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 John MacArthur)

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.”  Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously.  It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take.  It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue.  That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

(by Kelly Wright)

God’s wrath permeates the pages of Scripture. Its presence cannot be overlooked. The presence of wrath in the Bible has led one author to conclude that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 31)

Another author has asked the question, “Who – except for an ancient priest seeking to exert power by the tried and tested means of fear – could possibly wish that this hopelessly knotted skein of fable [The Old Testament] had any veracity?” (Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great, 103). The author of that question was not able to come to terms with his observations of anger displayed by God towards the Israelites and other nations. He was also disturbed by the seemingly inhumane laws given to the people through Moses, “The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre...” (Ibid., 102). These authors believe that the Bible, and so all contained within it, is a myth. This is a convenient way for them to dismiss any of what the Bible claims, including the description of God’s wrath. 

These authors expose the difficulty of understanding the wrath of God. Misconceptions concerning God’s character and His relationship to the world are prevalent. Students of God’s Word must be ready to address the issue of God’s supposed character as a ‘capriciously malevolent bully.’ Scripture does not shy away from revealing the wrath of God but it would seem that many Christians do. “It is sad indeed to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or who at least wish there were no such thing" (Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, 82).

Do we worship a bully? In the Old Testament we read of a global flood that kills everyone except one family. Then we stumble upon the ten plagues sent by God against Egypt. Later, Israel is punished for believing the report of the ten fearful spies and are sent to wander in the wilderness for forty years until every person over the age of twenty dies (except Moses, Caleb, and Joshua).

The New Testament records the gruesome death of the innocent God-man, Jesus Christ. He lived righteously and never sinned, yet, God put Him to death on the cross. Isaiah 53:10 records, “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him.” Acts 2:23 states that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” It was God’s will to crush His son. The death of Jesus Christ was a defined plan of God. Do these realities make God a bully?

It is important that we remind ourselves of who God reveals Himself to be in Scripture. The Bible is our source of understanding concerning the nature of God. Three reminders of God’s essence aid us in answering the question about whom we worship.

First, God is holy. God’s holiness entails both the aspect of being set-apart as well as being morally pure. Isaiah’s vision of the seraphim reveals that “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).  This song of the seraphim speaks of God’s otherness. God is set-apart from His creation.

Isaiah’s vision also reveals God’s moral purity. In v. 5 Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” God’s moral purity is also declared by John, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). God has not sinned, cannot sin, and will not sin. In fact, it is God’s holiness which causes Him to react strongly against sin.

Second, God is just. Everything God does is right. No action of His could ever be wrong. Job 37:23, “The Almighty – we cannot find him; he is great in power; justice and abundant righteousness he will not violate.” God cannot violate the rules that He has established. God’s holiness necessitates that He do what is right, always.

God’s justice applies to punishing offenders. God’s law can be summarized this way, “Live holy for I am holy.” Anyone who does not live holy (Romans 3:23 exposes that this is everyone) has earned punishment. Romans 6:23 teaches us that the wages of sin is death. This means that all offenders to God’s law, which is everyone, are deserving of death. Consequence for sin is just. God is as fair for punishing law breakers as human judges are for punishing criminals.

Third, God is love. God’s love is one of choice, commitment, and action. Scripture reveals that it is God who first loved us. Love is better appreciated against the reality that we are unlovable. We are rebels, enemies, corpses, and children of wrath; yet God still chose to love us.

First John 3:16 teaches us that we know love because Jesus sacrificed His life for us. Jesus was the substitute for us on the cross. He suffered the just reward of our sin, God’s wrath. The death of God’s Son was not an act of bullying, but rather was a sweet display of His sacrificial love.

God in His holiness hates sin. God in His justice punishes sin. God in His love settles our sinful debt through the death of His Son. We do not worship a bully. We worship a holy, just, and loving God. Amen and Amen.

(By John MacArthur)

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. (1 Tim. 6:17)

A very real danger facing American Christians is the temptation to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches. To base their hope on the uncertainty of riches, instead of God, is foolish. Proverbs 11:28 warns that “he who trusts in his riches will fall.” Proverbs 23:4–5 adds, “Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it is gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings, like an eagle that flies toward the heavens.”

Rather than trusting in riches, believers are to fix their hope on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. God provides far more security than any earthly investment. Psalm 50:10–12 describes His incalculable wealth: “Every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains.” God is not stingy; He richly supplies His children with all things to enjoy. Ecclesiastes 5:18–20 reads,

Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart.

The highest form of joy for the believer is to bring glory to the Lord. True gladness, then, comes when believers give heed to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:19–21:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Later, in that same passage, Jesus gives the command three times not to be anxious (vv. 25, 31, 34). When we trust in God rather than riches, we have no reason to worry.

Today’s post adapted from John’s commentary on 1 Timothy (Moody, 1995).

(By John MacArthur)

Today's article is a follow-up to our previous post on this subject. Though it is several years old, it deals with an idea that is still widely held in some circles -- that the divorce rate among Christians is the same, if not higher, than among non-Christians.

Are born again Christians more likely to divorce their spouses than unbelievers are? Some recent studies say, “Yes.” According to one widely reported survey, 27% of born again Christians have been divorced, in comparison to 24% of those who are not born again.

For the one who understands the life-changing power of the gospel, these findings raise a significant question: “What, in the mind of these pollsters, constitutes a born again Christian?” According to the research firm that conducted this survey, a born again Christian is an individual who (1) claims to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important to him today and (2) believes that he will go to heaven because he has confessed his sins and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.

To categorize an individual as “born again” because of his answer to two simple questions, however, fails to recognize a solemn truth—not everyone who professes eternal life actually possesses eternal life. Jesus Himself said that many would come to Him on the day of judgment, calling Him, “Lord, Lord” and fully expecting to inherit eternal life, only to be told that they never knew Him (Matt 7:21-23). In fact, Scripture is replete with warnings to those who confess Christ with their mouths but do not possess genuine, saving faith (e.g., Mark 7:6; Luke 6:46; Titus 1:16; James 2:14; 1 John 1:6; 2:4, 9; 4:20; Rev 3:1).

So what about the “born again Christians” in the divorce survey? Where does this group of individuals stand? According to a poll by the same research firm, 15% of born again Christians deny the resurrection of Christ; 28% believe that Jesus committed sins during His life on earth; 34% believe that if a person is good enough he can earn a place in heaven; 26% believe that it doesn’t matter what faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons; and 45% believe that Satan is a symbol of evil rather than an actual being. In other words, many of these “born again Christians” are not born again at all.

The failure to make this distinction has severe ramifications, for it assaults the ability of God to transform lives. If born again Christians as a whole live no differently than their non-Christian counterparts, what does this say about the power of the gospel? What does this say about genuine salvation and the ability of God to bring about holiness in His people?  Does conversion produce nothing more than a ticket to heaven?

According to Scripture, the one who is truly born again experiences an amazing transformation. At the point of conversion, the believer becomes a new creation and is set free from his bondage to sin. He receives a new nature and therefore walks in Spirit-enabled obedience as he submits to the will of God. This does not mean that it is impossible for a believer to file for an unbiblical divorce or to sin in other ways. But it does mean that the difference between the children of light and the children of darkness is a vast one. The gospel does indeed change lives, regardless of what the polls say.

(By John MacArthur)

Today's post is adapted from a 2001 Q&A session at Grace Church.

Question: Is it true that Christians and non-Christians have the same rate of divorce?

Answer:

Some reporter called me a few months ago and said,

Reporter:  There is a new study, a new survey that indicates that divorce among Christians is the same as divorce among non-Christians.  This survey has been done, this poll has been taken and it has been determined that Christians are divorced at the same rate that non-Christians are divorced in America.  What do you think of that?

John MacArthur:  I don't believe it--I do not believe that.

Reporter:  But this is what the survey says!

John MacArthur:  I don't care what the survey says--I don't believe that.

I don't believe it, and in fact, I believe that is to dishonor the Lord, to say that the power of Christ is zero in a marriage--the power of the Holy Spirit in a marriage.  I don't believe that.  I do not believe that true Christians get divorced at the same rate that non-Christians do.

Well, it showed up in a newspaper and the guy who took the poll wasn't happy, because he thought I was questioning his integrity, so he wrote me a very, very strong letter.  I have a large "strong letter" file--this is one, "How dare you question me!  How dare you question the integrity of this poll!"  Well, I said, "I'll question it on this basis: Who did you ask that question too?  If you just surveyed the people who 'claimed' to be Christians--that doesn't count, and I might suggest to you that you don't know who the true Christians are." 

So I didn't buy it at all.  And what irritated me about it is that this is a dishonor to God!  Because it denigrates the power of God in the life of a believer, with regard to the marriage!  It wasn't a question whether you get your statistics right, it's a question of dishonoring God!  You can't say that the power of God has no effect on marriages!  I said, "You don't do that."  Well, now it has become an evangelical urban legend--every time I turn around--I heard a secular news reporter say on the television the other day, "Well, now it has been proven that divorce among evangelical Christians or among Christians is the same as non-Christians."  Now we are just another statistic.  This is to say that God has no power in a marriage? 

