Recently I was saddened by a story I read in Baptist Press. The story mentions the plight of several privately-owned American businesses that have either been forced or probably will be forced to extend their services to homosexuals, regardless of their religious convictions. It's worthy to note that the businesses are all located in states where homosexual "marriage"/civil unions have been legalized. Also worthy of note is that the businesses are not just confined to one geographical area of our country. You can find these businesses all the way from New England to the Pacific Ocean.
What's troubling is that privately-owned, Christian businesses are being forced to do things that are clearly against their religious convictions. The last time I checked the Constitution, the first Amendment still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In siding with the plaintiffs in these cases, the courts have basically denied these business owners the freedom to exercise their religious convictions.
There are a couple of other things I've noticed about this story. First, none of the states who have homosexual "marriage"/civil unions laws on the books have allowed their citizens to vote on the issue. In every case, the courts have dictated to its citizens what the law will be. That is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's actually called oligarchy - the rule of a few over many. In this case, it is the rule of the courts over the citizens. The plight of these businesses should remind us that it is not the place of the courts to create our laws. It is the place of the courts to interpret the laws that have been created by the citizenry and our elected officials.
Furthermore, did you notice how groups like the ACLU have taken up the cause of the plaintiffs in all these cases. What does ACLU stand for anyway? American Civil Liberties Union. Why is it that the ACLU never argues that the civil liberties of the Bible-believing Christians have been infringed upon when they are unable to practice their religion as they see fit? The ACLU always takes up the cause of the most radical left-wing groups among us. Pardon me if I think something smells a little fishy.
America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is still a nation that was set aside for the free exercise of one's religious convictions. And in American's case, those religious convictions have always been Judeo-Christian in nature. Yet, the beautiful thing about this country is that no one has to practice either Judaism or Christianity. Our citizens have always been free to worship whom or what they will in whatever way they see fit.
If homosexuals want to worship their own gods or no god at all, that is entirely up to them. Many American citizens have fought and died for their right to do so. But what is not acceptable is that unelected officials are now forcing us to accept the homosexual lifestyle. Not only is that unconstitutional, it is ungodly. I would hope that every red-blooded American would rise up and stand against the erosion of our most fundamental religious rights. Even more, I pray that every blood-washed Christian will continue to speak the truth in love and ask God to send revival to the spiritual wasteland that our country has become.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Evolution, Adam & Eve, and the Age of the Earth
LifeWay Christian Resources, one of the educational arms of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently released a study that is worthy of some consideration. LifeWay surveyed 1,000 Protestant (non-Catholic) pastors to gauge their views on evolution, Adam & Eve, and the age of the earth. As with most surveys, some results were expected while others were nothing short of shocking. In assessing the results I'd like to deal with the previously-mentioned issues one at a time. My ultimate desire is to share what God's Word has to say about each of the subjects in question.
Let's start with the issue of evolution. According to the survey, 64% of pastors strongly disagree that God used evolution to create human beings. 8% of pastors somewhat disagreed that God used evolution to create humans, so you might say that almost 75% (3 out of 4) pastors are fairly convinced that God didn't use evolution to create humans. On the other hand, 24% of pastors either somewhat or strongly agree that God used evolution to create humans.
While it's encouraging to see that most pastors believe the biblical account of creation, it's still alarming to me that 1 of 4 pastors either leans toward or is convinced of evolution. You might not think there is cause to be alarmed but I beg to differ. For starters, the plain testimony of Scripture is that God created the world in six days, and that on the sixth day He created man and woman in His own image (Gen. 1:26). To suggest that God used evolution to create humans is to contradict the truth of Scripture.
Since we've already mentioned the "image of God," I've got a question for those who would suggest that humans evolved: Where along the way did humans pick up the image of God in the evolutionary process? Was it in the transition from sea to land? Or perhaps it was in the evolution from ape to man. No evolutionist could ever answer these questions because there is no answer.
