Jonathan: The Man Who Would Have Been King

I had a delightful opportunity to have lunch with one of my favorite Seminary professors. We had a great discussion over many topics. One side-topic that came up was Jonathan, the son of King Saul. In the sovereign providence of God, the Sunday School material I have been using with my men’s Sunday School class covered Jonathan and David the very week before!

My professor-friend said something quite profound. He said, “Nobody wants to be a Jonathan, but everybody wants to be a David.” This statement got us talking and, subsequently, had me thinking.

My professor friend is exactly right. You do not have to look very far today to see how much people are into themselves. It is as if everyone today (Christians included) live in such a way so as to expect the world to revolve around them.

Here is a tangible example: When was the last time you went to the grocery store? You drive through the crowded parking lot looking for a parking space. Then you notice a good spot close to the front door of the store and you go to park in that spot, until, that is, you notice a discarded shopping cart (or carts!) littering your parking spot. What makes this worse is when the cart return is just one spot over!!!!

The “I-Me” self-absorption of people today is shockingly bad. It seems that no one cares about anyone else. It is as if everyone is screaming “Serve Me, serve me–meet my wants.” It is sad to say that most people today choose churches on the basis of what they can get rather than what we can give.

When we turn to the Bible, we see a bright, shining example of what it is to put other people first. Jonathan, son of King Saul of Israel, is a great example of how we, as Christians, are to live to serve.

Israel, King Saul, and King David

Saul was Israel’s first king. The first time we see Saul is in 1 Samuel 9. Saul’s family, we are told, was wealthy and Saul, it is said, was a very handsome and tall man. Interestingly, the first time we see Saul doing something he is chasing his father’s donkeys, which had escaped.

Saul stands in sharp contrast to Israel’s second king–David. The first time we see David, he is a young shepherd and is simply overlooked by the family when the Prophet Samuel comes to visit. Samuel is looking to anoint the next king of Israel and all of Jesse’s sons, except David, pass before him, but no suitable king is found. David is the youngest (or smallest) of Jesse’s sons and he is off faithfully tending his father’s sheep. Samuel sends for and subsequently anoints David to be Israel’s next king.

Even though David is said to be ruddy and handsome, it is clear that Saul possesses all physical characteristics people look for in a king. Unfortunately, Saul possess none of the intangible qualities that God thinks are important. David possess the intangible qualities–qualities important to God.

Saul Rejected

Unfortunately, Saul’s reign is marked by failure and willful disobedience. 1 Samuel 13 and 1 Samuel 15 show Saul’s most notable failures. In 1 Samuel 13, Saul does not wait for Samuel to arrive to perform a sacrifice. Instead, Saul takes it upon himself to make the sacrifice. In 1 Samuel 15, Saul does not completely destroy the Amalekites as he was commanded to do. For these instances of willful disobedience, we are told by Samuel, God will not allow Saul or his children to remain on the throne of Israel. In other words, the throne will be given to another family.

Jonathan: The Would-Be King

Jonathan was the prince of Israel. At the demise of Saul, Jonathan would have become king, had God not removed Saul. Unlike his father, Jonathan is a man of strong character and a man of unwavering devotion to God and to His will.

Jonathan the Warrior

Jonathan was known for being a warrior and he was pro-active in defeating the enemies of Israel. More importantly, however, was his attitude in battle. At one point Jonathan says, “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the Lord will work for us, for nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few.” (1 Samuel 14:6)

Note that Jonathan puts his fate in God’s hands. It seems as if he is willing to do whatever God will have him do and it seems that God is foremost in Jonathan’s mind. Jonathan’s attitude is similar to David’s attitude in the face of fighting Goliath. It is obvious that Jonathan is not Saul–he is much more concerned with the things of God.

Jonathan the Friend

Jonathan, being the son of Saul, would not be allowed to be the so-called “Crowned Prince.” Instead the “Crowned Prince” would be David. This is what makes the relationship between Jonathan and David seem so odd to us. Jonathan is best of friends with David–the man who would be on the throne of Israel in his place.

It is likely that Jonathan, being the oldest son of Saul, was privy to the goings on of Israel. It is likely he knew that his father (and therefore himself) was disallowed from the throne and it is likely he knew David was the new “prince,” having been anointed by Samuel.

1 Samuel 18 shows a remarkable friendship between Jonathan and David:

1 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. 5 And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.

When we read 1 Samuel 18 several things become shockingly apparent: (1) Jonathan gives David all the outward, physical symbols of being the crowned prince of Israel. It is one thing to have the presumptive new king to be a friend, it is another thing entirely to give him the symbols (your symbols!) that show him, not you, to be the crowned prince of Israel. (2) Jonathan seems to embody a phrase coined by a good friend of mine–Saul may be my father, but David is my king. (thanks Chris for this wonderful assessment!) (3) Jonathan knows his future does not include the throne of Israel and rather than try to kill David (as Saul tried to do), Jonathan seeks to protect David with his very own life.

Jonathan the Yahweh Worshiper

It is clear from Jonathan’s life that he held God and the things of God in much higher esteem than his father Saul did. Saul is the proverbial poster child for a life lived in superficial obedience or outright rebellion to God and His commands. Jonathan, on the other hand, is the perfect model of a life rightly submitted to God and His will–even if His will causes disappointment or trauma. Jonathan embodies the idea “Obedience is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22).

Living a “Jonathan” life

(1) We must be God-worshipers, not self-worshipers.

Saul’s life has one stunning, overriding component: Self worship. Saul gave superficial, lip-service obedience to God and His commands. Many of us do the same thing. We are more worried about what people think of us and how they see us rather than working to live right, biblically-based, and Christ-like lives.

The Broadway show Wicked is the back story to the Wizard of Oz. In this show, there is a song that Galinda (who would become Glinda the “good” witch) sings to Elphaba (who would become the wicked witch of the west)–it is called “Popular.”

Popular! You’re gonna be popular!
I’ll teach you the proper poise
When you talk to boys
Little ways to flirt and flounce
Ooh! I’ll show you what shoes to wear
How to fix your hair
Everything that really counts

To be popular
I’ll help you be popular!
You’ll hang with the right cohorts
You’ll be good at sports
Know the slang you’ve got to know
So let’s start ’cause you’ve got an awfully long way to go

…It’s all about popular!
It’s not about aptitude
It’s the way you’re viewed
So it’s very shrewd to be
Very very popular like me!

(Source; emphasis mine)

You can see the superficial mindset in this song. As Christians, we are not to be superficial. Knowing the right people, hanging with the right people or fixing your hair is not what we are supposed to be. For the Christian, we are to measure our lives by our Christ-likeness and our “fruits” of repentance and faith. The Christian life is not a popularity contest. In fact, if you live your Christian life to be popular, you are seeking man’s approval over and against God’s approval. A true Christian simply seeks to please God by actively conforming their lives and their persons to His will and His commands, regardless of what man thinks.

(2) We must be good friends to our fellow Christians.

Many of us see friends get the “good” jobs or the better paying jobs or a job at the “perfect” church and we instantly become resentful and bitter. It is so easy for us to forget that God is sovereign, we are not. He is directing things for His purposes. So, when we see something good happen to our friends (especially if we were competing against them for a job) we should rejoice for them. We should rejoice that God’s will has been revealed and done.

It seems that it is much easier to cry with someone who is hurting. We are to do that, but we must also rejoice with those who are rejoicing, even if that rejoicing comes at our disappointment.

(3) We must be warriors for the things of God.

We find it easy to point out moral decay in our society and in other people, yet we rarely if ever see these things in our own lives. Why? We become warriors for the things of us, not the things of God. We must place our own lives and our own agendas aside and take up the banner of God and His agenda.

Part of advancing God’s agenda is making ourselves over in His image. We are to order our lives in such a way that we grow to be more Christ-like and we need to call others to do the same.

We cannot spend our time and efforts fighting each other over our own agendas. We must take up the banner of the Lord and advance His kingdom, not our own.

