Several years ago I was the guest of a friend on an elk hunt in Wyoming. It was an eight hour ride on horseback through mountains and meadows to get to the base camp. There were places on that ride, to and from the camp, where you held the reins very lightly and let the horse "do his thing". A wrong step to the right or left could plunge the horse and you to your deaths.
I think of this when I read of people who call themselves "evangelical Christians" taking positions clearly contrary to biblical teaching on such things as same sex relationships and marriage. They are plunging off a spiritual cliff and risk the loss of their souls and the souls of their followers. They are plunging off to the left. Someone like me faces the danger of plunging off to the right.
The men who crucified Jesus plunged off to the right. The group known as the Pharisees began as a movement to defend the Law of Moses and all of what we call the Old Testament. They plunged off the cliff because they closed their eyes to a large body of Scripture about the Messiah being a suffering Servant. They also closed their eyes to other Scripture, Jesus said, about God desiring mercy more than sacrifice.
But let's go back for a moment to the people going off the left side. Their movement, if I can call it that, goes back at least to the 1970's with leaders like Jim Wallis who founded Sojourners, and the popular speaker Tony Compollo. I would include Ron Sider who wrote the book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. When speaking at churches Wallis would hold up a Bible that had been cut to shreds and accuse his white, middle class Protestant audience of cutting out of the Bible everything about helping the poor. Compollo said similar things, even claiming that all the poor of the world, regardless of what they believed or did, were automatically the 'brothers of Christ'. He was confronted by a group of evangelical theologians for this and backed off somewhat.
These three men, and many others, allowed their sincere compassion to blind them to the truth about the actual causes of poverty since the 1960's. They embraced badly discredited economic policies of forcible redistribution of wealth. So, you can see why they were sometimes called Marxists. Their irrational compassion led them into a form of man-centeredness or humanism. The poor were made into an idol which, in turn, has led them to support the most anti-God and anti-Christ politicians and political platforms of modern times. To better understand the errors of men like this I strongly recommend two books: Toxic Charity and Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulation.
This distorted sense of compassion and man-centeredness has also led at least two of these men to support same sex marriage. They had genuine compassion for people struggling with same sex attractions. But their remedy for the pains of these people was, in effect, "go ahead and sin; grace will abound". They are being followed in their plunge off the cliff by some other high profile "evangelicals". Surveys indicate that around one third of people under 40 who consider themselves to be evangelicals and an alarmingly high number over the age of 40 are jumping off this same cliff. What was unthinkable just a few years ago is now a growing movement among people who call Jesus Lord. Will they someday hear from Him the words, "depart from me you who practice lawlessness"?
But, it is also possible to go over a cliff on the right side. "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love" (I John 4:8) Reading this and Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man, gives me a sense of holy fear. That story in Luke 16 was not given, as we were often told, for the purpose of describing hell. It was given to tell me that if I say I love God but refuse to help someone hurting within arm's reach of me, then I am a lost soul. It warns me lest I reject compassion just because some may have a twisted and irrational kind. It cautions me against all kinds of smugness and arrogance. Watching those who are plunging off the cliff to the left warns me against following the spirit of this age, whether that wind is blowing toward the left or the right.
Back to the elk hunt. To the best of my knowledge no horse and rider ever went off one of those cliffs. The only accident I know of was when the friend who took me on the hunt was thrown by his horse onto a boulder in the midst of a stream. We learned a year later that horse had a history of things like that. By the mercy of God my friend survived. What do you and I learn from that episode? -- the value of a dependable horse! And how about this: if Jesus is compared to both a lion and a lamb would it also be fair to say that, like a dependable horse, He, through the Holy Spirit, is carrying us? I don't know about you but I'm going to let Him navigate the cliff of living in this dangerous moment of history. I know where He is taking me and I know He will get me there.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
THE NOISE WON'T DO IT: WARTIME QUOTES AND YOUR STRUGGLE TODAY
During what is known as "The Battle of the Bulge" in December 1944 an entire U.S. armored division was retreating from the Germans in the Ardennes forest when a sergeant in a tank destroyer spotted an American digging a foxhole. That in itself was no easy job with the ground frozen in the coldest winter Europe had seen a century. The G.I. digging the foxhole was PFC Martin of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment. He looked up at the sergeant and said, "Are you looking for a safe place?" "Yep", answered the tanker. "Well, buddy," he drawled, "just pull your vehicle behind me. I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the b _ _ _ _ _ _ s are going."
Normally, only small minded people call others humans names like that. I say "normally". The word, of course, means "an illegitimate child" or "a contemptible person". Followers of Adolph Hitler were quite literally both.
That quote is one of my favorites and hangs framed on a wall here because it has a marvelous application to our day by day struggles. Sooner or later a child of God will feel as threatened and desperate in spirit as those young men felt 72 years ago before the Nazi onslaught. That quote represents all the courage and resourcefulness of the young Americans who won the largest war in human history. Looking at marriages ruined, families destroyed, churches split and militant atheism advancing, the believer looks satan in the face and says, "you were defeated on the cross by the shed blood and the risen life of the Lord Jesus; I am His child; He indwells me; all authority in heaven and on earth is His; and THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU ARE GOING!!!
The Battle of the Bulge produced another memorable quote. This one was just one word. The German plan was to push through to the Port of Antwerp, cutting the Allied forces in half and forcing a cease-fire or a truce.