When divorces occur in our church [approximately 10,000 members] and they occur occasionally here--very often it is because somebody in the marriage who professed Christ--didn't know Him.  If you go out and survey people in "churches" across the spectrum from Catholic to Protestant, and denominations, etc., etc., etc, who knows what you are going to get? 

The same company that does the surveys is the company that surveyed the people who said, "We don't want Bible teaching anymore in the pulpit."  Now what does that tell you about that crowd--if they don't love the Word of God?

It might be true that the divorce rate among nominal, cultural, so-called "Christians" is the same as those who don't claim to be Christians. But to assert that the divorce rate among true believers is the same as unbelievers--well, that's just preposterous.

(By John MacArthur)

Note: Today's post is adapted from a Q&A session at Grace Church from the early 1990s. Though world events were different back then, the primary concern expressed here is still very relevant today.

Question: How do we explain the anomaly, that the church is growing and alive in Communist countries, and that the evangelical church is almost completely dead where democracy has ruled?

Answer:

A remarkable sidelight to the staggering political changes that have remade our world in recent months is the emergence of a vibrant Christianity from behind the Iron Curtain. All over the Communist bloc, where atheism was official dogma for half a century, the church is growing and alive. I have personally seen evidence even in China that the church there is thriving--even though for the most part it has been forced underground.

By contrast, in "free" Europe, where democracy has ruled, the evangelical church is almost completely dead. Biblical Christianity there has long since ceased being a significant force. Atheism and humanism have taken over. Public policy is governed almost totally by philosophies that are intolerant of and even hostile to the truth of Scripture.

It is happening in America, too.

How do we explain this anomaly? Are our "freedoms" helping the church or hurting it?

I am certainly not in favor of totalitarianism. But we who live in free societies need to understand the dangers inherent in the system that gives us our freedom.

It is more than a curiosity that the church has flourished behind the iron curtain while dying in the West. The reasons are clear. Lacking any visible external threat to our faith, we in a free world that has lost any sense of subtlety of the enemy and how he attacks. We have grown careless and apathetic. We have become concerned more with our own comfort and well-being than with the command of Christ that we should follow His steps.

How such a thing could happen is no great mystery--especially to those who have lived for Christ under Communist persecution. There, the cost of following Christ is understood from the beginning. Shallow conversions are unthinkable in a society where identification with the Savior can cost you your job, your family, your freedom--even your life.

Our culture, on the other hand, has made way for a brand of Christianity where taking up one's cross is optional--or even unseemly. Indeed, many members of the church in the Western world suppose they can best serve God by being as non-confrontive to their world as possible.

Having absorbed the world's values, Christianity in our society is now dying. Subtly but surely worldliness and self-indulgence are eating away the heart of the church. The gospel we proclaim is so convoluted that it offers believing in Christ as nothing more than a means to contentment and prosperity. The offense of the cross (cf. Gal. 5:11) has been systematically removed so that the message might be made more acceptable to unbelievers. The church somehow got the idea it could declare peace with the enemies of God.

That kind of thing could happen only in a free society.

Let me share with you a letter I received recently:

Dear Brother John,

I read your article "Deadly Trends of Popular Christianity" (Jan/Feb 90) and I am sorry to say, but I agree with you one hundred percent. Until 1980, I lived in Romania, being exposed daily to the persecution, mockeries, insults, etc.

I come in this country considered by me with a high spirituality, with so many Christian churches, activities, radio, TV, etc., to find what I call "Easy Christianism." I understood if I speak up, people in the church do not like to hear and I was accused about being divisive. To me it is no wonder, because we really are living the last days.

It is sad when you see what is happening here in the United States, while in those opposed countries the spiritual life is taking really off the ground. In this way, if the Lord will not return in the next ten years, I would not be surprised if Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union will send their missionaries here in the States.

I am also writing expressing my frustration too. I am in an church that for the last three and a half years has met in a rented building. All of a sudden the building was put for sale. What was the decision of the elders of this church, after "consulting" through surveys, personal discussions, collective discussion with about seventy people (the size of the church)? To disband the church because they said thirty-three percent of the above number wanted to move to different churches because ours did not deal with "their problems, their needs, their hurts, their disappointments"--exactly what you said.

I look back to Romania, amazed to hear that 200,000 people kneeled in the downtown city of Timisoara (the city where the uprising started) cried, "God is with us" and repeated after a Christian man the prayer "Our Father," which was not publicly said since the Communists took over that country.

Just an example: in the capital of Bucharest my former church has almost 1000 members in a small building where only 300 people can be crowded, many of them standing up Sunday mornings three hours, Sunday night two hours, Thursday night two hours, etc. And here in the United States people decided to disband a Bible-believing church. I almost cannot believe it.

The same week I got that letter, a leading Soviet scientist--a believer--was a guest in our church. He told me that he routinely teaches creation science to his students in Russia and has never encountered any opposition. He was shocked to discover that in America teachers are forbidden by law from teaching anything but evolutionary theory. That should at least challenge our notion of what constitutes true freedom.

Western Europe, where the Protestant Reformation was born, has become the world's neediest mission field. The awful reality is that with the Iron Curtain now gone, the Communist nations, not the "free" ones, offer the greatest spiritual hope for Europe.

Meanwhile, if the church in America does not get back to biblical Christianity, we will soon see the end of our influence for Christ as well. It is not really far fetched to imagine that ten years hence, missionaries from Romania might be evangelizing America.

Everyone is astonished to see how rapidly the face of the modern world is changing. What few Christians seem to realize is how frighteningly fast the church is declining at the same time. In what may be the greatest days of missionary opportunity ever, much of the church has been caught unaware.

We must wake up. The cold war may be over, but the spiritual battle rages on. We cannot afford to be indifferent. We cannot continue our mad pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification. We are called to fight a spiritual battle, and we cannot win by appeasing the enemy. A needy world needs to be confronted with the message of salvation, and there may be little time left. As Paul wrote to the church at Rome,

"It is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light (13:11-12).

(By John MacArthur)

This is a continuation from last Friday's article on biblical contentment from Philippians 4.

2. Satisfaction with Little

Here is another secret to contentment from Paul’s life: “Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity” (Phil. 4:11–12).

He appreciated the revived generosity of the Philippian church, but wanted them to know he hadn’t been coveting it. He kept his wants or desires in check, not confusing them with his needs.

“Not that I speak from want” is another way of saying, “I really don’t have any needs that aren’t being met.” Our needs as human beings are simple: food, clothing, shelter, and godliness with contentment. Scripture says to be content with the bare necessities of life.

That attitude is in marked contrast to the attitude of our culture. People today aren’t content—with little or much. My theory is that the more people have, the more discontent they’re apt to be. Typically, the most unhappy people you’ll ever meet are very wealthy. They seem to believe their needs can never be met. Unlike Paul, they assume their wants are needs. They’ve followed our materialistic culture’s lead in redefining human needs.

You’ll never come across a commercial or ad that tells you to eat food, drink water, or go to sleep. Mass media advertises items that are far more optional and discretionary, but you’d never know it from the sales pitch. The appeal isn’t, “Wouldn’t you like to have this?” but “You need this!” If you expose yourself to such appeals without thinking, you’ll find yourself needing things you don’t even want! The goal of this kind of advertising is to produce discontentment and make a sale.

To protect yourself, pay careful attention to whenever you attach the word need to something in your thoughts or speech. Edit any use of it that goes beyond life’s bare essentials. Paul did, and you can too. Thankfully regard any surplus as a blessing from God. You will be satisfied with little when you refuse to depend on luxuries the world redefines as needs.

(by Nathan Williams)

Christianity Today has an article discussing President Obama's abortion agenda and comparing it with some of the things he has said publicly about reducing abortions.

"Unlike many Democratic lawmakers or abortion supporters, the President has for some time shown signs that he isn't explicitly going to demonize pro-lifers or the "Religious Right." That is good news.

The bad news is that Obama declares a false unity. He claims that all Americans share in his goal "to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make."

Cal Thomas provides some careful insight into the Bernie Madoff situation and sees every one of us in Madoff.

"Here is the dirty secret about the Madoff tragedy. Madoff is us. Yes, he is. Do not shut down your computer in disgust. We are all potential members of “Swindler’s List.” Do you know why our gut reaction is so strong and so hostile to Bernard Madoff (“I hope he rots in jail,” said one of his “victims”)? It is because he mirrors the flaw in each of us."

Deepak Reju gives a list of 17 things he never learned in Seminary.

Finally, if you live in the south and enjoy Chick-Fil-A... you will enjoy this.

(By Phil Johnson)

These notes come from the conclusion of Phil's message at the Shepherds' Conference.

There are two kinds of profanity every Christian needs to avoid. One is what the Bible calls foolish and filthy talk—coarse, obscene, smutty words that usually make reference to private bodily functions. The other is every kind of irreverence, ranging from that which trivializes sacred things to the full-on blasphemy of using the Lord's name in vain.

