The Cripplegate

Spot the Difference: The Parable of 2 Houses

Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:01:22 GMT

The city’s ancient name is Rekem and it is situated near the Dead Sea, in the desert-lands of Jordan. It was discovered by Westerners as late as 1812. Like any ancient city it consists of various buildings – houses, tombs, a monastery, temple, and other dwellings.

Two facts about the city are striking. One is its age. It is so old that no one has any idea when it was founded. There are references to it in the writings of Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Old Testament, but it seems to have been around much longer than that. This survival would be remarkable for any city, but what makes this even more incredible is the harshness of the region’s geographic elements. The region is prone to severe flash-flooding. The city has survived millennia of sandstorms, flash floods, and earthquakes, not to mention wars, fires, and various manmade calamities. How is this possible? Because of the city’s other most striking feature: the entire city is carved out of a massive slab of solid rock.

I don’t mean it consists of rocks, I mean it is a rock. There are no bricks. The buildings are all carved out of a single, giant edifice. The modern name (and by modern, I mean for the last millennium or so), the name you will see on postcards, is simply ‘Petra’, the Greek word for rock.

There is no better picture of what Jesus meant in his parable of the two houses in Matthew 7.

Matthew 7:24–27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

LET’S EXAMINE THE 2 CONTRASTING FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH YOUR SALVATION COULD BE BUILT

TWO SIMILARITIES

Jesus is talking about two types of builders. Here we see that both build houses and both encounter a testing storm.

a) Both hear the words and both build houses

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock…26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them …

This blog’s readership all belong to this category. Jesus is talking to a biblically literate crowd. He is addressing those who attended synagogue, knew the Old Testament, respected the Law, and possessed a system for pleasing God.

Some of these were genuine believers and others were not. But they looked the same.

Just as the two houses that looked the same.

Jesus doesn’t say one man built a shack and the other a fortress. They both had the same external structure to their lives.

This is important to us because probably everyone reading this has an externally religious life. We attend church, go to Bible study, tithe, order sermon CDs for our neighbours who don’t go to church. But there is no way to see the foundations….til the storm comes.

Notice another similarity…

b) Both encounter storms.

The storm represents the test that reveals the truth. It starts with trials in this life and culminates in the final judgment where we are stripped of all our masks.

Both structures are tested. It’s not like you become a Christian to get a better life that avoids storms.

Christians are not immune to disease, callous to heartache, impervious to loneliness and depression and pain. Christians lose their jobs, have kids that rebel, get flat tyres, and catch COVID-19.

Do not fall into the common trap of thinking God has forgotten you in trials. Your goal is to be like Christ, not to be comfortable. Storms will come to both groups of people because we live in a stormy world. But for believers, God is using them to make you more like Christ.

TWO DIFFERENCES

These differences are revealed when the storm hits.

a) The Foundation

The most significant difference is that of the two foundations: there is rock and sand.

Some sandy foundations include…our past experiences, our emotions, others’ opinions of us, our external righteousness, and any system of holiness which we invented …”I’m not a bad person (according to my standard.)”

But what does the rock represent?

Some say this is Christ. It is true that he is called our Cornerstone, and our Rock, and our Refuge. But in this instance, rock represents something else: obedience to God’s word.

I know this because the interpretation is given by Jesus in verse 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”

Building a spiritual house on the Word of God is the only way to survive the storms of life.

Obedience is the only real evidence of your salvation. In the courtroom of God’s judgment, your Advocate is Jesus, who stands up and takes the blame you deserved.

Another difference…

b) The Result

The result of the storm leaves the houses in different states; only the bedrock house survives the storm.

The final culmination of the storm that tests the foundations is the final judgment on the last day when we are stripped of all façade and pretentions and external efforts.

Obedience to Christ is the only foundation your soul rests on. Not your works, but his. Not your merit, but his. He is your fortress. He is your Cornerstone. He is your Rock and Refuge in the day of judgment.

Do not try to brave the storm of God’s fury on your own. Your only hope is to run to your Savior today. Cast yourself on his mercy and he will save you from your sins. Examine your life. Examine the Word of God. And see if you can spot the difference.

And if there is a difference, demolish your sandcastle of self-righteousness, and ask Jesus to build you a house with foundations deep in the bedrock of God’s word and his righteous obedience to the law.

Six ways Haman’s demise points to the gospel

Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:01:38 GMT

The book of Esther is laced with mystery. Much of the plot advances based on what people don’t know. Haman doesn’t know Esther is related to Mordecai. Mordecai doesn’t now the gallows are for him. Haman doesn’t know why he was invited to the feast, and the king doesn’t know Haman’s rivalry with Mordecai. Even the reader doesn’t know why Esther delayed her request one day (although we find out it was God’s providential way of exposing everyone else’s secrets).

In Esther 8, the mysteries are resolved, and it’s time for the king to rend his verdict. He dramatically orders Haman impaled, Mordecai promoted, Esther vindicated, and the Jews spared. Specifically he orders an edict to be written allowing the Jews to defend themselves, and commands that it be translated and spread globally.

This chapter does more than merely resolve narrative conflict. In Esther 8, God providentially brought about this turn of affairs as a way to prepare the readers for some basic gospel truths. Here are six gospel truths foreshadowed:

1). God’s Laws cannot be revoked or tempered. A driving point in the entire book of Esther is that the King’s laws are irrevocable and inviolable. They Persian Empire didn’t even have a mechanism to alter them. The king could not change his mind. If their king was able to vacillate, then the government would lack stability. It took a cohesive and decisive ruler to unite such a diverse empire.

So it is with God as well. “The glory of Israel is not a man that he should lie or regret” (1 Samuel 15:29). The integrity of God’s word is tantamount to making sense of who God is. If God could change his mind, our election would not be sure, and the Bible would not be trustworthy.

2). Nevertheless, God can devise a way to supersede wrath. In Esther, the King had ordered the Jews to be punished. They were slated to lose their lives and their land, and there didn’t appear to be a way to void that warrant. But instead of voiding his edict, the king invented a way to supersede it. By allowing the Jews to bear arms against their oppressors, the King relieved them of the wrath that he himself had imposed, and he did so while not violating his own order.

This represents the basic biblical tension: how can God be both just and justifier? How can he punish sin, yet forgive the sinner? The answer the gospel gives is that God supersedes his wrath by pouring it out on his Son instead.

3). For God’s Messiah to win, the strong man must be bound. In order to deliver the Jews—and thus the Savior’s seed and the Messianic line—the King devised a plan whereby the Jews would overpower their enemies. This is not ancillary, but is central to the scheme. To stop the line of Agag from winning, Agag had to be hacked to pieces (1 Samuel 15:33). Agag’s descendants too had to be physically overpowered to prevent them from carrying out their demonic attack on the seed of David (Esther 8:11).

Jesus makes the same basic point by way of a parable. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil” (Luke 11:21-22). For the cross to be victorious, the devil had to be defeated and his slaves—that’s us—had to be liberated (Ephesians 2:2).

4). The king’s wrath is assuaged through crucifixion (Esther 8:7, 7:10). The king’s anger was directed at Haman for his sin, but the public nature of Haman’s death caused the king’s anger to be propitiated. The king poured out his wrath on Haman—who at this point embodied all the treason the king could imagine—and by humiliating the man publically, the king’s wrath was spent.

While obviously there are differences between Jesus’ death and Haman’s the similarities are noteworthy. Both died a public death. The humiliation of their deaths were intentional and ironic. The empire designed crucifixion as a way to show that those who suffered that way were guilty of the worst crimes. Haman exalted himself high—so high that only a 75-foot pole would be good enough to impale his enemies on!—and Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. Both died in a way that was designed to mock their greatness. And in those deaths, the wrath of the true king who ordered their execution would be assuaged.

5). Those rescued in this way shall inherit the earth. The final twist in the Esther narrative is that the Jews will gain with their enemy’s property. Their share of the Persian kingdom actually grew through their enemies’ attempts to humble them. Mordecai is typical. He ends the story as the owner of Haman’s property. He achieved this not through his own merit, but rather by humbly serving the king.

Jesus declared a similar principle: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). Men who seek to inherit the earth and grow their kingdoms shall fail. The nations shall rage while God laughs, because God knows that his king will be established in Israel (Psalm 2:1-2, 6). The kingdom of man shall come to nothing (Amos 5:4-5), while God will richly reward those who labor in humility for him (Mark 10:30).

6). News of this reversal shall travel the earth. Incredible effort went into spreading the king’s edict around the Persian Empire. There was a fleet of swift horses dedicated to the task. An army of scribes translated the edict into every known language—all 127 (!) of them. Everyone would read the edict rescuing the Jews, and they would hear the good news in their own tongue.

This foreshadows the great commission. The news of Jesus’ death and resurrection is so good that it demands an army of trained messengers who will devote considerable time and resources into translating it into every language and proclaiming it in every corner of the earth. The miracle of languages seen in Acts 2 was certainly surprising, but slightly less so if you are familiar with Esther. In God’s intentional providence, the good news of deliverance spread over the world Esther 8. How much more is the good news of Jesus Christ deserving of being heard by every nation and tribe in their own language?

Esther 8 doesn’t contain the gospel. There is no mention of God or grace. Nevertheless, chapters like this are tremendously encouraging to my faith because they remind me that God has been directing all of history toward the gospel.

Same Temple, Same Miracle, Entirely Different Expectation

Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:52:26 GMT

The idea that Jesus never claimed to be God would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. The entire Bible is filled with clues as well as clear declarations of the divinity of Christ.

But perhaps my favorite go to section of the Bible to show this is John 8, 9 and 10.

In chapter 8 Jesus proclaims Himself to be the I am of the old testament. (John 8:58)

In chapter 10 Jesus declares Himself as one with the Father. (John 10:30)

But it is in chapter 9 that we see Jesus do something that only God can do.

In chapter 9 we see Jesus heal a man who was blind from birth. But he heals him in a way that the man has never seen Jesus. He goes to wash at the pool of Siloam and comes back seeing.

Instead of giving him a chance to rejoice, he is immediately met with skepticism. Once Everyone including the pharisees realize that he was actually born blind they cast him out since it is quite obvious that he sees that Jesus is special and the pharisees hate Christ and want to kill him.

What follows is astounding.

The blind man, who has been kicked out of the temple, most likely excommunicated from Judaism, on what should have been the best day of his life, is found by Jesus.

The sweet savior introduces himself. He tells him to believe in Himself.

The man responds with bowing down and worshipping Christ.

Jesus accepts worship. (John 9:38)

He doesn’t rebuke the man.

He doesn’t stop him.

Rather, the expectation Jesus has is that the man would get on his knees and praise His creator.

Peter and John are most likely present watching all this unfold. Little did they know that they would be in the same exact scenario just a short time later.

Fast forward to a little over a year or two later and you have Peter and John going up to preach the Gospel at the same temple. (Acts 3)

They get accosted by a man who was also born with a deformity. This time the man is lame from birth.

He begs for money, just like the man in John 9. Peter and John, though full of money (acts 2:45) tell the man that the money they have is for the church, but instead do something a little more impactful and heal the man.

“I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!”

Instantly the man, was given the ability to walk. In fact, the miracle was so great, that the man bypassed years of learning how to walk and run and immediately begins leaping in praise to God.

Then we see something astounding. People run over to see what happened. The Bible tells us that they are amazed. I imagine that people are about to worship these two men, but Peter immediately deflects and says the following words,

“Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?”

Peter is concerned. He does not want worship. Before people can even think about getting on their knees he immediately deflects. He wants the worship placed on another person, the person who enabled them to be able to do the miracle.

Peter wants the people to worship Jesus.

He says,

“And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.”

Same temple, same healing but entirely different expectation by the part of the healer. One expected worship the other deflected it.

Actually, you could say that the expectation was exactly the same. To worship Jesus Christ.

Peter and John can’t stomach even for a second misplaced worship. They immediately use this God given opportunity to tell the gathered crowd that they must worship Christ in order to receive eternal life. In fact, they go a step further and in Acts 4:13 they declare that there is no other name given among men by which they must be saved. That Jesus is the only name that can save a soul from Hell.

This stark contrast illustrates perfectly the fact that Jesus Christ not only believed and preached that he was the Lord of the universe, but that His expectation and his disciples’ expectations was that every knee would bow to Him.

Sadly, though every knee will bow to Him one day, many will be forced (Phil. 2:10). And once that knee will have met the ground, they will be thrown into hell for refusing to do so in this life.

It is essential for every Christian to know what Jesus expects of them and the world around them. Only this will give them the confidence to share the truth with the world around them.

It isn’t enough to think of Jesus as a great man. (John 9:17)

Those that do will spend eternity in Hell.

It isn’t enough to believe that Jesus is divine in some way.

Those that do will spend eternity in Hell.

It isn’t enough even to believe in Jesus but then think of themselves as good people who aren’t in need of saving. (John 9:41)

Those that do will spend eternity in Hell.

The only ones who will get to spend eternity with Jesus are those who bow their knee to Him in submission and in humility. These recognize His Lordship and recognize their own inadequacy to save themselves. They worship Jesus because He deserves it and because they know that He alone, through faith in Him alone can save them and raise them from their spiritual death. (Eph. 2:4)

Boldly preach Christ to the world around you.

Many think that they are headed to Heaven, many think that they know Jesus, but few, very few, know and worship the Jesus of John chapter 9.

Preach this Christ, and gently but boldly confront the world’s misunderstanding of Jesus, because it is the only way for people to be saved. But most importantly Jesus deserves and expects the right kind of worship that He is due.

God’s Love in the Time of Corona

Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:01:00 GMT

Cholera is an acute illness caused by bacteria found in contaminated water. There have been seven pandemic outbreaks of cholera in the past 200 years, most recently in 2016. The fourth outbreak started in 1846 and lasted four years. Russia was the country worst hit, with one million lives lost. But it also reached North America and Europe.