On the major highway of their advance was the town of Bastogne. At first the town was defended by the 28th Infantry, who were subsequently relieved by the 101st Airborne under Gen. Anthony McAuliffe. They were totally surrounded and Patton's Third Army was racing from the south to rescue them. The German commander sent an ultimatum demanding the surrender of the American forces at Bastogne or they would be utterly destroyed. Gen. McAuliffe read the ultimatum and directed that a one word reply be sent to the German commander: "NUTS!!!" Don't you just love it? And the Germans did not understand American slang. "Nuts! Was ist das?"
I would not trivialize our struggles with satan and demonic spirits but when pressed hard to quit and give up maybe we should just to him, "Nuts", and keep right on walking with the Lord. And we have infinitely more resources than Patton's Third Army to rescue us!
Our next one comes from Viet Nam and it is not an actually quote. Through the years I have read many articles by the man who was assigned by the U.S. Army to train South Vietnamese forces to defend themselves after the French were defeated in 1954 and withdrew from Viet Nam. This man wrote about how small of stature the typical Vietnamese soldier was. So, what did some genius at the Pentagon decide to arm them with? Big, heavy, bulky U.S. M-1 Garand rifles left over from WW2 and Korea and weighing around 10 pounds fully loaded. They were heavy even for many U.S. soldiers who were larger and stronger. If that wasn't bad enough the Vietnamese were convinced that what killed the enemy was, not the bullet coming out of the rifle barrel, but the NOISE of the rifle. Seriously! And no amount of explanation could convince them otherwise.
This is where we got our title for this blog. There seems to be a widely held belief among American Christians that our "noise" will defeat demonic strongholds and win people to Christ. Preaching, music, Bible studies, taking stands on moral issues, arguments and reasoning all have their place. But unless "real bullets" are hitting the enemy we are as self deceived as the Vietnamese soldiers. Hear the words of Paul to his beloved Thessalonian believers: "Because our gospel came to you not simply with words ("noise") but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." (I Thess. 1:5) The Lord Jesus used 'real bullets' against satan. They came right out of the 'ammo depot' of Deuteronomy and Jesus 'fired' them with great accuracy and effectiveness at the Enemy. God helping me, I will do no less.
Normally, only small minded people call others humans names like that. I say "normally". The word, of course, means "an illegitimate child" or "a contemptible person". Followers of Adolph Hitler were quite literally both.
That quote is one of my favorites and hangs framed on a wall here because it has a marvelous application to our day by day struggles. Sooner or later a child of God will feel as threatened and desperate in spirit as those young men felt 72 years ago before the Nazi onslaught. That quote represents all the courage and resourcefulness of the young Americans who won the largest war in human history. Looking at marriages ruined, families destroyed, churches split and militant atheism advancing, the believer looks satan in the face and says, "you were defeated on the cross by the shed blood and the risen life of the Lord Jesus; I am His child; He indwells me; all authority in heaven and on earth is His; and THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU ARE GOING!!!
The Battle of the Bulge produced another memorable quote. This one was just one word. The German plan was to push through to the Port of Antwerp, cutting the Allied forces in half and forcing a cease-fire or a truce.
On the major highway of their advance was the town of Bastogne. At first the town was defended by the 28th Infantry, who were subsequently relieved by the 101st Airborne under Gen. Anthony McAuliffe. They were totally surrounded and Patton's Third Army was racing from the south to rescue them. The German commander sent an ultimatum demanding the surrender of the American forces at Bastogne or they would be utterly destroyed. Gen. McAuliffe read the ultimatum and directed that a one word reply be sent to the German commander: "NUTS!!!" Don't you just love it? And the Germans did not understand American slang. "Nuts! Was ist das?"
I would not trivialize our struggles with satan and demonic spirits but when pressed hard to quit and give up maybe we should just to him, "Nuts", and keep right on walking with the Lord. And we have infinitely more resources than Patton's Third Army to rescue us!
Our next one comes from Viet Nam and it is not an actually quote. Through the years I have read many articles by the man who was assigned by the U.S. Army to train South Vietnamese forces to defend themselves after the French were defeated in 1954 and withdrew from Viet Nam. This man wrote about how small of stature the typical Vietnamese soldier was. So, what did some genius at the Pentagon decide to arm them with? Big, heavy, bulky U.S. M-1 Garand rifles left over from WW2 and Korea and weighing around 10 pounds fully loaded. They were heavy even for many U.S. soldiers who were larger and stronger. If that wasn't bad enough the Vietnamese were convinced that what killed the enemy was, not the bullet coming out of the rifle barrel, but the NOISE of the rifle. Seriously! And no amount of explanation could convince them otherwise.
