DISCIPLE

IS THE ONE PASTOR SYSTEM BIBLICAL? by Mark Frees

2011-05-29T20:09:00.000+02:00

In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a denominational church in rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study series on the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership. We were not very far into this study before I began to seriously question the scripturalness of many of our church practices and traditions. Most troublesome was the question of whether or not my own position as the Pastor of a local church was a scriptural one.

I had always assumed that the one-Pastor system, being the pattern followed in the overwhelming majority of churches today, was founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study the Scriptures on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing question kept intruding itself-a question I present here for the sober consideration of the reader. Where in Scripture is there warrant for one man to be the spiritual leader and authority over the local church?

Never mind that this is the pattern unquestioningly followed throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture? As I searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became obvious to me that such a pattern was nowhere to be found. Rather, I found that the primary role in shepherding the New Testament churches was exercised, not by a solitary Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as "elders" or overseers.

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)

From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:17-28)

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Phil.1:1)

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (James 5:14)

The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear that the "elders" and "overseers" are the same persons, and that it is they who are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church of God. ("Shepherd" is the literal meaning of the word "pastor.") So while others besides elders may exercise a pastoral gift-Bible teachers, for instance, there is no hint in Scripture of anyone claiming to be "the Pastor" of a local church and assuming a position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the elders. We read nothing of a "Senior Pastor," or "Presiding Elder." Such titles, in fact come perilously close to blasphemy, since Christ Himself is spoken of as "the Chief Shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4).

The apostle Peter confirms that the terms "elders" and "overseers" refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of pastoring the flock: The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:1-2)

So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has given "some as pastors" (literally, "shepherds"), can we not assume that this refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a one-man office about which the rest of the New Testament is completely silent. Nor is all this mere wrangling over terminology.

The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from the above Scriptures is that, in the New Testament, churches were never shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but by a plurality of men. Further, the clear impression given by these Scriptures is that elders were generally raised up by God from within the local church, not hired and imported from outside-and certainly not from the ranks of a professional "clergy".

This gives rise to another question. Where in Scripture is there any such thing as a servant of the Lord contracting to receive a stated salary from a church? The New Testament clearly sets forth the principle that those who preach the gospel are entitled to "live from the gospel" (Matt. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but there is never any indication that this involves a stated salary, but rather, free will gifts:

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.(Gal. 6:6)

Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel... no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. (Phil. 4:10-16)

Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.(Titus 3:13-14)

The only case in Scripture of a "minister" receiving a fixed salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise and idolatry!

But did not Jesus say, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate context, where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor scrip, and to "eat and drink such things as are set before you"-shows that a fixed salary was the last thing our Lord had in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is worthy of his hire, but who is it that "hires" him? In whose employ is he--the church's or the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a

salaried pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but believe that the present-day "Pastor search" process, complete with resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and the like, is a grievous offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question must be: where is all this in Scripture?

Where also is the notion that the public ministry of the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that it is contingent upon him being "ordained" by some human authority? On the contrary, we read: Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1 Cor 14:29-31)

Regardless of one's view concerning the nature of the gift of prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that the practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the Word was utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.

Sad consequences

So when confronted with the plain teaching of Scripture, I could not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the local church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the Holy Spirit from within the church. and that public ministry of the Word is open to any brother who has been divinely gifted for it. In Contrast, most churches today entrust the spiritual leadership of the congregation and the vast majority of the public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is chosen from among the professional "clergy," imported from outside the church and promised a fixed salary for his services. Can the reader-with his New Testament open before him-deny that this is a drastic departure from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has had predictably severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches. The following are only some of the problems that are created or aggravated by this unscriptural one-Pastor system:

(1) Perpetuates the deplorable distinction between "clergy" and "laity."

No more pernicious device of the devil has ever been deployed than this utterly unscriptural distinction. Pastors today grieve about being unable to involve the "laity." without ever considering that it is the very system of dividing Christians into two classes that is to blame.

The answer is not to "involve" the laity, but to abolish it! Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a special few!

(2) Causes believers to neglect their own responsibility for witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren, in-depth Bible study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or subconscious assumption that these are "the Pastor's Jobs." Often the only one visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor, whose witness is impaired by the fact that he is perceived as paid to do so, And how rare is serious Bible study outside of the Pastor's study! There is a widespread delusion that only the "ordained" Pastor is qualified to mine the riches of God's Word, and that only he is responsible for using the Word to encourage the brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who have been believers in Christ for thirty or forty years and "by this time ought to be teachers" are still being spoon-fed them- selves. (Heb. 5:12) In our

churches today this is not the unfortunate exception. It is the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the unscriptural system of handing over the ministry of the church to a single professional (or in larger churches, a staff of professionals), this debilitating effect on the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.

(3) Leaves little or no room for the exercise of spiritual gifts, other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the church.

(4) Leads to churches being built in the flesh, as programs, promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace the spiritual gifts of the body.

(5) Produces widespread discouragement among Pastors, who are trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.

(6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in the ministry they so desperately need. Usually the difference in spiritual vision and ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation is so wide that his only meaningful fellowship is with other Pastors, who are not fellow-laborers in the same field, but have their own fields to worry about.

(7) Tends to negate the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the church.

Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit, his pein the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality, desires, etc. How much better, when formulating plans or making a decision, for the elders as a group, along with other spiritual men, to come before the Lord in prayer.

(8) Since one man is given responsibility for the entire ministry of the church-and since no one man has all the gifts-Pastors are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry they are not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes undone.

(9) Creates a situation where one person, the Pastor, can turn a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church overnight.

Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute immunity from doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical teaching.

(10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of national Christian workers in many mission areas, because of the assumption that these workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside the church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has already supplied the body with the leadership gifts needed?

(11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's wife and children, as they are forced to live in a "fishbowl" environment as "the preacher's" family.

These are but a sampling of the consequences that I believe can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and practices concerning the ministry.

Some Objections Answered

Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not to assume the entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems you have listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system itself, but of the abuse of that system.

Reply: Since the single-Pastor system is universally beset with these problems, the burden of proof lies on its defenders to prove that the system itself is not at fault, particularly since it is a system with no warrant in Scripture. The concept of a church led by a Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to do the work of the ministry sounds attractive, but the experience of thousands of frustrated Pastors testifies that it simply does not work. There is simply too deeply ingrained a perception in the minds of the congregation that Christian work is for a special few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer of the saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure while clinging to a system where one man, professionally trained and credentialed, is viewed as "the Minister." Incidentally, those who espouse the concept of the Pastor- equipper normally have a very limited notion of what the "work of the ministry" includes. For instance, even

the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an emphasis of his ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from the congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.

Objection 2: The approach you have suggested would produce incompetent church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at worst.

Reply: This is a serious charge because it I implies that the Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper leadership gifts within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a man for leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have often been guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while placing greater weight on the former.

Objection 3: The word "overseer" is singular in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are described. This suggests at least the possibility of "overseer" being a one-man work.

Reply: It is a most natural use of language to employ the singular when describing the qualifications of a position. For instance, I might say, "A United States Senator (or even, the United States Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc." without in the least implying that there is only one United States Senator, or even one per state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use of the singular here, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the New Testament, would be a

strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer look at Titus 1:5-7 rules out the possibility that Paul was advocating a one-pastor system. How can the use of the singular "overseer" in verse 7 possibly imply that each local church is to have only one overseer, when two verses earlier Paul had introduced the subject by reminding Titus of his instructions to "appoint elders [plural I in every city"? To my mind, this is conclusive.

Objection 4: Were not the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to single individuals?

Reply: This objection is based on the common misconception that Timothy and Titus were each "Pastors" of local churches. This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: "Though these letters do furnish worthwhile directions for pastors, the addressees were not Pastors in the usual present-day sense of that term. Rather, they were Paul's special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments according to the need of the

hour."

Objection 5: What about the leadership role of James at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Col. 4:12). And Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil. 2:25)?

Reply: This objection, which I have heard used in defense of the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the Word of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the Lord's brother, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19). not a Pastor. Epaphras was an evangelist. The "fellow bond-servant" of Paul who brought the gospel to the Colossians (Col. 1:7). (Strange that if he were "Pastor" of the church at Colossae. he is never seen as present there, but always with Paul elsewhere!. (Col. 4:12; Philem. 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as one of Paul's fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a minister to his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor system?

Objection 6: Do not the "angels" of the churches in Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...," etc.), and is there not one per church?

Reply: No person reading the New Testament apart from preconceived notions would ever imagine that the "angels" of Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos may be translated "messenger," in every other occurrence of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably refers to literal angels. If it does mean

"messenger" in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be stretched to mean "pastor." In every case where the New Testament uses the phrase messenger of..." (e.g. "messenger of Satan," "messengers of John," etc.), it always describes by whom the messenger is sent, never to whom. In other words, "the messenger of the church in Ephesus" would not likely mean a messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church, perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in his exile on Patmos and to receive instructions from him.

Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament references to multiple elders are due to the fact that, while each church had only one elder or overseer, each city had several different churches. For instance, when Paul writes to "the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" (Phil. 1: 1), there may have been a number of congregations in Philippi, each with their own overseer, or Pastor.

Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer certain passages, but it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts 14:23 ("So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James 5:14 ("Let him call for the elders of the church"), etc.

Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the New Testament churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that believers in the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all things in common, yet who suggests returning to that pattern today?

Reply: To say that the pattern of the New Testament church is not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God has left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought! Has God really left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding how the ministry of His Church is to be ordered? Rather, let us say with the Psalmist, "I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything" (Ps. 119:128). In regard to the selling of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1) The

passage in question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that all those who believed sold all their possessions. This was not "Christian communism" as it is sometimes pictured. The use of the imperfect tense in verse 45 implies that from time to time, as necessary, they sold their goods to distribute to brethren in need. (2) I, for one, am not prepared to say that the example of these early Jerusalem saints is not the norm for believers today, particularly in light of the words of John's epistle: But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him. (1 John 3:17)

Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has through the years mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.

Reply: No one would think of denying this. Yet the problems mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And who would claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is anywhere near the divinely intended level? Besides, it is a mistake to think that because God graciously blesses someone operating under a certain set of beliefs or practices, that He thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has, for instance, greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries

who have held to the teaching that Christians may lose their salvation. Yet few who are taught in the Scriptures would suggest that this view therefore has God's sanction, or that it is unimportant to uphold the scriptural teaching of Salvation. Praise God, He does not require us to be perfect in our interpretation of Scripture before He will use us. If so, who could hope to be used? But as we are given further light on the Scriptures, it is our duty and our Joy to conform our beliefs and

practices as nearly as possible to the Word of God.

Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well solve some problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set of problems of its own.

Reply: This I willingly admit. When, however, you are operating under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise are scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been anticipated in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in Scripture. Also, let us not forget that, quite apart from the question of what problems might be solved or created, we ought to follow the New Testament pattern simply because it is the New Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of Scripture as a matter of principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when we do so, we invariably find God's way to be the best way.

Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the problems you mentioned would vanish if our churches simply changed their pattern of leadership?

Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight at least, particularly where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly entrenched for decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church, would certainly produce a dramatic effect. The manifold problems and unscriptural attitudes nurtured by the false

clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be resolved. In other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on the mission field, in new churches, or with new converts), these problems can be avoided altogether.

What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate, far from having the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a "Protestantized" holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those of us who claim the Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority, it is time to fervently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11) I would that every reader of this booklet might share the blessing I have found by "turning my feet to His testimonies" (Ps. 119:59) and choosing to meet in fellowship with those who gather in New Testament simplicity and order. I have written more about this in a small booklet entitled, What I Have Found: My introduction to "brethren" assemblies. *

A free copy may be obtained by writing to the publisher of this booklet.

Published by

Spread the Word

2721 Oberlin Drive

York, PA 17404

REPLY TO BEGGING LETTERS (letters requesting money)

2010-12-12T01:16:00.000+01:00

Dear one,

Pardon me for saying so, but the appeal for funds that you have sent shows how thoughtless, selfish, shameless and certainly how unspiritual professing Christians have become in our times. To send appeals for funds for yourself to any other human is wrong, and when you send them to a missionary who is serving the Lord and living by faith himself, is thoughtless. To God's glory I can testify that He is faithful, and although I have to set a table for 10 people 3 times each day, He has never failed us, and we have never made our needs known to others or asked for money. All such servants of the Lord certainly have scores of other "needs" like any other human, as well as the countless needs of the ministry of preaching the gospel, making disciples and founding assemblies, however, we who live by faith trust the Lord, and never ask anyone but Him for our needs to be met. If there were no God, no heavenly Father, people like you would continue to have their needs met by men, but people like us would starve to death, because we depend solely upon Him. Think about it! Therefore for you to solicit funds from such people is thoughtless to say the least.

But it is also selfish to do this, because it is thinking of yourself, and trying to cause other people to think of you. It is promoting your own interests as the best, the most urgent, or the most worthy. Yes, I realize that the apostle Paul asked for money, however you must realize that he did not do so for himself or his ministry, but rather for the poor who lived in Jerusalem. When one professes to serve the Son of man who came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give His life (Mark 10:45), he must not advertise himself or ask for himself or his ministry, but rather think of others. Selfish behavior like advertising your needs and asking others to meet them is certainly unbecoming to those who profess to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. You may say, "but it is only so I can help others", and think that this justifies your asking. But remember that the Lord and the apostles truly did help others, and they did so without advertising their needs to men or asking men to give them money. How then did they do it? By faith. By prayer. By patient waiting on the Lord and at times even by taking work! To beg for money is impatient. It is presumptuous, as if you knew by revelation that your ministry was better and more deserving than all other work of the Lord, but no one can say this!