Let's move to Adam and Eve. 74% of Protestant pastors strongly agree that Adam and Eve were literal people, and 8% somewhat agree. That leaves 17% who either strongly or somewhat disagree that Adam and Eve were real humans. While I'm encouraged that the overwhelming majority of pastors affirm Adam and Eve's existence, it's still hard to imagine that almost 1 in every 5 Protestant pastors doesn't think that the two actually lived.
Of course, this is nothing new. Liberal college, universities, and schools of theology have been teaching for years that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal. They've told us that the stories concerning Adam & Eve, Noah, etc., were just allegorical accounts borrowed from other cultures. In other words, they were just bed-time stories that people from all over the ancient world used to tell their kids when they tucked them in at night.
Here's the problem with that viewpoint. If Adam and Eve were not literal people, then there was no Garden of Eden. If there was no Garden of Eden, then there was never a time when man was first tempted and fell into sin. If there was no fall into sin, then there was no need for Savior. And of course, no need for a Savior means no need of a cross, a tomb, or a resurrection. Simply stated, if you're willing to take Adam and Eve out of the picture, you may as well remove Christ too. That may get you an "A" in your college Religion course, but that worldview is clearly not Christianity. So then, 1 of 5 Protestant pastors possesses a worldview that's not even Christian. Ouch! No wonder we're in the mess we're in.
Finally, let's consider the age of the earth. 43% of the pastors either somewhat or strongly disagreed that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, while 46% to the opposing view. As you can see, pastors are clearly more divided on this issue than the others. I think it has to do with the fact that many well-meaning pastors are attempting to harmonize the precepts of modern science with the truths of Scripture.
To that end, a good number of pastors believe in some form of theistic evolution, whether it be day-age theories of creation, gap theories, etc. The idea is that God created everything that exists about 13.8 billion years ago. They believe that God either used evolution as His creation process, or they are forced to reinterpret the Bible to say that the six days of creation are actually eons of time that may have lasted billions of years instead of 24 hours.
Time will not permit me to provide all the reasons that I feel those well-meaning pastors are wrong, but I think it is very clear that the Bible is not on their side. The greatest problem with day-age theories, gap theories, and the like is that they attempt to use God as a bookend that they place in front of an atheistic worldview. To be frank, saying you believe the Bible while also declaring that the world is billions of years old is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it just won't work.
I've got an idea. Why don't we just believe God's Word and go on? The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, so forget evolution. The Bible says that Adam & Eve were real humans with real sins who needed a real Savior to set them free. And in providing the genealogies of our Savior, the Bible confirms that the earth is not 13.8 billion years old. It is much younger than the modern prophets of science would have us to believe.
We've got a choice to make. Either we can believe God's Word, or we can accept the arguments of the secular humanists. But whatever we do, we can't ride two horses. It's time for us to get with God or go with the world. I think Joshua said it best: "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15).
Let's start with the issue of evolution. According to the survey, 64% of pastors strongly disagree that God used evolution to create human beings. 8% of pastors somewhat disagreed that God used evolution to create humans, so you might say that almost 75% (3 out of 4) pastors are fairly convinced that God didn't use evolution to create humans. On the other hand, 24% of pastors either somewhat or strongly agree that God used evolution to create humans.
While it's encouraging to see that most pastors believe the biblical account of creation, it's still alarming to me that 1 of 4 pastors either leans toward or is convinced of evolution. You might not think there is cause to be alarmed but I beg to differ. For starters, the plain testimony of Scripture is that God created the world in six days, and that on the sixth day He created man and woman in His own image (Gen. 1:26). To suggest that God used evolution to create humans is to contradict the truth of Scripture.
Since we've already mentioned the "image of God," I've got a question for those who would suggest that humans evolved: Where along the way did humans pick up the image of God in the evolutionary process? Was it in the transition from sea to land? Or perhaps it was in the evolution from ape to man. No evolutionist could ever answer these questions because there is no answer.
