How You Can Accept Barak Obama As President

Christ and culture will always be at war until Christ returns as judge to restore all things. Nowhere is this more evident than in the words of Jesus in John 3:19, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." Since culture influences people, and people become governors, all systems of man-led government will move further into corruption as it's people become more wicked. Paul also emphasizes the contrast between culture and Christ when he commands believers not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2). Finally, John provides a strict word to followers of Christ imploring them not to love "the world nor the things in the world," which he says is evidence that the love of the Father is not present (John 2:15).

But are we then simply to always rebel against culture and the governmental systems of this world? The answer is no. Here lies the paradox. A believer is to submit to the government whenever it is possible, whether that government is good or evil, and to submit to it's leaders as if they were God's representatives. God is no less restricted in His ability to use wicked rulers than He is good and just leaders. Indeed He even calls Nebuchadnezzar, a wicked and idolatrous king, "My servant" (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6). However, at the same time a believer's ultimate allegiance is not to the king, the judge, or this world but to Christ. So then, anything that forces a believer to violate the Law of God is to be opposed (Acts 4:1-31). Such is the picture that is presented in the book of Acts. Believers did not try to have the laws changed to allow them freedom, they simply obeyed God whenever there was a conflict and accepted the consequences as good citizens.

If such is the case, then why is the church so concerned over, and devoting so much time to who is elected and what laws are passed? Can God not work around unbelievers just as much as through believers? Is His plan any less accomplished with Barak Obama as President than it would be with John McCain or Mike Huckabee? Further, how is it that it has become a normative practice in the church to force biblical principles and laws upon a lost nation? I am amazed at how believers complain about the law and say it is unfair that many laws are imposed upon them by a lost world but will quickly turn around and impose their law upon the lost (i.e. abolition, or the closing of stores on Sunday). Yet God has given every man the right to choose Him or deny Him. So then why is the church comitted to forcing men to obey Him who have chosen to deny Him? For most the answer is that America is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles which must be reinstated. Let me make something very clear, this nation has never been a Christian nation. This nation was founded upon the principle that there would be no official religion or established religion, but that everyone would be free to worship based upon their choice. So then, attempting to make this nation "Christian" is contrary both to the right of free choice that God has given to each man and to the intentions of the founding fathers.

That said, here is the point of all of these posts. I believe and am convinced, based upon the Word of God, that as believers we must pray for, support, encourage, and accept Barak Obama as God's appointed leader of this nation just as we would have any other man. We must not complain if laws are passed which hinder our religious freedom because ultimately our allegiance is to God and we must serve Him first. In such cases we must disobey any law that hinders our obedience to the Law of God (I do not mean any law we do not agree with, but rather any law which forces us not to obey one of God's laws) and accept the consequences of our actions. We must strive to set a faithful witness not as people who are constantly complaining about the woes of society, but as people who faithfully obey the government and serve God. After all, our ultimate responsibility is not to change the state of this world, but to lead the people of this world to Christ. Once we understand that, who is elected and what laws are passed will seem inconsequential to us because we realize that this is not our home, this is not our world, these are not our rulers, and we ultimately belong to and serve a God who transcends everything that we see.

If Only I Could Change The World

There is perhaps nothing more disturbing today than the movement of modern evangelical Christians toward a political worldview rather than a biblical worldview.  These people will believe Christ, teach His Word, and vote based upon biblical mandates, but at the same time look to the world's system of government to solve their problems.  And if that government cannot solve their problems then their responsibility is to change that government to fit what they believe.

Now let me state a few caveats before we examine this belief further.  First, I am not saying in anyway that Christians should not vote.  It is their responsibility to participate in their government and be dutiful citizens.  Second, I am not saying that at times the government will not be changed to reflect biblical principles.  Certainly this can be the case, and has been, throughout history; although these times are fleeting.  Third, I am not saying that we should not pray for our leaders or our government for indeed Paul commanded such things (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

In 1951 Richard Niebuhr wrote a book entitled "Christ and Culture."  His book presented 5 possible explanations for how Christ relates to culture: (1) Christ against culture - a radical view where believers oppose any government and only follow Christ; (2) Christ of culture - a radical view where Christ is experienced through culture and Christian doctrine is remove in order to create unity; (3) Christ above culture - a view where God still has control over culture; (4) Christ and culture in paradox - a view where Christ and culture cannot be reconciled because of sin and therefore continue to exist side by side but always in opposition to each other; (5) Christ transforming culture - a view where believers actively try to change culture to fit biblical mandates through Christ.  The predominant view held by most evangelicals is "Christ transforming culture."  It is this view that causes them to do everything in their power to change laws, officials, and governments to fit Scripture.

