An Old Testament Hymn of Praise

I have the joy of being part of a church where the Bible is systematically preached.  Not merely referenced, but actually taught and preached.  The pastor is in the midst of preaching through the book of Isaiah, one chapter each week.  A benefit of this approach is that, knowing the text for the next week, one can read and ponder the text for the coming week and over time develop a better understanding of the book.  The chapter for the address for the coming week as I write this is Isaiah 12.  I was moved as I read through this chapter yesterday.  I’ve read it aloud more than once since, as a prayer, as a song of worship.

Isaiah 12  (NKJV)

“And in that day you will say:

“O Lord, I will praise You;
Though You were angry with me,
Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me.
2 Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song;
He also has become my salvation.’ ”
3 Therefore with joy you will draw water
From the wells of salvation.

4 And in that day you will say:

“Praise the Lord, call upon His name;
Declare His deeds among the peoples,
Make mention that His name is exalted.
5 Sing to the Lord,
For He has done excellent things;
This is known in all the earth.
6 Cry out and shout, O inhabitant of Zion,
For great is the Holy One of Israel in your midst!”

I do not know Hebrew, but in English this poem easily divides into two sections, section one the first three verses, and section two verses four through six.  They are parallel both in feel and in content, like two verses of a hymn.  Earlier in Isaiah, there have been recurrent denunciations of the sins of the Jewish nation and prophecies of coming judgement and destruction, as well as promises of the future Messiah and preservation of a faithful remnant.  Chapter eleven speaks of the future Deliverer and regathering of the Jewish nation, and chapter twelve is a hymn of praise to the future Deliverer and celebrates the future kingdom.

This is a writing of true worship.  It worships God for Who He Is, for salvation from His just anger at sin, for what He has done and has promised to do for His people.  The words are deeply meaningful, substantial, and true.  It is not merely a song of faint praise for how He might make someone feel or how He might make someone feel good when He gives them a lot of good stuff or makes them successful.

The old commentator Matthew Henry wrote of this passage,

“This is a hymn of praise suited to the times of the Messiah.  The song of praise in this chapter is suitable for the return of the outcasts of Israel from their long captivity, but it is especially suitable to the case of a sinner, when he first finds peace and joy in believing; to that of a believer, when his peace is renewed after corrections for backslidings; and to that of the whole company of the redeemed, when they meet before the throne of God in heaven. The promise is sure, and the blessings contained in it are very rich; and the benefits enjoyed through Jesus Christ, call for the most enlarged thanksgivings. By Jesus Christ, the Root of Jesse, the Divine anger against mankind was turned away, for he is our Peace.”

As a believer, I’m excited to, as verse five says, “Sing to the Lord, for He has done excellent things.”  I’m excited to sing that song of Who He Is and what He has done for me in Christ, both now, and in “that day.”

I can’t wait to hear this chapter preached on Sunday!

What Easter Is – And Isn’t

Perhaps more than at any other season, professing Christians throughout Christendom will attend a Good Friday or an Easter Sunday church service.  They will hear any of a variety of perspectives.  Easter might be presented in the context of thoughts about Spring, a time of new beginning after Winter.  Jesus might be spoken of as a divine messenger from God, a fabulously inspired teacher, who offended  the religious and political authorities of His day and so was silenced, but whose inspired teachings didn’t die but live on in the minds and hearts of His followers.  Jesus on the cross might be presented as demonstrating the love and acceptance of God for all of humanity, who bore the sins of His people on the cross in the sense that His sacrifice served to inspire and motivate us to overcome our difficulties.  Like a great cosmic boyfriend, He inspires us to reach our full potential and accepts us and affirms us just as we are because, after all, He really, really likes us!  I once listened to an Easter sermon that was built on the premise that the moved tombstone at the empty grave of Jesus was a metaphor for obstacles we need to have removed in our life.  The real point of the moved tombstone, however, and the point of the empty grave, is much more than a reminder about our personal obstacles; it is that Jesus was alive after being dead, and because of that there is eternal life in Christ.

The Bible teaches that humans are sinners in need of salvation, not merely salvation from bad things that happen to us in this life, but from the righteous anger of God against our sin and rebellion both individually and corporately as part of the human race.  In 1 Thessalonians 1:10, the Bible reminds us “to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.”  Jesus died to deliver us from the wrath of God, preaching and repeatedly warning of an impending judgment of the world, at which point God is going to pour out His wrath against the unredeemed, the ungodly, and the impenitent. The only hope of escape from that outpouring of divine wrath is to be covered by the atonement of Christ.  Jesus’ work on the cross was to placate the wrath of God.  He didn’t die by accident; it was the divine plan of God from the very beginning.  He didn’t die because He took a risk of offending, He didn’t die merely as a martyr or an example, or as a general expression of love and acceptance toward all of humanity.  He died as the perfect sacrifice, the One Saving Plan of God, to turn away God’s righteous anger and make possible a change of God’s disposition toward those who would repent and believe the Gospel.   The idea of placating the wrath of God is not popular today.  Some would say that it is beneath the dignity of God to think that we should have to do something to soothe Him or appease Him.  But this is the very core of the biblical concept of salvation, not that we ourselves can do something to merit salvation, but that it has been done for us by God Himself in Christ.  The only hope of escape from God’s wrath is to be covered by the atonement of Christ.

What Christ’s achieved on the cross is nothing less than the reality that He placated the wrath of God that is inherent in the nature and purpose of God and which condemns us if we not covered by the sacrifice of Christ.  Further, the atonement at Calvary didn’t take away the sins of all of humanity and so leave us with a Gospel defined as merely a path to living a better life in this world since we’re all going to heaven anyway, about making one’s life better or to becoming part of a movement to “make the world a better place.”  Many speak such ideas about “Jesus,” but they don’t acknowledge the real message of Jesus, which is the  Gospel of the Holiness of God and His Law and the truth of our utter lostness in light of that.   Without the real Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith and repentance, made possible by Jesus’ death and resurrection, human beings remain under the penalty of their sin.  But there is no wrath for those whose sins have been paid. That is what salvation is all about.  That is what The Cross – and the Resurrection – is all about.