Be a “Jonathan”

Far too many of us want the limelight that David was given. Certainly, if God wills, that limelight is not necessarily wrong. Life, though, is not about limelight; life is about obedience to God and His will. Put other people first and ask yourself this question, “What can I give?” and quit asking “What can I get?” Even if God calls you to be a David, adopt Jonathan’s attitude and, as a Jonathan, be the best David you can be.

Great is thy faithfulness, Lord, unto….?

I love the hymn Great Is Thy Faithfulness by Thomas Obediah Chisholm. The phrase “…Morning by morning new mercies I see; All I have needed thy hand hath provided…” is a magnificent picture of God’s sustaining grace. I see God’s mercy every morning when I am allowed to wake up, for I am a sinner and deserve to be struck dead at any moment. God provides for me regularly, though I don’t deserve His provision–I am not rich and my wife and I are struggling to make the financial ends meet, but we have yet to miss a meal or a house payment.

God’s faithfulness is a wonderful thing. But God’s faithfulness may not be what you think it is. Great Is Thy Faithfulness suggests God is faithful to us. I think Chisholm gets this wrong. Follow me as I explain.

One of the things the author of the book of Hebrews wanted to encourage in his readers was hope. The author desired that the reader would “show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Hebrews 6:11-12)

Hope is an important thing in Christianity. The hope that the author is describing is not a “golly-gee-whiz” hope. In other words it is not a “gee-I-hope-this-will-happen-but-I-don’t-know” hope. Rather, this hope is an assured hope–like we hope for the sun to rise in the morning. The hope the author of Hebrews is describing here is grounded in certainty.

The hope the author wanted the readers to have is a certainty that would lead to them being imitators of those having already inherited the promises of God. Men like Abraham, cited by the author, are a great example.

The author to the Hebrews describes this kind of hope, a hope based on God’s character as seen in His dealing with Abraham, the great Hebrew patriarch.

13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” 15 And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. 16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. 19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:13-20)

The certain-hope we are to have is not based on feelings, little angels or demons on our shoulders, or undigested pieces of meat. No, the hope we have is based on the word, the very character of God–what God says He will do, He will do.

(1) As Christians, we must trust in God’s word and His character as the basis of our certain-hope because when God says He will do something, it will happen.

The author to the Hebrews is making his case based on God’s interaction with Abraham in Genesis. God makes some extraordinary and fabulous promises to Abraham (Abram, at the time). In Genesis 12:1-4, God promised Abraham the following:

1. Abraham will be made into a great nation
2. God will bless Abraham and make his name great
3. Abraham will be a conduit of blessing
4. God will bless those who bless Abraham
5. Anyone who dishonors Abraham, God will curse
6. Abraham will be the conduit of blessing for the entire world

This is simply priceless. Abraham is given a truly unfathomable blessing by God.

Abraham obeyed and followed God. In Abraham’s life, however, we can see that God is true to his word in that he protects and prospers Abraham–in spite of Abraham’s sinfulness. In Genesis 12:10-20, God protects Abraham and Sarah in Egypt.  In Genesis 14, God gives Abraham a huge military victory.

When God called Abraham, Abraham had done nothing to be chosen. In fact, Joshua 24 tells us that when God called Abraham, Abraham was an idol worshiper. God’s call of Abraham was based on God’s good pleasure and His own purposes of election. Because Abraham did nothing to inspire God’s calling, he simply did not deserve anything that God promised him. This is God’s grace at work, pure and simple.

(2) We must see God’s taking of an oath as a further act of grace.

Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it?” I used to like that bumper sticker, but I don’t like it any more. Why? Because the theology is dead-wrong. Isiah 46 tells us:

8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it. (Isaiah 46:8-11, emphasis mine)

God’s word and His purposes are the “gold-standard.” The afore-mentioned bumper sticker is absolutely wrong because it does not matter what you believe about what God says, it matters that God said it and that He will bring about what He has said. The bumper sticker should read “God said it, that settles it.”

When God made His promises to Abraham, it was absolutely certain that God would accomplish what He said He would accomplish in the life of Abraham. But, then, why do we see the episode in Genesis 15 where God makes an oath to Abraham?

God will sometimes take an oath to encourage us, as an act of grace. We see this in the life of Abraham. Genesis 15 shows God encouraging Abraham that his reward will be very great. Abraham, on the other hand, counters with a discouraged question. He asks God what will be given to him since he had no son, no heir, to pass this great reward on to. In fact, Abraham’s chief servant Eliezer of Damascus was going to be Abraham’s heir (as was the custom in that day). Abraham audaciously reminds God (as if God didn’t know) that He has not seen fit to give Abraham and Sarah a son to be the heir.

God then shows Abraham the stars and tells him that his offspring will be unable to be numbered. Abraham, we are told, believed God and that belief was credited to him as righteousness. But, later in the passage, we see Abraham’s doubts–even as God is instituting a covenant with him. Abraham says, “How will I know that I will possess it [the land that God has promised].” God institutes a covenant with Abraham (and his offspring, which he doesn’t have yet) with a bizarre ritual dividing several animals into two parts.

Abraham was questioning what God would do. Abraham is understandably confused–God has promised him great things. But, Abraham knows he has no blood-heir. He is wondering how God will accomplish all He has promised.

As Christians we do this often, don’t we? We doubt God’s promises.  All we need to do is look to Christ and the Cross to see that God is dead-serious about sin, its wages, our penalty, and His great love demonstrated in Christ’s death for our sin.

It is interesting to note that the bizarre covenant-ritual between God and Abraham leads directly to the cross. The “Path of Blood” covenant ritual is supposed to be for both parties (God and Abraham, in this case) to walk through, signifying that if one party breaks the covenant, the offending party will be cut in two, just as the animals are.

Notice that God prevents Abraham from ratifying the covenant. God causes a deep sleep to fall on Abraham (just like the deep sleep He caused to fall on Adam before the taking of the rib) and a great and dreadful darkness fell on Abraham–a clear sign that God Himself was present. Instead of Abraham and God walking through the Path of Blood, only God goes through–in two persons as signified by the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch. At this point, God binds Himself to pay Abraham’s penalty if Abraham or his offspring should break the covenant. From the rest of the Old Testament, we know that the Israelites broke the covenant early and often. While they did lose their land, God paid the price for His elect remnant in Christ on the cross. God paid Abraham’s offspring’s penalty.

This whole episode is not for God’s sake, but for Abraham’s. God had already promised everything to Abraham. And Abraham, as we shall see, was less-than-faithful. God re-assures Abraham through the covenant so that Abraham will understand the truthfulness of God’s word. This is an act of God’s grace. God condescends to demonstrate the truthfulness of His word to Abraham in a “language” Abraham will understand–the covenant ritual which was common in Abraham’s day.

This is precisely why the author to the Hebrews writes, “16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” (Hebrews 6:16-18 )

Do you see what the author is saying? God had already made His verbal promises to Abraham and that was as good as gold. Since God cannot lie, this was as good as a done-deal. But, to show more convincingly, for the sake of Abraham, God took an oath upon Himself. And in that oath, He swore by Himself. So here we have the two unchangeable things: (1) God’s character as seen in His word and (2) His oath which was sealed in Himself. Here we have two equally phenomenal gold standards–God’s word and God’s oath–both of which are rooted in God’s absolutely perfect character.

God does not tell fibs; He cannot lie. When He takes an oath, it cannot be broken. This is a proverbial “double stamp.” God’s word is always trustworthy. It never needs to be confirmed by an outside source. God never consults anyone to see if what He is saying is true. Because God says something, it is by definition true. If at some point in History Past, God decreed that 2+2=5 we would all have learned that 2+2=5. That’s why His promise is Golden. It bears the “Gold Standard” of Himself.

An oath is taken with someone higher as a witness. How many times have you heard someone, usually in anger, say “With God as my witness . . .” They are making an oath. God is called to witness because He is the Greatest Person there can ever be. So when God makes an oath, who does He swear by? Only Himself. There is nothing greater than Himself.

