PLAIN TALK Saturday, May 19 2012

If it is indeed true that words have meaning, then why is it that so often you can’t be sure what someone has just said?  I support the use of plain talk, not wanting anyone to doubt what I mean when I preach, teach, or write.  If we use words that have clear and strong meaning, people will know for sure what we are saying.  They may not like it, but they will know where we stand.

The problem is that often such clarity is not welcome in our world today.  Our culture is always searching for terms that will weaken true understanding.  It is frightening to realize that in the near future we may be required to use compromised words, and perhaps may even be punished by law if we are pointed and transparent in our speech.  Speaking the truth, in some cases, is already considered to be hate speech.  Our forefathers may have seen this coming when they wrote in stone, “The Freedom of Speech”.

WORD GAMES

It is one thing for our pagan society to attempt to force on all of us their secular religious views; it is, however, something else altogether when the dumbing-down of words is pressed on us by those who profess faith in Christ.  The impression we get is that we are supposed to do everything we can in an effort to be unclear.  I have just given you an illustration of this by using “pagan society” and “secular religious.”  It takes some concentrating on meaning and content to be able to understand those statements; but then, we are trapped in word games where everything is form, rather than meaning.

The word “murder” has a very clear definition, but we are forbidden to use it; instead, it has been replaced by “abortion”.  The word “sodomy” is strong and clear; but it, too, has been replaced by terms considered to be more respectable.  We are not allowed to use clear words like “socialism” and “treason.”  Polite people evidently are not comfortable with the truth.  You may have noted that “offensive” words have been removed from some hymn lyrics so that the sinner is painted in a more sensitive way.  This may be why so many sinners don’t think they’re all that bad and why it is that today we have so many unsaved members in our churches.

Preaching that deals with sin is now cast in an unfavorable light.  We are being told that it is not polite to talk about such things in public and that people need to be encouraged, not confronted.  Offending God has become the rule of the day, and it seems we are supposed to only say nice things about even the most heinous of sins.  Even the devil deserves measured speech, they say.

WHAT ABOUT LOVE

It has been argued that the use of clear terms demonstrates a lack of love toward the sinner.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We do not exhibit love when we leave people to wonder what we mean.  We do not express love when we let a lost man go to hell because his horrible condition was not made clear.  Fire is a plain, blunt word.  It may disturb people.  To fail to cry “fire” when a friend’s home is engulfed in flames in the middle of the night, though, is not love.  Plain talk does not offend God, but it does disturb those who see man at the center of all things.  There is something wrong with the love of man that does not begin with the love of God.  The love of God flows from His foundational attribute of holiness.  Truth precedes love, but you can’t have one without the other.

YOU MAY OFFEND SOMEONE

We have been lectured by those of a liberal mindset that doctrine is not an expression of love; it is divisive.  Of course it is; that is God’s point.  Doctrine divides truth from error and heaven from hell.  The gospel is offensive to the unbeliever who rejects it.  It is so offensive that “new gospels” have become part of the “error of the month” club.  The apostle Paul made the offence of the gospel plain:  “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (I Corinthians 1:18)

Plain talk allows people to know exactly where they stand.  Strong words lose their power when they are made nice.  Compromise has a down side.  If we are so pressed to be measured in our speech that we cloud the facts, why bother speaking at all?  An editor of one of my books wrote to me, “You certainly have a sharp pen!”  I love and respect that man and took that statement as a compliment.

It is argued, however, that you will turn people off and they will not listen to you if you use plain language.  It is not my task to convince people; that is the role of the Holy Spirit.  I don’t have to be cute in my conversation in order to be effective; I do have to be clear and plain.  It helps if our plain talk is about ideas, not about persons.  For instance, we should refer to liberalism as the ideas and not the liberal people themselves.  It also helps to remember that the liberal mind focuses on people, not on ideas or on God.  For the liberal system, everything is judged on how people will feel and what they may think.

A WORD OF CAUTION

There is a difference between using words that offend and being offensive, but that has to do with motive.  When we preach clearly about hell and judgment, we must not leave the impression that we are glad that people are going there.  We can use plain words with love.  Hearts that are open to the Spirit of God will sense our sincere grief over their lost state.  It is possible to hate sin as God does.  It is possible for us to love the lost with the love that God has expressed.  There is no conflict in this, which is why we sow the seed and water it with our tears, but it is God who gives the increase.

Leave a Response »

 

GOD DEFINES MARRIAGE Friday, Apr 27 2012

The plague of human reason has firmly placed man as god.  Whenever the subject of an event or an issue is raised, reporters from the liberal media ask opinions of entertainers, failed politicians, customers at a bar, intellectuals, and “religious types”. Why not ask the sovereign creator God for a clear statement on the subject?  The answer is that the majority no longer cares what God has said.  Our leaders have been busy erasing the true God from our culture while they establish man as god.  As you know, I like to describe this as replacing Christianity with a new religion, which I have dubbed “Humianity”.