Also, to reduce yourself to this that we will have needs, and He cares about this because He cares about us. He wants to supply our needs and teaches us what to do, but how many of us remember or obey His teaching? The Lord says that we should go into our closet [literally in greek - our storeroom or supply room], shut the door, and ask our Father in secret, and He will reward us openly. To do otherwise is to show a lack of faith and with it a lack of spirituality. That one should ever consider to be insufficient what the Lord said in Matthew 6 casts doubt upon whether that person, whoever he is, should declare himself to be a servant of this Lord. All who behave thus would do well to consider the Lord's question: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

Such behavior is not only thoughtless, selfish, and shameless, but also it is most certainly unspiritual. How much better to trust in the Lord, for He is trustworthy, isn't He? Can't He be trusted? How can you exhort and encourage others saying "Faithful is He who has called you" if your own life shows a basic mistrust of Him as your Master? How can you read the 121st Psalm to others to comfort them if you are unwilling to look unto the Lord to help you? An older brother once told me that the Lord pays for what He orders. So if we live by faith and make no appeals but to the Lord, we know what the Lord "orders" because He provides the funds for it without us having to ask men. "The squeaky hinge gets the oil" says the world, and unspiritual believers "squeak" a lot, hoping for the oil of money to be applied to them. There is no question that sometimes their appeals are for noble causes, but the nobleness of the cause does not justify publicizing your needs. It calls for increased and intensified prayer. He sustains His servants. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not the obtaining of pledges of support from men. Oh yes, I already have heard many reply that "the laborer is worthy of his hire", but remember, don't forget, it is the Lord who has "hired" him, or else he is not the servant of the Lord! The world certainly has success in appealing for funds in this way, but we are not of the world, are we? We are to be spiritual, not carnal and not worldly. It is unspiritual to scorn the idea of faith, for it puts a bad light on the promises of our Lord and on His own faithfulness. It is a bad testimony to the unsaved who hear your appeals, too, because they say scornfully like the infidel Voltaire, "When it comes to money, all men are of the same religion."

There is no need to appeal to us to "be more practical", because there is nothing more practical than for a spiritually minded person to trust in the Lord. One could certainly understand how a young, immature or ignorant believer might mistakenly adopt worldly attitudes and methods and ignore the promises and example of the Lord and His apostles. But for one to do so who professes to certain maturity and to be dedicating himself to serving the Lord, is inexcusable.

I realize that you may be shocked by this letter, because it is possible that in your circles no one disapproves of begging and no one teaches workers to trust in the Lord for the supply of their needs and the needs of their ministry. You may object to this letter or take offense at it if you like, but I certainly hope you will not. It was written to reprove behavior that is not glorifying to God, and Proverbs says that if you reprove a wise man he will love you for it. You may say that you disagree with me, but that is only a distraction. Your disagreement is not with me because I didn't write the Scriptures. I am not the one who said that you should enter into your closet and pray in secret. The Lord Jesus Christ said it, so if you have a problem, you have it with Him and with the Scriptures. Neither is it a question of interpreting them, but simply of reading what they say and doing it.

Therefore, although I am happy to receive prayer requests and information about your ministry, I must stipulate that this is as long as it does not include appeals for funds, publicizing of budget shortfalls, statements of what you could do if you had more money, etc. I have a special file for all such correspondence and it is emptied every day.

By His grace, for His glory, according to His Word,

POEM -- THE ANVIL OF GOD'S WORD

2010-05-07T15:52:00.001+02:00

Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

"And so," I thought, "The Anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone."

—John Clifford, D.D.

2010-05-01T22:26:00.003+02:00

A Poem By John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892)

We search the world for truth. We cull

The good, the true, the beautiful,

From graven stone and written scroll,

And all old flower fields of the soul;

And, weary seekers of the best,

We come back laden from our quest,

To find that all the sages said

Is in the Book our mothers read.

From William Blane's poem, The Atonement

2010-04-20T17:51:00.001+02:00

William Blane of South Africa wrote a poem called THE ATONEMENT.
It takes up 22 pages in his book titled: Lays of Life and Hope.
This is just one little part of his superb work.

Th’ Atonement was no business act
In which the Saviour did contract
To undergo so many pains
That He might cleanse so many’s stains.
He gave His all—His life’s blood flowed
To reconcile the world to God.
‘Twixt God and man, to close the rent,
The spotless Lamb of God was sent.
If all the sins of Adam’s race,
With perfect justice to each case,
In Heaven’s balances were laid,
They would be utterly outweigh’d
By Jesus’ death. The value lies
All in th’ infinite sacrifice:
When Christ for man was crucified,
Th’ Creator for the creature died.

DIVINE AUTHORITY OR HUMAN OPINION?

2010-03-17T20:41:00.001+01:00

by William MacDonald

When a public figure was lecturing on the need to restore values to our culture, a college student asked him, “On what do you build your values?” The speaker was flustered. He looked down and said, “I don't know”.
That's just the trouble. He had no authority. Modern man desperately needs what this man lacked—a firm foundation on which to base his judgments. He needs an infallible standard to guide him in all matters of faith and morals.
God has provided such an infallible authority in His Word, the Bible. This wonderful book provides the basis for sound judgments and wise decisions. The Bible is absolute truth. Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth.” There is no risk in following its teachings, no fear it will change from day to day.
The alternative to divine authority is human opinion. “The Bible says ... is replaced by, “I think ...” Fact gives way to feeling. There are no more absolutes; everything is relative.
We know too well that there is no uniformity to human opinion. There is an endless variety of viewpoints, each clamoring to be heard. The result is confusion and chaos. When human opinion rules, there is no way of deciding whose opinion is right. One person's opinion is no better (or worse) than another's.
If God's Word is rejected and opinion takes its place, the natural tendency is for man's word to conflict with God's. This explains the downward moral drift we witness today. God has given various authoritative laws to govern human behavior. Here are some basic ones:
God is to be loved with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength. He is to be acknowledged as the Creator; human life is sacred, the marriage relationship is sacred, and the family unit is sacred; man is given the place of headship in the human chain of command; immorality is forbidden; children are to respect their parents; human governments are to be obeyed.
Man refuses to bow to these divine principles. What happens when a society abandons the authority of God, whether found in the Sacred Scriptures or written in the hearts of all mankind? What happens when human opinion takes over?
People give themselves over to all forms of immorality. Marriage is scorned in favor of a live-in relationship, formerly called fornication or adultery. Sodomites are accepted as respectable members of the race, and the homosexual lifestyle is legalized. Even homosexual marriages are recognized by the state. Residual laws against incest are unenforced. Without absolute standards, any form of sexual disorder is approved, even glamorized. After all, isn't it popular opinion that counts.
The family unit largely disappears as a stabilizing influence in the community. Public sentiment favors divorce for any reason. Latch-key kids are raised by single parents. Respect for parents disappears, in fact, disrespect is dramatized on the T.V. Children can get a divorce from their parents.
Man's headship in the home ends. The buck no longer stops with him. Radical feminism demands equal authority and gets it.
Violence becomes so widespread that the government is unable to Thefts, rapes, terrorism, tortures, and murders hardly make it into the newspapers. The average citizen is shocked by the brutality in the daily news, so much so that he is afraid to open his door. Politicians promise peace and security but fail to deliver. People come to despise their rulers and speak evil of them. The breakdown of law and order causes the populace to look for a dictator, a superman to solve the problems by inaugurating a new world order.
Materialism is the of the game in business. Men are lovers of money, and success is gauged by the extent their possessions. Greed rules out any semblance of ethics. In a cutthroat society, honesty becomes a synonym for bankruptcy. He who dies with the most toys wins.
The names of God and Christ are banned from government, school, anal all public life. Secular humanism becomes the prevailing religion. Man trumpets his own achievements. What can he not do? He is invincible. Bookstores feature an endless variety of titles on self-love. William Henley's blasphemous poem, becomes the national anthem.

Out of the night that covers me
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be,
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance.
My head is bloody but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears,
Looms but the horror of the shade;
And yet the menace of the years,
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Christians, however, are singing different words. They have the national anthem of another kingdom.

Out of the light that dazzles me,
Bright as the sun from pole to pole,
I thank the God I know to be,
For Christ the conqueror of my soul.

Since His the sway of circumstance,
I would not wince nor cry aloud.
Under that rule which men call chance,
My head with joy is humbly bowed.

Beyond this place of sin and tears.
That life with Him! and His the aid
That, spite the menace of the years,
Keeps and shall keep me unafraid.

I have no fear though strait the gate,
He cleared from punishment the scroll,
Christ is the Master of my fate,
Christ is the Captain of my soul.
—My Captain by Dorothy Day

As a result of this failure to conform to the world, there is increasing hostility toward Christ and His followers. Because men are despisers of good, they vent their rage against Christianity. This opposition includes ridicule, insults, reviling, blasphemies, legal restraints, physical attacks, and even martyrdoms. The anti-Christian spirit finds its culmination in an antichrist.
People turn to the occult, to eastern mysticism, to New Age philosophies, and to the freedom these religions offer them. They have a multiplicity of cults to choose from. False prophets promise prosperity in an age of apostasy. Some claim to be the Messiah and people are duped.
The disintegration of society sees a population without natural affection, a people given over to selfish pleasure. Men are unloving, unfaithful, and unthankful. Life is cheap; abortuaries murder millions of the unborn—an unprecedented holocaust, yet quietly accepted by most. In some places old folks are put to sleep and “doctors” assist suicides.
No wonder the Bible says, “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint” (Prov. 29:18, NKJV). This means that when God and His Word are not recognized and obeyed, men abandon themselves to unbridled evil. Civilization returns to jungle life. Everyone does what is right in his own eves. We see it all around us today. Even people without any particular love for the Bible are alarmed. They can see that our culture is on a toboggan slide. They have no infallible authority, and without it they are rushing pell-mell to chaos, to tribulation, and to God's judgment on a society that has supplanted His Word with human opinion.

published in “Counsel” magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1993

SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING...

2010-02-15T16:47:00.004+01:00

After noting the record setting cold temperatures and snowstorms in many areas this winter, I say: "so much for 'Global Warming'; it looks more like global freezing! And there have been record rainfalls, too! Then I found the following article (not the only one of its kind) on The Berean Call website:

The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Time

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation [Excerpts]
By Christopher Booker

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher [than] they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

(Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” The [London] Daily Telegraph Online, 28 Nov 2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

EVANGELICAL DILEMA

2009-09-01T20:58:00.003+02:00

EVANGELICAL DILEMMA

By William MacDonald

THERE IS A CURIOUS PROBLEM TODAY in the evangelical world-one that poses sobering questions for the church and for the individual believer. The problem in brief is this: a great army of personal soul-winners has been mobilized to reach the populace for Christ. They are earnest, zealous, enthusiastic, and persuasive. To their credit it must be said that they are on the job. And it is one of the phenomena of our times that they rack up an astounding number of conversions. Everything so far seems to be on the plus side.

But the problem is this. The conversions do not stick. The fruit does not remain. Six months later there is nothing to be seen for all the aggressive evangelism. The capsule technique of soul winning has produced stillbirths.

What lies at the back of all this malpractice in bringing souls to the birth? Strangely enough it begins with the valid determination to preach the pure gospel of the grace of God. We want to keep the message simple—uncluttered by any suggestion that man can ever earn or deserve eternal life. Justification is by faith alone, apart from the deeds of the law. Therefore, the message is "only believe."

From there we reduce the message to a concise formula. For instance, the evangelistic process is cut down to a few basic questions and answers, as follows:

"Do you believe you are a sinner?"
"Yes."

"Do you believe Christ died for sinners?"

"Yes."

"Will you receive Him as your Saviour?"

"Yes."

"Then you are saved!"

"I am?"

"Yes, the Bible says you are saved."

At first blush the method and the message might seem above criticism. But on closer study we are forced to have second thoughts and to conclude that we have oversimplified the gospel.

The First fatal flaw is the missing emphasis on repentance. There can be no true conversion without conviction of sin. It is one thing to agree that I am a sinner; it is quite another thing to experience the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit in my life. Unless 1 have a Spirit-wrought consciousness of my utterly lost condition, I can never exercise saving faith. It is useless to tell unconvicted sinners to believe on Jesus-that message is only for those who know they are lost. We sugar-coat the gospel when we de-emphasize man's fallen condition. With that kind of a watered-down message, people receive the Word with joy instead of with deep contrition. They do not have deep roots, and though they might endure for a while, they soon give up all profession when persecution or trouble comes (Matthew 13:21). We have forgotten that the message is repentance toward God as well as faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

A second serious omission is a missing emphasis on the Lordship of Christ. A light, jovial mental assent that Jesus is Saviour misses the point. Jesus is first Lord, then Saviour. The New Testament always places His Lordship before His Saviourhood. Do we present the full implications of His Lordship to people? He always did.

A third defect in our message is our tendency to keep the terms of discipleship hidden until a decision has been made for Jesus. Our Lord never did this. The message He preached included the cross as well as the crown. "He never hid His scars to win disciples." Ile revealed the worst along with the best, then told His listeners to count the cost. We popularize the message and promise fun.

The result of all this is that we have people believing without knowing what they believe. In many cases they have no doctrinal basis for their decision. They do not know the implications of commitment to Christ. They have never experienced the mysterious, miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

And of course we have others who are talked into a profession because of the slick salesmanship techniques of the soul-winner. Or some who want to please the affable, personable young man with the winning smile. And some who only want to get rid of this religious interloper who has intruded on their privacy. Satan laughs when these conversions are triumphantly announced on earth.

I would like to raise several questions that might lead us to some changes in our strategy of evangelism.

First of all, can we generally expect people to make an intelligent commitment to Christ the first time they hear the gospel? Certainly, there is the exceptional case where a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit. But generally speaking, the process involves sowing the seed, watering it, then sometime later reaping the harvest. In our mania for instant conversion, we have forgotten that conception, gestation, and birth do not occur on the same day.

A second question: can a capsule presentation of the gospel really do justice to, so great a message? As one who has written several gospel tracts, I confess to a certain sense of misgiving in even attempting to condense the good news into four small pages. Would we not be wiser to give people the full presentation as it is found in the Gospels, or in the New Testament?

Thirdly, is all this pressure for decisions really scriptural? Where in the New Testament were people ever pressured into making a profession? We justify our practice by saying that if only one out of ten is genuine, it is worth it. But what about the other nine — disillusioned, bitter, perhaps deceived en route to hell by a false profession?

And I must ask this: is all this boasting about conversions really accurate? You've met the man who solemnly tells you of ten people he contacted that day and all of them were saved. A young doctor testified that every time he goes to a new city, he looks in the phone book for people with his last name. Then he calls them one by one and leads them through the four steps to salvation, Amazingly enough, every one of them opens the door of his heart to Jesus. I don't want to doubt the honesty of people like this, but am I wrong in thinking that they are extremely naive? Where are all those people who are saved? They cannot be found.

What it all means is that we should seriously reexamine our streamlined, capsule evangelism. We should be willing to spend time teaching the gospel, laying a solid doctrinal foundation for faith to rest on. We should stress the necessity for repentance, a complete about-face with regard to sin. We Should stress the full implications of the Lordship of Christ and the conditions of discipleship. We should explain what belief really involves. We should be willing to wait for the Holy Spirit to produce genuine conviction of sin. Then we should be ready to lead the person to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

If we do this, we'll have less astronomical figures of so-called conversions, but more genuine cases of spiritual rebirth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JOHN NEWTON ON TRUE PATRIOTISM

2009-08-03T17:09:00.002+02:00

From John Newton's Letters: True patriotism!