This is where we got our title for this blog. There seems to be a widely held belief among American Christians that our "noise" will defeat demonic strongholds and win people to Christ. Preaching, music, Bible studies, taking stands on moral issues, arguments and reasoning all have their place. But unless "real bullets" are hitting the enemy we are as self deceived as the Vietnamese soldiers. Hear the words of Paul to his beloved Thessalonian believers: "Because our gospel came to you not simply with words ("noise") but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." (I Thess. 1:5) The Lord Jesus used 'real bullets' against satan. They came right out of the 'ammo depot' of Deuteronomy and Jesus 'fired' them with great accuracy and effectiveness at the Enemy. God helping me, I will do no less.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
A FEW THINGS YOU PROBABLY WERE NEVER TOLD
With all the admiration now given to the late Martin Luther King Jr. I wonder how many now know that when he was alive relatively few white Christians admired him. Looking at old photos of the marches he led you will see mainly liberal Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish leaders marching with him. Christians who wore the label "Fundamentalist" back then despised King for two reasons. They saw him as a theological liberal and they supported segregation of the races as something that "God ordained". Believers who preferred the label "Evangelical" generally believed that racist attitudes were ungodly but they were often cool toward King, primarily because they sincerely believed that confronting white racism would get a lot of innocent people hurt or even killed. Being conservative in theology tended to make them conservative in matters that required confrontation. The passing of time has put things in better perspective.
There were some notable exceptions. The late Frank Gabelein, a leading Evangelical scholar and educator, was sent by Christianity Today Magazine to report on one of the marches that King led. At a certain point his conscience moved him to leave the crowd of spectators and join the march.
Now, on to something else you may not have known. Until well into the 1960's what was the moral issue that dominated the thinking of many Christians? It was - are you ready for this - the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks! The 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of most alcoholic beverages, had been considered by millions of Christians to be the ultimate triumph of righteousness in America. The 21st Amendment that repealed it in 1933 was the most bitter of disappointments. As a child, 20 years later, in 1953 I personally witnessed the cause of Christ and evangelism hurt badly in the community where I lived by the zealous efforts of Christians to make alcoholic drink illegal. They lost the vote that November by a 2 -1 margin but bitter feelings remained for many years.
Back to the subject of human rights for everyone regardless of skin color: did you know that a century or more ago the proper words were "Colored" or "Negro", as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)? Then, in the 1960's "Black" became the word of preference, as in "Black Pride". But that didn't last long. Jesse Jackson and others promoted the term "African-American" and it is still the term of preference. Many thoughtful people, both Black and White, believe it is unwise to have hyphenated Americans. I agree with them but I use the term out of respect for the wishes of others.
Along these same lines, did you know that 90 years ago the ethnic group with the lowest rate of pregnancy outside of marriage was - you guessed it - African-American girls? The church, either Baptist or Pentecostal, was the center and anchor of life for most Black families. The grace of God experienced in fellowship with other believers sustained them through the cruelties of slavery and segregation. Did you also know that the 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation" glorified the KKK and fueled the myth among Whites that Black men lustfully pursued white women?
Did you know that the virtual destruction of the Black family in America is a result of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960's? The government sent the message: "the father is not needed in the Black family (or any family for that matter). The government will take care of you".
Did you know that at any moment in the past that you could point to, there were thoughtful and intelligent people saying "morals are so low that at this rate we won't last long"? Does that mean that our present situation is not as bad as we might think? Not at all. It only means that humans have always been capable of the same evil things we see now. The big difference between now and the past is that once restraints are removed they are rarely, if ever, brought back unless there is a major spiritual revival in a nation.
Did you know that Bill Clinton's immorality in the White House was not at all the first to happen there? What was a 'first' was: 1) it was revealed while the President involved was still in office; and 2) his popularity remained high and even rose. This was a watershed in U.S. history.
This one you may already know. The main "health crisis" in America is -- the way people eat. In a word, the crisis is obesity. Add to that, diabetes, cancers of various types and all other maladies connected with poor dietary habits. I offended one or more people some time ago in one of these blogs with the passing comment that just observing crowds of people anywhere will show how widespread and serious this problem is. I should have said it differently. I should have said what an opportunity for Christians to set an example in the way they eat and maintain a healthy weight.
Do you know that this Presidential election has no precedent in U.S. history. No woman has ever been this close to the Presidency. Never before has someone with no political experience been this close. Never before has someone with a record of crude, vulgar and arrogant statements been this close to the Presidency, and not only close but promising, if elected, to promote those things dear to the hearts of millions of Christians!
You and I both struggle to grasp how full of danger and how full of hope and promise for the Cause of Christ this moment is. Charles Dickens said the days of the French Revolution were "the best of times and the worst of times". He should be alive now. The spirit of antichrist may be everywhere but people are coming to Christ in numbers almost too large to grasp. Fifty year ago Chairman Mao promised to eradicate Christianity in China. Today the Church there is growing as fast or faster than anywhere on earth. I know that from eternity I shall look back with unbounded gratitude to God that he let me live at this moment; not only let me live but speak and write for his honor and for the good of others.
I almost forgot. A copy of this blog and $1.00 will get you a free coffee at participating McDonalds.
There were some notable exceptions. The late Frank Gabelein, a leading Evangelical scholar and educator, was sent by Christianity Today Magazine to report on one of the marches that King led. At a certain point his conscience moved him to leave the crowd of spectators and join the march.
Now, on to something else you may not have known. Until well into the 1960's what was the moral issue that dominated the thinking of many Christians? It was - are you ready for this - the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks! The 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of most alcoholic beverages, had been considered by millions of Christians to be the ultimate triumph of righteousness in America. The 21st Amendment that repealed it in 1933 was the most bitter of disappointments. As a child, 20 years later, in 1953 I personally witnessed the cause of Christ and evangelism hurt badly in the community where I lived by the zealous efforts of Christians to make alcoholic drink illegal. They lost the vote that November by a 2 -1 margin but bitter feelings remained for many years.