One of the tenets of the religion of man is the freedom to lie about anything.  This bad habit, in some cases, comes from a lack of understanding and wisdom.  Every thought and opinion of a man comes from his religious perspective.  Those who own man as their god see their own convoluted ideas as the final word on any subject.  The true believer seeks the word of God for any definition.  The authority base for a believer is the scriptures, while human reason is the authority base for all others.

An illustration of this can be found in evolution, or unintelligent design, versus creation, which is known as intelligent design.  The world looks for soft words to cover their heinous sins.  For instance, murder has become “abortion”, sin has become “sickness”, and sodomy has become “gay”.  The sad thing is that professing Christians far too often have joined the “Softening of Sin” club.

In our country there is a movement to redefine marriage.  One can only wonder why people support this, but their position depends on who is their God.  For the true believer, it’s a simple matter, because God has given us a definition in Genesis – one man for one woman for one lifetime.

WHY NOT VOTE ON IT?

In several states, including the one we live in, a marriage amendment has been proposed, simply stating God’s true definition of marriage.  Some may not like it, but what people are really doing at the polls is declaring who is their god.  For true believers, casting a vote is a grand opportunity to publicly identify with the God of glory and with the authority of scripture.  In front of some people’s houses are signs that say “Vote against Amendment One!”  Those signs on their lawns constitute an open confession of the god those people have chosen.  One might argue that there are also Christians and churches who oppose the amendment; by doing so, however, they also have declared who is really their god.  People are not Christians just because they say they are; we are defined by what we believe.  The fact that so many have twisted or ignored the clear teaching of scripture only confirms their choice of gods.  I am a Christian because of what I believe.  I am a Baptist because of what I believe, and I say what I say and do what I do because of what I believe.  Our beliefs, however, have to be founded on the central and clear teaching of God’s Word; we do not have the luxury of personal and private interpretation.  The Bible is not plastic, and we have no authority to mold it as we please or to rewrite it at every whim.

It is easy for the believer to be lazy and ignore opportunities to speak for God, but our silence in such matters amounts to disobedience.  Remember that the great sin of Adam and Eve wasn’t their diet; it was that they disobeyed God.  The result of their sin is still with us and is part of what is going on in this debate.  That may seem to you a small thing, but what is going to follow will be far worse.  If those who worship man get their way, the day will come when I will go to jail for what I have written here! The tide of evil flows very strong, and only a blind person would miss the growing hatred toward biblical Christianity.  We need to speak while we have the freedom to do so, because introduction of the flood of laws against us is just around the corner.

WHAT ARE WE MISSING HERE?

Many evangelicals would say that what I have written is not kind or compassionate. They need to read the next issue of Shepherds Staff on the subject of “Plain Talk”.  First, let me explain the problem.  The liberal mindset is unable to separate ideas or fact from people.  Liberals tend to spend their time in the swamp of people talk, where they can shut down truth by talking about Christians being “mean spirited”.  They have placed their own inventions about love above the holiness of God.  There is nothing loving about teaching people to sin or being silent while those who are chained to their lusts plunge to eternal judgment.

The God of the Bible is perfect in holiness, truth, and love.  His perfect holiness has defined marriage.  This is the truth, and while we are to love the sinner, we must not love his sin by making him feel comfortable about it.  That is exactly what the Corinthians had done in I Corinthians 5.  While some smarter-than-God intellectuals don’t think God loves sinners, He does; and so must we.  At the same time, God hates sin; the cross is all the proof you need.

JUST WONDERING

I cannot help but wonder if this subject will come up at the Judgment Seat of Christ – something as small as speaking for God and His word on the subject of marriage, as opposed to those who choose to mock God?  I think that if you could ask Adam and Eve, they would tell you that disobedience is no small thing!  “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” Romans 3:4

 

2 Responses »

 

HAPPY ATHEISTS DAY Sunday, Mar 25 2012

I am sure you know this title is strictly tongue-in-cheek.  On the other hand, though, you may not have heard of National Atheists’ Day.  I have no way of knowing if the following really happened, but it should have.  For now, we will just accept it as a story that someone made up.

FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY

In Florida, an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover holy days.  He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and the observances of their holy days.  The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days, and so the case was brought before a judge.  After listening to a passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel and declared “case dismissed!” The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling saying, “Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case?  The Christians have Christmas, Easter, and other such holidays.  The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur, and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.”  The judge leaned forward in his chair and said, “Oh, but you do; your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.”  The lawyer said, “Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.”  The judge said, “The calendar says April 1st is April Fools’ Day.  Psalm 14:1 states, ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’  Thus, it is the opinion of this court that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool; therefore, April 1st is his day.  Court is adjourned.”

A NATION OF FOOLS

There can be little doubt that we have become a nation with a majority of fools.  I understand that most of them would not claim to be atheists, but even this rabble category is growing.  The fact is that most of the people we know live as if there is no God, which makes them “practical atheists”.  From that perspective, it could be said that the majority of the people in our country are atheists.

