episcopal Church, et al, is not encouraging a big, wet kiss for those who gorge at the local Luby's.

The Church. Again.

I still can't get over that George Tiller was serving as an usher in his church. Is that some kind of poor-taste joke?

Imagine Ted Bundy greeting you at the door of Bates Baptist Church. "Um, isn't that the mass-murderer?" you whisper to the little old lady near the door.

"Oh, yeah, but hey, we don't judge folks here for what they do on their own time," she demures.

In case it's been a couple of weeks since you've read Revelation 2 & 3, Jesus Christ blasts a number of churches for not dealing with sin in their midst. Likewise, Paul rails upon the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5) for its tolerance of that for which God is most intolerant. Paul's other letters, Peter's letters, and John's letters all call for the church to police itself. Jesus, in Matthew 18, discusses how individuals should handle situations where someone sins against them. Shrug it off as just personal preference, boys will be boys? No. Confrontation must come. Sin must be named "sin."

So what's up in the American church? Indictment #1 rests upon the shepherds, the pastors who teach and proclaim that which the Bible (hence God) does not teach and proclaim. Taxes, international relations, use of the military, abortion, homosexual "marriage," infrastructure, medicare, social security, etc., etc., etc. are all moral issues. Pastors must provide their flocks with a biblical foundation for understanding these issues. When they don't or when they distort or deny what the Bible plainly states, they abdicate an enormous God-given responsibility.

But indictment #2 anchors to the laps of those sitting in the apathetic pews. We suck in the heresy faster than a six-pound bass slurps up a jigged-worm, and it hooks us to our demise. In the small town of Berea, Macedonia, Luke commended the folks for not taking Paul's word for gospel until they cross-checked it against what the Scriptures actually said! John's first letter repeats over and over, "Obey." He goes so far as to equate our love of God with obedience...but then so did Christ. How can one obey if one has no clue what to obey? How can we hold our pastors accountable if we have do not know what God's word says?

So what about your church? What's your pastor preaching? This isn't a call for a witch hunt, but when you have folks living in blatant contradiction to the Word of Truth, for their sake and the sake of their soul, call them on it...in love...with a more scrutinizing eye toward the same sin in your own life. The point behind biblical confrontation is restoration to Christ. The weak supporting the weak through the endless power of Christ.

We have a responsibility to one another. No man is an island. He's not.

We can't bury our head in the pillow and hope we'll wake up to a new morning. Our usher is cutting up babies.

The ebb, Part II

When last we met, I shared that I believe the increased irreligion in America can be attributed to our untethering ourselves from the Bible. One of the creepiest and most honest commentaries on the atrophy of religion in America comes from Cathy Lynn Grossman, a USA Today columnist. After pondering the comments of the ARIS study that highlit the spiritual slide, she noted:

"The researchers described Americans as preferring their religion without particulars. No requirements for moral action. No restraints on personal pleasures. Few communal obligations."

I noted (here) that Michael Spencer also believes that this that spiritual erosion within evangelical America stems from their increased distaste for orthodoxy. He believes it will only get worse, that evangelicalism will fade into the night, but he suggests another major reason with which I disagree.

Point #2 (his first): Political involvement has harmed the evangelical church. Many Christians believe that political involvement soils the gospel message. Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and Christian, agrees. In a 2008 column, Thomas asserts:

"Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

"The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?"

Thomas, a man passionate and outspoken about politics, believes that the only way to bring about real change is through the heart and not through law. And he's right.

But law is not for the compliant and obedient. Law is not for the righteous. Law is for the lawless. If our laws are not lawful in themselves, then we begin to call good that which is actually corrupt. For this reason, I believe Christians must not mute their voices in the political arena. Track with me a moment.

The chief discussion bandied about following the whuppin' the Dems gave the Reps in November went like this, "What does the Republican part have to do to regain ... (fill in the blank)?" The House. The Senate. The White House. Etc. Talking heads argued for returning to Reagan. Some spoke of distancing themselves from the Religious Right. Others thought fiscal conservatism would have won the day.

But notice, the chief end argued was a return to power. This is the thing that sticks in Cal's craw. This is the thing that has caused many a Christian to compromise his convictions.