Scripture is not silent on such things. These are not gray areas. Blasphemy is a grievous sin, and that includes all kinds of flippancy when we use the Lord's name or talk about that which is sacred. Do a study of the third commandment and pay careful attention to all the things Scripture treats as a misuse of the Lord's name. Once you understand what the Bible says about flippant irreverence, if you're not compelled to eliminate every kind of joking about sacred things, you must have a heart of stone.

But (and don't miss this point): we're supposed to have some boundaries that we refuse to cross long before we ever get to the realm of actual blasphemy. Scripture commands us both in positive terms and in negative terms to keep our language clean and pure in every regard. Colossians 3 brings both negative and positive together (the negative in verse 8): "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth." Then verses 16-17 are positive: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

This is not a complex dichotomy. Again in positive terms, Colossians 4:6: "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned." Or Ephesians 4:29: "[Use the kind of speech that] is good for building up, [that] fits the occasion, [so] that it may give grace to those who hear." But in negative terms, listen to the first part of Ephesians 4:29: "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths." And a few verses later, in Ephesians 5:4: "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place." Last fall, I did a whole message on Ephesians 5:1-4, dealing in careful detail with what that text means. You can download that message (for free) if you are looking for more on this subject. And while you are on line, look for a sermon I did a few months ago on the third commandment, especially if you aren't clear on how far-reaching the implications of that commandment are.

But this morning we have time only to get a quick overview. In that verse I just read (Ephesians 5:4), Paul uses three Greek words that describe the kind of language he commands us to avoid. In English, it's "filthiness . . . foolish talk . . . [and] crude joking." The Greek terms are aischrotes, meaning "obscenity, indecency, impurity." "Filthiness" is a fitting translation. It refers to language that has overtones of moral defilement. The jargon of the porn industry would epitomize the kind of thing this word applies to. It literally means "dirty words"—the stuff your mom probably threatened to wash your mouth out with soap for. Paul doesn't give a list of them, because he doesn't need to. Every culture has an unwritten list of them, and everyone pretty much knows what they are. If you seriously have no clue what they are, ask any schoolboy. They are the same words that affect the MPAA-ratings of movies. They are the calling-cards of carnal conversation. Notice, Paul doesn't say "avoid them as much as possible." He classifies it in exactly the same category as fornication, and he says with as much emphasis as possible, "let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints."

The second word in Ephesians 5:4 is morologia, meaning buffoonery. From the same Greek root as "moron." Stupid, silly, talk—and the context makes it clear that Paul has in mind the kind of moronic wordplay that characterizes so much of worldly conversation today—peppered with vile words, spicy subjects, lewd and erotic themes. The larger context here is all about sexual purity. Paul is talking mainly about sophomoric banter filled with sexual innuendo.

The third expression in Ephesians 5:4 is eutrapelia—"crude joking." In this context, that's pretty self-explanatory. But here's an interesting fact about this word. In secular Greek literature, that word was used in an almost entirely positive sense, to mean "cleverness." The Greek expression comes from words literally meaning "well turned." It evokes the idea of flexibility or versatility, and it basically refers to someone who is quick-witted. More specifically, it describes someone who is witty in a risque or off-color sense. "Crude Joking" is exactly the idea. Greek culture admired that trait (just like our culture today), but Scripture emphatically condemns it—and in Christian literature, that word was always used to denote something negative.

Paul has carefully chosen three expressions that pretty much cover all kinds of dirty words, filthy jokes, suggestive wordplay, erotic subject matter, filthy double-entendre—that which is bawdy, tasteless, or inappropriate in polite company. Notice: Those are the very kinds of things the gurus of contextualization are telling us we need to use in order to speak to our culture. Scripture says such things are not "proper among saints." Whose strategy should we pursue? It's not really a hard question, is it?

Someone says, "Yes but Paul himself used the word skubalon, and that means dung or excrement." Actually, that word had a range of possible meanings, and the way it was used in secular Greek literature explodes the myth that it was considered taboo. It was a strong word, certainly, and I have no doubt that Paul used it deliberately because it was strong. But it wasn't the sort of vile expression that was considered off limits in mixed company. It's sometimes translated "rubbish," and that's one of the possible connotations. But it is undoubtedly true that when he used this word in Philippians 3, Paul was not trying to be mild or tactful. He probably did use the word to signify dung—manure; feces—the worst kind of filth. But you don't need to use Saxon four-letter words in order to convey Paul's idea clearly.

Furthermore, that kind of strong speech was so far from being Paul's trademark that the few instances we find in the New Testament where Paul said crude things stand out boldly—which was Paul's design.

In fact, the only other instance of coarse language people usually point out in Paul is in Galatians 5:12, where Paul was answering the Judaizers. They insisted that uncircumcised Gentiles could not be saved unless they submitted to the ritual removal of their foreskins. Paul turned the logic of their doctrine against them: if salvation can literally be gained through cutting off some flesh, why not go further? If circumcision was efficacious for justification, just think what castration could do for them.

Listen, it's easily possible to explain to English-speaking adults what Paul meant there—and it's even possible to use the same kind of sarcastic argument Paul used—without descending into the gutter to do it. Paul himself managed to say this without overthrowing his own dignity. What he says is shocking and forceful—perhaps the single most shocking thing Paul says anywhere. But He used no vile expressions. He wasn't being profane or obscene, and this grotesque imagery (the self-mutilation of someone who makes himself a eunuch) wasn't a foreign idea he injected into an unrelated subject just so he could turn the topic to something crude. This point was totally germane to the rational argument he was making, not merely a vulgar insult thrown in for crudeness' sake. It came at the end of four and a half chapters in which Paul carefully dismantled the Judaizers' doctrine. And earthy sarcasm like this certainly never became a defining element in Paul's style of polemical discourse. 

Furthermore, there is a significant difference between strong language and obscene talk. Strong language is definitely needed more often than our postmodern culture wants to hear it, but profane language is never warranted, and it certainly has no place in the pulpit.

Didn't Luther sometimes employ scatological language? Yes, he did. Luther was particularly fond of flatulence jokes. He said he chased the devil away at night by breaking wind. At the entrance to the library in Wittenberg today, there's a book of cartoons by Luther's friend, Kranich, the artist. It's displayed under glass and for several years it has been permanently open to a page showing a cartoon of some Reformer defecating in the Pope's Mitre.

Luther was notorious for his ability to be crude like that in his conversations with students. But I don't know of any evidence that suggests he ever brought scatological language into the pulpit. And if you think Luther's use of vulgar insults against the Pope was one of his most effective polemic weapon, then you haven't read much church history. That cartoon is on display today as part of a studied effort to undermine Luther's influence by showing how foolishly he sometimes behaved.

Do a Google search to find Luther's exchange with Sir Thomas More. It is appalling in the extreme. Language I wouldn't dare read from this pulpit. What Luther said to More was shameful, and the only response Luther got was an even worse flood of angry profanity from Sir Thomas More. Deliberately vulgar language and purposely erotic themes have never been helpful tools for the spread of the gospel. No wonder. If you are cultivating that style of conversation, you are being disobedient to what Scripture commands.

"What about Song of Solomon?" That's another aspect of the argument being set forth in favor of normalizing explicitly sexual language and subject matter in our churches. Listen: Song of solomon elevates the physical aspect of marital love by speaking of it in beautiful poetic and euphemistic expressions that are suitable for reading in any audience. The current fad is precisely the opposite. It's nothing but soft-porn, smuggled into the church under the guise of relevance. But it's counter-relevant. The last thing our culture needs is for the world's obsession with sex to be mirrored in the message the church proclaims.

Seriously: when sex-challenges in evangelical churches are constantly grabbing the attention of the secular news media; when and the New York Times, CNN, ABC, and all the major secular news media are doing feature articles focusing on the raunchy language of one of evangelicalism best-known preachers, we've got a serious problem.

My dear mom, who taught me some of these principles through the judicious use of a bar of soap, went to heaven at the end of January, just five weeks ago. She had been stricken with an incurable muscle disease when I was in junior high school, so she lived with chronic weakness for more than 45 years. Her motto was a Bible verse—Ecclesiastes 9:10: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might." She had a cross-stitched version of that verse, which she kept as a reminder.

Three times in the five weeks since my mom died—twice on nationwide television broadcasts (two separate interviews on large secular network programs) I've heard Mark Driscoll make a filthy, sophomoric joke about a certain sexual behavior, and that verse is always his punch line. "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might."

Driscoll has told that joke repeatedly in the most public possible forums. In fact, the joke is so much a staple in his repertoire that it was featured in the New York Times article. Driscoll uses it as a throwaway line for a cheap laugh when the conversation turns to sex. He says he wants to "bring a breath of comedy and hipness to what can be an otherwise dull religious discussion." (Those are his words.) That is not at all what Paul was doing when he used the word skubalon or sarcastically condemned the judaizers. That sort of joke is a blatant misuse of the word of God. Frankly I don't think anyone could have told that joke in an evangelical context just a decade ago without eliciting a gasp of horror from Christians. But these days that kind of smutty humor featuring sacred things is all the rage. The sad thing is I'll probably never hear that verse again without thinking of Driscoll's smutty joke.