It is very easy to confirm this argument – just listen to the media, entertainment crowd, business community, academia, religion, the courts, and government.  Almost every conversation and report makes it clear that man has become the god of our society.  Not only has human reason become the authority of our culture, but it has invaded the churches.  The theology of man is not only prominent, it is the standard; and it will not tolerate the voice of those who are truly biblical Christians.  Truth as defined by the Sovereign Creator is ridiculed and shouted down in every venue.  The only arguments that are given any value are those from the atheist majority who have chosen finite man to be their god.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

There are several reasons why the practical and stated atheists have won the day, but the number one culprit is state education, which is also where their victory is most evident.  A cursory study of our public schools at every level of education produces an irrefutable illustration of the problem.  While academia touts its open mind and ability to think critically, the evidence is against them; they have no room or tolerance for anything that flows from the true God.

Before you get all bent out of shape about that, please know that I am fully aware of, and thankful for, the tiny minority of believers in the system who try their best to be faithful to the eternal, infinite God.  Every little victory has worth; but we have lost the battle, and it’s time to admit it.  The atheist (man is god) theology is taught every day in the majority of classrooms.  There is no room in most of these educational settings for prayer, the Bible, and the real God.  Such falsehoods as evolution, Mother Nature, and a lot of assorted psychobabble are the rule of the day.  The religion and theology of the atheist is freely taught, and it has been successful.

WHO PAID FOR THIS?

The rise and great growth of this false religion has been made possible by the wrongful use of our tax dollars.  Biblical Christians have been forced to pay for the dissemination of this sad farce, as well as the teaching of other religious beliefs.  These Philistine schools have taught the children of true faith to think like” worldlings”.  A majority of the teachers in the state system are spiritually dead and so are incapable of communicating what God wants His children to know.  God specifically prohibits the taking of advice from those who are spiritually and morally deficient (Psalm 1).

The arguments of believers on this subject are sure signs that the dominant atheist religion has reached deep into our own Christian community.  Some will argue that these unbelievers are intellectual and smart.  Of course they are intellectuals, but they are intellectual pagans.  Other believers argue that in secular things it doesn’t matter who does the teaching, and here you have another answer: for the believer, there is nothing that is not sacred.  For us, every thought is sacred before God (I Cor. 10:5). This is what I meant by people in our crowd who have been taught to use human reason as the final authority rather than the Word of God.  Why not admit it?  They are in the majority, and most of us don’t even know why we lost.  And so, “Happy Atheists’ Day” to you!

Leave a Response »

 

IGNORANCE LEADS TO ERROR Sunday, Feb 26 2012

For years, there were several things that really puzzled me.  I was reared in a church where they practiced “externalism”.  I prefer not to use the term “legalism” since the majority of the time it is used in error with intent to slander.  The true definition of legalism is found in Galatians.  When I was a teenager, this emphasis on the outward man as a primary teaching drove me away from Christ.  Later, as a young man in the ministry, I noticed that far too many of my peers were caught in this web.  It was only when I understood the biblical view of holiness that I was able to see the flaws in this kind of teaching.

Throughout my fifty- two years of ministry, many of my peers have left this culture of externalism, but have moved far to the left with a flawed view of grace.  The “anything goes” theology that they adopted meant that they were simply moving from one extreme of the flesh to another.  We all know that depending upon the flesh is little different from feeding upon it.  This extreme view of grace is merely an excuse to let the flesh have whatever it wants.  Why was it that some of our friends on their journey away from externalism, did not stop at a biblical view of holiness?

The answer to this question has become very clear.  It was ignorance of the scripture that held them captive in externalism, and it was ignorance of scripture that sped them into a system as awful – if not worse – than externalism.  They simply went from law on the right to law on the left.  I do not mean that my friends do not know about the Bible; of course they do.  On the other hand, though, I am absolutely sure they do not know the Bible.  There is a world of difference.  Those in both extreme camps were ignorant of a theology that is biblical; they simply went from ignorance to error.

PARALYZED IN ERROR

With the passing years, I have come to understand why it is that my beloved brothers and sisters have remained linked to organizations, fellowships, missions, and schools that have turned their backs on theology that is biblical: they simply don’t know what is going on and so have blindly followed those leaders who themselves are blind to truth. Ignorance covers a lot of error.  The problem is that now those same people are being led into groups on the left who have tolerated heresy for some time.  My friends are being carried by winds of false doctrine, paralyzed by error, and they don’t even know it!

Young men in particular, but gray heads as well, have become enamored with carnal minds and have not stopped to ask the scriptures for the truth.  Today, scholars, intellectuals, form, and degrees have become the authority.  That can mean only one thing – those who use them as an authority have probably turned from the text. Hence the mad rush to the left, giving credence to error.

In a recent interview with a “respected” scientist, he was heard to state that the view of a young earth is “ridiculous”.  This statement was made by a scholar who supports the Big Bang theory, the most ridiculous cruel joke of the age!  In our world today, however, the desire of so many is to look intellectual and to compromise scripture.  Consider, for instance, the day-age theory and all the other nonsense formulated by people who only know about the Bible.

AT THE HEART OF IT ALL

As is so often the case, there is a common thread in this journey from right to left.  What I know now is that the hermeneutic that produced the flawed view of externalism is the same hermeneutic that produced the opposite extreme.  That is the reason people are so numb about error and also why hardly anyone snaps to attention when error is taught in the pulpit and the classroom.  It is also why mind-numbed “worshipers” today can sing lies, offending a holy God as they bob, weave, smile, applaud, and yell.

