Daily Bible Reading

I have a confession to make: eighteen days ago I abandoned my daily Bible reading. I know it was exactly that long because I had been using a computer reading program to keep me accountable. The electronic accountability model had been working; I read through the entire Bible in one year, and I was on a second pass through in a different translation with a different schedule. I had been faltering a little in my regularity, missing a day or two and playing catch-up, but then I stopped altogether.

The shame or guilt or something finally overcame me this morning and I cranked up the computer and opened my Bible study program. I was surprised to find it had been eighteen days; it felt longer. Ironically my delinquency began exactly one week after I had preached a sermon that was heavily loaded with accusations that we Christians don’t read our Bibles often enough. According the the Barna group, the number of Christians who don’t read their Bible more than once a week is alarming, especially in light of the fact that over sixty percent say they want to follow Jesus more closely in their daily lives. The article asks the obvious question: how can one learn to follow more closely without reading the followers’ manual?

In my case the question becomes why I suddenly stopped reading; I know better. I could blame a changed schedule or a series of early morning meetings that pre-empted my reading time. The truth is, however, that I stopped wanting to read because I didn’t like way it was making me feel. I had completed the books of Moses and Joshua and Judges. I was half-way through First Samuel when I quit. My problem was the way my daily reading was conflicting with my daily writing. I am working on a book that explores ways to present the gospel to twenty-first century people. The sometimes violent, seemingly arbitrary way God operated with His people in the Old Testament was upsetting me. How does one make the fire and brimstone God of Mount Sinai relevant today?

The dilemma was beginning to depress me. I was even beginning to wonder if the so-called neo-evangelicals were right to downplay certain aspects of God and elevate others. After all, “God is love” sells much better than “God is wrathful.” The problem is, if you are going to read the Bible consistently, you are going to come to the conclusion that God is wrathful. I don’t particularly like that, and the delicately sensitive, politically correct masses in 2017 certainly won’t like that. I can totally understand why Rob Bell went the way he did. (If you don’t know Bell, read my series of blogs.)

I have come back to the realization that I am not supposed to like or understand everything God has done or will do. I must either believe what the Bible reveals about the Creator, or I must join the moderns and invent my own creator. The second option is even more depressing than trying to explain the God Who Annihilates Canaanites to today’s pagans. The Old Testament is bloody; get over it. The New Testament reveals the culmination of the bloody story. As ugly as it sometimes appears, there is beauty in blood as Crystal Lewis sang, “The cross, stained by blood/ The beauty of the cross/ Healing for the lost/ The cross.”

I suppose God could have reinterpreted the redemption story for every new period in human history in an effort to make it easier to explain, perhaps more palatable. But He didn’t. Nor does He need to, really. The idea that God is sovereign and humans must bow to His will is distasteful to pagans in any age, but well depicted by sacrifice in every age. That God should sacrifice His own Son to bring about the final restitution for human failings is outrageous. That is precisely why we must continue to read our Bibles regularly. God’s ways are not our ways, but God’s way is the only way to ultimate peace and eternal satisfaction. I must keep reading to renew my mind lest I be conformed to the world. Eighteen days was about seventeen days too long for me.

The Church Cannot Save the Lost

I had a bit of an epiphany last week which I would like to share. Background: I attend a pretty good little church which is doing many things right. However, the people with whom I share my Sunday mornings are mostly refugees from other churches; very few are new converts brought to Christ through the ministries of our church. My pastor and I have been having an ongoing discussion for several years about how to improve our outreach into the community of lost souls in our neighborhood. We have read several books and considered different programs, but nothing has come of our discussion.

Last week something occured to me as I was meditating and praying about the problem: the church, meaning the corporate body, was not tasked with reaching the lost. After His resurrection, Jesus sent His disciples back to Jerusalem to wait for the Holy Spirit’s coming so that they would become His empowered witnesses (Acts 1:8). He did not say they should go form a body that would win the lost; He said “you,” plural, will be my witnesses. Likewise, the Great Commission is to a plural “you” to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers Christ gave to the church are supposed to equip the saints (plural) to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12).

While it is true that the actions of the corporate church may attract some unbelievers who eventually become Christ-followers, I think that is a secondary result. The primary purpose of the church is to gather the members of Christ’s body for fellowship, teaching, breaking bread and prayer. (Acts 2:42). I suspect the idea of inviting unbelievers to “church” would have been foreign to first century Christians. In fact, during the early years of the church, meetings had to be kept secret because of violent persecution. The idea of catechism grew out of the practice of the early church teaching seekers the truths of the gospel before they could be considered members.

I think this explains why there is nothing in the New Testament describing programs the church operated to reach the lost. Individuals shared their faith in the context of daily life. This squares with the language of the Great Commission which begins with the word, “going.” It might be translated, “whenever and wherever you go, make disciples.” Once a disciple is “made,” he or she is baptized into a body for continued teaching, fellowship and all the many one-another aspects that flood the New Testament instructions about body life.