Dear friend,
Allow me to say, that it excites both my wonder and concern, that a Christian minister such as yourself, should think it worth his while to attempt political reforms. When I look around upon the present state of the nation, such an attempt appears to me, to be no less vain and foolish, than it would be to paint the cabin--while the ship is sinking! Or to decorate the parlor--while the house is on fire!

When our Lord Jesus was upon earth, He refused to get involved in disputes or politics, "Friend, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?" Luke 12:14. "My kingdom is not of this world! If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight!" John 18:36. God's children belong to a kingdom which is not of this world; they are strangers and pilgrims upon earth, and a part of their Scriptural character is, that they are the "quiet in the land." Psalm 35:19.

Satan has many contrivances to amuse people, and to divert their thoughts from their real danger!

My dear sir, my prayer to God for you is--that He may induce you to employ the talents He has given you, in pointing out sin as the great cause and source of every existing evil; and to engage those who love and fear Him, (instead of wasting time in political speculations, for which very few of them are competent,) to sigh and cry for our abounding abominations, and to stand in the breach, by prayer, that God's wrath may yet be averted, and our national mercies prolonged! This, I think, is true patriotism--the best way in which people in private life may serve their country.

I consider the ungodly as saws and hammers in the hand of the Lord. So far as they are His instruments, they will succeed--but not an inch further! Their wrath shall praise Him, and be subservient to His designs!

If our lot is so cast that we can exercise our ministry free from stripes, fines, imprisonments, and death--it is more than the gospel has promised to us! If Christians were quiet when under the cruel governments of Nero and other wicked persecutors, when they were hunted down like wild beasts--then we ought to be not only quiet but very thankful now! It was then accounted an honor to suffer for Christ and the 'offence of the cross'!

Those are to be greatly pitied, who boast of their 'liberty'--and yet they do not consider that they are in the most deplorable bondage as the slaves of sin and Satan, under the curse of God's law and His eternal wrath! Oh! for a voice to reach their hearts, that they may know their true and dreadful state--and seek deliverance from their horrific thraldom! May you and I labor to direct them to the one thing, which is absolutely needful, and abundantly sufficient.

If I had the wisdom or influence to soothe the angry passions of mankind--I would gladly employ them! But I am a stranger and a pilgrim here in this world. My charter, my rights and my treasures, are all in heaven--and there my heart ought to be. In a very short time, I may be removed (and perhaps suddenly) into the unseen and eternal world--where all that now causes so much bustle upon earth--will be of no more importance to me--than the events which took place among the antediluvians!

In the hour, when death shall open the door into eternity--many things which now assume an 'air of importance', will be found as light and unsubstantial as a child's dream!

How crucial then, is it for me--to be found watching, with my lamp burning, diligently engaged in my proper calling! For the Lord has not called me to set governments right--but to preach the gospel, to proclaim the glory of His name, and to endeavor to win souls! "Let the dead bury their own dead--but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God!" Luke 9:60. Happy is that servant, whom his Master finds so doing, when He returns!

As you have forced me to respond--both duty and love have obliged me to be faithful and free in giving you my thoughts.

I recommend you to the care and blessing of the great Shepherd and Savior; and remain for His sake, your affectionate friend and brother,

John Newton

http://www.gracegems.org/Newton/135.htm

A Warning to Christians Tempted by Politics

2009-07-13T18:33:00.004+02:00

Sad to say, we have known men who seriously considered abandoning the shepherding of the church in order to run for political office. Is this not like the hireling of John 10 who does not care for the sheep? We have known men and women who would not go door to door doing gospel work, but who would give hundreds of hours to political campaigning, door to door voter registration, and spend who-knows-how-much money and time on the campaigns of their favorite political party. The professing Christian should ask himself, is the hope of the world to be found in politics, and can politics solve the really important problems? Did Christ or the Apostles get involved in politics? Consider the excellent answer of my friend and mentor William MacDonald, who has been promoted to glory.

THE WORLD OF POLITICS

by William MacDonald

Now let us think of the world of politics. We often hear the well-worn argument, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." The trouble is that that is worldly opinion, not divine revelation. We are also reminded that Joseph, Moses and Daniel engaged in politics. Actually Joseph and Daniel were civil servants, not men who ran for office. And Moses was a thorn in the side of the political establishment of Egypt.
What is the scriptural testimony on the subject?
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight" (Jn. 18:36).
Paul said, "No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life" (2 Tim. 2:4).
John said, "The whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" (1 Jn. 5:19).
The example of the Lord Jesus is against political participation. He was in an adversary relationship to the establishment. The apostles did not resort to politics. Their order was to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
The Christian's primary citizenship is heavenly (Phil. 3:20). His obligation to earthly government is to pray, pay and obey.
God's purpose in this ages is not political reform, but to take out of the nations a people for His Name (Acts 15:14). The question is, "Are we going to follow His agenda?"
The basic problem in the world is sin. Only the gospel can deal successfully with that. God's method is spiritual -- the new birth.
Politics by its very nature is corrupt. If I participate, I cast a vote of confidence in it. Such confidence is completely unjustified. It has had hundreds of years to prove its effectiveness and what has been the outcome?
The record of Christians in politics has not been good. William Kelly said, "Never have Christians meddled with governing the world except to Christ's dishonor and their own shame. They are now called to suffer with Christ; by and by they shall reign with Him. Even He has not yet taken His great power for reigning."
The time for believers to rule has not come yet. It will come when Christ returns as King of kings and Lord of lords. When the Corinthians acted as if they were already reigning, Paul corrected them. He wished that they were reigning so that he and the other apostles could reign with them. But while the Corinthians were, in a figure, wearing their crowns in box seats in the amphitheater, the apostles were like men in the arena, condemned to death, a spectacle to the world, and treated as the scum of the earth (1 Cor. 4:8-13).
It is a false expectation to think that conditions in the world are going to improve (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:15). Both the Bible and the daily news refute such a notion.
The Christian finds power in separation from the world (2 Cor. 6:17). We can never move it as long as we are a part of it. Our great resource is prayer. We can do more through prayer than others can do in politics. We can see miraculous transformations of human lives. We can pray men and women into the kingdom of God. We hold the balance of power in the world. Why barter this for a bankrupt system of politics?

from his book WORLDS APART, Gospel Folio Press

From time to time someone would ask Mr. MacDonald who he was going to vote for, and his answer was inevitably the same: "My candidate is not running." He referred, of course, to the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in Him, not in the arm of flesh, human wisdom or methods.
Colossians 3:1-4 teaches those who are risen with Christ to "seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God" (v. 1). This hardly includes political parties or positions. Political involvement is for the earthbound, those who have no heavenly hope. Verse 2 says, "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth." Politics takes the mind off heaven and absorbs it in the things on earth. It results in unholy union with unbelievers (see 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), and filthiness of the flesh. We are enjoined to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and politics is full of worldly contamination. As William MacDonald said, it is by its very nature corrupt.

To be a friend of the world (or world system) is to be the enemy of God. Time to decide whose side you're on and which kingdom you're working for. No man can serve two masters.
The last resort of the undecided is often something like this, "Well, it's a matter of personal conviction." Where does the Bible say that? It doesn't! That's what the fence-sitters say. Scripture tells us that we are not our own, that we have been bought with a price, and therefore should glorify God in our body and in our Spirit which are Gods (1 Cor. 6:19-20). It isn't up to us to have our "personal convictions," because we do not belong to ourselves. We are to obey God, do His will as it is done in heaven. God says friendship with the world is enmity with Him. Those are HIS convictions!

AMERICA ADRIFT

2009-07-04T19:36:00.005+02:00

by Tal Brooke
written in 1992

As we plunge through the 1990s to cross the year 2000. let us assess where we have come as a nation in the last 150 years. One telling indicator of our 'accumulated moral and intellectual capital. would be to see how far we have gone beyond the old one-room schoolhouse and its biblically based (or, these days, “biased”) McGuffey's Reader Modern educators tell us that legions of gifted minds in the higher academy have spent a century and a half since that simpler era producing a wealth of impressive facts and discoveries. from quasars to lasers. Great universities have taken on the great questions, (Issues of the whys and wherefores of existence have had a more open-ended “back-seat” treatment). Today's education has inherited this mountain of accumulated knowledge. To fully appreciate where modern advances have taken us. we should consider what high school students were studying 150 years ago in some sample classroom reading:

If you can induce a community to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures; to question the reality and obligations of religion; to hesitate, undeciding, whether there be any such thing as virtue or vice; whether there be an eternal state of retribution beyond the grave; or whether there exists any such being as God, you have broken down the barriers of moral virtue and hoisted the flood gates of immorality and crime. I need not say that when people have once done this, they can no longer exist as a tranquil and happy people. Every bond that holds society together would be ruptured; fraud and treachery would take the place of confidence between man and man, the tribunals would be scenes of bribery and injustice: avarice, perjury, ambition, and revenge would walk through the land and render it more like the dwelling of savage beasts, than the tranquil abode of civilized and christianized men. - McGuffey's Reader 1854

Naturally today's liberated students would jeer at such moralistic absolutism. When I last wrote you in the early summer I shared that “my deep sense is that we are entering an era of escalating. perhaps irreversible, anti-Christianity.” I also noted that the opposition will not play fair and that we must be strategic and effective. Now that our national government is about to have a radical changing of the guard, it is clear that change is all around us — change that seems determined to veer away from the old America into uncharted territory.
If America has been hospitable and respectful to Christians in the past, outward indications are that we can no longer expect this tolerant mood to continue. The new America that is emerging from the quiet cultural revolution taking place all around us is rapidly banishing Christian evidences from public display, from crosses and manger scenes to prayer and bibles, while opening the way for an alien anti-morality.
In the McGuffey's Reader era of the 1800's. slovenliness, whispering in class, and lack of attention headed the list: of high school delinquencies. Today's list of high school delinquencies include cocaine abuse in the school, gang rape (bathrooms, empty classrooms, gyms), and killing or maiming teachers and fellow students.
McGuffey's era first grade classroom material was as innocent as snow. Compare that with first graders in hundreds of schools in Greater New York City who by the late fall of 1992 were railroaded through an “anti-bias curriculum” to read books introducing them to the lifestyles and realities of homosexuals and lesbians. Required reading has included illustrated children's books that superficially resemble the old DICK AND JANE series but have such titles as DADDY’S ROOMMATE & HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES. Daddy and his male lover roommate are portrayed smiling in bed together while little Johnny looks on in an understanding” way. These tender first graders cannot even read or do simple arithmetic yet they are forced to learn about a subject that is years ahead of their own sexual development. and a form of behavior that their own nation declared a criminal perversion only a generation ago. Moral relativism has indeed reaped a swift and bitter harvest. If Christians still believe they can amble along in today's self-proclaimed “morally neutral” climate, they are in for a violent shock.
America has lived off the borrowed posterity of its once rich Christian past, and has almost devoured what little goodness remains. it is a national wound far more deep and insidious than the worst case scenarios of the cold war, when all that might happen was a fleet of missiles coming over armed with nuclear warheads. That would be a mere surface wound compared to our deconstructton from within. When a nation has abandoned its moral roots and lost its will, its devastation Is complete. Be assured that when first graders are made to study homosexuality as a required subject, we have already fallen into captivity.
Before such bankruptcy of our spiritual capital. the American church had a comfortable pew on which to slumber when it vas not taking on the causes of its choice. Hard choices were not necessary. Its gaze might wander occasionally to brethren overseas surviving in hostile cultures. It would see these Christians living at times with more passion and commitment, perhaps even envying their apparent purity of faith and zeal, but it did not envy their hard choices. Those choices are upon us now.
But there may be a good side to this. I believe that opposition will strengthen the true church, while fair weather churchgoers, who never counted the cost. may end up vacating their once comfortable pews. Christianity with a price will have a different face, a different look in America.
In my own lifetime, I remember when America once proclaimed and practiced its Christian heritage through public ceremony. Then one day, in elementary school, I noticed that we were no longer singing “America the Beautiful” or hymns or saying prayers. Something great and noble, something good, had suddenly been erased from our lives. quietly, insidiously, leaving a tangible vacuum. After that. the lights kept going out steadily. May God use each of you in standing against the mounting waves of anti-christianity.

Tal Brooke, Chairman/President of SCP (Spiritual Counterfeits Project)

NOTE: This was a quarterly letter from SCP, an organization which is no longer exists, but in it’s day provided a lot of good material on cults. The introductory paragraph, the final salutation, and a “p.s.” appealing for financial support are all that have been omitted. The letter is “as is” with those exceptions which were omitted because they have nothing to do with the issues discussed. Carl Knott

2009-03-26T16:13:00.001+01:00

A Saint

"Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb ... and he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword" (Isaiah 49:1-2).

A saint is made by God, 'He made me.' Then do not tell God He is a bungling workman. We do that whenever we say 'I can't.' To say 'I can't' literally means we are too strong in ourselves to depend on God. 'I can't pray in public; I can't talk in the open air.' Substitute 'I won't', and it will be nearer the truth. The thing that makes us say 'I can't is that we forget that we must rely entirely on the creative purpose of God and on this characteristic of perfect finish for God.
Much of our difficulty comes because we choose our own work – 'Oh well, this is what I am fitted for.' Remember that Jesus took a fisherman and turned him into a shepherd. That is symbolic of what He does all the time. The idea that we have to consecrate our gifts to God is a dangerous one. We cannot consecrate what is not ours (1 Corinthians 4:7). We have to consecrate ourselves, and leave our gifts alone. God does not ask us to do the thing that is easy to us naturally; He only asks us to do the thing we are perfectly fitted to do by grace, and the cross will always come along that line. "

From DAILY THOUGHTS FOR DISCIPLES by Oswald Chambers

THE STRANGER

2009-02-19T23:53:00.004+01:00

A few years after I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Texas town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around from then on.
As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche. My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey. But the stranger...he was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies.
If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future! He took my family to the first major league ball game. He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind.
Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)
Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home... Not from us, our friends or any visitors. Our longtime visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My Dad didn't permit the liberal use of alcohol. But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished.
He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing.
I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked... And NEVER asked to leave.
More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you could walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name?...

We just call him 'TV.'

(Note: This should be required reading for every household in America!) He has a wife now... We call her 'Computer.'

