Shepherds' Fellowship

(by John MacArthur)

Oral Roberts died this week and the obituaries have been abuzz with analyses of his life and legacy. The USA Today headline summed up his contributions this way: "Oral Roberts brought health-and-wealth Gospel mainstream." The Los Angeles Times gave a similar snapshot of the man: "Oral Roberts dies at 91; televangelist was pioneering preacher of the 'prosperity gospel'"

But Christianity Today's lead blogger, Ted Olsen, disagreed. He responded with a post titled "Why the Oral Roberts Obituaries Are Wrong." The long subtitle at the head of Olsen's post explained: "The 'faith-healer' (who hated the term) may have done much to mainstream Pentecostalism, but he was no architect of the Prosperity Gospel."

Olsen's argument, essentially, is that the real founder and mastermind of prosperity doctrine was not Oral Roberts but Kenneth Hagin, "who is far more widely recognized as the man who joined Pentecostalism with the Faith Movement (also called 'Word-Faith,' or derogatively, the Prosperity Gospel or 'Health and Wealth' gospel)."

Olsen, however, is wrong. He has evidently confused two categories. It is quite true that Kenneth Hagin is the main prosperity preacher who popularized word-faith doctrine--the notion that the words we speak determine the blessings we receive. Hagin borrowed that doctrine from an earlier, lesser-known preacher--E. W. Kenyon. (A mountain of evidence suggests that Hagin actually plagiarized large portions of his published works from Kenyon's writings.) Kenyon had been strongly influenced by the teachings of New Thought, a 19th-century metaphysical cult similar to Christian Science. So Hagin's word-faith doctrines had deeply cultic roots, but the idea fit perfectly with the prosperity doctrines that were already being taught by A. A. Allen, Oral Roberts, Jack Coe, and other faith-healers. The two ideas were natural complements to one another.

Still, word-faith doctrine and the prosperity gospel are not synonymous. (Even the current Wikipedia entry acknowledges this: "Although [the Word of Faith movement] shares teachings in common with Prosperity theology, they are not the same thing.") Prosperity doctrine is the notion that God's favor is expressed mainly through physical health and material prosperity, and that these blessings are available for the claiming by anyone who has sufficient faith.

Oral Roberts was certainly the 20th century's leading advocate of that idea. His prosperity doctrine laid the foundation for an enormous media-based religious system, and Oral Roberts was indeed its chief architect. It is preposterous that Christianity Today would try to whitewash that fact. Prosperity teaching was what Roberts himself wanted to be remembered for.

In Oral Roberts: An American Life, biographer David Edwin Harrell, Jr., describes how Roberts discovered the prosperity gospel and how it became the centerpiece of his message. One day he opened his Bible randomly and spotted 3 John 2: "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." He showed it to his wife, Evelyn, and "They talked excitedly about the verse's implications. Did it mean they could have a 'new car,' 'a new house,' a 'brand-new ministry?' In later years, Evelyn looked back on that morning as the point of embarkation: 'I really believe that that very morning was the beginning of this worldwide ministry that he has had, because it opened up his thinking" [(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1985), p. 66]. Roberts testified that a shiny new Buick, acquired by unexpected means shortly after that experience, "became a symbol to me of what a man could do if he would believe God."

After he embraced prosperity doctrine, Oral Roberts' best-known and most far-reaching brainchild was the Seed-Faith message. Roberts taught that money and material things donated to his organization were the seeds of prosperity and material blessings from God, and that God promises to multiply in miraculous ways whatever is given--and give many times more back to the donor. It was a simple, quasi-spiritual get-rich-quick scheme that appealed mainly to poor, disadvantaged, and desperate people. It generated untold millions for Roberts' empire and was quickly adopted by a host of similarly-oriented Pentecostal and Charismatic media ministries. The Seed-Faith principle is the main cash-cow that built and has supported vast networks of televangelists who barter for their viewers' money with fervent promises of "miracles"--and the miracles are invariably described in terms of material blessings, mainly money. Elsewhere I have compared this doctrine to the mentality of the post-WWII cargo cults.

Tragically, the Seed-Faith message usurped and utterly replaced whatever gospel content there ever may have been in Oral Roberts' preaching. In all the many times I saw him on television I never once heard him preach the gospel. His message--every time--was about Seed-Faith. The reason for that is obvious: the message of the cross--an atoning sacrifice for sins wrought through Jesus' sufferings--frankly doesn't mesh very well with the notion that God guarantees health, wealth, and prosperity to the righteous. Our fellowship in Jesus' sufferings (Philippians 3:10), and our duty to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:20-23), are likewise antithetical to the core principles of prosperity doctrine. The prosperity message is a different gospel (cf. Galatians 1:8-9).

One leading charismatic figure this week stated that without Oral Roberts' influence, "the entire charismatic movement might not have occurred." That may well be true. For that very reason, Roberts' legacy needs to be evaluated soberly, honestly, and carefully, under the stark light of Scripture. Was the message he proclaimed the unadulterated gospel? Though he eschewed the label, Roberts made his main reputation on television in the 1950s as a faith-healer, and he even claimed to have raised multiple people from the dead. Were those "miracles" real and verifiable? Did his best-known and most staggering "prophecies" prove to be true? Was he himself a credible man?

The answer to all those questions is an unambiguous no. Oral Roberts' influence is not something Bible-believing Christians should celebrate. Virtually every abberant idea the Pentecostal and charismatic movements spawned after 1950 can be traced in one way or another to Oral Roberts' influence. (What the CT blog fails to mention is that Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts often ministered together and affirmed one another's ministries. Furthermore, the heir to Hagin's standing as chief of the word-faith preachers is Kenneth Copeland, who went into television ministry after working as chauffeur and pilot to Oral Roberts. So even though it would not be quite accurate to portray Oral Roberts as an aggressive proponent of word-faith doctrines, he acted as more of an ally than an opponent to the movement. We might say his relationship with that movement was reminiscent of a benign grandfather who refused to correct an out-of-control grandchild.)

One thing all the obituaries agree on is that Oral Roberts paved the way for all the charismatic televangelists and faith-healers who dominate religious television today. He did more than anyone in the early Pentecostal movement to influence mainstream evangelicalism. He parlayed his television ministry into a vast empire that has left a deep mark on the church worldwide. In many places today, including some of the world's most illiterate and poverty-stricken regions, Oral Roberts' Seed-Faith concept is actually better known than the doctrine of justification by faith. The message of prosperity is now the message multitudes think of when they hear the word "gospel." Countless confused people worldwide think of the gospel as a message about earthly, temporal, and material riches rather than the infinitely greater blessings of forgiveness from sin and the eternal blessing of the believer's spiritual union with Christ.