People were not sure how cholera spread, only that it was highly contagious and that families tended to get it together. We now know that it is transmitted through contaminated food and water, and spread by people not washing their hands after using the bathroom. Handwashing was simply not part of routine hygiene in those days.

Understandably, people were extremely afraid of the unknown. Public gatherings, including church services ceased, not because of government orders, but as the natural response of a terrified population.

The pandemic reached London in 1854, scarcely one year into the ministry of a young preacher by the name of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The outbreak would end up killing over 14,000 Londoners. What would Spurgeon and the New Park Street Baptist Church do? They kept on holding services for those who wanted to attend, added new members, and celebrated the Lord’s Supper. Spurgeon was urged to remain quarantined except for preaching, but instead he bravely insisted on visiting the sick, as they were most afraid and most in need of ministry.

Spurgeon wrote:

“In the year 1854, when I had scarcely been in London twelve months, the neighborhood in which I labored was visited by Asiatic cholera, and my congregation suffered from its inroads. Family after family summoned me to the bedside of the smitten, and almost every day I was called to visit the grave… When many were afraid to enter their houses lest they should catch the deadly disease, we who had no fear about such things found ourselves most gladly listened to when we spoke of Christ and of things Divine.”

How is it that while other pastors were self-quarantined, and other churches shut their doors, Spurgeon and his church “had no fear about such things”? It’s not that he didn’t believe he would die, it’s that he didn’t fear death.

I hope to provide for you something more powerful than a vaccine for the coronavirus today; I hope to arm you with the same knowledge and faith Spurgeon had, by drawing from the same source: God’s life-giving word.

We are in a time of the COVID-19 pandemic. People we know have the disease. Some have lost loved ones to the coronavirus. But as Christians we know that in time of disease and death, our experience of God’s love is often intensified, and we see this in a family in Bethany. John 11 is all about the glory, love, and power of Christ in the time of grief, disease, and death.

3 WRONG RESPONSES DISEASE AND DEATH CAUSE SO WE WILL HAVE PEACE

1. DISTRUST OF GOD’S LOVE (John 11:1-6; 28-38)

John 11:1–3 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

Christ’s love for this family is emphasized in this passage repeatedly, which keeps whispering in our ear the theological reminder that illness and suffering is not necessarily a sign of God’s displeasure. Never distrust God’s love for you when you are sick.

There is an unexpected conjunction in verse 6, Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

Jesus allowed Lazarus to die?! Why?

Because in the midst of sickness and death, God can be glorified. John says in verse 4 but when Jesus heard it, he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

When you are sick, know this: God loves you. His love is not diminished when you are suffering or afraid.

See how intensely Jesus’ love is expressed…verse 33 tells us that Jesus was deeply moved – or indignant -and greatly troubled, or agitated, by the sorrow that he saw around him, even though he knows what is about to happen!

Death is an abomination; it is unnatural and unwelcome in God’s world. Death entered the world because of sin. And Jesus is on a mission to abolish sin and death forever! And until that is done, he balks at the death of his loved ones just like you do.

The temptation we face when a loved one dies is to think that maybe God doesn’t care, because if he did, then he could have prevented this. But let me assure you that God’s love in a time of cholera or corona or cancer is as real as at any other time, if not more real!

The solution to the wrong response of distrust of God’s love is the empathy of Christ. If you do get COVID-19 or cancer or anything else, cling to the love of God in Christ Jesus.

2. DISTRACTION FROM MINISTRY (John 11:7-16)

John 11:7–10 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.”

Another common response to the pandemic is that we become paralyzed with fear. We are afraid to get on with the work God has given us to do. We are afraid of dying, so we live as if surviving is the most important duty we have.

But it’s not.

The most important duty we have as humans is NOT to keep on living; it is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, even if it kills us.

Glorify God… or die trying!

The disciples were jittery about Jerusalem. Bethany is two miles from Jerusalem—the epicenter of the anti-Jesus movement – so Jesus quotes a little proverb to them: Are there not twelve hours in the day?

Jesus is saying daylight is prime time for working. There is a time to work and a time to rest. Life is the season to minister.

Our priority tends to be to stay alive; Christ’s priority is to glorify the Father and to give saving faith to people. Jesus did not want Lazarus to avoid dying. He wanted to give God glory, even if that meant grief and distress and death.

And the antidote to distraction from ministry, is to have the courage of Thomas. Yes, you read that right.

John 11:16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

Doubting Thomas gets a bad rep for his one moment of wavering. But here I see him getting the point of what Jesus is saying: “Let’s do ministry, come what may. Let’s glorify God or die trying.”

Spurgeon saw the time of cholera as the best time for the ministry. During the 1866 outbreak he gave this charge: “And now, again, is the minister’s time; and now is the time for all of you who love souls… You know of Him who died to save; tell them of Him.”

Now is not a time to hole up but a time to get out there. It’s prime time for the gospel!

Yes, you might die, but what a great way to go—with your boots on.

Use this time to preach to your neighbors. To come to church. Take precautions, wear a mask, and for the love of God, wash your hands! But don’t hole up as if avoiding death is the most important duty you have.

How do I get that bold? How do I avoid distress about my life?

3. DISTRESS ABOUT OUR FUTURE (John 11:21-27)

John 11:21-27 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

The distress about our future is an anxiety that can be dispelled with a shot of right theology.

Right theology is a comforting hug from the truth; right theology is a soft pillow on which to rest your burdened mind.

Martha has right theology. She doesn’t know what Jesus will do. But she knows him, and she trusts God’s power, and she draws comfort from what is certain about the future.

What do you believe about your future? Does it drive out the fear of death?

1 Corinthians 15:51–58 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

So don’t panic in distress about your future. When your faith is failing and fears are growing, fill your mind with God’s promises. Let your theology be a cozy blanket of comforting truth.

Irony, Esther, and the Cross

Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:01:00 GMT

There are three major kinds of irony: verbal, situational, and dramatic.

Verbal irony is when a person says something that they think is true, but while it turns out to not be true as they meant it, is still in fact literally true. For example, when Donald Trump—before becoming president—told President Obama that Obama would be “remembered as one of the worst Presidents” President Obama responded, “at least I’ll go down as a President.” While that statement turned out not to be true in the way President Obama meant it, it still was true in an even more ironic way. For an example more famous than American Presidents, in Star Wars Episode IV, Ben Kenobi tells Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke’s father. While that is not true in the way it sounded, it was nevertheless true in an entirely different and more profound way.

Situational irony is when the outcome of a narrative is the opposite of what was expected. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird, the children spend the book fearful of Boo Radley, only to be rescued by him in the end. Situational irony is when the tables are turned in the grand finale. An example from real life: last year the fire station behind my house burned down. In terms of situational irony, that is about as extreme as it gets.

Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something that the characters in a book or play do not. The quintessential example of dramatic irony is from Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo does not know what the audience does—namely that Juliet is merely faking death. Or, to circle back to Luke again, the audience figures out that Luke is Darth Vader’s Son long before Luke does.

The effective use of irony is one of the distinguishing features between mediocre literature and a masterpiece. To use irony powerfully requires a careful construction of the narrative, and a deliberate and restrained progression of the plot.

With that in mind, the use of irony in the Bible not only testifies of the beauty of the Bible as literature, but to the sovereign and providential control that God exercises in the world. There are two sections of Scripture where irony is a dominant feature of the text: in Esther 6-7 and Matthew 27.

In Esther 6-7, the narrative of Esther reaches its peak. All that had been carefully hidden by the narrator throughout the story is finally revealed, and the story comes to a crashing conclusion though a cascade of irony. Haman was asked what should be done for the man whom the king wished to honor, and his answer—while true—ends up to be the opposite of what he meant. Mordecai would be paraded around town on the king’s horse, and by the end of the section would literally have Haman’s job. Meanwhile, Haman discovers what the reader has known all along—that Esther was a Jew, and the plot he had orchestrated would have ended up costing the Queen her life. His patriotic plot turned out to be treasonous treachery.

While irony is on full display in this section, consider these three examples. Dramatic irony: Haman, arrives at the second banquet entirely unaware that his plan to kill the Jews was known by the Queen, a fact the reader has known all along. Haman thought he was going to be the honored guest, and while the banquet was certainly for him, it was not for his honor. Verbal irony: When Haman discovers that he has been trapped, he falls on Esther’s lap to beg for his life. The king exclaimed “shall he assault the Queen even in my presence?” Of course Haman was not assaulting the Queen in the way the King implied, but it was nevertheless true in an even more profound way. Situational irony: The man who was going to kill a Jew for refusing to bow at his feet, ends his life bowing at the feet of a Jewish woman.

The entire scene is brought to a close in a particularly ironic fashion. Haman was crucified on the very pole he had engineered for Mordecai. The closing verse of the Esther 7 foreshadows the gospel by explaining that by hanging the guilty sinner on the tree, “the king’s wrath was propitiated” (Esther 7:10—ESV uses “abated,” but it is the same concept).

Later in the Bible a different man will be condemned as an enemy of the state, and he too will be crucified in a passage replete with irony. As Jesus is led to be crucified, the sign declares him to be “king of the Jews.” This example of dramatic ironyis profound. The reader knows that the sign is true—he is the king of the Jews. Practically everything the crowd jeers at Jesus is situationally ironic. “He is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross,” “He saved others but cannot save himself,” “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,” and finally “You would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself!” All of these statements are true, but none in the way the speakers mean.

Of course the ultimate dramatic irony is saved for last. Some expected Elijah to come save Jesus, and instead Jesus descended to the grave and saved Elijah. Guards were posted at the tomb, but Rome’s best were powerless to stop the resurrection—the ultimate reversal.

Meditate on the irony of Esther, and the providential way God’s providence was on display—working every thread of the story for his own glory. Then rejoice that the hidden hand of God is revealed on the cross. What was hidden has been unmasked, and God’s glory is ironically shown through the inglorious death of God himself.

Can there be any more ironic twist than the author of life, crucified for sinners, then resurrected from a guarded grave?

The World Famous Love of God

Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:01:00 GMT

In 2009 Tim Tebow played quarterback for the Denver Broncos. Tebow is an outspoken Christian who gained notoriety in the sports pages for kneeling to pray after every successful play. The media patronizingly dubbed it Tebowing.

It wasn’t just his prayers that irked the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). Tebow also wrote a Bible verse reference—John 3:16— in white on black, under his eyes.

The first time he did this, John 3:16 was Google’s most-searched term for the next 24 hours, with 94 million searches!

A bemused Tebow expressed what was on every Christian’s mind: “How do 94 million people not know John 3:16?”

The following year the NCAA announced a new rule, which became known as the Tebow Rule, banning messages on players’ faces.

Then, in a game in 2012, something remarkable happened. Tebow tells the story how, three years later his breathless PR agent stopped him after a game to announce some staggering news. In Tim Tebow’s words:

“He says, ‘Timmy, did you realize what happened?’ I was like, ‘Yeah, we just beat the Steelers. We’re going to play the Patriots.’ And he was like, ‘No, do you realize what happened?’” Tebow shared. “He said, ‘It’s exactly three years later from the day that you wore John 3:16 under your eyes,’” Tebow continued. “I was like, ‘Oh, that’s really cool.’ He said, ‘No, I don’t think you realize what happened. During the game you threw for 316 yards, your yards per completion were 31.6, your yards per rush were 3.16, the ratings for the night were 31.6, and the time of possession was 31.06 and during the game 91 million people googled John 3:16 and it’s the No. 1 trending thing on every platform,’”

What I find most remarkable about that story is that a mere three years after 94 million viewers Googled John 3:16, apparently 91 million of them had forgotten it already, and had to Google it again!

There is a fair amount of superstition around John 3:16. It is still the most Googled verse, the most memorized verse, and the most publicized verse. It’s a world-famous verse.

But what is so special about this one verse?

3 QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE THE WORLD-FAMOUS LOVE OF GOD

MOTIVE: WHY DOES GOD SAVE?

John 3:16“For God so loved the world…

The “For” links this verse to the previous verses where Jesus predicted his death by crucifixion so “that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15). So why did Jesus need to be lifted up on the cross? Because God loves the world that much.

Oh, the confidence we can draw from God’s motive! If God loves me that much, then there’s nothing for me to fear.

God created humans in his image to love intensely so that we can understand what this verse means. If you love your spouse or your kids or your pet or your country, that’s good. That experience is what gives you a category for what God means when he says he loves you. But you need to expand that beyond anything you could ever feel.

God’s motive defines our relationship to him.

God has strong affections for you.

God has great concern for your wellbeing.

God has deep desires and designs for your good, for your joy, for your maturity.

And he doesn’t wait to see if you are a good person before he loves you. He’s not making a list, checking it twice, to see who’s naughty or nice. He loves us while we are still unlovable…

Romans 5: 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This is why John 3:16 is so famous… because God’s love is world-famous.

MEANS: HOW DOES GOD SAVE?

John 3: 16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,

Sin is utterly contemptible to God’s purity, completely counter to his holiness, totally inappropriate in his presence. But he loves the world of sinners. So he gave [édoken], he donated, his only Son as a substitute to punish in our stead.

Isaiah 53: 4-10 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. … Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him …

Let me ask you: Would you crush your son for a guilty man?

What if your oldest son volunteered to suffer so that your other children could live?

You see, God the Father did not force Jesus to do this. The Father and Son were perfectly one in their purpose and will, desire and commitment, to save a Bride for the Son.

John 10:17-18For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

It’s mysterious stuff. The Father is suffering as much as the Son is. If you don’t see how that’s possible just go visit the hospital’s pediatric cancer ward. You never, ever hear parents say “Well, at least it isn’t me who’s suffering.” Any parent would gladly endure anything to take that suffering away from their precious child.

So, the Triune God chose to bear our punishment himself.

MARK: WHOM DOES GOD SAVE?