Author Unknown

MEASURING THE CHURCH

2008-11-05T17:15:00.000+01:00

by James Cymbala

Have you noticed that whenever you ask a fellow Christian these days about his or her church, the subject invariably goes to attendance. Question: "Tell me about your church. How is the Lord's work coming along there?" Answer: "Well be had three hundred on Sunday, I'd say."
When I ask pastors the same question, I get the same answer—plus two others: "Membership is at five-fifty, we have just finished a new education wing, and our gross income this year will top out at about four hundred thousand." Attendance, buildings, and cash. A-B-C: The new holy trinity.
Such a thing would never have happened in Peter and Paul's day. For one thing, they had no buildings to call their own. They met in people's homes,in public courtyards, sometimes even in caves. As for a budget, they seemed to have dispensed most of their funds in helping the poor.
How large was the attendance in the Antioch church? Berea? Phillipi? Rome? We have no idea. How large was the congregation at Philadelphia, one of the seven churches addressed in the book of Revelation? Apparently not very big. The Lord says, "I know that you have little strength." Yet He proceeds to give them a glowing review (Rev. 3:7-13). By contrast, how large was the congregation at Laodicea? One can get a hint from the fact that the church was "rich and in need of nothing." For all we know, it may have drawn 7,000 on a Sunday. Their bills were certainly paid—yet they received a scathing spiritual rebuke.
This leads me to say that no church should be measured by its attendance. Then what kind of spiritual things do matter a book-of-Acts church? The apostles prayer in Acts 4 provides a benchmark: "Enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness " (v. 29). Listen to Peter on the day of Pentecost: "You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:23). This is the last thing the crowd wanted to hear. But Peter's preaching did not drive the people away. Instead it stabbed their consciences. At the end of the day a huge group had repented of their sin and been converted.
New Testament preachers were boldly confrontational, trusting that the Holy Spirit would produce the conviction necessary for conversion. They were not afraid. The apostles weren't trying to finesse people. Their communication was not supposed to be "cool" or soothing. They aimed for a piercing of the heart, for conviction of sin. They had not the faintest idea of asking, "what do people want to hear? How can we draw more people to church on Sunday?" That was the last in their minds. Such an approach would have been foreign to the whole New Testament.
Instead of trying to bring men and women to Christ in the biblical way, we are consumed with the unbiblical concept of "church growth." The Bible does not say we should aim at numbers but rather urges us to faithfully proclaim God's message in the boldness of the Holy Spirit. This will build God's church God's way.

Taken from Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, ch. 8 The Lure of Marketing, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), pp. 121-124

THE TERMS OF DISCIPLESHIP

2008-10-16T16:00:00.002+02:00

by William MacDonald

True Christianity is an all-out commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Savior is not looking for men and women who will give their spare evenings to Him – or their weekends or their years of retirement. Rather He seeks those who will give Him first place in their lives. “He looks today, as He has ever looked, not for crowds drifting aimlessly in His track, but for individual men and women whose underlying allegiance will spring from their having recognized that He wants those who are prepared to follow the path of self-renunciation which He trod before them” H. A. Evan Hopkins.
Nothing less than unconditional surrender could ever be a fitting response to His sacrifice at Calvary. Love so amazing, so divine, could never be satisfied with less than our souls, our lives, our all.
The Lord Jesus made stringent demands on those who would be His disciples - demands that are all but overlooked in this day of luxury-living. Too often we look upon Christianity as an escape from hell and a guarantee of heaven. Beyond that, we feel that we have every right to enjoy the best that this life has to offer. We know that there are those strong verses on discipleship in the Bible, but we have difficulty reconciling them with our ideas of what Christianity should be.
We can accept the fact that soldiers give their lives for patriotic reasons. We do not think it strange that Communists (or others) give their lives for political (or religious) reasons. But that “blood, sweat and tears” should characterize the life of a follower of Christ somehow seems remote and hard to grasp. And yet the words of the Lord Jesus are clear enough. There is scarcely any room for misunderstanding if we accept them at their face value. Here are the terms of discipleship as laid down by the Savior of the world:

1. A supreme love for Jesus Christ.
“If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). This does not mean that we should ever have animosity or ill-will in our hearts toward our relatives, but it does mean that our love to Christ should be so great that all other loves are hatred by comparison. Actually, the most difficult clause in this passage is the expression, “yea, and his own life also.” Self-love is one of the stubbornest hindrances to discipleship. Not until we are willing to lay down our very lives for Him are we in the place where He wants us.

2. A denial of self.
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself... “ (Matthew 16:24). Denial of self is not the same as self-denial. The latter means foregoing certain foods, pleasures or possessions. But denial of self means such complete submission to the lordship of Christ that self has no rights or authority at all. It means that self abdicates the throne. It is expressed in the words of Henry Martyn, “Lord, let me have no will of my own, or consider my true happiness as depending in the smallest degree on anything that can befall me outwardly, but as consisting altogether in conformity to Thy will.”

My glorious Victor, Prince divine,
Clasp these surrendered hands in Thine,
At length my will is all thine own,
Glad vassals of a Savior's throne.
H.G.C. Moule

3. A deliberate choosing of the cross.
“If any man come after me, let him deny himself and take up the cross...” (Matthew 16:24). The cross is not some physical infirmity or mental anguish; these things are common to all men. The cross is a pathway that is deliberately chosen. It is “a path which so far as this world goes is one of dishonor and reproach” – C.A. Coates. The cross symbolizes the shame, persecution and abuse which the world heaped upon the Son of God, and which the world will heap on all who choose to stand against the tide. Any believer can avoid the cross simply by being conformed to the world and its ways.

4. A life spent in following Christ.
“If any man come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). To understand what this means, one need simply ask himself, “What characterized the life of the Lord Jesus?” It was a life of obedience to the will of God. It was a life lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. It was a life of unselfish service for others. It was a life of patience and longsuffering in the face of the gravest wrongs. It was a life of zeal, of expenditure, of self-control, of meekness, of kindness, of faithfulness and of devotion (Galatians 5:22-23). In order to be His disciples, we must walk as He walked. We must exhibit the fruit of Christ-likeness (John 15:8).

5. A fervent love for all who belong to Christ.
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). This is the love that esteems others better than oneself. It is the love that covers a multitude of sins. It is the love that suffers long and is kind. It vaunts not itself and is not puffed up. It does not behave itself unseemly; seeks not its own, is not easily provoked; thinks no evil. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Without this love, discipleship would be a cold, legalistic asceticism.

6. An unswerving continuance in His Word.
“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31). For real discipleship there must be continuance. It is easy enough to start well, to burst forth in a blaze of glory. But the test of reality is endurance to the end. Any man who looks back after putting his hand to the plow is not fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). Spasmodic obedience to the Scriptures will not do. Christ wants those who will follow Him in constant, unquestioning obedience.

Keep me from turning back.
The handles of my plough with tears are wet,
The shears with rust are spoiled,
and yet, and yet, My God! My God!
Keep me from turning back.

7. A forsaking of all to follow Him.
“So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). This is perhaps the most unpopular of all Christ's terms of discipleship, and may well prove to be the most unpopular verse in the Bible. Clever theologians can give you a thousand reasons why it does not mean what it says, but simple disciples drink it down eagerly, assuming that the Lord Jesus knew what He was saying. What is meant by forsaking all? It means an abandonment of all one's material possessions that are not absolutely essential and that could be used in the spread of the gospel. The man who forsakes all does not become a shiftless loafer; he works hard to provide for the current necessities of his family and himself. But since the passion of his life is to advance the cause of Christ, he invests everything above current needs in the work of the Lord and leaves the future with God. In seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, he believes that he will never lack food and clothing. He cannot conscientiously hold on to surplus funds when souls are perishing for want of the gospel. He does not want to waste his life accumulating riches that will fall into the devil's hands when Christ returns for His saints. He wants to obey the Lord's injunction against laying up treasure on earth. In forsaking all, he offers what he cannot keep anyway, and what he has ceased to love.
These then are the seven terms of Christian discipleship. They are clear and unequivocal. The writer realizes that in the act of setting them forth, he has condemned himself as an unprofitable servant. But shall the truth of God be forever suppressed because of the failure of God's people? Is it not true that the message is always greater than the messenger? Is it not proper that God be true and every man a liar? Should we not say with an old worthy, “Thy will be done though in my own undoing.”
Confessing our past failure, let us courageously face up to the claims of Christ upon us and seek henceforth to be true disciples of our glorious Lord.

My Master, lead me to Thy door:
Pierce this now willing ear once more,
Thy bonds are freedom: let me stay
With Thee to toil, endure, obey.
H.G.C. Moule

THE ARK OF THE LORD IN HARVEST TIME

2008-10-10T18:09:00.003+02:00

“Now the people of Beth Shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley; and they lifted their eyes and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it.”

1 Samuel 6:13

Beth Shemesh was a city in the territory of the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:10), about 14 miles to the west of the city of Jerusalem. It was originally a city given to Sun worship, but when conquered by Joshua it was given to the Levites (Joshua 21:16). Therefore its inhabitants were Levites, and they had a problem. Israel foolishly took the ark into battle as a good luck charm, and the Philistines captured it. For seven long months the ark of the LORD had been in the land of the Philistines, leaving Israel “Ichabod” (“the glory departed”), as a mark of divine displeasure. Surely among the godly minority in Israel, no one longed for the return of Jehovah’s ark more than the Levites. But since the armies of Israel had lost the ark in battle, what could a group of Levites possibly do to secure its return? They could long for it, and they could hope and look for its return, but that was about it. Pray and wait. They had no control over the event. No doubt they did pray and wait, but while waiting, life must go on. So the seeds were planted, the rains came, the wheat grew, the fields changed from dusty brown to brilliant green. Summer’s heat came on, and still no ark. The green hues turned to golden harvest, time to offer the first fruits, but still no ark. Perhaps many in Israel became accustomed to its absence and got on well without it, but not the devout, and certainly not the Levites. Did the Levites of Beth Shemesh think about the ark? It was not a theological theory or option to them. What did they say when they talked to one another about it? Only the Lord knows. But we know this, that although He knew when the ark would return, He had told no one in Israel. The heavens were silent, but divine silence is not divine forgetfulness.
One day in the wheat harvest, a day just like all the other days, the men of Beth Shemesh arose, ate their breakfast, and went to the fields in the valley to reap. There in the golden valley they worked away, cutting the wheat, tying it in bundles and stacking it for transport back to the town. Everything was normal, just like any other day in the harvest, until a strange sound reached their ears. What was that? Looking up, they saw two milk cows pulling a cart towards them on the road from Philistia, lowing as they went. What was that? Straightening their backs in the fields, they stared, squinting in the sun’s bright light as they tried to identify the spectacle. As their eyes focused on the precious cargo moving toward them, their hearts leaped within them. The ark of the LORD! Quickly their eyes scanned the horizon for Philistine armies, but there were none. The ark had returned to them in harvest time, and the Scriptures say, “They rejoiced to see it”.
So will it be with us, one day, dear brethren. The Lord Jesus is to us like the ark was to the Levites, only infinitely better! He has been gone a long time now, and to the merely human eye the cross and the tomb were anything but glorious. Unlike the Ark, He is not in enemy hands, but reigning in glory, and preparing to come for us. The time of His absence will be perfect, represented by the number seven. Many so-called Christians seem complacent about His absence, and occupy themselves with the mundane matters of life. After all, what can we do to bring the Lord back? Nothing. But we can long for Him, we can hope for Him, we can look for His return – pray and wait. We have no control over the event. And while we are praying and waiting, it’s true, life must go on, and it does. There are precious gospel seeds to be planted, there are harvests to be reaped. One generation of His servants passes on into eternity and another labors on in the harvest, sowing, watering, reaping, but still no Ark in sight. When will He return? Do we think about it? Do we talk about His return? Is it more than just a theological theory, a prophetic interpretation or option to us? Brethren, the Lord knows if we love His appearing or not! He knows when He will return, but He has told no one in the Church. The heavens are silent, but divine silence is not divine forgetfulness.
One day in the harvest down here, a day just like other days, the people of the Lord will arise, eat their breakfast and begin their day just like other days. For the faithful it will be a day of harvesting and a day of hoping. And all across the world, as His servants are working away in the fields, it will seem that everything is going normal until a strange sound reaches our ears. What was that? Sounds like a trumpet! Before the sound dies away, we will straighten up to look and see, and in that moment the glorious sight will meet our eyes: the One who is the Ark, our Saviour the Lord Jesus, coming across the fields towards us. And before that trumpet sound can fade, we will be gone, taken up to be with Him! The Ark will have come! No more harvest time, no more waiting. With Him forever! Come Lord Jesus, come blessed trumpet sound, come divine and glorious surprise, we are waiting, and we will rejoice to see You! And, brethren, may we be found working in the harvest when the “Ark” appears!

2008-07-31T15:55:00.003+02:00

The Academic Method Is Not Discipling

Bible Colleges and Seminaries do not make disciples. Taking x number of classes and maintaining a certain acceptable grade average until graduation does not change a person or give him experience or maturity. No wonder as we read the New Testament we see that NO Apostle ever started a school or institute. That was not the apostolic method, because it was not the Lord's method, and they learned from Him.

Consider this insight:
“Biblical training is not concerned with intellectual instruction alone. One of the great difficulties with our educational system in Western society is that we all too frequently train people not for personal change, but for the ability to pass tests... When your goal is to mold the character of an individual, you pursue that task much differently than when your goal is to enable him to answer questions.”

Jay Adams: How To Help People Change, p. 194

"Taking classes or courses" and getting a degree is not in the New Testament, but pointing this out in our days is like shooting peas at a tank. It just bounces off the dense intellectual defenses. But the truth remains. Neither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor the prophets of old used the academic method to try and make men of God. In trying to improve upon their method of personal discipleship we have only made a mess. But giving classes and grading tests is easier than investing in a life and molding it for God. A person can give a class with just notes and outlines. But to invest in and mold a life, you must have something practical to give in your character and conduct. The other person has to be more than a mere "student" (class-taker) academically speaking, he must be willing to spend time, observe, learn, be molded, imitate and follow with conviction. That isn't done in a semester or two.
Moses had one man, Joshua. Elijah had one man, Elisha. Our Lord had twelve minus one. Paul had Timothy and Titus. This is not mass production, but it works. Any takers?

THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS

2008-06-02T16:34:00.009+02:00

These insights by Martin and Deidre Bobgan were published way back in 1989, but need to be passed around again and introduced to a generation that has grown up believing the myth of "mental illness". Pass it on!

THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS

The terms mental disease, mental illness, and mental disorder are popular catch-alls for all kinds of problems of living, most of which have little or nothing to do with disease. As soon as a person's behavior is labeled "illness," treatment and therapy become the solutions. If, on the other hand, we consider a person to be responsible for his behavior, we should deal with him in the areas of education, faith, and choice. If we label him "mentally ill," we rob him of the human dignity of personal responsibility and the divine relationship by which problems may be met.
Because the term mental illness throws attitudes and behavior into the medical realm, it is important to examine it's accuracy. In discussing the concept of mental illness or mental disease, research psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey says:

"The term itself is nonsensical, a semantic mistake. The two words cannot go together...you can no more have a mental "disease" than you can have a purple idea or a wise space." (The Death Of Psychiatry, Radnor: Chilton Book Co., 1974, p. 36).

