Is Political Liberalism a Religion?

Dr. Albert Mohler wrote a very insightful article this week that speaks to that question. I highly recommend you read the whole article, but I found the following quote to be particularly interesting.

"This explains why talking about abortion or same-sex 'marriage,' for example, with certain liberals is usually futile. It is like trying to persuade a committed Muslim to accept Christ. Because his religion forbids it, he can only do so by converting from Islam to Christianity; he cannot accept Christ as long as he remains firmly committed to Islam. So it is with firmly committed liberals: Their 'religion' forbids any concessions to the 'conservative' agenda, and as long as they remain committed to their secular ideology, it is futile to hope for such concessions from them."

The Lord does not save through the Republican Party nor would I suggest that all true Christians vote only republican. There are Democrats who are not pro-choice or pro-homosexual marriage. However, Christians should always stand on the side of what the Bible clearly teaches and the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality and abortion are both sinful.

Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed

I remember when I was a child watching some sitcom in the 70’s I remember an episode where the main character was trying to hide the fact that they were working an after hours job from the boss of their day job. They would come in to work with bags under their eyes fighting sleep the whole day and the hilarity would ensue from their mistakes resulting from sleep deprivation. I always found it funny that a boss would tell his employees they couldn’t work more than one job. Of course, we have no such issues today in our society. In fact, I would dare say we all probably know someone who works more than one job out of preference or necessity. At one point, I worked 3 jobs while going to college to finish my accounting degree. It wasn’t fun and I’m glad I don’t have to do that now but through sheer force of iron will I was able to do it. However, we need to see as Matthew records here that Jesus teaches an unswerving devotion to God and to His glory.

First of all, we should consider the context of what Jesus says here in the Sermon on the Mount. He tells us that we should invest in the kingdom of God rather than focusing on acquiring wealth simply to acquire wealth (vs 19-21). Jesus tells us that we should serve God with a pure motive instead of trying to focus on God and the things of this world (vs 22-23). He then progresses logically to a question that I’m sure someone has or will ask—why not serve God and try to acquire stuff? I mean, Solomon had a lot of stuff, didn’t he? What’s so wrong with wanting to own and enjoy things and serve the Lord.

First of all, because Jesus says it is an impossible task. He says at the beginning of the verse that “No one can serve two masters”. At the end of the verse, He says “You cannot serve God and wealth”. The fact is, the two masters He refers to are so different that to serve them would be to try to turn right AND left at the same time. To serve God involves a dying to self and a total submission to the will of God. Chasing after the things of this world, in contrast, demands that you be on the lookout for how you can better yourself and in some cases a willingness to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Brothers and sisters, this is not just a case of a sitcom character working til the wee hours of the morning and arrives at their day job looking haggard. “No one” includes everyone. When Jesus says “You cannot” He means the plural “you” not just His audience. I can’t do it. You can’t do it. No one can do it.

There is a good reason no one can do it. You see you and me, dear reader, think of this verse as describing two different jobs. Like the sitcom character, we imagine that if we could get enough caffeine in our system, we could hold down these two jobs of serving God and money for a while at least—even if we were tired. But you see, the task is impossible for someone who seeks to serve God because of the incredible responsibility that service entails. The word “serve” translates a Greek word that is related to the word for “slave” (doulos). We’re not employees who are attempting to eek out a bit of extra spending money because our day job doesn’t pay enough. We are not servants. We are slaves. That means we are property or as I’ve heard people refer to them “Shovels that can walk and talk”. A person can work two different jobs but a slave only has one master. The slave is that master’s property to do with as they please. The slave does not get a choice and, obviously, would not be able to choose to serve two masters. Therefore, from a practical standpoint it’s pretty easy to imagine the problems dual ownership would create.

In fact, I submit to you for a slave to even try to serve two masters would produce inescapable conflict. As Jesus goes on to say, one master is going to get a poor effort or the short end of the stick from this slave. Jesus says the slave will “hate” and “despise” one master. They will be antagonistic in word and deed toward this one master. They will also “think down” on them (“despise”-kataphroneo [2706] means literally to think down or think lowly of). The slave will “love” (agape—not a love of emotion but a love of choice, a sacrificial love that always seeks the best of the object of the love regardless of personal cost) and “be devoted” to the other master. The slave will demonstrate his devotion to the one master in excellent service and loyalty and neglect the other master. After all, he’s only one slave. There is no way he could totally devote 100% of his time, energy, and resources to the one master and have anything left over to give to any other master.

Friends, if you and I are going to serve Jesus Christ as Lord, He must be just that—Lord. We must realize we are His slaves and as such we must make a total commitment to Him and His purposes.