Let's move to Adam and Eve. 74% of Protestant pastors strongly agree that Adam and Eve were literal people, and 8% somewhat agree. That leaves 17% who either strongly or somewhat disagree that Adam and Eve were real humans. While I'm encouraged that the overwhelming majority of pastors affirm Adam and Eve's existence, it's still hard to imagine that almost 1 in every 5 Protestant pastors doesn't think that the two actually lived.
Of course, this is nothing new. Liberal college, universities, and schools of theology have been teaching for years that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal. They've told us that the stories concerning Adam & Eve, Noah, etc., were just allegorical accounts borrowed from other cultures. In other words, they were just bed-time stories that people from all over the ancient world used to tell their kids when they tucked them in at night.
Here's the problem with that viewpoint. If Adam and Eve were not literal people, then there was no Garden of Eden. If there was no Garden of Eden, then there was never a time when man was first tempted and fell into sin. If there was no fall into sin, then there was no need for Savior. And of course, no need for a Savior means no need of a cross, a tomb, or a resurrection. Simply stated, if you're willing to take Adam and Eve out of the picture, you may as well remove Christ too. That may get you an "A" in your college Religion course, but that worldview is clearly not Christianity. So then, 1 of 5 Protestant pastors possesses a worldview that's not even Christian. Ouch! No wonder we're in the mess we're in.
Finally, let's consider the age of the earth. 43% of the pastors either somewhat or strongly disagreed that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, while 46% to the opposing view. As you can see, pastors are clearly more divided on this issue than the others. I think it has to do with the fact that many well-meaning pastors are attempting to harmonize the precepts of modern science with the truths of Scripture.
To that end, a good number of pastors believe in some form of theistic evolution, whether it be day-age theories of creation, gap theories, etc. The idea is that God created everything that exists about 13.8 billion years ago. They believe that God either used evolution as His creation process, or they are forced to reinterpret the Bible to say that the six days of creation are actually eons of time that may have lasted billions of years instead of 24 hours.
Time will not permit me to provide all the reasons that I feel those well-meaning pastors are wrong, but I think it is very clear that the Bible is not on their side. The greatest problem with day-age theories, gap theories, and the like is that they attempt to use God as a bookend that they place in front of an atheistic worldview. To be frank, saying you believe the Bible while also declaring that the world is billions of years old is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it just won't work.
I've got an idea. Why don't we just believe God's Word and go on? The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, so forget evolution. The Bible says that Adam & Eve were real humans with real sins who needed a real Savior to set them free. And in providing the genealogies of our Savior, the Bible confirms that the earth is not 13.8 billion years old. It is much younger than the modern prophets of science would have us to believe.
We've got a choice to make. Either we can believe God's Word, or we can accept the arguments of the secular humanists. But whatever we do, we can't ride two horses. It's time for us to get with God or go with the world. I think Joshua said it best: "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15).
Thursday, December 29, 2011
No Worship Service on Christmas Day? Really?
Something has been bothering me for a while, but until now I haven't had a chance to write about it. Prior to Christmas I was told that several churches across the country, and even some in my own community, were not going to have any worship services on Christmas Day. Honestly, when I first heard and read of those stories I thought it was a joke. Wouldn't that be like the beaches closing during the summer or the mountains closing during the fall? But sadly I found that the stories were true. I passed a couple of empty church parking lots on Christmas Sunday morning.
What I'm going to say next will not sit well with some, but I'm convinced that enough is enough. Frankly, I'm not concerned with who this might offend. I mean, what's next? No service on Easter Sunday? Doesn't that make sense? If you would cancel services on the day we've set aside to celebrate Christ's birth, why not cancel services on the day we've set aside to celebrate His resurrection?
What really gets under my skin are some of the lame excuses that were offered up to justify the Christmas cancellations. The most prominent one I heard is "we want to give our people some time to spend with their families." I'm sorry, but that's one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. Have we become so preoccupied with our own lives, families, and possessions that we can't find a few minutes to come and worship at God's house on Christmas?