All of those are reasons to lament rather than celebrate Oral Roberts' fame and influence. My prayer is that future generations will see the folly of those doctrines, renounce and turn away from them, and cling tightly to the sure word of God and the glorious, eternal promises of the true gospel.

(By John MacArthur)

In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. "That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones," he wrote. "People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon."¹

(By John MacArthur)

Is Pragmatism Really a Serious Threat?

I am convinced that pragmatism poses precisely the same subtle threat to the church in our age that modernism represented nearly a century ago.

Modernism was a movement that embraced higher criticism and liberal theology while denying nearly all the supernatural aspects of Christianity. But modernism did not first surface as an overt attack on orthodox doctrine. The earliest modernists seemed concerned primarily with interdenominational unity. They were willing to downplay doctrine for that goal, because they believed doctrine was inherently divisive and a fragmented church would become irrelevant in the modern age. To heighten Christianity's relevance, modernists sought to synthesize Christian teachings with the latest insights from science, philosophy, and literary criticism.

Modernists viewed doctrine as a secondary issue. They emphasized brotherhood and experience and de-emphasized doctrinal differences. Doctrine, they believed, should be fluid and adaptable—certainly not something worth fighting for. In 1935, John Murray gave this assessment of the typical modernist:
 

The modernist very often prides himself on the supposition that he is concerned with life, with the principles of conduct and the making operative of the principles of Jesus in all departments of life, individual, social, ecclesiastical, industrial, and political. His slogan has been that Christianity is life, not doctrine, and he thinks that the orthodox Christian or fundamentalist, as he likes to name him, is concerned simply with the conservation and perpetuation of outworn dogmas of doctrinal belief, a concern which makes orthodoxy in his esteem a cold and lifeless petrification of Christianity. ["The Sanctity of the Moral Law," Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:193.]

When harbingers of modernism began to appear in the late 1800s, few Christians were troubled. The most heated controversies in those days were relatively small backlashes against men like Charles Spurgeon—men who were trying to warn the church about the threat. Most Christians—particularly church leaders—were completely unreceptive to such warnings. After all, it wasn't as if outsiders were imposing new teachings on the church; these were people from within the denominations—and scholars, at that. Certainly they had no agenda to undermine the core of orthodox theology or attack the heart of Christianity itself. Divisiveness and schism seemed far greater dangers than apostasy.

But whatever the modernists' motives at first, their ideas did represent a grave threat to orthodoxy, as history has proved. The movement spawned teachings that decimated practically all the mainline denominations in the first half of this century. By downplaying the importance of doctrine, modernism opened the door to theological liberalism, moral relativism, and rank unbelief. Most evangelicals today tend to equate the word "modernism" with full-scale denial of the faith. It is often forgotten that the aim of the early modernists was simply to make the church more "modern," more unified, more relevant, and more acceptable to a skeptical modern age.

Just like the pragmatists today.

Like the church of a hundred years ago, we live in a world of rapid changes—major advances in science, technology, world politics, and education. Like the brethren of that generation, Christians today are open, even eager, for change in the church. Like them, we yearn for unity among the faithful. And like them, we are sensitive to the hostility of an unbelieving world.

Unfortunately, there is at least one other parallel between the church today and the church in the late nineteenth century: many Christians seem completely unaware—if not unwilling to see—that serious dangers threaten the church from within. Yet if church history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the most devastating assaults on the faith have always begun as subtle errors arising from within.

Living in an unstable age, the church cannot afford to be vacillating. We minister to people desperate for answers, and we cannot soft-pedal the truth or extenuate the gospel. If we make friends with the world, we set ourselves at enmity with God. If we trust worldly devices, we automatically relinquish the power of the Holy Spirit.

These truths are repeatedly affirmed in Scripture: "Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (Jas. 4:4). "Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:1).

"The king is not saved by a mighty army; a warrior is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a false hope for victory; nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength" (Ps. 33:16, 17). "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord!" (31:1). "'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6).

Is Worldliness Still a Sin?

Worldliness is rarely even mentioned today, much less identified for what it is. The word itself is beginning to sound quaint. Worldliness is the sin of allowing one's appetites, ambitions, or conduct to be fashioned according to earthly values. "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever" (1 Jn. 2:16, 17).

Yet today we have the extraordinary spectacle of church programs designed explicitly to cater to fleshly desire, sensual appetites, and human pride—"the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life." To achieve this worldly appeal, church activities often go beyond the merely frivolous. For several years a colleague of mine has been collecting a "horror file" of clippings that report how churches are employing innovations to keep worship services from becoming dull. In the past half decade, some of America's largest evangelical churches have employed worldly gimmicks like slapstick, vaudeville, wrestling exhibitions, and even mock striptease to spice up their Sunday meetings. No brand of horseplay, it seems, is too outrageous to be brought into the sanctuary. Burlesque is fast becoming the liturgy of the pragmatic church.

Moreover, many in the church believe this is the only way we will ever reach the world. If the unchurched multitudes don't want traditional hymns and biblical preaching, we are told, we must give them what they want. Hundreds of churches have followed precisely that theory, actually surveying unbelievers to learn what it would take to get them to attend.

Subtly the goal is becoming church attendance and acceptance rather than a transformed life. Preaching the Word and boldly confronting sin are seen as archaic, ineffectual means of winning the world. After all, those things actually drive most people away. Why not entice people into the fold by offering what they want, creating a friendly, comfortable environment, and catering to the very desires that constitute their strongest urges? As if we might get them to accept Jesus by somehow making Him more likable or making His message less offensive.

That kind of thinking badly skews the mission of the church. The Great Commission is not a marketing manifesto. Evangelism does not require salesmen, but prophets. It is the Word of God, not any earthly enticement, that plants the seed for the new birth (1 Pet. 1:23). We gain nothing but God's displeasure if we seek to remove the offense of the cross (cf. 5:11).

Is All Innovation Wrong?

Please do not misunderstand my concern. It is not innovation per se that I oppose. I recognize that styles of worship are always in flux. I also realize that if the typical seventeenth-century Puritan walked into Grace Community Church (where I am pastor) he might be shocked by our music, probably dismayed to see men and women seated together, and quite possibly disturbed that we use a public address system. Spurgeon himself would not appreciate our organ. But I am not in favor of a stagnant church. And I am not bound to any particular musical or liturgical style. Those things in and of themselves are not issues Scripture even addresses. Nor do I think my own personal preferences in such matters are necessarily superior to the tastes of others. I have no desire to manufacture some arbitrary rules that govern what is acceptable or not in church services. To do so would be the essence of legalism.

