A Christian Response to Osama Bin Laden's Death

As I was watching TV on Sunday evening, some breaking news flashed across the screen.  The reporter said that there was a "big announcement" that was fixing to come from the White House.  Fox News actually broke the story before the White House had a chance to do so:  "Osama Bin Laden is dead."  Once the news broke, the reporter was filled with joy.  He happened to be interviewing a retired general, and at one point they gave one another a high five.

I'll have to admit that when I first heard the news, my heart was excited as well.  For me it was a great relief to know that justice had finally been served.  But as I continued to watch the coverage that evening and early the next morning, I saw people dancing and yelling in the streets of Washington, New York, and several other places.  It caused me to stop and wonder, "Is all this celebration really a Christian response to the death of a wicked man?"

I've wrestled with that question for the last 24-48 hours, but I think the Holy Spirit has reminded me of some things I'd like to share with you.  First, I think it is completely appropriate for us to rejoice over the fact that justice has finally been served.  Romans 12:19 reminds us that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and the following verses of chapter 13 make it very clear that God has chosen our governing officials as a means of executing that vengeance:  "For he (the government) is God's minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minster, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (v. 4).  God has finally brought Osama Bin Laden to justice and for that we say, "Amen!"

And yet, I wonder what God thinks about all this celebration and high-fiving going on.  Should we rejoice over the death of a wicked man?  I think we can agree that our response to Bin Laden's death should be like our Lord's.  So what is our Lord's response to his death?  "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11).  If God took no pleasure in the death of Osama Bin Laden, neither should we.  Rather than killing the world's most notorious terrorist, it would've been the pleasure of our Lord to have saved him through the shed blood of His Son Jesus.  And yet, it seems that Bin Laden was not willing to come, much like the Jews during the ministry of our Savior (Matt. 23:37).

In all our joy and celebration, have we stopped to consider that Osama Bin Laden split the gates of hell wide open, if in fact he died lost apart from Christ?  Is that really a happy thought for us?  If it is, something is desperately wrong.  Rather than rejoicing over the death of a wicked man, our hearts should break that he now has no further opportunity to be reconciled to God.  It should also remind us of the missionary mandate to reach the world for Christ while there is still time.

The Holy Spirit laid one final thought on my heart.  We tend to put guys like Osama Bin Laden in the same category with people like Hitler and Stalin.  Whether most people would say it or not, they often tend to think that hell is really reserved for those kind of people.  We tend to think that they were "worse sinners" than us.  But consider what Jesus said:  "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).  The death of Osama Bin Laden should cause us to examine our own hearts to see if we are really children of God.

So let us rejoice that justice has been served, but let's take a look in the mirror as well.  Are we burdened over the spiritual condition of the lost?  And could it be that we ourselves are one of those lost apart from the saving grace of Jesus?  Let us all thank God that we still have a chance to receive Him and that we can compel others to do the same.  Let's save our rejoicing and high-fiving for the salvation of a lost person.  As Jesus said, "There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7).

Good News for Both Sides of the Tracks

I live in Morristown, TN.  It's a wonderful place to live.  Morristown is best described as Small-town, USA.  There's a tight, family feel throughout the community.  We still have service stations that offer full-service.  Local farmers still set up their produce stands right in the heart of town.  My wife and I could not ask for any better place to raise our children.

There are some train tracks that run right through the middle of town.  The tracks run from east to west and most of the folks around Morristown tend to think of the tracks as something of a boundary line.  Everything north of the tracks is the northside of town, and likewise for the southside.

Generally speaking, most of the residents would probably agree that the "nicer amenities" are found on the northside of town.  Most of the nicer homes are found north of the tracks.  The largest and most ornate church buildings are found there as well.  The northside is also home to Morristown's country club.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

The southside of town is a little different story, especially towards the middle of the city.  A large number of middle income folks used to live in small homes on the southside of town, but many of them have now relocated to the suburbs.  Consequently, their old homes have either been sold or have been passed on to loved ones after their death.  Homes on the southside are often a little older, in need of repair, and many of them have become rental properties.  The southside of town is also home to the local Housing Authority, also known as "the projects" to most of the locals.