By the way, I wonder what kind of testimony we set before the world when some of us chose to cancel worship. I can just imagine the irony in a lost person's mind as he/she considered that the Waffle House and Walgreens were open on Christmas but the church chose to close. For the last several years our culture has started to treat Christmas as just another day. Judging by the actions of some of our churches, perhaps the culture is right. Maybe Christmas is just another day.
I could be wrong, but I think the cancellation of services at Christmas was really done to give us a morning off so we could open gifts and play with our new toys. Maybe the greatest damage was done to our kids. What lesson did they learn by staying home on Christmas morning? Perhaps they got the impression that me and my gifts are more important than the Heavenly Father and His greatest Gift. The next time Christmas falls on a Sunday, I genuinely hope that every house of God will remain open for business.
What I'm going to say next will not sit well with some, but I'm convinced that enough is enough. Frankly, I'm not concerned with who this might offend. I mean, what's next? No service on Easter Sunday? Doesn't that make sense? If you would cancel services on the day we've set aside to celebrate Christ's birth, why not cancel services on the day we've set aside to celebrate His resurrection?
What really gets under my skin are some of the lame excuses that were offered up to justify the Christmas cancellations. The most prominent one I heard is "we want to give our people some time to spend with their families." I'm sorry, but that's one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. Have we become so preoccupied with our own lives, families, and possessions that we can't find a few minutes to come and worship at God's house on Christmas?
By the way, I wonder what kind of testimony we set before the world when some of us chose to cancel worship. I can just imagine the irony in a lost person's mind as he/she considered that the Waffle House and Walgreens were open on Christmas but the church chose to close. For the last several years our culture has started to treat Christmas as just another day. Judging by the actions of some of our churches, perhaps the culture is right. Maybe Christmas is just another day.
I could be wrong, but I think the cancellation of services at Christmas was really done to give us a morning off so we could open gifts and play with our new toys. Maybe the greatest damage was done to our kids. What lesson did they learn by staying home on Christmas morning? Perhaps they got the impression that me and my gifts are more important than the Heavenly Father and His greatest Gift. The next time Christmas falls on a Sunday, I genuinely hope that every house of God will remain open for business.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Segregated Churches and Separated Truths
You've heard of "different strokes for different folks," but have you ever heard of different sermons for different shades? A recent experience brought that question to mind. One of the tools our church's website uses is Google Analytics. It is basically used to tell you who visited your website and how they got there. One of the features I enjoy is that it will tell you exactly what keywords someone entered to find your website.
While doing a recent study of our Analytics results, I noticed that someone from Oklahoma actually entered this phrase into the search engine: "2 Chronicles 20:1-30 black pastor sermons" (emphasis mine). I'll have to confess that I was taken back for a few minutes. Someone was not just searching for a sermon on that particular text - they were searching for a "black pastor" sermon on that text.
It caused me to wonder, "Does God's truth now come in different colors?" I mean, isn't it bad enough that our churches are already as segregated as they are? We're no longer satisfied with worshiping apart from one another based on categories of race, economics, etc. Apparently, even our messages need some semblance of segregation - one message for the white man, and yet another for the black man. What next? One message for the poor man and another for the rich man? One message for men and another for women? Why not one message for republicans and another for democrats?
My point is very simple: God's truth is universal. While there may be different applications for different audiences, I think we've got a problem when we start trying to discern and communicate God's truth through the filters of our own flawed preferences and categories. I'm certainly no super-Christian, but never once has it crossed my mind to do a search for a "white pastor" sermon. What would that even mean?
Rather than going to God with our biases, agendas, and preferences, perhaps we should go to God's Word as little children ready to receive what the Father has prepared for us. His truth requires no biases or subdivisions - not one set of truths for this audience and yet another set of truths for that audience. His truth transcends race, gender, economics, and any other category we'd like to throw over it. Rather than molding God's truth into our image, I hope we'll all allow His truth to mold our lives into the image of His Son. Maybe then our churches will look much less segregated and much more like heaven.