My complaint is with a philosophy that relegates God's Word to a subordinate role in the church. I believe it is unbiblical to elevate entertainment over preaching and worship in the church service. And I stand in opposition to those who believe salesmanship can bring people into the kingdom more effectively than a sovereign God. That philosophy has opened the door to worldliness in the church.

"I am not ashamed of the gospel," the apostle Paul wrote (Rom. 1:16). Unfortunately, "ashamed of the gospel" seems more and more apt as a description of some of the most visible and influential churches of our age.

I see striking parallels between what is happening in the church today and what happened a hundred years ago. The more I read about that era, the more my conviction is reinforced that we are seeing history repeat itself. 

(By John MacArthur)

I don't watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.

Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.

But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.

I'm outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus' name. And I'm frustrated because I'm certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.

Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There's The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.

The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart's repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC's Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years' time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus' teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is "a different gospel; which is really not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.

TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network's main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to "plant a seed" by sending "the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write" with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN's major fundraising drives. It's known as the "seed faith" plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine's staunchest defenders.

The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.

If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that's because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)

Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers' pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN's primary demographic. And TBN's fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—"unemployed," "even though I'm in between jobs," "trying to make it; trying to survive," "broke"—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as "you little people," and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN "to assure God's blessing."

Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It's also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus' condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It's hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.

That's not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones' caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person's hand to the screen, people will "be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands."

Ironically, one doesn't even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.

And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.

Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:

The overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).

Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then "finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally."

All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.

Four evangelical leaders explain why they did not sign the Manhattan Declaration. To read John MacArthur's perspective, click here.

* * * * *

R.C. Sproul: True reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).

The Manhattan Declaration puts evangelical Christians in a tight spot. I have dear friends in the ministry who have signed this document, and my soul plummeted when I saw their names. I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.

Read More: http://new.ligonier.org/blog/the-manhattan-declaration/

* * * * *

Alistair Begg: In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints.  The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us. 

Read More: http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/

* * * * *

Michael Horton: This declaration continues this tendency to define “the gospel” as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits.  . . .  The error at this point is not marginal.  It goes to the heart of the more general confusion among Christians of every denominational stripe today, on the left and the right.  . . .  When we confuse the law and the gospel, there is inevitably a confusion of Christ and culture, and there is considerable evidence in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical histories to demonstrate the real dangers of this confusion.

Read More: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html

* * * * *

James White: These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.

Read More: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3638
 

(By John MacArthur)

Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-Street investors. When the scam finally came to light it unleashed a shockwave of outrage around the world. It was the largest and most far-reaching investment fraud ever.

But the evil of Madoff's embezzlement pales by comparison to an even more diabolical fraud being carried out in the name of Christ under the bright lights of television cameras on religious networks worldwide every single day. Faith healers and prosperity preachers promise miracles in return for money, conning their viewers out of more than a billion dollars annually. They have operated this racket on television for more than five decades. Worst of all, they do it with the tacit acceptance of most of the Christian community.

Someone needs to say this plainly: The faith healers and health-and-wealth preachers who dominate religious television are shameless frauds. Their message is not the true gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing spiritual or miraculous about their on-stage chicanery. It is all a devious ruse designed to take advantage of desperate people. They are not godly ministers but greedy impostors who corrupt the Word of God for money's sake. They are not real pastors who shepherd the flock of God but hirleings whose only design is to fleece the sheep. Their love of money is glaringly obvious in what they say as well as how they live. They claim to possess great spiritual power, but in reality they are rank materialists and enemies of everything holy.

There is no reason anyone should be deceived by this age-old con, and there is certainly no justification for treating the hucksters as if they were authentic ministers of the gospel. Religious charlatans who make merchandise of false promises have been around since the apostolic era. They pretend to be messengers of Christ, but they are interlopers and impostors. The apostles condemned them with the harshest possible language. Paul called them "men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). Peter called them false prophets with "heart[s] trained in greed" (2 Peter 2:14). He warned that "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (v. 3). He exposed them as scoundrels and dismissed them as "stains and blemishes" on the church (v. 13). 

Those biblical descriptions certainly fit the greed-driven cult of prosperity preachers and faith healers who unfortunately, thanks to television, have become the best-known face of Christianity worldwide. The scam they operate ought to be a bigger scandal than any Wall Street ponzi scheme or big-time securities fraud. After all, those who are most susceptible to the faith-healers' swindle are not well-to-do investors but some of society's most vulnerable people—including multitudes who are already destitute, disconsolate, disabled, elderly, sick, suffering, or dying. The faith-healer gets lavishly rich while the victims become poorer and more desperate (cf. Ezek. 34:1-4, 10).

But the worst part of the scandal is that it's not really a scandal at all in the eyes of most evangelical Christians. Those who should be most earnest in defense of the truth have taken a shockingly tolerant attitude toward the prosperity preachers' blatant misrepresentation of the gospel and their wanton exploitation of needy people. "But we don't want to judge," they say. Thus Christians fail to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24). They refuse to be discerning at all.

How many manifestos and written declarations of solidarity have evangelicals issued condemning abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other social evils? It's fine, and fairly easy, to oppose wickedness and injustice in secular society, but where is the corresponding moral outrage against these religious mountebanks who openly, brashly pervert the gospel for profit 24 hours a day, seven days a week on international television?

Advocates of abortion and euthanasia don't usually try to pass their message off as biblical. The people who say we need to redefine marriage haven't portrayed themselves as an arm of the church. But the prosperity preachers deceive people in Jesus' name, claiming to speak for God—while stealing both the souls and the sustenance of hurting people. That is a far greater abomination than any of the social evils Christians typically protest. After all, what the prosperity preachers do is not only a sin against poor, sick, and vulnerable people; it also blasphemes God, corrupts the gospel, and profanes the reputation of Christ before a watching world. It not only tears at the fabric of our society; it also befouls the purity of the visible church and abates the influence of the true gospel. It is surely among the grossest of all the evils currently rampant in our culture.

In the weeks to come, we're going to be looking at the preposterous claims and false teachings of some of religious television's best-known figures. We'll analyze why a disproportionate number of celebrity faith-healers and prosperity preachers have succumbed to serious immorality. And we'll see what Scripture says about how Bible-believing Christians ought to respond. I hope this series will challenge you to take a more active stand against the phony miracles and false teachings that are being peddled in the name of Christ.

(The next post on this topic will come at the end of this week.)