The Bible says that everyone born in Adam is a sinner at birth and needs to repent of their own sin and look to Christ by Faith Alone.  The apostle Paul in the letter to the Romans clearly explains this.  All have sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God, everyone born in Adam is an enemy of God and must be born from above as a supernatural work of God, a work that only the Holy Spirit can do by virtue of regeneration.  A failure to do so will result in receiving the payment of their own sin–the wrath of God.

We understand the love of God only in this context.  He doesn’t merely love us as His created beings.  He doesn’t merely love us and accept us and affirm us and forgive us just as we are.  He loves us far more than that.  He loves us enough that “He became sin for us, Who knew no sin.”  Christ the God-man became the sacrifice for those of the ages who simply by God’s grace through faith would believe the Gospel.  God suffered and died on the cross for us!  He loves us enough to forgive our rebellion – creature against Creator – by providing Himself as the only acceptable atonement for our sin.  He loves us and forgives us on that basis.  The Resurrection and empty tomb demonstrate that He has conquered sin and death for us and has given us eternal life.  Good Friday is “good” because of the good news that if you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior you get eternal life with Him.  It is “good” because He died on a Roman cross willingly as a substitute for you.  He conquered death for you.  On the cross the Father turned His back on Jesus as all of the sins of the world were placed on Him.  Jesus bore our sin, guilt, and shame.  And now you just need to trust Him.

The empty tomb guarantees the end of the dominion of death over those who believe the Gospel.  In John 14:19, speaking to His disciples shortly before His arrest, Jesus told them, “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me.  Because I live, you will live also.”

“Because I live, you will live also.”  That is the real meaning of Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday.

 

The Ten Commandments and God’s Love

Some suggest that the Ten Commandments are harsh and are not really consistent with the message the church should present today.   Recently a well-known megachurch personality even delivered an address titled “Thou Shalt Not Obey the Ten Commandments.”  The thought is that the Commandments and the Old Testament Law in whole comes across as judgmental and unattractive to the people who today’s church seeks to attract, and besides, the Beatitudes are really more demanding and more consistent with the message for the current age.  We should hold out the Sermon on the Mount and the love of God, not the Old Testament teachings.  Yet, throughout the history of the church, pastors and theologians have upheld the Ten Commandments as well as the whole of the moral and civil requirements enumerated in the Old Testament as an expression of God’s character and of His requirements for humanity.  The church needs to recover the practice of considering and meditating on the Ten Commandments as we grow in understanding the ramifications of the gospel and pursue the life of Christ has for us.  The church needs to present and proclaim the requirements of the moral Law and the Ten Commandments, recognizing that failure to do so is a grievous error.  It is not judgmental to recognize the commandments; rather the Ten Commandments and the moral Law are supremely the expression of God’s love.

In the first table of the commandments, the people of God were told to rigidly uphold the centrality, primacy, and holiness of God.  They were to recognize no false deity, have no idols, reverence the true God supremely, and set aside a day each week to consider and meditate upon Him.   The second group of commandments regulates human behavior in family and society.  The family unit was to be upheld, parents to be respected.  The sanctity of human life was to be observed, with murder prohibited.  Honesty and truthfulness were commanded.  Private property rights were advanced with the prohibitions against theft and coveting.  And the prohibition against adultery regulates sexuality in society and upholds the sanctity of marriage.  These principles appear throughout the moral and civil Law in the Old Testament.  Further, they are not replaced or repudiated in the New Testament; rather, they are foundational to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount and the way of life exhorted throughout the New Testament.

It is abundantly clear that the Scriptures present the necessity of salvation from sin, salvation not by works or upholding the Law, but by grace and faith.  One cannot be saved by the Law, by upholding the Ten Commandments, or for that matter by aspiring to live by the high standards of the Sermon on the Mount.  The New Testament, particularly the books of Romans and Galatians (especially chapters 3 and 5), make it absolutely clear that salvation is not obtained by keeping the Old Testament Law, but by grace.  And yet, the Law points us to Christ.  First Corinthians chapter 6 beginning in verse 9 tells us, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you.  But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”  Recognizing their sin, repenting of sin, lost people turn to God by faith in Christ and are saved.  That is the only way of salvation.

The Ten Commandments and the Old Testament moral Law demonstrate God’s love to us by showing us the folly of sin and rebellion against God, and thus pointing us to the Savior.  In so doing, by pointing us to the great atoning acts of Christ, they direct us to the love of God.  Even in the Old Testament ceremonial Law, God’s plan for redemption through the atoning sacrifice of Christ is demonstrated.  Seeing our own sin and unworthiness, we then begin to understand the surpassing greatness of the love of God.  Christ paid the penalty for all sins so that God might be merciful to all sinners.  On the cross Christ satisfied God’s justice.  We need not shy away from the Old Testament; we need to embrace it and clearly explain it.

Yet sadly many pastors reference sin (many won’t even refer to it as such) as if it’s little more than brokenness, hopelessness, lack of motivation, or an overly negative perspective.  While these things show some of the alienating effects of sin, they obscure its real nature and undermine the reality of true guilt before the Lord.  It’s the language of postmodern culture but not biblical truth.  Unbelievers’ most essential problem is not that they’re ignorant, apathetic, or without purpose or direction, but that they’ve personally, willfully, and happily rebelled against the God who made them. Their real enemy is not merely the challenges and difficulties of life in the world, but themselves and their sin.  If this is true—and the Scriptures say that it is—then what unbelievers must concern themselves with is nothing less than escaping the just judgment of God.  And yet, many supposedly evangelical churches and leaders tell them to merely affirm the person who stares back at them in the mirror and aspire to be the best person they can be, to look to Jesus as their divine life coach or inspiring cosmic boyfriend.  This is nothing less than a redefinition of salvation and of the gospel.

I saw a quote recently that indicated it is a mistake if you think that your “mess-up” is bigger than God’s grace.  This is a half-truth.  Sin is far more than just a “mess-up.”  As a child, I might have “messed-up” when I carelessly broke my Grandma’s favorite vase.  I might have felt a bit of remorse, and certainly a little panic.  She loved me, and, though a bit miffed, would have forgiven me.  But my momentary remorse, and her gracious forgiveness of my mistake, hardly compares to God’s grace in the forgiveness of sin.  The poverty of spirit Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount means recognizing how truly deficient we are apart from God.  It means seeing ourselves as we really are: spiritually lost, hopeless, and helpless.  The “poor in spirit” are people who have recognized their spiritual destitution and their total inability to save themselves and who acknowledge their complete dependence on God.  They know their only hope of salvation is to repent and ask for forgiveness.  No person can enter the kingdom of God until he or she realizes they are unworthy of that kingdom, until he or she realizes the gravity of their sin.  Our sin is not merely a slip-up.  The kind of gospel (so popular today) that omits any need for repentance and mourning because of sin is a false, unscriptural gospel–or, as Paul calls it, “a different gospel” (Gal 1:6).