The word mental means "mind" and the mind is not the same as the brain. Also, the mind is really more than just a function or activity of the brain. Brain researcher and author Barbara Brown insists that the mind goes beyond the brain. She says:

"The scientific consensus that mind is only mechanical brain is dead wrong...the research data of the sciences themselves point much mor strongly toward the existence of a mind-more-than-brain than they do toward the mere mechanical brain action." (Supermind, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980, p. 6).

God created the human mind to know Him and to choose to love, trust and obey Him. In the very creative act, God planned for mankind to rule His earthly creation and to serve as His representatives on earth. Because the mind goes beyond the physical realm, it goes beyond the reaches of science and cannot be mentally sick. Since the mind is not a physical organ, it cannot have a disease. While one can have a diseased brain, one cannot have a diseased mind, although he may have a sinful or unredeemed mind. Torrey aptly says:

"The mind cannot really become diseased any more than the intellect can become abscessed. Furthermore, the idea that mental "diseases" are actually brain diseases creates a strange category of "diseases" which are, by definition, without known cause. Body and behavior become intertwined in this confusion until they are no longer distinguishable. It is necessary to return to first principles: a disease is something you have, behavior is something you do." (op. cit. p. 40)

One can understand what a diseased body is, but what is a diseased mind? it is obvious that one cannot have a diseased emotion or a diseased behavior. Then why a diseased mind? Nevertheless, therapists continually refer to mental-emotional-behavioral problems as diseases.
Thomas Szasz criticizes what he calls the "psychiatric imposter" who "supports a common, culturally shared desire to equate and confuse brain and mind, nerves and nervousness." (The Myth of Psychotherapy, Garden City: Doubleday, 1978, p. 7). Not only are brain and mind not synonymous, neither are nerves and nervousness. One might nervously await the arrival of a friend who is late for an appointment, but the nerves are busy performing other tasks. Szasz futher says:

"It is customary to define psychiatry as a medical specialty concerned with the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness. This is a worthless and misleading definition. Mental illness is a myth...the notion of a person "having a mental illness" is scientificall crippling. It provides professional assent to the popular rationalization – namely, that problems in living experienced and expressed in terms of so-called psychiatric symptoms are basically similar to bodily diseases." (The Myth of Mental Illness, New York: Harper & Row, 1974, p. 262).

Although a medical problem or brain disease may bring on mental-emotional-behavioral symptoms, the person does not and cannot rationally be classified as "mentally ill." he is medically ill, not mentally ill. The words psychological and biological are not synonymous. In the same way, mental and medical are not synonymous. One refers to the mind, the other to the body.
Psychological counseling does not deal with the physical brain. It deals with aspects of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Therefore, the psychotherapist is not in the business of healing diseases, but of teaching new ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. He is a teacher, not a doctor.
Many have dishonestly used the term mental illness to describe a whole host of problems of thinking and behaving which should be labeled as "problems of living." Though the term mental illness is a misnomer and a mismatch of words, it has become firmly ingrained in the public vocabulary and is glibly pronounced on all sorts of occasions by both lay and professional persons. Jonas Robitscher says:

"Our culture is permeated with psychiatric thought. Psychiatry, which had its beginnings in the care of the sick, has expanded its net to include everyone, and it exercises its authority over this total population by methods that range from enforced therapy and coerced control to the advancement of ideas and the promulgation of values." (The Powers of Psychiatry, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980, p. 9).

The very term mental illness has become a blight on society. If we really believe that a person with a mental-emotional-behavioral problem is sick, then we have admitted that he is no longer responsible for his behavior. And, if he is not responsible for his behavior, who is?

excerpt from "Special Report: Psychology, Science or Religion?", by Martin and Deidre Bobgan, published in Media Spotlight in 1989. For more information along these lines: http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org

CHRISTIAN, BE AN EXAMPLE!

2008-05-15T12:05:00.002+02:00

By H.A. Ironside

“When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.” —Deut. 22:8-12.
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue.” —Num. 15:37-38.

The Apostle Paul gave us an example of taking spiritual lessons from some of these rules of the Old Testament which we no longer consider so important in our times.
When he speaks of the support of Christian workers, he goes to Deuteronomy to find a text, and chooses one which we might thing has no real application to the subject we are treating—indeed, a most peculiar text: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deut. 25:4).

Naturally, we could ask, “What does this have to do with the matter of the support of a servant of the Lord and preacher of the Gospel? Paul uses it, not to teach us consideration for animals that work so patiently serving man, although the Scriptures do clearly emphasize this, but rather to show us our responsibility to care for the temporal needs of the spiritual workers so that they may be free to carry out their labors without anxiety for earthly things.

In Proverbs we read,“A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prov. 12:5).

A converted man gave his testimony of his conversion in a public meeting. When he finished, his wife arose and said: “Friends, if anyone here doubts the testimony of my husband, he should come to our farm. Before he was saved, every cow, every horse and every dog fled from him because he was so vicious that he beat them cruelly; now the animals come running to him.
The entire attitude of the man toward his farm animals had changed.

But the Apostle Paul points out that this was not written only for oxen, but also for our benefit. The ox who treads is an beautiful illustration of the servant of Christ —“treading out” the truth which feeds the soul, the Word of God, in order to prepare it for us.

Now imagine an ox treading and helping himself to a little mouthful every so often as he works along. God says that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

Many churches forget this. They are content to have the servants of Christ that minister the Word of God to them year after year, and they do not notice in the least their needs. They are like the deacon who prayed: “Lord, bless our pastor; keep him humble, and we will keep him poor.”

The use which the Apostle makes of this texts suggests that many texts which apply to conditions in the past, after all, contain veiled suggestions for ourselves.

SWORD of the LORD April 19th, 1996

A Tale of 1,000

2008-05-03T17:02:00.000+02:00

Not necessarily dollars. It could be pesos, euros, francs, marks, pounds, yen, rands, liras, etc. Any of these may well serve for the glory of God. Think of a young person who determines to please the Lord.

1. God supplies his needs and he gives thanks. God is glorified.
2. He sets aside the surplus and still more, giving sacrificially, what he really needed himself. This reminds God of His Son, who gave Himself as the great Sacrifice. God is pleased.
3. He gives this on Lord's Day, 1 Corinthians 16:2, again God is honored.
4. He prays about the allocation, and obeys the Holy Spirit. God is glorified.
5. The recipient was trusting God for his need. God is glorified.
6. He receives this gift and praises the Lord. God is glorified.
7. He uses it in his work, spreading the Gospel. God is pleased.
8. Souls are saved and blessed, and many will give glory to God.
9. They join in spreading the Good News and so it continues in ever-expanding circles. Much glory to God.
10. God reserves rewards for all involved, His future pleasure.

Who would ever think that one (sacrificial) gift could bring so much glory to God! Of course many give generously out of their superabundance. This has the same effect, although the personal reward is necessarily less significant.
New Testament sacrifices are not bulls and goats. There are other forms of sacrifice for consecrated Christians:
1. Our bodies, living sacrifices, holy, day by day, moment by moment. This is acceptable to God, and should come first.
2. Spiritual sacrifices, as living stones in the spiritual house, as holy priests, also daily, hourly. These are acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, our great High Priest.
3. Monetary sacrifices, as the Philippian contribution to Paul, delineated by the Spirit as acceptable, well pleasing to God.

These two latter are brought together in Hebrews 13: spiritual sacrifices continually, and doing good or communicating (having fellowship, same root). With both kinds, God is well pleased.
The word sacrifice is used in the Bible both for an animal sacrifice, and for what hurts to give. The Spirit also refers to mammon, from the word trust. Of course in a materialistic culture, we always think of security in fiscal terms. Our Master did not say that we should not serve God and Mammon, He said twice it is impossible to do so. Our tendency is to alternate between the two.
Coins in U.S.A. currency have the inscription IN GOD WE TRUST. Since the expression is all in capital letters, we cannot tell if it means God or god. No doubt, the framers meant the former. But still one wonders.
All money is not filthy lucre, better translated base gain (JND, Vine). We can use Mammon as a friend, or to win friends. This must mean the use of money in the Lord's work to help get out the Gospel. The Lord added that He would not commit the true riches to any who were unfaithful in their use of mammon.
What we leave on earth at the end of life's journey can be specified for family or the Lord's work. When the Rapture takes us all home together, what we leave will be claimed by the government of the man of sin.
“When I come again I will repay thee.”
According to a recent survey, the twelve richest countries (including Canada and U.S.A.) have a combined wealth of $227 trillion, or $553,000 per capita. We sing with sincerity that the whole realm of nature, planet Earth, would be an offering far too small. Then, put a dollar in the offering?

R.E.Harlow, Missions Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 11. Christian Missions in Many Lands

IF THE APOSTLES WERE TO APPLY TODAY FOR POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP

2008-05-01T16:44:00.002+02:00

Jesus, Son of Joseph
Woodcraft Carpenter Shop
Nazareth, Galilee

Dear Sir:

Thank you for submitting the resumes of the twelve men you have picked for managerial positions in your new organization. All of them have now taken our battery of test. We have not only run the results through our computer, but have also arranged personal interviews for each of them with our psychologist and vocational aptitude consultant.
The profiles of all tests are included. You will want to study each of them carefully. As part of our service, we make some general statements. This is given as a result of staff consultation and comes without any additional fee.
It is the staff́s opinion that most of your nominees are lacking in background, educational and vocational aptitude for the type of enterprise you are undertaking. We would recommend that you continue to search for persons of experience in managerial ability and proven capability.
Simon Peter is emotionally unstable and given to fits of temper. Andrew has absolutely no qualities of leadership. The two brothers, James and John, place personal interest above company loyalty. Thomas demonstrates a questioning attitude that would tend to undermine morale. We feel that it is our duty to tell you that Matthew has been blacklisted by the Greater Jerusalem Better Business Bureau. James, the son of Alpheaus, and Thaddeaus have radical leanings and register high manic-depressive scores.
Only one of the candidates shows great potential. He is a man of ability and resourcefulness who meets people well and has a keen business mind. He has contacts in high places and is highly motivated, ambitious and responsible. We recommend Judas Iscariot as your controller and right-hand man. All profiles are self-explanatory.
We wish you every success in your new venture.

Sincerely yours,
Jordan Management Consultants
Jerusalem, Judea

by James B. Clark, Ft. Worth, TX. As it appeared in All Saints Bulletin.

Why Do Some Christians Put Their Faith In Politics?

2008-04-23T10:44:00.003+02:00

William MacDonald, when asked if he voted, replied in the negative. When asked why not, he would often say with a twinkle in his eye, "because my candidate is not running." He referred, of course, to the Lord Jesus Christ! He also pointed out on more than one occasion that when someone votes, by voting he expresses a certain confidence in the political system and politicians. The question is, why would anyone, much less a Christian, have confidence in the political system and politicians?
Political activists in churches frequently offer what is their typical answer to this searching question, stating that it is part of government and that God has established government and ordained it, citing Romans 13, and they conclude that therefore it is our duty to be involved in the political process. A weak argument, at best. One of its flaws is the failure to distinguish between government and politics. God did not establish politics, and politicians and political parties are not recognized offices in the government.
And with regard to "picking the right man", how can we do this when actually the political parties, themselves corrupt and godless, choose their candidate and thus tell us who we are allowed to vote for? Only God knows the heart, and the future of a person, and who should lead a nation. That is why we can do more on our knees in prayer than we can in a voting booth.
For example, has President Bush been "the right man"? Remember that many evangelicals voted almost as a bloc for him, and like to believe that he is a fine example of a Christian president. On that point, consider the following comments from Dave Hunt:

Confusing Signals From President Bush
by Dave Hunt

“It is said that President Bush is a born-again Christian who prays on his face before God every morning. Yet Bush calls Islam a ‘religion of peace,’ even though it is the most vicious religion in history, responsible for the slaughter of untold millions – a slaughter that continues today worldwide. How can Bush be a true Christian and tell such a lie, not once but repeatedly? He calls Muhammed (the founder of this murderous ‘faith’ and himself a murderer of many) a prophet of the true God – and the Qu’ran the Word of God! Bush can hardly be ignorant of the fact that sixteen times the Qu’ran denies that Jesus is the Son of God. It also denies that He died on the Cross for the sins of the world, denies the resurrection, and every other Christian doctrine. Yet Bush praises Islam?
Where is the practical evidence in everyday leadership that Bush is following Christ with his whole heart and not just playing both sides for political purposes? The rebellion that began with Satan in heaven and spread to Eden is rampant in America and worldwide. Neither God nor Christ is honored in the United Nations. What country’s leaders actually seek and follow the guidance of the Creator of all? America is right where Israel was when God lamented, ‘Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter’ (Is. 59:14).”

Dave Hunt, excerpt from “Justice, Forgiveness and Transformation”,
in the April 2008 issue of The Berean Call. www.thebereancall.org

Yet again we see how confusing the signals are from the professing "Christian" politicians, who are "the best" that politics has to offer! The believer is cast upon God, who alone knows the hearts of men. God is not a Republican, nor is He a Democrat. He is not a politician. He is the unelected Sovereign Ruler of all, and is "Holy, Holy, Holy." Believers should draw near to Him in prayer, worship Him, pray for those in authority, live quiet and obedient lives, preach the Gospel, obey God before men, and trust God for the future.

The Christian And Politics

2008-04-20T00:36:00.003+02:00

NOTE: Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this article on websites, or in tract or book form, with the condition that nothing be changed, omitted or added, and that proper credit be given to the author.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Christian & Politics

“No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life,
that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier” (2 Timothy 2:4).

One would think that after a verse like that, no further commentary would be necessary. However, in light of increasing involvement of professing Christians in politics it has become necessary to expound more specifically such texts. Every Christian is a soldier of the Lord, and like it or not, is engaged in warfare. And one reason why so many wage an ineffective spiritual warfare, not being able to “fight the good fight of faith,” is entanglements. This world system dangles before every Christian various spider-webs of entanglement, and politics is one of those. The Lord, the One who enlisted us as soldiers, is never pleased with any such entanglement, let us be clear about that at the outset. Why, then, do Christians become entangled in politics?