John 3: 16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

This isn’t a verse of condemnation, but of hope. Nicodemus believed that Jews, and only Jews who were really careful to obey the whole Law of Moses perfectly, could be saved. But Jesus debunks that error… whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You can be a Jew or Gentile, you can be the most wretched, wicked, vile sinner who ever lived. If you trust in the blood of Jesus as sufficient to save you, you will not perish. You will have eternal life.

Anyone and everyone at any time who is believing is given eternal life.

And to believe in Jesus doesn’t just mean to know about him, it means to trust in his person and work to be the only means of your salvation.

It’s not knowing your history about Jesus or reciting your Sunday School flannelgraph lessons about Jesus that gets you saved.

It’s the work of Jesus that saves you.

So trust in his work on the cross.

No matter what you have done.

No matter how lost you are.

No matter how beyond hope you feel.

No matter how wicked you’ve been and how messed up you are and how filthy your mind is and how devilish your deeds are…

Look to Jesus in faith and he will save you.

But if you reject the love of God, if you spurn the sacrifice of Jesus, and trample underfoot the Son of God whom he gave… if you outrage the Holy Spirit, and douse the fire of conviction in your heart with doubt and unbelief, then you deserve whatever is coming your way.

John 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Your sins will drag you to hell. And only Jesus can stop your slide into the jaws of damnation.

And he will. He most certainly will.

And why?

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

That is worth writing under your eyes; that is worth writing on your heart.

Awful or Lawful, Pt 2: The Right Use of the Law

Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:01:00 GMT

^{By Clint Archer}

AJ Jacobs is an agnostic Jewish journalist. He has written a book called “The Year of Living Biblically.” In it, he describes one year of his life where he tried to observe every law in the Bible as literally as possible. He said the hardest laws to keep were those from Leviticus. On his website he sums up his findings:

“At the beginning of the year, I wrote down every rule, every guideline, every suggestion, every nugget of advice I could find in the Bible. It’s a very long list. It runs 72 pages. More than 700 rules. Some rules were wise, some completely baffling. Some were baffling at first, then wise. Some were wise first then baffling. Here, some of the highlights, broken down by category.
MOST UNEXPECTEDLY WISE AND LIFE-ENHANCING RULES
·       Keep the sabbath. As a workaholic (I check my emails in the middle of movies), I learned the beauty of an enforced pause in the week. No cell phones, no messages, no thinking about deadlines. It was a bizarre and glorious feeling. As one famous rabbi called it, the sabbath is a “sanctuary in time.”
·       “Let your garments be always white” Ecclesiastes 9:8. I chose to follow this literally – I wore white pants, a white shirt and a white jacket. This was one of the best things I did all year. I felt lighter, happier, purer. Clothes make the man: You can’t be in a bad mood when you’re dressed like you’re about to play the semi-finals at Wimbledon.
·       No gossip. When you try to go on a gossip diet, you realize just how much of our conversations involve negative speech about others. But holding your tongue is like the verbal equivalent of wearing white. I felt cleaner and untainted….
·       Give thanks. The Bible says to thank the Lord after meals. I did that. Perhaps too much. I got carried away. I gave thanks for everything – for the subway coming on time, for the comfortableness of my couch, etc. It was strange but great. Never have I been so aware of the thousands of little things that go right in our lives….
RULES THAT I SUCCESSFULLY KEPT THE ENTIRE YEAR WITHOUT VIOLATING EVEN ONCE
·       You shall not marry your wife’s sister (Leviticus 18:18) It helps that my wife doesn’t have a sister….
·       You shall not eat eagles, vultures, black vultures, red kites, black kites, ravens, horned or screech owl, gull or any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
·       Do not become a shrine prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:17) I didn’t become any kind of prostitute.
MOST DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW
·       You shall not trim the corners of your beard (Leviticus 19:27) My rabbinical beard became wildly uncomfortable, plus I was subjected to every beard joke in the history of facial hair,…
·       Put to death men and women who commit adultery. Though I did manage to figure out a way to stone adulterers. One adulterer in particular. A grumpy seventysomething man I met in the park. I used pebbles.
RULES VIOLATED AT LEAST ONE TIME PER DAY
·       You shall not covet. This is like asking someone not to breathe. Especially in New York. New York is a city that runs on coveting. …
·       You shall not lie. Once I started keeping track, the number of lies was astounding. I lie to everyone – strangers, my wife, my three-year-old son (“No, we can’t watch TV. It’s broken.”)
·       You shall not utter the name of another God. English is filled with the names of pagan gods – even the days of the week are named for them: Thursday, for the Norse god of thunder Thor….”

His conclusion after the year was that people who claim to believe and apply the whole Bible only pick and choose which laws to keep. This is a valid observation, but it belies the misunderstanding that most people have about Bible interpretation. The Bible is clearly written for some parts to apply to certain people, at certain times in history, but not at other times.

If you grasp this, you can legitimately strive, by God’s grace, to obey every one of his laws as stipulated in the law code that you are under.

Last week we looked at the lawful and awful motives of teachers, today we will consider the methods of those teachers through the lawful and awful use of the law.

2. METHODS OF TEACHERS

A) LAWFUL USE OF THE LAW

1 Timothy 1:8-11 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

The law Paul is talking about is the Law of Moses. Not the law of the land, not Roman law, American law, rules of your school, or rules your parents make for you.

He means the Ten Commandments, and the 613 rules in the Pentateuch. All Jews, from Moses to Jesus, had to obey every single rule in the Law of Moses, because this is the law code that they were under.

A law code is set of rules issued by God to a specific group of people for a specific time, based on the character of God. To violate the law code at the time in which it is in effect is to sin.

But neither previous, nor future law codes are binding. For example, Adam didn’t celebrate communion, but that was not sin. Adam didn’t circumcise his sons, but that wasn’t sin. Adam’s sons could marry their sisters. Moses did circumcise his sons, but didn’t take communion, but could eat any fruit.

The natural question for us is, what law did Christ fulfill? This question is often dealt with by saying that the Law of Moses can be divided into three parts—moral, ceremonial, and civil—and that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial and civil, but not the moral parts of the law, leaving these still binding on New Testament Christians.

The problem is that…

1) The Bible doesn’t make that distinction at all; in fact, it mixes all the laws indiscriminately. So people end up deciding arbitrarily which category tattoos, Sabbath-keeping, and tithing fall into.

2) That understanding leaves a part of the Law of Moses unfulfilled by Christ’s death on the cross, but the New Testament explicitly says Jesus fulfilled the whole Law.

So, what is our relationship, as New Testament believers, to the Law of Moses?

Galatians 3: 24-25 So then, the law was our guardian [tutor] until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

The law was there for the Jews, but since Christ came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), we are no longer under the authority of the Mosaic Law at all, but under the authority of a new law code, the law of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

The Mosaic Law is applicable to us because “all Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” and it is based on God’s character. BUT the Mosaic Law is not binding on New Testament believers at all.

We are under a new law, the Law of Christ.

Yes, the Law of Christ looks similar in many, many places, for example: do not murder, lie, steal, dishonor your parents, commit adultery, or covet, etc. In fact, nine of the Ten Commandments are restated explicitly in the New Testament. But many of the 613 Levitical laws are no longer part of the Law of Christ and therefore, they are no longer binding on God’s people.

So, the reason I don’t steal isn’t because Moses says not to do so, in Exodus 20:15, but rather because Paul says so in Ephesians 4:28. The reason I honor my mother and father is because Ephesians 6:2 says to do so, which Paul restated directly from Exodus 20:12.

So, what about tattoos, shaving your beard, mixing fabrics, eating lobster? They were all permitted from Adam to Moses, they were outlawed from Moses to Jesus, and then they were permitted from Jesus til now.

The one commandment that is not repeated in the New Testament is the Sabbath commandment. In fact, Paul specifically says that you may not tell a Christian to keep the Sabbath or any Old Testament holiday or feast day in the same way those under Moses were told to (Colossians 2:16-17).

B) LAWFUL USE OF THE LAW

So, how do we use the Law of Moses? You can use it to show the character of God to those who don’t know him: unbelievers.

Jesus used the Law this way to show the Rich Young ruler who asked how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus said…Luke 18:²⁰You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’

Ray Comfort is famous for using this with people who say they will go to heaven because they are good enough. He asks them if they have you ever stolen, told a white lie, been disrespectful of their parents, lusted after someone they’re not married to, or ever wanted something they couldn’t have? When they inevitably admit to sinning, he tells them that they are, by their own admission, a thief a liar, sexually immoral, and a coveter, and therefore have not loved God with all their heart and mind, and so have broken at least half the Ten Commandments.

That is an acceptable use of the Law of Moses: to show sinners of any time period who God is and what he is like. He pays attention to detail, he is interested in our being separate from anything that might hinder our devotion to him, and he is even concerned about what people eat and wear and how they care for each other.

CONCLUSION

If AJ Jacobs asked me, I can honestly say that I try to keep every single command in the Bible that God intends me to keep. I don’t do this to earn favor with God, but out of love for Jesus and his will. But of course my daily experience is that I fall woefully short. Not because the standard is too high but because my commitment, my affections for Christ, and my resolve ebbs too low at times.

And yet, every time I fall short it only serves as a way to draw me closer to my Savior because he saves me from that shortcoming. He kept every Law of Moses and in every thought, word, and deed reflected perfectly the will and character and nature of the perfect holy Father. And then he chose to be treated like a lawbreaker, a sinner, an accursed outcast, on my behalf.

That is the good news, that we have a holy God but we have a loving God, a saving God, a sacrificial God, who gave his Son so we can have eternal life.

And in response to that salvation it is my joy to learn his law, and keep his law and teach his law to others…

And that is the lawful use of the law.

Responding to prophetic dreams

Fri, 02 Oct 2020 05:37:39 GMT

How should you respond when a friend sends you a YouTube video of a pastor explaining a prophetic dream he has had recently? What about if someone comes up to you at church and wants to tell you about a prophecy that have recently overheard, and they want your opinion on it. What do you say?

This has happened several times to me in the last few years, but it seems like these so-called “dreams and visions” come and go in cycles, and perhaps owing to COVID or to the upcoming election, I get the impression they are on the increase.

Normally the person that asks me for counsel is not the person who had the “dream” but rather is someone who genuinely doesn’t know what to think about it. Perhaps a friend or family member believes it, or perhaps they are just trying to figure out what the Christian view is on these kind of things.

This can be a tricky question to navigate, because ultimately I want to argue that God does not reveal the future to people through dreams, and it is a very immature person that gets swept up in that whole world. The gist of my advice on this is to tell the person “run far away from that, and run fast.” But this kind of answer invariably ends up with me arguing against someone else’s experience, and that is a very difficult argument win while being winsome.

It’s helpful to remember that the problem of self-proclaimed prophets claiming their dreams give them knowledge of the future is not new. Jeremiah encountered these people back in Jerusalem, before the captivity (a captivity which these “prophets” incredibly didn’t see coming!). These prophets paraded themselves around Jerusalem. They were never lacking an audience with the king, and their messages pointed toward peace.

Imagine how Jeremiah must have felt around them. Their message was positive, his negative. They were eager to proclaim their glad tidings, while Jeremiah was reluctant. They were honored, he was cursed. Yet it was Jeremiah who heard Yahweh’s voice, not them.

Jeremiah’s response to these prophets is insightful today. He told essentially told them, “hey, people have dreams, but that’s not how Yahweh reveals his will.” This is what Yahweh said through Jeremiah:

“I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart, who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal?…

The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?” (Jeremiah 23:25-28).

Yahweh went on to highlight the connection between true prophecy and the written word of God. They are so closely intertwined that they are inextricable. Yahweh declared:

“Is not My word like fire, and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets who steal My words from each other. Behold, I am against the prophets who use their tongues and declare, ‘Yahweh declares.’ Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams and related them, and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit.” (Jeremiah 23:29-32).

When Yahweh rebuked those prophets, he did so in a way that underscored the reality that God’s word and prophet’s dreams are rivals. The person who trusts a dream deviates from God’s word. It really is as simple as that.

The same is true today. If a person believes dreams and visions and prophecies, then that will stunt their Christian growth. They will be “children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14).

So, let the dreamer dream. But for believers, we don’t want to believe dreams and so-called prophecies, but we want to be “firmly rooted and fully built up in Christ, as he establishes our faith, just as he instructed us through His words” (Colossians 2:7).

By rejecting the prophetic component of modern dreams, we are not short-changing ourselves. God’s word has given all things we need pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), so we don’t need to seek spiritual direction outside of his Word. Doing so puts us into a field of half-truths, fallible prophecies, and dreams. This is the kind of thing that 3 Timothy calls “drama for ya mamma” (Ok, I made that verse up, but what if I said I dreamed it?).

Those who believe in the sufficiency of God’s Word should not chase after dreams, or be influenced by those who do. Rather we should be stable in our faith, “always ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you” (1 Peter 3:15)

Awful or Lawful, Pt 1: Prophets for Profit

Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:01:00 GMT

Some time ago I received an email inviting me to attend an online course with a local School of Prophecy so that I could get a certification in prophecy.

The subjects to be covered include: receiving and delivering prophetic words, steps towards knowing the voice of God, prophetic dance, and an “impartation,” which I assume is where the prophet imparts the gift to you. They promised that a certificate would be issued on completion of the full course, which was not at all inexpensive.

The website (yes, I couldn’t resist checking out the website), went on to advertize various courses on how to prophesy. Here is a snippet of one of the prophecies:

I am coming to touch my house once again. I am calling my bride for a face-lift. I am the Lord that heals you and I the Lord am coming again to touch you by My Spirit and cause you to have a facelift. The operation that I am about to perform on you my bride WILL TRANSFORM YOU SO MUCH into my image likeness that many around you will not recognize you for the change that has taken place…Some of you will say, that is not the Lord and the Lord does not work in that fashion. But, I the Lord say to you that many will suffer tension in the neck while others will suffer from whiplash and others will die from a broken neck. There are those who will frown on what I am about to do…”

It would be funny if it wasn’t so abominable to God when false teachers claim to speak for him and to teach others to do the same…for cash.