As I noted in my previous post I do not believe that this was the thinking of the Apostles, the early church, or of Christ.  Here are several reasons why this view is not biblical.  First, while Christ ultimately will transform culture when He renews all things, at current Christ is not the ruler of this world.  While He owns this world it is currently under the authority of Satan (Matthew 4:8-9; 2 Corinthians 4:4).  Second, this world is not the home of the believer, but rather the home of those living in darkness (John 8:12-24).  Believers are pilgrims traveling through this world who maintain citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20).  Third, if Christians are to follow or transform a culture which is controlled by Christ then rebellion against that culture would ultimately be rebellion against Christ and His authority.  This would then contradict the practice of Peter and John in Acts 4.  Fourth, this view assumes that it is reasonable and just to force morality (or even religious morality) upon unbelievers.  It is exactly this sentiment that produced forced conversions by Augustine and the Crusades of the Middle Ages.  Ironically, many believers are fine enforcing their morality on those who do not believe, but complain when the morals of unbelievers are forced on them (Note: This does not mean that some issues of morality should not be mandatory for all people, such as a ban of abortions which result in the murder of those who cannot defend themselves - this is an issue of justice not of forcing religious morality).  Finally, the major problem with this view is the reality that this world will continue to get worse.  The depravity of man will become more gross, sin will continue to proliferate, and the nations will continue to reject God until He finally comes to bring judgment to them (Revelation 7-19).

My hope is that through reading this post you will consider very carefully how you act and what you say in regard to the government of this world.  It is long past time for us to stop waging a political war to legislate morality and time for us to take the Gospel and wage a spiritual war over souls that are lost.  Next time I will present a case for why I think the "Christ and culture in paradox" view is the biblical picture and how this will impact our thinking.

Why Does It Matter So Much Who Is Elected Anyway?

Today I went to place my vote for the President of the United States (among many other things).  All this week I have been receiving emails, phone calls, and mail alerting me to the fact that if Obama is elected the world will end (well, maybe not that drastic, but they were certainly close!).  I have heard that if Obama is elected abortions will increase (as if that could happen - the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is what decides those matters), that Christians will be persecuted (might not be such a bad thing), and that immorality will proliferate (exactly what is prophesied of the end times in Scripture anyway).  Now let me make one thing clear.  I did not vote for Barak Obama.  However, neither did I vote for John McCain.  Every time an abortive embryonic stem-cell research bill has been on the floor of the Senate he has supported such procedures.  That is just as much abortion as taking the life of an infant in the womb.  As a result, I went with another candidate who I believe to be more in line with biblical values and principles.  Can he win?  No, but that isn't the point.  If winning was the ultimate end then many moral decisions would be passed over because they aren't popular.

Now, let me get to the point of this post.  The point is not whether it was better to vote for McCain or some other candidate (I will assume that you did not vote for Obama who is clearly in favor of free unabated abortions), but rather in how much followers of Christ are clinging to this world.  Throughout this week I have heard the woes of many believers who think that the world will come to an end if Obama is elected.  I have seen worry, distress, fear, and anxiety, all over something that doesn't really matter.

This world, this government, and this economy do not belong to believers or to the church.  Their world, their government, and their economy is in Heaven.  It is stable, it is flourishing, it is growing, it is abundant, it is unconquerable, and it always provides an increase.  Why then would believers have so much anxiety over a place, a people, a world, a system, and a leader that does not belong to them?  Will God be in any less control if Obama is elected over McCain or if McCain is elected over Obama?  Will his plan be thwarted in any way by a mere man?  Was his plan any less accomplished when Nebuchadnezzar, or Darius, or Caesar, or Nero, or Hitler, or Stalin were in power?  The answer to all of these questions is no.  So then, why are believers so concerned about who leads this nation?  To be quite honest, this world, it's government, and it's economy are all under the authority of Satan anyway.  Satan offered them to Jesus because they are temporarily in his stewardship.  Now that is not to say that we should not endeavor to change these things.  We should vote, we should participate in our government, and we should strive to see justice and morality proliferate, but we must understand that these things will not be accomplished politically.  The only way to fight a spiritual enemy is with a spiritual weapon, the gospel.

In the end, what it all comes down to is the simple fact that far too many believers are too closely tied to this world rather than to the kingdom of Heaven.  Their concerns are here, now, with this economy, this leader, and this nation.  As a result, they are more concerned about winning a person's vote than winning person's soul.  This all stems from the belief that role of the believer is to change culture through Christ.  However, as I will demonstrate next time, I do not believe that this was how Jesus or the church proceeded in the New Testament, nor do I believe that this is the message of Scripture.  So until then, think on these things as you sit up till all hours of the night counting every single vote to see who will rule a world that isn't ours.

And The Two Became One

God's Sovereignty is absolutely essential.  Man's responsibility is absolutely essential.  To deny or dilute either of these concepts is unbiblical and will result in greater confusion.  But how is it possible to combine two issues that are seemingly incompatible?  It is only possible to understand how these concepts work together when the whole picture is presented from start to finish.  Since God is one there can be no division or competition in Him.  Neither can there be any inconsistency in Him since He is perfect.  Because of the seeming inconsistencies that are presented it is important to attempt to unify these two concepts as biblically and logically as possible so that the character and actions of God may be vindicated.  Obviously this is not always possible because man's ability to understand an infinite God is limited by his finiteness, but even still there are some things that can be understood because God has revealed Himself to man through His Word.  That said, here is what I believe is a biblical model for salvation that explains how God works and man responds in the process of salvation.

