Do we call Him "Lord, Lord" but don't do what He says?

Why do we believers so often do the opposite of what Jesus tells us?

• Jesus told His disciples to go; we ask people to come (Matt. 28:19-20).
• Jesus instructed His disciples to make disciples of all nations; we ask people for decisions.
• Jesus said he will build His church; we try to do it for Him (Matt. 16:18).
• Jesus told his disciples to teach people to obey His commands; we teach them all about His commands (John 14:15). 
• Jesus told His disciples to go out as lambs among wolves; we go out in fleshly strength.
• Jesus told his disciples to be hospitable, yet we Christians are often known for our hypocrisy and judgmentalism (Rom. 12:13).
• Jesus was known as a friend of sinners; we are scared of being contaminated by them (Lk. 7:34).

Jesus loves His children in spite of those sins.  We are all a work in progress, pressing into the Kingdom as we travel the rocky road of sanctification as we sometimes stumble and fall along the way.  May God use us to pick one another up when that happens by encouraging one another, bearing one another's burdens, and loving one another as Jesus loves us so that we all may press into the Kingdom with joy and delight as we fix our eyes on Him.

Do You Love Sinners Like This?

Scott and Patte Smith are some of my living heroes.  I have had the pleasure of ministering beside them and I can testify that they are the genuine article.  They are devoted to reaching unbelievers through full time evangelism on college campuses, public events, and outside abortion clinics.  As you watch this video ask yourself this question:  "Do I love the lost like this?" 



HT:  transplantministries

Watching Men Die

It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, because that is the end of every man, and the living takes it to heart. (Ecclesiastes 7:2 NAU)

Unless Jesus comes back first, we are all going to die (Heb. 9:27; 1 Thess. 4:15-17).  Every time I have visited a funeral home, buried a person, or been to a hospital to visit the terminally ill or worked with them as a therapist, I have been starkly reminded of my own mortality.  I take it to heart.

Most people avoid the issue of death.  This is why they don't visit nursing homes.  They don't want to be reminded of the inevitable.  But its better to be reminded of it in the here and now than in the hereafter. 

As a repentant old man writing about the futility of life without God, Solomon tells us that materialism, worldly happiness, and luxury ("a house of feasting") only blinds people to the truth of the inevitable.  This old guy knew what he was talking about, for he had drunk deeply from the worldly pleasures associated with wine, women, and false religion (1 Kings 11)  He had more of it than you could shake a stick at, yet at the end of his life, he reflects upon the benefits of being exposed to death rather than the passing pleasures of worldly gladness.  He says that the negative effects of blinding worldly pleasures are nothing in comparison to the sobering effects of being hit hard with our own mortality.  Here's a few things his brief reflection brings to my own mind:

• Death reminds me that I'm going to appear before the Judgment seat of Christ and be given rewards for faithful service grounded in pure motives or that I'll enter the kingdom with little to show for it (2 Cor. 5:10). 
• Death reminds me that I get only one earthly life and that I need to make it count for King Jesus (Heb. 9:27).
• Death reminds me that the wine, women, and the riches of the world are an exercise in futility, hopelessness, and vanity (Eccles. 1:13-14, 17-18; 2; 1 John 2:15-17).  
• Death reminds me that "in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." (Eccles. 1:18).
• Death reminds me that I'm not God.
• Death reminds me that you're not God.
• Death reminds me that Satan wants to destroy believers (1 Peter 5:8).  
• Death reminds me that my resurrection is certain because Christ's resurrection is certain (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:15-17).
• Death reminds me that Jesus overcame it on my behalf (2 Tim. 1:10). 
• Death reminds me that I'm going to experience God in His fulness without the ravaging effects of sin (Rev. 21:4; 22:3).  

That's a lot to think about, but its worth it.  Think about death.  Meditate on it.  I'm not calling for morbid introspection, but healthy, beneficial reflection.  See if you can add to the above list and make us all think further about this issue.  We get one earthly life before the return of Jesus, so let's live it for His glory and think hard about how to use it for Him and avoid wasting our lives.

Gospel expectation in Ezekiel 18

At Shepherd's Fellowship of Greensboro, we believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and that all of it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (1 Timothy 3:16b-17). Because we hold a high view of Scripture - its perfection, profitability, and place in the life of the believer individually and church collectively - we read through an Old Testament passage and a New Testament passage as part of our weekly Sunday morning meeting. Every week, the Scripture is profitable, but some weeks it is more profitable than others. For instance, a passage that clearly speaks of the Gospel and its implications is going to be more edifying to the believer than, say, 1 Chronicles 9.

This past Sunday we were blessed with a very rich passage from Ezekiel. I would recommend that you read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 before finishing this post.

Did you read it? Good.

First, a little background. After the Exodus from Egypt, before Israel was allowed to enter the Promised Land, God delivered His Law to the people of Israel to act as their national moral and legal code. This covenant was a two-sided covenant: the people were bound to obey the Law, and God determined to dispense blessings for obedience and judgment for disobedience. When Moses first revealed the Law to Israel, "All the people answered with one voice and said, 'All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do'" (Exodus 24:3). However, we all know that the people of Israel did not do all the things that the Lord had spoken. Collectively, they fell under the judgment of God. Although there was a remnant of righteous persons within Israel, the nation as a whole became apostate.