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I suggest that it's dangerously easy for bawdy talk and filthy jokes to cross the line into rank blasphemy. In fact, I'm prepared to argue that if you deliberately bring dirty jokes and lewd subject matter to the pulpit because you think that connects better with the culture than the pure truth of God's word, you are guilty of a sacrilege on the order of Nadab and Abihu. To use the words of Scripture in an obscene joke is a far worse defilement of what's holy than the sin of those who put the ark of God on an ox-cart.

Now our time is gone and I need to wrap up quickly. Let me close by saying this: All of us minister in ungodly cultures. I don't care how unchurched your community is or how trashy the subculture is that you have targeted, you need to be reverent and dignified—sound in doctrine and sound in speech. Those are the qualifications for a true minister, and they apply to every subculture.

Unclean lips are a disqualifying factor. That's one of the incidental points of Isaiah 6. Isaiah cursed himself and tried to hide, saying "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" When God called him to be a prophet, the first thing that happened was an angel cleansed those filthy lips with a hot coal. There's nothing truly prophetic about a trashmouth.

Again, that's just one of the secondary lessons of Isaiah 6. The central lesson is that God is ""Holy, holy, holy." Our lives and lips must reflect that. 

(By Phil Johnson)

This is the second installment of Phil's notes from his Friday morning address at the Shepherds' Conference.

Now, that's a much longer introduction than I originally intended to give, but I want to stress that this problem is serious, and widespread, and it's moving through the evangelical movement with frightening speed. As one guy said, it's not really a trend anymore; it has become the new norm.

One more thing about contextualization. (I spoke on this subject at last year's Shepherds' Conference): If your approach to contextualization is designed mainly to make you fit comfortably into a pagan culture—then you have an upside-down view of what Paul meant when he spoke of becoming all things to all men so that he might by all means win some.
And that's one of the prominent lessons of our text.

Look first at the larger context. Titus, the recipient of this letter, was a close companion of the apostle Paul. You can see clearly in the way Paul writes about him that he had earned Paul's trust. Titus was evidently quite a young man, because in chapter 1, verse 4, Paul addresses him as "my true child in a common faith." It's not "my son in the faith," huios (a legal son who has come of age, or someone who has been granted the privilege of sonship by adoption) but teknon—"child"—which signifies a child by birth. The choice of that word implies that Titus was still a very young man. And combined with the adjective ("my genuine child according to [our] common faith") it also suggests that Paul had personally led Titus to Christ.

So this young Gentile convert became indispensable to Paul. In 2 Corinthians alone, Paul refers to Titus nine times. (He also mentions him twice in Galatians and once in 1 Timothy.) Paul entrusted a number of important responsibilities to Titus. It's clear that he regarded Titus as much more than a pupil or messenger boy, but Titus was a true and trusted partner in the apostolic ministry. So when Paul moved on from Crete, he left Titus there to establish and organize the leadership in the churches that were being founded there. Paul says in chapter 1, verse 5: "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you."

Now, Paul has some not-so-nice things to say about the culture of Crete. It turns out this place was even worse than Seattle. Titus 1:10-16:

10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
11  They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
12  One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
13  This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
14  not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
15  To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.
16  They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

There's a bit of cultural sensitivity for you: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

"Ooh, that's harsh."

Yes, it is. And if you ponder carefully what Paul is saying to Titus here, this passage explodes some of the favorite myths about contextualization. Paul does not say, Cretans are liars and lazy gluttons, so reach out to them on that basis. Immerse yourself in their culture and learn to speak that language. Appeal to their love f food, wine, and fellowship. Organize your men's ministry so that the meetings are in the pub. Harness their passion for ultimate fighting by hanging out with gladiators and imitating their lifestyle and values. Let the flavor of that culture season all your preaching. Contextualize! You won't find that in Paul's instructions to Titus.

Notice this, too: Paul doesn't lower the bar of Christian leadership to accommodate the hedonistic bent of Cretan Culture. In verses 6-9 He gives Titus practically the same list of qualifications for church leadership he gave in 1 Timothy 3.

Frankly, I don't envy the task Titus was called to (v. 5): "Put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town" How can you meet those standards for leaders if all you have to work with are fresh converts out of such a corrupt culture?
But Titus's task was clear. He was not to ape the fashions of that society. He was to teach them to be different. Not only that—but with regard to the young men in particular (since Titus himself was a young man)—he was to be a different kind of example from anything they had ever seen. He wasn't supposed to crawl into society's sewer and join the fraternity of Cretan bad-boys. He needed to model dignity, purity, integrity, reverence, and sound speech. That's the whole point of our text (2:7): "Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."

Notice the flow of logic in chapter 2. These are things that adorn sound doctrine. Paul is reminding Titus of several important practical and behavioral issues that "[are in accord] with sound doctrine."

Doctrine is vital, yes. Some doctrines are essential, right? That's the premise of "Together for the Gospel," The Gospel Coalition, the Shepherds' Fellowship, and other similarly-minded groups. We may not agree on everything down to the smallest minutia, and we won't let insignificant disagreements rupture our fellowship. But we must agree on the gospel. That's the only basis for authentic Christian fellowship.

Doctrine per se is not extraneous or superfluous, despite what our postmodern friends try to tell us. Some truths are vital—especially the rich tapestry of truth at the heart of the gospel. Some truths are so vital that if you deny or try to alter them in any way, you're anathema—accursed. And some lies are so dangerous that as Paul says back in chapter 1, verse 11, the mouths of those who utter such lies "must be stopped."

But get this: there are likewise certain principles of sanctification and personal conduct that are so vital we're required to break fellowship with those who ignore them. First Corinthians 5:11: "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one." In other words, if someone calls himself a Christian but his lifestyle or language is chronically incompatible with a sanctified heart and mind—certainly if he is given to casual blasphemy or obsessed with things that are lewd and indecent—Paul says, don't associate with such people.

Paul's point is that sanctified behavior is the essential companion to authentically sound doctrine. You may verbally affirm the finest confession of faith ever written, but if your words and deeds deny it, Paul would not have affirmed you as an authentic Christian at all. Much less would he lay hands on you for ministry. He says so, right there in chapter 1, verses 15-16: "To the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." Sound doctrine is essential—but it's not enough.

Therefore, Paul says to Titus, (2:1): "as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." Teach the principles of sanctification that adorn the doctrine you teach. And then Paul describes what that looks like (verse 2): "Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled," etc. Verse 3: "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women . . . "

He is not giving Titus exhaustive lists of what is crucial in sanctification; these are representative samples of the kinds of qualities Titus needed to stress, especially in such a grunge-addicted culture as Crete. And Paul goes systematically through all the classifications of saints—every Sunday-school class—starting with the older men, then the older women, who are expressly tasked with teaching the younger women. Then in verse 6, Paul gets to the category to which Titus himself belonged: "younger men."

Notice what Titus is to stress with them, and how he is to stress it (vv. 6-8): "Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned." That's the heart of our text, and there you have the apostle Paul's instructions for a young man ministering to other young men in a pagan, unchurched, pleasure-oriented, idolatrous culture. There's nothing whatsoever here about adopting the badges of the youth culture in Crete. Not a word about the importance of fitting in or adapting your ministry to the lowbrow lifestyle of Crete. Titus was the one who was supposed to set the standard for them, not vice versa.

By the way, let me make just one more brief comment about what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 9:22, where he does speak of "becom[ing] all things to all people, that by all means [he] might save some." The context in 1 Corinthians 9 is just as clear as the context here, and Paul is talking about two completely different things. In 1 Corinthians 9, he was talking about avoiding adding unnecessary stumbling-blocks that get in the way of people's hearing the gospel. The gospel itself is already enough of a stumbling-block. Paul wasn't the least bit concerned about adjusting the gospel message to eliminate the offence of the gospel; or adjusting the message to suit the tastes of some subculture; or making himself seem cool and stylish. He was simply trying to keep himself out of the way as the gospel advanced. He didn't want to offend people unnecessarily over peripheral matters. His point was that he respected every culture's taboos as much as possible—not that he joined up with those in the culture who were challenging the taboos. He absolutely was not saying he was willing to adopt any and every aspect of a particular subculture or lifestyle in order to fit in.

In fact, here he more or less instructs Titus not to imitate the dominant features of the culture. Notice how the twin themes of reverence and dignity run through this whole passage. Paul doesn't suggest that we can tolerate a lack of dignity or a greater measure of irreverence from young men, just because they may not be fully mature yet. Dignity is expressly required of both young and old, Paul says.