(Before the foundation of the world - Sovereignty and Responsibility)

God foreknows all events including the choices and actions of man

God chooses a world (series of actions and reactions) out of all the possibilities

God predestines that world to occur, as well as those who are saved to be saved and those who are lost to be lost based upon His foreknowledge of all things

(At salvation - Sovereignty and Responsibility)

God draws man unto salvation through the Holy Spirit

Man responds in consistency with what God foreknew, but at the same time uncoerced

God seals those who respond with the Holy Spirit

Now, let me break each section down.  Before the foundation of the world God knows everything that will happen.  Obviously God could not choose something if He did not know what to choose, so everything begins with His foreknowledge.  He knows all events that will happen, and He also knows all events that could happen (this is called "Middle Knowledge").  In other words, God knows each of His possible actions, as well as each possible reaction from man and the world.  For instance, God knows that if He does A on a certain day that you will do B, while if He does C then you will do D, and so on an so forth.  Needless to say this knowledge creates an unfathomable amount of possibilities.  Each of these sets of possibilities is called a "book" or a "world".  Now understand that these are all only possibilities, not actuality.  Before the foundation of the world He knew each of these possible worlds (series of outcomes) and chose the one that was best (best is hard to define, but we know that God only creates the best things possible from Genesis 1, so we might define best as relating to the greatest number of disciples or some other criteria - how we define best is another discussion).  The world that was best was the one that He actualized and the one that we live in.  This world, all of its events, and those who would respond to Christ and choose to reject Him was then predestined to occur.  Based upon these things it is quite easy to say that God is sovereign.

At salvation God draws man unto Himself.  God always initiates salvation (Romans 3).  However, God does not force men to be saved or lost otherwise He would be unjust in rewarding them or punishing them for what He forced them to do.  The fact that they are predestined also does not force men to receive Christ or deny Him in the sense that they are unaware of God's plan.   So then, they make an uncoerced decision either to receive Christ or reject Him.  They will resond free, but at the same time they will respond consistently (unaware) with what God has foreknown, actualized and predestined.  After they choose to receive Him they are then sealed by the Holy Spirit so that they cannot be lost.  Now some might argue that those who are sealed are forced to be saved and cannot retract their decision, however Scripture is clear that those who do not desire to follow Christ to the end were never sealed to begin with (Revelation 3:5).  The Bible is also very clear that many will appear to be saved, but in the end will truly be revealed as lost (Matthew 7:21-23).  Based upon these things it is quite easy to say that man is responsible for his decision to receive Christ or reject Christ.

When these two concepts are presented together, in their biblical forms, it is quite possible (and even beneficial) to present a doctrine that does not divide.  So then, my plea to you would be to understand, as best as possible, how God has intricately woven the fabric of sovereignty and responsibility and look at the coin as heads and tails instead of heads or tails.  When this is done I think that the church will be much better suited to address more pressing issues such as the lostness of this world.

Why Responsibility Is Necessary

Moral responsibility, or free choice as it has been called (I prefer moral responsibility because it suggests that we have the right to choose actions that are either moral or immoral, whereas free choice assumes that we can make choices in regard to anything - clearly there are choices we cant make such as becoming invisible, flying, etc.), actually fits the character of God better than a world without any moral choice.  Most people look at moral responsibility as if it works against God.  They argue that God must be limited if He cannot control man's actions.  However, last time it was argued that things that go against the nature and character of God do not count against His sovereignty, otherwise there could not be such a thing as sovereignty (sovereignty is self-contradictory without some parameters).

Without any moral responsibility it would be impossible to see God as truly holy.  The bane of absolute sovereignty is the question of the origin of sin.  If man is not responsible for making his own free choices in regard to morality then where did sin originate?  If man did not make the choice to sin then someone or something else made that choice for him.  Now, it can be argued, as many have attempted and failed, that Satan caused man to sin.  However, this is circular.  If Satan caused man to sin then who caused Satan to sin?  Even noted pastor and author R.C. Sproul has been forced to admit that without moral responsibility there is no answer to this question.  However, he is wrong.  There is a solution; it is just not one that opponents of moral responsibility want to take.  Apart from a concept such as moral responsibility, where free creatures make moral choices, the only other possible solution for the origination of sin is God.  However, Scripture is clear that this is impossible (James 1:13-18).  So then, the elimination of moral responsibility compromises a case for the holiness of God because He then becomes the originated, proprietor, and dispenser of sin.

It is clear throughout Scripture that God offers man the right and responsibility to choose moral actions (Joshua 24:15; Acts 7:51-53).  Conversely, when man does not choose moral actions he chooses immoral actions (amoral actions aside).  These moral choices are what justify and vindicate the character of God.  How can God righteously judge and sentence to Hell men who committed acts of immorality that they were forced to commit?  If God forced men either to be righteous or unrighteous, and such a person must argue if moral responsibility is eliminated, then how can God be considered just for sentencing sins that He forced His creatures to commit?  This does not meet any definition of justice known and is illogical.  However, if God gave men a choice, either to choose Him or to reject Him, and men chose to reject Him and do what was contradictory to His character and nature, then He would have no choice but to punish such men because God, being perfect, cannot tolerate anti-God (what is against Him).  Further, He would be just in His judgment because they chose their own actions and fate.

