I Think I Love Jesus

This is going to be an autobiographical, philosophical ramble. If the thought of poking around inside my head is not a pleasant one for you, you are excused. My wife, Karen, regularly chides me for thinking too much. She is usually correct; when I imagine bad motives for someone’s action, or when I create a dilemma of my own making, I am probably overthinking. It is the latter case that I am going to sort through in this piece.

I want to start by defending philosophy. The word scares or bores some people because they picture dusty classrooms and boring lectures. That’s understandable but not fair. A philosophy is merely a way of seeing things. It is often called a world view. Everyone has one whether they know it or not. We all look at the world through a filter of some kind. If we didn’t, the jumble of unrelated data would drive us crazy. We make sense of things by choosing to see them through our world view – our philosophy. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I recommend examination. Commenting on James 1:25 John MacArthur says, “If you desire to be like Christ… you must continually examine your life in the light of Scripture.” (Drawing Near—Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993)

I am not going to categorize all the potential philosophies that people choose from. I will simply say that there are worldly world views and biblical world views. I choose the biblical. I attempt to make everything fit into a biblical framework. I hope to operate according to the truth as I understand it from God’s Word. This is how I sometimes stumble into a dilemma of my own making. Some things are easy to sort: murder is wrong, so abortion is wrong; hate is wrong, so homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, and a host of other things are clearly not biblical. Materialism places things above God, so that is idolatry – very wrong. Those are some of the easy ones.

There are many that are not so easy. For the last many months, perhaps years, I have been troubled by my lack of emotion when I consider my love for Jesus. I desire to love Jesus, but I find it difficult. I “feel” I am not worthy to love Jesus. I find it difficult to imagine Jesus wanting my love. If a cockroach expressed love to me, what would it mean? If that sounds outrageous, remember that in God’s Word humans are likened to worms. I love what Jesus did for me culminating in His horrible death on the cross. I understand what that means for me intellectually, but I don’t usually “feel” love when I consider it.

Here then is my dilemma. I put “feel” in quotes because my biblical world view places feelings in my soul. My relationship with Jesus is primarily spiritual, at least in my present state. If I love Jesus only for what He did for me, that is transactional love – love based on an exchange. He did something wonderful for me, so I love Him for it. It’s a trade. There are no feelings involved on my part; that worries me. I sense that something is missing because I believe the Bible teaches that humans consist of body, soul, and spirit. If my love for Jesus is merely transactional, I fear it is not genuine love.

Karen and I were discussing this the other day and she helped me to see that the love the Bible speaks of, agape love, is given to us by the Holy Spirit. It is even called a fruit of the Spirit. Paul says that kind of love is poured out in our hearts by the Spirit. That being the case, biblically, I might have genuine love flowing out of my spirit to Jesus and not necessarily “feel love” in my soul.

While I am comfortable with that thought, I still think I am missing something. I wrote “More Than a Feeling” some time ago to correct myself for thinking that agape love wasn’t supposed to “feel” like love. The Bible is full of examples of God’s pure agape love for His people that are fraught with feeling. Agape may not be primarily a feeling, but in its richest form, it is not devoid of feeling.

I remember reading years ago about Mother Theresa in her final years. She admitted that she had lost the feeling that drove her earlier ministry. Still, she persisted in her calling to the end. John of the Cross speaks of the dark night of the soul when one might wonder if God has abandoned him. What did Jonah feel in the belly of the fish; what did Paul think as his ship was dashed upon the rocks; what did Jesus Himself think in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross when He cried, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” I am beginning to think that one of our deepest human frailties is the imperfect interface of soul and spirit within us. One day, after our resurrection to eternal life, they will be perfectly united; until that day, philosophers like me will question the legitimacy of our love.

You don’t have to go there with me. Karen, bless her soul, does not. She is perfectly happy with her experience of loving Jesus without questions. I envy her. Jesus said unless I become like a little child, I will never see the kingdom of heaven. I parsed that through my biblical philosophy and came up with the idea that simplicity is the hallmark of true faith. I have a tendency to complicate things that are really quite simple. That’s the philosopher in me. Perhaps it is just as Karen keeps telling me: I have to stop thinking so much.

However, through this process, I have come up with another word that plays into the concept of loving Jesus: devotion. I believe devotion leans into the side of agape love that requires an act of our human will. Jesus didn’t shy away from it when He declared, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” In the same way that my devotion to my marriage vows demands sacrificial obedience on my part, my devotion to Jesus requires obedience driven by love.

John MacArthur, in his commentary on Jesus’ dismissal of those who claimed to serve Him but were rejected, says, “Matthew 7:21–23 records the tragic results of spiritual delusion…. Jesus made a clear distinction between those who merely claim to be Christians and those who truly are. The difference is, true believers do the will of the Father from a pure heart. In the words of James, they are doers of the Word, not merely hearers who delude themselves.” If my motivation to follow a biblical world view (aka to obey Jesus) is from a pure heart, I think I am safe within the fold. I think I really do love Jesus.

Related Posts: On transactional love: To Love Mercy; More on delusion: Are You Qualified? Also Weak-day Christians

What’s Your Ministry?

The speaker at my church this week encouraged us to read the Bible and do what it says. That is not a revolutionary message by any means. We were also told that if we consider ourselves to be Christians, it is not enough to simply go to church. Nothing new there either. What strikes me is that this man who has been doing revival ministry for twenty years believes this is a message the church needs to hear. I assume the man seeks God’s wisdom on what to preach, so this is God’s message to our church: read the Bible and do what it says.

If you have been reading my blog for a while, you know that I have repeatedly lamented the fact that statistics show that most Christians are not reading their Bibles regularly. It comes as no surprise then that neither are Christians living much differently than their non-believing neighbors. Not reading and not doing; that’s the state of the church in America today. It’s no wonder that the country is going to hell in a hand cart as the saying goes.

What are Christians supposed to be doing based on their reading of the Bible? Simply put, they are to be doing ministry. Paul often refers to himself as a slave or bond servant of Christ. To be a servant or slave means there is a master to be served. Our Master has given us pretty clear instructions about what it means to serve Him. Our ministry to Him is to minister to others: love thy neighbor. What it means to love a neighbor was famously detailed in Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan. In essence what He said was to do for your neighbor what he or she needs done, especially if they can’t do it for themselves.

I think most Christians think of ministry as a vocation that only a few people get into. The term “minister” usually refers to a pastor or preacher who works for a church. That view is too narrow for the term as it is used in the Bible. Paul explained to the Ephesians that those who are called to a vocational ministry are there to equip believers for “the work of the ministry.” In other words, it is the people in the pews who are the ministers, not the one behind the pulpit.

If I look at my life, I think of the years I spent teaching in Christian schools as ministry. I burned out and took what I thought of as a sabbatical, leaving “ministry” behind. The years I spent driving a truck for a living had me feeling like Moses tending sheep on the back side of the desert for forty years before he was called to his “ministry” of delivering God’s people from Egyptian slavery. I haven’t had a burning bush type call back to what some call “full-time ministry.” That phrase emphasizes the misunderstanding of what ministry means. Like all my fellow Christians, I am called to full-time ministry. I am to live my life in service to my Lord every minute of every day. Full time.