In light of the conditional covenant that God made with Israel, it is not surprising that God would would promise blessing and judgment on an individual level in Ezekiel 18: "If a man is righteous and does what is just and right... he shall surely live, declares the LORD God. If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, [etc.]...he [the wicked son] shall surely die." (vv. 5-13). God likewise promises that if a wicked man fathers a righteous son, that man will be judged for his wickedness, but the son would live for his righteousness. The point is that each person would be judged based on his individual actions, not the actions of his ancestors.

This is not in and of itself Good News. The soul who sins shall die. Which one of us has perfectly done what is just and right? Which one of us has never committed idolatry (which is much broader than bowing down to a wooden figure)? Which one of us has always acted in integrity in every aspect of life? I know that I have not, and I don't have to go out on a limb to say that you have not either. This passage ought to drive the natural man to hopelessness because he cannot fulfill God's righteous requirements.  However, there is One Son of Man who did fulfill that Law of God perfectly, and that Man is Jesus Christ.

You see, the nation of Israel became like the unrighteous man, collectively engaging in idolatry, sexual immorality, and every kind of injustice. But that unrighteous Israel fathered Jesus Christ, a righteous Son. That Son perfectly fulfilled the Law of God. Unlike His father Israel, Jesus Christ deserved to live because of His righteousness.

But herein lies the Good News for us. Christ, the righteous, died. He died so that we, although unrighteous and despicable to God, would be imputed with the righteousness of Christ. We are wicked sons, and righteousness cannot be inherited - it must be imputed. In his death, Christ took our wickedness upon Himself, and in His resurrection, He gave us His own righteousness and life. This is good news. Ezekiel said, "The soul who sins shall die." Christ says, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Now we must recognize our own sinfulness and look to Christ to be our righteousness. Unlike the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, we must say, "All the words that the Lord has spoken, HE has done."

Come Unto Me . . .

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. “For My yoke is 1easy and My burden is light.”  Matthew 11:28-30

For two-thousand years, those verses have been a Spirit-inspired source of joy, comfort, and encouragement for many souls as they have gone through the dark valleys of grief, despair, and brokenness in this fractured world.  Why?  Because they are divine promises from the resurrected Jesus.  The resurrected Jesus comes clean on His promises.  He's not an "Indian-giver", doesn't hem and haw, and doesn't take back what He initially promised.  This makes Him a formidable source of potential joy, comfort, and respite for those who are deeply burdened.

• Note that Jesus says that the requirement for the weary and heavy-laden getting rest is that they must come to Him.  This offer of rest is given to all who hear the gospel, but very precious few respond to it positively.  Why do you think this is?  Why would they turn down such a great offer?  
• Note that Jesus says He has a "yoke".  A "yoke" is the thing placed on the neck of an ox that hooks up to an old-fashioned plow.  This means that effort is required to follow Jesus.  It isn't a cake walk.
• Note that Jesus says His yoke is easy and that His burden is light.  His yoke is easy to wear and His burden is light to bear compared to the burden and weight of the weary and heavy-laden soul.  
• Note that Jesus commands the weary to "come" and "take" up a yoke from Him.  These commands are rooted in His love.  He loves those who are hurting and lovingly invites them to come through commands.  Its as if He's saying, "Friend, are you heavy of heart and burdened?  Come to me in faith, receive my love, and enjoy my spiritual rest, comfort, and joy as you take on the responsibility of following me." 
• The result:  You will find rest for your souls.

My friend, do you have that rest?  Does Jesus bring you an amazing yet quiet sense of joy, comfort, and spiritual rest?  I partook of that rest 17 years ago and have never looked back.  I lovingly invite you to do the same.  If having that kind of rest sounds appealing to you, then turn from your sins and trust in what Jesus did on the cross to bear your judgment and make you right before God, and you can be sure you will have it.  For believers, may God guide you into His perfect peace as you keep your focus on Jesus as your eternal source of joy and rest.

If Morality, Then God

INTRODUCTION:  We like to mix it up with a variety of topics here at Grace in the Triad, so here goes an apologetics article for you.  The following notes are lecture notes for a worldview presentation given on 9-13-2011.  These notes use minimal philosophical terminology so that most people can understand what I'm saying.  They are also a work in progress with thoughts that I'm continuing to develop, so for the more philosophically minded readers of this blog, critique away! - DSS

Fundamental Atheistic Beliefs:  Atheists deny that we need God (1) to be good, (2) to know what’s good, and (3) to ground morality.

Fundamental Christian Beliefs: (1) God’s existence is known through creation and conscience [Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-15].  (2) It is impossible to ground objective morality in anything other than God [Pro. 1:7; Col. 2:3].

Two Versions of the Moral Argument for God (MAG):

• If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists.
• Objective moral values exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

• If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
• Objective moral values exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

Put simply:  If morality, then God.