Here's the deal: It doesn't matter if Republicans regain the White House in my lifetime. I don't care if they never see a majority in the House or the Senate. What matters is God's honor. If his principles are forsaken, it matters not who wins because we will be traveling a path destined for failure (despite possible short-term successes).

It gets down to rule of law, a concept B. Obama speaks of with great reverence (as he does most things), but something for which he appears to have no understanding. Is there an immutable bedrock upon which law is founded and against which all other law must be judged? The Founders seemed to think so. You've heard it before, "We are endowed by Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

The Founders had no reticence acknowledging God as the source of human right. To them, it was fundamental and foundational to our nation's establishment. Law makes a moral judgment. It's intent, according to Fredric Bastiat, is to bring to bear the collective force of society for the protection of the God-given rights of the citizen.

Here is the beauty of the America built by the brilliant boys of the late 18th century. While founded upon God's principles, the godless could still abide within that nation, reap the benefits of that nation, and yet never once bow the knee to the God honored by its law. Godly principles do not mandate worship of God. At the same time, adherence to God's directives, since, by the way, he's the guy who created us and knows best how we work, brings about blessed civilization.

The greatest nations regarding prosperity and freedom that the world has ever known, the United States and Israel, were those which founded their civilization upon such principles.

Why on earth should the Christian be silent in the political realm when he is permitted to have a voice? Who to speak out on behalf of the innocent (abortion, embryonic stem cell research)? Who to stand against the erosion of the created social structure (homosexual marriage)? Who will indict the government for coercive stealing (illegal plunder through taxation and social programs)? Who has the moral authority but the one who stands on the unwavering unchanging principles of God, principles that flow from God's very nature?

What makes a principle repugnant simply because someone avers that it comes from God? The Christian did not received a vision in the night. He is anchored in the most extraordinary book in history.

So it doesn't matter if such principles win a majority. They are right and must be advocated. Pragmatism and utilitarianism lead to compromise to bring about the "best" end, but the God who created us is as concerned about the means as he is about the end.

If the Church is an embarrassment to both political parties, so be it. It must not stand by as the churches did while human beings were bought and sold in the marketplace. It must not fiddle while people groups are imprisoned, butchered, and burned for simply being from a particular heritage.

The Church must stand. The Church must speak. Come what may.

The ebb of Christianity's tide in America, Part I

Pick a news website, any news website, and with a few key strokes you'll find some article on the recent American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). What the articles will tell you is that Christianity is dying in America (USA Today has a whole smorgasbord of giddy articles). What the articles won't tell you is that most evangelical denominations and Roman Catholics have increased their total numbers, but against the total population, the percentage of religious proclaimers has dwindled.

Okay. I didn't need a survey to point out that which comes alive in spades anytime I look for a parking spot at the local mall. Or when I get out of my car, walk to the door, and have the person who enters in front of me let the door shut in my face.

Or on my way home, I see it when the tiny dot in my review mirror becomes a streaking SUV with a cell-phone-occupied driver who has to pass as many drivers as he can before entering the road construction and grinding to a halt only to get home 37 seconds faster than if he'd merely merged where he had been in the flow of traffic.

Or when I boot up the computer to dip into Drudge, Fox or CNN and see it in vomitous color, live from Washington DC.

No, it doesn't take a doctorate in theology to determine we've stiff-armed our Deity.

Michael Spencer tackled this topic in a recent essay, examining evangelical Christianity specifically (here). He believes that the evangelical Church in America will shrivel and die in what remains of century twenty-one. He gives a few peripheral reasons, but two of them deserve attention, one with which I agree , the other with which I don't. I'll deal with them in separate posts for the sake of size (and your time).

Point #1 (his second): Abandoning orthodoxy has hobbled the church. Christ Himself made it clear. You build on the rock, your house stands. Build in the goo, and all bets are off. Higher criticism birthed in Germany in the 19th century infected the Church in America in the twentieth. It gutted the Bible. Professors started staring over their reading glasses and telling the rabble that they just couldn't understand the Bible and much of it was suspect anyway. Problem was, they had no basis for such assertions. The archaeological evidence and the manuscript evidence (ancient copies of Scripture) pointed to a Bible as accurate as the day it left the writers' pens. The internal evidence points to the fact that what the writers recorded was the very word of God.