While driving over the tracks today, a thought occurred to me:  "It doesn't matter what side of the tracks you live on.  The Gospel is good news to everyone on both sides of the tracks."  We often like to put people in categories, but God doesn't do that.  The Bible says that "the rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord is the Maker of the all" (Prov. 22:2).  As such, the Gospel of Jesus Christ "is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes - first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16).

How good it is to know that God's saving power and awesome love is not just good news for a few.  The death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior is God's gift to all mankind (1 Tim. 2:4).  That begs the question:  If the Gospel really is good news for everybody, why do we tend to share it only with those who are most like us?  Could it be that sometimes those on the northside of the tracks aren't interested in those on the southside, and vice versa?

Perhaps this will serve as a reminder to us that there won't be a set of train tracks running down the middle of heaven.  We'll only have one class of people in glory - the Bride of Christ.  God help us never to forget that we have the privilege of sharing His good news with everyone.  Maybe the greatest way we can honor our Savior during this Easter season is to share His Gospel with those on both sides of the tracks.  In doing so, we might be called "a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Matt. 11:19).  That's OK - it won't be the first time that's ever happened.  I think it happened to a man from Galilee about 2000 years ago.

Have We Become "Gospel-Hardened?"

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the Bible Drills of my church's local Baptist association.  While there I had the chance to catch up with one of my pastor friends.  I noticed he wasn't wearing his usual "Sunday best."  Instead, he was wearing a blue polo shirt.  As I got a little closer, I noticed it read "Honduras Mission Trip."  My pastor friend explained to me that his church had just returned from a great mission trip to Honduras.  He said they saw 148 people pray to receive Christ as Savior during the course of their trip.  Praise the Lord!

After we spent a few minutes rejoicing over what God had done, I asked him a question:  "Why don't we see God doing things like that in America today, especially where we pastor here in the South."  His response to me was very simple:  "I think we've become Gospel-hardened."  I knew what my pastor friend was talking about, but I don't think I'd ever heard it put quite that way before.  What my friend was trying to say is that in many cases the people of our churches and our communities have heard the Gospel so many times, it's almost as if they've become immune to it.

Let me give you an example.  Have you ever been sick for a long period of time only to have the doctor prescribe you a good dose of antibiotics?  If you have, then you know that antibiotics are very effective at treating illness...at least for a little while.  Yet after a while, the body begins to grow accustomed to the presence of the antibiotics.  As a result, they no longer do the job they were intended to do.  The body's immune system no longer feels the power of the antibiotics.

I'm concerned that perhaps that's exactly what has happened with the Gospel in America, especially in the South.  It seems like the people of our churches have been exposed to the Gospel so much that they are no longer excited by it's saving power.  Could we even say that the Gospel has become "past-tense" in some of our churches?  It's something that I responded to "way back there" when I walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, visited my preacher, etc.

We find some of the same attitudes when we go witnessing in our communities (which by the way is not near often enough).  We share the Gospel with folks and ask if they've placed their faith in Christ.  Some people respond by saying, "Oh yeah, I've already done that."  I'm usually tempted to ask, "Why aren't you and your family in church?"  If you think about it, a Christian that never goes to church is like a car that never drives down the road.  When others are asked about the Gospel, they seem completely disinterested.  "I've heard it all before" they might say.

So what's the problem?  Has the Gospel lost its power?  Absolutely not!  It is still "the power of God unto salvation for everyone that believes" (Rom. 1:16).  So why is it that people all over the world are coming to faith in droves, while the people of America seem to be totally indifferent?  Perhaps it's because we've become too prosperous.  We have faired so well that the Gospel has become like an unnecessary antibiotic to us.  God help us.