Three questions that must be answered: 

• Reality - What must exist in order to ground objective moral obligations? 
• Knowledge - How do we know objective moral obligations exist? 
• Ethics - Why ought I follow objective moral norms?

My contention is that the God of Scripture is the sole, necessary grounding for the existence, knowledge, and obligations associated with moral realism [1]

Atheists usually fall within three camps when attacking the MAG:

• Empiricists will disagree with premise 2 and argue that moral realism doesn’t exist because only material entities exist and moral behavior is merely a social convention.
• Some atheists believe in moral realism and so agree with premise 2.  They attack premise 1 to refute the MAG.  
• Some atheists attack premise 1 and are moral relativists.

The Challenge: 
To quickly determine whether or not someone believes in moral realism, I ask them (1) whether or not they think atrocities like child molestation and rape could ever be right, and (2) if so, whether those actions could be right if perpetrated against them or someone they love. 

Two answers:
“Absolute moral laws don’t exist.”

Response:  “If you don’t believe that some actions are inherently immoral, then let’s start with having your little girl raped and tortured for fun!” 

• Morality isn’t like Ice Cream, it’s like Insulin:  A denial of objective morality reduces moral norms to mere preference, like ice cream flavors.  
• "Is/Ought" Fallacy:  If people determine morality, then moral norms reduce to statistics.  But what is the case doesn’t necessarily tell us what ought be the case.  
• Argument from Power/Majority Rule/Reduction to Absurdity:  Given social contract theory, rape and child molestation aren’t inherently wrong, they’re just socially unacceptable.   But if man is the measure of all things, which man and which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what would be wrong with the person or society that has enough power to impose their morality on you if might determines right? If the majority of people in a society determines what’s right and wrong, upon what basis do you condemn Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilization if society determines what’s moral?  There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality:  “The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed.”  If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and thus, such a proposition is possible.
• A Self-Defeating Position:  The moral relativist denies that absolute moral laws exist but they appeal to them all the time when they argue for just laws and better societies.  They say that rape is wrong because they intuitively know that it is not just against their personal preference, it is an inherently evil action (Rom. 2:14-15).  Many moral relativists deny with their lips they know in their hearts to be true (Rom. 1:32).  It is obvious that some actions are evil. The existence of morality is most obvious when we suffer by being personally offended or violated. When we are wronged, we quickly feel the moral imbalance. 

“Absolute moral laws exist.” 

Response:  “If so, then given naturalism, (1) how do you ground them, (2) how do you know that they are objective, and (3) why am I obligated to follow them?”

• Re: (1), how do you ground immaterial, universal moral laws in a materialistic universe that is inherently impersonal and amoral? 
• Re: (2), how do you know that they are universally binding?
• Re: (3), why ought I be moral?  
• Re: (3), why ought I be rational?  Since logic has a normative component (i.e., you ought to be rational), what obligates me to be rational since according to the atheist there is no objective, transcendent, personal, theistic moral lawgiver to ground moral obligations?

“I don’t need God to be good.”

Response:  Yes you do.  There are no good people (Rom. 3:10-11).  You need to be counted good by God even though you’re not and the only way that happens is if you are forgiven of your sins through faith in Christ (Romans 4:4-5; Phil. 3:9).  When you repent and believe in Him, you are credited as perfect even though practically you still sin (Heb. 10:14).         

“I don’t need God to know what’s good.”

Response:  Yes you do.  Regardless of what you believe, if you didn’t have a God-given sense of right and wrong, you wouldn’t know the difference between the two (Rom. 2:14-15). 

Other atheistic objections:

Evolutionary Ethics:  A more comprehensible attempt to refute the moral argument suggests that a naturalistic explanation of morality can be given by the theory of evolution.  Given a world in which the resources necessary to support life are scarce and danger is all around us, people will have to compete to survive. Those that compete well will survive and reproduce more people like them; those that compete poorly will disappear via natural selection.  Groups of people that cooperate are more likely to survive and reproduce than are groups of people that do not. Natural selection, then, will favor those forms of behavior that we call moral, because they have survival value.  Over time, this process will lead to a moral instinct in human beings, a natural propensity to act well.  Atheists will sometimes appeal to various forms of the Golden Rule[1] as an example of a universally accepted rule that has come about through human evolutionary development. 

Response:  However plausible this explanation may be for some elements of morality, there are other elements of morality that cannot be explained in this way,

• Altruistic behavior is not in one’s own interests. The extreme of altruism—giving up one’s life in order that others might live—cannot be the result of conditioning through natural selection. Those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. Extreme self-sacrifice is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage, but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless.

Even Richard Dawkins, recognizes this. In The Selfish Gene, he wrote:

“My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), 3]

• Even if it were possible to explain our moral instincts using evolution, this would not explain morality so much as it would explain those instincts away.  We would then be in an epistemological quagmire, wondering which moral intuitions we should reject as evolutionary leftovers versus those that we should protect in order to perpetuate the species.
• We believe we are subject to moral obligations; i.e., that we ought to act in certain ways. An evolutionary explanation of those beliefs would completely undermine them because it would tell us why we have those beliefs but it would give us no reason to think that they are true nor would it obligate us to follow them now3.  Thus, it would explain why we have those beliefs even though there really is no such thing as objective morality.  Consider the following quotes from Charles Darwin and physicalist philosopher Patricia Churchland:

“With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind if there are any convictions in such a mind?”  [Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.]