And that was totally counter-culture. Remember that in chapter 1, verses 12-16, Paul basically says that the central problem with all of Cretan culture is that people were undignified, irreverent, self-indulgent slobs: "liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." He doesn't say that's a cultural reality Titus needed to indulge. He doesn't tell Titus to get creative and learn to adapt his strategy to fit Crete's youth culture.

Paul clearly recognized Crete's cultural tendency to favor the things of the flesh, but he was not in favor of making that tendency part of the ambience of the churches he was planting on Crete. Does anyone seriously think Paul would have approved of an inflatable Phallus as an advertizing device in a culture like Crete?

Instead, Paul says (1:13): "Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith"

Then he repeatedly stresses the importance of dignity and reverence. Chapter 2, verse 2: "Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled." Verse 3: "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior." Verses 6-7, "Likewise [to] the younger men. . . . Be a model of . . . dignity."

There's a lot in these two verses than time permits us to unpack. Notice that Paul encourages Titus to cultivate sound behavior, sound doctrine, and sound words—and to be a model in all those ways (not just the doctrine). Your life, your doctrine, and your speech are all crucial aspects of your pastoral duty.

In fact, Paul words these instructions so that those categories are interwoven. Each one is essential to the others. They aren't three totally separate things, but three aspects of the same duty. I've been reading the text from the ESV, which inserts the conjunction and between good works and sound doctrine, giving the unfortunate impression that Paul differentiates good works and good doctrine. But he doesn't. Sound doctrine is simply a prominent feature of good works. The NASB gets the gist of it as well as any: "show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine." Keeping your doctrine pure is one of the good deeds you need to exemplify. And then Paul says your doctrine isn't really pure if you don't impart it to people in a dignified way through "sound speech that cannot be condemned."

Now, that's the specific aspect of Paul's instructions to Titus that I'm most concerned with this morning. I want to focus on what he says about our speech. I keep hearing people (including some well-known leaders in the evangelical movement) making the claim that it really doesn't matter how radically we contextualize the message as long as we basically get the theological facts and the doctrinal formulae of the message correct. I'm convinced that is patently wrong. In fact, that way of thinking goes contrary to the whole point Paul is stressing in his instructions to Titus. Your doctrine isn't really pure at all if you yourself are not an example of reverence and dignity. If your manner of speech is lewd and profane, or if your lifestyle is characterized by the same fleshly tendencies that define secular culture, then you are not a fit minister of the gospel, and you ought to step down.

Paul says that very thing at the end of Titus 1, starting in verse 15: "[Those whose] minds and . . . consciences are defiled . . . profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work."

So if you consider Paul's command about "sound speech that cannot be condemned" in its full context, he is putting a very high premium on the importance of dignity, reverence, purity, and soundness of language. That would apply especially to the language we use in the pulpit. But here's what is vital: Paul was actually commanding Titus to guard even his everyday speech so that his whole life would be consistent with the dignity, reverence, and holiness the gospel commands. Paul was urging Titus not to do or say anything in any context that would be unbecoming to the gospel or give the enemies of the gospel a legitimate reason to speak evil about us.

Of course, throughout the New Testament we're reminded that the world will speak evil of us. Paul isn't suggesting we ought to adopt some artificial postmodern notion of civility and do everything we can to be politically correct so that people will always like us. Quite the opposite; he's saying, Don't give the world any reasons to criticize us that are unrelated to the fact that they reject the truth we stand for.

Brethren, this is not a complex issue at all: Crass, carnal, crude, gutter language and fleshly, self-indulgent, or erotic subject matter should not be the hallmarks of our ministry style.

Again: less than a decade ago, no one needed to stress that point. It simply wasn't controversial. And it shouldn't be controversial. Consider again the implications of that last verse in chapter 1: If you see practically everything as an opportunity for crass humor and filthy talk, what you are communicating to the culture is that both your mind and your conscience are defiled. And don't kid yourself: every culture, no matter how pagan, naturally reacts to filthy talk that way. Paul says those whose minds and consciences are that defiled are unfit for ministry.

So if you are someone who can fill your conversation (or your sermons) with filthy words, coarse joking, and carnal subject matter without a single pang of conscience: get out of the ministry. Please. The pulpit is a place where God's Word is to be proclaimed and God's truth is to be elevated in worship. It is the very last place where everything holy should be dragged into the gutter.

This problem has reached epidemic proportions lately. As I said earlier, I could cite dozens of examples, and there are hundreds more examples I wouldn't dare cite, because even mentioning them here would violate the principle I'm striving to affirm. Some things are too shameful even to be mentioned. Ephesians 5:12: "it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." That is a fact our culture has worked hard to overthrow. The world thinks everything, no matter how shameful, needs to be brought out, dissected, and explored openly—even in mixed audiences. That's the idea underlying most of our culture's entertainment. The last thing the church should do is pretend the world has a valid point. Preachers don't need to subject their people to any more filth than the world already shoves down our throats.

(To be concluded tomorrow)

(By Phil Johnson)

The following notes are from Phil's Shepherds' Conference seminar on Friday morning.

This morning I want to look at two verses in Titus 2—verses 7-8. This is an admonition from Paul to Titus, his friend, partner, protege, and true son in the faith. Titus is one of the unsung heroes of the early church—a young pastor whose faithful support and constant behind-the-scenes labor made him extremely precious to Paul. Paul writes to Titus with these instructions (Titus 2:7-8): "Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."

I chose that text, frankly, because I'm deeply concerned about the tendency of so many pastors lately to employ profanity, crude and obscene words, vile subject matter, carnal topics, graphic sexual imagery, erotic language, and filthy jokes. Most of you, I know, are aware of the trend I'm talking about. I'm tempted to call it the pornification of the pulpit. The justification usually given is that coarse language and sexual themes are the tools of contextualization. It's a way to make us sound more relevant. Lots of voices in the church are insistent that this is absolutely essential if we want to reach certain segments of our culture.

The apostle Paul said otherwise, and that's what I want to look at in this hour.

When I was considering what subjects might be important for a group of pastors and church leaders as large and diverse as this, I couldn't get away from this issue. The New York Times Magazine recently did a feature article on Mark Driscoll in which this was a major theme. "Who Would Jesus Smack Down?" was the title of the article. Here's the lead sentence: "Mark Driscoll's sermons are mostly too racy to post on [an] evangelical Christian 'family friendly' . . . Web site."

So this is a subject almost everyone (including the New York Times) is already talking nonstop about. And yet it seems to me that people in the evangelical world are not thinking very biblically about it. What language and what kind of subject matter are suitable for the pulpit in a worship service? What gifts and what virtues qualify a man to be a pastor? And what should stand out most prominently when someone analyzes our style of ministry? What would YOU want the New York Times to focus on if they did an article analyzing your style?

A decade ago (in our circles, at least), no one would have considered those to be very tough questions. But now evangelicals are obsessed with this issue, and frankly many are very confused about it. It amazes me how many young men in the ministry today are utterly enthralled with smutty talk and lascivious subject matter—and they insist this is a positive trend.

I'm also appalled at the number of good men and Christian leaders who privately say they don't really "approve" of "filthiness . . . foolish talk[, and] crude joking"; but they feel we need to overlook those trends and keep silence in public—so that the delicate fabric of evangelical unity isn't torn asunder by a controversy over words. Frankly, I think this whole issue probably would not be controversial at all if a handful of respected Christian leaders were willing to step up and deal with the matter boldly and biblically.

Sadly, evangelical tolerance for shenanigans in the pulpit has undergone a monumental change in the past couple of decades—and not in a healthy direction. The most overtly lewd and profane kinds of foolishness have found their way into the evangelical repertoire under the rubric of contextualization.

Now, I face a serious practical dilemma here. In one sense, I'd like to show you some examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about, so that you understand that I am not exaggerating. On the other hand, most of these things are so thoroughly inappropriate that there's no way I would ever drag them into our worship center.

But I'm pretty sure most of you are aware of some of the kinds of things I am talking about. Here's a handful of more-or-less sanitized examples: There's a group called xxxchurch who say they are targeting porn addicts and people who work in the so-called adult entertainment industry. They sponsor a booth at the major porn conventions—where they say they are doing evangelism. They hand out Bibles and wear t-shirts stenciled with a deliberately ambiguous slogan: "Jesus loves Porn stars." And the centerpiece of their display is a 15-foot inflatable phallus. They have painted a face on this abomination and given it a name. Now, xxxchurch isn't some obscure anomaly I dug up out of nowhere. You will find links to their website from literally hundreds of churches who support and promote what xxxchurch is doing.

Trends like that abound in the evangelical world. It is suddenly very popular to preach sermons in which the pastor graphically describes private acts of perversion in language borrowed from the porn industry. There's a group of young women online who blog about the intimate details of their sex lives under the guise of trying to help Christian women spice up troubled marriages.