I am not opposed to children’s church or VBS or services for the poor and needy. These are legitimate ways a church can program opportunities for the lost to come to Christ. I believe, however, that even in these contexts, it will be individual contact and relationships that ultimately bring the greatest harvest. And I don’t think individual believers should be waiting around for the next program. The “program” that Jesus instituted is for every believer to live out his or her faith in front of a watching world. Those whom the Father is calling to Himself will see the Savior through the lives of His followers.

If you are having a hard time imagining how you would become that kind of disciple-maker, I can recommend a few resources to help. I am just finishing a book called Lead a Horse to Water which you will find on Amazon very soon (Lord willing). Another great book to get you started is God Space by Doug Pollock. Many people have found Tim Stebbins’ Friendship Evangelism by the Book helpful. If you want a more psychological/academic approach, Joseph Aldrich’s Life-style Evangelism is interesting; however, I would only recommend this book to mature believers who are well-grounded in sound doctrine as Aldrich’s assumptions and suggestions can be taken to unbiblical extremes.

You don’t need special training or a degree in evangelism to be a witness for Christ. If you are a believer you have a life to live and a story to tell. You also have a command to obey. If you are not living your life in a way that makes people ask for your story, maybe you need to reconsider your level of obedience. After all, the church cannot save the lost; only you can.

Women's Attire - Again!

A Facebook Friend recently posted a couple links to articles about Christian women’s responsibility to dress modestly. I dealt with the topic previously in a post titled “Debating ‘Christian Cleavage.’” However, the second blog my Friend shared raised my ire to the point where I feel compelled to write again. I think the modesty issue is symptomatic of a larger problem which is evident in Christian circles today.

The root of all misbehavior can be found in the original sin committed in Eden: Adam and Eve wanted to be independent. They did not want to depend on God to order their lives; they wanted to make their own rules. A close cousin of the spirit of independence is found in the cult of individuality that pervades our culture, and the church has not escaped it. While it is true that Christ’s blood saves us individually, we are baptized into a body. It is the corporate inter-dependence that gets lost when individuality reigns.

It is this attitude that allows a woman to write that she no longer feels accountable for the lustful thoughts of men who look at her (Read her entire blog). The discussion of Christian modesty often devolves into the placement of blame on men for lusting. This is not the real issue; men are solely responsible for their thought lives. However, women also have a responsibility to their brothers to avoid things that would lead them into temptation. It is this corporate aspect of an individual’s responsibility that many modern Christian women reject. Their attitude is the opposite of what Paul counseled that we should, “Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of each other than you do of yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3, Phillips New Testament)

This same “not my fault” argument appeared in the second blog my Friend shared, but it was made worse by the clumsy misinterpretation of Scripture to support the point. Joel Michael Herbert makes several faulty arguments against women dressing modestly before stating that, “The Bible does not breathe a word of such nonsense.” Herbert then picks out one word from 1 Timothy 2:9 that is often cited in this argument. He claims that the word sometimes translated “modesty” has little or no reference to alluring dress but only to expensive attire.

It is true that the context would allow the economic issue to be considered, but it is not explicitly mentioned, and the connotation of all three words Paul chose as qualifiers clearly applies to the sensual nature of a woman’s appearance. The first word (κοσμιω) means “orderly.” To clarify what type of “order” is in view, Paul follows with a word that means “having a sense of shame,” (αιδους) according to Strong’s Greek Concordance. The word might be rendered “bashful,” especially in the presence of men. The final word (σωφροσυνης) means “sober or self-controlled.” One must ask how a sober, bashful woman would order her wardrobe. I think Herbert completely misses the point.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous for Herbert to assert that “modesty” appears only once in the Bible. It may be true that the word he chooses appears only once in the NIV, but a more honest approach to the subject will uncover many more passages that are relevant. Crosswalk, for example, finds seven passages that speak to the issue. (Seven Scripture Verses Your Daughter Needs to Hear About Modesty). Finally, Herbert’s shameful reinterpretation of Jesus’ words on lust in Matthew 5:27–32 borders on sacrilege. To imply that Jesus was being sarcastic or teasing His audience is outrageous. The Master’s use of hyperbole does not give license to assume He was kidding around.

More to the point is the fact that all the defenders of scantily clad Christian women ignore the larger principle of concern for others. It is also important to remember Paul’s comment that while all things might be lawful, not all things are edifying. In other words, it might be lawful to strut your stuff half-naked on the beach, but it is not going to be profitable for anyone else, especially the men who will see you.

It is selfish and immature for a woman to say that her right to dress as she pleases trumps her responsibility to care more for others than for herself and to avoid a behavior that may incite sin. For a man to say the same thing is simply bad advice, or in Herbert’s case, bad theology. This issue is uncannily parallel to the Original Sin. After the First Couple decided to make their own rules, God’s first reaction was to clothe them. It seems that a woman’s desire to be unclothed goes all the way back to a tree in The Garden, a Serpent, and some forbidden fruit. God save us from our non-dependence.