All of this is true because so many people only know about the Bible.  They know about Bible stories and favorite proof texts, but have no idea what God is teaching in those texts.  The end result is that the Bible ignorance that leads to error is rampant in our churches – both in the pew and in the pulpit.  God wants us to know what He has given us in holy writ.  He wants us to know the sovereign creator who loved us so much that He sent His son to the cross.  We should not be satisfied with just knowing “about” this blessed book.

Have you ever asked why it seems that so few people in our circles today are really being born again?  Would you dare to ask why there is so little of the moving of the Holy Spirit?  Please don’t tell me about all those huge churches full of unsaved people.  The answer is in the Book, but you can get the answer only when you take it from the text instead of putting it into the text, like the scholars do.

BREAKING THE CHAIN OF ERROR

There is only one biblical hermeneutic, or system of interpretation.  The minute that is left behind, all you have left is “private interpretation”.  If we center our teaching on knowing the scripture rather than just knowing about it, our lives, our churches, and the world around us will change and, as Luther said, “We might have more Christians”.  The intellectuals have invented a plethora of hermeneutical “systems”, and they all end in the same place, with human reason.  Every error of interpretation ever invented had to rise from a flawed hermeneutic; and that is why my beloved peers missed it and went right on by.  Before I leave, remember…this ministry is about making people think.

 

Leave a Response »

 

A LESSON FROM LOWE’S Monday, Feb 20 2012

For our overseas readers, let me begin with an explanation.  Lowe’s is a large chain of home improvement stores.  Unlike other major home improvement chains, Lowe’s has come down on the moral and conservative side of most issues.  They were recently identified as a sponsor for a television program called “All-American Muslim”.  A reliable and informed conservative organization challenged them on this decision, and a firestorm of complaints caused Lowe’s to withdraw their sponsorship.  Their reason was legitimate: they simply didn’t want to be in the middle of this conflict.

The tidal wave of criticism that followed from the liberal minds was very revealing.  I write this article knowing that I tread on dangerous ground, but knowing also that most of our readers are clear-headed conservatives.  It is possible, however, that someone who is reading this has been caught in the liberal web and may never have thought this through.  It is also possible that some readers have struggled in that they do not know how to answer the fallacious criticism from those who have believed the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion.

IS IT TRUE?

Those who have told the truth about the aforementioned television program and Lowe’s’ action have been called uninformed, intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant.  The fact is, however, that those who have defended the charade are the ones who truly are intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant of the facts.  Liberalism and its bedfellows are experts on dealing with the “what” of situations but almost never the “why”.

Why would anyone characterize the “All-American Muslim” program as propaganda? The answer is that what is portrayed in the episodes, coupled with the attempt to whitewash the true Islam, is false advertising.  The discussion isn’t about America’s being a melting pot for all cultures; it is about the true heart and majority of a major religion.

Those who try to explain the “why” of this issue are classified as having “Islamophobia”. Name-calling is the same liberal trick that is used with the subject of sodomy.  Anyone opposed to this destructive practice is called “homophobic”.  It has never crossed their minds that the deliberate campaign against Christianity in our country is “Christophobic”.

WHO IS REALLY INTOLERANT?

Are all Muslims terrorists, or are there some who would prefer living in peace?  No, not every one of them is a terrorist; and yes, some desire a peaceful life.  History, however, has demonstrated that those who are violent at heart are perfectly willing to live in a pretense of peace until they are a majority.

The “All-American Muslim” façade in no way resembles the real Islam.  The total Muslim population of the U.S. is but a drop in the bucket compared to its worldwide scope.  It is there you will find the truth, not in some finely-tuned American television program.  We have had some examples of the real Islam here at home, but they are always played down by the dominant liberal media.

The real face and heart of this religion can only be found in the majority.  Find any country in the world where Islam rules, and you will find the truth.  This is how to erase the ignorance of a liberal perspective.  The bottom line is that in those countries there is no true democracy, no real freedom, and no peace for anyone who disagrees with the majority religion.  What you will find is hatred, violence, fear, and death.  There is zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees, including some of their own; this is the real Islam religion.

The liberal sermon on diversity falls on deaf ears elsewhere in the world.  All patriotic Americans applaud diversity; it is center stage in what we are all about.  Arabic Americans have every right to the freedoms promised to all Americans.  Those of us who served in the military defended that freedom for every American, but this critical discussion isn’t about being an American.  It is about using our freedoms to create the living hell that exists in all the nations where a different kind of religion monopolizes the scene.

THE REAL PROBLEM

Anyone with an informed, honest perspective will see the danger in the false advertisement of Islam in America.  They will be able to see the intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant practice of liberalism as evidenced in Islam’s war against Christianity.  There is one thing, though, that is far more dangerous than the intellectual pagan who has rejected Christ.