II Peter 2:4-8 God the Righteous Judge Part II

Have you ever had to give someone bad news? In my job, on several occasions, I’ve had to go to an auditee and tell them I’ve found a problem and I’m going to have to include it in our audit team’s published audit report. For instance, I found an auditee that was paying an estimated $50,000 per year for telephones that no one was using. You can imagine how happy they were to get that news. We as Christians have to bring bad news to people—they are suffering from an incurable spiritual cancer that is the result of their birth and their choice and they will die from it. However, we don’t just communicate this message with words. Our lives also provide a testament to the world of the judgment that is to come.

Peter, as we have seen in these verses, clearly demonstrates that God will judge sinners. However, as we observe in verse 4, He also “…preserved Noah…with seven others”. Now, why would God preserve Noah? Well, the short answer is because God was pleased to do so. He is God after all and doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. However, we notice in the account given in Genesis that while God saw the people on the earth only concerned themselves with how much meanness they could get into and how quickly they could get into that meanness (that’s from the Baldwin County Translation of Genesis 6) that Noah was found to be “a righteous man, blameless in his time”. Now, we know that all men are sinners (Romans 3:23) so the text couldn’t mean that Noah never sinned. Noah attained his right standing with God the same way any of us do—by faith. He didn’t earn his salvation by doing good works, going to church a certain number of times a week, or professing allegiance to a certain organization. He became righteous by faith. Noah and his family were saved from utter destruction by God as God was judging the rest of the wicked, sinful world.

We see then why God choose to save Noah and his family. Peter also tells us what Noah did upon receiving this revelation from God. Peter notes that Noah was a “preacher of righteousness”. The word translated “preacher” is the Greek word for a herald or town crier. The picture is of someone announcing the advent of a great king or one of relaying a proclamation for the king. As we read the text in Genesis, we see no sermons are recorded that Moses preached so in what sense was he a “preacher of righteousness”. We can imagine him building this huge ark—a sight that could be seen quite a ways off, I would imagine. I have to believe somebody asked him “Hey, Noah, whatchu doin’?” Of course, he would have told them and they would have asked why I imagine. At some point, the conversation probably turned to the fact that God was going to destroy the world because of the wickedness of the people and that Noah was being obedient to God by building this ark.

Therefore, by his obedience to the call of God he preached in his actions to the people around him. We don’t have any conversations recorded in Scripture as to what he said to anyone but it’s not outside the realm of possibility to suggest that he also told them what was coming. He may have even pleaded with them to repent and call on God. In any case, we see here a picture that looks an awfully lot like the time that we’re living in now, don’t we. People ask us “Hey, why do you think gay marriage is wrong?” or “You know, what’s all this big deal y’all make out of abortion? Why is that?” In our words and deeds, we should be testifying to the truth of scripture. People should see from our lives and hear from our lips what God has to say about this wicked world. In much the same way as Noah, we are privileged to have the revelation of God. Therefore, we each also have a responsibility to be a “preacher of righteousness” just as Noah was in his generation.

Missing the Point of Missions Part III

In a recent comment stream, I had a gentleman who apparently does "church marketing" trying to convince me that church marketing and trying to be appealing can't be all bad if it gets people in church. I came across an article written by one of the men from 9Marks, Andy Johnson, titled "Pragmatism, Pragmatism Everywhere!" While his subject is primarily missions, I think it can also apply to evangelism very easily. I'm going to repost his three main points here and I commend the entire article to you.

Assuming the Bible Is Silent About “How”

Finally, it seems to me that many assume the Bible is silent on practice—the “how” of evangelism and church planting. Books and leaders don’t say this up front. But the fact that they do not carefully interact with Scripture to find, understand, and test missionary methods suggest as much. For example, if you never consult your Bible when changing the oil in your car it suggests that you don’t believe Scripture addresses the topic. And you’re right. Likewise, based on what’s been written and spoken about missions, or not, I take it that many missiologists and missionaries assume that Scripture is largely silent on that topic of the “how.”

Prior generations have made similar mistakes. We’re not the first people to affirm the authority and sufficiency of the Bible yet deny them in our methods. In his classic work of 1954, An Introduction to the Science of Missions the Dutch theologian and veteran missionary to Indonesia, J.H. Bavinck wrote,

The conclusion might easily be reached that the content of preaching is given in Scripture but that the manner of preaching, and the question of missionary approach, is a matter of personal tact and of applying oneself to the given circumstances.

He continues,

According to such a solution, the Bible provides the content, the “what” of preaching, but the manner, the “how” of preaching must be discovered otherwise.

But Bavink calls such a solution “too simple” and suggests that

theoretical problems concerning principles, which can be answered by Scripture alone, lurk behind the countless practical problems which beset the church.[5]

When we deal with issues that touch on the heart of the biblical message (evangelism and the church) and yet act as though Scripture has little to say that’s practical, haven’t we fallen into the same error?