This increasing irreverence for the Bible has led to the increasing impotence in mainline denominations in America. Lutheranism and Methodism are all but dead. Few strong remnants remain. Those that do have clung tenaciously to the veracity of God's word. Evangelicalism grew strong in the 1900's because of a for God that grew out of knowing him in and through his word. That was the beautiful fruit of the Protestant Reformation. Man could read the Bible himself. As the evangelical church abandoned that biblical foundation and sought passion and relationship through entertainment-worship or through experience, they grew anemic.

When it's my opinion versus yours, religion becomes a matter of choice, but when the creature seeks to know the Creator through what the Creator has revealed, choice evaporates. We either choose to bow the knee or go our own way.

You want to know God? He's revealed himself in his word and in the Word, Jesus Christ. You start getting off that foundation, you end up creating God in your own image. Not a good idea.

Tomorrow: Church and politics - for good or ill?

Christians & politics

Why can't pastors endorse candidates from the pulpit?

Chew upon that question for a bit. Please. In your own mind, formulate a biblical and/or constitutional reason that pastors cannot or should not discuss politics and government from the pulpit. Don't read on just yet.

What do you think? Ah, but more important, what do you know?

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the conservative version of the ACLU, has encouraged pastors to challenge a 1954 law which stated that non-profits could not endorse politically. It seems that congress, at the impetus of then Congressman Lyndon Baines Johnson, made a law abridging the free exercise of religion by determing what a pastor could and could not say. Church's had been non-profits long before this law; LBJ's twist simply curtailed what could and could not be said.

The Constitution was never intended to limit civil freedoms but to limit government excesses. Amendment one in the Bill of Rights specifically targeted Congress about making laws that restricted or limited religion. Period.

The ADF gave the push to pastors to preach away in the face of an unconstitutional law, and that they would cover any legal consequences.

Why can't pastors weigh candidates from the pulpit in the scales of biblical truth? They can. And biblically speaking, they must. Why haven't they? Fear that their tax-exempt status would be revoked. The IRS specifically forbids the attempt to "influence legislation" and to "intervene in political campaigns." The IRS pamphlet (and thus the law) specifically states:

...(P)ublic statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

The point behind church tax-exemption is two-fold. First, it's income is not for profit. It is to sustain the pastorate and to further the ministry. For the Christian, it is to glorify God. Because no one seeks wealth through the church (perfect world), the government has not taxed the church.

The second reason is more important. If the church is not beholden to the state in its taxation, the church remains free and unencumbered to speak freely and against the state if necessary. Our Founders saw what happened when the state intervened in the Church of England; it became a puppet and a mouthpiece for the government, neutered of all ability to speak against it. In recent past, the impotence of most churches during World War II evidences the dangers of churches beholden to the state.

In the last century, as the distortion of "separation between church and state" began to metastasize, the state began to muzzle the church. Ironically, it was in 1934 that Congress first stated that the church could not "influence legislation."

Because the church is the chief organization by which the state is held morally accountable, it's imperative in our nation and by its Constitution that churches be free to comment on all aspects of life.

It's not surprising that the secular would attempt to mute the church's microphone, but it's discouraging when it comes from within the church. Earlier this week, Cal Thomas wrote a piece titled "Pulpit Bullies" where he took pastors and the ADF to task for preaching the political. Sadly, he takes very important parts of the Bible out of context. Certainly, the Christian is to obey government...as long as government does not counter God's word. When that occurs (i.e. muzzling the pastor), the Christian must decide whether they will obey God or man (Acts 4:18-20, 5:29).

Alan Sears gives a much better look at the Christian and politics in his piece "When government gets a hold of our churches" Here's a taste.

"Shouldn’t a group devoted to the “separation of church and state” want the IRS kept out of places of worship? Shouldn’t a group dedicated to civil liberties want a stake in securing the freedom of religious leaders to speak freely? The fact that groups like AU (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) and the ACLU won’t support this Pulpit Initiative says much more about their agenda than the intent of ADF."

Please don't believe that pastors must be silent about politics. It's not biblical and it's not constitutional. Encourage your pastor and your parishioners to speak!