What's the answer?  I think we've got to pray that God would remove the spiritual blinders that the "god of this age" has placed over the minds of the people inside and outside our churches.  We may even need to pray that God would remove His hand of prosperity and protection so that people will see once again their need for a Savior.  Maybe when that happens, the people of our churches and communities will move from being Gospel-hardened to Gospel-humbled.  What a day it will be when Christians can genuinely sing that old song again, "I stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene, and wonder how He could love me - a sinner condemned unclean."

Churches Have Changed, But Have They Changed for the Better?

I was surprised to pick up my local newspaper recently and find an opinion column entitled "Old Time Religion." The column was written by a local writer who just happens to be a Christian and a member of a local church.  She shared a recent experience about a young man coming to her and inviting her and her family to his church.  To quote the writer, she said the invitation went like this:  "You and your husband and kids really ought to come to our church.  We don't sing any of that old timey music and nobody has to wear church clothes.  You just come anyway you are, and nobody cares what you do the rest of the week.  You just come and enjoy worship services and leave with a really good feeling."

Needless to say, the writer wasn't too impressed with the invitation.  While she thanked the young man for the invite, she also told him that she already had a church home and that she and her family would continue to worship there.

When I hear and read stories like this, I'm reminded yet again that churches have changed quite a bit over the last decade or so.  Naming all those changes would be virtually impossible, but I think it would be beneficial to mention a few.  As the young man mentioned, the music of many churches has changed.  Where churches once incorporated a lot of hymns into their worship, many of those hymns have now been labeled as "old timey music."  Consequently, they've been abandoned for songs with a much more modern sound.

I'm certainly not against music that has a more contemporary feel.  In fact, I like a good deal of the music that gets air-time on contemporary Christian radio stations.  Yet, I wonder if it's good that some modern churches have done away with the "old timey music."  I learned some of the richest and deepest theology of my life through the singing of those old standards.  Our music has definitely changed, but has it changed for the better?

The young man also indicated that church attire has changed over the last several years.  I would agree.  When I was a kid, it would have been unthinkable to get up on Sunday morning and wear shorts and bluejeans to worship.  Now we find it to be a common occurrence.  Why the difference?  I think it has to do with a new attitude about worship.  As the young man said, "You just come anyway you are."  To me, it begs the question:  Why did the old-timers feel that they needed to dress up when they went to God's house?  Perhaps it was because they were trying to present the very best they had to God.  "Church clothes" have surely changed, but I wonder if they've changed for the better.

And as the young man indicated to the writer, at his church you can come and worship "and nobody cares what you do for the rest of the week."  I doubt that is the message that the young man's pastor was trying to send, but it's pretty sad that he received that impression.  Maybe the young man got that impression because it seems that even the message of many churches has changed.  In some churches, doctrines that have stood intact for centuries are now being cast to the wayside.

Rob Bell, pastor of a contemporary megachurch in Grand Rapids, Michigan, just recently wrote a book called Love Wins.  In the book, he essentially denies the biblical doctrines of heaven and hell.  That's right - the man who is a pastor of what is supposed to be an evangelical church denies the bibically-based and historically-cherished doctrines of heaven and hell.  The message and the doctrines of many churches have changed, but have they changed for the better?

Clearly, there are no shortage of changes in our churches, but my concern is that our churches don't have THE CHANGE they most desperately need.  I'm talking about the kind of change that comes from a life that's totally surrendered to Jesus Christ.  We can change our music, our clothes, our buildings, and anything else we want to.  But until the people in our churches are changed, our world will continue to see most of our churches as an irrelevant and unnecessary joke.  Perhaps they're right.

A President Who Refuses to Defend the Law

Today I was both shocked and saddened to learn that the President of the United States is refusing to allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The DOMA became the law of the land in 1996 when both houses of Congress approved it and President Clinton signed it.  Simply stated, the DOMA says that the federal government will only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It also grants each state the privilege of determining marriage laws for its own individual state.  As part of DOMA, no state is required to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be permitted in other states.

This law has been defended by the DOJ for the last 15 years, and rightfully so because it is the LAW of the land.  And yet, now we have a President who seems to think that the law of the land is no longer worthy of a defense by the DOJ.  While this is hard to believe, I found that the President's actions are not unprecedented.  There have been a few cases when the DOJ has declined to defend statutes.