HT: Bart Barber

Missing the Point on Missions Part II

In a recent comment stream, I had a gentleman who apparently does "church marketing" trying to convince me that church marketing and trying to be appealing can't be all bad if it gets people in church. I came across an article written by one of the men from 9Marks, Andy Johnson, titled "Pragmatism, Pragmatism Everywhere!" While his subject is primarily missions, I think it can also apply to evangelism very easily. I'm going to repost his three main points here and I commend the entire article to you.

Evaluating Numbers, Not Faithfulness.

Also, I’ve noticed a trend for mission organizations to focus on numbers of “responses” rather than the biblical faithfulness of their workers as their primary evaluative metric. Again, it’s not that these organizations are wholly unconcerned about theological integrity. They likely have their workers sign a doctrinal statement, and they might be quick to address open heresy. But at the functional level, they seem to assume their workers are faithful and then actually test them by measurable, immediate, visible results—“numbers.”

I don’t know of any organizations who say that numbers are their sole metric. But their published reports focus entirely on the number of Bible study groups formed, decisions made, baptisms performed, and churches planted. So you start to wonder.

Now, I trust that all true Christians would rejoice in numbers insofar as we know that they represent true converts and true churches. But we must also remember from Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1-23) that the number of immediate, visible responses can prove hugely deceptive over time. I often get the feeling that most evangelicals haven’t internalized this warning and tend to think that the faithful ministry or method is the one that “works.” It’s as if we think numbers, not biblical faithfulness, vindicates methodology.

HT: Bart Barber

Missing the Point on Missions Part I

In a recent comment stream, I had a gentleman who apparently does "church marketing" trying to convince me that church marketing and trying to be appealing can't be all bad if it gets people in church. I came across an article written by one of the men from 9Marks, Andy Johnson, titled "Pragmatism, Pragmatism Everywhere!" While his subject is primarily missions, I think it can also apply to evangelism very easily. I'm going to repost his three main points here and I commend the entire article to you.



Arguing From Results, Not Exegesis

First, I’ve noticed the exceeding popularity of books on missions that seem to argue their method based primarily on their results rather than on biblical exegesis. With some hesitation, I’ll mention a couple of examples of this pragmatic approach to missions, starting with a book written by a person with whom I’m somewhat acquainted and who evidences a great love for Jesus and the lost: David Garrison, Church Planting Movements (WIGTake Resources, 2003) [see the review in this eJournal]. Garrison uses the image of “reverse engineering” to describe with candor how he developed his CPM methods, not from Scripture, but by analyzing a movement that was producing the results he wanted. Or, for an example of this trend in a popular missionary journal see the April 2009 edition of the Evangelical Missionary Quarterly: John Tanner, “A Story of Phenomenal Success: indigenous mission training centers and Myanmar” EMQ 45(2), 152-157. Both works are written by self-professed evangelicals, but both base their arguments mainly on results, rather than on the biblical faithfulness of their approach.


Sadly, I could list dozens, maybe hundreds, of similar books and articles, especially on the topics of contextualizing the gospel, evangelizing Muslims, and planting house churches. The Bible isn’t rejected by these books, it’s merely regarded as if it doesn’t have much to say about the “how” of global evangelism.



HT: Bart Barber

Matthew 6:22-23 “What’chu lookin’ at?”

As I wrote on my blog a month of so ago, I had some problems with my right eye. The retina had detached. For the period of about 2 weeks, I really couldn’t see anything out of that eye. It was very frustrating. If you’ve never had problems with your vision it may be hard for you to imagine but just take my word for it—I was terribly frustrated. I had many times taken my vision for granted but I now count it very precious to be able to see my wife, my children, sunrises, flowers, as well as being able to read. Jesus uses the eye in this passage not to refer to what we see physically but rather to describe our priorities with regard to money and possessions.

Jesus uses a metaphor to teach these truths in verse 23 by saying that “The eye is the lamp of the body.” Now, that makes sense because while we have other openings in our body the eye is the only one where we can perceive light coming in and it’s the only one where we can interpret what that light shows us. We should remember of course, as we begin to study this passage, that we control our eyes. I mean, what do we look at? We look at what we want to see. Someone might choose to look at their child, a flower, a TV show, or any number of things but it is very rare that we fix our eyes on something that we don’t want to look at. In fact, it is what we do with our eyes that Jesus uses to make His point in these verses.

Jesus tells us there are two “settings” for our eyes—two ways we can be viewing the world. He tells us in verse 22 that our eye can be “clear” or that our eye can be “bad”. Now, since He uses two words here and He is obviously contrasting them (“But”) we can assume they are intended to be opposite. But the opposite of bad isn’t clear—it’s good. So I’m confused. However, a look at the Greek used here might help us out some.