(by Rich Gregory)

Stated most bluntly, a worried pastor is an ineffective pastor.   The logic is simple and irrefutable.   If we worry, we are not trusting God.   If we are not trusting God, then how can we, without hypocrisy, effectively minister His gospel?   Anxiety can be a major problem in our lives and in the lives of those within our ministries.  Health experts tell us that 40,000,000 Americans will endure severe anxiety at some point within their lives.  To round out this shocking number, a full 43% of adults will suffer some kind of adverse health effect related to that stress.   These statistics reveal to us that the problem of anxiety is nothing short of a pandemic within our culture.

Most of us don’t think that we could be classified as “worriers,” and yet it is so easy to be caught up in concerns surrounding future, family, and finances.   Even if a level of mastery is gained over these particular areas, then our very ministries themselves can easily become ground zero for additional thoughts of anxiety and worry.   In actuality, we don’t truly need statistics to prove to us that anxiety is a problem.  All that need be done is to simply take an honest look into the dark depths of our own hearts, and we will soon understand the sober actuality of anxiety.   Christ certainly understood this, and frankly addressed the matter in Matthew 6:24-34. 

According to the definition of Christ, anxiety is to be defined as any thought regarding my circumstances without the purpose of advancing His kingdom.  In this passage, Christ uses the word merimnaw, a term that means “to divide up” or “to district.”  According to this definition, to be worried is to be distracted from our goal.  That goal, as revealed by the surrounding context of the Sermon on the Mount is to be actively looking for, and seeking to advance the coming Kingdom of God.   Especially for those within the Christ’s service, we cannot afford to be distracted, for, as verse 24 clearly states, no man can serve two masters!  There can be no division of purpose, no “districts” within the mind or the heart.  In short, anxiety is a knife that cuts asunder our loyalties between the pursuit of God and the trivial chase of property, comfort, and influence.  How then, does the believer avoid the distractions that naturally crop up within his or her heart?  Within this passage, Christ gives us three strategies for defeating anxiety.
 
The first is to cultivate a strong faith.   Christ denounces the disciples in verse 30 because of their worry.  “You men of little faith!”   He tells them not to worry because God will be faithful to preserve them just like He preserves the simple birds of the air.  In addition to His preservation, Christ promises God’s faithfulness in providing for them.  He communicates that if God is willing to clothe the unproductive and quickly fading flowers of the field in a way that is more resplendent than Solomon, then how much more is He willing to clothe His followers?   If God cares for the ordinary in an extraordinary fashion, then how much more is He willing to care for the extraordinary, you and me, in a way that is at the very least, ordinary?     Cultivating a strong faith in God’s ability to preserve and provide is the starting point for defeating anxiety.  Until you trust Him, you cannot release your grasp upon your own life.

A second strategy that Christ reveals is to pursue a righteous walk.   He commands those who claim to be His true followers to flee from the comfort of identifying oneself with the pagan Gentile.  The true disciple of Christ does not spend his or her time seeking after iniquity, but rather, as verse 33 reveals, in seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.   A righteous walk that abandons iniquity and pursues purity is important to defeating anxiety.   The person who is consumed with looking to advancing Christ’s kingdom does not worry about the trouble that swirls around them.  They are fixed, for their mind is staid upon Christ.
  
A third strategy is to develop a holy perspective.  The one who would defeat anxiety is to focus on the immediate and the eternal.  His grace is sufficient for us every day.  As Jeremiah proclaims, “[His mercies] are new every morning, great is your faithfulness!” (Lam. 3:23)  The faithful disciple seeks to impact the immediate for eternity without allowing his focus to wander.  To squander the grace of God that is meant for the real trials of today upon the mirage of impending trouble that might happen tomorrow is foolish, and betrays a wrong perspective.  God is sovereign, we are not, and thus, we have no business seeking to do His job by worrying about what might come our way.   The best way to prepare for what might come tomorrow is to faithfully fulfill our obligations towards Him today.  Even if tomorrow does bring a trial our way, as it very well may, we can still rest assured that tomorrow morning, just like every other morning, the grace of God will be sufficient to meet that new challenge, for it is from Him. The distracted man worries, but the wise man makes his plans and forms his strategy with the object of impacting eternity.

In the end, we must defeat anxiety so that we can freely serve God.  This can only happen as we strengthen our faith, walk righteously, and have a holy perspective.   If allowed, anxiety will paralyze our effectiveness in life and ministry.  To allow this to happen is to allow ourselves to be distracted from the goal for which we will someday be held accountable.   We must not fail to advance the Kingdom of God, for that is why we exist, and why we labor.  The future is securely in the hands of Almighty God and cannot be changed.   Armed with that knowledge, we must find our reward in the eternal rather than distractedly scrambling after the temporal.  Stop worrying, and start serving your Master from an undivided heart!

(By Lance Quinn)

Lance serves as the Pastor-Teacher of The Bible Church of Little Rock in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Any attempt at defining or even understanding the basis for Christian ethics will by necessity be rooted and grounded in the Word of God, as contained in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. 

Far too often, those who purport to engage in Christian ethics, do so without a clear and proper understanding of the exegesis of the biblical languages themselves, a sturdy grasp of the Bible’s own history and timeline, and a keen observation of the various cultural motifs as shown in the Bible itself. It then becomes impossible to see how all of these crucially important tasks should apply to today’s ethical challenges. 

Since these present day challenges are legion, it is incumbent upon everyone who claims to be about the business of doing Christian ethics that they should seriously and diligently understand how Christian ethics must be properly constructed and then applied. Christian ethics then, by the very term must derive its unique and ultimate authority from the only truth-source available to the Christian—Holy Scripture. 

Christian ethical ideas, decisions, norms, and mores therefore simply cannot be validly understood or practiced without being constructed from the Word of the living God. Thus, Christian ethics itself must always and forever be informed, defined, understood, and practiced only by a correct knowledge and use of God’s Word. There simply is no true “Christian ethic” without the Christian’s own reliance upon the truths contained in the Sacred Writings which stretch from Genesis to Revelation. 

(By Austin Duncan)

* Austin serves as the High School Pastor at Grace Church.

I love student ministry because:

1. I love evangelism (Matt 28:19). The wise youth minister is an evangelist at heart and desires to see young men and women give their lives to Christ.  The students in our churches pose a tremendous opportunity as a mission, an unreached people group of sorts, in our own church. There are teenagers who attend from the neighborhood who have not been raised in a Christian home and who do not know Christ. There are also those raised in the church, who are unsaved and living on a faith that is not their own. These realities motivate me to fulfill the great commission specifically at a youth level. If we neglect to minister to students we lose an opportunity to preach the gospel.