(3) We must come to realize that when we speak of God’s faithfulness we are truly talking about God’s faithfulness to Himself and His promises, not to us.

The author to the Hebrews encourages his readers that God’s promises are our anchor–the anchor of our soul. A sure and steadfast hope capable of going into the Holiest of places. Our hope, our anchor, our ultimate promise from God is Christ Himself. (Hebrews 6:19-20)

Why would this be important? Why must we see Christ as God being faithful to Himself?

Let’s go back to Abraham. Abraham demonstrated a staggering amount of faithlessness, not faithfulness, after God made His promises. Here are some instances of Abraham’s faithlessness:

1. Abraham’s scheme to lie to Pharaoh–If it was the case that God was going to give Abraham all the blessings promised in Genesis 12 (and we’ve seen it was), Abraham had nothing to fear from Pharaoh. Remember, Abraham lied to Pharaoh saying Sarah was his sister, not his wife (a half-truth). Abraham was afraid Pharaoh would kill him and take Sarah. He was faithless in that he did not trust God to protect him so that God could keep His word of blessing to him. After all, if Abraham was dead, God could not fulfill His promises–therefore Abraham would have to be protected by God. Abraham pulled this very same charade with Abimelech in Genesis 20.
2. Abraham, at the request of Sarah, took the matters of childlessness into his own hands–To solve the problem of being childless, Sarah told Abraham to visit Hagar and, sure enough, a son, Ishmael, was born. Abraham demonstrated his faithlessness by not waiting on God to fulfill His promises in His time.

In the middle of Abraham’s unfaithfulness, God was faithful. But, God was not faithful to Abraham. God preserved, prospered, and defended Abraham in spite of Abraham’s sin of faithlessness. This is why Paul applies this principle in 2 Timothy 2:13 when he writes “if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.”

God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy, they are our anchor.

God is faithful in His promises. But that may not mean what you think it means. I have often heard people say, “God was faithful to me and we accomplished _________.” I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that is a wrong way to think of God. God is not faithful to you. God is faithful to Himself.

Think about it. We are sinners; He is perfect. We are corrupt; He is incorruptible. We fail Him almost all the time; He never fails.

Just as God protected His own promise in protecting Abraham and Sarah, God protects His own promises in our lives as well, and that is God being faithful to Himself.

Romans 8:26-35 shows a beautiful of God’s faithfulness to Himself:

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

This passage also shows the so-called “Golden Chain of Salvation:” 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

God chooses to save certain people (that is what “foreknew” means, it means God chose. It does not mean God “knew beforehand”). Those whom God chose, He predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. Those whom God chose and predestined He also called, justified, and [will] glorify.

For the Christian, this is a truly golden promise. Because God decreed to save certain people, He will absolutely bring it to pass–for His word is golden. Those whom God chose to save will absolutely be saved and God will bring them to glory–because He has decreed it and has taken an oath (for our sake) to do so–in the “Path of Blood” that led directly to the Cross.

This is precisely why most Christians believe in the so-called “Once saved, always saved” doctrine. The reformers put this doctrine in a better theological light when they referred to it as “Perseverance of the Saints.” The doctrine states that God will cause the truly saved to persevere in the faith. Certainly true Christians will fail and sin, even grossly. But God will, ultimately, cause the truly saved person to remain in the faith–acting and living in repentance and faith.

We must always be careful to think properly when it comes to God. It must always be the case that He is always the Benefactor and we are always the Beneficiary. Any other view turns the world upside-down.

God is truly faithful. But, His faithfulness is not to us, it is to Himself–to accomplish what He has purposed to do. We can say that God is faithful to us as long as we realize that God’s faithfulness to us is absolutely rooted in His faithfulness to Himself.

So, had I written the hymn Great Is Thy Faithfulness, I would have written the chorus like this: “…great is thy faithfulness, Lord unto thee.”

Alcohol and the Southern Baptist Convention

You’re probably thinking: Not another alcohol post!!!! I myself have tired of reading them too. Much has already been said–some good and some bad. So, then, why another post on alcohol? I think there is something that has not been said and I will try, perhaps feebly at times, to explain.

THE ISSUE

For many years now, the people of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have long been known as teetotalers. Many churches use church covenants containing an anti-alcohol phrase like “We will abstain from the use and sale of alcohol as an intoxicating drink.” So, by tradition, the people of the SBC do not drink. Traditionally, Southern Baptists did not attend carnivals or play cards. It didn’t matter if the card playing was not related to gambling, card playing altogether was seen as a sin–no spades (that would make me very sad), no war (boring as it may be), and no poker (even if no gambling takes place). Unlike past days, church discipline is no longer done concerning matters of card playing. Today, however, alcohol is still a hot-button issue for many, and the issue itself is showing a chasm in the SBC.

THE CHASM

It would seem a deepening rift is emerging in the SBC related to the alcohol issue. There are two sides to the argument: 1) The side that argues all alcohol is wrong in every circumstance and 2) the side that argues Christians do have liberty to consume alcohol as long as they do not become drunk.

Argument 1: The Traditionalists

Traditionalists are, generally speaking, the so-called old guard, or at least they have been brought up in churches tied to the old guard. Old guard churches are typical 1950’s and 1960’s churches that are doctrinally conservative, preach the gospel, rabidly Arminian, and know what they believe.

The church life of the traditionalists is certainly not cult-like but it is marked by preaching and Sunday school teaching that is, at best, indoctrination. The goal of the church education programs is to educate the people what to believe and to eliminate all viewpoints to the “company line.”

Argument 2: The Libertarians

Libertarians (no, not “Liberals”) are, generally speaking, the so-called modern Baptist. Libertarians have been educated in churches which shatter the 1960’s mold of Southern Baptist structure–still doctrinally conservative and gospel-preaching, however. Libertarian churches are usually more Calvinistic (or at least not anti-Calvinistic), know what they believe, and, much more importantly, know why they believe what they believe.

Church life at a Libertarian church is marked by strong exegetical messages from the pulpit and Sunday School material which seeks to educate the people to read, understand, and apply the Bible for themselves. The goal of the church education program is to make disciples so that every viewpoint, both inside and outside the church, can be engaged and considered in the light of biblical revelation. Usually, on issues that are not related to like faith (the must-haves of Christianity like the bodily resurrection of Christ) and like order (the must-haves to worship together like the mode and purpose of baptism), there is much room for friendly debate and disagreement (like whether the return of Christ will be pre-tribulation, pre-millennium, etc.).

Certainly these are general pictures so there is bound to be some overlap between the two groups. Remember these are “general” statements.

THE INTERSECTION OF ARGUMENTS

The traditionalists and the libertarians are now clashing over the issue of alcohol. To be sure, there are mistakes being made on both sides.

Mistakes the Traditionalists Make

(1) Traditionalists usually make the issue of alcohol a litmus test for true Christianity. In most cases, a person who does not agree with the traditional position on alcohol is branded as a non-believer or a liberal based on this one issue alone.

(2) Traditionalists usually argue their points on the basis of tradition and logic, leaving out the Bible, or worse yet, misquoting and misapplying the Bible to support their view that alcohol in every circumstance is a sin.

Mistakes the Libertarians Make

(1) Libertarians usually argue from the biblical text. Usually, their exegesis is quite good as they note the Bible never forbids drinking except for a Nazarite or a priest actively ministering in the tabernacle/temple. However, the arguments are made in such as way as to belittle or demean the opponent. It is as if the Libertarians use the alcohol issue as a litmus test as to a person’s spiritual maturity.

(2) There are some libertarians who believe this is an issue of license. They reason, since the scripture does not forbid drinking of alcohol, it is their right to drink and anyone seeking to deny that right is uneducated or, worse, not a true Christian.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY

The Bible never forbids drinking (except for a Nazarite or a priest serving in the tabernacle/temple). Even in the two forbidden cases, abstinence from alcohol is not life-long, but only for a time.