Why would a civil leader, an evangelical, or even a fundamentalist believe or communicate the lie?  Why would they defend the thing that has destroyed the freedom of nation after nation?  Why would anyone dare to say that Islam is a “peaceful religion”?  It could be fear, politics, a desire to be accepted, or perhaps a lack of understanding.  No matter how you state it, the real issue with such people is ignorance. Those who rail against patriotic and conservative Americans and demonize Christians may have knowledge, but they do not have wisdom.

The bottom line is simple: if you are willing to read the news, even twisted as it so often is, you cannot miss the truth about real Islam.  Read about what is happening in Libya today and in Egypt.   Consider what will happen in Iraq and the whole of the Arab spring and think, just think!  And thus endeth the lesson from Lowe’s.

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”

Revelation 22:11

Leave a Response »

 

BIRDS OF A FEATHER Monday, Feb 20 2012

The future of every church, agency, and educational institution rests on its theological standard.  It’s not about a historical statement of faith or whatever creed an organization claims to adhere to.  As the years pass, those creeds become a façade, little more than a piece of advertising, while an organization’s real standard is about what they practice, teach, and represent.  Maintaining a historical standard can be very difficult, and sooner or later all human organizations tend to leave behind either a portion of or most of such standards.  One would expect that at that at the point of departure there would be an open admission of that change, but that usually is not the practice.

When a move away from an original position, it can be identified by several things.  The most obvious has to do with whom they “fly” with, because birds of a feather do stick together.  I am not talking here about general associations or being in the same room, so to speak.  This discussion is about giving a place of participation and respect to those who have moved further down the road toward error and, ultimately, liberalism.

Turning the platform, classroom, or leadership over to someone who holds error is the same as approving the error, because you cannot avoid the identification.  All one has to do is to follow the practice of accommodation, and you will know where a group is going theologically and, in the end, morally.

LOWERING THE THEOLOGICAL AND MORAL BAR

The problem of serious association is coupled with a second indication of a move to the left.  This problem is a failure to clearly identify doctrinal and moral issues, as well as a defense of theological accommodation.  A few illustrations will suffice.  The trend toward looking lightly on the cults has become popular.  The idea that Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism is not a cult is by no means new, but now there is a move afoot to view them as legitimate church groups.  Where someone comes down on this gives us a clear identification of where they are headed theologically; after all, the scholars have made this decision for us.

Eschatology seems to be the slippery slope for many.  It is a simple matter for the sleight-of-hand agent to gain respectability and move from one error to another.  This misdirection moves slowly, hoping not to be noticed.  Joining hands under the table like this is one way for a group to hide their move to the left.

In moral issues such as abortion, sodomy, and the use of alcohol, the race to accommodation varies.  Biblicists are often castigated for referring to abortion as murder, even though God’s Word is very clear on the subject.  This softening of language is very telling.  Even the word “sodomy” is forbidden amongst those who want the identification of sin to be made respectable.  Alcohol use is a perfect example of how hard people will work to ignore scripture in order to make sin acceptable.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING

There is no such thing as a single stand-alone error; one error simply leads to another. When one gives credence to one error, all you have to do is look for the others.  In front of me is an advertisement containing several names.  At least four of the persons listed here are known for at least one theological error, while others are known for their accommodation of those who hold error.  How could this happen to a self-proclaimed fundamentalist group?

The answer is in the third thing that identifies theological drift.  The people involved in the above simply say that the error is not an error, or that it is only a small error and not all that serious.  Even small moral and theological errors, however, are very dangerous. Once the small error is accommodated, it is not long until another more serious one finds a comfortable home.  James puts the progression this way:

…but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.  - James 1:14, 15

DENYING AND DEFENDING ERROR

Why would a professing fundamentalist deny or defend error?  The answer can be found in the common hermeneutic that they use.  The Reformed hermeneutic is flexible; it allows the interpreter freedom to adjust theology as he travels the road that leads left. This is the illustration I have used here before.  The hermeneutic that allows you to leave the any-moment catching away of the church, called the rapture, is the same hermeneutic that allows you to choose any eschatological error all the way to denying that there is such a thing as a Millennial Kingdom.

The three things that identify the accommodation of error are a warning to all of us.  We would do well to use care in the depth of our relationships, small and great, with those who have chosen respectable error.  We would do well to clearly identify erroneous theological and moral issues that lead to a chain of compromise.  We would be wise not to follow those who have today’s plethora of popular theological errors. Accommodating error is unwise, and denying it is serious; but defending it is sinful at best.  Let the bad examples of others be a good lesson to those of us who are committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture.

 

Leave a Response »

 

PLAIN TALK Monday, Feb 20 2012

If it is indeed true that words have meaning, then why is it that so often you can’t be sure what someone has just said?  I support the use of plain talk, not wanting anyone to doubt what I mean when I preach, teach, or write.  If we use words that have clear and strong meaning, people will know for sure what we are saying.  They may not like it, but they will know where we stand.

The problem is that often such clarity is not welcome in our world today.  Our culture is always searching for terms that will weaken true understanding.  It is frightening to realize that in the near future we may be required to use compromised words, and perhaps may even be punished by law if we are pointed and transparent in our speech.  Speaking the truth, in some cases, is already considered to be hate speech.  Our forefathers may have seen this coming when they wrote in stone, “The Freedom of Speech”.