In a group this size, it's likely that some of you may even have links to organizations and resources like that on your church websites. If so, shame on you, and you need to rethink what you are doing. Strategies like those invariably employ purposely suggestive images and speech that is calculated to be erotic. And I have no doubt whatsoever that they lure Christians into a culture of porn and carnality. I know for a fact that they are deadly stumbling blocks for people who have been saved out of that lifestyle. To claim that it's necessary to use deliberately seductive strategies such as those to draw people to Christ out of a culture that is already obsessed with everything erotic is a lie. It also ignores the reality of what has actually happened to the evangelical movement over the past decade.

Likewise, to claim that filthy language and purposely coarse words are essential for reaching people with the gospel is ludicrous. But that is exactly the argument that is being made. Here's a typical comment I found posted in a Southern Baptist discussion forum where this was the topic under discussion. The guy who wrote this seems to be a youth pastor or college minister. He says:

Any Christian who says the words on the FCC's "dirty word" list are bad . . . is judging (and hence pushing away) millions of the lost simply because they . . . use different syllables. . . . God gives us no list of "abusive" words . . . . In a discussion with a "sinner" in a bar, the f-word often simply means "very". I have won many people in [our community] to Christ dropping the f-bomb, and that is no lie. . . . Any word can be used abusively, and any word can be used to glorify God.

Really?

Have you ever wondered why the IRS doesn't publish tax forms in the language of the gutter? Of course you haven't. because no one really believes that's a necessary or legitimate form of contextualization.

Todd Friel points out that you can watch the 11:00 news on any television channel in Seattle, and you won't find them using porn-slang and gutter-talk to communicate the daily headlines to their viewers. And none of their viewers are demanding for the news to be translated into cuss words so they can understand what is being said. Why is that? If that kind of contextualization is so essential to communicate a message to people in what is supposedly "the most unchurched community" in America, why don't the secular news media know that? Could it be that talking dirty is not really as important as some stylish evangelicals are telling us it is?

This approach to "relevance" has swept the evangelical community in a very short time. Just three years ago we were discussing the pros and cons of Rick Warren's 40 days of Purpose. Today the latest rage in the evangelical community is "40 days of sex"—or some variation on that theme. Ed Young, Jr., Pastor of the third largest church in America, got nationwide news coverage for his church because he gave a series on sex with a giant bed as a prop on the platform. He sat on that bed and announced that he was issuing a "seven-Day Sex Challenge" to the congregation. Here's how the Dallas Morning News reported the story:

God may have rested on the seventh day, but the Rev. Ed Young wants married couples to have sex all week long. Once a day. Beginning this Sunday. The call to action will headline Mr. Young's Sunday sermon at Grapevine-based Fellowship Church. He plans to deliver his challenge while sitting on a bed.

I think Ed Young actually got that idea from a Florida church where the pastor issued a 30-day sex challenge. Apparently, 30 days turned out to be too rigorous, so most of the churches that have followed suit have down-scaled the demand a bit.

But suddenly that kind of eroticism from the pulpit is all the rage. Time magazine noticed the trend and did a major article about it six months ago, titled "And God said: Just Do It." I see a different story almost every week about some church sponsoring a series on sex or a sex challenge of some kind. Part of the trend involves putting up suggestive billboards around town. The billboards tend to outrage even secular communities, and that's one reason this trend keeps making the news. Every church seems to try to make the ads more sleazy than all their predecessors. In Kenosha, WI, just last month, the secular school board informed a church they couldn't use school property for their Sunday services anymore because the school board looked at the flyer the church put on doors all around the community—and the school board thought the flyer advertizing the pastor's series on sex was too pornographic.

Let's be honest: No one really thinks this kind of thing is absolutely necessary to reach our culture, and I've never heard anyone even try to argue that these trends are having a sanctifying impact in a society that is already sex-crazed to the point of gross perversion.

So why is this so pervasive? It's clear, for one thing, that there are lots of people in the evangelical movement who really want to be at home in the culture. And too many pastors are enthralled with the idea of being cool in the eyes of the world.

Let's be candid: to a very large degree the whole notion of contextualization has been commandeered as an excuse for carnal minds poisoned by overexposure to smut. Some people just love the sound of filthy words, and they and feed their egos with the shockwaves that kind of language generates. The more the church wants to be like the world, the more that attitude will dominate.

(To be continued tomorrow)

(By Nathan Busenitz)

* NOTE: These notes are very abbreviated due to the amount of content Phil covered in his session. Audio of the session is available here.

Phil begins by thanking the full-time pastors for what it is they do week-in and week-out.

This morning, we will look at two verses in Titus 2:7–8. Titus was a young pastor who was extremely precious to Paul. And Paul writes to Titus with the instructions found in vv. 7–8.

Phil chose this text because he is concerned about the tendency among some pastors to use vulgar topics, filthy jokes, and the like in ministry today under the guise of cultural contextualization. There are those who claim that this kind of speech is essential in order to be relevant to reach the culture. But the apostle Paul said otherwise.

The New York Times Magazine recently did a major article on Mark Driscoll, and this was a major issue that was brought up by the article.

What language is appropriate in the pulpit? A decade or so ago, this would not have even been a question in evangelicalism. The number of young men who are enthralled with filthiness and silly talk in the pulpit is astounding; and a number of evangelical leaders are failing to take a public stand against it.

Phil notes that he faces a practical dilemma here—on the one hand, he wants to give examples to show that he is not exaggerating, and yet on the other hand he does not want to drag such smut into a worship service. In a sanitized way, he mentions XXX Church and several other examples.

To claim that it is necessary to use such sensuality to draw people to Christ in our culture is a lie. Yet, that is the very line of reasoning that is being employed. This approach to relevance has swept the evangelical movement by storm in just the last few years. Ed Young and others are examples of the trend to talk about sex from the pulpit.

To a very large degree, the entire use of the word “contextualization” has been commandeered by those who want an excuse for filling their minds, and the minds of their people, with smut. If one’s approach to contextualization is to make himself feel comfortable in a secular culture, then that person has an upside down view of Paul’s Words in 1 Corinthians 9.

Titus was very dear to Paul, was trusted by Paul, and was left by Paul in Crete to appoint elders. The culture of Crete was wicked—detestable, disobedient, liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, etc. Paul does not tell Titus to embrace the worldly aspects of Cretan culture; nor does the apostle lower the bar of church leadership in order to accommodate the corrupt culture.

Titus’s task was clear. He was not to aid the corrupt culture of the Cretans. In fact, as a young man, he was to be an example of purity, integrity, dignity, reverence, and sound speech—the exact opposite of Cretan culture. Hence, Paul’s address in Titus 2.

The flow of logic in these verses starts with sound doctrine and then moves to outline the behavior that must result. Doctrine is extremely important and some doctrines are vital. But there are likewise certain principles of personal sanctification and holiness that are so vital that we are required to break fellowship with those who violate them (cf. 1 Cor. 5). If someone professes to be a Christian and yet his lifestyle or language is consistently incompatible with godliness, we are not to affiliate ourselves with such people.

Sound doctrine is essential, but right living must go hand-in-hand with sound doctrine. This is the point of Paul’s lists in Titus 2:2ff, stressing those areas of behavior that Titus needed to emphasize with the Cretan believers.

Titus himself is addressed (as part of the young men) in verses 7 and 8. It is in these verses that you have Paul’s instructions to a young man ministering to those in a pagan culture. There is nothing here about Titus adapting his ministry to the lowbrow ministry of Crete. Rather, Titus was to be a model of reverence, purity, and godliness.

On a side note, Phil takes a moment to discuss the context of 1 Corinthians 9:19ff (“being all things to all men”). The context there was not about adopting any and every aspect of a subculture so that would have been considered cool.

Back in Titus 2, dignity is expressly required of the Christians of Crete both young and old. This would have been in direct contrast to the irreverent culture of Crete. As Paul told Titus in 1:13, Titus was to rebuke the culture not embrace it.
 

If a pastor’s ministry is characterized by lewdness, sensuality, and speech which is not sound and which can be condemned, that pastor is not qualified for ministry and should step down. By encouraging Titus to be characterized by sound speech, Paul was telling Titus not to give the world any reason to discredit the gospel.

The pastor who can fill his sermon with filthy words, coarse jesting, and sensuality without a single pang of conscience needs to get out of the ministry. The pulpit is the place where God’s Word needs to be elevated and exalted. It is the last place where holy things should be dragged through the gutter.

The world thinks that everything, no matter how shameful, needs to be brought out and put on display even in mixed audiences. And the last thing that the church should do is think the world has a valid point.

There are two kinds of profanity that every Christian should avoid: filthy talk and irreverence. Scripture is not silent about the things that fit under those two categories. This is not a gray area. Nor is it a complex issue. Our speech is to be seasoned and good for edification. No unwholesome word is to proceed from our lips, no filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting which are all out of place.

Ephesians 5:4 really defines (from the negative) what Paul means by sound speech in Titus 2:7–8. The three words in Ephesians 5:4 deal with dirty words, lewd conversation, and crude joking. Scripture emphatically condemns these things.
 