The word used here for “clear” is the Greek word “haplous” (573) which is the root one term used in genetics to describe a cell that instead of having pairs of chromosomes only has one of the strands of chromosomes. The word means single or simple and it is used here to describe someone who doesn’t have duplicitous or ulterior motives. Therefore, Jesus probably means the word “bad” (Greek poneros [4190]-evil in active opposition to good) to mean someone who has motives that are neither simple nor pure. Further, consider the context in which these verses appear. Jesus talked about someone who viewed money as a thing to be stored for here on earth rather than something to be used for God’s glory. In verse 24, He talks about serving one master rather than trying to serve two. When we allow our possessions to own us rather than acknowledging God’s ownership and therefore our stewardship of the possessions we have, we are no longer looking at life with a clear eye—a single purpose which is to glorify God and serve Him. We begin to have a bad eye, an eye that is trying to look at the myriad of things that our flesh lusts after rather than the only thing that should matter which is God’s glory.

In fact, if we abandon our singleness of purpose in seeking God’s glory and begin to look for the things that will bring us pleasure with a bad eye, we will find that we are no longer able to see spiritually. Jesus says in verse 22 that if our eye is clear our “whole body will be full of light”. However, if we have spiritual double vision because we are trying to look to the things of God and the things of the world we will find that our “whole body is full of darkness”. Now, when I was born I developed cataracts in my eyes. The lens of my eyes clouded up and I wasn’t able to see. I was a baby so I don’t remember much about it. I have a friend, however, that recently had that surgery. He said he could see but his vision wasn’t clear before he had the surgery. After his surgery, he could see much better. For those who have a bad eye and therefore have spiritual cataracts, the little bit of light they have is “darkness” when compared to the light of a clear eye. Therefore, as Jesus says, what should be light to these people is a “great…darkness”. They think they can see but they cannot because their eye does not give them light. Their eye does not give them light, metaphorically speaking, because their priorities are wrong. May we pray that God will help us keep our priorities in line.

Spiritual Bait and Switch

Jay Limke has written an article titled Church: It's Time to Stop the Spiritual "Bait and Switch". He makes some excellent points. Church marketing, particularly to seekers, is not only fruitless from an evangelistic standpoint, but is also deceptive. He writes:

So why, in the church of all places, does such apparent dissimulation exist? Many in the American church seem intent to communicate under false pretenses, even as the secular world is learning its lessons. We'll bring people in with music, food, fun, and games; and we'll make them think being a Christian is about whatever interests them. We'll play on their felt needs, and we'll do research to determine what "seekers" want in a church. We'll stick our collective fingers in the air and then we'll become what people what us to be. Finally, after all of that work, once we have people in the church, we may eventually get around to telling them, "Oh, by the way, Jesus died for your sins." In my public relations world, that's called the old "bait and switch."

It's sad and unbiblical. We don't need Madison Avenue tactics to reach the lost. Paul wrote that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

HT: Nathan W. Bingham

Charismatic Child Prodigy

I had actually posted this video about a year ago. When I was pastoring a church part time, my daughter would ocassionally make it up on stage. We didn't freak out about it because she really wasn't hurting anybody. Everybody knew she was just playing and at that point she didn't really "talk" it was more just baby talk. However, the church in the video below seem to honestly think this child is bringing a "word from the Lord". I'll bet you a wooden nickel this kid shows up on TBN with the lady with that big pink hair. I'm sure the Charismaniacs will call him a child prodigy.

Blog Link-When Should You Leave A Church?

I recently read part two of an article titled "When Should a Christian Leave a Church?" I would say that the majority of the time when people leave a church it is for no good reason. Having a spat about what color to paint the new nursery, why someone didn't eat your gooseberry cobbler (which is HIGHLY overrated anyway), or how the preacher looked at you when you were coming in the door (nevermind that he was trying to see who it was in the glare of the sun) would not be reasons for someone to leave a church. If you or someone you know are in a church, however, where the leadership exists with no accountability and they pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply, I would say "Get out!!" Churches with hyper-authoritarian leaders often wound people spiritually, as the author writes below:

How many sincere sheep do you know who "have been scattered" because of the tyranny of pastors and elders? How many sincere believers do you know who have been "afraid and terrified" even to speak what was in their hearts for fear of the elder's discipline? How many husbands and wives have been alienated in their affections from each other because of the intrusion of the church or elder into their relationship with each other. Many of you who read these lines have seen in practice what the following verse describes:

"The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly." (Jeremiah 10:23)

I would pray to God that some of the preachers who have split churches over the issue of "elder authority" would ponder Ezekiel 34. Usually when people are run out of a church for refusing to obey the "duly authorized elders" (which, interpreted, means refusing to sell your conscience in "unquestioning obedience" to the eldership), they are never visited personally by the pastor. They are not contacted in any manner except to be informed in a "duly authorized" letter that quotes a lot of verses (mostly out of context) and then informs the "rebel" that he has been "duly" excommunicated from the church, or cult, as the case may be. Sometimes, not too often, the rebel is told that the elders are willing to consider receiving him back as soon as he will genuinely repent, which of course means, kiss the pope's ring in submission.