What is my ministry now? This blog is one part of my ministry. Thousands of people from around the world have read these scratchings of mine. I won’t know until I step into eternity how many people have been encouraged or enlightened by my writing. But that is not my only ministry. I regularly help people in the RV park where we live with projects and repairs. I have done something for every widow or single woman living here. I sometimes receive a modest wage for my efforts, but often the labor and materials are a gift in the name of Jesus. I also minister when I go to my part-time job at Home Depot and do my work “as working for the Lord.” When possible, I sneak in a word or two that comes from my faith perspective, although I am prohibited from outright evangelism by company policy. I think they are afraid I might “offend” someone if I presented the gospel openly, so I just live the gospel quietly in the aisles – full time.

I have not been describing my “ministry” as a boast—far from it. I am simply using my life as an example of how one does what the Bible says: serve Christ with your whole life. You don’t have to get a paycheck from a church to be a minister; you just have to live the Word. You may be the only Jesus some will ever see; you will likely be the only Bible some will ever read. Live intentionally for God as one of my former pastors used to say. Make it your business to be a witness to the goodness of God; that is the essence of what Paul meant when he said, “Do all things for the glory of God.” That’s your ministry.

Related posts: Make Time for Timeless Truth; Merely Christian; Christianity: Religion or Philosophy

 

Where Do You Find Truth?

I was encouraged to read an article in the AMAC news daily that chronicles the waning influence of the big media outlets. The author claims that Americans are becoming less likely to believe what they read and see in traditional news sources. This encouraged me because the media have been increasingly in the driver’s seat of public opinion throughout my lifetime, especially since the advent of the Internet. Whether through laziness or intellectual apathy, much of the American public has lost the motivation to consider the source when they evaluate the information that floods their environment. Easy believism has taken the place of intellectual curiosity.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that. Truth itself is no longer considered important; its very existence is questioned by many postmodern philosophers. Absolute truth – one truth that is always and in every situation true – is scoffed at by atheists, agnostics, and even some so-called Christians. In the last half of the twentieth century, situation ethics and values clarification began to be taught at ever lower levels of academia. Long a feature of college lectures, doubt and despair spread as the products of those colleges became the textbook writers and classroom teachers of our elementary-age children. We should not wonder that people will believe whatever they are told; they have no standard by which to judge truth.

Fortunately, Bible-believing Christians (Must I add the qualifier?) are not without defense against purveyors of untruth. It is not a coincidence that Jesus called Himself the Truth, nor that He insisted that the truth sets believers free. Jesus also pointed clearly to the source of truth: “Thy Word is truth.” The Bible, God’s Word, is the repository of truth; all that the Bible asserts as true is in fact true. This does not mean that truth does not exist beyond the pages of Scripture. All truth is God’s truth whether it is doctrinal, biological, astronomical, political, or whatever. Despite repeated claims that science or rationality trumps faith, the Bible has continued to prove true when examined by sincere searchers.

Getting to the truth demands an inquiring mind. Cornelius VanTil is famous for having encouraged believers to view all things through what he called biblical spectacles. He insisted, “The Bible gives us the presuppositions we need to interpret individual facts rightly. It is the spectacles by which we can view all of life rightly.” Presuppositions are the things we bring to our investigations which color our interpretations. If one presupposes that there is no God, and all things exist through time and chance, one sees the universe in a certain way. If, on the other hand, one assumes that the universe was created by a loving, communicating God, things appear quite different.

When Jesus identified God’s Word as the source of truth, He preceded the assertion with a request that the Father would, “Sanctify [His disciples] in the truth.” To sanctify something is to set it apart for a specific purpose. If we are to be living proof that Jesus’ prayer was answered, we must set about mining and distributing truth. We need to put on our biblical spectacles as Van Til would say. We need to follow the advice of the Psalmist and meditate on God’s Word day and night. We need to refuse to be conformed to the world and be transformed by renewing our minds with the Word. We need to set our minds on things above not on things of earth. These acts of sanctification will give us the ability to follow John’s admonition to test everything to determine if it is from God.

I have caused trouble in the past by suggesting that one of America’s major political parties runs closer to the truth than the others. I am going to avoid that assertion today and suggest that concerned Bible believers put on Van Til’s spectacles and determine for themselves whether there is a difference between parties and candidates. We would do well to investigate claims and policies to discern their truthfulness both in relation to facts on the ground as well as Bible principles. America is not a theocracy nor can it be under the dictates of the US Constitution. However, because we are blessed with a representative form of government, Christians can make their wishes known in the voting booth. But our ballots must be thoughtful, enlightened votes, seeking to expand the dominance of truth.

If you believe you are wearing Van Til’s spectacles, and you don’t see the subtle subterfuge, blatant falsehoods, and the constant push to undermine biblical values we are asked to accept today, I suggest that you have your prescription checked. It may be that you need to be renewed in the Spirit of your mind as Paul recommends. Jesus said His words are spirit; that’s the spirit which must control the mind of a believer. I appreciate the way The Message translates Proverbs 12:17, “Truthful witness by a good person clears the air, but liars lay down a smoke screen of deceit.” Modern media is laying down that smoke screen; we need to look for the truthful witness. We need to join Diogenes in his search for an honest man.

Related posts: True Lies and Lying Truth; Truth Dysphoria; America Held Captive

Think About It

When I visited friends recently, I noticed a book by Neil Di Grassi-Tyson sitting on a table. I picked it up and was fascinated to discover that in it Di Grassi answers many of the questions I would like to ask him. Like so many self-proclaimed atheists, Di Grassi firmly believes that anyone who thinks the Bible contains necessary information to understand the universe and those who dwell in it is intellectually stunted. In one of his answers, he tells the questioner that the Bible is a fine piece of work for anyone who wants to let others do their thinking for them. I think that is what one might call a left-handed compliment.

In my opinion, it is Di Grassi who displays intellectual incompetence when he makes a statement like that. I would challenge him to read C. S. Lewis or Francis Schaeffer or R. C. Sproul and maintain that they are not competent thinkers. It is Di Grassi’s failure to think honestly about the claims and positions held by sincere Christian thinkers that weakens his own position. He creates a straw man that he can thrash with his superior intellect. If I were to mimic his tactics, I would declare that all atheists are mentally incompetent and therefore unable to hold a rational discussion. I could discount anything an atheist has to say on the grounds that it must be irrational.

However, Di Grassi and many outspoken atheists are not stupid; in fact, some are very bright. Their problem is either willful ignorance or selective knowledge. They either choose not to investigate the arguments of Christian thinkers at all, or they pick only arguments that they easily dismiss using their arsenal of preconceived notions. By starting with the presumption that a personal, highly intelligent being cannot possibly exist, they eliminate the option of debating whether such a being may have created what they see as the impersonal, accidental universe.

An honest debate with Di Grassi might start with the difficulty surrounding the concept of Darwin’s black box as presented by Michael Behe. Toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin said that further advances in the scientific knowledge of his day could create insurmountable problems for the whole scheme of his evolutionary theory. He knew that individual cells existed, but the science of microscopic investigation in his time was in its infancy. Darwin realized that if a living cell proved to be more complex that he thought, that if he could open the “black box” that was the cell, the complexity itself would rule out the possibility of evolutionary development through natural selection.