So then, moral responsibility defends the holiness of God, righteousness of His judgments, and necessity of punishment and Hell.  Any system that removes this concept will struggle seeing God as holy, just, and loving because the burden of sin must ultimately fall on Him.  Further, any doctrine that seeks to eliminate moral responsibility must be rejected because it calls into question the character of God.  There are only two options for sin: Either God forced it, or man chose it.  If God forced it then He is unjust and a liar (because of James 1:13).  If man chose it then He is just and men deserve the repercussions of their actions.  Next time we will conclude this discussion by bringing the concepts of sovereignty and responsibility together to form one cohesive picture.

Why Sovereignty Is Necessary

For most opponents of Calvinism the doctrine of God's sovereignty is a particularly frustrating doctrine primarily because it is seen in either of its two extremes.  That is to say, either God controls absolutely everything, and thus free choice is nullified, or God is not in control of everything, and thus Scripture is nullified.  However, this is a false dilemma (a logical fallacy where only two options are assumed possible when in reality there are other options).  When such limitations are placed upon the sovereignty of God it is no wonder that few want to discuss this doctrine.  The results of such discussion would be frustration and confusion, as well as a polarization of opposing sides and arguments.  However, I would argue that it is possible to choose both the sovereignty of God and the free responsibility of man.  Sadly many opponents of Calvinism seem to choose the latter of the two options simply because it is the opposite of the Calvinism argument and provides a better ground for free choice.  This is detrimental because Scripture is nullified when arguments attempt to deny or dilute the sovereignty of God.

God is sovereign, of this Scripture is clear.  He is before all things (Col. 1:17), above all things (Eph. 4:6), knows all things (Ps. 147:5), rules all things (1 Chron. 29:11-12), sustains all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) and controls all things (Job 42:2).  However, it is important to understand sovereignty as it is portrayed in Scripture.  Sovereignty does not biblically mean that God can do absolutely anything.  In fact, quite the contrary.  There are many things God cannot do that are listed in the Bible.  He cannot cease to exist (Rev. 22:13), cease to be God (Ps. 90:2), sin (1 John 1:5), or tempt (James 1:13) to name a few.  God cannot do any of these things because they contradict His nature.  However, it is important to note that none of these things count against the sovereignty of God because to do them would contradict Himself (i.e. sinning would contradict His holiness and make Him unholy).  He is able to do all things that are consistent with His character and nature.  This in no way is "limited" sovereignty because the ability to do absolutely everything is self-contradictory (a thing cannot be red and blue at the same time, a sum cannot be 2 and 5 at the same time, etc.)

This point is crucial to understand because it reveals how sovereignty and free choice are not mutually exclusive but rather completely compatible.  Since God cannot do what contradicts His character or nature then He cannot override a free and moral choice made by one of His free creatures, and yet is still completely sovereign.  Because God has made man free, to override his freedom (either by force or coercion) would contradict His creative nature.  God only creates things that are perfect.  If He were to override what He had created perfect then that would imply that there is an inconsistency or imperfection in the creative nature of God.  If God would need to override a free creature then why was He made free in the beginning?  This kind of reasoning would suggest that God made a mistake and is rectifying His error, which is impossible because God cannot make mistakes.  So then, moral freedom in human beings is consistent with the sovereignty of God.  He maintains absolute sovereignty, while at the same time human beings maintain moral responsibility and freedom of choice.

However, please do not think that God's sovereignty is limited to man's free choice.  Indeed, He has many things that He can do to woo, persuade, convince, and convict men in regard to their choice.  It would also be wrong to say that God is not sovereign over the events of this world, the actions of men, or the combination of these things.  This will be revealed in more detail when we conclude by drawing sovereignty and responsibility together.  Next time we will examine why moral responsibility, or free choice as it has been called, is absolutely necessary. 

Calvinism And Misunderstandings

I was unable to find an article to comment on this month and so I have decided to divert my attention to a doctrine that I have noticed is particularly divisive.  This doctrine seems to divide more churches, turn more friends into enemies, and splinter and fracture the unity of Scripture (not that Scripture is not unified in it's message, but that it is portrayed in one-sided arguments) than perhaps any other doctrine.  The doctrine that I speak of is Calvinism.  For those of you unfamiliar with this discussion allow me a minute to set the stage.  Essentially, the major questions revolve around God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.  If God is completely sovereign then how can man make free choices?  Conversely, if man does not have the ability to choose to sin then how can he be held accountable for his actions?  These questions, and more, are common questions that believers are wrestling with as they study the Scriptures.