"This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourself with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock." (Ezekiel 24:2, 3)

If you were a pastor whose church was sacrificing to pay you close to $50,000 a year in salary and benefits and putting less than $1,000 a year into any kind of mission work, how should you feel when you read the above words from Ezekiel? (By the way, if you ever have an elder board tell you "We can't pay him [the senior pastor] enough", that is not the case. The IRS has rules regarding non-profits and how much they can pay those that work there. Yes, a church falls under those rules as well. Romans 13:1 says that we are supposed to submit ourselves to the governing authorities and that means we have to follow the IRS's rules and regulations. As an outlandish example, a church which paid 50% of it's annual revenue as the pastor's salary would probably have an auditor asking "Ok, where does he keep the incriminating photos he has of the other elders". See here and here [pg 5].)

"You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back strays or searched for the lost. You ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered...." (Ezekiel 34:4, 5)

If you are a pastor who has driven families out of your congregation only because they dared to disagree with you, and you have never visited one of them to try to resolve the difficulty, who do you think God is talking about in Ezekiel 34:2-5?

Many who read this will say, "none of those things could ever happen in my church." You may be surprised! If you have a truly Godly pastor, these things will not happen regardless of how wrong your view of Elder authority may be. However, if your system is that held by many Reformed Baptists, you have a ready made situation for these same things to happen in your church at a later date with another pastor.

A good man in a bad system will not misuse his authority. A good system can deal with a bad man and get rid of him. A bad man in a bad system is an untouchable pope simply because he is protected by the system. He may be the worst of tyrants, but nothing can be done by anyone. A sincere sheep has only one option in such a case.

When one of these sheep finally gets enough courage to leave such a church, or in one writer's words, "...with a sigh of relief some sheep escape such ministries," I guarantee you that God does not view this "escape" as rebellion against His "duly authorized church." He views it as a refusal by a sheep to follow a false shepherd. When a child of God flees from that kind of tyranny, he is being obedient to the voice of his one true Shepherd and he is rejecting the authority of a false prophet.

If you find yourself in this kind of church, know that you have God's blessing in leaving it. Get out!! Feel the FREEDOM!!

II Peter 2:4-8 God, the Righteous Judge Part I

I didn’t get in trouble much in school, but there were a few times I got disciplined for being a knucklehead—and rightly so. However, I remember one time in 9th grade when my grandmother died that I had to miss a practice at Band Camp. Anyone who missed part of band camp had to help clean up the parking lot after practice the next day. My band director told me and the others who had missed to go out and clean up. I tried to plead my case with her saying “I was at my grandmother’s funeral”. She wouldn’t hear it but told me to go on out there. I didn’t think that was fair. I was innocent and was being punished. However, as Peter writes here, we Christians can look forward to a perfect day where true justice shall be done. The righteous will be rewarded and the guilty, like the false teachers described in this chapter, shall be punished by a sovereign, holy God.

Peter, in the first three verses of this chapter, has explained what false teachers look like, what they do, and what ultimately will happen to them. They will be punished. As he says “Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep”. Some might defiantly say, however, that God has not judged me yet so how can you say He’s going to judge at all. We see first of all, that Peter points to the very distant past that God in fact judged even the “angels when they sinned”. Now, I’m not going to tell you that I know exactly what Peter is talking about here. In fact, I won’t even tell you that there’s agreement by most evangelical commentators as far as I can tell. There are people who take this passage as being parallel with Jude 1:6-7 and interpret these angels who sinned as angels who somehow impregnated humans as described back in Genesis 6. I personally lean toward that argument because it makes sense to me.

However, it isn’t necessary to determine why God judged but we should take note of the fact that He did judge. The way this is written in the Greek, it is stated as a matter of fact that God did actually at sometime in the past judge these angels. Now, if I’m just a flesh and blood, here today tomorrow gone like the grass of the field false teacher, I should sit up and take notice. Because if God judged the angels when they sinned, whatever that sin was, I can be sure that I’m not going to escape. See, we know that God judged Satan and some of the angels rebelled with Satan. Furthermore, we know the extent to which He judged them. He didn’t just “cast them into hell” a place of utter torment. Rather, He went even further and “committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment”. Just as sure as that happened, we can be sure that God will also judge these false teachers.

Furthermore, observe that was not the only time God judged evil. Peter points in verse 5 to the cataclysmic event where God “did not spare the ancient world…when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly”. God looked upon the evil and sinful hearts of men and brought a deluge of rain over 40 days and 40 nights to wipe them out. Again, this is written as a matter-of-fact event that happened in the past. Once more, Peter drives home the point that God “did not spare” those who deserved by their vile actions to be judged. He was not lenient regardless of how long He took to execute divine judgment. Therefore, the flood provides yet another reminder that God is a God who judges sin.