Churches should speak about sin primarily as personal and willful rebellion against God. They should be clear that Jesus died on the cross as a substitute for sinners (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), not as a guide, inspiration, or rudder for the rudderless.  Jesus didn’t come with a controversial, inspiring message and take a risk of rejection that resulted in His martyrdom; He came as the promised sacrifice for sin determined by God before creation and foreshadowed in the Old Testament.  Mercy that ignores sin is false mercy; Christ paid the penalty for sins so that He might be merciful to all sinners.  On the cross Christ satisfied God’s justice.  Thus churches should be clear that humans are sinners by nature and by choice, and we need salvation from that reality, and not just salvation from social and indirect problems given to us by others or ourselves.  Of course, sin in the world causes bad things to happen to us.  It isn’t hard to convince someone that they sometimes make mistakes or that they’re a victim of others’ sin or have been materially affected by others’ sin.  It doesn’t require a work of God to convince people that we live in a flawed world.  It doesn’t take much effort to convince most people that they have “issues” that need to be addressed in order for them to become happy and successful and have better relationships.  But it’s quite difficult, certainly so apart from God’s grace, to convince someone that they themselves are guilty of sin against both God and others.

Scripture reveals an overarching narrative played out in the history of mankind – creation, the fall, redemption, and consummation at the end of the age.  God created mankind, and mankind sinned supremely by rebelling against the Creator.  Yet the Creator in love chose not to merely destroy creation, but to provide for the salvation of sinners.  It is the Law that reveals our sin and leads us to the Saviour.  And further the Law reveals for us God’s standards both for salvation from sin and the standards by which we should live.  The law reveals our sin and leads us to our Saviour.

Following the commandments of God not only points us to salvation from sin, but  regulates human behavior in a positive manner.  It is no accident that societies that have engaged in the enlightened fulfillment of the Judeo-Christian ethical standards have been demonstrably more prosperous, just, and free.  Individually, following God’s wise instruction allows us to escape the consequences that come from choices we later wish we could change and make us freer to enjoy our lives.  The high ethical standards of the Ten Commandments make for happier, more fulfilled lives.  The traditional family enjoined in the Bible is for the benefit of people, not an impediment to their imagined happiness and pleasure. The standard of one man, one woman for life marriage is a bedrock of western civilization, and the ongoing retreat from that standard is leading to societal disaster.

Regrettably, American evangelicals are sometimes known more for their commitment to public displays of the Ten Commandments than to actually obeying them.  But the Ten Commandments are a faithful summary of God’s requirements for humanity.  We need to, in love, remind people of this, both lost people and believers.  God doesn’t want to control us with dos and dont’s; rather, His guidelines show that He loves us.  Romans 13:8-10 tells us, “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”  This passage doesn’t negate the value of the commandments, but tells us that we should observe these principles and present them not in a spirit of judgmentalism or harshness, but with a spirit that shows the love of Christ in us.  God does not give us commandments that are arbitrary or simply designed to prevent our enjoyment of life.  He loves us.  All of God’s commands are for His glory and for our good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change

Human-caused climate change is real.  But I don’t think that it is based on carbon emissions.

I recently picked up an old paperback world history book in my library.  This book was first published in the 1940’s, and I don’t agree with the the authors evolutionary presuppositions and philosophy.  I noted that in the early chapters of the book, the author wrote of the advance and retreat of glaciation during prehistoric ages and the associated effects on the early development of civilization, which is the accepted position of most historians.  Such climate change would precede any possible involvement by humans.

In recorded history, we know of many climate cycles.  Causes and effects can be debated.  For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, roughly ninth to twelfth centuries AD, preceded the industrial era of human development, and it was followed by the Little Ice Age from about the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries AD.  Seemingly, there has been a sustained period of slight, measurable warming since, with slight cooling periods included in that trend.

I recall as an elementary school student a publication used in school called “The Weekly Reader,” and I recall one memorable edition on the subject of global cooling and the possibility of a coming ice age.  A search of records of “The National Geographic”  and other publications from that era would reveal similar concerns, in light of the slight cooling period that began roughly mid-1940’s.  In 1975, “Newsweek” published an article predicting a coming ice age.  This concern was replaced a few years later, however, by concerns over global warming, as a slight warming trend began perhaps early 1970’s and continues to the present.  The movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was produced in 2006, predicting all sorts of negative effects of global warming, and this helped advance the almost non-stop talk of global warming and  anthropogenic climate change – climate change caused by human environmental pollution and production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

A number of years ago, several municipalities in the Colorado mountains considered a lawsuit against big oil companies, contending that fossil fuels produced by these companies was going to ruin the ski industry.  Since then, there have been a couple of dry winters, especially in the southern part of the state, and several winters with normal and even above average snowfall.  The ski industry is expanding, the mountain towns are flourishing, and their biggest problems center on transporting skiers and snow boarders from and back to Denver, and finding enough workers to accommodate their crowds.  Over the last couple of decades, many Colorado forested areas have seen areas of dying pine trees caused by beetles, leading to large forest fires; the thought is that it hasn’t been cold enough for long enough during the winters to kill the beetle larvae due to climate change.  As I write this, the US mid-west and eastern areas have just emerged from record cold weather due to a “polar vortex” phenomenon blamed on polar region warming.  (Too bad the “climate gods” didn’t steer that cold further west to take out some beetles.)  Unusual record snowfall has this winter hit Seattle and areas in the US northwest, likely, of course, because of climate change.  Immigration issues have been blamed on global warming and climate change, as the effects of climate change prompt people to migrate.  Every extreme weather event, every flood or famine, even wars, are blamed on anthropogenic climate change.  Elements of the progressive Left have proposed their “Green New Deal,” a socialist fantasy to radically alter the American economy, fundamentally alter our way of life, and thus save the planet.  The plan includes ending air travel, stopping American fossil fuel energy use, and even banning meat consumption.