**Note: My pastor's been covering the distinctives of our denomination. His last two Wednesday night messages (here and here) have covered this very issue. A nutritious listen!

Ponderances

There's very little so fine as golf with your sons...or golf with your father.

Labels. Got a tip-off of something goofy on B. Obama's web-site. Went there and confirmed it. Across the top of the site, the Senator has a header titled "People" and that beast is subdivided a couple of dozen ways. The factions just keep on coming. What happened to Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American?" But the leftists are playing Twister with the language again giving another shot in the arm to political correctness (by the way, we need a new, spiffier term for "political correctness." Any takers?). It seems that Native American (formerly known as "Indian" or "American Indian"), has been replaced by...are you ready?.."First Americans." Ain't that sweet?

Here's an observation by Jay Nordlinger (I'll paste it as he wrote it). An interesting observation about Truth in advertising:

"Was on the streets of New York the other day (as pretty much every day). And these people, spaced about 20 yards apart, were giving away tiny little granola bars. “Free granola bar?” they were saying. “Free granola bar?” And with the bar came a smallish, glossy card, advertising a church.

"Pretty pathetic, I thought: using a miniature granola bar to sell salvation. Almost deceptive. Shouldn’t salvation be the main event? And shouldn’t these folks have enough confidence in their product?"

Israel's president, Ehud Ohlmert, is stepping down. What's next?

Who's watching the watchers? More fun with California and education. The state (police state?) of California has found biblical education incompatible with state education. El-hi diplomas garnered through studies in curricula like Bob Jones and Abeka have been deemed deficient for state university core admissions requirements that you scored 1500 on the SAT notwithstanding. Not surprising, this is in the courts. Read the insanity here.

Drudge has a link stating five athletes have failed gender tests in Beijing and the Olympics haven't even started yet. They should have studied.

For those who know me, you'll know why I was touched by the CNN headline: "Will pond scum become the new oil?" *sniff, tear*

Did you ever think you'd get giddy seeing gas drop to $3.69? Yikes.

And to leave on a happy note, I count six blessings in the picture below. See how many you can find:

The "Wright" question

Barack Obama has caught more flak than a B-29 over Ploesti over his association with Jeremiah Wright (I can't bring myself to use the title "Reverend" with such). If that wasn't bad enough, Father Michael Pfleger of a black, liberation-theology Catholic Church continued the stream of vitriol against America and sent the Illinois senator scrambling for media cover once again.

The onslaught could not be avoided. Obama finally jettisoned his membership in the church whose doctrines you by this time know full well. It is interesting to note that he resigned the membership not because of what Wright or Pfleger preached but because he did not want to be a further distraction to the church. He doesn't denounce the church or its doctrine at all.

While that's an eye-popper worthy of a post all by its lonesome, that's not my subject. Here's what's rattled my cage these these last three months: the media and most of America have accused these orators (they're not preachers) of bigotry and treason, of hate-speech and coddling terror. The one thing they've not been accused of, at least in print, is being heretical.

You see, media opinion is not the standard. Public opinion is another poor yardstick (lemmings, anyone?). What matters is the ultimate standard, the unchanging, inspired, inerrant Word of truth, the Bible. Are these gentlemen adhering to God's word. If they are (I actually typed that with a straight face), then God is pleased. If they aren't, then God is way distressed.

In post-Christian Americana, in the land of engorged tolerance, we have no viable reason to target Wright and Pfleger other than we don't like what they're saying. If God's word is true, unchanging and unalterable, then we can say with absolute clarity that these two men are fruit loops.

That's why Obama should have shunned them...20 years ago!!

Why?

As you can see from the post beneath this one, good families are facing unspeakable horrors. To a lesser degree (perhaps not so much lesser to the parents), our tiny church is facing sudden and unforeseen storms as well.

• A baby boy has had an unbreakable fever. Not being able to find a vein in his arms, the IV was fastened to his scalp.
• An eleven year old girl fainted. She's in a different hospital than the baby boy.
• My eighteen-year old son has been hospitalized with a severe intestinal blockage and may be facing surgery.
• Relationships are being buffeted on every side.

Then Job answered the LORD and said:

“I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’

“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.

Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

Job 42:1-6

Why? I still don't know. What I do know? God is good.

"I will praise you in the storm..."