However, just like the old Ginsu knives commercial “But wait, there’s more”. Peter reminds his readers of a more recent, and in some ways more chilling, act of divine retribution by God against unrepentant sinners. Because of the sin of homosexuality and sexual depravity, God “condemned the cities of Sodam and Gomorrah”. The Greek word translated “condemned” is the root of our English word catastrophe. In other words, God brought complete and total ruin to those two cities. I mean, you don’t recover from having fire and brimstone rain down from heaven turning the city to “ashes”—not rubble, but ashes. Again, it is pointed out that this terrifying portrait of God’s vengeance should serve as a warning sign. Peter writes that God did this to provide “an example to those who would live ungodly lives after”. The sense of the Greek is that this judgment came in the past and was a completed action with ongoing effect (perfect tense). In other words, when people see the judgment of God that was brought against those two cities, it should cause them to stop in their tracks and repent of their sin.

As we have seen here, God does judge. Because He has judged we can be sure that He will judge. However, as we will see next time, we can also be sure that when He judges, He will judge justly, punishing the wicked but saving the righteous.

Matthew 6:19-21 Sound Investing Advice

Bernie Madoff was sentenced today to 150 years in prison for defrauding investors out of billions of dollars. Now, what he did was wrong but I would say that at least some of the people he defrauded were motivated by greed—they had money and wanted a lot more money. Their avarice prompted them to ignore the sage advice given by many parents to their children “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”. The fictitious returns on the investments Madoff supposedly managed were about as plausible as a pig flying. While the people he ripped off are victims, there is something to be learned from this sad story. We can’t put our trust in our wealth. In fact, Jesus says here that our wealth shouldn’t be the focus of our lives. Rather, we should have God’s kingdom as our priority.

First of all, observe with me what Jesus tells us not to do with our money. In verse 19, Matthew records that Jesus said to His audience “Do not store up for yourselves treasures”. The sentence reads in the Greek literally “Do not be treasuring your treasures”. He indicates here that our habit, our lifestyle, should not be to hoard up money as if we’re collecting as a possession to be kept and hidden rather than as a resource to be used. The word translated “store up” carries with it the idea of something, in this case money, being stored up for safekeeping. Now, is Jesus then against the idea of saving for a rainy day? I would say not, because we are told in the book of Proverbs to take note of how the ant stores and prepares the things it needs (Proverbs 6:6). Is Jesus then saying we shouldn’t prepare to retire? Probably not, although the idea of an idle Christian is certainly not something you would get from the Bible. If someone were able to retire from full time work so they could serve their church and community or contribute in some way to a ministry (i.e. a retired accountant serving a church or ministry because old bookkeepers never die, they just get out of balance) that would be a meaningful, God honoring way to spend their later years. However, I’m not so sure that sitting around watching reruns of Matlock and Wheel of Fortune is exactly the kind of life that God called us to when He saved us assuming we are physically and mentally able to function. The idea here is that we should not hoard up wealth just to see how much we can amass.

Why, you might ask? Because everything on earth is temporary and, therefore, you “can’t take it with you”. All the stuff that we acquire is stuff that our kids will have to sort out after we’re gone. It won’t do us any good because after we die our spirit goes to be with the Savior. However, even while here on earth we shouldn’t let our possessions possess us because at any time we may find that “moth and rust” have destroyed our treasures or they’ve been stolen. Simply put, a lock only keeps an honest man out. If a crook wants in your house bad enough and wants your stuff bad enough, they can get it. Our treasures, then, are not only temporary but they are perishable. We can’t and shouldn’t hold on to them because they are fleeting. God is eternal—our stuff is not.

With this in view, Jesus tells us what we should do with the wealth and possessions that we’ve been made stewards over. He says we should “store up for [ourselves] treasures in heaven”. In other words, I believe the text tells us we should use our material possessions in a way that honors God and builds His kingdom. In the end, how much money we had, what kind of car we drove, and what kind of house we lived in won’t matter. What will matter is what we personally did to provide resources for ministries that are reaching the world for Jesus. It will matter in eternity how much sacrifice we made not only of our money but of our time and talents. In the final analysis, those are gong to be the only treasures we have stored up in heaven and they will last because in heaven “neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal”.

In verse 21, we see the point Jesus was making with this teaching. Our focus determines our priorities. If our treasure is in heaven, our heart will be there as well. We will be concerned about God’s holiness, becoming more Christlike, and sharing the gospel. We will be concerned about building His kingdom and not our kingdom. We will rightly recognize that we are steward’s who are entrusted with the management of earthly possessions and that they are not ours in the first place. Furthermore, we will be constantly reminded that we are strangers in this world and that our home, our real home, is in heaven with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Abusive Pastors--What to look for

I recently came across an article by Dr. Ed Curnella titled "The Yeast of the Pharisees: Spiritual Abuse by Pastors and Counselors". If you or someone you know suspects they are in a church with abusive leadership or if perhaps you're looking for a church and want to know some danger signs to look for, Dr. Curnella lists twelve traits common to abusive pastors. If more than a few of these are present, I'd be more than a little wary if I were you.