Plantinga's argument contends that natural selection, as it is currently understood, is not thought to produce in organisms the ability to reliably perceive the external world — let alone construct accurate cosmologies. He quotes contemporary philosopher of mind and philosophical naturalist Patricia Churchland to buttress this claim.

“Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.” ["Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience," Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 84 (October 1987), pp. 548-49.  Quoted in Alvin Plantinga, Evolution vs. Naturalism, http://www.uw.ruf.org/evolution-vs-naturalism]

Thus, if we believe that there really are moral principles that bind us and other people, then this appeal to evolution does not satisfy because (1) it tells us why we believe, not whether those beliefs are true, (2) it tells us what we believe, not what we should believe, and (3) it doesn’t show us that these morals norms are objective and universally binding.

“Why does it have to be the Judeo-Christian God?”

Response:  Because the Bible tells you so.  More specifically:

• Metaphysical:  The immaterial, universal Personality of the Triune God grounds personal, immaterial, universal moral obligations.  Transcendent personal moral obligations only come from a transcendent, personal moral Lawgiver; i.e., God.  The God of the Bible, contra Islam, has eternally enjoyed the intertrinitarian relationships found in His very being (I-thou distinctions in the Trinity allow for eternal personality), and hence can ground personal moral obligation since personality is necessarily part of His nature as the uniplural, multipersonal Creator God. 
• Epistemological:  You know objective moral obligations exist by the light of conscience, Scripture, and given the conjunction of those two, by the impossibility of the contrary.  
• Ethical:  You ought follow God’s objective moral norms as revealed in Christ’s law because the Creator who owns you has the sovereign right to tell you how to live. 

IN CONCLUSION, if we start with the personal, theistic, transcendent, uniplural God of Scripture, we can ground, justify, and show the normativity of morality.  Indeed, as Peter said, when we start with Scripture, we have “a more sure prophetic word” than the empiricists and the relativists (2 Peter 1:19).  Hence, if morality, then God.
________________________

1. Moral realism is objective morality.  “Objective” moral values aren’t person dependent.
2. “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.” (Matt. 7:12).  The Golden Rule is found in negative form in rabbinic Judaism and also in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.  It occurred in various forms in Greek and Roman ethical teaching.  Jesus stated it in positive form.  It is a widespread teaching because God has put this on every human heart (Rom. 2:14-15).

A Letter to African-American Followers of Christ

INTRODUCTION:  The following letter was written by a black sister to her predominantly black congregation.  I reproduce this letter in full with her permission.  I detest racism with every fiber of my being, and it always grieves me to see it expressed in the body of Christ; especially when those distinctions are supposed to have been eradicated in Christ (Acts 17:26; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).  My desire as a pastor has always been to have a multi-ethnic church because such is consistent with New Testament teachings, is a glimpse of what the multi-ethnic church in heaven will be like, and it makes a powerful statement against the sin of racism. The sister's letter expresses my thoughts better than I ever could.  May you be blessed and sobered by what you read below, regardless of the color of your skin. 

A Letter to My Fellow African-American Followers of Christ

Dear Men and Women of God,

“If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?”  -I John 4:20.

How many times have we heard this scripture?  Do we really understand what this passage means and the implications of a professing Christian not loving other Christians?  Let’s assume that we do fully understand this passage.  How is it then that so many Black Christians exhibit such hatred and disdain for white people?  Is a white man not our “brother” in Christ because he is not a “brother” in complexion?  We call white people all kinds of names, accuse them of all manner of evil, and make assumptions about them simply on the basis of them being white.  Isn’t this racist behavior and way of thinking exactly what we criticize “them” for?  Then how do we feel justified to participate in such behavior?  Does God justify us in such remarks and thoughts?  Certainly not!

Ok, so our excuse is we are only talking about the “bad” or “racist” white people when we call them crackers, pink people, “other” people, evil, nasty, etc.  Well, define who are the “bad” ones?  Do we clarify this when making our reviling accusations and spewing our racist remarks?  Usually not.  It usually goes something like this “white people are greedy”, “white people only wanna tear us down”, “white people are to blame for …..”, “only crackers do that crazy mess”, etc.  These and much worse comments have all been heard coming from the mouths of those who profess to be followers and lovers of Christ.  And would clarifying that we are only talking about racist whites really make unforgiveness and hatred ok?  Not if we actually practice the Word that we say we believe.