While doing a recent study of our Analytics results, I noticed that someone from Oklahoma actually entered this phrase into the search engine: "2 Chronicles 20:1-30 black pastor sermons" (emphasis mine). I'll have to confess that I was taken back for a few minutes. Someone was not just searching for a sermon on that particular text - they were searching for a "black pastor" sermon on that text.
It caused me to wonder, "Does God's truth now come in different colors?" I mean, isn't it bad enough that our churches are already as segregated as they are? We're no longer satisfied with worshiping apart from one another based on categories of race, economics, etc. Apparently, even our messages need some semblance of segregation - one message for the white man, and yet another for the black man. What next? One message for the poor man and another for the rich man? One message for men and another for women? Why not one message for republicans and another for democrats?
My point is very simple: God's truth is universal. While there may be different applications for different audiences, I think we've got a problem when we start trying to discern and communicate God's truth through the filters of our own flawed preferences and categories. I'm certainly no super-Christian, but never once has it crossed my mind to do a search for a "white pastor" sermon. What would that even mean?
Rather than going to God with our biases, agendas, and preferences, perhaps we should go to God's Word as little children ready to receive what the Father has prepared for us. His truth requires no biases or subdivisions - not one set of truths for this audience and yet another set of truths for that audience. His truth transcends race, gender, economics, and any other category we'd like to throw over it. Rather than molding God's truth into our image, I hope we'll all allow His truth to mold our lives into the image of His Son. Maybe then our churches will look much less segregated and much more like heaven.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
How Do We Make Decisions?
As I was returning from lunch this afternoon, I was listening to the Dave Ramsey Show. A gentleman called in with his dilemma. He basically admitted that he had lived in the casinos for a number of years, but that he left that scene about 2 years ago. While he said he had made a substantial amount of money gambling in the casinos, he basically implied that his lifestyle was turning into an addiction. Clearly, I commend the man for being willing to leave the casinos, even when he was making quite a profit off of them.
But the man's story was not finished there. He explained that he has learned many of this gambling ways from his father. Apparently, his father had not fared so well at the gambling tables. He explained that his dad had a $225,000 mortgage, but that because he was so far in gambling debt that he would not be able to make good on the repayment of the loan. So, the father set a proposal before his son. He said he would give his son what little bit of money he had left if his son would go and turn it into a profit at the casinos. The bottom line is that the son was calling Dave Ramsey because he had mixed emotions about returning to the casinos, but he didn't want to see his father lose his home either.
What kind of advice would you give to the young man if you were in Dave Ramsey's shoes? I can tell you what Mr. Ramsey said. He told the young man to tell his father: "I'm sorry Dad. I can't go back to the casinos to help you. I'm not going to give an alcohol his next drink." That's pretty good advice, and I suspect Mr. Ramsey's opinion has something to do with the fact that he professes to be a born-again Christian.
But still I'd like to know, what would you have counseled the young man to do? We can understand why the son might have mixed emotions about going back to the casinos, but would it really be all that wrong for the young man to go back so he can help his struggling father? Some would argue that returning to the casinos would really be the best thing for the young man to do if he really loves his dad.
Every day decisions like this have to be made. When the moment of decision comes, I wonder how you and I make decisions. Or how do we decide what kind of counsel to give when others have decisions like this that must be made. I sincerely hope that we are turning to the Word of God when these issues of life need to be determined.
If I were counseling this young man, I would have to tell him that returning to the casinos (or to any form of gambling) is not the answer. Why? Because God's Word condemns gambling. Not only did he rebuke Israel for sitting at the "tables of chance" (Isa. 65:11), but gambling flies in the face of everything God has said about the making and mastering of money. To gamble is to sin, and clearly we would not want to counsel anyone to walk in the paths of sin - no matter how well-intentioned they might be.