Last summer, I visited the Pawnee National Grasslands in northeastern Colorado, basically in the middle of nowhere.  The countryside near this pristine area was filled with giant wind power generation towers.   A later trip through prairie and farmland in eastern Colorado and western Kansas featured mile after mile of views spoiled by these giant supposedly environmentally-friendly windmills.  Photovoltaic solar panels are becoming commonplace on residential rooftops and in large solar power “farms.”  More and more electric vehicles are on the roads.  Somewhere down the road, the fact of toxic metals in the solar panels and in batteries will become an issue, but enough investment in such supposed environmentally friendly technology will save the planet; at least that is the thought.

Humans do have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet and our environment.  I’m glad that Denver’s winter time air pollution “brown cloud” is less of an issue than in the past.  I’m glad that people can play in the South Platte river in central Denver, unthinkable fifty years ago due to pollution.  I bemoan the urban sprawl along the Colorado front range.  Efforts to protect clean air and water, to protect sensitive environmental areas, to use technology to decrease pollution and advance the quality of life, are to be lauded and encouraged.

There is validity to the concept that sometimes small actions can cause big results in the future.  Call me a skeptic, but I don’t believe that what vehicle I drive or how many miles I drive it or how much meat I consume will have the slightest impact on the future temperature of any point on earth.  Nevertheless, I do believe in human-caused climate change.


Psalm 2:4 tells us, “He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.”  This isn’t a reference to a divine sense of humor.  God holds the vain imaginings and futile efforts of sinful humanity in derision.


In the opening section of the book of Genesis, we are told of God’s creation of our universe.  We find the first created humans in Eden, an idyllic environment, in a world unspoiled by any pollution or imperfection, living in perfect harmony with their environment, themselves, and with God.  And then, they rebelled against God; sin came, disaster happened.  They lost their previous relationship with God, and were removed from Eden.  Their posterity would be born with the effects of sin as part of their nature.  But it wasn’t just human nature that was changed.  Their relationship with nature changed, as the effects of sin came to be reflected in the world created for man’s home.  Climate change came, caused not by carbon gas emissions, but because of man’s sin and rebellion against God.

Time passed, and human sin continued.  God acted against the excesses of man’s sin by sending, in effect, a catastrophic climate event to destroy debauched human society.  It seems evident in reading the Genesis account that the climate before the Flood was different than the climate after the Flood.

Everywhere we look, we see the magnificence of God in creation.  Biology, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, all sciences demonstrate the perfect creation of God.  The nature of water and the associated hydrology cycle involving evaporation, atmospheric circulation, condensation, and precipitation regulates climate and weather (water vapor has far more “greenhouse gas” effect than carbon dioxide).  The cycle of oxygen and carbon dioxide in perfect balance sustains plant and animal life.  God’s grand design is everywhere evident.  And yet everywhere we look, we also see the effects of the Fall, certainly in human affairs, but even in nature.  Floods, droughts, wind storms, earthquakes, all express not the original intent of the Creator for man, but rather the effects of man’s sin and rebellion against God.

Again, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet and our environment.  Technology and human genius can and should be used to advance the condition of all people on the planet.  But ultimately, we need to recognize that the future of the world is in God’s hands, not the vain imaginings of atheistic humanity.

Both the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament writers speak of cataclysmic events, including climate events, at the end of the current age that will precede the coming of Christ.  Events that are not merely caused by greenhouse gas pollution but rather by the outpouring of God’s judgement against man’s sin.  And these writers speak of a coming age when by God’s grace the redeemed of the ages will live in a perfect environment to eternally know, love, and serve Him.

Fig Leaf Fellowship

I fully understand that a local church should be judged on vital and important things like the nature and character of its ministry more than on its name.  But I wonder about the trend toward local churches employing generic names.  Names like The Storybook, The Happy Place, or Fig Leaf Fellowship.

The Southern Baptist Convention, for instance, shows this trend toward generic church names.  The new president of the SBC heads a megachurch that does not call itself by a name that includes the word Baptist.  Several “wacky” seeker friendly/attractional megachurches were begun as SBC churches but don’t use the name and manifest nothing of traditional Baptist teaching.  I’ve noted that most SBC congregations in my community  now present themselves by a generic name.  The trend is by no means limited to the SBC or to Baptists.  There are several start-up churches in my rapidly-growing locality, and most have a generic name; I have no idea what they might believe.

My background is in, gasp, independent Baptist churches.  Few groups are more maligned, often rightly so.  I’ve experienced independent Baptist churches that were, at best, not very good.  Nevertheless, I’ve in recent months attended three independent Baptist churches in my community, one small and relatively new, one older and somewhat larger, and one perhaps the largest and most effective Baptist congregation in the state.  All were different in style.  All were warm and welcoming, and would have been so even if I hadn’t been an appropriately dressed middle-aged White guy.  The messages from the pulpits were worth listening to, and two especially show a commitment to systematically teaching and preaching the Bible.  The churches were each very different in style, but the services in all three were more than worth attending and I could recommend all three.  I knew what I was getting when I attended the service; the commitment each church showed was consistent with the best of Baptist tradition.

I’m sure many generic Fig Leaf Fellowships are doing a good job.  But I have to wonder, what are they hiding?  What are they ashamed of?  What is wrong with an identifier like First Evangelical Free Church or Second Baptist Church or Faith Bible Church or Third Community Church?  Likely the rationale is that the audience the church seeks to somehow attract doesn’t like Baptists, or Presbyterians, or church, or the Bible.


The 1980’s television sitcom “Cheers” was set in a fictional Boston bar named “Cheers.”  The characters came in to the pub to have a drink and chat, to unload their problems, to be amused, to enjoy friends, to perhaps hear some sage words of advice.  The lyrics of the show’s theme song expressed this:

Making your way in the world today
Takes everything you got
Taking a break from all your worries
It sure would help a lot
Wouldn’t you like to get away?
Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name
And they’re always glad you came
You want to be where you can see
The troubles are all the same
You want to be where everybody knows your name
You want to go where people know
The people are all the same
You want to go where everybody knows your name.