The Old Testament

The Old Testament is favorable toward alcohol consumption while strongly affirming the damaging and destructive results of becoming drunk. In fact, Deuteronomy shows a quite favorable disposition to drinking:

22 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. 23 And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. 27 And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you. (Deuteronomy 14:22-27, emphasis mine)

As Deuteronomy shows, drinking is permissible–even before God as an act of worship! But, on the other hand, Proverbs (among many other passages) shows the danger of overindulgence:

19 Hear, my son, and be wise,
and direct your heart in the way.
20 Be not among drunkards
or among gluttonous eaters of meat,
21 for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and slumber will clothe them with rags. (Proverbs 23:19-21)

As the Old Testament clearly shows, the issue is not drinking alcohol. The issue is drinking too much and becoming drunk.

The New Testament

The New Testament shows Jesus Himself drinking wine (at least as part of the Passover celebration) and turning water into wine at a wedding. Paul encourages Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach. Now, it is most likely the wine of that day was cut with water. The alcohol made the water drinkable as it killed bacteria, parasites, etc. Again, the New Testament clearly shows the issue is drunkenness, not drinking itself.

Silly arguments as some try to twist the Bible

Some strenuously argue that the wine and other alcoholic drinks in the Bible were not alcoholic at all. I’ve heard and seen an argument stating that wine is simply grape juice. Of all the words used for wine in the Bible, only one probably refers to grape juice. All the others are, by definition, referring to an alcoholic drink. Also, the Hebrew word commonly translated “strong drink” is referring to a malt-liquor of some kind–but it is undoubtedly alcoholic.

What is the bottom line? People in the Bible drank alcoholic drinks, and in some cases were invited to do so by God Himself. Drinking was not and is not a sin. As the Bible clearly states, drunkenness is the issue.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

(1) The libertarians need to realize that the drinking of alcohol is not a right. The Bible gives a Christian the liberty (not license) to drink alcohol as long as the drinking does not lead to drunkenness.

(2) The libertarians must understand and apply to the alcohol issue what Paul writes about eating meat sacrificed to idols. If fellow brothers are offended by the drinking of alcohol we must give up our liberty for the sake of their (weaker) conscience. In this case, any alcohol consumption must be done with the utmost discretion and probably in the privacy of one’s own home.

(3) The traditionals must realize that alcohol is not a litmus test for salvation. If someone chooses to drink, it does not make them less of a Christian.

(4) The traditionals must not make alcohol consumption (or the forbidding thereof) a matter of doctrine. To do so is to place an extra-biblical requirement on the faith and practice of a brother or sister in Christ. This, by definition, is phariseeism.

A BETTER PLAN

Rather than draft resolutions outlining an extra-biblical position, both sides should come together to affirm the dangers of drinking and the benefits of laying down our liberty for the sake of others. I would phrase things this way:

While the Bible allows for the consumption of alcohol, we have chosen to lay aside our freedom to drink so that we may serve the interests of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and serve as an untainted witness in the eyes of the world.

We fully affirm that some will still choose to drink and that this is not a sin.

We encourage all persons to debate this issue in the truest sense of Christian love and civility.

Many blessings to you all, teetotalers and drinkers alike.

The Archangel

Intentional Mediocrity

It is interesting and quite sad to see how the church parallels the world. Of course, the church should not look like the world, but in many ways we do–to our shame. One such way we look like the world is our “education” system.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in education and I see many problems (and that’s putting it lightly) in the American education system. While I may not comment on all the problems, these are, in my estimation, the biggest ones and they also can be found in our churches.

(1) Indoctrination, not education.

The American education system gave up on true education decades ago. True education involves development of the processes related to thinking and self-education. The goal of true education is to be able to think–to know what you know, to know what you believe and to know why you know it and why you believe it.

The American education system is now fully dedicated to indoctrination. Take, for example, the recent squabbles over teaching intelligent design along with evolutionary theory. Now, in a system truly dedicated to education, the teaching of these two points of view would not be a problem. A system dedicated to education would be happy to juxtapose these two systems of thought in order to think through all the issues related to the question of creation vs. evolution. When this happens, the students are the big winners–they are taught to think and, ultimately, they will know why they believe what they believe.

It is incomprehensible and unconscionable for an educational system to willfully and systematically keep their students ignorant–depriving students of the opportunity to know of alternate points of view and alternate world views. To do so instills a one-viewpoint set of information, which is indoctrination. For the American education system to pursue this as a its practice of “education” is nothing less than chasing mediocrity.

(2) Students are not taught how to think.

This is closely related to point number one. When I was a kid, I hated the “just because” answer. I always wanted a reason. Today, most students cannot give a reason for anything they believe because they are told what to think, not taught how to think.

Thinking takes time and effort and it is dangerous–someone with the same set of facts can come to a different and disagreeable conclusion. Thinking is based on the evaluation of one or many truth claims and an evaluation of the claim (or claims) in light of all available evidence to see which truth claim is correct.

Of course this is hampered by the bent of postmodernism to eliminate all truth claims as false and oppressive. Modern education has bought into this lock-stock-and-barrel.

I have seen a bumper-sticker that has become one of my favorites, it says: “Give a man to fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.” Teaching someone to think is the same thing. If you teach someone to think you will equip them for a lifetime. To intentionally neglect teaching the process of thinking is to court mediocrity.

(3) Competition is not allowed.

You may have seen this for yourself. You go to a high school graduation and listed under “Valedictorian” are some ten names. Now, I’m not all that old, but I remember when there was one valedictorian–the one with the best grade point average (of course, in the case of a tie in GPA, there could and should be multiple winners). Second place was for the “Salutatorian.” At typical graduations these days, there is a cadre of valedictorians and salutatorians. The two have become many.

Why is this a problem? Without competition, the vast majority of students see no need to push themselves in order to better themselves. In this system there is no need to take responsibility for your actions, or lack thereof, to better your mind. If there are only winners, you cannot lose–no matter how stupid you actually are (Note: Stupid here means willingly throwing away a golden opportunity to learn or better one’s self).

Also, the education system seeks to spare the student the pain of losing, so competition is dumbed-down or eliminated altogether. This, of course, bears absolutely no resemblance to real life.

If one of the purposes of an educational system is to prepare its students for life in the real world (and it is), there must be winners and losers. Learning how to lose is as important as learning how to win and learning how to lose with dignity is as important as learning how to win with honor. Also, it is important to learn how to be tenacious in the face of overwhelming odds when a loss is all but guaranteed.

Here’s an example: When I was doing my student teaching, I was partnered with an amazing teacher who used the high school football team as an example. The football team was terrible. In fact, there were not enough people on the team to field an offense and a defense. There were only enough players to have the kids play both ways–offense and defense. I don’t think they won a game, but they never gave up. Their tenacity was phenomenal. As my cooperating teacher said (this is a paraphrase), “These kids are learning far more about life by getting their butts kicked week after week and still getting up, dusting themselves off and trying to make themselves better and win a game.”

Not quitting in the face of impossible odds is a virtue and it is one our schools have jettisoned by making competition a joke. A world without competition is, by definition, mediocre.

So, then, what does all of this have to do with the church? Plenty!

(1) Churches must educate their people in the knowledge and ways of God from the Bible

Like the world, the church spends its time indoctrinating people. If you look closely at much of what is called preaching and much of what passes as Sunday school material, it is easy to see that there is not much, if any, application. Sure, there may be a lot of information, but the preacher or the Sunday school lesson seldom tells us what to do with that information.

Biblical information without application leads to the false and deadly “internal versus external” dichotomy. Many people think (because of poor preaching and discipleship programs) that it doesn’t matter what you do, it only matters what you believe. Nothing could be further from the truth! Believing the right thing, the Bible, must show up in our actions. James 1:22 says, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” James’ statement means that the connection between faith and the outworking of that faith is a non-negotiable. If we claim to be followers of Christ we must live our lives according to the Bible, not according to the world.