This is precisely what has happened. Our ability to peer into the inner workings of living cells has shown them to be incredibly complex. There are biochemical machines within cells that are made of numerous constituent parts that can only operate if all the parts are present and in the correct relationship to one another. Natural selection would insist that each time the parts of the machine came together partially correct but non-functional, the entire structure would be selected out in the next generation. Evolution teaches that only the strong survive; a useless cellular machine would not survive. The probability that all the machine parts could come together in the right order is so highly unlikely as to be impossible.

This type of honest thinking is what has forced many scientists to accept the idea of design. It has become obvious that no amount of time and chance evolution could explain the highly complex structures that make up living cells. The discovery and eventual decoding of DNA has added even more weight to the argument for design. There is no way that the millions of pieces of discreet information that comprise a single chain of DNA could fall into place accidentally. There is intelligence behind the composition of living and non-living things that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. This does not prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it opens the door to believing some form of intelligence is behind the universe as we know it.

There is only one reason I can think of for an intelligent man like Neil Di Grassi-Tyson to flatly deny that a higher power might have been involved in the creation of the universe: the man does not want to give up his independence. To admit that there is something “out there” that is infinitely more intelligent than he is, and consequently that something may have a claim on Di Grassi’s life is an uncomfortable thought for him. If some higher power is making the rules, Di Grassi is no longer the master of his universe. If it can be logically and empirically proven that that higher power is also a personal, moral being, as Francis Schaeffer has done, Di Grassi is in worse trouble. He would be forced to admit that his life is not his own, and he would have to submit to the moral values of another being or suffer the consequences of failure to submit.

Submission to anything other than their own free will is the last thing moderns want to accept. Even Christians struggle with the concept of submitting their lives completely to their Creator. Yet this is the essence of what Christian thinkers have believed for centuries. Thoughtful Christians know the paradox of finding complete freedom in complete submission to God and His Word. Far from letting others do the thinking for them, this opens the universe and all that is beyond to think about. The submission necessary for true Christian thinking is what drives Di Grassi and his fellows to the illogical position* they attempt to defend. They are the ones who refuse to think with an open mind, and they allow an irrational presumption to do their thinking for them.

 

* I call the position of the atheist illogical because it asserts that God does not exist. To make this claim, the atheist is presuming to know everything and thereby concluding that God does not exist within his all-encompassing sphere of knowledge. This is an illogical position because it is not possible for any human being to know everything. The only sustainable argument on this issue is that of the agnostic who says honestly that he does not know whether God exists or not. This leaves the door open to the sincere agnostic thinker to examine the claims of the theist or those who suggest that intelligent design exists in the created realm.

Related articles: I Don’t Believe in God; Do We Really Need God?; Help My Unbelief; Don’t Ask Why

The Importance of Being Right

"As God’s people, we are given guidelines throughout Scripture for how to treat others, how to use our words, and how to control our thoughts. Yet we do not do this on our own. God’s Spirit now dwells in us—we are His temple (2 Cor 6:16). And He performs this work in us so that we may live as disciples at all times and in all places.” ¹ As Paul told the Philippians, “ For the one at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure [or purpose], is God.”

This devotional was drawn from Leviticus where we learn that God is holy and calls His people to be holy also. “Holy” means set apart for a purpose. We must learn our purpose in order to fulfill the demand to be holy. In my case, I am as certain as I can be that God’s purpose for me is to be a teacher. In my early twenties, during a time of deep searching I heard Him say this to me in as near an audible voice as I have ever experienced. Over the years since then, my calling has been confirmed both by God and His people.

In the longest of my several careers, I was employed as a teacher of English mostly, so I was fulfilling my call and gifting while earning a living. This is not the only possible way for me to be “holy,” however. The so-called Great Commission in Matthew’s Gospel is a record of Jesus’ command to His disciples to “make disciples… teaching them.” The core meaning of “disciple” is to be a learner; learning and teaching are two sides of the same coin. This is where Aubrey Smith’s observation comes in. We are called to be disciples, teachers at all times.

If I am to be a teacher, a disciple of Jesus worthy of the calling, I must be certain that what I am teaching is the truth. God forbid that I should present a lesson that contains anything false or misleading. After all, Jesus is the Truth, so if I am mirroring Him, representing Him, I must represent the truth to the best of my ability. For this reason, I study, I research, I prepare the lessons I plan to teach with greatest care. This certainly applies to my efforts to teach Bible lessons, but it applies equally to anything I attempt to share by way of educating an audience.

I have been publishing a blog for over ten years. Each one of the 300+ articles I have written represent at least two or three hours of research and collateral reading, sometimes more, often spread over more than one day. I take that amount of time because I want to assure myself that I am presenting the truth. Many of my articles express my opinions. Opinions are not the same as facts. Facts are discreet pieces of truth; truth is an absolute. For something to be true, it must be true for all people at all times in all situations.

While I believe the Bible is the final arbiter of knowable truth, there are many true things that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. The earth is round; the universe is expanding; nuclear fission produces heat. These are all true things not mentioned in the Scripture, and the list of such things is virtually endless. The same can be said of behaviors in general or specific actions. To judge the truth of such things, one must understand some basic principles of truth taught in Scripture and apply those principles to specific situations.

This is where opinion enters. Jeffrey Dahmer, Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler are not mentioned by name in the Bible. However, it is my opinion that their actions are wrong, bad, unbiblical; that is to say that their actions do not align with what the Bible identifies as true goodness. “The good,” as the Greeks sought it and the Bible reveals it, is an element of “the True.” When I apply what I consider to be the good and true as revealed in the Bible, I can form an opinion of the actions of people. While my opinion is not Scripture, if I have correctly applied Scripture, my opinion is valid.

This is true of all opinions. All opinions are by no means of equal validity. Opinions are based on facts aka truth. An opinion based on “facts” that are not true is not a valid opinion. Jesus said knowing the truth sets one free. Knowledge, then, is the key to intellectual as well as spiritual freedom. Knowledge of that which is true is what makes it possible to form a valid opinion. In my thinking, I want all my opinions to comport with the truth revealed in Scripture because it alone validates truth.

From beginning to end, the Bible explicitly and implicitly teaches that wisdom begins with knowledge. Full life, meaningful life, eternal life (zoe), Jesus said is found in knowing God. (John 17:3) God is best known by getting to know His revelation of Himself in Scripture, although He can also be understood through the things He has made. (Romans 1:20) This is why I search the Scriptures daily to learn all I can about God. This also explains my interest in everything from astrophysics to bioethics. God is revealed in both Scripture and nature.

I crave that revelation because I want to be right. As a teacher it is essential that I be right. This is why James said, “Be not many of you teachers.” This is why Aubrey Smith’s quote struck me when I read it. I must allow the Holy Spirit to continue His work in me so that I may, “live as [a disciple] at all times and in all places.” It may sound arrogant to say, but when I express an opinion, at that moment, in my state of knowledge at that moment, I believe I am right. I welcome all challenges to my positions as long as they are based on the same foundation as that on which I stand: revealed truth. If I am wrong, I want to be proved wrong so that I can correct my position. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, it is of utmost importance that I be right. If there is something wrong with that, prove it.