Mixed Motives

Putting the best possible construction on the situation, we must say first of all that there are those who entangle themselves because in their heart they really believe that they are doing good and that God does not object, but rather approves. As our text insists, they are sadly, but honestly mistaken. There is nothing wrong with wanting things to be better, or being against injustice and the like. To those who feel that way, we say that we share their desire. But politics is tricky business, and there are others with other motives, such as fame, money, power, and self-aggrandizement. Of course, the only way to have those things that the political system offers is to be voted in, and to be voted in you must, among other things, be popular with people. And to be popular with people, you must tell them that you are interested in helping them and serving them, or else you'll get no votes from them. So there remains a serious question about the purity of motives and the depth of true, untarnished, humanitarian interest in all politicians. Those who deny it are either naive or not completely honest. The trouble is, a good number of people seem to not want to face that reality. Politics offers not only what it tells you, namely, improvements, but also power and fame and money. Those who sincerely enter for “good” motives soon find themselves in a large tree where many other birds can and do roost, or to put it another way, they find themselves in an entanglement. But this involves the voters, too, and not just those who run for office. Think of the hours spent campaigning and listening to campaigns. Think also of the money spent in the most modest campaign, and ask yourself if this time and money would not do more if invested in the kingdom of God, the progress of the gospel? They answer that it is ridiculous to suppose that alternative, because the political parties will not spend money on the gospel. We must reply, then, with the simple question, “Then what is a Christian doing entangled with them, devoting time and money to such things?”

Black Holes In Space

Perhaps you're aware of the discovery of what they call “black holes in space,” those collapsed stars, extremely dense, whose gravitational pull even draws light rays from nearby stars into them to disappear forever. Nothing ever appears again once it enters. That is an illustration of what has happened to some Christians, and will happen to others, who give their time and energy to the politics of this planet. It is a hopeless situation. Think about it, how many years of recorded history are there on this planet? Something over 3,000. How many of the basic problems of mankind today are the same as when they began? All of them. Selah. How many sins has man eliminated in all these thousands of years? Not one. Just think of all the myriads of kings, governors, parliaments, congresses, courts, and other officials and governing bodies that there have been. From all over the world, in every age, in every conceivable circumstance, they have been trying politics from every possible human angle of approach, and they still have not been able to solve mankind's problems. No, dear Christian, they don't merit one cent of the money nor one second of the time that God has entrusted to us as stewards who will give account.

On the other hand, consider the gospel. How many of the basic problems of mankind does the gospel solve? “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). What can repair marriages? The gospel. What can reform prisoners? The gospel. What can affect employer/employee relations? The gospel. What can guarantee the care of the elderly and sick? The gospel. Every time a person gets saved he becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not only changes inwardly, but outwardly as well, and so his change affects those around him, permanently. Consider, then, which is the best investment of time regarding the world and it's problems. Politics, or the gospel? But don't make the mistake of trying to mix them, they're like oil and water!

There has never been a political system that has ushered in the millennium, nor will there be. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself will personally introduce that era when He comes to reign in glory. What the politicians can do, as history proves, is rearrange the problems, treat the symptoms of sin, and even at times impede its advance, but they can't eliminate it. Therefore the Christian who becomes involved in the politics of this world unfortunately sees his time and money disappear into this “black hole in space,” instead of seeing them invested in the gospel and bringing him everlasting results. Politics cannot produce those kinds of results. Why not? Because mankind's basic problem is spiritual in nature, and not related in any way to political science. If someone has pneumonia, they need internal medicine and not a band-aid. The gospel gives man that internal medicine that he needs, but politics can only offer a band-aid.

Human Government Established By God

“But,” they argue back, “in Romans 13 and other passages the Bible supports human government going back as far as the time of Noah after the flood. After all, God ordained human government.” That is correct, God ordained human government. But He did not ordain all the accompanying political science that adorns government today. Neither did He ordain government to be the Savior of mankind. Politics cannot save souls or produce a truly better world to live in.

“More laws! Better laws! Enforced laws! More law enforcers!” they cry to us. Well, if these are the tools of the politicians, then they only make loud confession that politics is not working, or else why would such things be needed? Yet they propose to us that through these administrative, executive, and judicial functions the Christian can serve God in the world today by making it a better place in which to live. Are they ignorant or arrogant who hang their hopes on such ideas? Let us ask a question. Who can make better laws than God? Is not His law good, perfect, and holy? But when will Christians learn that the law, not even God's Law, cannot impart to us the needed power to keep it? You cannot eliminate sin or wickedness by legislation, but you can by salvation.

Moral Obligation

Eliminate sin - that is a feat that the best of political scientists is absolutely powerless to achieve. So they tell us that they know they can't eliminate sin, but that Christians have a moral obligation to get involved (entangled) in government/politics as a means of restraining lawlessness. Well then, let them produce verses, in context, to support such claims. The Bible tells us in plain language that as Christians we have a moral obligation to obey the law, but it never tells us that we have a so-called moral obligation to become involved in politics. No, not even once.

Combating Humanism

No true Christian is in favor of any form of humanism or its creeds. On that we are agreed. However, it is a favorite approach of Christian political activists to alarm the Christian community with reports/statistics of how the humanists are taking over the government and what will happen as a result. They propose that we should all go to the polls and vote for the pro-Christian candidates to prevent this. The idea is to organize Christians as a powerful voting block. To this end they even produce reports and voting guides for Christians, giving the profiles of the views of different candidates on the issues. For example, they said we all should have voted for Reagan because he is for prayer in public schools and against abortion. So in not four, but eight years of President Reagan which of those two very specific issues has been solved? What they couldn't tell you is that the President wouldn't do anything about those items, but that he would subject himself and the affairs of the nation he represents to such occult influence as astrology. That is just one example. However, the main problem is not the surprises that elected officials produce, but the basic idea of fighting humanism in government by what amounts to a Christian version of humanism - producing a man/men who have the answers. Does man have the answers?

Human Responsibility

“What about our human responsibility?” they insist. “What are we supposed to do, then, just sit in Sunday School and let the world get worse and worse?” They insist that we cannot take such an passive and unrealistic approach to problems, but that it is our responsibility to vote, to campaign for certain candidates, and even to run for office so as to have Christians in government. The cry of “human responsibility!” is intended to wake us up to the fact that we're being overly spiritual and, in their eyes, irresponsible in the matter, taking an extreme position. In these days of “balance,” “balance,” and more “balance”, calling someone extreme is like calling them a heretic. But the early Christians were extreme enough to not get involved in politics, not even a little.

Another angle of attack is when we are told, “if you don't vote, then don't complain later about who is in office or what they do.” That's a nice political-scientist cliche, intended to shame us into entangling ourselves, but we reply that we will not complain, because it is a sin to do so, even if you do vote! And isn't it odd how the very ones who campaign and vote are the ones who are the most vocal with their complaints? Think about it.

Yet we must answer in the affirmative regarding our human responsibility. We do believe very much in being responsible Christians. But that responsibility is defined for the Christian by the Bible, not by university professors or political scientists or campaign advertisements. First of all, it is the responsibility and obligation of every Christian to PRAY as the Lord teaches us in 1 Timothy 2:1-2. This tremendous responsibility is often neglected by professing Christians. Some are disinterested. Others say they don't have time. Let us ask the Christian political activists how regular and consistent and fervent their personal prayer lives are, and if they are consistently devoted to the prayer meeting of their local assembly? If not, they should be ashamed to talk about responsibility to others. They talk about “putting feet to your prayers” - one of those sayings not found in the Bible. How about putting knees to your prayers? How about putting fasting to your prayers? God did say to pray, but He did NOT say to vote. Think about this - we can do more in 5 minutes on our knees in prayerful communion with God than we can do if 5 minutes in a voting booth. So why do they offer to provide transportation to vote but not to prayer meetings? A look at the private prayer lives of many, and the attendance at the prayer meetings of their churches, will tell you why professing Christians turn to politics. They do so because they believe that politics gets results, and that prayer doesn't. What kind of Christianity is that?

Second, we believe strongly that it is our human responsibility and moral obligation as Christians to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). We believe that we should follow the example of the early Christians, who according to Acts 8:4 “went everywhere preaching the word.” If we really believe this, then we believe that we can do more by going door-to-door for Christ, or by distributing gospel literature, than by canvassing door-to-door for some politician, however pious. Which campaign should we work for and support? The gospel campaign! What a shame it is to see some spending time and money in politics, laboring tirelessly, devotedly, always talking about politics and candidates and votes. They do it so well that they have little or no time for testimony or impact for Christ in the way that the early Christians did. They are entangled, and it is wrong, and Christ is not pleased. How much worse is the case when their own local church is struggling along and in need of help, or when we consider the tremendous amount of work that remains to be done in planting and edifying assemblies of God's people around the world. What responsibility to these who are involved in politics feel towards seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness as the Bible commands?

Love Not The World

1 John 2:15 instructs us, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” This is violated by those who give themselves to politics. It is never our responsibility to help the world system nor much less to love it. Yet they will tell us openly that they love politics! They pursue the mirage of doing good through politics in a way that the unsaved political scientists admire. But politics is something that the world has produced, not God. It is one of the things that is in the world. If you don't believe that, just read Luke 4:5-8 and see who is behind this world's kingdoms. We must remember that the world is an orderly system, organized and headed by the devil, leaving God out, designed for the purpose of making man happy without God. Why should any Christian want to mix with such a system, much less find it lovable? What communion has light with darkness? What ever happened to “come out from among them and be ye separate?”

The problem is often a case of misplaced love. As someone said, “Some Christians love the world so much that they anticipate making it their heaven.” But God expressly prohibits love of and entanglement with the world system. His Son received no justice from the best-developed political system that the world of that day knew, the Roman empire. The Holy Spirit, speaking by Paul, warned the Christians in Corinth against going to law and seeking justice before the unjust (1 Cor. 6:1-8). To whom does he refer as “unjust”? The context is clear, he refers to the lawmakers/enforcers of that day as “the unjust.” Why? Not just because spiritually speaking they are unjust in God's sight, but also because for the Christian, that is NOT the way to solve problems. But we are then told that Paul himself got involved in the political/legal system in order to continue propagating Christianity. They cite for us his trials first in Caesarea and then in Rome. Need we remind them that it was his unsaved enemies, and not Paul, who brought all that about? Also remember that the same system that freed Paul after his first trial in Rome later condemned and martyred him. And in all his trials there were never any votes or petitions or demonstrations concerning getting him released. It doesn't present a very solid case for the “Christian political scientists.”

Verses, Please

It's time we thought about asking these folks to defend their position from the Scriptures. What verses do they find that clearly teach the obligation of Christian political involvement? Careful! Don't let them quote you any verses about Moses or Daniel or Nehemiah or the good kings of Israel, all of whom were Jews, promised by God a land, a king, and a kingdom, all here on the earth. The Christian, on the other hand, is never promised any such thing, nor encouraged to get involved in the kingdoms of this world. His hope is heavenly, not earthbound (see Colossians 3:1-4). The Lord Jesus’ words to Pilate are full of meaning for us: “My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight” (John 18:36). Since we are questioning them about “Christian” political involvement, they will have to give us some New Testament verses, teaching of the Lord or His apostles, that clearly and unmistakably teach Christians to become involved in any way in politics. Oops - there are none! This is one reason why saying “verses please” infuriates some religious politicians, because they know they cannot produce any!

Citizens Of Heaven

“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:20). A citizen of one country cannot participate in the politics of another. That is a forgotten part of the Christian life. We are citizens of heaven. Some will argue for dual citizenship, that is, in heaven and in an earthly country at the same time. But this is merely what men impose by their laws, and is not something that requires our active participation. Our interests and our activities should be “heaven-oriented”, and we should decline to become entangled in another kingdom. Let us be like those of Hebrews 11, who “all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off and were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return, But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.”

Those heroes of the faith knew nothing of being entangled with the affairs of this life. They were “underwhelmed” with what the world system had to offer them, because they fixed the eye of faith on the promises of God, and desired a BETTER country. Did God tell them that they were being irresponsible? Did He tell them that they were so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good? No! The Scripture says, “God is not ashamed to be called their God.” This expression by implication introduces the possibility of living in such a way as to make God ashamed of our use of His name. Those who live separated from the world system do not make God ashamed. Are we in their company? Christians, let us remember that our heavenly citizenship is to be real, practical, not just a theory. Part of the practical application is to not become in any way involved with the politics of this present evil world.

The same is true of those who are ambassadors. They most certainly may not become active in the politics of the country where they live. Their relationship is with another country, and there alone may they participate in such affairs. We, as Christians, are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), and our activity should be with the things of His kingdom. We should not become involved (entangled) in this world's politics.

The Example of Moses

Some try to use him as an example of a man using political influence to achieve good. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that God let Moses be educated 40 years in “the university of Egypt”, but it is also true that after that God sent him for 40 years to the silence and solitude of the desert to care for sheep. Only then was he ready. Hebrews 11 speaks of the example of Moses:

“By faith, Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.”

Friends, the Biblical record is clear. Moses forsook the politics of Egypt: the name and the fame; the pleasures and the treasures. Yes, he is an example of faith for us. He could've tried to make Egypt a better place to live, but he chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God. That is a truth that we know precious little of anymore in practice: the experience of suffering affliction as the people of God. We have been sidetracked, entangled into fighting for our rights and privileges like the rest of the world. Not Moses. Perhaps he could've been the next Pharaoh, or at the least one of the most influential people in Egypt. But he gave it up to shepherd God's flock. Some assembly leaders could learn from his example. Instead of giving half of our available time to the assembly (a generous estimate!) and half to politics, whatever happened to that song we used to sing?:

All for Jesus, All for Jesus!
All my being's ransomed pow'rs:
All my tho'ts and words and doings,
All my days and all my hours.
Since my eyes were fixed on Jesus,
I've lost sight of all beside;
So enchained my spirit's vision,
Looking at the Crucified.

Did you notice those words: “Since my eyes were fixed on Jesus, I've lost sight of all beside”? No wonder Tozer said that Christians tell more lies when they sing hymns than at all other times put together. The way around that problem in many churches is simply not to sing the old hymns, whose stanzas contain a message. They opt for the new light-weight choruses that are repetitive and shallow, and avoid the heavy, committing, convicting stuff!

“Looking at the Crucified” is a good expression of how to live. We should live as seeing by faith (not a vision) Him who is invisible, as Moses did. May the Lord Jesus Christ, crucified for us and raised for our justification, be all our vision and fill all our vision. May we go deeper than superficial, professing Christianity, and learn what it means to say: “for to me to live is Christ,” as the Apostle Paul did. Then we don't have to worry about who to vote for any longer.