What about Paul’s use of skubalon? That word was not considered taboo in Greek culture. It was a strong word, but it was not the sort of vile expression that some want to make it. Moreover, the use of such harsh expressions was very much the exception in Paul’s ministry not the rule. The other example is in Galatians 5 where Paul turns the Judaizer’s argument on its head. His argument is shocking and harsh, but he did not use any vile or smutty expressions. He was certainly not being crude just to be cool. Nor was this kind of earthy sarcasm the characterization of his ministry.

Strong language and profane language are not the same thing. We need strong language in the pulpit, but profane language has no place there.

What about the Song of Solomon? The book of Song of Solomon elevates the expression of marital love by speaking of it in beautiful and poetic terms. This is the exact opposite of what is happening in the church today, where the beauty and dignity of marital intimacy is being dragged through the gutter. Ecclesiastes 9:10 should never be the butt of a smutty joke.
 

All of us minister in ungodly cultures. You need to be reverent, dignified, sound in doctrine and sound in speech. Those are the qualifications for a true minister and they apply in every subculture. Unclean lips are a disqualifying factor. There is nothing truly prophetic about a trash mouth.

Our lives and our lips must reflect the holiness of God.

(By Jonathan Rourke)

Today's post comes from Jonathan's chapter on "Faith, Fidelity, and the Free Market" in our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. To visit the publisher's website, click here.

How can we, as believers, worship God with our financial resources while at the same time rejecting temptations that lead to idolatry and covetousness? The answer is found in giving to the Lord and His purposes. When we give our money to the work of the gospel, we not only demonstrate our heartfelt love for God (2 Cor. 9:7), we also store up for ourselves treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:16–24).

Giving to the Lord helps Christians overcome the temptation to hoard their riches (Matt. 6:19–21). Those who are successful at acquiring financial wealth are immediately presented with the temptation to greedily stockpile it. To give is to counteract this temptation by considering the needs of others, rather than being consumed by self-indulgence. Moreover, stockpiling wealth is risky business, since earthly riches have a way of disappearing. Giving, then, is also a means to invest in eternal things, amassing a treasure in heaven that can never be lost. It therefore repositions the heart from being focused on the things of this earth to the things of God.

Second, giving to the Lord helps Christians overcome the temptation to forget Him (Matt. 6:22–24). In Proverbs 30:9 the writer asks God to protect him from both the trials that attend abject poverty and the deceptive comfort that comes from wealth. The danger in the latter is that he will forget God and become too dependent on himself and his money. In Matthew 6, Jesus reminds us that the eye is to be clear and seeing properly. If the spiritual eye is functioning rightly, then it will direct the believer in the righteous path regarding money. It will cause him to always see God as the provider of wealth and the one to be honored by it. Since no one can serve both God and money, the act of regularly giving money to the Lord demonstrates who our true Master is.

Third, giving to the Lord helps Christians overcome the temptation to be anxious, by reminding them that God is in control and that His Kingdom is their highest priority (Matt. 6:25–34). “Be anxious for nothing,” Paul told the Philippians, “but in everything by prayer and thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6–7). Just a few verses later, he would explain that he had learned to be content in whatever financial circumstances he found himself (vv. 10–13). Often, financial anxiety comes from trying to live beyond our means. The one who gives learns to be content and thankful for whatever lifestyle God has provided, even if it is a modest one (1 Tim. 6:7; Heb. 13:5). Solomon offers a number of vivid contrasts throughout the book of Proverbs (Prov. 15:16–17; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 19:1; 28:6), informing the reader that financial poverty—if accompanied by the fear of God, love, righteous, humility, quietness, and integrity—is far better than economic wealth accompanied by turmoil, hatred, injustice, pride, strife, perversion, and a crooked spirit.

(By John MacArthur)

Today's post is from the introduction to our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong.

It is common in the evangelical church today for people to verbally acknowledge that the Bible, as God’s Word, is the final authority for both what they believe and how they live. Yet in reality, a clear connection between that public confession and personal conduct is rare.

Instead of looking to the Bible, many professing Christians look to psychology and sociology for supposed solutions to personal needs and social ills. The rise of postmodern thought has similarly skewed the church’s understanding of right and wrong—as an unbiblical tolerance (in the name of love) has weakened churches to the point where they are as soft on truth as they are on sin. Popular television shows, from Oprah to Leno to the average sitcom, have had a tangible effect (and not for the better) on how American Christians think through everyday issues. The political arena, too, has played a major role in shaping an evangelical understanding of morality, as words like “Republican” and “Democrat” or “liberal” and “conservative” have come to redefine the difference between what is good and what is evil.

The fact is that far too many professing Christians live their lives, day in and day out, on the basis of something other than the Bible. As a result, their priorities reflect the world’s priorities, not God’s priorities. Their patterns of behavior and their plans for the future differ only slightly from those of their unsaved friends and neighbors. Their expenditures reveal that their perspective is temporal, and that they are vainly pursuing the elusive American Dream. Their shortcomings, when they admit to them, receive the same fault-free labels that the world ascribes (“mistakes” or “diseases” or “addictions” rather than “sins”), as they search for answers in psychology, medication, or the self-help section of the bookstore. Though they adhere to an external form of traditional Christian moralism, there isn’t anything particularly biblical or Christ-centered about how they live.

Yet it is in the lives of sinners who have been transformed by the Gospel of grace, that a distinctly Christian ethic must be fleshed out. True Christianity is not defined on the basis of external moralism, religious traditionalism, or partisan politics; but on the basis of a personal love for Jesus Christ and a desire to follow Him no matter the cost (cf. John 14:15). It is only because believers have been transformed on the inside (through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit), that they are able to exhibit godliness in their behavior. And the world cannot help but take notice. As Jesus told His hearers in the Sermon on the Mount, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16; cf. 1 Peter 2:12).

The heart of the Christian ethic, of course, is the Gospel. Only those who have been transformed from within (Titus 3:5–8), being indwelt by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:13–14), are able to exhibit genuine holiness (Gal. 5:22–23; 1 Pet. 1:16). Biblical Christianity is not primarily concerned with external behavior modification (cf. Matt. 5–7), but with a change of heart which subsequently manifests itself in a changed life (1 Cor. 6:9–11).

A true Christian ethic, then, is not possible without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Unless the inner man is washed first, external morality and religious observances are only a superficial façade. Jesus rebuked the hypocrites of His day with these words, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27). Christ was not saying that behavior is unimportant. But rather that from God’s perspective, the heart is what matters most (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; Mark 12:30–31).

Of course, a heart that has been truly transformed by God will respond in love to His Son, Jesus Christ (cf. John 8:42). And those who love Jesus Christ will eagerly desire to follow and obey His commands (cf. John 14:15), as found in His Word (cf. Col. 3:16). A truly Christian ethic, then, eagerly affirms and applies the moral instructions found in the Bible. But it does not do so in an attempt to legalistically earn salvation (Is. 64:6). Rather, having received salvation as the free gift of God through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8–9), it readily obeys out of a heart of love (Eph. 2:10).

If Christians are to live in keeping with who they are (as children of God), they must live according to the Word of God through the power of His Spirit. No other source of wisdom or moral insight will do. By definition, they are people of the Book—and not just on Sundays, but every day of the week (cf. Is. 66:2).

(By Tom Patton)

Today's article is adapted from our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong.

Until sinners submit to the truth about God, they will never acquire what it is they truly seek. They become like the Samaritan woman at the well, confusing the true remedy for spiritual thirst with the temporary satisfaction of an earthly spring (John 4:14). Sadly, the unbeliever attempts the whole of his life to quench the unquenchable with something other than God. So he pursues fame, money, power, wealth, fitness, work, wisdom, education, love, or any other created thing that can perhaps quiet the desperate cry of his empty soul. But none of the things he finds—whether politics or popularity or creativity or anything else this world offers—can ever answer the call of his heart. He can pursue happiness, but he will never find it. As soon as he acquires one desire it turns into dust; as does the next, and the next after that, until life finally ends in disappointment.

This is the cotton candy fate of the American Dream that befalls all who embrace the cult of celebrity. From a distance it looks so appealing—a big and beautiful ball of glistening spun sugar. But those who finally get it, and taste it, find that it isn’t very filling. Sure, it is sweet for a moment. But it doesn’t bring lasting happiness. After a quick melt in the mouth it is gone forever . . . then what?

King Solomon understood this perhaps better than anyone else ever has. He was the richest, most famous, and most powerful man of his day. He was also the smartest, because God had given him supernatural wisdom. He used all of the resources at his disposal in the pursuit of his own happiness. He experimented with pleasure (Ecclesiastes 2:1-3), hard work (2:4–6); material possession (2:7–8); popularity and prestige (2:9–10); and even his own wisdom (2:12–14), all in an effort to find lasting joy. Yet he found it all to be empty, finally concluding that true joy and fulfillment cannot be found in the things of this world, but only in God (2:24–26; 12:13–14).