2. Leadership is influence.  It is a matter of fact that young people are easy to influence. Marketers use this for profit, schools further their agendas, and too often their influence over teenagers leads them away from the things of God and into worldliness.  It gives me joy to take part in the same ministry of Paul as I seek to influence teenagers to follow Jesus Christ. Paul urged to the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). The joy is found in the fruit of watching students begin to imitate Christ. Not only do they become good followers of their leaders, but they themselves become influencers of students around them. What a ministry to be a part of!  Leadership is influence, and youth leaders must remember that their lives and words are being watched and followed, this is a significant responsibility before God.

3. I love the church. As pastors we are called “to shepherd the flock of God among us” (1 Peter 5:2).  There are none excluded from the flock of God because of age or level of spiritual maturity. This means that we have a responsibility to shepherd each person the Lord has entrusted to our churches, from the youngest to the oldest. I love shepherding God’s flock. Youth Ministers are often understood to be on the sidelines of real ministry. Their role is sadly seen as keeping the teenagers busy and distracted.  Yet, because ‘Student Ministry’ is  ‘Ministry,’ we know that it is useless apart from following God’s guidelines to ministry. This includes preaching the Word (2 Tim 4:2), confronting students’ hearts with the Truth, pleading with them to be saved, and discipling those God has regenerated. This type of ministry is vital for our youth. Teenagers are not the church of tomorrow (though they will be that as well) they are part of our church now. If they are saved, they are to be using their gifts for the benefit of the body and the glory of God.

4. Youthfulness is an asset.  It provides an opportunity to teach biblical singleness (1 Corinthians 7). Teenagers are single for the immediate future. The biblical implications of this are important.  Singleness is a gift from the Lord and is to be used for service to the body. If teenagers can own this truth now, they are a tremendous asset to kingdom work. Since they are unfettered by married responsibilities they are able to use their time, talents, and resources for the good of God’s people in a way that expresses single minded devotion to God. 

5. I love the family. The family is an institution created and blessed by God. Wise ministry to teenagers never excludes the role of parents. Youth ministry that isolates itself from the family cuts itself off from God’s appointed primary means of discipleship. I am called to shepherd teenagers and their families. This means that that my first application point in discipling teenagers and talking about their obedience to Christ is asking them about their obedience to their parents (Eph 6:1). Youth Ministers should strive to be partners with Christian parents, complementing their years of parenting and reinforcing Biblical wisdom.

6. I love the hope of their maturity. Colossians 1:28-29 encourages me to minister to students in such a way that spiritual progress will take place in their lives. I love seeing Christ’s maturing, sanctifying work in teenagers whose lives are devoted to Christ. Our goal is the same for every person in church regardless of their age. There is great joy in seeing God’s people grow in their likeness to our Lord.

7. I love the thought of their potential. It gladdens my heart to minister to those who are the future members, ministers, deacons and elders of our church. I look out at the young faces in our high school service on Sundays and see that ahead of them are life’s greatest blessings and challenges. Trials, temptations, battles, and joys await them. This is the outset of their walks with Christ. It is in these initial years they have the opportunity to learn spiritual disciplines they will benefit from for the rest of their lives.
Reflecting on this list, I love student ministry because I love Ministry. Student ministry fails if it is not purposed on a biblical philosophy of ministry, rooted in the local church, and riveted on God’s purpose of reaching the lost and building his church. That is an unshakable purpose. And that is why I love student ministry.

(By Rich Gregory)

Lessons from Amos

Nearly every preacher has secretly wondered the dreadful question, “Are they getting it?” The tendency after having proclaimed God’s message on a Sunday morning or any other time can often be to look for results in the lives of the hearers. When that preacher comes up dry, and no “results” are readily apparent, discouragement can easily set in. In times like this, where does the preacher get the motivation to get up and proclaim the message the very next week? 

Enter the prophet Amos. It was a time that seemed to hold great hope for the future. The Assyrian empire was on the decline, the borders of the kingdom of Israel were rapidly expanding, and wealth began to pour into the kingdom once more. They had never been more secure since the time of the great king Solomon over 170 years previous. Society was content with who and where they were as a people. Power, prestige, prosperity, and peace were within the nation’s grasp. 

This seeming solid reality however, was only the sheerest of facades. The truth of the matter was that the religious observance of the people was nothing more than hypocritical observance, and the vast bulk of the population of the land was oppressed and burdened down at the expense of the wealthy and powerful nobles within the governmental structure.   According to 1 Kings 14:27, the only reason that God did not immediately judge the nation was because He had not let them know that He was on the verge of blotting their name out from under heaven. What the people didn’t know was that final judgment was a mere 38 years away.  

Amos enters his pulpit and delivers God’s case against the self-righteous, contented people of his day. In Amos 3, Amos states God’s case against the people and reveals to them the rock solid nature of God’s verdict.  Essentially, their election as God’s chosen people formed the foundation for their condemnation. God’s verdict against their sin was clear and it was compelling. The people would be judged for their iniquity. When Amos first proclaimed his message, he must have been hoping for some kind of repentance from the hard-hearted people. After all, he had probably heard about the amazing results of Jonah’s proclamation far north in Ninevah only a couple of years previously. If the Assyrians could repent, then surely Israel, God’s own people would do the same. 

Amos proclaims his message, and yet the people don’t get it.  From the text, it seems apparent that they questioned Amos, and failed to believe him, because Amos is forced to launch into a rhetorical progression that proves their guilt. They wanted proof. Their response proves God’s point. Amos gives them their evidence and concludes by stating, “The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?” The reason that the people could know that the judgment of God was coming, was because the prophet of God was standing before them, and the blaring roar of the all-powerful Lion was still ringing in that prophet’s ears. Because Amos had heard that roar, he had a responsibility before God to proclaim the message that he had received.   

The situation is not much changed in our day. We live in a world and society where people are content to live out their lives unaware of the fact that they are bound to the harsh and toxic reality of their sinfulness. All of the persuasion in the world seems to be incapable of moving them. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, and therefore do not hear the roar of the lion in their condition. Those people – our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and oftentimes congregants – need a messenger. We, as the people of God, who have come to a saving knowledge of the Life-giver, are to be that messenger. We are the ones in Amos’s place, and we are called to proclaim the good news of God’s gospel.  

The Lion of Judah has come, and He has roared with a voice that continues to echo through the corridors of time even 2,000 years later!   Have you heard that roar, and do your ears ring from it’s blast? If you’ve heard it, then you have a responsibility to proclaim the message of life to a dying world that is under the irrepressible judgment of God, regardless of their reaction to it. Much like Amos’ day, God’s judgment is rushing down upon mankind for “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). 