Six-day creation: What's the big deal?

In a recent column in World Magazine, Andree Seu recalled the turning point at Harvard University (I'd link the article but it costs to be a member of World's web-site unless you already get their magazine. I can e-mail you the article directly and legally if you'd like to read it. Just let me know).

Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were pitted against two Boston pastors, Charles Chauncey and Jonathan Mayhew in the direction the venerable university would take. The former were concerned about the drift of secularism the university was taking. The latter felt the former were too ecstatic in their theological views and that their should "be freedom of inquiry and judgment in religious matters."

Harvard, the university founded to create missionaries for America, followed the direction of Chauncey and Mayhew and the rest is history. It's known within Christendom as "The Infidelity."

When we read Genesis one and two, why do we buck against what it says? If you ask a child unindoctrinated by evolutionary science to read Genesis chapter 1, you'll either get "six regular days" or "can I have peanut butter and jelly for lunch?" So to quote the movie Grinch, "What is the deal?!?"

Part of it, certainly, is the barrage of evolutionary science each one of us has received from the cradle to the present. We will follow the drift of Chauncey and Mayhew and side with the tides of evolutionary science.

I can hear the hue and cry now about how all science is not atheistic. I know and I agree. But many of the assumptions of science, that the universe is a closed and static system, are just that, assumptions. Has the speed of light been constant from the creation? That is not known (by science), but that is what is assumed. The Bible seems to indicate light before there were light-producers. Has the world gone on in exactly the same fashion since its birth? That is not known (by science), but that is what is assumed. The Bible seems to indicate that the world before chapter three and the world before chapter six of Genesis was vastly different than the world that came out of those two chapters.

There are scientific observations that point to a young earth that coincide quite nicely with Genesis, but those are wholly rejected by the scientific community as religiously-driven instead of "objectively-driven" science. Scientists who have observed evidence for a young earth keep to themselves in the intolerant halls of academia or are relegated to the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, or similar organizations. They are dismissed as quacks.

So when confronted with an apparent contradiction between observation or scientific theory and the Bible, what do we do? Please don't go "Gallileo" on me either, because the church was using some lousy biblical hermeneutics (science of biblical interpretation) sprinkled with the humanistic ideas of the Greek philosophers when they made him recant his teaching. Galileo showed where the Bible actually supported his position.

Could I be making the same mistake? I don't think so. The medieval church erroneously used poetic language sections of the Bible to conclude that the sun went around the earth. Genesis 1 & 2 are historic narrative just like the rest of Genesis. It is the most objective language outside mathematics you could use. There is very little in Genesis that requires deep biblical scholarship to understand.

Back to my question: how do we handle apparent contradictions? Our only options are a) conform the Bible to modern scientific theories, b) reject the historic accuracy of sections of the Bible, c) hold to the Bible and reject modern science, or d) hold to the Bible and trust that the plain truth from the general revelation (nature) will not clash with the plain truth from the special revelation (the Bible).

Many churches have followed the way of Chauncey and Mayhew and bowed to the altar of science and followed pathway b). The churches have become, like Harvard, little different than an episode of Oprah.

Many sincere believers have followed pathway a) having not challenged the assumptions of some of the measurements, observations, or theories nor have they researched the evidence from the general revelation for the truthfulness of the special revelation.

Then you have the crowd that buries their head in the sand following the ignorance-is-bliss mentality of pathway c). That doesn't go a long way in sharing the truth with your neighbor.

Science is not God. It's laws submit to the God who created the universe in an orderly and knowable fashion. It is a dangerous thing to lean away from the plain understanding of what God's word says.

Homosexual marriage has become accepted in our land. It took less than fifty years. The American family (the noun is for the most part absent outside our country) suffers erosion every day pummeled by the elements within our culture, but the real travesty is the erosion being caused by our churches because pastors and men and women refuse to preach, teach and abide by God's delineation of what it means to be a man or a woman, a husband or a wife, a father and a mother.

Six-day creation? No big thing? No, it's a huge thing. We can know nothing with absolute certainty from science before recorded history. All is in the realm of the theoretical. Hear the first temptation of Satan, ironically, shortly after the creation, "Has God indeed said..." and then he had the audacity to counter Eve's hedging with "You'll not surely die...your eyes will be opened." Civilization can abide little more decay.