Back to the subject of human rights for everyone regardless of skin color: did you know that a century or more ago the proper words were "Colored" or "Negro", as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)? Then, in the 1960's "Black" became the word of preference, as in "Black Pride". But that didn't last long. Jesse Jackson and others promoted the term "African-American" and it is still the term of preference. Many thoughtful people, both Black and White, believe it is unwise to have hyphenated Americans. I agree with them but I use the term out of respect for the wishes of others.
Along these same lines, did you know that 90 years ago the ethnic group with the lowest rate of pregnancy outside of marriage was - you guessed it - African-American girls? The church, either Baptist or Pentecostal, was the center and anchor of life for most Black families. The grace of God experienced in fellowship with other believers sustained them through the cruelties of slavery and segregation. Did you also know that the 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation" glorified the KKK and fueled the myth among Whites that Black men lustfully pursued white women?
Did you know that the virtual destruction of the Black family in America is a result of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960's? The government sent the message: "the father is not needed in the Black family (or any family for that matter). The government will take care of you".
Did you know that at any moment in the past that you could point to, there were thoughtful and intelligent people saying "morals are so low that at this rate we won't last long"? Does that mean that our present situation is not as bad as we might think? Not at all. It only means that humans have always been capable of the same evil things we see now. The big difference between now and the past is that once restraints are removed they are rarely, if ever, brought back unless there is a major spiritual revival in a nation.
Did you know that Bill Clinton's immorality in the White House was not at all the first to happen there? What was a 'first' was: 1) it was revealed while the President involved was still in office; and 2) his popularity remained high and even rose. This was a watershed in U.S. history.
This one you may already know. The main "health crisis" in America is -- the way people eat. In a word, the crisis is obesity. Add to that, diabetes, cancers of various types and all other maladies connected with poor dietary habits. I offended one or more people some time ago in one of these blogs with the passing comment that just observing crowds of people anywhere will show how widespread and serious this problem is. I should have said it differently. I should have said what an opportunity for Christians to set an example in the way they eat and maintain a healthy weight.
Do you know that this Presidential election has no precedent in U.S. history. No woman has ever been this close to the Presidency. Never before has someone with no political experience been this close. Never before has someone with a record of crude, vulgar and arrogant statements been this close to the Presidency, and not only close but promising, if elected, to promote those things dear to the hearts of millions of Christians!
You and I both struggle to grasp how full of danger and how full of hope and promise for the Cause of Christ this moment is. Charles Dickens said the days of the French Revolution were "the best of times and the worst of times". He should be alive now. The spirit of antichrist may be everywhere but people are coming to Christ in numbers almost too large to grasp. Fifty year ago Chairman Mao promised to eradicate Christianity in China. Today the Church there is growing as fast or faster than anywhere on earth. I know that from eternity I shall look back with unbounded gratitude to God that he let me live at this moment; not only let me live but speak and write for his honor and for the good of others.
I almost forgot. A copy of this blog and $1.00 will get you a free coffee at participating McDonalds.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
CREATION AND THE FLOOD: THREE VIEWS
The three views we will describe are all held by Evangelical Christians. By Evangelical I mean those who take the claims of Christ seriously; who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian faith; and who believe it is absolutely necessary for every individual to personally believe and commit to the Gospel (Gr. euangellion) that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose bodily from the dead on the third day. There are at least some people in every branch of Christianity who fit this description, and because they take seriously the claims of Christ they want to take seriously the truth of God as Creator. This summary of the three views comes from 60 years of reading and reflection on these matters.
Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms. Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God. Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view. Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science. Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution. Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism. Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism. All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone. All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos). But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation. The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos). They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation; 2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because, 3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary; 4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics); 5) there were two creative acts of God -- the initial act, in which God, in some sense, programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God"; 6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history.
Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis. Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's. He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book The Language Of God. Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing God as Creator. Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical. Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things. They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it. They are also charged with being inconsistent. Why admit two creative acts of God and no more? For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described. Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG). Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos. But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood. The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued. He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation. During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement. This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages. He became an early and strong advocate of this view. The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message. The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.
Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this: 1) all creation took place in 144 hours; 2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old; 3) that no animals died before man sinned; 4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars; 5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time; 6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates; 7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.); 8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains; 9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation; 11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis. Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view. So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view. If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence). Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern. It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself. It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.
Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe. These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it. The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's": Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move); Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence; and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them. It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude. It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation. This view holds: 1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe; 2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth; 3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew]; 5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10; 6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals; 7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things; 8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present; 9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era; 10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God; 11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history. Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view. Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy. YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch. They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth". In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is. Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation.
This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!" This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views. An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach. In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold. None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data.
Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters. But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner.
Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms. Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God. Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view. Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science. Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution. Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism. Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism. All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone. All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos). But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation. The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos). They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation; 2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because, 3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary; 4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics); 5) there were two creative acts of God -- the initial act, in which God, in some sense, programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God"; 6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history.
Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis. Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's. He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book The Language Of God. Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing God as Creator. Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical. Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things. They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it. They are also charged with being inconsistent. Why admit two creative acts of God and no more? For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described. Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG). Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos. But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood. The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued. He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation. During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement. This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages. He became an early and strong advocate of this view. The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message. The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.
Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this: 1) all creation took place in 144 hours; 2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old; 3) that no animals died before man sinned; 4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars; 5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time; 6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates; 7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.); 8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains; 9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation; 11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis. Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view. So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view. If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence). Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern. It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself. It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.
Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe. These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it. The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's": Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move); Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence; and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them. It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude. It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation. This view holds: 1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe; 2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth; 3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew]; 5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10; 6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals; 7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things; 8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present; 9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era; 10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God; 11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history. Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view. Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy. YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch. They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth". In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is. Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation.
This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!" This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views. An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach. In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold. None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data.
Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters. But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
IF I HAD BEEN BORN BLACK
If I had been born black at the same time and place where I grew up I would not have been called black, African-American, or any such terms that came into vogue in the late sixties. The most polite people would have called me Negro. The less enlightened would have referred to me as that colored boy, and I can point in old school yearbooks to 2 or 3 who would have called me nigger. I know; I went to high school with them and had to listen to them.
By recalling the experience of the first family of color to move into our rural community I can say that most people would have treated me respectfully. The school bus driver would have given the same talk to every one on the bus that she gave to us the day before the children of that family rode the bus for the first time. I do not recall all her words (I was only about age 10) but she made it clear that if any of us said or did anything to make those children feel unwelcome we would answer to her. I would have been warmly accepted by many other children but in retrospect I can see that the adults would never accept me being too friendly with white girls. That could have meant serious trouble; not like the deep south maybe, but serious none the less.
I would have been accepted in either of the two churches in that town just like I was at school. Any athletic ability at all would have only enhanced my acceptance. But, I am sure that I would never have felt totally a part of life in the community. So, my family would have taken me about 20 miles to the nearest all-black church and to all-black social activities in that city. I could have gone roller skating in that city only on Monday evenings. That evening was for colored people only. All other evenings were for whites only.
I could never have gone to school in Georgia as I did at age 17. If that school had admitted me they would have faced severe reprisals. The burning of one of their campus buildings in the 1950's was thought to have been a warning from some locals to not even think about it. Since that year was so spiritually decisive for me I can only speculate what I would have done next. After graduating from the local public high school I could have gone to Moody Bible Institute just as I did. They were integrated from nearly their founding in 1886. But I would have listened to the Dean of Men tell the assembled male students to date only those of your own race. I would have quickly caught on that dating and marriage is where even the most accepting of white evangelical Christians drew the line in those days, and they drew it with great firmness! They were, in the words of Romans 12:2, conformed to the culture around them and not yet transformed. I would have probably read the poll results in the late 1950's that only about 2 % of Americans were accepting of intermarriage. I look back from today when the percentages are exactly reversed.
In the election of 1960 I would have been impressed that Kennedy contacted Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, to support him, while Nixon did not. So I would have ignored the pleas of evangelicals to not support a Catholic and I would have supported Kennedy. In the election of 1964 I would have continued my support for the Democratic Party, giving them most, but not all, the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I would like to think that I would have been intellectually honest enough to see that the Republican, Barry Goldwater, was not a racist, that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was his fear of expansion of federal power, and that he had promoted equal and fair treatment of all people in his Arizona business. As a Christian I would have felt very good about the fact that the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. was centered in the churches, built on the truth that all humans are created in the Image of God, and included much prayer. I would have been very proud of the strength and stability of black family life. I would have later wept while watching the government's "War on Poverty" have the unintended consequence of decimating black family life, leading to the current high percentage of black babies born to single moms and the horrendous black on black murder rate.
I would have no doubt supported Hubert Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. He had been passionate about civil rights as early as 1948. Following Rowe v. Wade in 1973 I would have been increasingly troubled by those in the civil rights movement who one by one began to deny the humanity of the unborn child. I can see myself, as a consistent Christian, moving into the company of that 10 to 15 % of black Americans who feel that the Democratic Party has betrayed and repudiated those Christian principles that were the foundation of the civil rights movement. I would be absolutely incensed today that homosexual behavior is equated with skin color and called the "newest civil rights movement". I would see this as one of the most monstrous false analogies in all history and another betrayal of all that the movement for racial equality stood for.
I would today want to emulate men like Howard Jones, who was the first man of color on Billy Graham's team. In his lifetime he and his wife Wanda endured countless insults and slights but stood firm and loving for the cause of Christ above all. Like them I would want to follow the example of Jesus. "When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." (I Peter 2:23) I would like to think that I would have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be very patient with all my white brothers and sisters who just don't understand what it has been like. I would hope that same power of the Holy Spirit would enable me to convince many other black Americans to rethink their support for some of the politicians to whom they are selling their souls. I would like to think so.
By recalling the experience of the first family of color to move into our rural community I can say that most people would have treated me respectfully. The school bus driver would have given the same talk to every one on the bus that she gave to us the day before the children of that family rode the bus for the first time. I do not recall all her words (I was only about age 10) but she made it clear that if any of us said or did anything to make those children feel unwelcome we would answer to her. I would have been warmly accepted by many other children but in retrospect I can see that the adults would never accept me being too friendly with white girls. That could have meant serious trouble; not like the deep south maybe, but serious none the less.
I would have been accepted in either of the two churches in that town just like I was at school. Any athletic ability at all would have only enhanced my acceptance. But, I am sure that I would never have felt totally a part of life in the community. So, my family would have taken me about 20 miles to the nearest all-black church and to all-black social activities in that city. I could have gone roller skating in that city only on Monday evenings. That evening was for colored people only. All other evenings were for whites only.