WORD GAMES

It is one thing for our pagan society to attempt to force on all of us their secular religious views; it is, however, something else altogether when the dumbing-down of words is pressed on us by those who profess faith in Christ.  The impression we get is that we are supposed to do everything we can in an effort to be unclear.  I have just given you an illustration of this by using “pagan society” and “secular religious.”  It takes some concentrating on meaning and content to be able to understand those statements; but then, we are trapped in word games where everything is form, rather than meaning.

The word “murder” has a very clear definition, but we are forbidden to use it; instead, it has been replaced by “abortion”.  The word “sodomy” is strong and clear; but it, too, has been replaced by terms considered to be more respectable.  We are not allowed to use clear words like “socialism” and “treason.”  Polite people evidently are not comfortable with the truth.  You may have noted that “offensive” words have been removed from some hymn lyrics so that the sinner is painted in a more sensitive way.  This may be why so many sinners don’t think they’re all that bad and why it is that today we have so many unsaved members in our churches.

Preaching that deals with sin is now cast in an unfavorable light.  We are being told that it is not polite to talk about such things in public and that people need to be encouraged, not confronted.  Offending God has become the rule of the day, and it seems we are supposed to only say nice things about even the most heinous of sins.  Even the devil deserves measured speech, they say.

WHAT ABOUT LOVE

It has been argued that the use of clear terms demonstrates a lack of love toward the sinner.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We do not exhibit love when we leave people to wonder what we mean.  We do not express love when we let a lost man go to hell because his horrible condition was not made clear.  Fire is a plain, blunt word.  It may disturb people.  To fail to cry “fire” when a friend’s home is engulfed in flames in the middle of the night, though, is not love.  Plain talk does not offend God, but it does disturb those who see man at the center of all things.  There is something wrong with the love of man that does not begin with the love of God.  The love of God flows from His foundational attribute of holiness.  Truth precedes love, but you can’t have one without the other.

YOU MAY OFFEND SOMEONE

We have been lectured by those of a liberal mindset that doctrine is not an expression of love; it is divisive.  Of course it is; that is God’s point.  Doctrine divides truth from error and heaven from hell.  The gospel is offensive to the unbeliever who rejects it.  It is so offensive that “new gospels” have become part of the “error of the month” club.  The apostle Paul made the offence of the gospel plain:  “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (I Corinthians 1:18)

Plain talk allows people to know exactly where they stand.  Strong words lose their power when they are made nice.  Compromise has a down side.  If we are so pressed to be measured in our speech that we cloud the facts, why bother speaking at all?  An editor of one of my books wrote to me, “You certainly have a sharp pen!”  I love and respect that man and took that statement as a compliment.

It is argued, however, that you will turn people off and they will not listen to you if you use plain language.  It is not my task to convince people; that is the role of the Holy Spirit.  I don’t have to be cute in my conversation in order to be effective; I do have to be clear and plain.  It helps if our plain talk is about ideas, not about persons.  For instance, we should refer to liberalism as the ideas and not the liberal people themselves.  It also helps to remember that the liberal mind focuses on people, not on ideas or on God.  For the liberal system, everything is judged on how people will feel and what they may think.

A WORD OF CAUTION

There is a difference between using words that offend and being offensive, but that has to do with motive.  When we preach clearly about hell and judgment, we must not leave the impression that we are glad that people are going there.  We can use plain words with love.  Hearts that are open to the Spirit of God will sense our sincere grief over their lost state.  It is possible to hate sin as God does.  It is possible for us to love the lost with the love that God has expressed.  There is no conflict in this, which is why we sow the seed and water it with our tears, but it is God who gives the increase.

Leave a Response »

 

It’s all about hermeneutics Sunday, Oct 19 2008

This issue of the Shepherd’s Staff is once again coming to you from the Middle East. Our B.E.N. campus is near Alexandria, and I am reminded of the tragic history of this city. I am referring to the events at the end of the second century, at which time Clement of Alexandria and Origen led the community in surrender to a human-based system of hermeneutics, turning their backs on the one Biblical system. That plague has followed the church to this very day.

Our new students here have almost no understanding of a hermeneutic that is Biblical, and for this reason hermeneutics is the first subject taught in each degree program. The most amazing transformation takes place when the students learn to see for themselves that a Biblical interpretation flows directly from the Bible! These servants of Christ are then able to own theology, as they finally understand how to gather the truth that was placed in Scripture at the time of its writing.

I have often said that what a person believes troubles me less than how he arrived at his position. The one Biblical hermeneutic will lead the Bible student to the truth. All other systems are equal in that they lead away from the truth; all error flows from an errant hermeneutic.

FACING THE PROBLEM

We live in a day when we can expect very often to hear of “the theological error of the month”. It is almost impossible to keep up with all the new ideas being proposed by so-called scholars. I will have to admit that many of them are brilliant intellectuals, but they have something in common with the history of Alexandria: their new theologies are nothing more an unabashed self-license to rewrite the Bible text.