So what of the father who stands to lose his home? I would encourage the son to talk to his dad to see if he has any assets that can be sold to help meet the debts. If not, I would encourage the son to help his father secure an honest job that would help him in paying his debts. If the father were not capable of working due to handicap or disability, I would encourage the son to do all he can to help provide for some of his father's bills. But under no circumstances would I counsel the son (or the father) to go back to gambling.
But you say, "The father could lose his home." That's true, but such are the consequences of a life of sin sometimes. We can't just expect to live in a way that is contradictory to God and then not have to suffer the consequences along the way. And remember, the Bible says "Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure with trouble" (Prov. 15:16). And again, "Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than one perverse in his ways, though he be rich" (Prov. 28:6).
So I hope you and I will consider how we make our decisions. As Christians, I'm convinced that biblical ignorance is not always our problem. Many times we know what God's Word says - we just don't always want to do it. When the decisions of life must be made in our own life and in the lives of others, I hope we'll be found turning to God's Word. God's path is not always the easiest one, but it is always best!
But the man's story was not finished there. He explained that he has learned many of this gambling ways from his father. Apparently, his father had not fared so well at the gambling tables. He explained that his dad had a $225,000 mortgage, but that because he was so far in gambling debt that he would not be able to make good on the repayment of the loan. So, the father set a proposal before his son. He said he would give his son what little bit of money he had left if his son would go and turn it into a profit at the casinos. The bottom line is that the son was calling Dave Ramsey because he had mixed emotions about returning to the casinos, but he didn't want to see his father lose his home either.
What kind of advice would you give to the young man if you were in Dave Ramsey's shoes? I can tell you what Mr. Ramsey said. He told the young man to tell his father: "I'm sorry Dad. I can't go back to the casinos to help you. I'm not going to give an alcohol his next drink." That's pretty good advice, and I suspect Mr. Ramsey's opinion has something to do with the fact that he professes to be a born-again Christian.
But still I'd like to know, what would you have counseled the young man to do? We can understand why the son might have mixed emotions about going back to the casinos, but would it really be all that wrong for the young man to go back so he can help his struggling father? Some would argue that returning to the casinos would really be the best thing for the young man to do if he really loves his dad.
Every day decisions like this have to be made. When the moment of decision comes, I wonder how you and I make decisions. Or how do we decide what kind of counsel to give when others have decisions like this that must be made. I sincerely hope that we are turning to the Word of God when these issues of life need to be determined.
If I were counseling this young man, I would have to tell him that returning to the casinos (or to any form of gambling) is not the answer. Why? Because God's Word condemns gambling. Not only did he rebuke Israel for sitting at the "tables of chance" (Isa. 65:11), but gambling flies in the face of everything God has said about the making and mastering of money. To gamble is to sin, and clearly we would not want to counsel anyone to walk in the paths of sin - no matter how well-intentioned they might be.
So what of the father who stands to lose his home? I would encourage the son to talk to his dad to see if he has any assets that can be sold to help meet the debts. If not, I would encourage the son to help his father secure an honest job that would help him in paying his debts. If the father were not capable of working due to handicap or disability, I would encourage the son to do all he can to help provide for some of his father's bills. But under no circumstances would I counsel the son (or the father) to go back to gambling.
But you say, "The father could lose his home." That's true, but such are the consequences of a life of sin sometimes. We can't just expect to live in a way that is contradictory to God and then not have to suffer the consequences along the way. And remember, the Bible says "Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure with trouble" (Prov. 15:16). And again, "Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than one perverse in his ways, though he be rich" (Prov. 28:6).
So I hope you and I will consider how we make our decisions. As Christians, I'm convinced that biblical ignorance is not always our problem. Many times we know what God's Word says - we just don't always want to do it. When the decisions of life must be made in our own life and in the lives of others, I hope we'll be found turning to God's Word. God's path is not always the easiest one, but it is always best!
Thursday, June 9, 2011
"Preacher, Does This Church Belong to You?"