As such, I will stand upon a firm, unshakable, and unchanging foundation. I will stand upon the word of God. The cost and danger of doing otherwise is too high.

Yes, God did indeed say.

The majority of one

You have likely heard that happy platitude that says, "Anyone plus God equals a majority." Truth be told, God alone constitutes a majority.

Apart from the spiritual aspect, is it possible for one man to stand against the majority and be right? In Sunday school today, we discussed the Revolutionary Age in man's history, the 1600's through the 1800's, in light of Francis Schaeffer's "How Shall We Then Live," and in our class, we noted that such an event is NOT possible in a democracy. Democracy is majority rule, and as such, law changes with the whim of the people.

Justice Lifts the Nations by Paul Robert

Our nation, a constitutional republic, was founded the rule of law (Lex Rex) and not the rule of man. As such, a lone man can stand upon the law and state the the majority is wrong, and the majority must bow, not to the man, but to the law. Under a democracy, the lone man would be squashed by the majority.

But whose law? Ah, therein lies the rub. In our increasingly secular society, law has become as arbitrary as the congressional majority. Despite the paintings in the Senate and in the House, the whim of our Representatives has superseded the rule of law. The vote this week becomes the law tomorrow.

While we began as a constitutional republic, the United States has whithered into a representative democracy which in essence is nothing more than polite chaos. The masses no longer recognize the consensus or standard of God's word. Law in Americas has become arbitrary.

Regardless, God's majority status has not changed, no matter what the masses think. As such, the Christian and the Church must stand upon the word of God and speak against lawlessness and unrighteousness in the mirror, in the home, in our neighborhood, and in our country.

No matter the outcome.

The Pope

I like the Pope.

Don't stone me yet. There is a very good reason for both Christians and Catholics to like Pope Benedict.

Last summer, Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, issued through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, a branch of the Vatican, a response to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church (Roman Catholic). Here is the pertinent question:

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

What did he say? Basically, Benedict plainly declared that the churches that came out of the Reformation cannot be considered true churches. You're still trying to figure out why this makes me giddy, aren't you?

Here's the deal: We finally have a church leader who has the courage to say what most church leaders, Protestant, Catholic, or Oprahnarian, won't. The Catholic church is NOT the Protestant church.

Frankly we're toying with iceberg tips; it goes way beyond apostolic succession which itself doesn't have a whole lot of biblical support. It gets right down to theological basics. Basics about the church. Basics about salvation. Etcetera.

So John Cardinal Ratzinger pierced the bullseye when he drew a stark line between Roman Catholicism and the Church of the Reformation. Apples and oranges.

And here's the rub, folks: Both can't be right! Who's to say? Sure would be nice if there was a standard by which we could determine what the church should look like...Oh yeah! It's called the Bible.

Sola scriptura. Sola fide. Sola gratia. Solus Christus.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Fundamentalist Irony

I hadn't intended on any more blogs on Fundamentalism (at least in the near future), but my pastor's sermon this morning forced my hand.

Pastor Lukus (spelled correctly) mentioned an article attacking Christian fundamentalist thought. Here's the headline:


Granted this is from a state university's daily paper, and the author is an "an adjunct professor of Peace Studies at MU, a member of Veterans for Peace and a member of the national steering committee of Global Action to Prevent War." So it's not exactly the New York Times. Okay, maybe it is. Perhaps some slight toward their objectivity may have played better.

Still, Mr. Wickersham, the author, superbly illustrates the caricature that the world has toward those who hold to fundamentalist Christian doctrine. If you're at all interested, you can read his article here. Some fundamentalist nutball has commented on the article, too.

What made it all the more ironic was that my pastor's sermon was on the very thing that make Wickersham's secularist brain reel, that Jesus Christ will come again to the earth but this time in judgment

Odd that Mr. Wickersham would rage against fundamentalism when the church's creeds have testified to the bodily return of Jesus Christ for judgment from two thousand years.

Anybody seen my snakes?

Fundamentalists Today

Here are some fundamentalists in the news:

1. Latter-Day Saints
2. Muslims
   
3. Christians

What do they all have in common? They passionately believe the writings of their founder...so much so that they strive to behave like their founder did to the maximum extent possible.