It occurs to me that many local churches want to use something akin to the thought behind these lyrics to characterize their church.  And that is where the issue becomes more than just eye-rolling trivia.


A local congregation should be accepting, warm, and welcoming to visitors and new people.  The church should actively seek to reach out to people outside of the church, and when new people come to a service or event they are to be welcomed.  Congregants should become friends.  They should be concerned for one another, share in each other’s lives.  But a church should never pattern itself after the corner bar or a lodge or benevolent society.  Church services should be enjoyable for congregants to attend, becoming more so as they grow in their faith, but should not become patterned after the entertainment of the day.  Rather, church services should, gasp, reflect the purposes noted in the New Testament; services should reflect regulatory principles from the New Testament.  Services should include careful systematic consideration of Scripture, prayer, reading of Scripture, and appropriate use of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”  The vast majority of attendees are believers, part of the congregation, and come to be instructed from Scripture and to be a part of corporate worship.  Thus, unchurched people visiting a church may not feel completely comfortable.  The church should teach, preach, and sing doctrine and truth from Scripture.  The church in all of its activities and certainly in its services should clearly present and adhere to the Gospel.  And here, I think, is the problem of the generic church.

“Cheers Church” increasingly is becoming more “Cheers” and less “Church.”

I Corinthians 2:14 reminds us, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  The church can never moderate to be completely inoffensive to the unchurched and still declare the Gospel.  When it dumbs down to be inoffensive and affirming, never teaching doctrine and truth from Scripture that might offend, it ceases to be the church.  Instead of church “equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry” so that church members can grow in their faith and reach people with the Gospel, the church focuses on numeric growth through things like fun, entertainment, benevolence, community, or motivational talks with a few verses thrown in.

There is a great and growing hostility toward Christianity.  Many people want nothing to do with organized religion, and we don’t want to give the unchurched any more reason to reject attendance or identification with church.  Perhaps an individual has had a bad experience or otherwise has gained a bad impression toward a definitively-named church.  (One wonders what might happen when that person has a bad experience at Cheers Church or Fig Leaf Fellowship.)  In truth, I’m less concerned about the name than I am about the nature, character, and faithfulness of a church.

Again, I’m sure many generic Fig Leaf Fellowships are doing a good job.  But more than questioning what they are hiding, I have to wonder if in fact they are not hiding anything because there is nothing there to hide.  Do they believe lost people are really lost and in danger of eternal loss, or do they believe that their task is to help people have a better life in this world by sparking something good that is inherently in the heart and mind of people?  Have they walked away from the Gospel and the rather harsh truth that lost people are lost and need to come to Christ in repentant faith or face eternal judgement?  Have they removed the essential nature of the New Testament church?  Have they become focused on positive thinking, motivational speeches, relationship advice, keys to success, generationally-focused entertainment, benevolent and charitable acts, etc.?

The name of a church may not matter.  The real issue, though, is that many evangelical churches regardless of their name or brand are becoming not just generic, but placebos.  A  generic pharmaceutial should have the same effective ingredients as a name-brand medication, and if so it will be effective.  A placebo medication, on the other hand, is a pill, medication, or procedure that is administered for perceived or psychological benefit but has no real therapeutic benefit.  It lacks effective ingredients.  It may please or calm, but it doesn’t cure.  A church that in its services does not hold obviously and tenaciously to Scripture (all of it), truth, and the Gospel, is a placebo.  A church that substitutes a sense of community and “doing life together,” relational advice, keys to success, human reasoning, or empty talks referencing a verse or two, but is devoid of doctrine, is a placebo.  A church that shuttles real content off to discussion groups that too often become chat groups, and never engages in authoritative teaching from the Bible, is a placebo.

People don’t need a placebo church.  They need a real church that convinces them of their true need and points them to the One Who is truly the Cure.

 

On Faith and Repentance

In Luke 13, Jesus said, “There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.  And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things?  I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.  Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?   I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

I once heard the speaker at a local attractional megachurch reference this passage.  He noted that the world is imperfect, and we should stop asking why and recognize that in this imperfect world, mistakes happen.  Builders make mistakes; the tower fell; and bad things continue to happen in a broken world.  He explained that to repent means to stop and rethink the way you think about God and suffering.  We should align our life toward God, recognize that suffering is not God’s will, and He is not just waiting for you to screw up so He can punish you.  God’s desire is to leverage our suffering, and so we should rethink our thinking about God.  A well-know hypercharismatic personality has said that repentance means to go back to God’s perspective on reality, since “re” means to go back, and “pent” is like the penthouse, the top floor of a building, and so repent means to go back to God’s perspective on reality.

While change of mind toward God is certainly involved in repentance, it strikes me that these are inadequate expressions of the idea of repentance we find presented in Scripture, and further it strikes me that failure to understand true repentance undermines the doctrine of salvation and the very nature of the gospel.  Repentance is an essential part of salvation.  It is essential for a sinner who has offended God to turn from that sin.  The repeated message of the Old Testament prophets centered on the need for repentance.  The first recorded words Jesus preached, in Matthew 4:17, were “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.”  True repentance comes from the awareness that by nature we are fallen and we have done wrong, and repentance produces a desire and commitment to turn from our sin.  The requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God is to repent and believe in the atoning work of Christ; repentance accompanies regeneration.

The Puritan writer Thomas Brooks wrote, “One of the devices of Satan is to persuade the soul that repentance is an easy work.  . . . But repentance is a mighty work, a difficult work, a work beyond our power. . . . Repentance is a turning from darkness to light.  It affects the sinner’s whole heart and life.  It changes the heart from the power of sin unto God.  Every sin strikes at the honor of God, the being of God, the glory of God, the heart of Christ, the joy of the Spirit, and the peace of a man’s conscience.  A truly penitent soul  strikes at all sin, hates all, and will labor to crucify all.”  Second Corinthians 5:17 says,  “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”  Another Puritan, John Owen, reflecting on this passage, wrote that “Regeneration does not consist in a mere moral reformation of life.  It requires the infusion of a new, real, spiritual principle into the soul and its faculties.  It brings spiritual life, light, holiness, righteousness, and the expulsion of the contrary, inbred, habitual principle of sin and enmity against God.  This alone enables true acts of holy obedience.  The principle of true regeneration always, certainly, and infallibly produces the reformation of the life intended. . .  . Regeneration and reformation are inseparable.”