I could never have gone to school in Georgia as I did at age 17. If that school had admitted me they would have faced severe reprisals. The burning of one of their campus buildings in the 1950's was thought to have been a warning from some locals to not even think about it. Since that year was so spiritually decisive for me I can only speculate what I would have done next. After graduating from the local public high school I could have gone to Moody Bible Institute just as I did. They were integrated from nearly their founding in 1886. But I would have listened to the Dean of Men tell the assembled male students to date only those of your own race. I would have quickly caught on that dating and marriage is where even the most accepting of white evangelical Christians drew the line in those days, and they drew it with great firmness! They were, in the words of Romans 12:2, conformed to the culture around them and not yet transformed. I would have probably read the poll results in the late 1950's that only about 2 % of Americans were accepting of intermarriage. I look back from today when the percentages are exactly reversed.
In the election of 1960 I would have been impressed that Kennedy contacted Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, to support him, while Nixon did not. So I would have ignored the pleas of evangelicals to not support a Catholic and I would have supported Kennedy. In the election of 1964 I would have continued my support for the Democratic Party, giving them most, but not all, the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I would like to think that I would have been intellectually honest enough to see that the Republican, Barry Goldwater, was not a racist, that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was his fear of expansion of federal power, and that he had promoted equal and fair treatment of all people in his Arizona business. As a Christian I would have felt very good about the fact that the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. was centered in the churches, built on the truth that all humans are created in the Image of God, and included much prayer. I would have been very proud of the strength and stability of black family life. I would have later wept while watching the government's "War on Poverty" have the unintended consequence of decimating black family life, leading to the current high percentage of black babies born to single moms and the horrendous black on black murder rate.
I would have no doubt supported Hubert Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. He had been passionate about civil rights as early as 1948. Following Rowe v. Wade in 1973 I would have been increasingly troubled by those in the civil rights movement who one by one began to deny the humanity of the unborn child. I can see myself, as a consistent Christian, moving into the company of that 10 to 15 % of black Americans who feel that the Democratic Party has betrayed and repudiated those Christian principles that were the foundation of the civil rights movement. I would be absolutely incensed today that homosexual behavior is equated with skin color and called the "newest civil rights movement". I would see this as one of the most monstrous false analogies in all history and another betrayal of all that the movement for racial equality stood for.
I would today want to emulate men like Howard Jones, who was the first man of color on Billy Graham's team. In his lifetime he and his wife Wanda endured countless insults and slights but stood firm and loving for the cause of Christ above all. Like them I would want to follow the example of Jesus. "When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." (I Peter 2:23) I would like to think that I would have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be very patient with all my white brothers and sisters who just don't understand what it has been like. I would hope that same power of the Holy Spirit would enable me to convince many other black Americans to rethink their support for some of the politicians to whom they are selling their souls. I would like to think so.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
GOD IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING BIG
Eyewitnesses told me they were some of the last words my brother ever spoke. "God is going to do something big on this trip." Some readers of this blog know that shortly after uttering those words my brother, Donald Eugene Enzor, drowned while trying to rescue two other boys. I have recalled that time because yesterday I heard similar words. "God is about to do the greatest works since the Church began." That is not an exact quote but it comes close. Since they were spoken on a Christian program that interviews people about miracles, visions and prophecies some would dismiss them without hesitation. I, however, am bound by I Thessalonians 5:20 & 21: "Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good."
Since that program tries to exalt Christ and the Scriptures I would be wise to give the Holy Spirit time to witness to my spirit about the accuracy of that prediction. I am inclined to take that prophetic word seriously because it is far superior to the pessimism that Christians are uttering on every hand. Great advances of the Kingdom of God and growth of the Church are happening in China, Muslim lands, sub Sahara Africa, Central America and South America. God's people in those lands have cried out to Him and He is pouring water on thirsty ground. God does not love any less His people in the U.S. who are crying out to Him with right motives.
"Right motives" -- that is it! I doubt that God is impressed with our pleading for changes in America when the hidden motives are for an easier life free of persecution. It is a matter of record that believers in other lands have prayed for "difficult times" for us here in the U.S. Those believers see that as the only way the Church in America will be cleansed and purified. Large segments of the Church here have embrace a "gospel" of comfort and prosperity; pagan standards of music and clothing; and a casual acceptance of just about anything the culture says and does. The most conservative churches are, in their own way, as badly in need of change. Mean spirited criticism of other believers and unnecessary church divisions are just the beginning of their problems.
I am most thankful at this moment for all the Churches that are exceptions to the examples just given. From their ranks rise the prayers with pure motives that God most surely hears; the prayers that may very well lead to the unprecedented move of the Spirit of God that some are predicting.
In just one church in Seoul, South Korea hundreds - yes hundreds - regularly come out at 6:00 a.m. to . . . PRAY. The powerful motivation that propels them is what saints of years past called "the burning heart". The worst thing I could do in a blog like this is to throw ice cold criticisms on American Christians who do not seem to have the "burning heart". As an 11 year old Boy Scout one of the first things I learned and loved to practice was the art and science of fire starting: making dry wood shavings, standing the twigs around the shavings like a teepee, striking the match, and gradually adding larger and larger twigs and branches to the fire teepee. If a fire is nearly out blow gently of the embers.