Prophets for Profit

Is it a scam? Does he know that neither he nor his students are prophets? Does he know that only God, not an online company, can call and gift a person? Does he know that God doesn’t charge a price for spiritual gifts? In short, how do we respond to this type of claim?

To find the answer let’s consider 1 Timothy 1:5-7.

Testing teachers of the Law…

1. MOTIVE OF TEACHERS

A. THE LAWFUL MOTIVE OF TEACHERS:

1 Timothy 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Not all teaching you hear outside your own church is false teaching and it is also worth remembering that no one teacher can be 100% correct, 100% of the time. But there is a difference between a teacher who is mistaken in one or two minor areas of their doctrine and a false teacher. False teachers twist the essential doctrines of the gospel, the deity of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, the means of salvation, the glory of the Father. False teachers distort the gospel—how we get to Heaven.

Paul has just urged Timothy to remain at Ephesus to charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.

Why? Vs 5 The aim of our charge is love…

Paul’s saying “I’m telling you this because I want your people to become more loving people, but different doctrines and distracting devotions do not make people more loving for the kingdom, it makes them more useless to the kingdom.”

The lawful use of the law and the lawful motive of teachers of God’s word must always steer people toward more love. When Christians differ with each other, or with unbelievers, and they get angry, slanderous, and mean in their dealings, they are unloving.

The aim of what we teach at church and why we are so careful to defend truth…is to produce more love in you. Love for Jesus, love for Christians, love for neighbors, love for enemies.

Right doctrine leads not only to right actions but to right motives for those actions.

So why do these teachers teach a different doctrine and myths and genealogies rather than the stewardship of true doctrine from God?

B. THE AWFUL MOTIVE OF TEACHERS:

1 Timothy 1:5-7 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

The motives of false teachers are the opposite of love from a pure heart – they have impure hearts, the opposite of a good conscience – their conscience is seared by what they are doing, and the opposite of a sincere faith – their faith in Jesus is not sincere.

When Christian teachers teach error it is because they have a faulty conscience. Either they don’t know what they are teaching is unbiblical, in which case they should study the Bible more before they make confident assertions about something they don’t know about. Or…they do know what they are teaching is unbiblical.

Why would a person teach what is unbiblical when they know it is unbiblical? What are some awful reasons a person might want to teach the word of God?

· Money

Titus 1: 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

· Respect

Matthew 23: 6-8 and they [Jewish rabbis of Jesus day] love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.

· Popularity

Philippians 1:15-17 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, … [they…] proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely …

So, there are many people who desire to be teachers, but they don’t want to put in the work required to understand and explain God’s word accurately. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

They don’t understand what they are talking about. But they declare it with such authority that people believe it. The true test of one’s teaching is this: does it accord with Scripture? That is the touchstone of truth.

So, that’s the test of motives of teachers. But what is the awful and lawful use of the Old Testament Law in the New Testament church? Check back with us next week Monday…

God’s Responsibilities for Governing Authorities

Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:51:16 GMT

God is sovereign over government (Rom. 13:1-2). For that reason, those in positions of governing authority have a responsibility to him. It is a dangerous thing to be in such a position because inherent to it are high standards.

Whether a king, judge, governor, president, congressman, senator, mayor, or the like, God has requirements for all civil authorities. In a recent sermon, John MacArthur unpacked these requirements from God’s word.

Worship of the true God

“Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; take warning, O judges of the earth. ¹¹ Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling. ¹² Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” (Ps. 2:10-12)

As with all humanity, a governing authority’s first responsibility is to worship the God of the Bible. “And let all kings bow down before him, all nations serve him” (Ps. 72:11). This was illustrated in a sobering way with the pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar. He was punished for seven years in light of his pride manifest in the state-mandated worship of himself (Dan. 3:7, 4). Thereafter, he fulfilled his duty of worshiping God (Dan. 4:34-37). All leaders are to worship God or judgment will fall. If you reject the Son of God, you will anger God, and his wrath will eventually fall on you.

2. Righteousness

“The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God” (2 Sam. 23:3).

Civil leaders are obligated to live according to God’s righteousness. The Proverbs have much to say about a civil authority’s mandate to rule righteously. “It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, for a throne is established on righteousness” (Prov. 16:12). “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan” (Prov. 29:2).

We need to pray for our rulers; for salvation and corresponding righteous rule.

3. Justice

“The king gives stability to the land by justice, but a man who takes bribes overthrows it” (Prov. 29:4).

“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. ⁹ Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Prov. 31:8-9).

Similar to righteousness, civil authorities are to rule with justice. They are to govern justly without impartiality. If a ruler slaughters innocents under his rule, he will pay. This reminds us that some of the most innocent of all are unborn babies.

4. Wisdom

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. ³ As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. ⁴ Take away the dross from the silver, and there comes out a vessel for the smith; ⁵ Take away the wicked before the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness” (Prov. 25:2-5).

Governing authorities are to exercise God’s wisdom as they rule. Kings are to solve difficult problems by means of God-given wisdom. However, they must walk righteously to exercise his fullest wisdom. Wisdom comes only from God (Dan. 2:20-23).

5. Honesty

“Excellent speech is not fitting for a fool, much less are lying lips to a prince” (Prov. 17:7).

“Loyalty and truth preserve the king, and he upholds his throne by righteousness” (Prov. 20:28).

The lies of people in power weary a nation’s citizens. God requires that civil leaders only speak truth.

6. Morality

“The words of King Lemuel, the oracle which his mother taught him:…³ Do not give your strength to women, or your ways to that which destroys kings. ⁴ It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink, ⁵ for they will drink and forget what is decreed, and pervert the rights of all the afflicted” (Prov. 31:1, 3-5).

Civil leaders are to be free from vices such as sexual immorality, drunkenness, over-indulgence, and indifferences. God requires that governing authorities live morally upright.

7. Humility

“The Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they paid no attention. ¹¹ Therefore the Lord brought the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze chains and took him to Babylon. ¹² When he was in distress, he entreated the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers” (2 Chron. 33:10–12).

As with all people, God requires humility from governing authorities. Humility involves a willingness to acknowledge sin, repent, and turn before it’s too late. God expects that out of evil rulers. We must call evil leaders to repent, fall before God, and cry out for forgiveness and mercy through Jesus Christ.

8. Protection

“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. ⁹ Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Prov. 31:8-9).

“Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and founds a town with violence!” (Hab. 2:12).

Rulers are required by God to provide unbiased protection for their people. Governing authorities are to provide protection for the innocents under their rule. Again, there is no one more innocent and in need of protection than unborn babies.

9. Courage

“Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. ‘This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success’” (Jos. 1:7-8).

The way to be courageous is to follow the word of God. We must have a resolve to be faithful to it. Courage will be the product of doing so. The Lord God will be with a ruler who sticks to Scripture.

Conclusion

The God of the Bible is the true and only God. These are his requirements for all governing authorities. To lead a nation that God will bless, a leader must worship the true God and lead accordingly. Those with power must be very careful with that power. The first thing they must do with power is to honor God and the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. He must submit to God’s commands. God’s standards are the only way to distinguish a good ruler from a bad one. As he does, God will bless that ruler.

In all this, we understand that all human rulers will fall short of God’s standard. But one day, that will not be the case. When the Lord Jesus’ feet hit this earth, we will thereafter have a perfect Ruler, who perfectly keeps God’s requirements for rulers. Our hope is in him:

“Your eyes will see the King in His beauty; they will behold a far-distant land. ¹⁸ Your heart will meditate on terror: “Where is he who counts? Where is he who weighs? Where is he who counts the towers?” ¹⁹ You will no longer see a fierce people, A people of unintelligible speech which no one comprehends, of a stammering tongue which no one understands. ²⁰ Look upon Zion, the city of our appointed feasts; Your eyes will see Jerusalem, an undisturbed habitation, A tent which will not be folded; Its stakes will never be pulled up, nor any of its cords be torn apart. ²¹ But there the majestic One, the Lord, will be for us a place of rivers and wide canals on which no boat with oars will go, and on which no mighty ship will pass— ²² For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us” (Isa. 33:17–22).

RBG’S Dying Wish

Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:01:00 GMT

^{By Clint Archer}

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a titan. She was an institution. Her decades of trailblazing wrought tectonic shifts in society of inestimable influence—bringing to the family, the workplace, and jurisprudence amelioration or detriment, depending on your worldview.

It is only fitting that RBG’s final exit from this world occurred amidst the chaotic milieu of 2020. As if the pandemic, BLM riots, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, pedophilia porn on Netflix, LGBTQ+ normalization, and murder hornets (whatever those are), weren’t enough pandemonium for an election year, a last-minute SCOTUS vacancy has come to deliver the coup de grâce to America’s teetering hold on sanity and stability.

A vacuum such as this, so close to an election, will ignite a chain reaction that will certainly polarize politics even more than it is, which is hardly believable.

Wishful Thinking

RBG’s dying wish, expressed to her granddaughter, was that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. That might be wishful thinking. And therein lies the rub. We all have control over some of what happens while we are alive. Some of us have more control than others. RBG’s power and influence, and what she accomplished with it, was truly extraordinary. But none of us has any control over anything the second after we die.

No matter how wise, rich, famous, powerful, or effective we are in life, we are all alike in death…

Ecclesiastes 2:12 For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what has already been done. ¹⁶ … How the wise dies just like the fool! … ²¹ sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil.

Equal Rights.

The death of RBG should cause all of us to pause and consider. It must be difficult to be a judge and then have the gavel reclaimed in death, to be judged for every decision, action, word, thought, and motive of your life. But this will be the experience of us all at some point, and brings true equality for all; death is the ultimate equalizer.

Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.

I am trying not to get too distracted by what RBG did with her life and which part was good and which was bad—that is up to her Judge. I’d rather ponder my own life and my inevitable departure from this world. You and I and everyone else will stand before the righteous and holy Judge—the real Chief Justice—and we will be speechless.

Our only hope is that we have an advocate to intercede effectively on our behalf. The gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can have our sins expunged from our record, paid for by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and we can have his righteousness imputed to us and whoever believes.

R.I.P. RBG

There are many offering well-meaning wishes that Ruth Bader Ginsburg “rest in peace.” For her, the wishes of those left behind are as ineffectual as her own dying wish. And the same can be said of each of us. But you have the chance to make peace with the Judge now if you have not already done so.

But the second after you die will be one second too late; you’ll have no more control. There is only one way to rest in peace: rest in Jesus.

A Spiritual Start-up: the Disciples as Witnesses

Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:01:00 GMT

On February 4, 2004 two 19-year-old students launched a website that allowed other students in their university to share their personal information with their friends. Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin called their nascent social network: The Facebook.

Zuckerberg believed his version was more elegant than Harvard University’s directory where a picture of the student’s mugshot was uploaded along with their data.

Although Zuckerberg proved he was capable of illegally obtaining that information, by hacking the Harvard system, he and Saverin chose rather to launch the site legitimately by getting students to upload their own information voluntarily, which they did in droves. In the first month, more than half the students had offered up their personal data.

What makes this remarkable is that the only way to join the network was to have one student invite another. Zuckerberg shared his own account with a few friends who shared it with a few of their friends who shared it with others until eventually, the whole university was on the network. Then they spread it to other universities and high schools and then, in 2006, Facebook went public. It was now worth $15 billion. By 2011 it was logging 1 trillion page views per month, and it shortly boasted over 2.2 billion active users with 140 billion friend connections and a market valuation of over $200 billion.

And it all started with one guy inviting a few friends who invited a few friends. This is exactly how the kingdom of God was started up…

We have seen John the evangelist present us with two witnesses as to the claims of Jesus. First, we saw the testimony of John the Baptist and then that of the Trinity. Now, John introduces us to a new cohort of witnesses: the first disciples.

2 BASIC PARTS OF BEING A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST

1. COMMIT YOURSELF TO FOLLOW JESUS

John 1:35–37 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.

We meet some young men who will make a decision that will change the rest of their lives and their eternities. They had no idea what they were signing up for, but they were sure of one thing: Jesus is the Christ, and come what may, following him was the only appropriate response. This is a convincing element of their confidence in Christ. What they saw had convinced them that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.

These two disciples, we will find out, are Andrew and John– the writer of this gospel.

John 1:38-39 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.

Jesus asks them a direct and deep existential question: “What are you seeking?” They reply with a question of their own, “Where are you staying?” In other words, wherever you are going to be, we want to join you there.

Jesus invites them to join him and they spend the rest of the evening with him. We have no idea what was discussed that night, but whatever it was convinced them of something amazing, because Andrew goes that same night to find his brother, Simon, and makes this jaw-dropping announcement: “We have found the Messiah,” which John translates for his Gentile readers as The Christ, the anointed one.

Now John skips to the next scene on…

John 1:43–51 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” …Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

This is all self-explanatory except that last part. Nathanael, who is usually known by his surname, Bartholomew, is initially skeptical. But his skepticism melts away when Jesus says he recognizes him from under the fig tree. We don’t know what this means, and apparently neither does John, because he doesn’t explain it. And that is the point. Nathanael had experienced some sort of private, intimate worshipful experience with God under a fig tree, so when Jesus says “I know you from the fig tree incident,” it’s an inside, “you had to have been there” moment. And Nathanael is instantly convinced that Jesus is the Messiah and calls him the Son of God!

And Jesus, says, basically, You think that’s impressive? You’re going to see a whole lot of visionary stuff that will rival the vision Jacob had (Genesis 28:12).

But back to the main point. The Christian life is very simple. First commit yourself to Christ.

All these young men are instantly all-in from the beginning. And this is the only way to become a disciple of Jesus. A year and half later they will become apostles or official delegates. But from day one they were disciples or learners and they never wavered on that commitment.

There is no place for lukewarm disciples. You are either all in, or you are all out.

2. INTRODUCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW JESUS

John 1: 41-46 He [Andrew] first found his own brother Simon … He brought him to Jesus. …Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” … Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

Andrew’s impulse is to bring his brother to Jesus. Philip’s first instinct is to bring his friend Nathanael to Jesus. This is always the first impulse of true believers who find Jesus. They want to take him to those they love.