^[1] Smith, Aubrey. (2014). Redefining Sacred Space. In J. D. Barry & R. Van Noord (Eds.), Moment with God: A Devotional on Every Biblical Book. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

The Angel Says Unto You: Fear Not

Here is a shocking statistic that you may not have considered in all the noise about the COVID 19 pandemic. The mortality rate among humans is 100%. That’s right: every single person who ever gets born eventually gets dead. (The only exception will be those alive at Christ’s return, but that doesn’t really figure into standard statistical calculations.) I am not trying to be glib or flippant here. I mean no disrespect toward those who have lost loved ones due to the COVID 19 virus. What I would like to do is calm the fears many people have toward the COVID 19 pandemic.

The word “pandemic” sounds scary. A true pandemic is scary. The black plague that swept Europe in the middle ages killed roughly 50% of the population; that’s a pandemic. The Spanish flu of 1918 killed tens of millions worldwide and approximately 675,000 in the US alone; that sounds like a pandemic until you realize that it represents a mortality rate of only 0.5%. That means 5 people out of 1,000 died. That’s not happy times, but it’s not all that scary. I don’t know 1,000 people; I don’t think I am close enough to 100 people to know when one of them dies. In other words, I could have lived through the Spanish flu and not known a single person who died from it.

According to a Google study in 2020, about 160,000 people have died in the US (as of July) due to COVID 19; however, that is a sloppy statistic (based on Wikipedia and NY Times numbers). Even if that number was correct, statistics also show that 75% of 2020 COVID 19 deaths were patients in nursing homes. People go to nursing homes because they already have serious health issues. One study reports that only 6% of reported COVID 19 deaths in nursing homes were due to the virus alone. That means 94% of nursing home deaths reported as COVID involved comorbidities.

Here is what makes that fact really curious. In a pre-COVID study, it was found that 31.5% of nursing home patients die in any given year. According to the Nursing Home Abuse Center, there are 1.4 million nursing home residents in the United States. If 31.5% of them die in 2020, that is 441,000. Follow me: take 160,000 reported COVID deaths overall; make 75% of them nursing home fatalities and you have 120,000. Notice that is only a little more than half of the expected deaths in nursing homes by this time in 2020. I don’t mean to be crass, but almost twice that many people would have died even without the dreaded virus pandemic.

Between 2010 and 2017, deaths reported as flu-related ranged from a high of 51,000 in 2014-2015 to a low of 12,000 in 2011-2012. If you take the 120,000 nursing home deaths out of the 160,000, you are left with 40,000 COVID deaths outside the nursing home population. If that death rate in the non-nursing home population remains steady, we would lose 80,000 to COVID 19 in 2020. That number is highly suspect because there is so much hanky-panky going on with the reported deaths due to political and financial motivations. (For more thoughts on this see, “The Emperor Has No Clothes.”) However, if the 80,000 number were true, it still is only a tiny fraction higher in deaths per 100,000 than our recent flu seasons. Not so scary, really.

As a way to compare with other causes of death in the US, here are some facts. Preventable injuries killed approximately 160,000 people in 2018 – the same number as this scary pandemic is supposed to have claimed so far. On the other hand, over 650,000 people died in 2018 from heart disease; nearly 600,000 died from cancer. Those numbers are pretty scary. It is interesting to note that according to the Institute for Highway Safety, “There were 33,654 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2018 in which 36,560 deaths occurred.” They also noted that 65% of those fatally injured had alcohol in their blood at some level. Drunk drivers kill more people than die from the flu most years. Maybe the COVID bar shut downs will have some effect after all.

I said up top that my goal is to calm fears. There are people in our society who are trying to make us afraid. My fear is that the draconian measures that are being applied to the COVID 19 situation are going to so damage our economy that it will take several years to recover. Many small businesses may never recover because there is no “Reset” button for a lost life’s work. Millions of people will be harmed by the COVID 19 policies instituted by governments. I realize that’s not as bad as getting dead from the virus, but when you understand the truly tiny morbidity rate from the virus, you have to ask if the economic disaster is worth the cost.

There is another good reason not to fear. If you waded through all my statistical evidence and remain unconvinced, try this. For a true believer, death is not scary – sure, being drawn and quartered or sawn in half or burned at the stake would be kind of scary. Many Christians have had to face that kind of fear. But the truth is that death is the best thing that can happen to anyone whose life is hidden in Christ. Like Paul said, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That being the case, bring it on, COVID; I ain’t skeered.

The Purpose Driven God

I understand how dangerous it is to ask why God has done something or allowed something to happen. It may be arrogant to think a mere human can decode the purpose of God unless it is explicitly stated. On the other hand, Scripture repeatedly asks us to know God, and this surely must include knowing His purpose at least in a general way.

One of the three big life questions everyone must to answer is why am I here, or is there purpose and meaning to life. (The other two questions will be treated later. Stay tuned.) Most secular philosophies have failed to answer this question in a satisfying way, which is why they tend toward nihilism, which is the acceptance of meaninglessness. When the search for meaning turns up the answer that there is no meaning, people end up in despair. Suicide is often considered a blessed escape from a purposeless life.

A philosophy that is grounded in God’s Word leaves no doubt as to man’s purpose. The Westminster Catechism states it clearly in the first question: “What is the chief end of man?” it asks. The answer is, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” As I have written before (The Meaning of Football), the essence of bringing glory to God is to show His goodness. Revealing God’s goodness is essentially what gospel proclamation is all about. It’s not far off the mark to say that a human’s purpose is to spread the gospel: Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief; if He can save me, He can save you.

This answers the question of why I am here, but it begs another question: why did God set up a situation where salvation from sin became necessary? We cannot fall into the trap of saying that God didn’t know sin was going to mess up His plans. God knew what would happen. Jesus is called, “the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.” God knew redemption was going to be necessary to complete his purpose on Earth. He knew his creation would fall far short of perfection.

And yet, perfection is precisely what is required. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uttered the frightening command, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” Our problem with that command comes from our use of a secular definition of perfect: “having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; absolute or complete.” An honest self-assessment reveals a serious lack in that regard. We are all painfully aware that we fall short of all that is required of us.

Relief comes when we try to understand the word Jesus used, perfect, as it would have been heard by his first century listeners. The Gospel of Matthew I quoted comes to us in Koine Greek, a language which was widely used in Palestine at Jesus’ time. Matthew uses the word “teleios” (τέλειος). A Greek lexicon suggests this word is from a root, telos (τέλος) which means, “the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose.” To borrow from a famous author, I say Jesus directed us to have a purpose driven life.

Some would argue that Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic to the Sermon on the Mount audience, given their predominately Jewish demographic. Since Aramaic is a close cousin to Hebrew, it makes sense that Jesus may have been thinking of the several places Leviticus makes a similar demand of God’s people: “Be holy because I am Holy.” This carries the same general idea as being perfect. To be holy is to be set apart or consecrated. A person (or a God) is “set apart” for some particular purpose. In God’s case, He is “set apart” to accomplish what He wishes to accomplish. For our part, we are “set apart” to accomplish what God wants us to accomplish. We are called to fulfill God’s purpose: be perfect.