In Luke 18:13, a repentant tax-gatherer pleaded, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner.”  Pastor and author John MacArthur (“The Gospel According to Jesus,” page 32) reflecting on this passage wrote that “Repentance as Jesus characterized it in this incident involves a recognition of one’s utter sinfulness and a turning from self and sin to God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9).  Far from being a human work, it is the inevitable result of God’s work in a human heart.  And it always represents the end of any human attempt to earn God’s favor.  It is much more than a mere change of mind – it involves a complete change of heart, attitude, interest, and direction.  It is a conversion in every sense of the word.”  Further, “The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks this active element of active repentance.  True faith is never seen as passive – it is always obedient.”  In a sermon in 2000, MacArthur noted “What the sinner needs to do is not accept Jesus Christ or make a decision for Christ, but to repent and cry out and ask Jesus Christ to accept him in spite of his sin.

Failure to understand the necessity of repentance and the nature of the gospel of  repentant faith has brought all sorts of problems.  Many have been deceived into thinking they have been saved when really they have not.  In recent decades, emotional manipulation was often used to invoke a response from people who really did not understand the gospel but responded to maudlin invitation hymns after being warned of the danger of Hell.  It is relatively easy to “make a decision” to walk an aisle, sign a card, or repeat a repeat-after-me prayer after being handed a tract; it is another thing to acknowledge one’s sin and inability and call out to a Holy God in repentant faith.   While some who responded to such appeals fell away, thankfully many did indeed understand and believe, and many later came to acknowledge the truth of the gospel and were truly born again.

But perhaps of much more danger is the total disregard of the idea of repentance we see today.  Part of the issue is doctrinal; doctrine is seldom taught.  Belief in original sin and the sin nature of humans is not an often-considered topic in the American church today and seems to be doubted by an increasing number of evangelicals.  The holiness and just wrath of God is as likely to be downplayed or ridiculed as it is to be taught from the Bible.  Positive thinking preachers are not likely to call people to repent and believe; they are more inclined to remind people of how much God loves them just as they are and try to motivate them to reach their full potential and be happy and not worry about much beyond that.  Prosperity theology also centers more on human worthiness than on human sinfulness.  The seeker-friendly and attractional church movement are loath to mention sin and judgement; that might offend and won’t help attract a target audience.  People need to be attracted and have fun and be comfortably entertained so they keep coming.  Maybe they’ll be inspired to make a decision and live a better life.

But Jesus came to seek us and save us from our sin.  He did not come merely to save us from the consequences of the bad actions of others.  He did not die on the cross just to aid us in overcoming our problems or circumstances.  He did not die on the cross to make us happy, successful, or wealthy.  He came as the One True Saving Plan of God.  He came to die on the cross to atone for the sin, and the sins, of any and all who would repent and believe.  He came to call us to stop loving sin and start loving God.  He came to call us to both a changed mind and a changed life.

Thus, a repentant sinner should manifest brokenness and remorse over sin, and not just the consequences of sin.  Repentance and renunciation of every sin should become an attitude and a way of life.  Repentance calls us to turn from sin and embrace God.  And when we do that, we will know the life of purpose, joy, and fulfillment God intends for us, both eternally and in the present.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding a Church Home

Source: Finding a Church Home

Book Cover

Every Christian needs to be involved in a local church. Perhaps you have struggled to find the right local church for yourself and your family after you have moved to a different area. You were discouraged by a bad experience with a church in the past, or you just simply dropped out of church. Now you have made the decision that you want to find a church to attend. Possibly, you have become concerned that the church you attend falls short or doesn’t meet your needs or the needs of your family, or even that the church you attend has drifted from a proper foundation. A new pastor has come who is taking the church in a direction you do not want to go. Often what passes for “church” in twenty-first century America isn’t what the New Testament presents to us. In most American communities, there are several churches. How does one find the “right” congregation? What makes for a healthy church? The author attempts to help you answer these questions.

 

Gun Control

Sensible people recoil at the reports of multiple-victim shooting incidents when they occur as well as the all-too-common, almost daily reports of murders we see in the media.  We all want it to end.  We want the number of deaths attributable to guns to be zero.  But thoughtful people must ask, “What is the desired ultimate end result of gun control legislation?”  What happens when the gun-control push is carried to its logical conclusion?

I am neither a hunter nor a recreational shooter.  I don’t belong to the NRA – mainly because I don’t need more solicitations for funds.  But against the backdrop of social decline, I have given at least passing thought to acquiring a handgun for self-defense and protection of family and home, and I believe I have every right to do so.

The number of firearms in civilian possession in the United States exceeds the number of people, and gun violence kills thousands of people annually in the United States, more than ten thousand of these deaths homicides, and perhaps twice that number suicides.  Especially with highly-publicized incidents involving multiple victims, there is an ongoing effort to attempt to address the issue by legislation.  Gun control is a constant ongoing political topic.

With the results of the 2018 election increasing the number of left-leaning gun control advocates in legislative positions, there will be increased efforts to pass gun control legislation.  In a November 20, 2018 Denver Post editorial page article, titled “How many more victims will it take?,” a former Colorado state senator wrote, “None of us should be willing to wait for that catastrophe to force our elected officials to take action on common sense gun safety like banning high-capacity magazines, requiring universal background checks, banning bump stocks and enacting red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who are dangerous.”  Given Democrat control of the Colorado legislature and governorship, such gun control legislation would appear to be a certainty.  This likely will be the case in other states as well as at the federal level.

As such legislation is passed, it will have at best only minimal effect on the number of murders in either single-victim handgun incidents or multiple-victim shootings.  And so, in time, calls for more legislation will be heard.  Eventually, new sales of firearms and ammunition will likely be tightly controlled, and then banned.  In a country where there are more than three hundred million civilian-owned guns, those intent on getting a gun or guns will continue to be able to do so with relative ease.  At best, removing guns from a home will prevent a shooting by an angry, depressed, or disturbed person in that home.  Calls for firearms to be turned over to governmental authority will increasingly be heard.  Perhaps hunters will be asked to entrust their guns to the government, checking them out during hunting season.  A minority of law-abiding gun owners will come singing “Kumbaya” as they turn in their weapons for destruction; the remainder of otherwise law-abiding gun owners will choose to retain their weapons regardless of new laws.  Those likely to commit crime, of course, will retain their weapons.