Calvinism, unfortunately, is being heatedly debated by many believers who are not biblically, spiritually, or intellectually ready to tackle such issues.  As a result, when unable to present reasonable points, summations, and responses many believers become angry and as a result heatedly defend a "position" rather than making sound arguments.  This results in seeing the position as more important than the other person.  Eventually, it is only a matter of time until attacks against an individual's "position" are taken personally and a great divide is formed between two Christians who once were good friends.  However, I would like to personally point out that Calvinism is not a deal breaker, it is not a hill to die on, and it is not a discussion that should be divisive (unless it is taken in either of its more radical forms - Armenianism, where a person can lose salvation and works to keep it; or Hyper-Calvinism, where free choice is completely eliminated and thus everything is predetermined and forced by God).  I have many good friends who stand on the other side of the fence in regard to this discussion, and I respect their opinions, study of Scripture, and search for the truth in God's Word.  We understand that ultimately, even knowing Greek, Hebrew, and Philosophy, will still not prepare us to completely understand these things because it is impossible for a finite being to understand the mind and workings of an infinite God.

However, that does not mean that we cannot understand the biblical picture of sovereignty and responsibility, or that we should not attempt to understand these things.  God has revealed to us many things about these issues in His Word and desires that we study these things so that we may gain a better understanding of Him and of ourselves.  That said, let me present the direction I am going to take in addressing this issue throughout the next month.  I believe, and will show, that God's sovereignty is 100% necessary and that man's responsibility is 100% necessary.  Any position that tries to deny or dilute either of these essentials is unbiblical.  My hope is to post 3 more times on this issue.  First, I would like to show the necessity of God's sovereignty in light of what Scripture teaches.  Second, I would like to show how man's responsibility results in accountability for good and evil, and how this ultimately serves as the justification for God's judgments.  Finally, I would like to tie these two principles together and spend a little time bridging the gap between these two camps so that believers may be unified in Christ as He intended (Eph. 4).  It is my hope that you will listen, think, and question your own view.  After all, an unexamined view is not worth having.  These postings are not mean to be a forum for divisiveness, but rather a balm of healing for both sides to understand, appreciate, and love one another and see that there is more common ground than unfriendly territory because we all serve the same God.

What Are You Doing That You Consider Meaningful?

This month I want to take a break from reviewing articles and critiquing philosophies and address a significant question.  The question is this, "What are you doing that you consider meaningful?"  The #1 question that is being asked by people today is, "What can I do that is meaningful and has purpose?"

I want you to take just a moment and answer this question.  Perhaps you might even make a list of the things you do that you consider meaningful.  Now, having made that list let me pose another question, "Which of these things that you consider meaningful REQUIRES Gods presence to be accomplished?"  In other words, what do you consider meaningful that really doesn't necessitate any major step of faith or any amazing act of God to accomplish?  Perhaps what I am really asking is this, "Is it time for us to completely reevaluate what we consider meaningful and align that idea with what God considers meaningful?"  If there is one thing that is consistently praised throughout Scripture it is faith (Matt. 8:10; 9:2; Luke 7:50; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 1:15-16; Heb. 11).  Respectively, if there is one thing that is condemned throughout Scripture it is a lack of faith (Matt. 17:19-20; Mark 6:5-6; 1 Tim. 4:1).

Now this is where things get a little tricky.  Is it possible that there are things on your list that you consider meaningful, and that necessitate God, which you really never expect God to be present to help you accomplish?  Here are some examples.  We all pray, and we know that prayer necessitates God, but how many times do we pray expecting God to be present, attentive, and working at the very moment we pray?  We are called to share the Gospel, and we know that the Holy Spirit must speak through our witness, but how many times do we share the Gospel not really thinking that God needs to be involved in this work?  We all read the Bible, and we know that the Holy Spirit illumines us to understand the text, but how often do we read without asking God to speak to us, teach us, convict us, and conform us to His Son by revealing Himself to us in our reading? The point that I want to make is this: We all do "spiritual" things that we, and God, consider meaningful never really expecting God to be present.  We pray, share the Gospel, read the Bible, and perform a host of other "spiritual" tasks without faith in God actually working while we are doing the very thing that we consider meaningful.

Life is too short to waste doing things that have no purpose, and the danger for followers of Christ is getting trapped in the mindset that they are doing something meaningful, when in reality they are not doing anything meaningful because they aren't completely dependent on God.  Prayer, evangelism, and Bible study are meaningless without a dependence upon Christ.  It is time that believers break away from the tradition of doing what has always been done and the routine of doing what they have always done to pursue an intimate, thriving, faith-filled life in Christ.

The Danger Of Being Happy, Healthy, And Wealthy

It is pretty safe to assume that most people have prayed that God would heal them of some sort of physical ailment.  Many people, and statistics prove this to be true, have also prayed that God would give them a promotion or some desire that they feel life would be incomplete without.  However, most people don't ever stop to consider the consequences of getting what they want.  Perhaps the old saying is true, "When you get what you want you won't want what you got."

If that wasn't helpful then perhaps a turn to English literature might help illustrate this point.  In 1902 W. W. Jacobs wrote a short story called "The Monkey's Paw."  This story illustrates the danger of wishing without thinking.  A man gets a monkey's paw that has the ability to grant wishes, however he is warned not to wish for anything because the paw is cursed and there will be grave consequences.  Herbert refuses to listen and wishes for a sum of money to pay for his house.  He is granted the money after his son is tragically mutilated in a machinery accident.  His wife, also not thinking before wishing, wishes for her son to be brought back to life.  Sometime later her son arrives at their door, mutilated and disfigured.  The couple quickly wishes him dead again.  In the end the moral of the story is that wishes can be harmful.