“But love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”- Matthew 5:44

“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” – Luke 6:45

Now before getting all in an uproar because you think I am calling you “evil”, stop.  We, as Christians, may not be “evil” if we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, but we can still certainly have evil thoughts and feelings.  Take a quick minute and search your feelings and thoughts about white people.  How do you really feel about them?  What types of comments have you made about them during discussions in the beauty salon, in the barber shop, after church on Sunday, at a family gathering, in a moment of confidence between you and a friend?   Are these thoughts and feelings holy?  Would God honor the wishes that you have towards white people?  Well then how did we as a people come to accept that such ill-will and disdain for white people was acceptable?  Oh, you want me to get off my high horse, right.  Stop acting as if I just love everyone and have no problems with anyone.  I’ve made my share of racist comments and have harbored hatred in my heart.  Everyone sins.  Everyone has horrible thoughts and feelings sometimes.  But are we truly repentant when we say horrible things?  Do we feel ashamed before God that we just thought what we did?  Or do we feel justified in our hatred.  Do we feel we have the “right” to tear down and speak ill of an entire race of people because of what “they” have done to “us”?

Black people all face a moment in our lives where we have to reconcile our feelings about the slavery, oppression, and other heinous acts committed against our people and everything it encompasses.  Usually, one of two things will happen.  We will come to a place where we forgive the perpetrators and their descendants who committed heinous acts against our ancestors, grandparents, and great-grandparents, thank God for deliverance, and make sure we honor the doors opened by those who fought, suffered, and died for our freedom and rights.  Conversely, we will choose to nurse the anger, hatred, bitterness and disgust in a neat little self-justified package and somehow think it’s ok to separate that sin from the application of God’s Word.  Which path might Jesus condemn and which might he praise?  Which path are you on?  What are you going to do about it now that it has been brought to your attention?  

Written with Love,

XXXXX

GTCC Outreach Report 9-7-2011

INTRODUCTION:  Today was a beautiful day for evangelism on the campus of Guilford Technical Community College.  I was thankful to have brother Steve from our church join me in this outreach.  To my knowledge, Steve had never really done anything like this before, but, because he knew his faith so well, he was able to immediately help out and have conversations with folks like he'd been doing it for years.  Praise the Lord for this brother, he is an answered prayer!

He and I had several enjoyable conversations with professing Christians and unbelievers.  We had the opportunity to present the gospel to many, but we had one conversation that stood out above them all.

Cultural Relativism gone to seed

Steve and I approached two young men who were hanging out at the edge of the Administration building sitting on a bench and listening to music and we handed them our Shepherd's Fellowship ministry cards, explained our purpose for being there, and asked them the $64 million dollar question:  What do you think it takes for a person to get to heaven?

They both said that you have to be a good person.  I asked them the usual questions ("Do you think you're a good person?) and that led into a discussion revealing their cultural relativism.  One of them asked "What do you mean by good?"  I said "Excellent question!"  Then I told them that my fundamental presupposition was that the Bible is the word of God and that God defines what good is.  I asked them how they determined what the difference between good and evil is and they said, "our parents, our society", etc.  Thus, they argued that morality is culturally relative.  We discussed this for about 15-20 minutes and Steve and I asked questions like this:

• If society determines what good is how can you condemn the actions of Nazi Germany?
• If society determines what good is what basis would you have to say that my punching you in the face is an unacceptable way to greet you if our society deemed it acceptable?
• If society determines what good is what basis would have to condemn torturing little girls for fun?  What about if it was your daughter?

As usual, their cultural relativism quickly imploded in on itself.  At this point one young man had to leave and we thanked him for his time and we then spent the next hour talking to his friend Chris.  I then took Chris through a modified form of the "good person test".  He admitted that if a righteous, holy, and just God was fair with him, he'd get what he deserved and go to Hell.  I then asked, "Do you know what God did so that people don't have to go to Hell?" he said, "No, I don't go to church."  I told him that going to church doesn't make someone a Christian anymore than going to MacDonald's makes someone a hamburger.  I then tried to explain the gospel to him with an emphasis on the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and justification.  Both Chris and his friend that left earlier were courteous, patient, listened well, and asked great questions in light of what we already said.  Here's some great questions that Chris asked that we were able to answer and give follow-up literature about:

• What is faith?
• What about science and faith? (i.e., Chris assumed the false dichotomy of faith vs. reason).
• What about aliens and UFOs? (How does this fit in with the Christian worldview.  I was able to give him an excellent little booklet about this from Creation Ministries International).
• What about fossils and evolution?

We were not only prepared to answer these questions from the foundation of the Biblical worldview, but we also were ready to give Chris follow-up material from Creation Ministries International and our own church.  I recommend this outreach pack to provide follow-up material for questions regarding creation/evolution issues.  Chris was grateful for the time we spent with him and joyfully the materials.  I have noted that when I do three simple things, God provides plenty of opportunities for productive discussions like this: (1) pray, (2) know the Bible, (3) be nice. 

IN CONCLUSION, we will continue to pray that God will water this huge seed that we planted in Chris today.  We gave him much literature, explained the gospel to him, told him to read the gospel of John, and told him if he had any follow-up questions just to give me a call.  May the Lord present you with similar opportunities as you live your life day-to-day for the glory of God!

Islam 101: The Five Pillars of Islam

Special thanks to Dr. Nabeel Qureshi of Creed 26 Ministries for this video about the pillars of Islam.