Meanwhile, gun violence will continue.  A black market will inevitably develop for both weapons and ammunition, along with increasing theft of guns.  The country cannot stop the flow of drugs or illegal immigrants into the country and won’t be able to stop the flow of weapons either.  Attempts to confiscate weapons will result in casualties.  Bans and confiscations are the logical end result of continuing gun control legislation, but will not only fail to end gun violence but may actually exacerbate it.

Pessimistic, yes, but there simply is no legislative or societal solution that will end gun violence.  Further, society seems intent on making it worse.  Drunk drivers kill thousands each year, but alcohol consumption enjoys almost complete acceptance, unlike firearms.  Alcohol consumption does not make one a better driver, a better neighbor or citizen, a better employee, a better spouse, a better parent, a more stable and responsible person, and certainly not a better gun owner.  Alcohol, and increasingly marijuana, are widely accepted and celebrated, even as when used in excess they exacerbate the kind of personal problems that create crazed gunmen.  Use of violent and destructive media is almost universal among teens and young men, predisposing some to a mentality leading to gun violence.  Broken homes and single-parent homes create a fertile atmosphere for the kind of problems that might motivate a multiple-victim shooter.  In urban areas, young men, born to unmarried teen mothers who were born to unmarried teen mothers, are at great risk of becoming involved in gang violence.  Yet society refuses to recognize the value of upholding marriage to promote stable homes that are more likely to produce stable, successful individuals.

American government and society perhaps cannot and certainly will not begin to address the real issues behind gun violence.  Biblical Christianity, however, does offer real hope.  The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; all things have become new.”  When an individual comes to Christ in simple repentant faith and is regenerated by the Spirit, when an individual is saved, the Bible tells us that our tendencies and desires are changed.  The motivations that cause a person to shoot another person without cause are transformed.  It is true that even a truly born-again person will sin, but the likelihood of that born-again person becoming a murderer is certainly diminished.  Further, transformed believers are more likely to be better parents, better spouses, better neighbors, better citizens, and are less likely to not only become murderers but are less likely to parent children who become murderers.

Our hope for a less violent society is not in the government.  It is not in gun control legislation, even when carried to its logical conclusion.  Our hope is in the transformation of human nature that comes with the gospel.

Today’s Most Cherished Freedom

Freedom to do whatever with whomever whenever must be protected at all costs. 

In his January 1941 address to Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt argued for four fundamental freedoms that all people should enjoy – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  He added the last two very expansive concepts to the first two that were included in the The United States Constitution and the associated Bill of Rights.  The Constitution guarantees several basic rights Americans enjoy, including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, the right to possess arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and legal protections such as due process, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom from double jeopardy.  Today, these rights guaranteed by the Constitution are taken for granted, as well as all sorts of economic and social concepts derived from them that are considered entitlements.

The driving thought of our postmodern society today, however, including the rejection of all objective ethics and morality, seems to be more consumed with another cherished freedom.  That freedom is the Freedom to Fornicate.

Dedication to protecting this freedom is often in the news.  The recent battle over the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice illustrates this.  The right to abortion in the United States has been codified into law not by legislation so much as by judicial decisions.  And the absolute freedom to fornicate requires legal abortion.  Regardless of who was to be seated on the Court and their views on abortion, everybody knew that in the end abortion would remain legal, widely practiced and widely available, and  relatively safe for the woman (deadly, of course, for the unborn child).  But there must be no hint of legal restriction, no hint of disapproval of the procedure.  It must be celebrated as a fundamental entitlement, paid for by taxpayer dollars when necessary.  Without expansive abortion rights, the cherished freedom that often results in the conception of a child as an unintended consequence might be infringed upon.  And so a man who may not believe in this absolute right cannot be considered for a seat on the Court.  (Thoughtful people acknowledge that often abortion is very difficult for a woman, regardless of the circumstances leading to the pregnancy, and not always the result of personal irresponsibility.)

And dedication to this freedom goes beyond the abortion issue, and beyond ideas concerning more “traditional” sexual expression.  Today’s society reflects postmodern thought in rejecting any objective values.  Right and wrong, good and evil, are rejected; one person’s values are as good as another’s, and everything is relative.  Thus, there can be no hint of restriction or judgement of moral ideas.  Freedom to do whatever with whomever whenever must be protected at all costs.  There can be no restriction on individualism, no bias, no restriction of government funding, no speech that might express values that might make someone uncomfortable.

An October 24, 2018 story in the Denver Post was titled “Boulder police said three more women have come forward with reports they may have been drugged at a party or parties on University Hill.”  The article notes that a police spokeswoman “said all of the women went to multiple parties that night…”  The Post had first reported on the story a few days earlier, and other similar accounts have been reported in local media.  Of course, and all reasonable people would agree, no one should ever be drugged by another person, no one should ever be assaulted.  The guilty parties should be arrested and punished.  But one wonders if the young women involved might consider restricting their activities in order to further their own safety?  Probably not.  There must be freedom to party whenever with whomever.   As the late celebrity Anthony Bourdain purportedly noted, “Your body is not a temple.  It’s an amusement park.  Enjoy the ride.”

The Post front-page headline for October 23 was “Fury over reported fed plan.”  The article noted that “LGBT leaders across the U.S. reacted with fury Monday to a report that the Trump administration is considering adoption of a new definition of gender that would effectively deny federal recognition and civil rights protections to transgender Americans.”  A New York Times report was cited indicating that the Department of Health and Human Services was circulating a memo proposing that gender be defined as an immutable biological condition determined by a person’s sex organs at birth.  The memo that would reverse the Obama administration’s action and return the legal definition of “sex” under Title IX civil rights law to what its authors meant: sex rooted in unchanging biological reality. The article concludes, “According to an estimate by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, there are about 1.4 million transgender adults in the United States.”  This proposed policy change is simply an acknowledgement of reality.  Sex is an immutable biological reality, while the idea of gender identity is an invented social construct that can change over time. The two terms are not interchangeable. The authors of Title IX meant biological sex, not gender identity. But to the current way of thinking, there must be no restriction, no judgement on transgender persons.  (We must acknowledge that often, these are deeply disturbed individuals.  Many, perhaps most, have been abused as children.  They need help.)