Our world is lost, dying, and in bondage. God’s case against their sin is irrefutable, and His sentence is overwhelming.   Because we have heard the roar of God’s voice in the person of Christ, we have been entrusted with the message of reconciliation.  As Paul explained in 2 Corinthians 5:20, “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.  We are to implore our world on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!” We are to be the mouthpiece for the roaring message of God. There is no greater honor, duty, or joy! This is why we preach, even if the people listening don’t seem to “get it.” If you’ve heard that roar, then you, as the messenger of God are called to joyfully listen, bow, and proclaim!  

 (By John MacArthur)

Today's post is adapted from John's new book, The Jesus You Can't Ignore.

To acknowledge that the church often needs to fight for truth is not to suggest that the gospel--our one message to a lost world--is somehow a declaration of war. It most certainly is not; it is a manifesto of peace and a plea for reconciliation with God (2 Corinthains 5:18-20). Conversely, those who are not reconciled to God are at war with Him all the time, and the gospel is a message about the only way to end that war. So ironically, the war to uphold the truth is the only hope of peace for the enemies of God.

I do agree that usually it is far better to be gentle than to be harsh. Peacefulness is a blessed quality (Matthew 5:9); pugnaciousness is a disqualifying character flaw (Titus 1:7). Patience is indeed a sweet virture, even in the face of unbelief and persecution (Luke 21:19). We always ought to listen sufficiently before we react (Proverbs 18:13). A kind word can usually do far more good than a curt reaction, because "a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1)--and any person who delights to stir up strife is a fool (v. 8).

Furthermore, the fruit of the Spirit is a catalog of antitheses to a bellicose, aggressive, warlike attitude: "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). So our first inclination when we encounter someone in error ought to be the very same kind of tender meekness prescribed for anyone in any kind of sin in Galatians 6:1: "If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." It is the duty of every Christian "to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we oursleves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:2-3). And that attitude is a particular duty for those in spiritual leadership. Brawlers aren't qualified to serve as elders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3). Because " a servant of the Lord must not quarrell but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth" (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

All those principles should indeed dominate our dealings with others and our handling of disagreements. And if those were the only verses in Scripture that told us how to deal with error, we might be justified in thinking those principles are absolute, inviolable, and applicable to every kind of opposition or unbelief we encounter.

But that's not the case. We are instructed to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). Immediately after the apostle urged Timothy to "pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness" (1 Timothy 6:11), he exhorted him to "fight the good fight of faith" (v. 12), and to guard what had been committed to his trust (v. 20).

The love promoted by the New Testament is not a free-styled, all-embracing, blind acceptance of every wind of doctrine for the sake of conversation. It is, in fact, just the opposite. Biblical love always goes hand in hand with truth. That's why false doctrines and those who teach them are condemned in no uncertain terms.

Jesus said: Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Paul said: If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Peter said: It has happened to them [false teachers] according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

John said: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Jude said: But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

(By John MacArthur)

Today's post comes from John's new book, The Jesus You Can't Ignore.

No idea is more politically incorrect among today's new-style evangelicals than the old fundamentalist notion that truth is worth fighting for--including the essential propositions of Christian doctrine. In fact, many believe that arguments over religious beliefs are the most pointless and arrogant of all conflicts. That can be true--and is true in cases where human opinions are the only thing at stake. But where God's Word speaks clearly, we have a duty to obey, defend, and proclaim the truth He has given us, and we should do that with an authority that reflects our conviction that God has spoken with clarity and finality. This is particularly curcial in contexts where cardinal doctrines of biblical Christianity are under attack.

Incidentally, the core truths of Scripture are always under attack. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the main battleground where Satan wages his cosmic struggle against God is ideological. In other words, the spiritual warfare every Christian is engaged in is first of all a conflict between truth and error, not merely a competition between good and wicked deeds. The chief aim of Satan's strategy is to confuse, deny, and corrupt the truth with as much fallacy as possible, and that means the battle for truth is very serious. Being able to distinguish between sound doctrine and error should be one of the highest priorities for every Christian--as should defending the truth against false teaching.

Take such a stand today, however, and you will be scolded by a cacophony of voices telling you that you are out of line and you need to be quiet. The "war" metaphor simply doesn't work in a postmodern culture, they insist. Postmodern epistemologies start and end with the presupposition that any question of what's true or false is merely academic. Our differences are ultimately trivial. Only the tone of our discussion is not trivial. Every hint of militancy is considered inappropriate in these sophisticated times.

Taking a stand for the truth was equally unpopular in the first century. But that didn't stop the apostles from confronting error head on.

Take the apostle Paul for example. Paul was certainly fair with his opponents in the sense that he never misrepresented what they taught or told lies about them. But Paul plainly recognized their errors for what they were and labeled them appropriately. He spoke the truth. In his everyday teaching style, Paul spoke the truth gently and with the patience of a tender father. But when circumstances warranted a stronger type of candor, Paul could speak very bluntly--sometimes even with raw sarcasm (1 Corinthians 4:8-10). Like Elijah (1 Kings 18:27), John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7-10), and even Jesus (Matthew 23:24), he could also employ derision effectively and appropriately, to highlight the ridiculousness of serious error (Galatians 5:12). He was a sacred-cow tipper in the mold of Moses or Nehemiah.

Paul didn't seem to suffer from the same overscrupulous angst that causes so many people today to whitewash every error as much as language permits; to grant even the grossest of false teachers the benefit of every doubt; and to impute the best possible intentions even to the rankest of heretics. The apostle's idea of "gentleness" was not the sort of faux benevolence and artificial politeness people today sometimes think is the true essence of charity. We never once see him inviting false teachers or casual dabblers in religious error to dialogue, nor did he approve of that strategy even when someone of Peter's stature succumbed to the fear of what others might think and showed undue deference to false teachers (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul understood that truth is worth fighting for. He stood for the truth even when it was unpopular to do so.

(By John MacArthur)

Today’s post comes from John’s new book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore.

There’s nothing wrong with asking, “What would Jesus do?” That’s a fine question. For our purposes, we might ask, "What would Jesus do in response to the contemporary evangelical landscape."

How would He react to the post-evangelical goulash of opinions represented in Christian magazines, in the Emerging blogosphere, or in the trendy evangelical megachurches that have held the evangelical movement in thrall for the past few decades? Would He affirm the current mainstream of evangelical apathy toward truth and authentic biblical unity? Would He approve of those who, confronted with a plethora of contradictions and doctrinal novelties, simply celebrate their movement’s “diversity” while trying to avoid all controversy, embracing every theological renegade, and elevating orthopraxy over orthodoxy? Was Jesus’ meek-and-gentle mildness of that sort?