Authoritarianism. Rather than modeling and teaching obedience to God, abusive leaders expect believers to obey them. Councils of elders, deacons, etc., are expected to rubber stamp leaders’ intentions rather than provide accountability. (i.e. Lack of transparency related to financial matters. Let me tell you, if a church leadership team does not offer financial reports to you but instead you have to ask for them, there’s a reason for that and it’s probably because they don’t want you to see something.)

Coercion. Rather than respecting freedom and conscience, as God does, and offering messages that persuade based on scriptural integrity and reason, abusive leaders use strong-arm tactics to coerce believers into overruling better judgment and following their demands. (i.e. A leader might tell someone that in order to love biblically you have to assume the best about someone’s intentions. While that is true most of the time, if your “Spidey-sense” is tingling and they can offer no good or reasonable explanation you may very well be right in your suspicion that something is amiss. Suspension of disbelief is not a spiritual gift.)

Intimidation. Rather than building up the Body in the bonds of love, abusive leaders use threats of punishment, excommunication, and condemnation to force people into submission and continued church membership. (i.e. Being told “Don’t you dare walk away from me” or “I’m the leader in this church”. If a church leader has to say “I’m the leader” they are not exhibiting the qualities of a godly leader.)

Terrorism. Rather than inviting people to follow Christ with the Gospel of love and forgiveness, abusive leaders intensify believers’ fear, shame, and false guilt, teaching that problems in believers’ lives are due to the believers’ personal sins.

Condemnation. Rather than refraining from judgment lest they be judged, an abusive leader liberally condemns those who leave his church, outsiders, and those whom he defines as sinners. The message is that believers will join the ranks of the condemned should they deviate from the leader’s teachings or leave his church/denomination. Individual members become the scapegoat when something goes awry in the congregation. (i.e. Preaching sermons from the pulpit that use personal conversations with those who disagree with the pastor as examples. Speaking about members who have left the church with phrases like “God is purifying His church” when there was no sin involved on the part of the person departing. Claiming that their church is the only church doing things “right”.)

Classism. Christ was no respecter of persons. Abusive leaders are preoccupied with power, promoting church hierarchy, referring to and treating people according to their titles and roles. Those lower on the hierarchy are taught that their needs don’t matter.

Conformity. Abusive leaders have the greatest hold over inexperienced, naïve, and dependent individuals who are seeking a strong leader. These individuals suppress their objections to the leaders’ teachings for fear of being shamed or ostracized. Hence, abusive churches often appear unified, but beneath the surface there is discontent, anguish, whispers, rumors, secrets, and a desire among many to leave. (i.e. Calling people “divisive” if they question the leaders and their authority or if they ask other believers in the church for their opinions. For the abusive leader, it is very important to not let congregants “compare notes” so that the folks who have or recognize a problem feel like they are isolated. Further, the elders want to make sure they meet with the malcontent church member one on one so that they can further intimidate the person)

Manipulation. Rather than taking scripture in context, interpreting the Bible with the Bible and according to long-held Christian beliefs, abusive leaders twist scripture to convey their personal opinion rather than God’s intent. (i.e. Doing hermeneutical gymnastics to make 1 Timothy 5:17’s “double honor” mean “high salary”)

Irrationality. Because scripture is manipulated, one interpretation may contradict another. Interpretations may contradict reason and obvious reality. This requires suspension of critical thinking. Some abusive leaders claim to receive direct messages from God about their church or individual members, but these messages typically deviate from Scripture and reality.

Legalism. Rather than treating others with love, grace, and forgiveness, as Christ commanded, abusive leaders offer little grace. They communicate instead that one’s worth and the amount of love one deserves depend on performance and status in their church. Abusive leaders expect believers to make heroic financial, time, and emotional sacrifices for their church and its members.Isolation. Rather than respecting family ties, community obligations, and friendships, abusive leaders are concerned that such influences will interfere with their control over believers, so they encourage isolation from family, friends, and the outside world, and wage war against the outside world as a sewer of sin devoid of anything redeeming.

Elitism. Rather than modeling and encouraging humility, abusive leaders beam with false pride and teach the same to believers. An attitude arises of, “We’re it! We’re special! Everyone else is condemned!,” partially compensating for the shame and worthlessness that believers feel because of other experiences in the abusive church. The leader instills that believers must protect the church’s image at any cost.

Ensnarement. Rather than promoting maturity among believers, abusive leaders inevitably promote self-doubt, guilt, and identity confusion, since believers struggle with the contradiction between what their conscience and reason tell them and what they are being taught. This ambivalence, coupled with fear of condemnation and loss of direction and fellowship, make it difficult and painful for believers to leave abusive churches.