Sometimes people reject the gospel, but sometimes they accept it. If God is working in their hearts preparing the soil for the seed of the gospel, then your sowing work will bear fruit.

When Philip introduces Jesus to Nathanael, Jesus already knows him. When Andrew introduces Jesus to Simon, Jesus already knows him and his destiny.

So, get out there and connect people with Christ. Expand your network of converts. Talk about Jesus. Share the good news. Invite people to church. Do whatever you can to win souls for Christ.

Jesus came to die for you, will you be a true follower? Will you follow him even if it cost you all you have? If so, you too can be a disciple of Christ.

Behold the Lamb: The Trinity Testifies

Mon, 07 Sep 2020 08:01:00 GMT

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, better known as Tertullian, lived circa 160 – 240 A.D. This Christian scholar and writer became famous for defending the early Christian faith against heretical attacks and for coining one of the most important theological terms in Christianity.

Early in the 3^rd century, a priest called Sabellius began teaching that God had three different forms or “modes” which he flipped between: Father, Son, or Spirit. He described God as having three masks, which God selected, depending on what he was trying to reveal to mankind.

This was a heroic attempt to explain why God is sometimes called the Father while at other times, the Son, and yet also the Holy Spirit. But this attempt by Sabellius didn’t sit right with Tertullian, who countered it with his own, more biblical, explanation.

At that time there wasn’t even a word that existed for the three natures of God. So Tertullian made one up. He called his concept the Trinity. As I’m sure you realize… the name stuck.

In order to disprove Sabellius’ “three masks theory” Tertullian invoked a dramatic occasion in the Bible where all three members of the Trinity manifest simultaneously, which we find in John chapter 1.

John the evangelist will call witnesses who appear on three consecutive days. Last week we met the first witness: John Baptizer.

Today we see the three-in-one witness of the Trinity…

1. THE ARRIVAL OF THE LAMB

John 1: 29-34 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” ……And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

John’s whole life and ministry was validated in that moment. Mission accomplished.

He doesn’t declare, Behold the king who rules and reigns and conquers the Romans!

He doesn’t say, Behold Your God, who created the universe by the word of his power.

He doesn’t say Behold the Word become flesh to dwell among us.

No, he says “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

To John, Jesus is the Savior of mankind, the propitiation for our sins, the sacrificial lamb that would make atonement for our guilt.

This was Isaiah’s portrayal in Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

This occasion is the first time Jesus is called the Lamb in the New Testament, but it isn’t the last. In Revelation, Jesus is depicted as the Lamb twenty-seven times. The Lamb will be his identity from this moment on and into eternity.

2. THE APPEARANCE OF THE SPIRIT

John 1:32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.

The Spirit descended, not in the form of a dove, but in the manner of a dove. The Greek is specific here. He descended like a dove would descend, or a pigeon, or some other gentle descent.

And this is a landmark moment in history. Here we are introduced to the third member of the Trinity.

There have always been three entities in the “God category,” namely the Father, the Son whom the Father eternally generated, and the Spirit, who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son (yes, “and the Son” is important if you land on the Western side of the filoque debate).

The Father exists as Father because he is generating a Son.

The Son exists because he is generated by the Father.

The Spirit exists because he proceeds from the Father and Son as a distinct Person.

The Spirit was present in creation: Genesis 1: 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The Spirit is active in regenerating salvation… John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

The Spirit is responsible for keeping us saved (2 Corinthians 1:21-22), he prays for us (Romans 8:26-27), and he responds to us, even our sin (Ephesians 4:30).

It is mysterious stuff indeed. But for now, the main point John makes is this: the Holy Spirit was at the baptism of Jesus as a distinct entity. Sorry Sabellius, your mask theory doesn’t work.

And that’s not all…

3. THE APPROVAL OF THE FATHER

John 1: 31-34 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

John the Baptist here refers to a third distinct Person who is neither the Son nor the Spirit.

God audibly spoke to John and gave him instructions on what his ministry would be: to baptize, to be the voice of Isaiah 40:3, and that there would be confirmation of the Christ by the visible descent of the Holy Spirit.

But we know from Matthew that the Father’s testimony was public…

Matthew 3:16-17 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

This event is the clearest display of God’s triunity; all three are present at this one event. This is why we refer to the Godhead as the Trinity.

But let’s not lose sight of what John is trying to say: first, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Christ, then Jesus showed up to fulfill all righteousness as the Christ, then the Spirit showed up and confirmed that he is God’s Christ, then the Father announced audibly that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Gospel of John was written to convince you that Jesus is the Son of God and that by trusting in him you can have eternal life (John 20:30-31). You do not have to fully understand the Trinity, but you must believe that there is a Father who loves you, a Son who died for you, and a Spirit who causes you to be born again.

Next week John calls another cohort of witnesses – the disciples.

MacArthur: 4 ways to recognize a man of God

Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:01:00 GMT

This past Sunday was the graduation ceremony for The Master’s Seminary. These men were supposed to have graduated in May, but because of restrictions in California, the celebration was moved August. It took place outdoors, in a tent, but that did not diminish the joy these students felt at completing their studies.

This was a special day for me because two students from our Washington DC location graduated, and it was a joy to gives thanks to the Lord for their faithfulness, and for the impact of The Master’s Seminary on both coasts of the United States.

Pastor MacArthur charged the graduates to remember Paul’s description of “the man of God” (1 Timothy 6:11, 2 Timothy 3:17). The phrase “man of God” is used over 70 times in the Old Testament, and refers to someone who has been given a special word from the Lord for God’s people. It is found in the New Testament only twice, both times of Timothy.

Dr. MacArthur then gave the students four descriptions of the man of God, drawn from 1 Timothy 6:11.

The man of God is known by what he flees from. Paul repeatedly reminded Timothy to run form pointless arguments and disputes (1 Timothy 1:4). He should have “nothing to do with silly myths” (1 Timothy 4:7). One might imagine today Paul telling Timothy to turn of the TV, run from the news, flee politics, and abandon social media. Those things take time and suck energy from the person who should be known as a man of God.

In addition to fleeing arguments and frivolity, the man of God should flee the love of money (1 Timothy 3:3, 6:10). It is impossible to be known as a man of God if you are also known as a man who loves money. Ministry for money is dangerous, as it corrupts the message and erodes confidence in the messenger. The man of God flees that, often times even working with his own hands to avoid being caught in the snare of the love of money (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

Second, the man of God is known by what he follows after. Paul connects the man of God to a list of virtues—he is to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness and gentleness. These things don’t happen naturally, they must be aggressively chased, and the man of God is willing to do that.

MacArthur pointed out that the sum total of a man of God’s reputation should be forged by what happens when he is on his knees, in his own relationship with the Lord, long before and after he is known by the rest of his life. Godliness is cultivated, not assumed, and the man of God is willing to pursue it.

Third, the man of God is known by what he fights for. Paul reminds Timothy that the life of faith is a fight (1 Timothy 4:12). Boxers in Rome would have gloves lines with fur or felt on the inside, but laced with metal on the outside. The loser might have his eyes gouged out. They fought as if their lives depended on it, because they often did.

The man of God has that approach to his faith. He fights to keep it. He labors with eternity in view. He fights against distractions, and he fights for godliness. Whatever things belong to the kingdom of God, the man of God is willing to fight to the death over.

Finally, the man of God is known by what he is faithful to (1 Timothy 4:13-14). Paul tells Timothy to guard the “good confession” and to “keep the commandment” of God. In the context of Paul’s letters to Timothy, this confession is the apostolic recognition of Christ (his divinity and humanity, as well as the nature of the gospel), and “the commandment” refers to all of scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Here is where the link to the Old Testament term is so apparent. If the man of God is anything, he is one who is faithful to God’s word. His life is marked by that faithfulness, and his ministry is flavored by it. IN fact, it is more than flavored by it, it is defined by it.

Pastor MacArthur ended his sermon by charging the graduates not to be known by how they stroke the sheep, but rather by how they feed them. He challenged them not only to be pastors, but to be men of God.

When you think of it, pray for the Master’s Seminary and their students and graduates in the Washington DC area. There are now six graduates from our location here, 16 students currently enrolled at our campus in DC, as well as another 15 in pastoral ministry in the DC metro area. We covet your prayers as we seek to honor Paul’s charge to Timothy to be men of God.

A Good Baptist: the 1st Witness

Mon, 31 Aug 2020 08:01:00 GMT

The 1947 classic film, Miracle on 34^th Street, is a courtroom-drama-meets-Christmas-story. The protagonist, Kris Kringle, is the resident Santa Claus at Macy’s department store, where he brings yuletide cheer to customers.

Through a complicated turn of events, he ends up labeled as insane for claiming that he is the real Santa Claus. The judge presiding over his case won’t rule that there is no such thing as Santa, as he worries that his own political aspirations will be negatively affected by popular backlash. Who wants to be the judge who declares Santa to be mythical? So, he humors Kringle’s defense attorney, Fred Gailey, by allowing the case and he assumes that since there is no way to win the case the blame will fall on Fred and not himself.

In order to build a case, Fred calls witnesses to testify that they believe Kringle is Santa. The prosecuting attorney demands that Fred further prove that Kringle is the one and only true Santa on the basis of a competent authority, not just faith. And this is where things get interesting.

The man sorting mail at the post office looks at the thousands of letters addressed to Santa Claus clogging up the mailroom and decides to get rid of them by sending them all to his favorite Santa, Kris Kringle. Fred dumps all 21 bags of letters in plain sight in the courtroom. The judge wades through the heaps of overwhelming evidence and declares that since the United States Postal Service recognizes Kringle as the real Santa Claus, his court won’t dispute it.

There’s another courtroom-drama-meets-Christmas-story, wherein a supernatural claim is proven by mountains of evidence, furnished by a competent authority. I am of course talking about the gospel of John.

In John chapter 1, the evangelist calls three witnesses on three consecutive days to corroborate Jesus’ claim of deity. On day 1, we hear from John the Baptist, on day 2, the Trinity presents, and on day 3, the disciples. Today we call our first witness.

THE 1^st WITNESS TO CORROBORATE CHRIST’S CREDIBILITY: JOHN BAPTIZER

1. JOHN’S IDENTITY

John 1:¹⁹And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

John the evangelist introduces John the Baptist’s identity through an interrogation by priests from Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s Pharisees were self-appointed gate-keepers of ministry to the Jews, so they came to check up on this backwater upstart. They do so with a loaded question: “Who are you?”

They’re gearing for a fight but John takes the wind out their sails by agreeing with them.

John 1:20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

So they keep poking: John 1:21-22And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

So why do they ask about Elijah? Because the last verses of the Old Testament predicted that before the Christ comes, the prophet Elijah would return (Malachi 4:5). (What people didn’t know was that the Christ would come twice, and this prophesy refers to his second coming).

But John is a foreshadowing of Elijah, as the angel told Zechariah about his future son:

Luke 1:¹⁶And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, ¹⁷and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

But on the record John is not Elijah, so they ask, “Are you the Prophet?”

The Prophet was also someone the Jews knew would come in the future in the spirit of Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:18–19 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

But John denies this too: ²¹…And he answered, “No.”

So, who are you then buddy?

John 1:23He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”

John is citing Isaiah 40:3 which predicted that before the Lord came to earth there would be a forerunner to get the people ready.

This is the identity of John the Baptist: he was the forerunner sent to get the nation spiritually ready for the coming of their King. To give each Jew a chance to consider his ways, clean-up his act, and repent of his sin. Why? Because only the true believers would recognize and receive their Messiah.

And how would John accomplish this spiritual advance team preparation?

By his particular ministry…

2. JOHN’S MINISTRY

John 1:25They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

The priests aren’t sure what to do with his denial of being the Christ. So they ask—why are you baptizing? But why was this baptism such a big deal?

Baptism was a ritual done when a Gentile converted to Judaism. The baptism, called the tevilah was the ceremonial bath in running water that symbolized washing away the old life of a Gentile, and being re-born into Judaism.

But John wasn’t having a revival tent outreach event trying to get Gentiles to convert to Judaism, he was telling Jews that they were as bad as Gentiles and needed to admit their guilt and be baptized to convert to true Judaism before the Messiah arrived.

A Jew being baptized was unheard of, but for some reason, this message resonated with so many people, so John moved his shop to a river.

And the priests from Jerusalem didn’t know what to do with it…so…John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:26-27).

Essentially John is saying that his ministry will make sense when the King comes, so they should wait; his ministry was about to be validated by the arrival of the Christ.

We see John’s consummate humility and clear understanding of his role. John knew this mega-church success was nothing in the kingdom compared to what was about to happen: the King was about to arrive.

John only cared about one thing: not his fame, not his possessions, not his reputation – just his King.

CONCLUSION

How about you? Do you believe that Jesus is God, the One whom God promised to send, the King? Do you believe he lived the perfect life and died on the cross in your place and rose again for the forgiveness of your sins? Then don’t go another day without living for the purpose God called you—not to be rich and famous and self-actualized, but to be a light in the darkness, a voice crying out the truth of God’s word to a needy world.

Public Worship to be Preferred before Private

Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:02:00 GMT

David Clarkson was puritan John Owen’s assistant minister at the end of his life. Clarkson published several works, and went on to pastor in Owen’s place after his death. On one occasion, he preached a roughly 80-minute sermon from Psalm 87:2, “The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” The title of the sermon is Public Worship to be Preferred before Private.

The following is a summary of Clarkson’s sermon.

Public worship involves three elements: ordinances, an assembly, and an officer.

1. Ordinances include prayer, praises, the word read, expounded, or preached, and the administration of the sacraments.

2. There must be an assembly; a congregation joined in the use of these ordinances. We cannot put a number on it. However, one or two people, or a family, is to be considered private (not a church), but is not public worship.