The October 24 Post featured an article titled,  “Thornton middle school apologizes for not warning about drag queen.”  Apparently, some parents were actually upset by a drag queen being invited to a middle school career fair at a school in the city and school district in which I reside and pay taxes.  The article noted that the person didn’t perform at Rocky Top Middle School in Thornton, but, in costume, merely read a chapter from “Horrible Harry” to show the damage bullying can do.

Increasingly, attitudes about this new freedom are infecting the evangelical church.  Reportedly, Brandan Robertson, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and an LGBT activist “pastor” at Missiongathering Christian Church in San Diego, recently told his congregation that there is moral equivalence between man/woman monogamous marriage and a group orgy.  The annual “Revoice” conference is billed as “Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other gender and sexual minority Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”  Homosexual, even transgender, clergy are increasingly to be found in the broad church community.

For the Christian believer, however, Scripture calls us to a vastly different perspective on the issues of personal autonomy and moral freedom.  In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, for instance, any sort of immorality is forbidden to be tolerated in the church.  The first chapter of Romans reminds of the moral corruption of human society apart from God and pronounces God’s wrath and judgement against such sin.  Words and phrases are used such as “God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” in verse 24.  Verse 26 speaks of “vile passions” and practices that are “against nature;” verse 27 uses the words “burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful” in connection with forbidden immoral activity.  Clearly, the Scriptures maintain a high, objective moral standard – sexual practice confined to monogamous heterosexual marriage and complete faithfulness to that marriage.  Clearly, the New Testament teaches that believers are not autonomous, not free to develop their own standard of ethics and morality in any matter.  Clearly, the New Testament teaches that Christians are servants – slaves – of Jesus Christ.  And, clearly the Scriptures teach us that it is only in Christ that we can attain true freedom.

The late American pastor and author James Montgomery Boice, in his book “The Sovereign God,” wrote that in Eden, temptation to replace God in the matter of his sovereignty, as Satan had himself tried to do earlier, did not bring freedom.  He wrote that “It is true that the man and woman did learn the difference between evil and good, in a perverted way.  They learned by doing evil.  But they didn’t gain the freedom they wished.  Instead they gained bondage to sin, from which only the Lord Jesus Christ through obedience to the Father was able to deliver both them and us.”  Further, “When individuals rebel against God, they don’t achieve freedom.  They fall into bondage, because rebellion is sin, and sin is a tyrant.  On the other hand, when men and women submit to God, becoming his slaves, they become truly free.”   And, “The basic reason why women and men do not like the doctrine of God’s sovereignty is that they do not want a sovereign God.  They wish to be autonomous.”

American pastor Tim Keller recently noted on social media, “Because a fish absorbs oxygen from water, not air, it is free only if it is restricted to water. If a fish is ‘freed’ from the river and put out on the grass to explore, its freedom to move and soon live is destroyed…Real freedom is finding the right [restrictions].”  People will only know true freedom when they live in harmony with their Creator, and submit to His wise, loving authority.

Humankind celebrating individual autonomy in any and all realms leads to disaster. Celebration of aberrant sexual practices and abortion will not ultimately bring freedom; it will bring servitude to regret, guilt, pain, disease.  Only relationship to the Creator and submission to Him will bring true freedom.

First Peter 2:11 tells us, “Abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.  Reflecting on this passage, the old Puritan Richard Baxter wrote, “To avoid sinful flesh-pleasing, seek the joys above.  Remember that God would give you more pleasure, not less, and that temporal delights are subordinate to temporal delights!”

 

Preaching and Teaching Doctrine

I was “blown away,” as they say, by his lesson.

I recently attended a relatively large Baptist church’s Sunday night service.  The church is, in my estimation, very healthy.  The pastor didn’t so much preach but taught, and I was “blown away,” as they say, by his lesson.

A solid expository preacher on Sunday mornings, the pastor taught this night on a doctrinal subject related to the doctrine of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), as part of a Sunday night series on doctrinal subjects.  My first reaction was that the subject matter (pertaining to the precedence faith as opposed to regeneration) might be over the head of most of the people in my circle of family and friends, though I personally was very interested in listening to his approach to the subject matter as well as his conclusion.

As I listened, several things struck me.  Most Christians I know, including most pastors I have known, probably couldn’t intelligently even discuss the subject.  This pastor (who is personable and engaging)  is both a theologian and student of Scripture and is willing to do the hard work of taking an important,  detailed, and difficult subject and preparing  a lesson that is understandable to his congregation.  He has, as an able teacher of Scripture, put his congregation in a place where they can listen to such teaching.  He understands the primacy of Scripture and the importance of teaching the Bible and doctrine to his people.  He is systematically “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” as Ephesians 4:12 tells us.  They are being built up in their faith, growing in their understanding of the teachings of the Bible, gaining the ability to live out their faith and answer the questions of those in their circles of influence.

This Sunday evening gathering wasn’t the sort of low energy afterthought that helped kill off Sunday evening services in many churches.  It wasn’t a small group meeting devoted to chit-chat and sharing of opinions, or an entertaining video presentation.  It wasn’t a silly motivational talk; it was solid, vital teaching.  The pastor was not overly dogmatic or riding any sort of “hobby horse” in his presentation, but he discussed the clear teaching of Scripture as well as leaving room for disagreement on finer points, even charitably pointing out opposing views on some of the details of the issue.  He was teaching people to study the Word.  The minds of people were engaged as students of the Word.

Days earlier, I had been in a conversation with a person who had grown up in church and been in church for many years, but who seldom has heard solid preaching and teaching.  The conversation broadly pertained to confusion and questions related to soteriology.  Reflecting on the Sunday night lesson, I wonder if this person might have profited from hearing what that pastor said that night, and more importantly, hearing such solid teaching on a weekly basis.   There is no substitute for preaching and teaching Scripture and doctrinal truth from Scripture.

On another recent occasion at the same church, I heard a speaker who had emigrated from China.  As a youth in China, as well as after coming to North America, he had struggled with the question of “what is the meaning of life?”  Post-modern Americans, at least when they allow themselves to think, struggle with the same question.  Christianity has the Answer to that question!  And so many other vital questions!  But, churches will not help people find that Answer without an emphasis on content.  Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 17:17).”