When you stop and think about it, it is a pretty pathetic history. “They” told us to vote for Nixon, who turned out to be a bizarre man who broke the law and cursed with the foulest language those who pursued him. Then they said vote for Carter, who not only fumbled in office but also has turned out to be an ecumenical. Then it was “vote for Reagan,” only we found out later they must have meant Nancy, and her astrology. In eight years of Reagan’s administration that was supposedly favorable to the “evangelicals,” they did not gain one single thing from the federal government. There was no improvement under Bush. As for Clinton, as a church attending Baptist, he disgraced the office and the Baptists with his vanity, lies and adultery, not to mention his support for homosexuals. Some breathe a sigh of relief now that Bush the son is in the White House, but he has already shown the same truth-damaging ecumenical leanings. When will some people learn that the answer is not in Washington? The Lord Jesus is still saying, “come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Yes, it is a gospel verse, but there is a very real application for the Christian who in faith turns away from this world's politics to find rest in the Lord Jesus.

What The Future Holds

“...Both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Peter 3:10-11). Who would go into a condemned building and start painting the walls and replacing broken windows? Who would stay on a sinking ship washing dirty dishes in the galley? That's what it is like to become entangled in this world and its politics. Not only is it prohibited, not only is it not pleasing to the Lord, but it is wasting precious resources that the Savior could use for His glory. Wasted hours, wasted funds, wasted lives! The ship is going down, the building is condemned, reserved for fire. What God is doing in this age is not improving society, but saving souls and adding them to the church through the proclamation of the gospel. Don't be a cinder soul, saved as by fire, with years and works burnt, consumed, dissolved in the fire of God's judgment. The logic of the Holy Spirit in 2 Peter 3 is that since we know the end of the world and its works, we ought to be different, holy, godly, not earthbound and worldly.

It is o.k. to go to the beach and build a sand castle for fun, but not to invest your life in playing with sand castles. A few waves roll over them and the beach is smooth again. You can't even tell where the castle was. That is what the future holds for those who insist on Christian politics. They are adults playing with sand castles - investing their lives in them. The world and all its works will be dissolved. The waves of God's judgment will roll over this planet, and the works of those Christians who got involved (entangled) in politics will be erased. The beach will be smooth, and we won't even be able to tell where their “castles” were. What a sad day that will be, and may we each avoid that tremendous disappointment. There are no crowns offered in heaven for being in politics. But there are crown’s waiting for faithful elders, for saints who suffer for righteousness sake, and for those who win others to the Lord. How much better to invest our lives, the time and money that we have, in proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and making disciples. Allow me to exhort you in the Lord’s Name, even as I say these things to my self: Listen to His voice! Renounce the world system. Heed His command!

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (2 Cor.15:58).

Remember this refrain that we have heard before:

Only one life, 'twill soon be past.
Only what's done for Christ will last.

Let the world take its human responsibility, and continue to do with it what it has done for thousands of years. The Scriptures teaches us not to get entangled with them. As for you, my friend, when are you going to decide to use your one life, the only one you have, for Christ. If you haven’t already done so, now is the time! Decide to be always abounding in the work of the Lord. Decide to take your Christian responsibility to pray, to proclaim the gospel and make disciples. Then you may rest assured that you will see the difference in eternity between those who lived confessing that they were strangers and pilgrims, and those who sought to mix Christianity and politics. May God give you grace to live a separated and devoted life, for the One who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. To Him be the glory forever, amen!

Carl Knott

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix

Analysis of principle pro-politics arguments of Tom Anderson’s paper “STRAIGHT TALK”

In 1988, after reading the material I have just presented in the above booklet, the outspoken wife of an leader in an assembly in Pennsylvania wrote me to say:

“As for voting, etc. you two (referring to myself and William MacDonald) should get registered and vote absentee ballots. Have a friend get them sent to you. Since God ordained government that we might live an quiet and peaceable life, in the U.S. Christians can get involved (and our country is GREAT because Christians did first get involved and set up our constitution). We need to get doing...”

To further press her activist arguments, she enclosed a copy of the weekly paper, “Straight Talk,” by Tom Anderson, volume 53, number 4, January 28, 1988. Since his arguments are obviously respected by some in the assemblies who are political activists, it would be fair to take them as representative of arguments in favor of Christian involvement in politics. In the interest of fairness, I will quote his entire article as is, followed by the reply and analysis which I sent to that dear misguided sister. First, the article:

"Politics is a dirty business which Christians should not stoop to."

If politics is dirty - and it is - it's because too many clean people have abstained. Actually, Christians and all good citizens have a moral responsibility to influence public policy for the good; to register, vote, be informed, and to influence others. Abraham Lincoln said, "He who affects public sentiment does a far greater service to society than he who enacts statutes." Proverbs 29:2 tells us, "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." How can the righteous get in authority if righteous people default and let Satan rule government?

Benjamin Franklin recognized the truth when he said: "He who shall introduce in public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will revolutionize the world." If America were a Christian nation, there could be no take-over.

As frightening as our economic and political predicament is, it is not as crucial as is our spiritual decline. The Humanists and do-your-own-thing set now proclaim that morality depends on the situation, on how you look at it. Like the wife said to her husband; "You say I'm overdrawn. I say you're under-deposited!"

If Not Christians, Who?

For about 30 years we have contended in this column that our nation could be turned around only through the dedicated, unswerving, relentless involvement of true Christians. After all, if Christians are not willing to work for, and, yes, pray for the nation's return to Christian principles, who is?

So now we have a famous TV evangelist, Pat Robinson, running for President. The "Liberals" are outraged. And even some fundamentalist Christians are also strenuously opposed. Here are some typical reasons and/or excuses:

1. "Separation of church and state." But neither the Bible nor the Constitution of the U.S. admonishes Christians to abstain from involvement in governmental matters; nor do they prohibit preachers from trying to influence public policy. Our Founding Fathers decreed that the State not be permitted to: (a) establish a federal, State religion, or (b) prohibit the free exercise of religion according to each individual's conscience.

Reversing the intentions of our Founding Fathers, the secular humanists running our government and our public schools are confiscating our money to subsidize humanism which was even defined as a religion in a 1975 Supreme Court decision. What the "Liberal" secular humanists have actually done is to distort the First Amendment to mean separation of God from government.

2. "Jesus and His apostles never tried to change the Roman Government." Jesus and Paul lived under a totalitarian government. To oppose the leader was treason. Our obligation today is not to a King, nor even a Dictator (yet); our allegiance is not to a man, "ordained of God," but to a (I believe) divinely inspired Constitution, which is the greatest freedom document ever devised by man.

Jesus' followers did not attempt to change their government, but Peter openly proclaimed, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Jesus' followers never capitulated to their pagan oppressors, never compromised their message, never backed down in their crusade for Christ, even though it cost them their lives.

3. "Why be concerned? The Rapture will rescue us." The Rapture hasn’t rescued the millions of people around the world who are enslaved by Christ's foremost enemy, Communism. The Rapture has not eased the agony of countless Christians now being persecuted, tortured, and murdered by that diabolical criminal conspiracy, Communism.

How can a true Christian shut his eyes to the suffering of others, and concern himself only with being raptured out of it all? To sit by the open window waiting for the Rapture appears to this writer to be a combination of selfishness, stupidity, and misinterpretation of God's wishes.

So-called Christians who say, "We will do nothing but pray: let God do everything," are failing God, faith, duty and country. Our faith and our works must match His will.

"Inside Straight"

American governments spend $14 billion a year on law enforcement, while private citizens and institutions spend almost twice as much, $22 billion. The private security industry employs 1.1 million people - twice the 560,000 police; sheriff's deputies, State troopers and federal agents... House Speaker Jim Wright is being investigated in FBI probe of Texas S.&L. fraud... Law enforcement? Our leaders deliberately don't enforce some laws and never intended to when they voted the laws into existence.

Example: In 1978 the con men of the Congress passed Public Law 95-435. which requires the Federal government to balance its budget. None of them, or the President, ever intended to obey the law. 80% of all the giving in the world is done by Americans - and we can no longer afford that - at least our grandchildren can't. We're giving what we haven't got and charging it to them. Gross dishonesty. "

-American Way Features

The following is my response and analysis of Mr. Anderson’s arguments.

1. Politics is dirty because too many clean people have abstained.

The key word here is “because”. He lays the blame for the nature of politics at the feet of clean people. Let me be kind and just say that this is an ignorant statement at best. Politics is what it is because of human nature - the flesh, and because of the world and the devil who is the prince of this world. If a Christian gets into a manure pile, that doesn’t make it clean!

2. Christians have a moral responsibility to influence public policy for the good, to register, vote, be informed and to influence others. He quotes Abraham Lincoln to support his view.

This is another weak and biblically unsupportable statement. The Bible, not Tom Anderson, tells Christians what their responsibilities are. According to God, we have a spiritual responsibility to pray, to live in holiness, to preach the gospel, to see souls saved and the church built. True churches are built on the Gospel, not political activism or common interests such as politics, home-school, patriotism, little-league baseball, tupperware, Amway, etc.

3. He quotes Proverbs 29:2, “when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice”.

This is the closest he comes to finding Biblical support for his political activism. Clearly the texts says nothing about how a righteous person comes to be in power. But Psalm 75 says that God is the one who sets up and takes down rulers. This doesn’t sit well with the democratic mind, but it is nonetheless true. Proverbs 29:2 was written when kings ruled, and there were no campaigns, no votes, etc., so it has nothing to do with democracy. The verse talks about rejoicing, not about voting!

4. Then he follows it with this argument: How can the righteous get into authority if righteous people default and let Satan rule government? The idea here seems to be that it is Christian’s fault that Satan rules government. To support his point he quotes Benjamin Franklin. Bad choice, because he was a theist who never believed the Gospel. He said:

“He who shall introduce in public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will revolutionize the world.”

Observe that once again he could not quote any Scripture to establish his point. Are such people practically blinded, hardened of heart, or just dense? They seem incapacitated from recognizing their utter lack of Biblical support, or seeing that they must constantly resort to human wisdom, reasoning and extra-biblical quotes. Or perhaps they see it, but don’t care. It seems almost incredible that a professing Christian cannot see how God can get righteous people into places of authority without political campaigns. amounts to recognizing that Christianity is by nature foreign to politics, therefore, it must be introduced because it is not there.

5. He then alleges that the nation can be turned around only through the dedicated, unswerving, relentless involvement of all true Christians (and admits he’s been saying that for 30 years!).

No mention of the preaching the Gospel. His idea is Christian lawyers, not preachers. There have been great revivals in history, like the one in the time of Whitefield and Wesley, that is attributed with averting civil war in England, but they come through tireless Gospel preaching and prayer meetings, not canvassing, campaigning, “getting out the vote”, etc.

6. The Bible does not admonish Christians to abstain from involvement in governmental affairs, he says, citing the intentions of the founding fathers of the U.S.A.

Well, there he goes again, citing the wrong people! Would someone inform him, that the intentions of the founding fathers are not Scripture? Nor were all of those men even Christians, contrary to the opinions of some. The Bible DOES admonish Christians clearly against the unequal yoke, in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.

7. We are told we shouldn’t model after Jesus and the disciples and Paul, because their government was totalitarian and ours is a democracy, a different culture. This is Darwin’s theory modified and preached by Marx, the idea of social evolution to higher states. “Our allegiance is to a divinely inspired Constitution,” he declares.

This practically amounts to heresy. The Christian’s allegiance is to Christ, the Word of God and the kingdom of heaven. We are told to contend earnestly for the faith, but not for democracy or politics in any form. And the Scriptures clearly teach us to follow and imitate the Lord and the Apostles. The Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight.” And the kingdom of God is not a democracy, nor will the Lord set up a great democracy on earth. God’s plan is a benevolent monarchy. Democracy is inherently flawed and is not God’s plan.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from public treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Fraser Tytler
The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic, c. 1810

8. We are told that Jesus’ followers never capitulated to their pagan oppressors.

This is true, but they were not involved in politics, rather in Gospel preaching! Besides, he just finished telling us not to use them as role models, so here he contradicts himself. So are we to follow them or not? It is not necessary to be in politic to keep from capitulating to pagan oppressors. The church flourished as it never again has during a period when it had no political involvement nor influence whatsoever outside of the Gospel and prayer. This ought to make people open their eyes and confess the error of trying to play by Satan’s rules instead of God’s.

9. How can a true Christian shut his eyes to the suffering of others, and concern himself only with being raptured out of it all.

This is a misrepresentation, probably deliberate, trying to show that believers who stay out of politics are selfish, and it sounds like the writer is belittling the belief in the blessed hope, the rapture of the Church. We don’t shut our eyes, we have on the contrary opened them and seen that the Gospel is the only hope, and that time is running out. If we go door to door it is to preach Christ and distribute Gospel literature, not to influence people politically which is a waste of time and energy. It is a shame for anyone who calls himself a Christian to use his time and energy promoting politics instead of preaching the Gospel.

10. So-called Christians who say, “we will do nothing but pray: let God do everything,” are failing God, faith, duty and country.

Yet another misrepresentation. We pray, and we preach the Gospel, and we seek to win people OUT of the world and into the Church. There is a great spiritual rescue or evacuation operation in progress, Christ is calling men and women to salvation, and time is running out. The ship of this world is sinking like the Titanic, and our job is to get people in the lifeboat, to safety in Christ, not to paint the Titanic or elect a new captain or lookout because the old ones failed!

A World Ruined By Mankind

2008-04-20T00:25:00.006+02:00

"The Bible declares, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' After the creation of all else, God said, 'Let us make man in our image...So God mad man in his image.' He then created Eve, a wife for Adam, and gave them the easiest command possible: of the innumerable trees of delicious fruit He had planted in the Garden paradise, there was only one of which they were not to eat: 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil' (Gn. 2:9). It could have borne any variety of fruit. There was no spiritual power in the fruit of this tree any more than in any other fruit just like it.
The command not to eat of that particular tree was a test of His creatures' obedience. Disobedience even in such a simple thing would be rebellion for which they would be cut off from God, the giver of life, resulting in physical and spiritual death and expulsion from His presence forever.
Critics find it incredibly cruel that eating forbidden fruit should result in today's world of painful and deadly diseases, poisonous insects and reptiles, the suffering of innocent babies and children, wars, murders, rape, theft, and other horrors that continue, in pain and sorrow, to spell out human history. Yet Adam and Eve's seemingly insignificant act was done in defiance of their Creator. The rest, as they say, is history -- the history of persistent rebellion against the God who created mankind to be the recipients of His love and blessing.
Here we are today, 6 billion-plus little egos, reaping the awful consequences of our own selfishness. We cannot blame God for today's world but only ourselves. This is not the world God made but the one we have mad in our defiance of Him."

by Dave Hunt - extract of his article:
"Justice, Fortiveness, and Transformation"
in the April 2008 issue of THE BEREAN CALL.
For a free subscription, visit www.thebereancall.org

2008-03-01T19:50:00.005+01:00

THE LAND OF ISRAEL
IS NOT CALLED "PALESTINE"

A visiting preacher smiled as he stood before a group of Jewish believers in Israel, and said enthusiastically, "I am so happy to finally be in Palestine". His audience was underwhelmed. Yet another well-meaning westerner who speaks (and thinks) carelessly. How many people realize where the name Palestine comes from, and how offensive it is to the Jews?