3. There must be an officer. He must be set apart by the Lord, biblically qualified, and affirmed by a church.

Here are 12 reasons why public worship is preferred over private worship; why my quiet time is not a substitute for biblical corporate worship; why a devotional with friends or family is not an acceptable substitute for God’s kind of corporate gathering.

1. The Lord is more glorified by public worship than private.

God is glorified by us when we acknowledge that he is glorious. And he is most glorified when this acknowledgment is most public. A public acknowledgment of the worth and excellency of someone tends more to his honor than that which is private or secret. David was more honored by the public celebration of his victory than if it were in private (1 Sam. 18:7). Seeking to render God the most glory, the psalmist summons all the earth to praise him (Ps. 96:1-3).

2. There is more of the Lord’s presence in public worship than in private.

We understand that God is omnipresent. He is present with his people in private. However, he is present with his people in the use of public ordinances in a more extraordinary manner; more effectually, constantly, and intimately. After the Lord instructed on public worship, he adds, “In every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you” (Exod. 20:24).

The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particulars are joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and meet in one. Thus, the presence of God, which, enjoyed in private, is but a stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God. The Lord has a dish for every particular soul that truly serves him; but when many particulars meet together, there is a variety, a confluence, a multitude of dishes. The presence of the Lord in public worship makes it a spiritual feast, and so it is expressed (cf. Isa. 25:6).

3. God manifests himself more in public worship than in private.

David saw as much of God in secret as could then be expected, but he expected more in public. Not satisfied with his private enjoyments as much as public, he longed after public ordinances, for this reason, that he might have clearer discoveries of the Lord: “One thing I have asked from the Lord, that I shall seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to meditate in His temple” (Ps. 27:4).

Why was this one thing above all desirable? Why, but to behold the beauty of the Lord? As in Psalm 63:1-2, David was in a wilderness; a dry and thirsty land, where was no water, yet he did not so much thirst after outward refreshments as after the public ordinances; and why? “To see Your power and Your glory” (Ps. 63:2).

4. There is more spiritual advantage in the use of public ordinances than in private.

Whatever spiritual benefit is to be found in private duties, that, and much more, may be expected from public worship. There is more spiritual light and life; more strength and growth; more comfort and soul refreshment. When the church inquires of Christ where she might find comfort and soul nourishment, food and rest, he directs her to public ordinances.

Shepherds are pastors or teachers, those to whom the Lord has committed the administration of his public ordinances. To them is the church directed for food and rest, for spiritual comfort and nourishment; and it is commended to her as the known way of the whole flock; that flock whereof Christ is chief shepherd.

Ephesians 4 proves this. Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). The Lord wishes for our fullest edification: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). These are the ends for which the Lord Jesus gave his church public officers and ordinances; and they will never fail of these ends if we fail not in the use of them.

Asaph had private helps as well as we, but his temptations were not conquered until he went into the sanctuary (Ps. 73:16-17). Thus there is more spiritual advantage in public worship than in private, and therefore it is to be preferred.

5. Public worship is more edifying than private.

In private you provide for your own good, but in public you do good both to yourselves and others. And that is a received rule, that good is best which is most diffusive, most communicative. “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together” (Ps. 34:3).

Live coals, if separated, and lay them asunder, will quickly die; but while they are together, they serve to continue heat in one another. We may quicken one another, while we join in worshipping God; but deadness, coldness, or lukewarmness may seize upon the people of God, if they forsake the assembling of themselves together. It is more edifying, and therefore to be preferred.

6. Public ordinances are a better security against apostasy than private.

In times of compromise, this is especially pertinent. He that wants the public ordinances, whatever private means he enjoys, is in danger of apostasy (cf. Heb. 10:24-26). David was as much in the private duties of God’s worship as any, while he was in banishment; yet, because he was thereby deprived of the public ordinances, he looked upon himself as in great danger of idolatry: “…for they driven me out today so that I would have no attachment with the inheritance of the Lord, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods’” (1 Sam. 26:19).

We have many instances nearer home to confirm this. Is not the rejecting of public ordinances the great step to the woeful apostasies amongst us? Who is there falls off from the truth and holiness of the gospel into licentious opinions and practices, that has not first fallen off from the public ordinances? Who is there in these times that has made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, who has not first cast the public worship of God overboard? The sad issue of forsaking the public assemblies (too visible in the apostasy of divers professors) should teach us this truth, that public ordinances are the great security against apostasy, a greater security than private duties, and therefore to be preferred.

Public worship stabilizes us from being tossed to and fro (Eph. 4:14). No wonder if those that reject the means fall short of the end; no wonder if they be tossed to and fro, till they have nothing left but wind and froth. This was the means which Christ prescribed to the church, that she might not fall away.

7. The Lord does his greatest works through public worship.

The most wonderful things that are now done on earth are wrought in the public ordinances, though the commonness and spiritualness of them makes them seem less wonderful. Here the Lord speaks life unto dry bones, and raises dead souls out of the grave and sepulchre of sin, wherein they have lain putrefying many years. Here the dead hear the voice of the Son of God through his messengers, and those that hear do live. Here he gives sight to those that are born blind; it is the effect of the gospel preached to open the eyes of sinners, and to turn them from darkness to light. Here he cures diseased souls with a word, which are otherwise incurable by the utmost help of men and angels. He sends forth his word, and heals them; it is no more with him but speaking the word, and they are made whole. Here he dispossesses Satan, and casts unclean spirits out of the souls of sinners that have been long possessed by them. Here he overthrows principalities and powers, vanquishes the powers of darkness, and causes Satan to fall from heaven like lightning. Here he turns the whole course of nature in the souls of sinners, makes old things pass away, and all things become new.

The Lord has not confined himself to work these wonderful things only in public; yet the public ministry is the only ordinary means whereby he works them. And since his greatest works are wrought ordinarily by public ordinances, and not in private, therefore we should value and esteem the public ordinances before private duties.

8. Public worship is the nearest resemblance of heaven.

In heaven, so far as the Scripture describes it to us, there is nothing done in private; nothing in secret; and all the worship of that glorious company is public. The innumerable company of angels, and the church of the first-born, make up one general assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, 28). They make one glorious congregation, and so jointly together sing the praises of him that sits on the throne, and the praises of the Lamb, and continue employed in this public worship to eternity.

9. The examples of the most renowned servants of God have preferred public worship before private.

It was so in the judgment of those who were guided by an infallible Spirit; those who had most converse with God, and knew most of the mind of God; and those who had experience of both, and were in all respects the best, the most competent judges. This was David’s heart (Ps. 84:1-2). Longing, nothing else could satisfy. Fainting, it was his life; he was ready to faint; to die, for want of it. “For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Ps 84:10).

David was at this time a king, either actually or at least anointed. Yet, he professes he had rather be a doorkeeper where he might enjoy God in public, than a king where deprived of public worship. He would choose rather to sit at the threshold, as the original is, than to sit on a throne in the tents of wickedness; in those wicked, heathenish places where God was not publicly worshipped.

Hezekiah and Josiah were the two kings of Judah of highest esteem with God, as he has made it known to the world by his testimony of them. Now what was their eminency but their zeal for God? And where did their zeal appear, but for the public worship of God? (2 Chron. 29:2, 8; 34; 35).

The apostles also, and early Christians bear record of this. How careful were they of taking all opportunities that the word might be preached, and the Lord worshipped in public! How many hazards did they run; how many dangers; how many deaths did they expose themselves to by attempting to preach Christ in public! Their safety, their liberty, and their lives were not so dear to them as the public worship; whereas, if they would have been contented to have served the Lord in secret, it is probable they might have enjoyed themselves in peace and safety. The Lord, how much soever above us, did not think himself above ordinances, though he knew them then expiring; nor did he withdraw from public worship, though then corrupted. Nay, he exhorts his disciples to hear them who publicly taught in Moses’s chair, though they had himself, a far better teacher. You find him frequently in the synagogues, in the temple, and always at the Passover. His zeal for public worship was such, as they apply that of the psalmist to him, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”

10. Public worship is the most available for the procuring of the greatest mercies, and preventing and removing the greatest judgments.

The greatest mercies are those that are most available and of most benefit to an entire nation or church. Public worship is the most effective in declaring the Lord’s mercies, for example, in diverting corporate calamities. An example of this is Joel 2:15-16.

Jehoshaphat also serves as an example (2 Chron. 20:4, 9, 15, 28). A corporate declaration was made, seeking the Lord’s mercy. And a corporate mercy was granted. The Lord provided an extensive corporate mercy to Nineveh in response to the preaching of Jonah to the nation (Jonah 3:4-5, 10). Peter was spared by the mercies of God through the corporate prayer of the church (Acts 12:5). The church received an animated corporate blessing in response to their corporate prayer (Acts 4:31).

11. The precious blood of Christ is most interested in public worship, and that must needs be most valuable which has most interest in that which is of infinite value.

The grace of Christ’s finished work on the cross seems to have higher influence on public worship than private. In corporate worship, Christ is uniquely recalled as crucified before our eyes (e.g. in preaching and the Lord’s Supper). As such, we are reminded that we are the purchased of Christ, and thus the gifts of his triumph over sin and Satan. In Ephesians 4, Paul pulls from the idea that triumphant conquerors would distribute gifts among the citizens. Those gifts, in the church, are public officers, and consequently public ordinances to be administered by those officers (vv. 11-12). How valuable are those ordinances, which are the purchase of that precious blood, and which are the gifts Christ reserved for the glory of his triumph!

12. The promises of God are more to public worship than to private.

Scripture gives several examples of how this is true. The Lord promises his presence in the places before claimed (Exod. 20:24). Protection and direction are promised (Isa. 4:5). The Lord was to the assemblies of his people as a pillar of cloud and fire (Exod. 13:21). His presence shall be as much effectually to his people now as those pillars were then. As formerly in the wilderness, the Lord, having filled the inside of the tabernacle with his glory, covered the outside of it with a thick cloud (Exod. 40:34), so will he secure his people and their glorious enjoyments in public worship. His presence within shall be as the appearance of his glory, to refresh them; his presence without shall be as a thick cloud to secure them.

We are promised light, life, and joy in abundance (Ps. 36:8-9); life and blessedness (Prov.. 8:34-35); spiritual communion and nourishment (Rev. 3:20). Grace and glory, yea, all things that are good are promised. There is not a more full and comprehensive promise in the Scripture than in Psalm 84:11: “No good thing will be withhold from them that walk uprightly.”

But what is this to public worship? The whole psalm speaks of public worship; and therefore, we must take this as promised to sincere walking with God in public worship. The word “for” (v. 11) connecting verses 10 and 11 explain why David had such a high esteem of public worship; why he preferred one day in God’s house before a thousand; and therefore this promise must have reference to public worship, else there is no reason to use this as a reason.

For these reasons, public worship is to be preferred before private worship.

The full transcript of Clarkson’s sermon can be viewed here.

Let is Go! Wine Bombs & Ripped Jeans

Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:00:00 GMT

The word pertinacious means holding obstinately and stubbornly to a belief, from the Latin, pertenax – a thoroughly firm hold.

The Flat Earth Society is nothing if not pertinacious.

This society clings to an archaic belief that the earth is a flat disc with magnetic north in its center. One understands how this belief could have been popular for the first 5000 or so years of human history, but it takes a more gymnastic use of mathematics to keep the faith today. Adherents to this model of geography employ elaborate explanations of the physics that account for the masts of ships appearing on the horizon before their hulls. They possess theoretical paradigms that explain how eclipses and seasons occur. Not even sailors’ circumnavigation of the globe put a dent in their faith. But then came the satellite images of earth taken from space, published in the 1950s, followed by the eye-witness reports when the astronauts of Apollo 11 returned from the Moon, toting a slew of selfies with the earth as a geoid globe in the background.

Surely now the Flat-Earthers would cry uncle? And yet, Samuel Shenton, an unphased member of the Flat Earth Society, declared condescendingly that “it is easy to see how a photograph like that [you know, of the geoid planet from the Moon’s vantage point] could fool the untrained eye.”

The society consists of over 3,000 pertinacious adherents. I wish they’d listen to that song from Frozen and just “Let it go!”

In Luke 5 we meet another pertinacious group. Jesus had been seen eating with Matthew and the Pharisees accused him of dining with tax-collectors and other sinners. Then they ask Jesus why his disciples do not fast as the Pharisees’ disciples do. So Jesus responds with a trident parable intended to expose their legalistic hearts. In this series of parables we see three obvious truths about legalism…

1. LEGALISM IS INAPPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF GRACE

Luke 5:34-35 And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.”

Picture a wedding. Celebration, laughter, music, dancing, food, and wine are the order of the day. Now imagine that after the newlywed couple exits the church doors under a shower of confetti, the pastor announces that the couple has asked to do something a little different for their reception. Instead of serving a meal and throwing a party, they ask that we all spend the next three hours in solemn prayer and fasting for the plight of those who are starving worldwide. Do you think you would you hear whispers of ‘Wow, how spiritual they are’? No. Over the protestations of grumbling stomachs you’d hear protestations of grumbling voices saying ‘What a couple of wackos they are! I want my gift back!’

Why?

Is there something wrong with fasting? No, of course not. Fasting is a spiritual discipline that is appropriate in the life of mature believers… but never at a wedding!

At a wedding, fasting is inappropriate. Not wrong, or sinful, just not apropos for a celebratory occasion.

That is Jesus’ point. Your personal convictions are only helpful if they are subordinate to the law of Christ.

So you may decide that you will never drink alcohol, never smoke, never watch movies, never use credit, never dye your hair, or any other restriction that has the intention of fostering sanctification in your life. But it’s important to remain aware of which rules are of your own making, and which are actually in the Bible for all Christians to obey.

A church may decide that baptisms will be done in a church service by an elder, or that the Lord’s Supper will be taken monthly, or that the pastor will wear a collared shirt. But the Bible does not mandate any of that. So, in parts of Africa when the pastor shows up without a collared shirt, or Bhutan where baptisms are done in a river, or in Holland where Communion is served once every three months, you have to be willing to jettison your rules as inappropriate for their culture.