In a proper education program, churches will seek to instruct people in the doctrines of Christianity and how those doctrines are derived from the Bible. Equally important to this doctrinal instruction is the why–why we believe the doctrines. Doctrines alone do not define us because any true doctrine is, ultimately, biblical so the Bible is what defines doctrine and, therefore, the Bible ultimately defines us and our actions.

In this way, the church will instruct her people how to read, understand, and live the Bible.

(2) Churches must teach their people to think for themselves.

In high school, I had an amazing teacher for my British Literature class. He introduced us to the concept that a proper educational program will, by necessity, if the program does its job properly, eliminate the need for a teacher. The idea here is that a properly-educated person will be able to teach him or herself. Is that not the goal of teaching students to read? So they can read books and, thereby, educate themselves?

The goal of a church’s discipleship program must be about teaching the people to read, understand, and apply the Bible for themselves. This involves much effort to help people “Rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

A wide-spread, far-reaching, and well-educating education system is not optional. We are commanded (by inference) by God to love Him with our minds. (See Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and Matthew 22:37, which is Matthew’s exposition of the Deuteronomy passage)

The church must equip her people to do these things if we are to fulfill the Great Commission mandate to “Make Disciples.” Anything less is a sin.

(3) Churches must teach their people to better themselves by intentionally becoming more Christlike.

Suffering is not popular today. Whether it be the world trying to protect students from the suffering of losing or the church trying to preach and teach a suffering-free health and wealth gospel, suffering is off the table. So, it should not surprise us that at the first hint of suffering, church people head for the door.

If we take the life of Job and see what is being played out there we can learn that there is great potential in suffering. In his book of poetry on Job, John Piper rightly suggests Job, through his suffering, was given a great gift–to see God as He really is, in all of His magnificence. The title of Piper’s final chapter is “Unkindly you have kindly shown me God.” Job suffered greatly (at the hands of God, I might add) and he benefited greatly from his suffering.

Suffering is part of the Christian life. We only need look at Hebrews 12 to see that we are to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.” This means that we are not to quit–even in the face of tremendous and life-threatening opposition.

Furthermore, the church must teach her people to struggle to become more and more Christlike as they seek to live a rightly-discipled life. Paul writes of his struggle:

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

As Paul struggled and pressed on, so we must struggle and press on. We must struggle and discipline ourselves to be more Christlike today than we were yesterday. We must live the Bible more today than yesterday.

We should not be surprised when people quit coming to church or leave our churches or when high school students completely reject the Christian faith when they get to college. We have not been diligent in equipping our people, and the statistics of decline and our living like the world show that.

Similarly, we should not be surprised when our churches or The Southern Baptist Convention struggles with certain issues like worship style, alcohol, and spiritual gifts. The main fight is between the Indoctrinated and the Educated. The educated are offending the indoctrinated with their biblical arguments and the indoctrinated offend the educated with their often-superficial proof-texting.

If we look at the history of higher education, we quickly and easily see the church led the way in education. After all, Harvard and Yale were originally chartered as schools to train ministers of the Gospel. The church once led the way and it must do so again. If we are to fulfill the imperative of the Great Commission to “make disciples,” we must be about the business of educating our church people, so that they become an army of lay-person scholars able to “rightly divide the word of truth”, enabling them to believe the right thing and live the right way–according to the scriptures.

It Is Time To Pray for One Who Needs Prayer

As I’m sure most people have heard, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. I first heard the news on Fox News. If you are not aware of the details, you can read an article here.

Now, so there is no confusion, let me state this succinctly and unequivocally: I am not a fan of Ted Kennedy. I do not agree with his politics, I do not approve of the way his family made its fortune, I do not agree with his political tactics, and I do not like him. I believe there is an attitude of entitlement and the-rules-don’t-apply-to-me mentality exuded by the Senator. To see an accounting of his life, look here.

My personal feelings, however, are not the issue. Scripture, as always, is the issue.

In I Timothy 2, the Apostle Paul writes:

1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Paul is telling us we have to pray for our leaders. Praying for our leaders is not optional and we are not to pray only for the leaders we agree with or our “favorite” leaders.

But, here’s the hard thing–think of the broader context of when Paul was writing. Who were the “kings” and “those in high positions” Paul was writing about?

• Pagan Roman Emperors who persecuted and killed Christians.
• Pagan local “kings” who were, most likely, hostile to Christianity

How are we supposed to pray for these people? We are supposed to intercede for them; we are supposed to ask God for things for them; and we are supposed to thank God for them.

I know there are some cold-hearted conservatives who are singing songs similar to “Hi ho the witch is dead.” And, no doubt, the celebrations will continue long after the Senator’s eulogy is given and his headstone erected. It is a sin for a Christian to do this and, as Christians, we must not be this way!

In the first place, if it were not for God’s unimaginable and unfathomable grace, we might find ourselves in the very same situation as Senator Kennedy. None of us is perfect and we all deserve to die gruesome horrible deaths because of our sinfulness. It is only because of God’s grace that we, even we redeemed, regenerate Christians, are not already dead.

Secondly, Senator Kennedy is a person made in the Image of God. As such, whether we like him or not, we must pray for him. He is an image bearer and deserves to be treated and prayed for as such.

Third, Christians are supposed to embody the “Golden Rule” which says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets…” (Matthew 7:12). I’m fairly certain that any Christian with this type of medical ailment and the not-so-optimistic prognosis would want people praying for them, not singing joyously of our demise.

Finally, as we see in Scripture, we must be people that pray for our leaders, whether we like them or not. Paul likely prayed for the very Emperor who signed his execution order. We must do the same thing. Notice one of Paul’s concerns in praying for the Kings of his day was salvation. It is almost as if Paul is saying, “Pray for the Roman Emperor for even through your prayers, the Emperor might come to Christ.”

Knowing about Senator Kennedy’s life and history, it is difficult to see the fruit of a regenerate life–but only God knows his spiritual condition. As Christians, we must pray that Senator Kennedy will be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and show the fruit of a life lived in repentance and faith. As Christians, we also must pray for his physical health and well-being and for his healing.

Don’t let your praying stop with Senator Kennedy–pray for all elected officials, both national and local, even if they are not your favorite people and even if you don’t agree with their political views.

Lookin’ For [Joy] In All The Wrong Places

Lookin’ for Love in All the Wrong Places was a popular country song back in the 1980’s (yes, when I was in grade-school, I was an avid country music fanatic and I’ve got the Alabama albums to prove it!). This song still strikes a nerve in me today because people still do this! People seek what they think of as love in so many wrong and God-less places. For un-regenerate, worldly people to act this way should not be surprising. However, Christians do the same thing, and that is surprising (to some extent) and it is also very sad. What is even more sad, perhaps, is that today, some Christians seem to spend their entire lives looking for Joy in all the wrong places.

Whether it is the recapturing the joys of when we are first saved or looking for a “hit” of joy, many Christians are simply seeking after the wrong thing…or, at least, they are seeking it in all the wrong places.

Addicted to Feelings

Many new believers have unrealistic expectations about their faith. Namely, they expect the “feeling” of joy to last unabated. You remember when you came to Christ or had a fresh “mountain-top” experience, don’t you? We’ve all had those joyous experiences that made us feel like spiritual super-men (or women). The feeling is quite a rush–so much so we feel as if we could walk from New York to England or cast Satan into the pit ourselves. This feeling of joy can become quite addictive, and it is quite dangerous–it can become our idol.

Unrealistic Expectations

It is unrealistic to expect this particular feeling to last. When you look through the Bible you see almost every major person, from Moses to Peter to Paul and even Jesus Himself dealing with what I will call “dark” times. Being in a dark time does not imply being in sin (although that is possible), but dark times refers to times when you feel God is distant.

Did you notice I used the word “feel?” Feelings are the problem–feelings can deceive you and you can become addicted.