Looking at group three briefly, I contend that based upon the writings of the Bible, those groups who picket funerals using vile language are not emulating Jesus in any manner whatsoever. Those who aver, "God hates _______!" (pick your people group), have no clue about the Christ of the Bible. To have the courage to speak against the sin of the land as well as the sin that resides in their own heart and the grace to be found in Jesus' atoning sacrifice is more characteristic of a Christian fundamentalist.

Do those who are being labeled Mormon fundamentalists practice what Joseph Smith preached? Sure seems that way if history is any indicator.

Do those who fight furiously against the secularization and hedonism of Western Civilization mirror the conduct of Muhammed. Ditto.

It's upon the foundation of one of those groups that our nation and Western Civilization was built. Can you guess which one?

Fundamentalists: A brief history

Most folks know a "fundamentalist" when they see one; they just have no clue as to why a term that means something seemingly good has become an insult. So before you hurl it again, here's a brief rundown on how "fundamentalist" came to be in the American vernacular.

As the 1800's gave way to the 1900's, intense pressures toward the liberalization of Protestant Christianity began. It began in the universities of Germany and crept across the Atlantic into American scholasticism. "The Bible could not be trusted," they said. "It was nothing more than mythology. Sure Jesus was a great teacher, but deity?!? Come on!"

So attacks focused primarily upon the Bible, the nature of Christ, and the nature of His work. In response, Christian men reasoned from the Bible and history regarding the veracity (truthfulness) of the Bible and regarding the orthodox understanding of Christ and His work.

This response was collected into a series of pamphlets commissioned by Lyman Stewart of Union Oil Company (you've got to love the irony) and edited by R.A. Torrey entitled---are you ready?---"The Fundamentals." In it, Torrey collected what he and others felt was fundamental with regard to being Christian and toward understanding things Christian. Yes, the Bible could be trusted historically, archaeologically, and theologically to be the very word of God. Yes, Jesus Christ claimed to be fully God and fully man and proved that through His miracles, His birth, His life, His death and His resurrection. Yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him (His words, not mine or any fundamentalist's).

In some ways, as George Marsden has pointed out in his writings about fundamentalism's history, The Fundamentals were written in response toward a rising prejudice against the supernatural that was manifesting itself in academia. Sadly, William Jennings Bryan, a decade after The Fundamentals were published, made a monkey of himself during the Scopes' Trial and wrongly caused the divorce of the biblical from any other discipline.

When The Fundamentals were published, its adherents became known as "fundamentalists," not in a mocking fashion but as a point of identification. With Scopes, however, the fundamentalist derision began, and it has never abated.

Next up, who wears that label today and why...

Being a "Fundamentalist"

I am a fundamentalist.

What does that mean to label someone a "fundamentalist?" In its purist form, with regard to the topic at hand it means that the person adheres to the fundamentals of that subject.

Tiger Woods is a fundamentalist. Their are certain things about striking a golf ball that must be followed if you are to strike it well. Grip. Take back. Torso torque. Weight shift. Weight transition. Getting the clubface square at impact. Follow through.

More than that, he's a stickler when it comes to the rule book. You break the rules, you will pay with strokes or disqualification. Without the rules, you have golf anarchy, and the Masters would not be the Masters.

Here's an interesting point: within the realm of golf fundamentalism, there exists extraordinary freedom. Despite the fundamentals, golfers have nuanced swings, nuanced grips. Golf equipment lies on the cutting edge of technology. Does anybody even own a 3- or 4-wood anymore? Considering I could probably not play Augusta National below 100, the fact that most the folks out there today will better that by 30 swings testifies to the variety and freedom within fundamentalist golf.

I am a fundamentalist about many things. You are a fundamentalist, too, though perhaps not in the same areas I am. You may be fundamentalist about your job. In what areas of your life are you passionate about the fundamentals? I contend that adhering to the fundamentals will yield the purest form of the activity in which we find ourselves involved.

I'd love to continue to write at this point, but I'd lose most of you. The next few blogs will take this further. Why the "fundamentalist" insult? Where does that come from? How do we see fundamentalism, good and bad, in the world around us? Until then...