2 LEGALISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH GRACE

Luke 5:36 He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.

Old clothes are familiar, comfortable, well worn-in. You grow attached to them, but they get out of style, lose their color, look shabby, and may become threadbare and cease to meet your need. New clothes are unfamiliar, unpredictable, take getting used to, but they may be more suited to the need at hand.

But one thing is sure: you can’t mix them. When you by a new pair of jeans, you don’t cut a piece off to patch your old comfy pair. You’d ruin them both!

Traditions can also be familiar, comfortable, and predictable. But they sometimes need to be updated to meet the need at hand. These Pharisees wanted Jesus to keep the old traditions of law while he was trying to introduce the New Covenant of grace.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The old cloth refers to the old Jewish traditions, based on the old Law; the new cloth is the New Covenant of grace.

And they are incompatible.

Then in Luke 5:37-39, Jesus makes the same point again: And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.

They didn’t have wine bottles – they had goats. So if you made a sack out of goatskin and put new wine in it, as the liquid fermented it released little bubbles and the air inside the sack expanded. But that’s okay, because the new leather stretched with the wine. When the wine stopped expanding, the leather would, over time, become hard, inflexible, and rigid. You know, like a legalist.

So Jesus is saying that everybody knows: if you put new wine (that is still bubbling) into a rigid old wineskin, you’re making …. a wine bomb!

You can’t add Christ’s grace to your rigid system of traditions.

You see this when someone enjoys a liberty the Bible allows, but the legalist prohibits. The legalist says: Christians don’t get tattoos. Then one day he notices a tattoo on the ankle of a respected lady in the church. You know what happens? Wine bomb! A messy, inappropriate confrontation of perceived sin… hurt feelings, ruined relationships.

3 LEGALISM IS INESCAPABLE WITHOUT GRACE

Luke 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’”

Jesus says in a sense, ‘You have to choose, but I know which one you’ll choose. The one with which you are familiar. The old wine.’

Jesus is saying that the people who like old ways, won’t like new ways, on principle. The Pharisees aren’t going to ditch their fasting for rejoicing just because the Messiah is here. They are pertinacious. They stubbornly cling to their belief that their tradition is right.

So what is the solution?

Grace.

The free gift of God’s power. God needs to sovereignly overpower your legalism, your self-righteous pride, change your heart, and flood you with grace. Grace to see the way you have been doing things your whole life is no longer appropriate. Grace to realize your system isn’t infallible.

How do you explain people who leave a lifetime of Catholicism, or Mormonism, or Islam or any legalistic system, for the new wine of the gospel? The only explanation is God’s grace.

CONCLUSION

Stop being pertinacious! Don’t make a wine bomb. Don’t let your rigid traditions and personal tastes stop you from embracing a new work of God.

God’s mercy is as old as time, but new every morning.

Praising God in song is as old as the angelic choir, but there are new songs and new voices to sing it.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is as old as the old rugged cross, but there are new ears to hear it and new ways to reach them.

Don’t be satisfied with the old wine of your traditions and risk refusing the new wine of Christ’s grace. If you are pertinaciously clinging to an inappropriate, legalistic tradition, there’s something you can do today… let it go!

3 views of submission to government from Romans 13

Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:10:00 GMT

Many of you I’m sure have been following what has been happening with Grace Church in Los Angeles. The short version is that the government there has banned singing in church worship services, and then later banned indoor church services altogether, while putting several (impractical) limitations on their meeting outdoors.

The church continued to meet, and released a statement respectfully notifying the government that they were going to obey God by singing and meeting (“Christ, not Caesar, is Head of the Church: A biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open”). Their legal saga is ongoing. The church won a temporary restraining order against the county, but that was reversed on appeal.

In the meantime, there have been several pastors that have challenged Grace’s insistence on meeting, and more than a few that have said by meeting Grace is violating Romans 13:1-7. So in this post I want to look more carefully at that passage, and hopefully bring out some nuance that I fear many modern American Christians have lost when it comes to Paul’s interaction with Caesar. First, here is the passage:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”
Romans 13:1-7

Through church history, there have basically been three ways Christians have interpreted this passage.

The Lutheran View: Obey in all things, except sin

Perhaps the most common ways of understanding this passage is the “obey the government in all things, unless they command you to sin” view. This is the view historically held by Lutherans, as well as other groups that tend to stress the church/state connection (The Augsburg Confession says obedience is owed at all times “save only when they command sin;” Article XVI).

In this view, Paul is teaching that the government is owed absolute allegiance, with the only exception being a clear command to sin. So if the government tells you that you must have church services while standing on one foot, then you have church services while standing on one foot. But if the government tells you to no longer share the gospel, then you say, “it is better to obey God than man.”

This view assumes that government is by default owed allegiance, and that the exceptions to that are very few—if any at all. I don’t find this view persuasive for two reasons. First, because it makes too much of government. By arguing that the government is owed allegiance at all times (except in rare cases of sin), it ends up demanding an allegiance to government that is really only owed God. Only God can command absolute obedience, and the disclaimer of “except in cases of commanded sin” would be true with him as well. It is no wonder this view is the one often held by those who see the church and state in partnership to advance the kingdom of God on earth. I’m aware that most American evangelicals adopt this view, and I think that is because many American theologians held it, and used it to support slavery (for example Dabney, in Practical Philosophy, 350-ff). When Americans, who generally have no business promoting a church/state connection, speak like this, I assume it is their “America is a Christian nation” hangover talking.

But the second reason I don’t find this view persuasive is because it makes it very difficult to follow Paul’s argumentation in the passage itself. He gives three reasons for obedience to the government—God tells you to, so you don’t go to jail, and also your conscience—and the second and third would be irrelevant if the first was as absolute as this view makes it sound. After all, if God tells you to obey, why care about your conscience? Who cares if you will go to jail, if the action that gets you there is a violation of God’s express command? In short, this view does not do justice to the intricacy of Romans 13:1-7.

The Presbyterian/Puritan View: Obey when the Government promotes good or checks evil

The second view has been more common in English church history. This view argues that government in general has two functions, both of which are described in Romans 13:3-4. It is designed by God to check evil and to promote good. These are the reasons God established government, and so long as government is rewarding moral good and restraining moral evil, government is acting as God’s servant, and is to be obeyed.

Obviously governing authorities do go beyond these two basic functions. They command us to do silly things, things which are neither good nor evil, but instead are superficial and meaningless. For example, if the government passes a law that requires you to eat fired chicken with your fingers (this is a real law!) one ought not to think that by eating with a fork you are rebelling against God. Calvin would say “Our obligation to submit to laws looks to the purpose of law, and not to the laws themselves (Institutes IV, 10.5).

Now, this doesn’t mean you should run out and eat chicken with a fork—that’s where the rest of Romans 13 comes in. There are two more reasons you might want to use your fingers. First, you don’t want to go to jail—hey, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime (just ask this 91-year old woman arrested for breaking this chicken law!). Second, because your conscience might convict you if you were to eat fried chicken with a fork—although it shouldn’t since these laws in reality should hold no sway on a believer’s conscience (again, see Calvin’s Institutes, IV, 10.5—there Calvin says that if a law does not promote society’s good then “it should not bind the conscience” and it is not owed submission).

Under this view of Romans 13, even non-Christian governments are capable of checking evil and promoting good. When they do so, they should be obeyed. Even when they pass laws that are of little moral value, they still should generally be obeyed for the sake of conscience and your freedom.

The strength of this view is that church has a role to play in society by encouraging moral conduct, and speaking truth to power in the government. Á la John the Baptist, government leaders should know if they are failing to check evil or promote righteousness.

This was the way many of the Puritans and Westminster divines understood Romans 13. This is what is behind the turn of phrase in the Westminster Assembly that believers are to obey a magistrate’s “lawful commands” (WCF 23:4). The implication is that some government laws go beyond the “lawful boundaries” set by God, and in those, submitting to them is not submitting to God. Again, I want to stress that this doesn’t mean we should disobey. It does mean however that if we do obey laws that are beyond the role of government, we are obeying out of fear of the sword or out of protection of the conscience—both of which are very good reasons. They are just different than saying “we obey all laws unless they command sin.”

Building on this view, Thomas Manton added that it was in keeping with Romans 13 for Christians to suffer the consequences of their disobedience to government. In other words, he understood this passage not as teaching submission by keeping the law, but rather submission by receiving the punishment due when we choose to disregard the law (James, 385).

Some might object to this view, saying that it is too liberal in opening the door to disregarding government commands. But that is exactly the point! Charles Hodge wrote:

“When the civil government may be, and ought to be disobeyed, is one which every man must decide for himself. It is a matter of private judgment.… An unconstitutional law or commandment is a nullity; no man sins in disregarding it. He disobeys, however, at his peril.”
Systematic Theology III, 359

Today, this is the view advocated by John and Paul Feinberg in Ethics for a Brave New World: “Apostolic teaching (Romans 13), like that of Jesus and the OT, basically enjoins submission to ruling powers in order to accomplish certain goals in society (for example, order and peace) that will benefit Christians’ efforts to achieve spiritual goals (for example, evangelism)” (707).

(This also the view held by Culver in his Systematic Theology- p. 266).

The Baptist View—All that, plus the freedom of the church

The baptist tradition is in line with the Puritan view above—namely that submission is owed to “lawful” commands. But baptists add an additional element: the government should not regulate the affairs of the church.

In practice, this is where many of the Westminster Divines were, but they were unable to articulate it as forcefully as the baptists. After all, the Westminster Assembly itself was called by parliament, whereas the baptists had no such skin in the government’s game.

For this reason, baptists have generally been more accepting of disobedience to the government. Baptists are often the first believers to be persecuted, and baptist polity has gone even further than Manton and Hodges did in elevating “freedom of conscience” as a baptistic distinctive. In stressing local congregation’s autonomy from each other, there is also a stressing that the government cannot order the church’s worship. In Anglicanism, the Queen can be the head of the church. In the 1700’s, the government of different nations had to approve the appointment of pastors at specific churches (Scotland, Sweden, Norway, etc.). But not for Baptists.

In reading blogs and on-line discourse about what Grace Church is doing, much has been made of what level of health threat COVID poses, and thus what level of deference is owed to the government. I understand that, especially for those who believe that there is a duty to obey lawful commands—for those, this all hinges on if banning churches from singing really does advance society’s good.

But for a baptist that is not going to ultimately be persuasive. For us, when it comes to church affairs, the questions is what do our elders think is the wisest course? and not What does the government say is the wisest course.

Simply put, baptists have never granted the premise that the government has the right to appoint worship times, methods, or frequency. If the government commands churches to stop singing, or to close, baptists may comply… but it won’t—or at least shouldn’t be—because of Romans 13.

It is Better to Die Than to Skip Church

Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:08:15 GMT

I can’t remember the last time I missed church. In fact, I don’t know if there ever has been a Sunday that I missed church unless I can’t remember a time that I was traveling or sick. I’m not patting myself on the back as I say this, I’m just telling you that I can’t remember ever missing church, that is until this coronavirus pandemic.

I didn’t go to church for a few weeks in a row. During this time my grandfather died. I went to the hospital with kidney stones. I had a difficult bout with asthma. I was raising support to leave as a missionary. I had some other difficult issues. All in all, it was probably one of the most intense few months of my life. And I didn’t have the Sunday gathering. Thankfully, I was prepared for this, the Lord was kind to give me an incredible wife and great friends that were a huge encouragement, but I will tell you that it was not easy. I’m sure that many of you felt the same.

If there’s anything that the coronavirus pandemic has taught us, it is that gathering with believers is essential. It’s essential for society. It’s essential for the church’s health. It is essential for my soul’s health.

Hebrews 10 has always been the go-to passage when it comes to church attendance. And while we love to tell the guy who skips churching in order to watch football not to neglect the gathering, I wonder if we ever considered this question: why were the early saints tempted to skip church? I mean some of them had seen the resurrected Jesus. If they hadn’t, most had met someone who had!

While it is surprising to hear of their struggle, I think we can find the answer in the very context of the passage itself.

After declaring the priority of the gathering and admonishing the church to stop skipping, the writer of Hebrews goes on to explain his concern for those who sin willfully and, in this context, those who sin willfully by refusing to attend church. He is concerned for their souls. He says that those who make it a habit of sinning should be worried about the state of their soul. If you know something is sin and have no problem doing it, then the writer of Hebrews says you should be concerned.

But then he says something pretty fascinating. He reminds them about what they faced when they gathered together at church. The persecution they endured is far greater than missing out on a football game or a day at the lake house. Their troubles were serious. Look at Hebrew 10:32-36,

“But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.”

What an incredible paragraph!

It’s a whole different ballgame when going to church might result in losing your home, being beaten or even killed. And yet, astonishingly, Paul looks them straight in the eye, so as to speak, and tells them that if they have to choose between their life and going to church, that they choose going to church every single time!

I think that this forced church closure has been an opportunity for us to consider just how essential the church is. I’m not talking about essential in a political kind of way, or even a societal one. I’m talking about how essential it is for my soul and yours.

The world is an absolute mess. I pray you see that. All week most Christians spend time in this world, and by necessity, must contribute to society by working and spending time in the world, but what we see all around us is tragic. This pandemic has shown us that many in the world, despite the clear signs as to how foolish it is, seek refuge in money, politics, and so many other feeble powers, neglecting the Creator of all things.

Christians need to see Sunday as the greatest moment of their week. The church is an oasis for the soul in which the believers around the world long to gather together to be refreshed by serving one another and by sitting under the preaching of His word.

It is imperative that the believer understands and longs for Sunday in such a way that they declare that they would rather die than skip church.

Do you feel that way?

I know that there’s a lot of debates right now about churches and their submission to government orders and regarding whether meeting is essential or not, but can we simply put those arguments aside and agree with this simple point, that it is better to die than to skip church?