The confusion is only accelerated by the plethora of new hermeneutical systems being proposed; however, in the end they all end in the same flawed theology. Small wonder that those on the left despise the issue of hermeneutics, because anything that simplifies the process would be anathema to their system. The goal of theological compromise is to “complicate to confuse”, while the Biblicist’s goal is to “simplify to clarify”.

GET TO THE POINT

The focus of this issue is on the fact that doctrine and theology are secondary to the process one uses to discover and confirm that theology. A breadth of background information and content consideration is essential to sound theology. On the other hand, just pouring a mountain of information into a student cannot produce continuing theological integrity. Such a student ends up with lots of information, but he still may not know how to lift from the text a theology that is Biblical. It is imperative that the student understands, and is skilled in, the science of interpretation by the one hermeneutic that is Biblical.

It would seem obvious, since the majority of hermeneutical systems are flawed, that the final product would in most cases be erroneous. In the final analysis, the normal, plain, consistent, literal hermeneutic stands alone as the guide to truth. This hermeneutic, of course, rests upon the grammatical, contextual, and historical setting of the specific text.

There is but one primary goal in this process, and that is the glory of God. Any other goal is secondary, no matter if it is ministry, missions, evangelism, or redemptive themes because, in the final evaluation, these all turn toward man and not toward God. That is also why man-centered theology elevates love above the holiness of God as its absolute guide.

THE TRUTH THAT FLOWS FROM THE TEXT

With all this in mind, my advice would be for every church to begin a program of systematic teaching of how to extract truth from the Bible text. Some preachers, I realize, might even feel threatened by knowing there were people in their pews that could measure the truthfulness of their teaching! Personally, I would be thrilled to teach people who could identify error because they knew how to get truth out of the Holy Scriptures.

Leave a Response »

 

Great minds great ideas Sunday, Oct 19 2008

It is often said that “great minds discuss ideas, and weak minds discuss people”. In my writing, I find it very difficult to leave out the names of people. After all, people have ideas; and we tend to connect the two. The difficulty lies in the fact that the minute a name is mentioned, the reader tends to lose focus on the idea.

Recently, I have heard several people make that mistake. What do you do when two people are running for public office and neither one of them, from our point of view, is qualified? The emotional responses are easy: “I will just stay home; “I won’t vote”; or “Now is the time to vote for a fringe candidate”. That would be all right if people were the issue, but government is about ideas and principles rather than people. Can we really make these very important decisions based on frail, fallible humans? If so, I would never vote.

The Curse in the Local Church

If I can claim expertise in any area, it is that of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. This comes not only from experience gained by thirty-seven years in the pastorate, but also from much research, study, teaching, and publishing. What I have discovered is that local churches very often are all about people, not ideas. The emerging and emergent churches have begun their cultural tsunami on this shifting sand. The traditional church has been mired in the same problem for years, and as a result is finding it easy to fall into man-centered worship and ministry.

Of all the church splits I can remember, only a handful were due to differences concerning biblical truth, theology, doctrine, and ideas. In most cases, those church fights were about people. This is the very reason the majority of our churches fail to experience spiritual or physical growth. Perhaps we should ask, is it possible to grow a church built on truth, doctrine, theology, and biblical ideas?

An Application

And now, with all this in mind, how will you decide whom to vote for? The problem is that there has never been a perfect candidate. Give me a name, and I can find some moral, spiritual, or social failure. You will have to admit that every candidate for whom you have ever voted was in some way flawed. Some are better than others, of course, but all are flawed; so that at least makes the playing field level.

Choosing leaders or servants becomes much easier when we base our choices on ideas. For a believer, the decision is basic. While we normally base it on “what I think”, “what I believe”, “what I want”, and “what I like”, that suddenly turns into a human focus. I am pleading for a godly focus.

The question we should be asking is this: “What has God clearly said in His Word?” This is assuming, of course, that we know what the Bible has set down as the final word on each issue. In our circles, many people – both in the pew and in the pulpit – know about the Bible, but fail to really know the Bible. This, then, is how we should make our decision: consider ideas – what God has said, and not just what we think He has said.

Some Key Ideas

Forget the names of the candidates. Instead, discover what their ideas are, and then compare them to God’s standard. Make a list, a long list, and then decide what ideas we are obligated to support no matter how flawed a certain candidate may be. You may argue that you can’t separate the two; but if that is true, you have missed the whole point of this lesson.

What are some of these issues? How can I test a candidate’s ideas? During my years in the pastorate, just prior to any major election, I would choose to preach an election message. (Don’t get me started!) This was after the pattern of early colonial pastors.[1] The message was not about people or parties, only about ideas, some of which were marriage, capital punishment, abortion, infanticide, sodomy, war, morality, authority, and separation of church and state.

To miss the point, one would have had to be asleep or have a false allegiance to a political party or an unnatural attraction to a person. So, I have made up my mind. If this election were only about people, I would stay home or choose some ineffective fringe candidate in order to make my personal point. As for me, I intend to speak for truth and for ideas. The flawed candidate who is closest to God’s perspective on truth gets my nod. How easy is that lesson? Now, it is time for you to take the exam. Don’t fret – I will not be grading your exam; I have no right to do that. God Himself will do the grading.