In Search Of Experience

In one of my favorite movies, Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi tells young Luke Skywalker: “Your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them…stretch out with your feelings.” Unfortunately many Christians today live life this way–they look for that which will help in the boosting of their feelings.

This is one reason I think there is growth in the so-called charismatic denominations. Many charismatics consider the experience of speaking in tongues as the mark of the Holy Spirit (now, that is quite un-biblical and a topic for another time). For these charismatics, faith is confirmed experientially and emotionally, not rationally or scripturally. A large amount of credence is given to the subjective personal experience with the Holy Spirit as seen in tongue-speaking or some other “visible” gift of the Spirit. Sadly, what is lost in the feeling-driven culture is the objective truth of scripture. It is as if the objective Bible is interpreted through subjective experience. This paradigm is backwards because joy is measured by experience.

So, the result of the backward paradigm is that people search for experience after experience as a drug-addict searches for his or her next “high.” No emphasis is placed on the truth of scripture and all emphasis is on what you experience. So, the result joy-addicted druggies looking for their next fix.

What makes this problem worse is the experience-driven culture we live in. The next time you have a chance to really listen to a conversation, see how many times the conversation is actually a superficial conversation filled with nothing more than experience-swapping. Experience one-ups-man-ship is the mark of a superficial conversation between people only interested in themselves, not the other person.

On the other hand, some people choose to live vicariously (yet superficially) through other people’s experience (just look at the popularity of the celebrity-news shows and the paparazzi).

Experience-seeking Christians tend to to act in a way that suggests they believe “The Bible can deceive you, don’t trust it…stretch out with your feelings.” Experience drives our world but placing your faith in experience is fatal to your Christian life because it robs you of true joy.

Putting your Eggs in the Right Basket

Rather than put your faith in the fleeting “joy” of subjective, personal experience, place your faith in the truth of Scripture.

(1) Evaluate your experience through the truth of Scripture; Do not evaluate the truth of Scripture through your experience.

Many of us fight this. We have dark times. I’ve heard of someone thinking that God didn’t love them anymore because they had not had that emotional “feeling” that God loved them in quite some time.

For a true Christian, a feeling is not the proof of God’s love. A crucified and risen Savior is. If you read your experience through the light of Scripture you can easily come to the conclusion that God loves you precisely because He died for you. His death was a demonstration of His love for His people (see Romans 5:8). Since He publicly demonstrated His love for His elect, there is no need to doubt His love, even in the darkest of dark times.

Look at Job. God caused amazing pain in Job’s life. Did God not love Job? Of course God loved Job and that is demonstrated in the last few chapters of the book (ch 38-end) when God gives Job an unparalleled vision of Himself, His Majesty, and His power. In the darkest of times for Job, God was at work to reveal Himself. In our darkest of times, God is still there and is working to make us what we should be. Actually, the dark times, we can assume, are the times God is demonstrating His love the most. If He didn’t love us he wouldn’t discipline us in cases where we bring the darkness on ourselves through sin (See Hebrews 12:6) and He wouldn’t care to make us more Christlike–even through suffering.

(2) Work diligently to know the scriptures so that you can “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.”

We usually leave one of these things out, don’t we? Or, we place too much emphasis on one part…like “Heart.” Humans are emotional beings and those emotions are not necessarily bad. However, emotions can control us. Here is an example (and it isn’t a perfect one). Many children think that monsters live under their beds. Why? Because the world, for the most part, is still very new to them and they have not learned to fully separate reality from fantasy. Consequently, a child can have fantasies that a monster lives under the bed and this can scare the tar out of them.

As the child grows, however, the separation between fact and fiction grows and the child learns, objectively, that monsters do not live under the bed. So, while their emotions may still get a jolt at hearing a noise under the bed, the brain tells the emotions that there are no monsters under the bed and the emotions are quieted.

In the same way, Christians must so educate their minds with the truths of Scripture that we can evaluate everything through the lens of Scripture. So, when we are having an emotional response, we can evaluate that response, according to Scripture, to see if that response is, in fact, legitimate. If it isn’t the brain can step-in and control the emotions. Also, if you witness something that should cause an emotional response and, for some reason, doesn’t, you can evaluate the situation, again–according to Scripture, and respond with the proper emotional response.

So we can seek to always have a proper and biblically balanced response, the brain must control the emotions; the emotions must not control the brain.

(3) Seek your joy in God Himself, not the things He offers.

This is a tough one for us. John Piper nailed me with this one. It is easy to get lost in longing after the things that God provides–Eternal Life, freedom from sin, etc.–and loose sight of the Giver of the gift. Ask yourself this question, “If I get to heaven and Jesus isn’t there, would it still be heaven?” If you think heaven will be heaven without Christ, you are sorely mistaken. Heaven will still be heaven with Christ and nothing else. He is the ultimate Gift and, therefore, He must be our ultimate treasure. The things He gives to us are just icing on the cake.

Unfortunately, many of the so-called “health and wealth” preachers of today who want you to have your best life now preach and teach in such a way that makes people think that God exists to give us big-ticket items like 5,000 square-foot houses, expensive BMW’s, large plasma-screen TVs, and real-fast power boats. Nothing could be further from the truth. God exists for His own glory, not our creature-comforts.

(4) Seek your Joy in God Himself through the truth of the Scripture.

If you want to know what God is really like, you must read and know the Scriptures. Only then will your concept of God be correct. Also, we are not to pick and choose what like about God–God, as revealed in the Bible, is an all-or-nothing God.

I once had a friend who professed to be a Christian but said she didn’t think God would send anyone to hell. From reading the Bible, it is clear that people do go to hell and it is God who sends them there. It is simply not biblical to separate God’s attributes and pit them against one another or to remove a clear teaching of Scripture because it happens to offend our wrong, subjective, and experientially-based sensibilities.

Conclusion

Finally, take special care not to seek emotional highs as an addict seeks a fix. This practice leads to cheap, superficial faith and cheap, superficial churches devoid of true joy.

Rather than seek quick hits of so-called joy in our fleeting experiences, allow my dad, who is heavily influenced by John MacArthur, to suggest the way we should view joy:

True biblical joy is the deep and abiding confidence that my God is sovereign and that regardless of whatever circumstance I find myself in, He will cause everything to work to my ultimate good and to His glory.

The world we live in is a sad world–a world of despair, depression, lack of fulfillment, and dissatifaction. Man defines happiness as an attitude of satisfaction and delight based upon present circumstances–he relates happiness to happenings or happenstance.

Joy is something that cannot be planned or programmed.

Biblical joy consists of the deep and abiding confidence that I live this earthly life under the protection of a loving and sovereign God. Because of God’s sovereign care, I can rest in absolute confidence that God will, regardless of circumstances or difficulty, work all things together for His glory and my good as I remain obedient to His calling.

Biblical Joy is very different from worldly happiness. Biblical joy is always related to God and belongs only to those in Christ. It is the permanent possession of every believer–not a whimsical delight that comes and goes as chance offers it opportunity.

Perhaps you can conceptualize this concept this way: Joy is the flag that flies on the castle of the heart when the King is in residence. Only Christians can know true and lasting joy. A Christian’s joy is a gift from God. Joy is produced in the Christian by the Holy Spirit as the word is received and obeyed. A Christian’s joy is mixed with trials and it is rooted in God’s sovereign providence and a hope set on future glory.

The California Supreme Court and our Diet of Worms

In early 1521, a Catholic monk named Martin Luther stood in very deep trouble before the Catholic church. At the direction of the Emperor, Charles V, a council was convened at the town of Worms (pronounced “Vorms”) and Luther was called to answer for his crime of running afoul of the teaching of the Catholic church and Pope Leo X. When Luther’s writings were called into question and he was ordered to recant, he replied:

“Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one’s conscience. God help me. Amen.” (source)

That day was an historic day because it helped to firmly cement the protestant reformation.