That's definitely my favorite question I've been asked at VBS this year. Hanging with the kids is always so much fun. They're full of questions, and almost always they are very sincere and innocent when they ask them. God gave me quick grace to answer the little girl's question. I responded, "No honey, this church belongs to Jesus."
But a little later, I started thinking about my answer to the little girl's question. Did I answer her honestly? Can we genuinely say that this church belongs to Jesus? Of course, the church does belong to our Savior. He said in Matt. 16:18, "On this rock I will build MY church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." No doubt - the church belongs to Jesus.
So then, I guess we've got to answer the question, "Is this group of people really a part of Christ's church?" The church is the Body of Christ, and we know that we become a member of Christ's body at the very moment we place our faith in Him. All that is pretty elementary stuff, but what we need to determine is if we're acting like we belong to Jesus.
I'm convinced that if we belong to Jesus, we'll start doing what He says. So what did Christ tell us to do? He instructed us to do many things, but the last marching orders He left us with were these: "Go and make disciples" (Matt. 28:19). The last thing Christ wanted His church to know before He left this earth for heaven was "go and make disciples."
So back to that little girl's question. Does the church I pastor really belong to Jesus? Does the church you attend really belong to Jesus? There's a sure-fire way to find out. How many disciples are we making? How many unchurched people are we reaching? God help us all to answer these questions and to make sure that our churches belong to Christ.
But a little later, I started thinking about my answer to the little girl's question. Did I answer her honestly? Can we genuinely say that this church belongs to Jesus? Of course, the church does belong to our Savior. He said in Matt. 16:18, "On this rock I will build MY church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." No doubt - the church belongs to Jesus.
So then, I guess we've got to answer the question, "Is this group of people really a part of Christ's church?" The church is the Body of Christ, and we know that we become a member of Christ's body at the very moment we place our faith in Him. All that is pretty elementary stuff, but what we need to determine is if we're acting like we belong to Jesus.
I'm convinced that if we belong to Jesus, we'll start doing what He says. So what did Christ tell us to do? He instructed us to do many things, but the last marching orders He left us with were these: "Go and make disciples" (Matt. 28:19). The last thing Christ wanted His church to know before He left this earth for heaven was "go and make disciples."
So back to that little girl's question. Does the church I pastor really belong to Jesus? Does the church you attend really belong to Jesus? There's a sure-fire way to find out. How many disciples are we making? How many unchurched people are we reaching? God help us all to answer these questions and to make sure that our churches belong to Christ.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Judging a Book By Its Cover
My oldest son, Tanner, has become an avid reader. Just this past year he read about 40 or 50 books for his school's AR program and finished at the top of his class. I'll be honest - that's more books than I read in my entire K-12 experience. I've become a much better reader since then, but I definitely got off to a slow start. Tanner really got interested in the Percy Jackson series of books this past school year. He read all five in the series and just completed "The Lost Hero" a couple of months ago. Some of those books were hundreds of pages long with small font and no pictures. His mother and I thank God for his new-found love of reading.
And yet we had an experience at Wal-Mart a few months back. While perusing the book section of Mr. Walton's Supercenter, their was a book that immediately caught Tanner's attention. I'll have to admit I was impressed as well. It had a metallic cover with a Punisher-type skull on the front of it. It was just the kind of book that a young boy would be attracted to. Tanner asked if he could have it so I picked it up and read the back cover of the book.
After reading the back cover I turned to Tanner and said, "Trust me, you won't like this." I can't remember now exactly what the plot of the book was, but I knew it wouldn't interest my son. And yet he was smitten with the cover - he had to have the book. Realizing I wouldn't be able to talk him out of it, I decided to buy him the book. He was pumped about getting this shiny new book, but as he began to read it his enthusiasm turned into boredom. Needless to say, the book couldn't deliver what the chrome cover seemed to promise.