Those rare cases can be broken down into three categories.  The first category include cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable.  Clearly this first category does not apply in this case of the DOMA.  The second category involves statutes that in the DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself.  Again, that does not apply in this case of the DOMA.

The third and smallest category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional.  This third category actually does apply in this case because the President just recently said that he believes Section 3 of the DOMA is unconstitutional.  But even with that being said, that is only his opinion, and the last time I checked his opinion is not the law.

Think about this:  Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In other words, it is the President's job to "defend the Constitution of the United States."  While I understand that the DOMA is not the Constitution, clearly the legislative branch of our government has determined the DOMA to be a law that is constitutional.  For this President to instruct the DOJ not to defend a law that has been deemed constitutional by both houses of Congress and a U.S. President is both irresponsible and incomprehensible.

Much of the info I gathered for this post came from a Georgetown Law Professor named Nan Hunter.  You can access her thoughts here.  She is by no means a "conservative" thinker.  And yet, she came to this conclusion in 2009:  "While it is not impossible for the DOJ to refuse to defend the DOMA, it would be an extraordinary act for them to do so" (emphasis mine).  Ms. Hunter, I couldn't agree with you more.

I hope all this grieves your heart just as much as it has mine.  More importantly, I hope this is yet another wake-up call to remind us to pray for our President and governing officials.  In this case, not only are they governing in a way that is irresponsible, but they're leading in a way that is unbiblical.  We know what God did in places like Sodom and Gomorrah, and Judah, and Rome when the powers that be decided to endorse the homosexual lifestyle - one that God consistently calls an abomination.

How can we hope to avoid the same fate they experienced if we open wide the door to homosexual marriage?  Clearly we won't, nor should we.  If God judged homosexuality back then, He will continue to do so today.  Let us pray that our leaders will learn a lesson from history (and the Scripture) and that they will change course immediately.  Revival is the only hope left for our land.  I'm praying that it will begin at the house of God and that it will touch both the houses of Congress and even the White House.

Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?

Today I had the privilege of visiting an institution of higher learning.  I went to listen to a speaker who came to talk about the ultimate purpose of Christ's coming to earth.  The speaker gave a passionate lecture for about 40 minutes.  He was very engaging and clearly he possesses a wonderful gift of communication.  The speaker concluded that Jesus came to this earth to establish the kingdom of God.  With that I heartily agree, but still it begs the question:  What is the kingdom of God and how did Christ instruct His followers to establish it?

According to the speaker, the kingdom of God is essentially the reign of Jesus Christ over all the earth.  He explained that Christ's kingdom is ultimately established through the means of social justice - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.  He said that "justice, and love, and changing the structures of the social order" are the reasons for which Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross.  As the speaker brought his message to a conclusion, he urged the students and faculty to "change the world through social justice."

I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the man said.  He said things that I wish every church could've heard.  But still, I found myself wondering, "Did Jesus really come to change the social order?  Was that His ultimate purpose for coming and dying on the cross?"

I'd like to submit that Christ did not come simply to change the social order.  His coming was not just about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and relieving the burdens of the afflicted.  While Jesus certainly did all those things (and much more), that was not His ultimate purpose for coming to earth.  Even Jesus acknowledged "the poor you have with you always" (John 12:8).  Now matter how much "social justice" we do, there will always be those who have a multitude of physical and material needs.

So why did Christ come?  Christ came to this earth to pay the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross.  By dying in our place, Jesus satisfied the wrath of His holy Heavenly Father.  His death on the cross has opened wide the gates of heaven to all those that will place their faith in Him.  Jesus also came to make disciples out of each one of us.  That means He has commissioned us not only to follow Jesus, but to teach others how to do the same.

Let me explain.  When Jesus met Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was a murderer.  In fact, he was going to Damascus to kill Christians.  Saul was in a state of reprobation (rejected by God), but Jesus wanted to do a work of transformation in his life.  Jesus said it was for this purpose that He wanted to send Saul to the Gentiles:  "to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18).