---

[1] Headly, J.T. The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution. New York: Charles Scribner, 1864

Leave a Response »

 

Why is it so hard to tell the truth? Sunday, Oct 19 2008

Recuperating from a third heart catheterization does have its advantages. My stack of reading material had grown to a dangerous height, and now I finally have time to begin chipping away at it. In the World magazine (May 17-24, 2008) I came across three articles about three different educational institutions that are in a state of upheaval over personnel issues. In each case some of their professors were now on the outside looking in. Two of them were familiar stories; I had already read reports from both sides of their conflicts.

This whole issue is not new, and I have personally observed the phenomena on a number of occasions. On this particular day, I quickly picked up another half dozen issues of the magazine. World is one of only two magazines that I buy. As I thumbed through it, I pulled out several more articles, all with the same theme – two sides to the same story. How could that be? Someone had to be telling the truth, and that meant that someone else must have been lying. You could argue that they just represent two different perspectives. I would think, though, that even with two points of view the conclusion should the same. After all, there can be only one true conclusion.

Were those professors on the outside because of their beliefs? Then say so; just be honest about it. It is not wrong for an institution to fire someone for his beliefs, but that institution should tell the truth about the situation. Smoke screens are not hard to identify, and they only confuse the issue. Don’t say the person was “unreasonable” or “uncooperative”; say he refused to back down on his beliefs. He may even be wrong about his beliefs, but tell the truth and clear the air. Don’t say the professor didn’t publish enough and then leave it there, even if that is true. If the truth is that the institution has made a hard turn to the left, and as a result the person in question got in the way, just say so. Why is it so hard to tell the truth? We all know already what the real issue is, so have the integrity to stand for what you believe; stop the spin.

The skin of the truth, stuffed with a lie

People who major in truth-telling will always be castigated. They are not welcome in evangelicalism or in much of fundamentalism. They are criticized as being arrogant, acting as though they are the only ones who have the truth. Even when you are just asking questions in an effort to get to the truth, you will be viewed as negative. Liberalism calls this “hate speech” and “radical”, but then it goes on to practice the very same thing. Finally, those who persist in truth- telling will be condemned for their passion. The accusation is, “you always sound mad” or “can’t you present something edifying?” Since when is truth no longer edifying?

In our circle of ministry, how often is the truth really told when someone leaves an organization or a church? Everyone smiles and says nice things, but the truth lies buried, because the truth hurts. Of course it does. It is supposed to, but it hurts only those with wrongs that have not been made right. I am fully aware that there are often matters that should not be made public. In discipline, the information only goes as far as the circle of infraction; discipline, however, is not the subject here.

Could it be that the hurt caused by using the skin of truth goes far beyond the sting of the truth? For instance, a pastor resigns and the excuse is “my ministry is finished here”. Of course it is finished, but why? The real answer is hardly ever discussed, and as a result the next pastor is “finished” before he ever begins. Twenty-two years ago my book on church polity, The Weeping Church, was published, and it is still in print. The book was a plea about “confronting the crisis of church polity”, and the crisis has not changed in all these years.

Why does a person move on? Perhaps he said it was the “will of God”, and who can argue against that; but why was it the will of God? It is amazing how many things we blame on God. Some folks spend their whole lives avoiding conflict. In fact, I don’t like personal conflict myself, but I love analytical and critical thinking that seeks to put thoughts in their proper place. What I write in this journal is meant to incite discussion. Discussing ideas like those above makes my day! I like to enter into such discussions with drive and passion, and I enjoy those who submit to careful observation. I don’t condemn timid folks who are afraid to enter the debate, and I appreciate those who refuse to condemn me for pointing the light toward dark corners.

Two different sets of standards

One of the things I observed in reading the stack of articles on this subject was not only the arrogance displayed in covering the truth, but the hypocrisy of unequal application. Every institution involved in this fray is familiar to me, and each one holds to academic freedom…at least on paper. On the other hand, in almost every one of these institutions such freedom was extended only to those who were willing to toe the line.

This is not about obedience to policies and procedures. The conflict is over ideas, and in many cases it’s about a theology that is biblical. One of the professors I read about was ousted because of his view of intelligent design. That particular institution is secular in perspective and has every right to choose unintelligent design as their model for origin, but they can’t claim academic freedom with any integrity.

Even in a place that is well known for its conservative theology, people are being sacked when the convenient financial crisis arises; but the truth lies buried. I try to follow the ministry of conservative ministries and academic institutions. I have been asked from time to time how it is that once-solid institutions end up veering to the left. It almost never happens because of their statement of faith; rather, it happens when the people in that ministry begin to take a low view of biblical truth. It begins by having personnel who are willing to shade the truth. The next step is usually the accommodation of error, or truth and error side by side. In the end, truth is not welcome and anyone who attempts to take a firm stand will find himself on the outside looking in.

Don’t expect it be any different in the future. Again I ask…why is it so hard to tell the truth?

Leave a Response »