Think about a cult, for at its most severe, a spiritually abusive church is a cult. It has so diverged from solid Biblical teaching and grown so warped in the authoritarian rule of one man, that it has become a place of idolatry where God is no longer worshipped. “Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough… Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees…” (Galatians 5:7-10, Matthew 16:6).

Sunday is for Stalkers

I have my site registered with Sitemeter which tracks the hits this blog gets and where they come from. As much as anything, I was just curious as to how many readers I had and what it was that they looked at when they were on the site. I've found something funny that I thought everyone else would get a kick out of too.

I have one hit that keeps getting to my blog by searching "Joe Blackmon" on AOL search. Like, this happens multilple times a week. I'm not sure if I should be creeped out that someone would be seraching for me by name online or if I should feel sorry for them that they don't know how to work internet explorer well enough to add this page to their favorites. Haa haa

I thought this was pretty funny and thought y'all would get a kick out of it too. And since my blog is pretty well idle on Sunday, I thought it would be a little humor to brighten your day.

Help Children in Need

A friend of mine from Elementary school, Theresa, has been writing on Facebook about a little box named Max that she is in the process of adopting from Hati. She and her husband are adopting this child from the Lashbrook Family Ministry in Hati. Upon looking at their website, I saw some of the needs they had listed and wanted to pass that info on to you. If you can help, I would encourage you to do so.

Blessings
joe

The Shack isn't that bad.

I mean, dude did win several NBA titles and over the course of his career developed into one of the great centers of all time. I guess I was wrong about all that heresy stuff.

Broadway Baptist No Longer SBC

There have been times I have thought about leaving the SBC. For instance, when I found out Lifeway was going to sell The Shack I considered leaving. However, I have stayed because I believe overall the convention does the right thing when it comes time to do the right thing. Case in point--today the convention voted almost unanimously to disfellowship Broadway Baptist Church for its approval of the homosexual lifestyle.

I am so proud to be a Southern Baptist. Particularly today after this vote.

A Good Pastor Should Be A Shepherd

The other day, a gentleman named Mike left the following comment on a post I had written on The Shack:

Joe- I appreciate your zeal and your willingness to call a spade a spade! Heresy is Heresy, the fact the lukewarm American "Christian" churh can't recognize it, or have the kahoonas(sp) to speak out against it, only proves how prevelant sin is. Now I'M an intolerant ideolog, but I just got wind that my church is going to host a class on the inspirational aspects of this text, and I'm flat FIRED UP. I am constructing a presentation to our elders right now, to challenge them to execute their biblical duty and protect the church from bad teaching and heretical doctrine.

It got me to thinking about some of the biblical qualities and responsiblities of a pastor to shepherd a church. Obviously, a pastor should remain faithful to biblical doctrine. It would be shameful for a pastor to say "We, as elders, affirm [insert biblical doctrine here] to be true" and then turn around and violate that very doctrine but play word games to justify their unfaithfulness to God's word.

My prayer for this church and this Christian brother is that the elders of that church mindfully consider their responsiblity to faithfully protect the church of God from error and false doctrine. I trust you will join with me in that prayer.

SBC Executive Committee Does the Right Thing.

The Executive Committee has done the right thing and recommended unanimously to sever ties with Broadway Baptist Church. You can read the whole story here.

When they voted in February to table the decision until June I was worried they were going to lose their nerve and not make this recommendation. I am so proud of them for doing the right thing. I have no doubt this will be voted on positively by the messengers and we can officially say to Broadway Baptist "Buh-Bye".

Albert Mohler on Expository Preaching-Part 3

Recently, the Southern Seminary Magazine published an article by Dr. Mohler on expository preaching. I was greating encouraged and have decided to share it with my readers. Below is the third and final part of the article.

Expository preaching must be at the center of Christian worship

It is worth noting again: Worship properly directed to the honor and glory of God will find its center in the reading and preaching of the Word of God. Expository preaching cannot be assigned a supporting role in the act of worship. It must be central. In the course of the Reformation, Martin Luther’s driving purpose was to restore preaching to its proper place in worship. Referring to the incident between Mary and Martha in Luke 10, Luther reminded his congregation and students that Jesus Christ declared that “only one thing is necessary” – the preaching of the Word (Luke 10:42 NASB). Luther realized that the most important reform needed was to reestablish the reading and preaching of the Word as the central act of Christian worship.

That same reformation is needed in American evangelicalism today. Expository preaching must once again be central to the life of the church and central to Christian worship. In the end, the church will not be judged by its Lord for the quality of its music but for the faithfulness of its preaching. The preacher will be judged for his preaching and the congregation will be judged for its hearing – and for the preaching it has demanded.