We've all been guilty of judging a book by its cover, but of course it's not just books that we judge. We're often guilty of judging other people based on their appearance. I was reminded of this while reading the words of Paul today. He asked the Corinthians: "Do you look at things according to the outward appearance?" (2 Cor. 10:7). If so, then Paul knew he was in trouble. Apparently the Corinthians had already started judging him. Some of them were saying, "his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible" (2 Cor. 10:10).
Paul was not the first person to suffer this kind of judgment. Remember, if had been left to Samuel's discretion, Eliab (David's oldest brother) would've been anointed Israel's next king. Samuel certainly wouldn't have anointed the ruddy young shepherd boy of Judah. God had to teach Samuel an important lesson: "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7).
Were we alive when Jesus was still physically ministering on this earth, my guess is that none of us would've been drawn to His appearance either. Concerning the coming Christ, the Bible said, "When we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him" (Isa. 53:2). The physical appearance of our Savior would've probably never drawn us to His saving power. But of course, Jesus didn't draw men unto Himself through good looks. Rather, we have all been drawn to our Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit.
So I would remind us all of that old adage: Don't judge a book by its cover. Satan has placed a lot of shiny books on the shelves of this life. But just a few pages into his story will show us that he can never deliver on what he's promised. The Bible says that he's the father of lies (John 8:44). Rather than picking up any number of his shiny volumes, I hope we'll all be compelled to pick up our Heavenly Father's book. The Bible may not be the most attractive book on the shelf, but it is the only one that can offer its readers a well-spring of life. When we allow the truth of its pages to saturate our lives, we'll never go looking for a refund.
And yet we had an experience at Wal-Mart a few months back. While perusing the book section of Mr. Walton's Supercenter, their was a book that immediately caught Tanner's attention. I'll have to admit I was impressed as well. It had a metallic cover with a Punisher-type skull on the front of it. It was just the kind of book that a young boy would be attracted to. Tanner asked if he could have it so I picked it up and read the back cover of the book.
After reading the back cover I turned to Tanner and said, "Trust me, you won't like this." I can't remember now exactly what the plot of the book was, but I knew it wouldn't interest my son. And yet he was smitten with the cover - he had to have the book. Realizing I wouldn't be able to talk him out of it, I decided to buy him the book. He was pumped about getting this shiny new book, but as he began to read it his enthusiasm turned into boredom. Needless to say, the book couldn't deliver what the chrome cover seemed to promise.
We've all been guilty of judging a book by its cover, but of course it's not just books that we judge. We're often guilty of judging other people based on their appearance. I was reminded of this while reading the words of Paul today. He asked the Corinthians: "Do you look at things according to the outward appearance?" (2 Cor. 10:7). If so, then Paul knew he was in trouble. Apparently the Corinthians had already started judging him. Some of them were saying, "his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible" (2 Cor. 10:10).
Paul was not the first person to suffer this kind of judgment. Remember, if had been left to Samuel's discretion, Eliab (David's oldest brother) would've been anointed Israel's next king. Samuel certainly wouldn't have anointed the ruddy young shepherd boy of Judah. God had to teach Samuel an important lesson: "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7).
Were we alive when Jesus was still physically ministering on this earth, my guess is that none of us would've been drawn to His appearance either. Concerning the coming Christ, the Bible said, "When we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him" (Isa. 53:2). The physical appearance of our Savior would've probably never drawn us to His saving power. But of course, Jesus didn't draw men unto Himself through good looks. Rather, we have all been drawn to our Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit.
So I would remind us all of that old adage: Don't judge a book by its cover. Satan has placed a lot of shiny books on the shelves of this life. But just a few pages into his story will show us that he can never deliver on what he's promised. The Bible says that he's the father of lies (John 8:44). Rather than picking up any number of his shiny volumes, I hope we'll all be compelled to pick up our Heavenly Father's book. The Bible may not be the most attractive book on the shelf, but it is the only one that can offer its readers a well-spring of life. When we allow the truth of its pages to saturate our lives, we'll never go looking for a refund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)