The same is true with desiring happiness, health, and wealth.  Each of these in the wrong time or in the wrong way can be spiritually detrimental to an individual.  Achieving happiness can often come at the expense of successful ministry.  Some of the greatest ministries that are achieved require toil, sweat, blood, and suffering.  Only through intense agony is a great victory achieved.  So many of the Prophets and Apostles could have wished for happiness but instead they asked for holiness and strength to be faithful.  Paul was not told at his conversion that he would have happy days ahead but that he would be shown how much he would have to suffer for the name of Christ (Acts 9:16).

Wishing for health is perhaps the most danger of all of these desires.  Many people pray for health and never think about the reason for their prayer.  When you prayed for healing did you pray to be healed so that you would be comfortable or so that you would be effective in ministry?  Most prayers for healing revolve around personal comfort.  And yet C.S. Lewis has rightly said that "pain is the megaphone that God uses to get our attention."  Could it be that asking for healing might be physically comforting and spiritually condemning?  Can you think back to the numerous times you have been afflicted and seen God draw you closer to Him in those times?  Someone once said that the servant that God uses greatly is the one whom He wounds deeply.

Last, praying for wealth can very easily drive a person further and further from Christ.  It is quite obvious that Jesus believed that wealth could be an opposing god when He called it "Mammon," which is representative of a pagan god (Matthew 6:24).  The more you have in this world the more you are attached to this world.  Think about it.  A bigger house, a nicer car, and more toys all require more maintenance and more money to upkeep or replace.  Having all of these toys (and often we are all guilty of calling them "necessities") then requires more time spent at work to acquire the money to purchase and maintain each of these things.  And so the cycle goes on and on and on.  This is exactly why Jesus says in Matthew 7:25, "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.  Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?"

Praying for happiness, health, and wealth may sound good, and there certainly may be times where these are valid and reasonable requests, but they can also be traps that tie you to this world and drive you further away from Christ.  So the next time you are about to pray for any of these stop, take a moment, and think about why you are asking that prayer.  Is it for your own personal benefit or does it benefit Christ?  Is there a monkey's paw curse attached to your request that will keep you from being drawn closer to Christ and spiritually matured?  If there is then it might be best to simply let the wish go, suffer joyfully, and learn to be more reliant upon God for the strength you need for each day.  2 Corinthians 12:8-9 says, "Concerning this (Paul's affliction) I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.  And He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'"

Does God Want You To Be Happy, Healthy, And Wealthy?

The majority of Christian in America would say that one of God's primary concerns is their happiness, health, and personal wealth, thus the 25,000 plus that gather at Lakewood Community Church to hear Joel Osteen.  But is this really true?  Do these ideas about God really match up with what the Bible teaches?  Let's deal with each of these ideas individually.

Does God want you to be happy?  Absolutely, if your happiness and joy are in Him.  Galatians 5:22 says that the fruit of the Spirit is "joy."  However, it is important to distinguish biblical joy and happiness from the modern idea of these concepts.  Biblical joy and happiness are experienced in spite of difficulty and opposition, modern joy and happiness are experienced without any difficulty or opposition.  It is not uncommon for people to say, "I am happy because everything is going my way."  This phrase says that joy and happiness are experienced when trials and troubles are absent.  However, biblical joy is found in Jesus, not in circumstances.  Acts 6:41 says, "So they went on their way from the presence of the the Council rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer for His name."  Does God want you to be happy according to the world's standard of happiness?  Absolutely not, because the world's standard of happiness and joy are in direct opposition to the biblical practices present in God's Word.  God is not so much interested in your personal happiness as He is your personal holiness.

Does God want you to be healthy?  Absolutely, if it is spiritual health rather than physical health that is being addressed.  God's primary concern is not for the body but for the soul.  Jesus said in Mark 8:36, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul."  Too often we are guilty of praying for physical healing simply for personal comfort.  We spend the vast majority of our time praying for people to be comforted rather than to be conformed to Christ.  But what if, instead of praying for people to be healed to feel better we prayed for people to be healed so that they were drawn to Christ, or others around them were drawn to Christ, and that God was glorified.  Now this is not to say that God is totally unconcerned for the physical health of people.  Indeed, He has taken the name Yahweh Rapha (the Great Healer) because it is a reflection of His nature and actions.  However, this does not mean, as those who would hold to prosperity teaching are prone to say, that God WILL heal everyone who has faith.  If this were the case then why did God refuse to heal Paul?  Paul says of his affliction in 2 Corinthians 12:8-9, "Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me, and He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'"  God is not so much interested in your physical health as He is in your spiritual health.