In other words, Jesus did not come merely to change the social order.  He came to transform human souls - to turn us from darkness to light!  Don't get me wrong.  There's nothing wrong with changing the natural order of things, but lasting change will never occur until sins have been forgiven and souls have been saved.  You can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and relieve the afflicted all you want, but until Christ transforms human souls it's all for naught.

I've written this post for this reason:  We need to be careful that we don't change the Gospel of Christ from a life-transforming message into a humanitarian campaign, otherwise known as "the social gospel."  I'm convinced that Christ and his followers would not have even recognized such a perversion of the Gospel.  Remember, Paul challenged the Galatians with these words:  "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8).

So what is the true Gospel?  Why did Jesus really come?  This same Paul provides us with the answer: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. 1:15).  May we never tire of sharing the Gospel of our Lord with both the rich and the poor - the blessed and the afflicted.  Then, and only then, will the social order be radically changed for the glory of God.

Does God's Word Direct Us to Accept Everyone?

My last blog post had to do with Belmont University.  If you read it, you know that the school just recently added "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policy - a move that basically paves the way for them to hire gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gendered individuals.  The school's trustee chairman indicated that the school would remain true to its Christian heritage when it relieved a lesbian soccer coach of her duties.  Yet, within a matter of days the school "changed its tune" when a wealthy music mogul made a $10,000,000 donation to the school.  Funny how that kind of money has a way of helping individuals and institutions to change their minds.

I learned about this story primarily through the writing of Lonnie Wilkey, editor of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's Baptist & Reflector.  He basically took Belmont University to task for compromising under the weight of the almighty dollar.  Since then, others have taken exception with what Lonnie had to write.  One such writer, Chris McCain of The Tennessean, published an article entitled "Following God's Word Means Accepting Everyone."

That brings me back to my original question:  Does God's Word really direct us to accept everyone?  The answer to that question depends on how one defines the word "accept."  If by "accept" someone means that we are to love everyone and seek their salvation and discipleship, clearly the answer to that question is yes.  If you read Mr. McCain's article, it's very clear he's not using that definition of "accept."  For him, acceptance means a complete endorsement of someone's lifestyle - in this case, the lifestyle of a homosexual.  He argues that "to label homosexuality as a sin places human limits on God's love."  In other words, unless you're willing to completely endorse the lifestyle of a homosexual, you're short-changing the love of God.

I'd like to respectfully disagree.  It is entirely possible for a Christian to love everyone without condoning their sinful behaviors.  Since Mr. McCain made reference to Jesus in his article, it will aid us to look at how Jesus dealt with similar situations of sin.  John 7:53-8:11 shares with us the story of the woman who was caught in adultery.  When given a chance to condemn her to death, Christ looked down at the adulterous woman and forgave her sins.  In doing so, he demonstrated the love of God.

It's at that point of the story where our liberal friends always seem to stop, but her story was not finished there.  What did Jesus say next?  "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11).  The fact that Jesus loved the adulterous woman didn't stop Him from confronting her with her sin and calling her to repentance.  In doing so, he demonstrated the holiness of God.  So then, if we're going to be faithful to our Lord, we must also demonstrate God's love and holiness.  We can't do that if we start accepting every sinful lifestyle that comes down the pike.

And by the way, if "following God's Word means accepting everyone," I wonder if Mr. McCain would be in favor of Belmont "accepting" pedophiles under the school's non-discrimination policy?  What about polygamists?  Or perhaps even those who practice bestiality?  If following God's Word means accepting everyone, shouldn't those who practice such things also be considered for hiring by the school?

Obviously, Mr. McCain doesn't really mean everyone when he says everyone.  He wants to define who "everyone" is.  Here is Mr. McCain's dilemma:  The choice is not his to make.  The choice is God's to make and He settled it a long time ago when He gave us His precious, inerrant Word.  Rather than giving lip-service to God and distorting the truth of His Word, my prayer is that we will all continue to demonstrate both His love and holiness by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).  Our world needs Him now more than ever.