That is what the wise among us will do with our fellow believers. We will gently and carefully stoke the fires and blow gently on the dying embers. We will not throw the cold water of denunciation on them nor will we try to use too often the blow torch of sharp exhortation. "Stir up that inner fire which God gave you . . . for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and a sound mind." (II Tim. 1:6 ff. from Phillips New Testament In Modern English)
I think that Paul added the "no fear" words because he, and (more importantly) the Holy Spirit, knew that in our time some would try to "work up" spiritual enthusiasm and thus the rest of us would be afraid of the whole idea. In many churches the danger of "wild fire" in spiritual things is about as much to be feared as the inhabitants of a cemetery staging a riot! I should much rather have to "rein in" an overly exuberant brother than to ignite fire in total spiritual coldness. So, let's see now, where are the kindling and the matches? Where are the dying embers? But first, "Breathe on me Breath of God".
Since that program tries to exalt Christ and the Scriptures I would be wise to give the Holy Spirit time to witness to my spirit about the accuracy of that prediction. I am inclined to take that prophetic word seriously because it is far superior to the pessimism that Christians are uttering on every hand. Great advances of the Kingdom of God and growth of the Church are happening in China, Muslim lands, sub Sahara Africa, Central America and South America. God's people in those lands have cried out to Him and He is pouring water on thirsty ground. God does not love any less His people in the U.S. who are crying out to Him with right motives.
"Right motives" -- that is it! I doubt that God is impressed with our pleading for changes in America when the hidden motives are for an easier life free of persecution. It is a matter of record that believers in other lands have prayed for "difficult times" for us here in the U.S. Those believers see that as the only way the Church in America will be cleansed and purified. Large segments of the Church here have embrace a "gospel" of comfort and prosperity; pagan standards of music and clothing; and a casual acceptance of just about anything the culture says and does. The most conservative churches are, in their own way, as badly in need of change. Mean spirited criticism of other believers and unnecessary church divisions are just the beginning of their problems.
I am most thankful at this moment for all the Churches that are exceptions to the examples just given. From their ranks rise the prayers with pure motives that God most surely hears; the prayers that may very well lead to the unprecedented move of the Spirit of God that some are predicting.
In just one church in Seoul, South Korea hundreds - yes hundreds - regularly come out at 6:00 a.m. to . . . PRAY. The powerful motivation that propels them is what saints of years past called "the burning heart". The worst thing I could do in a blog like this is to throw ice cold criticisms on American Christians who do not seem to have the "burning heart". As an 11 year old Boy Scout one of the first things I learned and loved to practice was the art and science of fire starting: making dry wood shavings, standing the twigs around the shavings like a teepee, striking the match, and gradually adding larger and larger twigs and branches to the fire teepee. If a fire is nearly out blow gently of the embers.
That is what the wise among us will do with our fellow believers. We will gently and carefully stoke the fires and blow gently on the dying embers. We will not throw the cold water of denunciation on them nor will we try to use too often the blow torch of sharp exhortation. "Stir up that inner fire which God gave you . . . for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and a sound mind." (II Tim. 1:6 ff. from Phillips New Testament In Modern English)
I think that Paul added the "no fear" words because he, and (more importantly) the Holy Spirit, knew that in our time some would try to "work up" spiritual enthusiasm and thus the rest of us would be afraid of the whole idea. In many churches the danger of "wild fire" in spiritual things is about as much to be feared as the inhabitants of a cemetery staging a riot! I should much rather have to "rein in" an overly exuberant brother than to ignite fire in total spiritual coldness. So, let's see now, where are the kindling and the matches? Where are the dying embers? But first, "Breathe on me Breath of God".
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
NEVER STOP!
Working. That's what the title refers to. A friend, and once a fellow teacher in the same Christian school, asked me years ago: "What are your retirement plans?" He was referring to the very modest amount of money that would be available when retirement time came. My answer? "To work 'till I die!" I was not joking and I was not being pessimistic. I hate the word "retirement" and I hate the concept. I am watching things like my diet, weight, exercise, etc. with the deeply held desire to being doing useful and productive ministry and actual, physical work as long as God gives me breath. If I suddenly had several million dollars those plans would not change one iota.
There was once a member of the board at the Christian school where I taught for 34 years who liked to show a computer print out that "proved" how well off financially I could have been. According this insurance company projection, if I had deposited $25 per month in a fund with this company from the day I started teaching until age 65 I would have around $1.5 million. That projection may have been very accurate, but the stock market collapse of 2008 would have wiped out a significant part of it. That collapse wiped out much of the modest amount my wife and I did have.
Much or all of our financial loss could have been prevented if a certain person who had said, "someone should be watching your investments for you" would have been "watching" them when it was in his power to do so. But that is a story for another day. All I can do is forgive him as my Heavenly Father has forgiven me.
I have worked at two vocations since I was 14 years old. On the one hand I was a student and then a teacher (as well as teaching/preaching ministry in churches). On the other hand I began to learn a vocation even before my 15th birthday. During the first year I was married I worked with a man who was the master of masters in that vocation. By God's grace I have been able to fulfill the words of Jesus to "Go and make disciples" and the example of the Apostle Paul: "because he was a tentmaker" (Acts 18:3 & II Thess. 3:6-10). The first ministry/vocation has meant the privilege of impacting lives for eternity. The second has been God's way of providing for the needs of my family. I have had the privilege of working on the interior and exterior of many, many fine homes. This month makes 59 years I have been doing it.