I’m convinced we can answer those questions with confidence if we first ask a slightly different question: What did Jesus do? How did He deal with the false teachers, religious hypocrites, and theological miscreants of His time? Did He favor the approach of friendly dialogue and collegial disagreement, or did He in fact adopt a militant stance against every form of false religion?

Anyone even superficially familiar with the gospel accounts ought to know the answer to that question, because there is no shortage of data on the matter. Jesus’ interaction with the Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites of His culture was full of conflict from the start of His earthly ministry to the end. Sometimes the Pharisees provoked the conflict; more often than not, Jesus did. Hostile is not too strong a word to describe His attitude toward the religious system they represented, and that was evident in all His dealings with them.

Jesus never suffered professional hypocrites or false teachers gladly. He never shied away from conflict. He never softened His message to please genteel tastes or priggish scruples. He never suppressed any truth in order to accommodate someone’s artificial notion of dignity. He never bowed to the intimidation of scholars or paid homage to their institutions.

And He never, never, never treated the vital distinction between truth and error as a merely academic question.

(By John MacArthur)

Today’s post comes from John’s new book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore.

The Great Shepherd Himself was never far from open controversy with the most conspicuously religious inhabitants in all of Israel. Almost every chapter of the Gospels makes some reference to His running battle with the chief hypocrites of His day, and He made no effort whatsoever to be winsome in His encounters with them. He did not invite them to dialogue or engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.

Jesus’ public ministry was barely underway when He invaded what they thought was their turf—the temple grounds in Jerusalem—and went on a righteous rampage against their mercenary control of Israel’s worship. He did the same things again during the final week before His crucifixion, immediately after His triumphal entry into the city. One of His last major public discourses was the solemn pronunciation of seven woes agains the scribes and Pharisees. These were formal curses against them. That sermon was the farthest thing from a friendly dialogue. But it is a perfect summary of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees. It is blistering denunciation—a candid diatribe about the seriousness of their error. There is no conversatsion, no collegiality, no dialogue, and no cooperation. Only confrontation, condemnation, and (as Matthew 23 records) curses against them.

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full of compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus a resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and post-modern evangelicals—the neoevangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and His treatement of them are breathtakingly severe.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

I am in the midst of teaching through the Ante-Nicene period of church history. Recently, as we studied the life of Justin Martyr, I came across an interesting quote in which Justin describes a mid-second-century church service.

To give a little context, Justin is explaining Christianity to the Roman emperor, making the case that Christianity should not be illegal (as it was in those days). In the course of his Apology, he describes a typical church service. I think you’ll be encouraged to see what was included in an ancient Christian worship service. (Note that Justin refers to the pastor by the term “president,” namely as the one "presiding" over the worship service.)

On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president [pastor] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.

When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.

Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.

For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (First Apology, 67)

Per Justin's description, we get a pretty good idea of what took place in an ancient Christian church service. Notice at least seven important factors: (1) Scripture was read, from both the New Testament (“the memoirs of the apostles”) and the Old Testament (“the writings of the prophets”). (2) The pastor preached a message ("discourse"), exhorting the people to obey the things they had just heard from the Scripture. (3) The congregation prayed together. (4) The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord’s Supper. (5) In their preparation for Communion, the pastor prayed and the congregation sang songs of affirmation. (6) An offering was taken in order to meet the needs of fellow saints. (7) All of this took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.

When I read Justin’s description I am encouraged, because those same things are found at our church too. Like the ancient church described here, we read the Scripture, listen to preaching, pray, sing, give, and regularly celebrate the Lord’s Table. And, of course, we also meet on Sundays.

I sometimes hear proponents of the emergent church arguing that we need to get back to the “ancient practices” of the church. But what "ancient practices" are they talking about? The mysticism of the late medieval period perhaps? 

If you really want the ancient church, it doesn't get any more ancient than the quote provided above. In fact, this description of an ancient church service (written by Justin Martyr around A.D. 150) is the earliest we have outside the New Testament.

So, how "emergent" was the ancient church? According to Justin Martyr, not much at all. For starters, a church that spends "as long as time permits" listening to the reading and preaching of God's Word would hardly fit the Emergent Village paradigm. Yet, that is exactly what the church of Justin's day did. They met each Sunday to fill their hearts with the truth of God's Word. Then, having been overwhelmed with that truth, they responded by praying, singing, giving, and celebrating the Lord's Table.

(By Lance Quinn)

It is for the good of the local church that Elders work together toward the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).  When possible, Elders should manifest this unity by attempting to make unanimous decisions regarding both the nature and function of the local church body, Jesus Christ being her ultimate spiritual Head.  When it comes to the nature of the church, Elders should make decisions based upon the principles laid out in the Word of God.  This practically means that principled decisions which are achieved by proper and sound exegesis can and do reflect affirmations in unanimity because the Elders are submitting their wills to Holy Scripture, ensuring the Holy Spirit’s illumining role in the church’s male leadership, and thus securing a healthy course of action for the strengthening of the corporate body (Ephesians 4:4-16).  The very nature of the church is said by the apostle Paul to be the “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

 When it comes to the function of the church however, with the Elders being called upon to make judgments on preferential issues, unanimity is desired but not required.  Issues of preference within the local body are precisely what the apostle Paul refers to when he declared to the Roman believers of the 1st century: “Each [person] should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).  When preferences are being considered, Paul teaches the body—including the Elders—to “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Romans 14:19).  The same apostle is therefore calling both for unity in essentials and flexibility in non-essentials. 

The Elders of any local congregation may differ in their understanding and application of areas which have no explicit or implicit mandate for leadership unanimity.  Such freedom then should lead these men to pray and implore one another to consider all possible alternatives in order to achieve unanimity.  In the absence of any desired unanimity, disagreements in matters of preference don’t inherently militate against the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  The church, through its leadership, should strive for essential unity in doctrine and practice, but should not become paralyzed because of the lack of preferential unanimity.  Unanimity must be achieved in principles; differences may exist in preferences without destroying unity; charity must predominate in both.

(By John MacArthur)

If the average evangelical congregation were surveyed concerning the primary purpose of the church, it is likely that many diverse answers would be given.

Several purposes, however, would probably be prominent.

A large number would rank fellowship first, the opportunity to associate and interact with fellow Christians who share similar beliefs and values. They highly value the fact that the church provides activities and programs for the whole family and is a place where relationships are nurtured and shared and where inspiration is provided through good preaching and beautiful music. A favorite verse for such church members is likely to be, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

At a level perhaps a step higher, some Christians would consider sound biblical teaching to be the church’s principal function, expounding Scripture and strengthening believers in the knowledge of and obedience to God’s revealed truth. That emphasis would include helping believers discover and minister their spiritual gifts in various forms of leadership and service. Like fellowship, that too is a basic function of the church, because God “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4: 11-13).