For the short version, read this extract from Wikipedia:

After the Bar-Kokhba revolt of the Judeans and the subsequent Roman repression and exile, the Romans renamed the entire district of Judea "Palaestina" as a mark of insult to their defeated enemies. This is because of their knowledge of the region's history and the fact that the Philistines and the Israelites were warring peoples.

The land of Israel is NEVER called Palestine in the Bible. The word "Palestine" or "Palestina" only appears four times in the King James Version, in Exodus 15:14; Isaiah 14:29 and 14:31 (translated Philistia in the Darby Version, New American Standard and NIV), and Joel 3:4 "Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine?" A good Bible study program like Bible Works will show you that the word is Pelesheth {pel-eh'-sheth} Meaning: Philistia = "land of sojourners" and its usage and forms are: Palestina 3, Philistia 3, Philistine 1, Palestine 1.

Of all people, Christians should know that the land of Israel is not Philistia or Palestine! It is ERETZ ISRAEL - the LAND of ISRAEL. God gave it to them in an eternal covenant made first with Abraham and confirmed as an eternal covenant to his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. Neither the Romans nor the U.N. nor anyone else can take it from them. It is weak to argue saying words acquire new meanings, because Israel is not Philistia like Jehovah is not Baal or Dagon, and never will be. "Hold fast the form of sound words."

2008-02-11T15:24:00.000+01:00

FIVE REASONS WHY WE FAIL TO OVERCOME SINFUL HABITS:

1. We try to conquer habits in the energy of the soul.

God wants us to exercise spiritual power over habits. Satan wants us to fight habits with the energy of our souls. Our souls (Greek: psuche) consist of our mental power, our will power, and our emotional power. These are no match for the bondage of sinful habits. Only by spiritual power can we conquer sinful habits.

"For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify [conquer] the deeds of the body, ye shall live"' (Romans 8:13).

2. We are double-minded.

A double-minded person has a desire to overcome sinful habits and a conflicting desire to enjoy them God warns that such a person cannot hope for any consistent victory over sin. A double-minded (Greek: dipsuchos soul) person has not yet learned to hate evil; he will be unstable in all of his ways (See James 1:8).

3. We fail to understand what it means to be in Christ.

The only way to consistently overcome sinful habits is to enter into the victory which Christ has already won over them (Romans 6; Colossians 3).

4. We make provision for sinful pleasures.

We give outward evidence of hating evil when we remove from our lives all provisions for evil. This means cleansing the galleries of our minds of evil imaginations and cleansing our homes of all sensual possessions. “Make no provision for the flesh” (Romans 13:14).

5. We attempt to hide secret sins.

One of Satan's biggest lies is that secret sins will remain hidden. God makes it very clear that the opposite is true:
"Be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23). The shame and humbling which come when sins are properly confessed (1 John 1:9) and forsaken (Proverbs 28:13) are actually a part of God's provision to receive grace and to conquer sinful habits. "...God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6). (See also 1 Peter 4:1-2)

2008-02-03T00:21:00.000+01:00

IMMORAL SPENDING ON AMERICAN POLITICS

To a follower of the meek and lowly Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sakes became poor, it is clear from the facts than that politics is not only vain and corrupted, it is also a rich man's game, and the amounts being spent are absolutely immoral! Consider the following quotes taken from CNN article: "White House hopefuls burn millions on Super Tuesday ads":

Spending on political ads in the Super Tuesday states alone could reach an unprecedented $20 million, the Campaign Media Analysis Group estimates...

A vast majority of the spending -- nearly 90 percent -- is being done by the two remaining top-tier Democratic candidates: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both campaigns are well funded. On Thursday, they reported that they both had roughly $18 million in cash at the end of December to spend during the primary season, according to the campaigns' reports to the Federal Election Commission.

The Obama campaign also announced Thursday that it raised $32 million in contributions in January.

Flush with campaign funds, Obama spent $4 million on television advertising the last week of January, much of it going to advertising in the biggest Super Tuesday prize: California...

Not to be outdone, Clinton spent over $3.5 million on television advertising the last week of January, CMAG estimated. Like Obama, the New York senator spent much of her money on California advertising...

McCain spent close to $2 million on ads in Florida alone the week before that state's crucial primary.

On Thursday, Romney's campaign also announced it will purchase time to air television advertising in California and in other Super Tuesday states. The ad buy is estimated to cost between $2 million and $3 million, the campaign told CNN.

These millions are not helping anyone in the country. They are not producing jobs. They are not giving relief to the poor or unemployed or debt-burdened. Much less are they printing Bibles or Gospel tracts or supporting evangelistic work whereby people might hear the truth that can set them free and REALLY change their lives. No, these lavish funds are being spent with wanton abandon to buy "air-time" and "billboard space" for political candidates. And the media may report it, but don't think the media can criticize it even for a minute. The media LOVES the agonizing long American political process because that's one way the media gets rich! There is a kind of symbiosis between the media and politics.

Should Christians contribute in any way to such a system -- money -- time -- etc.? The Lord Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight." Every dollar a Christian spends on politics is a dollar wasted that could have been invested in the Gospel. Every minute spent on politics is a minute wasted that could have been spent preaching the Word of God or praying -- far more effective and FREE! The kingdom of the Lord is not furthered by politics. That vain, carnal, corrupt system will only produce at last the Antichrist and his world government. Here's some good advice: If you don't like where that bus is headed, don't get on, and if you're already on, time to admit your mistake and get off!

2008-02-01T16:11:00.001+01:00

Blurring the Distinctives

Donald L. Norbie, Greely, Colorado, USA

“When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them . . . You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way . . . Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:29-32).

There was a constant tendency in Israel to conform to the practices of the nations around them. There was not an outright rejection of their Jehovah God but an introduction of heathen customs and practices. This the prophets warned against throughout Israel’s history. Israel was to be different and distinct from the nations surrounding them.
The church has had the same tendency throughout the centuries. The cry of the apostle Paul was, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:17).
After the first century, the churches as a whole began to slide into conformity with the world, adopting heathen practices into their worship and doctrine. This corruption accelerated after the conversion of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.
By the time of the Reformation the gospel of grace was buried under ritualism and perverted church dogma. Salvation was viewed as a life-long process of keeping the rules of the church and at death one went to Purgatory to atone for the rest of his sins. The gospel of God’s grace had been forgotten except for small, scattered pockets of devout believers.
The Reformation rediscovered the gospel of God’s grace and proclaimed it faithfully. Unfortunately, many of those reformers did not make a clean break with all Romish practices. They carried over into their churches the teaching of infant baptism, the clergy-laity concept and the desire to have a state church.
Throughout church history there have been repeated movements to return to the simplicity of the early church. Such have believed the teaching and example of the apostolic church should be emulated. This example was viewed not as an historical oddity but as the norm for churches in every age.
After dealing with many matters of church conduct, Paul wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul did not say that these things were suggestions or his opinions, but the Lord’s commandments. They are still in force today.
In the British Isles in the early 1800's there was a revival of interest in following the simplicity of the apostolic church. This movement has since spread throughout the world. There was a rejection of denominationalism with all of its divisions and an insistence that the church is one, made up of all true Christians, Rom. 12. 4-5. The clergy/laity distinction was denied; all believers are priests and are gifted by God (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rom. 12:6-8). The Lord’s Supper was seen as central to worship, with opportunity for the believer’s priesthood to function (1 Cor. 11:23-34). All believers were expected to be witnessing to the gospel. Those who were called of God to ‘full time work’ went out in faith and were supported by the generous giving of God’s people in accordance with such scriptures as Philippians 4:15-16.
It was a radical movement, radical in its desire to obey God’s word, radical in its faith and fervency. God has blessed this movement over the past 175 years. But it is difficult to maintain fervent purity and scriptural simplicity. Spiritual zeal tends to cool and men try to compensate with organization and ritual. Worldliness can drain spiritual enthusiasm.
Some assemblies having origins from the movement begun in the 1800's may be tempted to look at today’s large churches with many members and become envious. Perhaps they should be our model now? People are used to having a ‘pastor’ who is hired and can be fired. Why not hire a good preacher to lead the church? Perhaps we should stop emphasizing the importance of the Lord’s Supper; it is not appreciated by all church members. Perhaps have it as an optional service in a smaller room for those who are more ‘traditional’.
The feminist movement is strong. Should we now adopt an egalitarian approach to our services, letting women lead in the meetings. Some would also suggest women elders. This will make us more acceptable to the world around. And so, some assemblies are becoming more and more like Bible churches or community churches. They are not that different or distinctive any more. They may hire a preacher and call him ‘pastor’ [or try and disguise it by calling him a “full-time worker.” blog editor’s note]. The Lord’s Supper is minimized and women take more leadership.
When this happens the assembly has become just another nice, evangelical church. Now you are competing with all the other churches for members. Unless you have better facilities and a more polished program, why should anyone come to your church? You are not offering a different product. Would it not be simpler for you to join one of the established churches and strengthen it?
Or maybe it is time to restudy the Scriptures and to renew your convictions about principles for the church from God’s holy Word and just trust Him for the results.

originally printed in Precious Seed magazine, April 2002

2008-01-22T18:44:00.000+01:00

Giving Thanks For Meals

Dr. H. A. Ironside used to tell of an experience he once had at a restaurant. He ordered his meal and just as he was about to eat a man walked up to his table and said, "Do you mind if I sit down with you?" Dr. Ironside said, "No," it was quite all right, so the man sat down. As was his custom Dr. Ironside bowed his head and said a silent word of thanksgiving to the Lord before he ate. When he lifted up his head, the man said to him, "Do you have a headache?" Ironside said, "No, I don't." The man said, "Well, is there anything wrong with your food?" Ironside said, "No, why?" "Well," the man said, "I saw you sitting there with your head down and I thought you must be sick, or there was something wrong with your food." Ironside replied, "No, I was simply returning thanks to God as I always do before I eat." The man said, "Oh, you're one of those, are you? Well, I want you to know I never give thanks. I earn my money by the sweat of my brow and I don't have to give thanks to anybody when I eat, I just start right in!" Dr. Ironside said, "Yes, you're just like my dog. That's what he does, too!"

WHO IS THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN THE LORD'S PARABLE?

2008-01-22T17:49:00.000+01:00

WHO WAS THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN JESUS’ PARABLE?

One of Jesus’ best-known parables is that of the Good Samaritan in Luke chapter 10. It seems on the surface to be a simple story extolling the virtues of going out of one’s way to help those in need and distress, and indeed the responsibilities of godly people to do this. This no religious or moral person would question. Theologically, however, evangelicals would part with those of a more liberal position in seeing more than this in the parable.
A parable being “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,” the meaning one gets from it depends importantly on the identification he makes with the story’s characters. The theological liberal has no hesitation in identifying with the Samaritan, who ministered to the poor man the robbers had attacked and left to die, while the priest and Levite passed by. “The meaning of the parable is right on the surface,” he would say – “you’re supposed to help those in need.”
Just so, we evangelicals would agree, but we also see a deeper meaning to the story, another identification to be made. Remember how despised the Samaritans were in the eyes of the Jews to whom Jesus told the parable. They delighted to belittle Him by calling Him a Samaritan (John 8:48). Now in answer to a question a Jewish lawyer had put to Him about who his neighbor was, Jesus parabolically held up a Samaritan as an example. He was doing more that simply illustrating true neighborliness; He was humbly accepting their derogation of Him as a Samaritan. And He was telling them the purpose for which He had come: to save sinners waylaid on their journey by Satan and his emissaries, just as the poor man in His story had been attacked by robbers.
But seeing Jesus as the Good Samaritan necessarily involves identifying ourselves, not with the parable’s hero, but with its hapless victim. We were lost. Like the man in the parable, we had our backs to Jerusalem–the city whose very name means “The Foundation of Peace, Shalom”–and wer on our way to Jericho–the city of the curse (Joshua 6:26). And when we came to the predictable end of such a downward journey, this blessed “Neighbor” of ours, through His death for us on Calvary’s cross, came to where we were in our helpless condition. Anointing us with oil, frequently in Scripture a type of the Holy Spirit, and reviving our perishing spirits with the wine of His joy, He took us to an inn, a picture of His church, where we would be taken care of.
“We know we’re far from perfect,” the liberal theologian would reply to this interpretation of the parable, “but isn’t it a bit extreme to ask us to identify with a man left to die? Shouldn’t religion be an uplifting force in people’s lives? Surely our understanding of Scripture should appeal to human dignity and encourage the good side of human nature instead of stooping to a morbid preoccupation with sin and failure.”
It is not preoccupation with sin, but preoccupation with the holiness of God that leads us evangelicals to see sin as the first thing to be dealt with before we can go on and consider the more positive aspects of Christianity. To us it is not consistent with God’s holy character to envision Him as overlooking even a scintilla of sin, as being satisfied with the best His fallen creatures can do. That is why we emphasize the cross in our preaching. In the cross we see not a martyr suffering because He was misunderstood, but a Savior sent into the world by a loving God to shed his precious blood as an atonement for the sins of those who put their trust in Him.
There is no question, of course, that Jesus expected the lawyer–and that He expects us as well–to identify with the Samaritan. He told the parable in answer to the question the lawyer asked in a lame effort to justify himself, “And who is my neighbor?” Obviously, his neighbor was not the priest or the Levite who passed the pitiful stranger by, but the Samaritan who showed mercy on him. Jesus’ charge to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise,” is to us as well. But it is not until the sin question has been dealt with, decisively and unequivocally, that we evangelicals believe the individual is ready to respond to this charge. Once we have experienced the kindly dealings of this heavenly Neighbor, we are ready to be a neighbor ourselves. Once we have known mercy, we are prepared to show mercy. The gospel is all about mercy and grace, which dying men cry out for. Religion and the law, represented in the parable by the priest and the Levite, can tell living men what they should and should not do. But when the encounter the dying, however much they may care, they have no choice but to pass by on the other side.
Who was the Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable? He was. And in imitation of Him, we are.

by Norman E. Roberts alinorm@juno.com
posted with his permission

Visit -- www.telefonica.net/web/familiaknott website in English and Spanish
-- blogs en Español: http://carlosdiscipulo1.blogspot.com
http://asambleabetel.blogspot.com