As stated earlier, I intend to keep working at both callings and vocations as long as God gives me breath.
On the matter of pay and retirement for those who serve in vocational Christian work, such as a school or a church: what will ruin their lives is not the lack of money. What will ruin them is bitterness toward those whom they believe "owe me more". I have watched individuals destroy themselves with this kind of resentment and bitterness. Ironically, in one instance it was a person for whom God had provided very much. It is a cancer and if someone cannot be content with modest salaries and retirement benefits then they have no business in vocational Christian work. That is one reason I consider my second vocation so important. But God has also provided for my family and me in another way.
Susan and I were 35 years of age before we owned our first home. For nine years before that we lived in three different houses where, instead of rent, I took care of and improved the properties and did other work. When we did buy a home it was very old and very modest. As God supplied extra funds for us we improved that property nearly every year for 36 years. With improvements in buildings and extra land we were able to sell it for more than eight times what we originally paid for it. So God gave us back a substantial part of what had been lost in 2008. That is one of the meanings of the promise in the Book of Joel: "I will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten".
For years I had offered to build my parents a house on our land so that they could live beside us and we could care for them in their later years. As they approached their 86th birthdays they gave me the go ahead to do just that. With the modest equity from their home and the help of many friends we built a home for them. Susan and I never intended to live in that house but that is what God worked out for us. He sent a neighbor to buy the house and land where we had lived for many years and we moved into this newer home two years ago. There is enough in that story to create another blog.
Financial experts would look at our salaries through the years, at our assets and our overall financial picture and be pessimistic. But they don't know our God and his rich provision for his children. We could not have imagined seven years ago that a church in Ashland would call us to be on their staff in a teaching ministry. But our greatest true wealth is our family: three children, their spouses and seven grandchildren who all know and love the Lord. On Sunday, August 4th 2013, our fiftieth wedding anniversary, I gave the morning message from I Samuel 7:12, "Thus far has the Lord helped us".
God certainly has no plans to stop helping us and I have no plans to quit working and ministering. NEVER STOP!
There was once a member of the board at the Christian school where I taught for 34 years who liked to show a computer print out that "proved" how well off financially I could have been. According this insurance company projection, if I had deposited $25 per month in a fund with this company from the day I started teaching until age 65 I would have around $1.5 million. That projection may have been very accurate, but the stock market collapse of 2008 would have wiped out a significant part of it. That collapse wiped out much of the modest amount my wife and I did have.
Much or all of our financial loss could have been prevented if a certain person who had said, "someone should be watching your investments for you" would have been "watching" them when it was in his power to do so. But that is a story for another day. All I can do is forgive him as my Heavenly Father has forgiven me.
I have worked at two vocations since I was 14 years old. On the one hand I was a student and then a teacher (as well as teaching/preaching ministry in churches). On the other hand I began to learn a vocation even before my 15th birthday. During the first year I was married I worked with a man who was the master of masters in that vocation. By God's grace I have been able to fulfill the words of Jesus to "Go and make disciples" and the example of the Apostle Paul: "because he was a tentmaker" (Acts 18:3 & II Thess. 3:6-10). The first ministry/vocation has meant the privilege of impacting lives for eternity. The second has been God's way of providing for the needs of my family. I have had the privilege of working on the interior and exterior of many, many fine homes. This month makes 59 years I have been doing it.
As stated earlier, I intend to keep working at both callings and vocations as long as God gives me breath.
On the matter of pay and retirement for those who serve in vocational Christian work, such as a school or a church: what will ruin their lives is not the lack of money. What will ruin them is bitterness toward those whom they believe "owe me more". I have watched individuals destroy themselves with this kind of resentment and bitterness. Ironically, in one instance it was a person for whom God had provided very much. It is a cancer and if someone cannot be content with modest salaries and retirement benefits then they have no business in vocational Christian work. That is one reason I consider my second vocation so important. But God has also provided for my family and me in another way.
Susan and I were 35 years of age before we owned our first home. For nine years before that we lived in three different houses where, instead of rent, I took care of and improved the properties and did other work. When we did buy a home it was very old and very modest. As God supplied extra funds for us we improved that property nearly every year for 36 years. With improvements in buildings and extra land we were able to sell it for more than eight times what we originally paid for it. So God gave us back a substantial part of what had been lost in 2008. That is one of the meanings of the promise in the Book of Joel: "I will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten".
For years I had offered to build my parents a house on our land so that they could live beside us and we could care for them in their later years. As they approached their 86th birthdays they gave me the go ahead to do just that. With the modest equity from their home and the help of many friends we built a home for them. Susan and I never intended to live in that house but that is what God worked out for us. He sent a neighbor to buy the house and land where we had lived for many years and we moved into this newer home two years ago. There is enough in that story to create another blog.
Financial experts would look at our salaries through the years, at our assets and our overall financial picture and be pessimistic. But they don't know our God and his rich provision for his children. We could not have imagined seven years ago that a church in Ashland would call us to be on their staff in a teaching ministry. But our greatest true wealth is our family: three children, their spouses and seven grandchildren who all know and love the Lord. On Sunday, August 4th 2013, our fiftieth wedding anniversary, I gave the morning message from I Samuel 7:12, "Thus far has the Lord helped us".
God certainly has no plans to stop helping us and I have no plans to quit working and ministering. NEVER STOP!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)