Appreciating the Anabaptists

I have finished reading The Reformers and their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin.  This book is a classic work on the Anabaptists concerning what they believed and how they were persecuted by the Protestant Reformers.  This book is recommended by some New Covenant Theologians as an introductory treatise on New Testament body life and ecclesiology as well as the historical persecutions that the Anabaptists faced at the hands of the Protestants because of their beliefs.  NCT adherents have argued that Verduin's work is especially valuable to remind us of the negative consequences of trying to tie the church and state together and how not only does doing so often compromise the gospel in some way, but also brings about great suffering to those who dissent from the religious status quo and such is directly contradictory to the teachings of the New Testament.

Like other religious groups, the Anabaptists had their share of radicals and heretics.  However, according to Verduin, even mainline Anabaptist leaders thoroughly condemned such radicalism as contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.  According to Verduin, most of them held to a Biblical understanding of justification by faith and the relationship of the church to the state.  The following is an excellent overview of Biblically orthodox Anabaptist theology from the mouths of one of their own, Peter Tesch:

We believe and confess from the heart that we and all the children of Adam are so corrupted by original sin that we and all men would be with justice condemned by God forever, we along with our and their good works.  Also, that we receive forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, freedom, and the new birth and salvation, only through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we truly and with the whole heart believe.  This is that first righteous-making, which the Scriptures ascribe to faith in Christ, without any work or merit or contribution by man, yes, without his will, prayer, or desire, solely through faith in the mercy and grace of God in Christ Jesus.  However, this faith must be engaged in all good works through love, which it is capable of doing, in Christ - all things being possible and even light, which were previously unpleasant and arduous.  Of this kind however there are, if we look carefully, but every few as yet, persons who have a true, a livign, a potent and saving faith; Instead we see, by and large, a dead, barren faith and an empty imagination, in that men do not only omit to do the good but also perform the evil, voluntarily and freely.  Therefore it will not help those who boast of such a faith, with which they put themselves at east in teh midst of all boldness, lasciviousness, and excess . . . . . 

This is predicated of the bold, the audacious, the unfruitfully believing Christians (who in reality are unbelievers) and it is not applicable to the weak, the right-minded believers or the imperfect Christians, who can still slip and slide and fall, but who remain unrejected, seeing that hey love the moral improvement in Christ.  Therefore we think it necessary that in the sermons everywhere a faithful warning and admonition be given and that it be insisted on that even as the inability to do the good is in us by reason of original sin so that ability to do the good is present through faith in Jesus Christ, from God and of grace . . . , so that if one is somewhat faithful (which is much) so also will the greater that is needed unto salvation be given.  In this way offensive men may have taken away from them the false excuse for their open blasphemy.  [The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, 219]

After I read that quote in Verduin, I found myself shaking my head in agreement and saying under my breath "Amen!"  Since there are plenty of online reviews of this book I am not going to write one, but I want to draw attention to Verduin's important work whether you agree with his assessment of the Anabaptist movement or not.  Not only do I highly recommend that any Baptistic believer read this work, but also take the time to listen to the audio review of it done by Geoff Volker and Paul Honeycutt of In-Depth Studies:

• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 8
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 7
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 6
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 5
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 4
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 3
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 2
• IDS Hour Book Review: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren Part 1

Sermon Hymns I: The Gospel of Jesus Christ

The following musical, verbal, and visual composition was produced by our music director and elder-in-training, brother Cody C. Curtis.  May you be blessed by what you see and hear.



HT:  CodyCCurtis

Women in Church

INTRODUCTION

  

According to 1 Corinthians 14:26, the purpose for having an interactive church meeting is for the mutual edification of the saints; not to provide a platform for people to promote confusion, preach false doctrine, or engage in protracted debates that can lead to the ruin of the hearers (2 Tim. 2:14).  We have seen that tongues and prophecy are gifts that were to be practiced in an orderly and intelligible way.  And now we come to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, a controversial text that has been much abused and often misunderstood for the last 150 years simply because it places order and decorum on the behavior of women in the gathered assembly.  Many commentators agree that some of the women in the Corinthian church were interrupting the church meeting by asking questions during the teaching and that this was improper for a woman to do so in church because of the God-ordained gender roles established at creation. 

The Bible is clear that husbands bear the primary responsibility to teach their wives and children.  Thus, when doctrinal controversy ensues, it’s the husband’s responsibility to help resolve any doctrinal disagreements that his wife may have outside of the church meeting, and if further clarification is necessary, then they can consult with the elders privately. When it comes to a discussion of the “silence of women” in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, there are several considerations that need to be addressed from a pastor’s perspective to his own dear congregation.  The first is that the husband is responsible before God to lead spiritually in the home and secondly, the husband must lovingly teach his wife the importance of knowing her place in the church and the home so as to avoid shame (v. 35) and promote godliness.