Today is an historic day too. Today the California Supreme court legalized marriage between gay and lesbian couples. I have not read the entirety of the 172-page decision (read it here), but the decision does have clear and destructive implications for our country and our calling as preachers of the gospel.

Eight years ago, in 2000, a majority of 61% of California voters voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Today, that law was overturned. The language of the California Supreme Court is especially troubling. They wrote:

“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” (source)

The troubling thing about this decision is that it equates homosexuality with race and gender. This firmly entrances sexual orientation in the same league as gender and race–constitutionally protected classes.

While watching The Fox News Channel, I heard their chief judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano, say that this decision said that “marriage is a natural right, like thinking.” Napolitano also suggested that this was an absolute right so much so that if a pastor, on grounds of conscience or conviction, refused to marry a same-sex couple you could be charged and found guilty of discrimination against a constitutionally protected class of citizens.

This means that as a pastor who believes homosexuality to be a sin, you could be compelled to perform these gay marriages under penalty of civil lawsuit or criminal charges. I know, the scoffers are saying, “Certainly not!.” In response, I draw your attention to a recent lawsuit in New Mexico in which a photographer refused to take pictures of a same-sex civil union ceremony, because of religious conviction, and was sued for discrimination and lost! Read an article (here).

Let’s examine this. The photographer is a private citizen with a privately-owned business. Because of religious conviction, she refused to photograph a civil-union ceremony. As a private citizen with a privately-owned business she is entitled to enter into contract with anyone and she is entitled to not enter into contract with anyone. The state didn’t see it that way, however. The state tried to categorize her business (again, photography) as a public business to which anyone is entitled–like a public restaurant or a public store. So, she was ordered to pay $6,637 in damages (court costs and attorney’s fees, etc.).

So, if the photographer had said she couldn’t or wouldn’t photograph the ceremony because she had another engagement or was out of film or batteries for her camera, that would have been OK. But, because she voiced her religious views, she was hit with a lawsuit and eventually lost a large sum of money. Why did she lose? Because of her religious views, it is that simple. She was sued and punished for expressing and living by her religious convictions. (Read a good blog post about this here)

Back to California. Pastors could be forced to perform same-sex marriages or be punished (and criminally so) for not performing a same-sex marriage. This is further evidence of a growing anti-religious (and specifically anti-Christian) sentiment in California and the rest of the country. But in reality, this has never been about “equal rights.” Why? Because California already had perhaps the most marriage-like domestic partner law in the nation (see here). About the only thing missing was the title “marriage.” Now that title is applied. And the reaction of people shows that this was about legitimacy, not equality.

The Dallas News reported the following scenes: (source)

• “Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner.

• In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV. “I’ve been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment,” he said.

• “It’s about human dignity. It’s about human rights. It’s about time in California,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.” (emphasis mine)

Apparently, it is about legitimacy, not equality because equality was already there in all but name. It cannot be about love because same-sex couples were not prohibited from expressing love to one another in their own houses and they were not prohibited from “coming out” to anyone. Seeking life-affirmation in a court decision to tell you that your choice of lifestyle is OK is nothing more than seeking legitimacy to quiet the conscience. If it was only about life-affirmation, homosexuals would not feel the need to fight their battles in the courts and they would not be militant against those who suggest they are wrong. It cannot be about human dignity, for humanity cannot be defined by marriage. If it were about human dignity, single people would be, by definition, excluded–since marriage is now seen as an inalienable right. Human dignity is not related to marital status.

Now, there is much to consider–and this is very important in dealing with faith, freedom, and a free public square.

The right for anyone to freely practice their faith in the public square is now greatly threatened. When you consider the New Mexico lawsuit and the California ruling equating sexual orientation with race and gender a very frightening picture emerges.

Consider, for a moment, the percentage of the American population that is gay. The gaydemographics.org website claims that 1.16% of the American population is gay (source). Even if their numbers are wrong (and I intentionally used a “gay” source for these numbers) and the actual percentage is around 10%, gay and lesbian persons are still in the vast minority.

One of the so-called pillars of democracy is the concept of majority rule with minority rights (see here). Even former president Bill Clinton in his ill-fated interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday suggested the exact same thing (transcript here). Clinton said:

Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy.

In the instance of gay marriage this principle is turned upside-down. Note again San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s words: “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.” And, let’s remember–in 2000 61% of California voters voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. So it isn’t about human dignity, or voter’s rights, or the will of the people, is it, Mr. Newsom?

Of course it isn’t. The homosexual people of California already had been given their “minority rights” by the domestic-partner law signed into law by former Governor Gray Davis. This is quite simply the pushing of an agenda, pure and simple. And, it is an agenda absolutely intolerant of any dissenting point of view.

This is not about democracy or equality. If a vast minority can work in such a way to effectively limit or prevent the free speech of another group, like religious persons who do not and cannot agree with same-sex marriages on the ground of their religious convictions, it is nothing more than the tyranny of the minority.

Many people today like to affirm the validity of all view points (liberals especially). They say every viewpoint is true because truth is not objective (not related to an outside standard). So what is true for you and what is true for me are both true, regardless if the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed to each other. So for the homosexual to view gay marriage as a good and acceptable thing and for an evangelical Christian to view gay marriage as an abhorrent practice are both true. Of course this is absolutely silly. Two plus two cannot simultaneously be four and five.

The evangelical Christian appeals to the outside objective standard of the truth–the Bible. The homosexual appeals to the subjective truth of their own experience. Both cannot be right. Because of the nature of subject experience, the liberal, post-modern homosexual thinker must affirm the validity of every viewpoint, even the evangelical position calling his or her position evil.

So, here we have a situation which is quite Orwellian. In Orwell’s Animal Farm we find that a certain class of animals, the pigs, taking over the farm. They insist all animals are equal, but some animals, namely themselves, are more equal than others (which of course is in-equality).

Today, the adherents to the radical homosexual agenda are not content with equality, they are after legitimacy and, because of their status as a vast minority by every estimation, their willingness to seek lawsuits against persons who disagree with them, and because of their absolute intolerance of other opinions on the matter of homosexual marriage, it is clear they are saying, “All viewpoints are equal, but ours is more equal than yours.”

The radical homosexual agenda is not about equal rights because it clearly includes the destruction or silencing of all dissenters. In other words, there is no room for equality for people who don’t share their position. If it were about equality, homosexuals would be happy having their rights to marriage or domestic partnerships and, at the same time, affirm the rights of others to disagree. But, that is clearly not the case. Anyone refusing to agree with homosexual marriage or unions is punished (just ask the New Mexico photographer).

So as evangelical Christians we will soon meet our own Diet of Worms. We will be called upon or compelled to do things that violate the Scripture and our Scripture-based conscience. We will soon see who the real Christians are. I pray that we (especially myself) will be able to point to the Bible and the God of the Bible and say with Luther, “Here, I stand. I can do nothing else. God help me. Amen.” May He help us indeed.

“The Manifesto,” as seen by Dr. Mohler

Dr. Mohler wrote a very good response both praising and criticizing the evangelical manifesto. I think Mohler’s insight is priceless and is very worthy of consideration. Read his blog, entitled: An Evangelical Response to “An Evangelical Manifesto” here.

In the end, Dr. Mohler concludes the Manifesto is too thin in its theological matters and too much concerned with public relations. However, he sees some of the Manifesto’s points the same way I do (big surprise there!). On these points (like political action replacing the gospel) the Manifesto is quite good. But, there are, as Mohler points out, troubling lapses too.

I certainly recommend Mohler’s critique.

Blessings,

The Archangel

What Is THE Need of the American Church?

I found a wonderful post on Justin Taylor’s blog. His post (seen here) compiles several responses from modern-day evangelical scholars on this question: What Is the Most Crying Need of the Church in America Today?