Whether it is Jesus’ words in Matthew or Peter’s quote of Leviticus, the requirement appears to be the same: fulfill God’s purpose. This brings us back to asking what God’s purpose might be in creating a system He knew would fall apart and need to be rescued from destruction. For this answer I go to Ephesians 3:10-11. Paul says that a mystery was hidden for ages that is now revealed through the church, “so that… the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

God’s “purpose of the ages” was that all people, not just the Jews, should be, “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” That promise was that we can all be adopted into the family of God through Jesus; it is the promise of the gospel which we are called to share. The interesting thing to me is to whom this mystery is being revealed now: “to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” God apparently created everything we know as a demonstration for His heavenly host to observe. We are a demonstration for the angels.

Paul indicates that the thing heaven is being called to observe is the redemption of all mankind. It is the creation of a family of brothers and sisters of Jesus, the Son of God. It is the re-creation of that which God intended from before time began: a people to represent Him on earth, to be His vice-regents with dominion over all creation under His ultimate authority. It is to be His Kingdom on earth. It is you and I living with Kingdom values and sharing the gospel with our neighbors. If that doesn’t give meaning to your life, I don’t know what will. Got purpose?

And the Light was Good

If you are a regular reader, you know that I am fascinated by many things, but few interest me more than the intersection of science and faith. I am not one who sees contradictions or disagreements between what God’s Word says and what science asserts. I firmly believe that where such differences appear to exist, the problem is either in our interpretation of the biblical text or in our understanding of the science. The problem is never in the biblical record itself.

Some of the most heated debates concerning science and the Bible center on the first few paragraphs of Scripture. Naturally, many unbelievers argue that the concept of an omnipotent deity creating the material universe is a pre-scientific myth. The best approach to that position is to pray that the Spirit who gives faith to the fallen would open their hearts (and then their minds) to the truth.

There are other issues that even believers struggle with. Did God create all things ex nihilo (out of nothing), or did He begin with a pre-existing something, perhaps an earlier creation of His? Does the Bible in fact claim that God completed His creative work in six twenty-four-hour periods? Did all the creatures survive on a vegetable diet as originally created?  How could God create light (Day One) before light-makers (Day Four)?

I would like to suggest a possible answer to the last question. Know that the theory I propose stems from a deep reverence for the biblical text and a desire to treat it as literally as the context will allow. In that framework, I suggest that when God spoke light into existence, His creative act included more than just the visible spectrum of electro-magnetic (EM) energy which we call “light.” Light is the only part of the spectrum that would be sensible to the first readers of the text, so the idea would be coherent to them. Science has since discovered that visible light is a miniscule part of the full EM spectrum (on a linear scale it is 0.0035%).

We have also learned that much of what was thought to be “matter” is really not matter but energy. As science has bored deeper into the nature of all material things, it has become clear that what we call matter is in fact organized energy. I mean that the building blocks of “matter,” such things as protons, neutrons, electrons, etc., may actually be packets of energy. The science beneath this assertion is still in its infancy. Einstein began the discussion of whether light is a particle stream or an energy wave. Strangely, scientists have discovered that light behaves as a stream of particles when studied as particles, and it behaves as a wave when studied as a wave. As far as I know, there is still no clear explanation for this phenomenon.

Elementary logic insists that if A and B are different, A cannot be B and B cannot be A. Therefore, light cannot be both a material particle and an energy wave. If I set that dilemma aside for the moment, I can still see how God could have brought energy into existence initially and then organized it into the forms we know as matter. The text of Genesis lends itself to that idea.

According to the Faithlife Study Bible, “The Hebrew word for “create” (bara or בָּרָא)…. conveys the idea of ordering or determining function, suggesting God’s creative activity consists of bringing proper order and function to the cosmos.” In other words, God spoke the building blocks of the material universe into existence and then organized them into the organic and inorganic things we perceive as matter and energy. Chaos first; then order.

Curiously, the Hebrew words for evening and morning to delineate the days of creation also lean toward the idea of organizing. For reasons of His own, God chose to begin His day with “evening” and end it with “morning.” We know the Jews have historically followed this order; they begin the day with sunset. When you consider that according to Genesis 1:2, God started creating when “darkness was over the face of the deep,” it makes sense that evening would be the beginning of the creative day

The New Testament continues support for this concept. The Greek word for the material universe is “cosmos” and has a basic meaning of “order.” The opposite of order is chaos. Sin, by the way, is stepping out of order into chaos. “Walk in the light,” John says, “and we have fellowship….and the blood of [Christ] cleanses us from all sin.” Interesting. God started it all in darkness; then turned on the light. Chaos first; then order.

There are additional New Testament passages that lend support to this theory. In Colossians 1:17, Paul asserts that Christ “holds all things together.” Years ago, when scientists discovered that the nucleus of an atom has an unknown force holding it together, they dubbed it the Colossian Principle. I suspect it was tongue-in-cheek for the secular mind, but I find it quite descriptive. Christ, by the Word of his power (Hebrews 1:3), does indeed hold the material universe together.

For an explanation of what will happen if He ever releases His hold, read 2 Peter 3:12, “and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” (KJV) Splitting the atom has uncovered an energy source like no other. We refer to “nuclear power” and “nuclear bombs” to explain the awesome power that results from releasing the force that holds the nucleus together. Imagine the energy that will be generated when Christ calls an end to this material universe in preparation for the New Heavens and New Earth. Imagine the energy (heat) that will be generated when every atom in the universe expends is nuclear energy. Fervent heat indeed!

According to the Faithlife Study Bible, “God calls His handiwork good seven times in [Genesis 1]. The Hebrew word used here [for “good”]… generally describes what is desirable, beautiful, or right. In essence, God affirms creation as right and in right relationship with Him.” I picture God sitting back on the seventh day and saying, “All right!” Sadly, things went all wrong shortly thereafter, but God promised to bring things back to “right” when He sent the Word (His organizing principle) to be the Light of humanity (John1:4 LEB) One of the many things Jesus called his followers was “the light of the world.” The church, as Christ’s body, is the light shining in the darkness as many Old Testament prophecies proclaimed.

As believers, we are rescued from the power of darkness and relocated in the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son, who is the Light. (Colossians1:13) In response, we let our light shine like stars in the universe so that our fellowman may see God’s goodness (order/righteousness) and turn from their darkness (chaos/sin) to the Light of the World. It all began when God said, “Light! Be!” And it was good!

Beware of Bowlegged Politicians

And the horse they rode in on. I suspect most of my readers are tired of anything to do with politics at this moment, just having finished the mid-term election cycle with its endless campaign commercials on TV and billboards and yard signs everywhere. In spite of the fatigue, I am going to rant about the sorry state of political “debate” in this country. Again. (See What's Wrong With Politics in America) I saw an evaluation of an interview of a newly minted New York politician that was so shot full of erroneous statements that I nearly became livid.