Adding a more elevated level, some members would consider praise of God to be the supreme purpose of the church. They emphasize the church as a praising community that exalts the Lord in adoration, image, and reverence. Praise is clearly a central purpose of God’s people just it has always been and will always be a central activity of heaven, where both saints and angels will eternally sing praises to God. “Worthy, Thou, our Lord and our God,” sing the twenty-four elders lying prostrate before God’s throne, “to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and are created” (Rev. 4: 10-11; cf. 5:8-14).

All of those emphases are thoroughly biblical and should characterize every body of believers. But neither separately nor together do they represent the central purpose and mission of the church in the world. The supreme purpose and motive of every individual believer and every body of believers is to glorify God, and the supreme way in which God chose to glorify Himself was through the redemption of sinful men. It is through participation in that redemptive plan that believers themselves most glorify God.

Nothing so much glorifies God as His gracious redemption of damned, hell-bound sinners. It was for that ultimate purpose that God called Abraham, that in him “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). It was never the Lord’s intention to isolate Israel as His sole focus of concern but rather to use that specially chosen and blessed nation to reach all other nations of the world for Himself. Israel was called to “proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day” and to “tell of His glory among the nations, His wonderful deeds among all the peoples” (1 Chron. 16:23-24; cf. Ps. 18:49). Like her Messiah, Israel was to be “a light to the nations so that [the Lord's] salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6; cf. 42:IO-12; 66:19; Jonah 3:1-10).

Likewise, the great mission of the church is to so love, learn, and live as to call men and women to Jesus Christ. As sinners are forgiven and are transformed from death to life and from darkness to light, God is glorified through that gracious miracle. The glory of God is manifest in His loving provision to redeem lost men. He Himself paid the ultimate price to fulfill His glory.   

If God’s primary purpose for the saved were loving fellowship, He would take believers immediately to heaven, where spiritual fellowship is perfect, unhindered by sin, disharmony, or loneliness. If His primary purpose for the saved were the learning of His Word, He would also take believers immediately to heaven, where His Word is perfectly known and understood. And if God’s primary purpose for the saved were to give Him praise, He would, again, take believers immeidately to heaven, where praise is perfect and unending.

There is only one reason the Lord allows His church to remain on earth: to seek and to save the lost, just as Christ’s only reason for coming to earth was to seek and to save the lost. “As the Father has sent Me,” He declared, “I also send you” (John 20:21). Therefore, believers who are not committed to winning the lost for Jesus Christ should reexamine their relationship to the Lord and certainly their divine reason for existence.

Fellowship, teaching, and praise are not the mission of the church but are rather the preparation of the church to fulfill its mission of winning the lost. And just as in athletics, training should never be confused with or substituted for actually competing in the game, which is the reason for all the training.

(Adapted from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 24-28, pp. 330-33)

(By John MacArthur)

I was profoundly impressed by an item I saw buried inside the sports pages recently. A high school basketball team from Rockville County, Georgia, had easily won the state championship, rolling over all their opponents. A few weeks after the championship game, the coach, studying the team's grades, noticed for the first time that one of his third-string players had failed some courses. The youngster was academically ineligible for the basketball team.

The coach remembered that late in one of the semifinal matches, with his team leading by more than 20 points, he had put that player in the game. The ineligible man had played only a few minutes. His participation had in no way affected the outcome of the game. But it was technically a violation.

The coach was in a distressing predicament. If he revealed the infraction, his team would be stripped of the championship. He could keep quiet and hope no one noticed. After all, the violation was a mere technicality--the team would have won anyway. It was unlikely anyone outside the school would ever discover the offense.

Yet the coach realized the player involved surely was aware of the breach of rules. It was possible that the whole team knew and thought their coach had purposely ignored the eligibility guidelines.

The coach said from the moment he discovered the violation, he knew what he had to do. He never even pondered any alternatives. His priorities had been set long before this. He realized that the championship was not as important as his team's character or his example to them.

He reported the infraction, and the school forfeited the state championship.

I'm sure it was painful to give up the title, but the coach believed his first responsibility was to be a good example to his team. If he covered up the truth, his players would believe he had flaunted the rules. Winning a state championship at the expense of his integrity was not worth the price. Too many young lives could be adversely affected.

"Winning means nothing anyway unless you do it by the rules," the coach told incredulous reporters.

After the school surrendered the championship trophy, parents and team boosters chipped in to buy a new, larger trophy. This one does not say "State Championship," but in my opinion it stands for something far more important.

Young People Represent a Sacred Trust

I wish all coaches, teachers, and parents understood that young people are our most valuable resource. The complexion of the world a generation from now will be determined by the youth of today. The example they receive from those who influence them will determine whether they embrace or discard right values.

Whether you are a young person yourself or someone who influences them, you have a solemn responsibility to be a good example.

The Bible clearly emphasizes this truth. In the Old Testament, all Israel was charged with the task of teaching God's law to the nation's youth (Deuteronomy 6:7). Scripture says every parent's highest duty is to train his children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). And a basic requirement for those in spiritual leadership is that they demonstrate the ability to train their own children properly (1 Timothy 3:2-4; Titus 1:5).

There is no question about the importance God places on being the right kind of example to children and young people. Eli, a priest in the Old Testament, was severely judged by God because he had failed to train his sons in the way of righteousness (1 Samuel 3:13). Although he had basically been a faithful priest, he had failed as a father, and God ultimately struck him dead for it.

You Can Be a Good Influence

Being a good example is a responsibility all of us share-- not just parents, coaches, and other authority figures. There is great insight in the words of the apostle Paul to a young minister: "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:12).

Those words affirm both Timothy's youthfulness and his obligation to influence others for good. Even as a young person, he was commanded to be a good example.

Note the progression: "speech, conduct, love, faith and purity." Those words envelop every conceivable sphere of influence. Paul wanted Timothy to be constantly aware of the impact of his words and actions on others.

The fact is, we all are an influence on people around us, whether we're trying to be or not. Almost everything we say or do affects our friends and family either for bad or for good. They will reject or accept our values, depending on how clearly and consistently we demonstrate our commitment.

Christians often speak of being a "good testimony." The word testimony usually makes us think of verbal witness, but being a good testimony for Christ means much more than just talking about Him. If actions speak as loudly as words, how we live is more important than what we say in influencing people for Christ. A testimony for Christ mandates that we live lives of obedience to Him.