Does God want you to be wealthy?  Absolutely, if it is wealth that is heavenly rather than worldly.  Jesus said in Matthew 6:19-21, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."  If your wealth is in heaven then your thoughts will be upon heaven, conversely if your wealth is in this world then your thoughts will be upon this world.  Does God want you to be wealthy on this earth?  I am inclined to say no.  Throughout Scripture those who have wealth are commanded to be liberal in their giving.  Now this is not to say that wealth is inherently evil and that those who have it are wicked, but rather to say that wealth is a very seductive temptation that may be better avoided.  Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and wealth."  God is not so much interested in your earthly wealth as He is in your heavenly wealth.

Does God want you to be happy, healthy, and wealthy?  Yes, if it is biblical happiness, spiritual health, and heavenly wealth that are being presented.  However, if it is emotional happiness, physical health, and earthly wealth then the answer may be, and often is, no.  Next time we will examine the danger of getting the emotional happiness, physical health, and earthly wealth that prosperity preachers say that God has planned for you.

Why Do You Serve Christ?

The article that I will be referencing is titled, "God Wants Me To Be Rich."  If this link does not work then just type in "God Wants Me To Be Rich" in the Google search engine.

Alright, first let me apologize for not updating my blog as much as I should have last month.  Since I announced my resignation as pastor of ECBC I have been extremely busy and was unable to move forward on last months topic.  That said, I am now free to continue our quest to understand the culture in light of the teachings of Christ.  This months topic is particularly important as it serves as an example of what happens when the world and the church join forces.

I am sure that most of you have heard of Joel Osteen.  Some of you have probably even watched his TV show or glanced at his books.  Therefore I am not going to spend much time on him, but instead to focus on the issues that he brings to the table.  The words of his own people should be enough for us to understand who he is and what he teaches.  In their words he is called "Reverend Feelgood."  By the way, if you flip through the pictures that are offered of Joel Osteen in the article you can see the lifestyle he lives as a result of his teaching.

What Joel Osteen preaches is called "prosperity gospel."  It is essentially the belief that when you receive Christ His sole desire is to make you happy, healthy, and wealthy.  In fact, Osteen says himself, "God wants you to have a big life.  That is His blessing.  God has a big dream for your life."  Essentially, the belief is that if you are not prospering than the problem is not God but your faith.  If you simply had more faith then you would be prospering.

There are several issues with this teaching, more than I can possibly address even if I spent the next year dealing only with this topic, but let me for a moment address the problem with Osteen's personal prosperity.  Hear the words of Paul to those who minister in 1 Timothy 6:9-10, "But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."  Those who seek after wealth will fall because of their pursuit.  Now this is not to say that Pastors should be poor and destitute as many in more traditional churches believe, for even Paul writes 1 Timothy 5:18 that the "worker is worthy of his wages."  What Paul is saying is that Pastors should live a moderate or temperate lifestyle not given to worldly treasures.  By the way, this is the standard of life that Scripture expects for all Christians.  So then, even if we were to step away from Osteen's teachings a simple look at his lifestyle would reveal that he is not living according to the standards set for him in God's Word.

Next time I will address the question, "Does God want you to be happy, healthy, and wealthy?" 

Have We Lost A Sense Of Purity In Relationships?

The article that I am going to address is titled "10 Quirky Facts About Kissing."  If this link does not work then just time the article title in Google and you will find the article.

Last time we examined paranormal phenomena.  Before that we took a brief look at Mormonism.  However, now we are going to take a look at a more practical issue regarding morality and a missing sense of purity in relationships.  

First let me say that I did not find this article by looking through MSN's match-making articles.  It was on the front page of MSN when I read it, but has sense been moved to an archived location.  Having said that, I want you to understand that much of the information is absurd, and I am not quite sure that some of these statistics can even be measured.  Nevertheless, there was one particular point that caught my attention.  The #8 quirky fact about kissing is that "the average woman kisses 29 men before she gets married."

Now think about this in perspective.  If the average woman kisses 29 men before getting married then that means that she has kissed 28 men who may, and probably will, eventually be someone else's spouse.  I am sure that this number can be equally applied, and may even be higher, for men.  Today it seems that people have embraced the idea that they should try out "marital benefits" before getting married to see if they are compatible.  But why is it so important to know if another person is a "good kisser"?  Is it so important that people would make a decision to be married or not based upon one's ability to kiss?  If it isn't, and people really won't make their decision based upon kissing, then why is it being done before marriage?  Wouldn't it be better to wait until marriage to have that kind of physical intimacy with another person?  Ephesians 5:3 says, "But do not let immorality or impurity or greed even be named among you."  1 Thessalonians 4:3 says, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality."  Too often sexual immorality is conveyed as "sex before marriage," but couldn't it also be considered any intimate contact before marriage?