If the title of this piece has you stumped, it is drawn from the root meaning of the word “prevarication” which literally means bowed legs. Why does the physical condition of bowed legs serve as a metaphor for lying? Dictionary.com lists synonyms: “divergence from the right course, transgression… duplicity, collusion or a stepping out of line.” They also say it meant “to walk crookedly.” I like to think it may come from the idea that a weak set of legs compares to a weak set of facts on which a false stands.

There is no shortage of those who “walk crookedly” in the realm of politics. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Donna Brasile are joined by the newly-minted Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. What struck me this time was the utterly ridiculous nature of Ocasio-Cortez’s fabricated facts. The situation was all the more distressing given her college degrees in economics and international relations from Boston University. She is a poster child (age 29) for the working-class-kid-who-wants-to-make-a-difference crowd.

Ocasio-Cortez may also be proof that our higher education system is broken since she obviously has no clue how our economy works despite her degree in economics. If it’s not that, then she is one of the bowlegged politicians. Her story is so appealing, and she is so enthusiastic about her cause that I want her to be genuine. But the only way she can be excused for her stunning misstatements of the facts is to say she is ignorant. That, or she is a liar.

I must pause to say that I am not implying that only women lie or that only Democrats lie. There are plenty of male politicians from both parties who also walk crookedly. However, given the huge Democrat bias in our major news outlets, one supposes that any conservative liar would be treated to days if not weeks of media treatment. You don’t see much of that. True, they tried, “Bush lied; people died.” That charge was proven false when subsequent revelations of fact showed President Bush may have had erroneous intelligence reports, but that he acted truthfully with what he thought was true.

This brings me to the discussion of the essence of truth. Someone has said that perception is reality. This is correct only if one conceives of reality as a personal possession. The reality I possess under this scenario may not be the reality you possess. If one believes in absolute truth, one truth that is true for all, as Christians must, then perception is not reality. By definition, truth is that which comports with reality. That which is true for me must also be true for you. The facts must agree. Experience must prove it. (For more of my take on truth see  “True Lies,” “Liars Figure” and “The Truth about the Truth”)

People like Ocasio-Cortez are apparently disconnected from reality either by choice or by ignorance. The same distinction must have been apparent to Jesus when He reserved His harshest criticism for the hypocrites of His day. (Hypocrisy is a lie with legs; it walks crooked.) He told the Pharisees they were liars born of the father of lies. (John 8:44) Since Jesus was The Truth (John 1:14 and 14:6), lies are especially heinous to Him. Notice that He included liars among the vilest of sinners in one list. (Revelation 22:15)

I’d like to think that I hate lies mostly because I am being conformed into the image of the Truth. I’d also like to think that my fellow-Christians will keep their truth-detectors warmed up as we enter a season of shared power in the US Congress. There will be many more episodes like the shameful one that sparked this rant. As disciples of the One who is Truth, we must take a stand for truth. We must hold our representatives’ feet to the fire. Maybe the heat will un-bow their legs.

Christians are Responsible to be Politically Engaged

Daryl Fulp, a missionary in Guatemala and writer for Church Leaders, wrote an article on election day last week titled, “It’s Not Our ‘Christian Responsibility’ to Be Politically Engaged.” I am going to disagree with Mr. Fulp, so if you have had enough politics for the season (who hasn’t), click elsewhere.

Fulp’s position is that Jesus was apolitical, and he further suggests that the New Testament nowhere encourages political involvement. I will debate each point. First, Fulp’s examples of Jesus’ interaction with the civil systems of His day do not make the author’s point in my opinion. He correctly points out that the first century Jews were expecting (hoping for) a political savior. They hated the Roman occupation and dreamed of a military figure on a white charger delivering them from Rome’s bondage. Fulp is also correct that Jesus declined the role of political savior.

However, Jesus did not teach, as Fulp suggests, that his followers refrain from all political activity. On the contrary, the exact opposite can be inferred from the Scripture passage Fulp recites. Matthew records an incident when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in seditious sentiments in the 22 chapter of his Gospel. They asked if they should pay taxes to Caesar, and Jesus famously said yes. Because Jesus also commanded more spiritual dues as well, Fulp thinks Jesus’ words forbid political activity.

I think the very point Jesus was making was that civil authority is owed their demands. The first century Jews had little or no right to participate in their government, but we do. We have both the duty to pay taxes and the right to enter the process which assigns those taxes. In a participatory government such as ours, part of rendering unto Caesar is giving service time to make the wheels turn. When Paul added to taxes due with, “revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed,” I believe he opened the door to political activity in our generation. It seems disrespectful and dishonoring to decline to participate in a system that is built on citizen participation.

In the last few weeks, the Scripture has been opened to me revealing that Jesus applied political language to the most intimate relationship He had – the Church. I recently posted, “What is the Church” detailing how the very word translated “church” (ecclesia) was a political term in Jesus’ day. I wrote, “In the Greek culture, for several centuries leading up to the coming of Christ, ecclesia referred the council of men who participated in the ruling government. This assembly made the rules that governed the actions of the citizens.”

The ecclesia, as the Romans practiced it and the disciples understood it, was a group of people who left their home culture and entered a conquered region with the express purpose of transforming it into a colony that reflected Roman culture, language and philosophy. The ecclesia took over where the Roman army left off. The army conquered the land; the ecclesia transformed the people. Jesus knew He was about to storm the “Gates of Hell,” and He was telling His disciples that they were going to continue His work.

I believe the purpose of the church, as Jesus instituted it, is to influence a “foreign” culture – the world – with the principles and properties of the “home” culture – heaven. The prayer Jesus once gave as an example says, “Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” [Note italics] The church commission is to establish Kingdom culture on earth. If that is not political, I don’t know what political is.

Mr. Fulp may be over-reacting to the over-zealous “Moral Majority” mindset that pervaded evangelical thinking some years ago. There was a false hope, perhaps even an un-Scriptural hope that Christians could take over the US government and make America a Christian nation. Fulp is right that our priority is to make disciples, not to remake government. Fulp is wrong, however, to suggest that Christians should not be involved politically. Any Christian who is moved to become engaged in the process that makes the rules can help influence other rule-makers to lean toward a system that is more, rather than less, conducive to Christian society.

I am blessed to live in a place where state and US legislative districts have Christian lawmakers. With their help, the forces of Lansing and Washington DC have done a few things right recently. Although I held my nose when voting for President Trump (see “Vote Anyway” and “Politics Stinks”), I am pleased to see that his administration has turned back many of the anti-religious-freedom policies of the former administration. Mike Pence had a similar effect during his term as governor of Indiana. Voting for these men was my duty, and it is my pleasure to see that America is more open to Christian activity because of their efforts.

I respect Mr. Fulp’s emphasis on Jesus call to another Kingdom not of this world. However, being a missionary to a politically charged region like Guatemala, Fulp must see that our call is not just to escape from the world, but to transform the world’s culture in any way we can. If escape was what our Heavenly Father had had in mind, I think salvation would have meant instant translation out of this world into Heavenly places. He did not intend that; we are here to bring His Kingdom to Earth. Let’s be about the Father’s business.

Deliver Us From Evil

In a recent post I pointed to values clarification as a major factor contributing to the violence that has been plaguing schools in the last 30 years or so. In that previous post intended to say that without a standard for moral values, young people are encouraged to decide for themselves what value system they will embrace. If a young man decides that homicide is permissible under his own particular value system, who is to say nay?