As Solomon learned after a lifetime of trial and error, if you want happiness in this life you must look to God. You must deny everything you once thought could give you happiness for the sake of following the risen Lord. His salvation is the satisfaction you seek. It cannot be found in fame and fortune, any more than it can be found at the end of a rainbow. It is only found in embracing the true source of all satisfaction, God Himself.

(By John Street)

Today's post is adapted from Dr. Street's chapter on counseling those in the church who struggle with homosexual temptation. The full article can be found in our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong.

Identity must be formed “in Christ.”

The theological understanding of the Christian being “in Christ” is critical for those who struggle with homosexuality (cf. Gal. 3:26–29; Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1). Sometimes, early in discipleship, they will express to you in so many words, “I am a homosexual.” They have become convinced by their own fruitless struggle with their sexual weaknesses or by the world’s relentless drumbeat that they are genetically hardwired this way and cannot change.  Of course, this is a cultural lie and it robs your counselee of hope.

Who they are “in Christ” must be the planet around which all their thoughts and actions orbit. This is more than just a metaphor, it has to do with how Christians view themselves—as undeserving sinners who enjoy the gracious provisions and righteousness of Christ in order to have full acceptance with God the Father. Gospel-centered counseling and discipleship is critical to establish early.

When their thought-life is practiced “in Christ” it brings hope and change to thoughts, desires and behaviors. They think and act in new ways abandoning homosexual and effeminate dress, words and mannerisms. It is especially effective to faithfully teach the principles of Romans 6:1–14 while recalling the earlier context of Romans 1:24–27. How Christians view themselves and their position in Christ will greatly affect their change and growth in sanctification. A Christian tempted by homosexual (or lesbian) desires is not a homosexual, he or she is a Christian! This thought and all of its theological richness is vital to understand if your counselee is going to possess the perseverance to defeat this foe.

Today's post is taken from part of our church's Pastoral Perspective on global warming and environmentalism. The full article can be read in our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong.

On February 14, 2005, the National Council of Churches USA published a document entitled, “God’s Earth Is Sacred: An Open Letter to Church and Society in the United States.” The letter calls on Christians to repent of their “social and ecological sins.” According to the letter, citing Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew:

“[T]o commit a crime against the natural world is a sin . . . for humans to degrade the integrity of Earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or destroying its wetlands . . . for humans to injure other humans with disease . . . for humans to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life, with poisonous substances . . . these are sins.”

The document goes on to assert that too many Christians have bought into “a false gospel that we continue to live out in our daily habits—a gospel that proclaims that God cares for the salvation of humans only and that our human calling is to exploit Earth for our own ends alone.” In recounting the sins that must be repented from, the authors state the following: “We confess that instead of living and proclaiming this salvation through our very lives and worship, we have abused and exploited the Earth and people on the margins of power and privilege, altering climates, extinguishing species, and jeopardizing Earth’s capacity to sustain life as we know and love it.”

But such statements reflect an understanding of “sin,” “salvation,” and “gospel” that is a far cry from the New Testament. The Gospel of the New Testament centers on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:3–4), as the sole means (John 14:6) through which individual sinners (rebels against God’s moral law—Romans 3:10–18, 23) can be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:17–21; Col. 1:21). It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), such that those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved (Acts 16:31). As Paul explained to the Romans, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Rom. 10:9–10).

Nowhere in the New Testament is sin, salvation, or the gospel ever defined in terms of corporate ecological responsibility. Rather than being consumed with the things of this earth, believers are commanded to focus on the life to come. The apostle Peter, speaking of the destruction of this earth, makes this point in 2 Pet. 3:10–13.

We are not called to focus all of our resources on preserving this current planet. Instead we are to focus on the world to come, and live this life in holy conduct and godliness. When the National Council of Churches suggests that: “In this most critical moment in Earth’s history, we are convinced that the central moral imperative of our time is the care for Earth as God’s creation,” we could not disagree more.

The central moral imperative for the church in this age was articulated by Christ in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20). We are to take the true gospel (that individual sinners can be reconciled to God through faith in Christ) to lost and dying souls. Saving the world, for Christians, is not about saving the planet, but about saving the lost. Moreover, the greatest legacy we can leave the next generation is not a cleaner planet, but the truth of the Gospel (cf. Deut. 6:5–9; 2 Tim. 3:14–15). Instead of being distracted by attempts to save our broken planet, Christians should focus on what God has actually called the church to do—looking forward to the day when He will create a new earth which lasts forever (cf. Rev. 21–22).

(By Austin Duncan)

Today's post is excerpted from our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. It is taken from Austin's chapter giving a pastoral perspective on video games.

From the most complex games to solitaire on your cell phone, games take time. Much of what can be said about video games in this regard could also be applied to other aspects of electronic entertainment—such as blogging, watching television, and surfing the internet. When large amounts of time each day are devoted to these activities, it means that in fact large portions of life are being wasted. Regarding television in particular, John Piper says this, “No one will ever want to say to the Lord of the universe five minutes after death, I spent every night playing games and watching clean TV with my family because I loved them so much. . . . Television is one of the greatest life-wasters of the modern age” (Don't Waste Your Life, 119-120). The same could easily be said about video games.

Due to their computerized complexity, today’s video games often require days to master and weeks to beat. A game that only costs forty or fifty dollars to purchase may actually cost hundreds of hours in wasted time. In many games, the player’s character develops as he advances through the virtual storyline, becoming more skilled and better equipped. Yet, players themselves gain little more than carpel tunnel symptoms and an otherwise useless knowledge of fictional weaponry. 

Time invested in such pursuits is lost, and cannot be reused for things that matter. Hours that could be spent working, praying, reading, serving, fellowshipping, evangelizing, or just thinking, are instead wasted on activities that have no lasting value. God’s Word teaches us that time is precious (Ps. 90:12; cf. 39:4–5). Using it wisely is an issue of good stewardship. We must not forget that our lives are not our own, we belong to Christ (1 Cor. 6:20). When we waste time consistently, a few hours each day, we waste the very lives we have dedicated to Christ.

One of the central themes of the book of Ephesians is the “walk” of the believer.  It is a metaphor the apostle Paul used to represent living. Believers are to walk in good works (Eph 2:10), in love (5:1–5), in holiness (5:6–13), and in a way consistent with their calling (4:1–16). They are also to walk in a way that is purposeful and wise. Paul writes this, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph 5:15–17). Paul’s point here is not strictly about time management (in terms of better scheduling), but life management (in terms of making the most of every opportunity to honor, serve, and worship God). The one who walks wisely will view his or her limited time in this life in light of eternity, taking advantage of every opportunity to bring glory to God. 

(By Rick Holland)

Today's post is excerpted from our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. It is taken from Rick's chapter giving a pastoral perspective on the topic of online dating.

Another issue regarding online dating centers on the question of accountability. When romance blossoms in the context of the church, or even work or school, it comes with a built-in level of accountability. Pastors, parents, and peers quickly become aware of the “special interest” that is forming between two people. The time they spend together includes group activities, social outings, and ministry events—circumstances in which other Christians can observe the couple and offer counsel or feedback. The couple understands that they are being watched, and that people who care about their souls also care about their growing friendship. As a result, rash decisions that might lead to either heartbreak (when a relationship is broken off) or heartache (when purity is not preserved) are weighed against the consequences that a sense of corporate accountability provides.

But online dating is essentially accountability-free. Time on a computer is almost always spent in isolation, making it impossible for pastors, parents, or peers to watch the relationship develop. A sense of anonymity gives the heart a greater sense of freedom in expressing that which might not be said in real life. Moreover, the person on the other end is a complete stranger—not only to the would-be suitor but also to his or her friends and family. There is no one to vouch for that person as a suitable potential mate, or to affirm that the relationship is going well, or to give informed counsel should issues arise down the road. This puts Christian singles in a much more difficult place as they attempt to pursue romance in a way that is righteous.

It should also be noted that real-world romance often begins in friendship, as two people get to know each other to some degree before expressing romantic interest. But this is not the case in online dating relationships. From the outset, the mindset is geared toward romance, meaning no opportunity is provided for establishing a simple friendship first. If at any point the romance no longer seems viable, the friendship immediately dies with it. “Breaking up” is relatively painless (unless you are on the receiving end of the bad news), since there are often no real-world implications to ending the relationship. Online daters may also be tempted to continually look for “someone better” or to entertain multiple prospects at one time. But such practices, and the perspective that fuels them, can develop deadly habits if left unchecked. The accountability that comes with real-world relationships guards against these kinds of temptations.

On balance, the Christian single who is renewing his or her mind through the Scriptures, and seeking to live in a way that honors Christ through the power of the Spirit, can certainly navigate the electronic waters of online dating with purity and integrity. The conscience informed by the Scriptures provides believers with a stronger level of accountability than anything external. Remembering the omnipresence of God also goes a long way to countering the thought of sin (Prov. 15:3). At the same time, wisdom suggests that isolation and temptation often go hand in glove (Prov. 18:1). Whether they enter the world of online dating or not, those who seek to live righteously will seek out accountability from other believers.