The answers are certainly thoughtful and thought-provoking. This is a good post to read (as well as his entire blog) and it bears our consideration and deliberation. I hope you enjoy Justin’s post as much as I did.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

Evangelicals, Politics, and “The Manifesto”

On May 7, 2008, a group of evangelicals issued an Evangelical Manifesto. Now, I have not had the opportunity to completely digest the manifesto–it is a 20-page PDF document that I will need to print it, devour it (using pencils and making notes), and then digest it. A recent article on the Associated Baptist Press site gives some clues to the Manifesto and its general points. Here are some excerpts from the ABP article:

The Associated Press, which attained a draft of the statement in advance of the announcement, reported May 2 that the manifesto is “starkly self-critical” of the evangelical movement for focusing on secular politics to the detriment of the gospel proclamation that is at the core of evangelicalism.

It criticizes evangelicals at both ends of the political spectrum for getting so heavily involved in fighting over culture-war issues — such as abortion rights and gay rights — that they have earned evangelicals the reputation of being little more than a political special-interest group. The document is clearly aimed at the most politically active evangelical conservatives, however.

This is an issue I have been interested in for quite some time. I have been worried about such issues clouding the Gospel and slowing the work of the church.

First, some background: Theological Liberals went off the deep-end into the so-called “social gospel.” The social gospel seeks to correct social injustices like racism, economic inequalities, and all types of oppression. Unfortunately (and un-biblicaly), there is no “Gospel” in the social gospel. So, to correct the evil of racism, for example, is a worthy pursuit, but it is not salvific; it is not the gospel.

Is racism, for example, evil? Yes. Should we all work to end racism? Absolutely! Racism, however, is not the problem–it is a symptom of the problem and that problem is Sin.

As the ABP article points out, evangelicals have long been involved in fighting the so-called “culture war” over issues such as abortion and gay rights. While it is easy to see the ABP article is not particularly friendly to the conservative evangelicals, it does present an interesting perception of politically-active evangelicals. And, I’m sorry to say, I think their perception is right.

There are persons and groups in the evangelical community who have been called by God, I believe, to engage the culture, understand the “war,” and call the rest of us (Christians) to action. Men like James Dobson come to mind. His passion is the family and his work has been exemplary. But Dobson’s work, as necessary and as important as it is, is not the mission of the Church. The Church is called to “Make Disciples,” not save the culture.

Conservative evangelicals are, perhaps, standing on the precipice leading to the slippery slope of theological liberalism and, I’m afraid, some of us are inching ever closer.

Now, I do not think conservative evangelicals will reject the virgin birth of Christ or miracles or a historical Moses. But, conservative evangelicals do run the risk of having the wonderful truths of God and neglecting the Gospel. This will lead us to see political action as the true gospel, which is, of course, actually a false gospel.

There are many “dangers, toils, and snares” in this issue. First, political action, even if it leads to laws against sinful behavior, does not deal with the main problem of sin. In this sense political action is absolutely superficial because it does not deal with the root-cause of the problem–Sin. As we know, a law does not, in any way, guarantee acceptance or adherence–just look at the speed limit or so-called gun control laws.

But, even if passing a law guaranteed adherence, what good would that do? Do we believe in a works salvation? Certainly not! Even if you outlaw a sinful behavior and actually get sinners to stop doing the behavior, it gains us, and more importantly them, nothing, for it does not deal with their heart issue–the issue of their sin nature.

Political action does not equal evangelism because political action does not engage individuals with the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel is about people, not parliaments. The Great Commission is about people, not political systems. The power of the Gospel is what changes hearts and without a change of heart (which is only accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit) any change of action is useless–because it does not deal with the problem of sin. Worse yet, adherence to laws may give non-Christians the false and spiritually-deadly impression that they are heaven-bound because of what they do or don’t do.

Second, the church is called, by God, to police the church, not the world. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 says:

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

In this letter, Paul is addressing a situation of gross immorality in the Corinthian church. He makes it a point to tell the Corinthian Christians that God will judge the world but it is up to us (Christians) to judge those inside the church (that is, the local church where we are members).

As evangelicals, we must concern ourself with the purity of our churches. Many well-meaning (but dead-wrong) evangelicals think that America is the new Israel. I’ve heard many pastors relate the responsibilities of Israel to America. At one point, I heard a preacher, while preaching through passages in Judges, rant and rave about the state of Israel and the current state of America.

America is not Israel. If there is a correlation between the Nation of Israel in the Old Testament and any group today, the correlation must be made to the Church. While Israel and the Church are somewhat different, they are certainly heirs of the same promises.

The problem we have, now, is that the church is barely distinguishable from the world, if at all. This is a huge problem, scripturally speaking. As evangelicals, we must first concern ourselves with reforming and purifying our churches and our people before we worry about cleaning up the world.

Third, the idea the “government” is responsible to solve the issues of the people is nothing more than Marxism. Today’s Political Liberals act in such a way as to show what they think: Government must solve all problems. Just look at Sen. Obama’s recent comments:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” (From foxnews.com; read the article here)

It is clear that Obama, a political and theological liberal, thinks that Government is the solution. Religion is only to be clung to when the chief-religion of the government has failed to supply the people their opiate. This is Marxist thinking–the State is the object of religious devotion.

Evangelicalism must not go down this road or, for the sake of our own superficiality and our own expediency, we will lose everything we are called to be.

So, what should we understand about the intersection of Evangelicalism and Politics?

(1) The Gospel is about God’s work in Christ to save individual sinners. Since this is the case, conservative, Bible-believing, Bible-living evangelicals must care more about engaging individuals with the claims of the Gospel and of Christ than passing laws compelling adherence to biblical standards.

(2) The Gospel is about God changing the heart of individuals to desire to serve and please Him. We cannot do this (only God can) and we must not try to substitute adherence in outward actions only for true heart change.

(3) It is important for Christians and churches engage in social action. But, it must be realized that social action is to be done because of the gospel (as a means of common grace and to have an opportunity to share the gospel). Social action is not, has not been, and will never be a substitute for the Gospel.

(4) Evangelical churches must pursue the purity of the local church and purity of the people in the local church. We must make disciples and, in doing so, when necessary, we must engage in restorative church discipline (see Matthew 18:15-20).

(5) Evangelicals must keep their eyes on the things of God. In doing so, evangelicals will realize that a pure local church with pure people rightly bearing the name of Christ is a far more important prize than a dead, hell-bound nation with “good” laws and forced adherence. After all, we want our church members to be part of the “every tongue, tribe, and nation” of Revelation, not just “America” or another earthly nation.

(6) It is much more important to engage in personal evangelism than it is to engage in political action.

(7) As Christians who are also Americans, we must vote in such a way as to properly reflect our Faith. So, when it comes to things God condemns (like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Racism, etc) we must use our vote to fight against these things. Similarly, we must always stand up for and fight for our place in the “free market place of ideas” in the public square.

When you think about it, laws rarely, if ever, change the hearts of people. Usually, all a law does is inspire a half-hearted response of almost-conformity while still bucking against the law itself. On the other hand, history shows good examples of people with changed hearts working in such a way as to correct social injustices because of their changed hearts (William Wilberforce comes to mind).

It is much more important that our people not want to engage in sinful things like Gambling or Homosexuality, than to legislate laws forbidding the actions but neglecting the heart. If the people of our churches were properly discipled in the first place, no casino would long stay in business and abortion doctors would need to find extra work to put food on the table. Our problems are of our own making in this regard and discipleship, not political action, is the solution. Rightly engaging the culture requires Christians engaging the people of the culture with the Gospel and having God, through the Gospel, bring people to Himself.

So then, as evangelicals, we must dedicate ourselves to the local church and her people being everything that Christ has called (and died for) her to be. When we get that right–when are churches are more pure, when our people are more Christ-like, when our people live lives dedicated to the glory of God–then we will have an army of heart-changed people willing to sacrifice their lives to share the Gospel with the people of our nation. That will so change the face of our nation that we will not need to seek political means to change the actions of the people.

May God grant us the grace to share the Gospel as the primary means of engaging our culture and may He grant us the grace and strength to stand up (even in political arenas) for what is right according to Him and His word.