Immediately this sounds wrong somehow to almost everybody (to all my readers, I hope). Most people would consider the taking of innocent life wrong under any circumstances. But wait. The idea that it is wrong to take another life (innocent or not) proceeds from the assumption that there are basic moral principles which apply to everyone. Full stop. That assumption rests on the idea that there are universal moral principles; today’s moral relativism and situation ethics question that very assumption. The murder of millions of innocent unborn children emphasizes the practical reality of this position.

If one goes looking for universal values, it will become patently obvious that they exist. In both the Eastern and Westerner traditions, we find searches for and suggestions of universal truths thousands of years back. You can even discount Hebraic tradition (as so many are wont to do) and still find a trace of universal truth permeating the best thinkers in every age. What we must ask is whether there are constants, survivors in this exploration. The answer is a resounding YES.

What are the values that resonate with every generation and every culture: beauty, goodness and truth. Granted, beauty does have cultural and generational aspects, but if I am reading Francis Schaeffer correctly, beauty itself has a universal anchor. For example, John Cage and Pablo Pascal may have been popular for a short time, but few would call their work “beautiful.” Goodness has less variability across cultures and generations, although philosophers since Socrates have debated what “the good” is. Perhaps the most debatable element in today’s society is truth. Post-modern philosophers (the majority of western thinkers) question whether there is even enough evidence to declare that truth exists.

I believe truth does exist: an absolute, knowable, propositional truth. I believe this because I know God exists, and he created what we know as “reality,” and he communicated with his creation concerning that reality. Truth then exists as the expression of how things comport with or match up to reality. I realize all this stems from my Christian world-view, and most secular thinkers will dismiss it out of hand. Yet I agree with FrancisSchaeffer that this view is the only view that makes ultimate sense of the universe and humanity’s place in the universe.

Goodness, or “the Good” that the ancients were seeking is an outgrowth of our view of truth. The word “good” can be assigned to anything that advances the will of the Creator and aligns with his character. The opposite of good is evil; evil is anything that does not line up with goodness and truth. On that basis, much of what we accept in society as freedom of speech or simply an opposing argument is in fact evil. The lesson on how to boil a frog is instructive here. Christians in America have allowed civil discourse and behavior in general to devolve to the lowest common denominator in the name of freedom. Against this the Bible tells us we are not to use our freedom as acover-up for evil.

So then, it is evil to distort the truth. Somebody coined the term “fake news” recently. In the past, purposely distorting the truth was called propaganda; its real name is lies. Washington DC abounds with this kind of speech. Our “entertainers” who become spokespersons for causes commit the same thing. The recent tirade on gun control is a perfect example. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney blather on about reducing violence by restricting access to guns. Yet statistics prove that the highest gun violence rates are in the cities with the toughest gun control. These celebrities may be opining out of ignorance, but the old saw that says ignorance is no excuse applies. Purposeful ignorance is also evil.

Another way our society distorts truth is by belittling goodness. This is a form of evil. Look at what the media did to Tim Tebow or any other athlete who openly expresses faith in God. Joy Behar, famous for her views on The View recently made shameful comments about the Vice President, Mike Pence, regarding his strong Christian faith. Saturday Night Live regularly mocks Christians as entertainment. I will grant that this does not rise to the level of roasting Christians alive as did the worst Roman emperors, but it is evil nonetheless, and it is pervasive in our society.

The Apostle Paul had some advice for the Philippians that we would do well to follow. “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things… and the peace of God will be with you.” That prescription would end the violence in schools and slander in the media and a host of evils if taken to heart. Truthfully, in the final analysis, the real issue is the heart of man, that deceitful, desperately wicked heart. Only God can change that, but we can hope… and pray.

Thoughts on December 7

FDR declared December 7, 1941, “A date that will live in infamy.” Then he declared war on the perpetrators. Not everyone in America agreed with the decision to go to war, but an entire generation was changed by the events that followed FDR’s declaration. That was my father’s generation, sometimes called the greatest generation. Almost everyone pulled together to defeat the enemy.

On September 14, 2001, George Bush made his famous “bullhorn” pronouncement. He told the crowd assembled at the site of the Twin Towers disaster, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” It was another infamous date; more people died on 9/11 than died at Pearl Harbor. Not everyone agreed with the way Bush prosecuted the “War on Terror,” but it did change all of America for a short time, maybe a year or two. Almost immediately there were those who voiced strident opposition.

Because there was no Emperor or Fuhrer to declare war against, George W. Bush had to rely on sketchy intelligence reports to locate “the people who knocked [those] buildings down.” For his efforts he was accused of lying (Bush lied; people died) or of trying to finish his father’s (George H. W. Bush) war. There is no doubt, in perfect hindsight, things could have, perhaps should have been done differently. Iraq became a failed nation-building exercise. Afghanistan became another Vietnam-like quagmire. ISIL grew out of the milieu, and continues its war of terror to this day.

I worry about today’s young people. My experience teaching classes of mostly millennials convinces me that they will not think of my generation as great at anything but making messes. Actually, their lack of historical perspective makes me doubt they will think of anyone but themselves. Most were just children in 2001, and while they may have been confused or scared, few seem to have grasped the real significance of the event. (For memories of 15 millennials see this Bustle article.) They seem primarily concerned with comfort and convenience and the latest gadget from Apple.

The millennials’ older brothers and sisters will remember 9/11. Many thousands went to war “against terror,” and many never came home. Many more were injured physically in ways that they will always struggle with. And then there are the countless thousands who still fight battles deep within; their bodies are often perfectly whole, but their lives have been changed in ways that have virtually stolen “normal” from their existence.

When I look at the deep divisions that plague America, I long for the way the December 7’s and 9/11’s in our history have caused us to come together in common cause, if only for a while. Surely there is more to unite than divide Republican and Democrat, black and white, gay and straight, religious and not-so-much. If ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter and Gay Pride marches are the social mechanisms on which we must rely, I fear it will take another “date that will live in infamy” to wake us up.

Since December 7 remembrances come as most of us begin to look forward to Christmas, and I am writing this while listening to Christian Christmas music, the incongruity strikes me. I wanted to share a line or two from a poem by W.B. Yeats, but I can’t decide what not to share, so with your permission, I will present the entire poem for your thoughtful consideration.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre  

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst  

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.  

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out  

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert  

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,  

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,  

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it  

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.  

The darkness drops again; but now I know  

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,  

And what rough beast, its hour come ‘round at last,  

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Two World Wars and the Irish struggles for independence in his homeland gave Yeats a cynical outlook. I may disagree with his conclusions about political governance, but this poem reminds me that anarchy is not the answer either. In fact, the only answer is bringing more and more of this sin-wracked world under the kingdom rule of the One who made the First Coming in Bethlehem. This poem also makes me long more intensely for the real second coming. Maranatha, Lord Jesus; come quickly.