TEACHING & APPLICATION

The elders of Shepherd’s Fellowship have attempted to do some fairly extensive reading and research on the issue of gender roles in the home and the church.  This is more technically known as the debate between evangelical egalitarians versus evangelical complimentarians.  Evangelical egalitarians hold that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, but they also believe that the restrictions on women’s ministries found in certain passages in the New Testament are culturally conditioned by that first-century society and thus are no longer binding upon Christian women today.  If this is true, then Christian women can be pastors/elders/overseers and can do anything else that a man can do because, “there is neither . . . male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).  Some even believe that the command for a wife to submit to her husband is no longer binding, though few hold this position.  Complimentarians also hold that the Bible is inspired and inerrant but believe that there are some ministries that are not open to women because men and women have complimentary, God-ordained roles that are gender-related and because of this, they are prevented from serving in certain spheres of Christian ministry.  In order to correctly handle the Scriptures, We have attempted to do extensive work on this issue and we have learned that the arguments can often grow very complex and confusing on both sides.  After much study, we believe that the clear teaching of the New Testament is that of complimentarianism.  We have tried to thoroughly study the two passages that are always the primary focus of this debate:  1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  In this teaching, we will look at these passages and discuss them to determine what a godly woman’s conduct should be in the Lord’s Day meetings.  Let’s first look at the issue of a woman being “silent” in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 during the gathered church meeting on the Lord’s Day.  

I.  1^st Corinthians 14:33b-35

The two[1] primary evangelical interpretations of this passage are as follows:


1. A corporate abstention - Calling for silence of women in regards to publicly addressing the entire mixed adult congregation during the Lord’s Day church meeting.  This silence is in reference to public prophesying (i.e., preaching), teaching, tongues, and other ministries involving public verbal instruction, exposition, and direction from the word of God.  Obviously, this would not include congregational singing, laughing, whispering, testimonies, brief, non-instructive edifying comments, corporate prayer, calling down unruly children, etc.  An historic representative of this view is the Calvinist Baptist scholar John Gill, who in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34 provides this clarification, “All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority.”[2]  (This is the traditional view held throughout church history.  All conservative Protestant scholars held this view until 1965.  John MacArthur Jr., Dr. James White, and many modern Reformed and Protestant scholars hold this view as well).

2.  A partial, limited abstention - Calling for women’s silence in reference only to authoritative teaching and the judgment of prophecies in the context of the Lord’s Day meeting.  So, this view teaches that women can give prophecies during the Lord’s Day meeting per 1 Corinthians 11:5, but they cannot judge them because to do so would be to assume an authority that only belongs to the men of the church. (D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and other modern Reformed thinkers hold this position.)

After much reading, thinking, and deliberating back and forth in my mind between interpretation 1 and 2, we think that interpretation number one makes the most sense given the immediate and far context of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35.  Some commentators conclude that Paul never told all women everywhere in every church to be silent but that he was only specifically referring to the women at Corinth because they were out of order.  This would mean that any church located anywhere other than Corinth would be exempt from Paul’s command.  Now, if that were all Paul had to say on the subject, we would be willing to join the preachers who say that Paul was simply telling the women in Corinth to be silent, as opposed to all women in all churches of the saints (cf. v. 33b). But, that’s not the end of his teaching on this issue. This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

II.             1^st Timothy 2:11-15

At the end of his ministry when he was writing from a Roman jail, Paul gave Timothy his last bit of instructions for the care and health of the churches.  He wrote, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. ¹² But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. ¹³ For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. ¹⁵ But [she] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”  (1 Tim 2:11-15) This time Paul was clearly writing a rule for all Christian churches (1 Timothy 3:15).  The basis of his argument was not heathen temples, priestesses, deviant rituals, or rabbinic tradition.  He reached back to the beginning of the book of Genesis before sin entered the world and said that women (Peter’s “weaker vessel”) owed their quiet and silent status in the church to Adam being created before Eve, thus showing Adam’s headship and rule in the family.  Even though she is blessed in childbearing (a blessing men cannot participate in), Paul would never allow a woman to openly teach the congregation on the Lord’s Day or exercise ruling authority that was given only to men because it violated the creation order of Genesis 2. Women are to be quiet, receptive learners like all good students and they are to remain silent under certain circumstances.  Therefore, this leads us to believe that Paul’s command to the Corinthians was based on his convictions about the church at large; i.e., all churches everywhere, and not just a one time instance.  Thus, regardless of which interpretation one takes above on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the following combined teaching from both passages is agreed upon by all complimentarian scholars:

1. Women are to learn quietly and receptively like everyone else in the church meeting.     
2. They are to recognize the headship and authority of the men in the spheres of the church and home and put themselves in subjection to that authority.  
3. If a woman has a question or concern about a particular teaching, edifying remark, or insight that has been offered by an elder or someone else that she heard during the church meeting or even if she (or he) desires to learn more beyond the normal time required to answer a question during a teaching or Q&A time, then she should avoid debating publicly with the teacher and instead ask her husband at home since he has the obligation to teach his wife the word.  
4. While women can publicly lead in prayer or prophesy (i.e., preach) outside the gathered assemblies on the Lord’s Day, it is shameful for a woman to publicly speak up during the church meeting for the purpose of teaching, preaching, judging, questioning, rebuking, and criticizing anyone’s verbal statements because to do so is to usurp the God-ordained authority of her husband and her elders per 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.  The elders and the adult males of the congregation have the responsibility and authority to openly weigh, test, sift, and judge everyone’s comments by the word of God (1 Corinthians 14:29).  A woman’s silence in this regard will encourage the adult males to speak up and exercise their God-ordained responsibility for engaging the truth of God’s word as well as maintain and promote doctrinal soundness and purity within the congregation, thus encouraging them to do so in their homes as well.
5. For a woman to teach, criticize a prophecy or teaching from an adult male in the gathered congregation is a reversal of the God ordained order of things according to Paul [1 Timothy 2:12-13].  
6. These ordinances are in accordance with “the Law”, i.e., the Old Testament teaching in Genesis 2:18 and the rest of the Old Testament with its emphasis on male leadership.  