Obviously, it is better to skip church if by going you will threaten the health of others around you; in other words, stay home if you’re sick. But I think that all Christians can, or better yet should, agree with the sentiment expressed by D.L. Moody when he said,

“Church attendance is as vital to a disciple as a transfusion of rich, healthy blood to a sick man.”

I’m not trying to fix any problems with this post, or win any debate, I am simply reminding all of us, that as the Lord tarries that we are called to do two things: to evangelize the unsaved and to encourage the saved. And if either of those things are taken away from us, then we might as well go to Heaven, for it is far better to be with Christ.

"Be the Bridge”: a review

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:08:12 GMT

When it comes to race relations in the United States, there is no denying that there is work to be done. Conflict obviously exists between blacks and whites as our nation continues to attempt to extricate itself from the morass of slavery, lynching, and segregation. People can get college degrees studying racial dynamics, and there are no easy remedies to our complicated culture.

In fact, the concept of race is such a central part of our culture that I’ve argued before that Christians really do need to train their minds to think about it from a biblical lens—and for that reason Christians will approach the divides in our country differently than the world does. We have a different starting point, a different road map, and a different destination, so it shouldn’t surprise us that our approach to race is distinct.

It is with that background that I wanted to review an increasingly popular book and related Bible study, Be the Bridge, by Latasha Morrison. For this review, I read the book Be the Bridge, as well as “The Bridge to Racial Unity: Leader’s Guide,” “The Bridge to Racial Unity: Discussion Guide 2.0,” and “Whiteness 101” (later retitled “Be the Bridge 101: Foundational Principles Every White Bridge Builder Needs to Understand”). In addition I read most of the recommended reading from the discussion guide 2.0, which encompasses over 20 books, blog posts and journal articles including White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo, “The Case for Reparations,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, by Bryan Stevenson, Prayers for a Privileged People, by Walter Brueggemann, as well as several books and articles from James Cone and Bryan Loritts. What I’m trying to say is that as I went through the Be the Bridge material, I did my homework.

Any fair review of this material necessitates understanding the American culture from Morrison’s perspective, and so I want to start there, before I give my two main concerns with its approach.

Morrison sees the United States as broken along racial lines. There is not one American culture, but rather there are two—white America, where race is taken for granted and not a factor, and the culture inhabited by people of color, where race is one of the defining features of their existence. The white culture has wealth, power, and influence, and that is not by-and-large the culture of people of color in the United States.

This divide is not limited to the world, but is seen in the church. Much of Be the Bridge is written in the context of Morrison moving to Austin and joining a predominately white evangelical church. Even though she was involved, she felt she didn’t fit in. Her friends all had seen the same shows and movies (Friends, Gilmore Girls), and none of them had seen The Color Purple (p. 4). While that is a silly cultural example, it serves to highlight how despite their common attendance at church, Morrison and her white friends were from two different Americas. This made Morrison wonder, shouldn’t the church bridge that divide?

To help do so, she developed this material. Now at one level, if this book and Bible study was just that, it could possibly be very effective. If its goal was more modest and jovial, I could see how it would work. Go into your church, get a group of ten women with no more than five from the same race, and then have conversations about growing up in America. What shows, movies, and books were influential in your childhood? How do they affect you today? What was church like growing up for you? How has racism affected you? Do you see it in your church still? How should we respond to that? Those kind of questions might likely produce diverse friendships and build bridges between different ethnicities in a congregation.

However, Morrison attempts way more than friendship building. She crafts a “redemptive arc” and then overlays race relations on top of it (DG2.0, p. 14). This arc then creates a trajectory for Christians to seek forgiveness and reconciliation for America’s racism, and this process portrayed as essential for a church to truly build bridges between the races.

The redemptive arc she uses is essentially the following: We are brought to the gospel through awareness of our sin, which leads to lament over our sin, then to shame and guilt because of our sin. This shame and guilt then lead to confession, followed by forgiveness from God, which launches us into a life of repentance. Part of that repentance is reparations (making things right with those we have sinned against), and that leads to restoration, which then culminates in the great commission, which she dubs multiplication (I’d order those differently when it comes to soteriology, but that is the order they are in in this material).

Morrison then takes the concepts of race relations/racism and overlays them on top of that arc. If the goal in your church is to bridge the racial gap, you need to begin with awareness of our nation’s racist past. You might think you are already aware of the broad strokes of slavery and segregation, but the truth is much of it is not taught in schools, so there must be a deliberateness to this. For example, if we want to be truly aware of our country’s past we have to go learn about the Tulsa race massacre, which included the first use of military aircraft against civilians, and destroyed much of Tulsa (that’s just one example she uses, but a powerful one).

From awareness, we then lament that kind of sin, and this then leads to us experiencing shame and guilt for what has happened in our culture. This gives way to confessing our sin as it relates to racism. Black members can confess the sin of anger toward whites for their privilege and for being part of the majority culture (as well as confessing the sin of colorism—prejudice towards lighter skinned blacks), and white Christians can confess their racism.

From there we move to repentance and reparations. Repentance in this context is a determination to do better and to hold others to account, and reparations are everything from tax dollars to African Americans (much like what was given to Japanese Americans after the internment camps) to a commitment to shop at minority owned stores, donate to minority run charities, or seek to promote persons of color within our own businesses (LG, p. 20; BtB, pp. 157-162).

The arc ends with a call for reproduction—for the readers to start more Be the Bridge studies, and multiply this kind of restoration.

As I mentioned earlier, had the goal of this book been to give some format for people to create friendships across racial lines, I could see how this might conceivably be used in an effective way. But by saddling the study with religious and ideological language the material ends up defeating its purpose. To understand what I mean by that, go back to church in Austin with Morrison, and understand that she is forging friendships with people who don’t share her life experiences or cultural references. There are at least two different ways to respond to that.

One is to recognize a diversity of cultural experiences in our country, and embrace them as just that—cultural experiences. To consider it a joy to learn your friend’s culture, and for them to learn years. That is what friends do. Meanwhile, your fellowship is not grounded in those cultural references, but in your love for Christ, which manifests itself in your sanctification. Your friends help you grow in godliness, and you help them, and as you do that you learn more about each other’s lives, and your friendship begins to be deeper than both the color of your skin and the cultural divide present in our world. A shared Christology unites, and your friendships sharpen each other. These kind of friendships take effort, but they are worth it, and they bring joy to life.

I know this sounds naive, and believe me I understand the counter point—that this kind of learning is always one directional as it is the person of color who is always expected to learn the white culture, and never the reverse. Be that as it may, that is one approach.

Another approach is taken by Be the Bridge. In this material, those cultural differences are defining, and they create a division that remains in the church, even among brothers and sisters in the Lord. That division is racial, it is cultural, and remains after conversion to Christ. For there to be any hope of “racial reconciliation to happen in the American church” there are “costs that the majority culture will need to pay” and sacrifices that the communities of color will have to make (DG2.0, p. 28).

While I’m sure Morrison doesn’t mean it this way—and I hope she would agree with my review to this point, but here is where I’m sure she would object—this is where her approach comes across as a second gospel. There is the concept of original sin, lamenting that sin, confessing it, receiving forgiveness for it, making amends for it, and this reconciliation is complete with its own great commission at the end.

I argue that this approach is ultimately not helpful in the church. There are at least two serious flaws with it, which I’ll list below.

The lie of race.

Be the Bridge buys into the evolutionary lie that race defines our existence. This is a major inconsistency in Morrison’s approach, because out the gate, she grants that race is a biological fiction:

“Despite the Bible’s recognition of differing ethnic groups, there is no indication of race. Race, as we know it, is a political and social construct created by man for the purpose of asserting power and maintaining a hierarchy. When we believe the lies embedded with racial hierarchies, reconciliation becomes impossible.”
Be the Bridge, 23-24

That quote made me hopeful. I believe the best way forward for the church is to embrace the truth that we are all from Adam and Eve, that race is a construct designed to be hierarchical, and that using it necessarily leads to sin. Some of the sins it leads to are murder, theft, hatred, and slander. I argue as I thought Morrison was going to as well, that those who use race as a foundational pillar of their worldview are going to end up sinning against others.

Many years ago Thabiti Anyabwile argued that those who continue to see race as a central part of their world view should “commit themselves to the closest mental health institution.” Anyabwile’s argument is pertinent here. He noted that the concept of race is so contradictory to itself (as well as to reality) that to build a world view on it would lead to insanity. But that is exactly what happens in Be the Bridge. Once it is granted that race is a biological fiction designed to harm, it is hard to move on from that to building a Bible study that literally divides its members up by race.

This is more than a logical contradiction, but it gets to the heart of other problems in the material. For example, Morrison and the recommended reading from White Fragility both argue that white people need to confess, repent, and make reparations for historical acts of racism committed by other white people. But on what basis? There is an appeal to Daniel 9 and Ezra 9, and I respond to that appeal at length here.

But setting that example aside, it is evident that the argument hinges on a construct of society that is divided by white and color. But if that divide is cultural, certainly not every white person experiences the culture the same way. Some white people are born into poverty. Or to use the example Morrison used earlier, many white people haven’t seen Friends.

Morrison tries to preempt this objection by writing:

“If what [a white person] is about to say starts with ‘not all…’ then don’t say it. Conversations about race and racism are about systems, institutions, and ideologies more than individuals…it is not helpful or necessary to force the conversation to fit our culture.”
Whiteness 101, p. 22

But this brings us back to the logical contradiction at the root of this material. If race isn’t biological, then how can one person still be asked to confess sins on behalf of a group, if he is not really a member of that group? If it is not biological, and a person “doesn’t fit the culture,” then what are we left with?

Morrison defines “whiteness” by what she calls “the 4 W’s: White Identity, White Privilege, White Fragility, and White Supremacy,” and encourages white people to work hard at shedding these. “The process of coming to a healthy white identity can take years,” she writes (Whiteness 101, pp 7-8). But how so? If it is not biological, and if a person was raised in a different culture, on what basis are they to act as representatives of historic racist whiteness? Is shedding whiteness cultural or is it a biblical mandate?

Let me put it another way: Morrison writes that “the concept of race has never existed outside the concept of white supremacy” (Whiteness 101, p. 18). If that is true, how can she build an entire curriculum around the concept of race? How can her subtitle be “pursuing God’s heart for racial reconciliation”? How can she write “God created as good racial and ethnic diversity”? If race only exists in the context of white supremacy, how can we also say that God made racial diversity good? It just doesn’t hold up.

I had other concerns with this curriculum as well, but this review is already too long, so I’ll give one briefly, and then move to my final appeal.

Be the Bridge has both Marxist and Critical Race Theory (CRT) overtones, in that it works from the perspective that society can only be explained by being divided up into the haves and the have nots, or the oppressor and the oppressed. This is not really compatible with a Christian world view. To be clear, Morrison never advocates for any form of Marxism, but I wonder if she is aware of how much her writing is influenced by that worldview. By bifurcating society along those lines, then defining that divide racially, the curriculum is operating inside of a CRT framework. While this worldview is becoming more common, I don’t believe it is healthy for churches to adopt or promote it. More could be said on this, but I want to close with a final warning to any churches that might use this resource:

Potential to hurt the weak

Throughout the discussion guide and leader’s guide, there are a series of questions for the leaders to ask. In order to understand what I mean by “hurt the weak,” you have to visualize that way these groups are designed.

First, they should be ten women (and while it is never stated that this only for women, that is the feel that it gives), and no more than five should be from one race. As they sit in the circle going through what I imagine to be fairly emotional lament and confession, including sharing shame and guilt, they then end with these discussion questions.

Some of the questions are geared to obviously be provocative. Like, “do you understand how a white parent adopting a child of color can be problematic? How can we avoid the ‘white savior complex’?” (LG, p. 15-16). In that context, imagine being a mother who has saved and prayed and labored for years to adopt a child, to now find yourself in a group framed around questioning your motives for having your son. It’s hard to imagine that being edifying.

Or, “Do you know the history of private, Christian schools in America and their beginnings as segregation academies? How should that history influence our current decisions about school choice?” (LG, p. 11). Setting aside for the moment that question’s accuracy, how would parents whose children are in Christian schools respond in that kind of environment?

There are suggestions for people who are in a church “without much racial diversity” (Leader’s Guide, p. 3). They include “visit or join a more diverse church” and “consider moving to a more diverse area.” This seems like a pretty intense weight to lay on someone—the idea that a person has a moral responsibility to consider changing churches (or even cities!) as an act of reparation is extreme, and is likely to inflict guilt on people who, if we are being honest here, are not morally responsible for the racial diversity of their neighborhood. It’s not the kind of weight that spiritual leaders should lay on people.

Another question: “What is the purpose behind people of color starting their own business or building organizations that may exclude white people?” (p. 21).

I’m all for intense conversations about important issues, but it would be wise for pastors to think through the dynamic of these kind of questions. Will they ultimately build bridges in your congregation, or tear them down?

I know people who have gone through Be the Bridge studies and found them helpful. But my fear is that the net result from this kind of study is harmful. Ultimately it ends up reinforcing the world view that race defines us, and that through the window of race we see the both the world and each other. I agree with Morrison when she says that the concept of race is designed to harm, and that it is born from sin. So that leaves me disagreeing with her when she argues that this arc—the arc of redemption imposed upon racial reconciliation—is the right approach for churches.

I agree that racism in all forms is sinful, and quickly grant that the United States is so broken in terms of race that it is natural to want to have something to do to fix it. But I remain an evangelist in the pure sense. I’m not an evangelist for “racial reconciliation,” but an evangelist for Jesus. And I believe that as people come to faith, they will grow in churches, and that they will have friendships in the faith that transcend their ethnic differences, while appreciating the beauty in each other’s cultures. That will take hard work, and involve difficult conversations, sinning against each other, and asking for forgiveness. But ultimately it is worth it, and will produce a reconciliation more profound than it would be if it was built upon the charade of “race.”