Leading a Horse to Water: Introduction

I am writing a book which I intend to publish in serial fashion here on my blog. What you have in this post is the chapter titles and the introduction. The first post of each chapter will be in the nature of a rough draft. I would love to have readers' comments, criticisms and suggestions on each post. If you would like to be certain to see each chapter as it is posted, please leave a comment to that effect and I will put you on an email list to see that you are kept up to date. If you would rather stay somewhat anonymous, you may find the posts by searching "Leading a Horse to Water" in the blog labels and making comments on the blog itself.

Leading a Horse to Water: The Great Commission in the 21^st Century

Alternate title

Leading a Horse to Water: Making Disciples in the 21^st Century

Introduction

Inviting pagans to church is not the best strategy; after leading the horse to water…

                Unbelievers won’t get anything if it’s real church

                Believers won’t get anything if it’s all evangelism

                Doing a little of both shortchanges everybody… and it has failed

Chapter One: Matthew 28:19-20

The Great Commission: Make Disciples

What is a disciple

How to make one follow

                Offer something they want/like

                                Deo Gloria: make God look good

Chapter Two: John 13:34-35

Do the obvious thing: love one another

                Do the less obvious thing: love the “enemy”

Chapter Three: 1 Corinthians 9:22

Package the Gospel for atheists and agnostics

                Philosophy 101: what works

                                Avoiding nihilism and utilitarianism

                Guarding against syncretism

Chapter Four: Matthew 9:17

New wine for new agers: God as ET

                Reading the enemy’s playbook: the sci-fi gospel

                What does it mean to be “extra-terrestrial”?

Chapter Five: Matthew 10:16

What not to do

                Don’t be so earthly-minded you’re no heavenly good     

Don’t promise wealth and health

                Don’t promise happiness

                Don’t expect holiness

                Don’t use church language

                Don’t be ostentatious

                

Chapter Six: Ephesians 2:10

epilogue: it’s all God’s doing ultimately

                “Not by [our] works, lest any should boast”

                “I do what I see my Father doing”

Introduction

I attend a pretty good little church. Actually, it’s not little; it’s on the high side of average statistically. We run about 100 on any given Sunday. According to the Christian pollster George Barna, the average Protestant church size in America is 89 adults. 60% of protestant churches have less than 100 adults in attendance. And anyway, size is not the most important statistic about a church.

I am very happy with just about everything we do as a congregation: we have vital praise and worship times; we hear Bible sermons every week; we have several Bible study opportunities going on all the time; we pray openly for one another; we help each other out as needs arise; we collect enough money to maintain church operations and make significant contributions to a number of local and foreign ministries. So far, that’s the portrait of a healthy church.

However, as I look over the group that gathers under our local banner each week, I discover that almost all of the attendees are refugees from churches elsewhere in the area. I am quite certain that less than ten percent were brought to Christ through the ministry of our church; possibly less than five percent. I assume that the majority attend my church because they, like the founders of this body, were not happy in their previous church. This may be fine; I believe in different strokes for different folks. No one church will be perfect for all believers. That too is healthy.

What is not healthy is the lack of new converts. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament makes one realize that evangelism, sharing the Gospel, reaching the lost is a major focus of the church. If new people are not being added to the church, an important purpose of the church is not being fulfilled. Because I know many of the people I share my Sundays with, I am certain that they would agree with what I have said. I am also certain that many of them would respond as one did recently when I expressed my dismay about our lack of new converts: we need to invite more people to church. That may be one answer, but I don’t think it is the best answer.

The idea of inviting people to “church” to convert them to Christ leads ultimately to the question: what is the Sunday service for. The answer is debatable. Some believe that Gospel proclamation or evangelism, is the primary purpose of the Sunday church meeting. Others believe that teaching the Scriptures primarily to believers is what it’s all about. Not a few modern churches attempt to balance both of these elements in every meeting, particularly on Sunday morning.

This confusion over the purpose of Sunday meetings may explain at least in part why the church has not experienced significant growth in the last couple generations. It may also explain why young people are not staying connected to any church when they reach adulthood. The bottom line of a study done by Lifeway recently seems to indicate that irrelevance played a role in the decision of young people to leave church. Young people don’t think church has anything for them. Although what’s-in-it-for-me may be a selfish motive, it is legitimate to ask the purpose of attending Sunday church. If the leaders are confused about purpose, is it any wonder the attenders are too?

The answer to the confusion may be to choose to be either fish or fowl. If the leadership of a local body believes that evangelism is the main reason to hold services on Sunday morning, they should swing whole-heartedly for that fence. Make everything about Sunday attractive to non-believers (more on this later). This is basically what the “seeker friendly” churches have been trying to do for the last couple decades. While this is a worthy goal, current research suggests the tactic has not been an unmitigated success. Perhaps the tactic needs rethinking.

If on the other hand, a church decides that Sunday morning is for believers, then they must find another path than the Sunday morning service to appeal to the unbelievers. Assuming good Bible teaching is part of the service, sooner or later the congregation will come to the realization that a significant command of Jesus is being ignored for all practical purposes. I am not suggesting that solid preaching of the Word cannot bring some unbelievers to repentance; nor am I disregarding the important work of the Holy Spirit in conversion (more on that in the last chapter). But delving into the intricate beauty of the Word of God will be lost on all but a few unchurched listeners. “Pearls before swine” may be an apt analogy. The challenge is to determine how to reach the not-swine.

The authors of Simple Church, xxx, have researched successful churches and found what they believe is the key to success: in a word, focus. According to xxx, growing, vital churches have one main goal, and every program they offer leads directly to that goal. Although the churches studied by xxx use different language, I will summarize what they are doing by calling it what the Bible calls it: discipleship. Successful churches are successful because they are making disciples. My purpose in this book is to offer suggestions to help less-than-successful churches become successful in this truly biblical sense. I will not answer the question of which type of Sunday meeting is best; perhaps either will work if done properly.

Because I believe that all the best ideas come from the Scripture itself (what a concept), the suggestions I will make rely primarily on at least one specific passage of Scripture. Hence what you hold in your hand is a series of exegetical sermons on the topic of church growth. Someone is saying at this point, “Oh goody! As if we haven’t had anything like that before.” I say with all humility that there are countless other books available which do what I am proposing, and they have been written by Christians with far more serious qualifications than I. However, I am a unique person with a unique way of looking at things (as are all persons), so I will nonetheless undertake this challenge. Besides, God seems to be prompting me to do this. Whether it is just for me or for others too is for you to decide.

The first chapter will explore just what Jesus was asking of His followers when he commanded them to “make disciples.” If we don’t know what the task at hand is, it is pretty hard to know if we are doing it. There is probably nothing startlingly unique in my exposition, but I feel it is necessary to lay the correct foundation for what follows. Subsequent chapters will offer conceptual understanding and practical applications of some very specific things which I believe flesh out the command: make disciples

                If you follow me to the end of this literary journey, you will find me saying in the last chapter that nothing we do, no matter how brilliant – how biblical, will result in anything eternal if the Holy Spirit is not in it. Some have heard this before and concluded that if it is “all God” anyway, there’s no use troubling ourselves about evangelism. Wrong. It is one of the great mysteries of God’s purpose that He does, in fact, want our participation in this greatest of endeavors. It is my prayer that this little book may contribute in some small way to that purpose. Having read it, I pray readers will be better able to fulfill Jesus’ last command to us all: make disciples.

(Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.)