Finally, it is important to reiterate that all conservative complimentarian scholars agree on these six things regardless of their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. 

Naturally, these are not particularly popular doctrines in most churches. Sadly, in most cases, if enough people in a church disagree with God’s word, they simply ignore it and do it their way.  But, that does not change God’s word or Paul’s clear instruction.  Of course, male elders lead our church, and that’s as it should be.  However, the women in our church have been free to publicly speak and participate in discussion and prayer in the past.  So, why do we allow our women to speak during teaching, Q&A, and prayer?  Well, because we are confident that most of them understand their place in the home and in the church.  Our women are silent in regards to teaching, preaching, tongues, prophecy, and weighing prophecies in the weekly Lord’s Day meeting and that is the context in which Paul commands them to be silent.  John MacArthur sums up our thoughts on this quite well,

But the underlying thing that I want you to understand here is this, this does not mean that a woman can never under any circumstances speak in a group of Christians. What this speaks to is the women who usurp that, who push themselves in the place of prominence. Remember, God used Miriam to speak a word for Him. God used Deborah and Huldah to speak a word for Him to very important men. God used Anna for scores of years in the temple, speaking of the coming Messiah to anybody who came there. So there's no reason to believe that on the right time and the right place woman can't speak. When Paul traveled on his trips through the book of Acts it says that he went into an area to a church and . . . he dialogued with them out of the scriptures, I believe there were men and women, I believe honest questions could be asked by women in right format and could be answered by the Apostle Paul. I think there was a time and place for women to speak a testimony of praise to the Lord. I don't think that he's saying that they can never do that. What he is saying is they cannot rise to leadership in the church so that they become the ones who dominate the church with their authority and their teaching and their gifts. There is a place, of course, when it is the right environment and we ask for those to ask questions where a woman has every right to ask a question in a right spirit just as a man does. There is a time when we ask for praise to be offered to God when a woman has every right to praise God just like anyone else does. That's when the preacher or teacher deflects the communication responsibility to his congregation and says I want to hear from you. But that wasn't the issue here. The issue here was interruption. The issue here was usurpation, that's a different issue.[3]

Usually, the problem isn't with rebellious women as much as it is with the men who are failing to lead spiritually in the home and the church. The Bible also has more to say on the subject than Paul’s particular admonitions to the church. Women have played a very significant role in the spread of the gospel. In fact, the first people to ever preach, “He is risen,” at the command of the Lord were women! (Matthew 28:1-8; John 20:16-18)  The ministry efforts of women in this church are absolutely essential and crucial to the effectiveness of the ministry of Shepherd's Fellowship.  Thus, we fully support the idea of organized women study groups (Titus 2 meetings) and we believe that women “prophetesses” exist today in the sense that they boldly speak the word of God to other women.  We think it’s great whenever a group of people gather around the Word and glean from its riches. We especially like such groups if they are under the auspices and headship of a male pastor/elder. We think that can be a healthy part of body life. It does not usurp any authority and it's usually done in homes, not the weekly Lord’s Day meeting. So, that's pretty much our answer on the subject. It's not the popular view, but we are used to that. Most of the theology we preach is unpopular with the majority of the church. We are willing to let them continue down the liberal path, doing those things that please men, and we will obstinately cling to the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture.

IN CONCLUSION, a Biblical church must be willing to make any changes necessary to ensure that we are being Biblical.  In the meantime, we will proceed as usual with our teaching and Q&A format, we just want to avoid public debating with the teacher for anyone involved (male or female) and we want to do as much as possible to avoid a situation where the wife or women in our congregation could be perceived as usurping the authority of her husband and the elders in the church meeting, thereby bringing shame upon herself or her husband.  Most importantly, we want to encourage him to lead spiritually in the church and home so that both husband and wife can fulfill their God-ordained roles.  

---

[1] There are actually four interpretations that are held, but the other two are not pertinent to a brief discussion on the subject of a woman’s role during the weekly church meeting since one interpretation holds that the verses are non-authentic and the other that they are merely a quote from the Talmud.  Both interpretations are considered dubious amongst conservative Reformed, evangelical scholars, hence, not suitable for our discussion here.

[2] John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, Commentary on 1^st Corinthians 14:34 at http://www.freegrace.net/gill/.  Accessed 9-22-09.

[3] John MacArthur, God’s High Calling for Women: Part III at http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-16.HTM.  Accessed 9-22-09