It seems that in many ways the standard for what is considered "immorality" continues to get lower and lower as the culture begins to move further and further away from any objective view of morality.  This unfortunately means that the "so-called" standard of morality that many Christians use is partly based off of the world's definition of morality.  The proof to this point is evident in the change in American culture and custom.  Over a hundred years ago a man would not consider kissing a woman or being in a room alone with her outside of marriage.  In contrast, today couples are given very few limitations if any.  Now my problem is not with the standard of the world changing.  I would expect it to do nothing other than become more and more sinful.  My problem is with the standard in the church changing.  If we say that we believe in an ultimate objective standard of truth and morality then it cannot change.  How is it that certain things are morally acceptable today that were not over a hundred years ago?  The answer is very simple, the church is looking too much to the world's standard of morality.  For many Christians the idea is not to go the opposite direction of the world, but rather to stay just far enough away to remain distinct.  And if we are honest we will admit that the dating scene in the church is not much different than the world.  While couples may not be engaging in sexual intercourse they still proceed to kiss and break up until they "find" the right person.  This kind of middle-ground morality is exactly what Paul condemned in Romans 12:2 when he said, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

The Evidence For Extraterrestrial Phenomena

Last time I commented on the source of extraterrestrial phenomena and how Satan is using such ideas as a method of opposing supernatural creation by God.  However, the question that must be asked is, "Is there any possibility to the existence of extraterrestrials?"  Once again allow me to quote extensively from Andre Kole's book Mind Games, "Robert Sheaffer is a student of UFOs.  He has spoken at conferences such as the National UFO Conference and the Smithsonian Institution UFO Symposium.  Sheaffer writes in his book, The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence, in which he applied rigid scientific methods to the UFO question.  The following was his conclusion, 'I maintain that we have found the answer to the question "What are UFOs?" through a rigorous application of the scientific method.  As an unexpected dividend, we find that we have also obtained the answer to the same question that might be raised about ESP, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster, "psychic" spoon-bending, and other dubious...phenomena.  Our answer must be that UFOs do not exist.  This answer is certain to disappoint many people who are eager to find that our galaxy...is populated by all manner of exotic and exciting creatures.  No one would be happier than I should it actually be discovered that our earth is paying host to strange creatures from some unknown planet or universe.  But wishing will not make it so.  And so long as we adhere to the scientific method (that is, to make factual statements about the real world, as opposed to seeking subjective mystical insight), we are forced to face up to the conclusion that UFOs as real and distinct entities simply do not exist.  Those who continue to insist otherwise are openly proclaiming their allegiance to a different worldview, on which, although popular, is incompatible with the worldview of science.'"  In the end, not only is the evidence against extraterrestrial existence, but God's Word itself stands against it simply by means of silence.  Why would God tell us of the creation of the universe and only mention his work on this particular planet if other life forms were created on other planets in that same universe?  Further, we must conclude that if there are other creations out there they could be no different or more advanced than us because everything that was made here was the best that God could possible make (Gen. 1:31).  To suggest that he could create something better, or worse, that would be different is to suggest that God's work in creation was not the best that it could be, and therefore to find fault in God's character.  So then, even if extraterrestrial life does exist (although science clearly refutes this notion) it would not be any different or more advanced than that which we find on earth itself.

The Essence Of Extraterrestrial Phenomena

What is the driving force behind the desire to see space aliens, flying saucers, and extraterrestrial phenomena?  It seems to originate more from Satan than it does from science.  Let me quote extensively from a book written by Andre Kole, an expert in occult phenomena.  The book is titled, "Mind Games: Exposing Today's Psychics, Frauds, and False Spiritual Phenomena."  He writes, "One U.S. Air Force report, 'UFO's and Related Subjects', [says] 'A large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism and the metaphysical.  It deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomena like poltergeist manifestations and 'possession.'  Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena.'  John Keel, considered by many researchers to be the world's foremost expert on UFO's has reached a similar conclusion.  His firsthand research with those who have claimed a close encounter has let him to conclude that their experiences are 'similar if not entirely identical to those who have claimed contact with demons.'  His collaborator, Trevor Jones, has observed that 'a working knowledge of occult science...is indispensable to UFO investigation.'"  So then, we may conclude that the search for intelligent life outside of this earth is really nothing more than a search for something other than God and His creation.  It is, at it's very core, a search that Satan himself has originated and desires us to follow.  More on the "supposed" evidence of UFO's and extraterrestrial life will be written later.

That Belongs In A Museum!

The article I will be reviewing is about Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of the Crystal Skulls

If this link does not work then go to Christianpost.com and type in the article title "Indiana Jones and the Origin of Life"

Alright, for those of you who are familiar with Indiana Jones you know that he is an obtainer of rare antiquities and adventure seeker.  Dr. Jones is a professor of archaeology at Marshal College, a fictional university in Connecticut.  He has searched for such artifacts as the Ark of the Covenant, the sacred stones of Shiva, and of course the Holy Grail.  The battle cry of Indy (as he is called by his acquaintances) is "That belongs in a museum!"  Truly Dr. Jones is one who cares for the preservation of important antiquities.

But as his newest film is now smashing through the wallets of people all across America (I don't particularly know how anyone can afford $10 for a ticket, $8 for a popcorn, and $6 for a drink) I am not quite certain that what Dr. Jones is searching for in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls belongs in a museum.  In fact, I would argue that it belongs in a sideshow exhibit.  You know, the kind where you know that what you will see is ridiculously fake.

Now for those of you not familiar with the "myth" of the crystal skulls let me bring you up to speed.  The crystal skulls are basically quartz crystal rocks that have been carved to look like skulls.  Legend suggests that these skulls were not crafted by any tool we are aware of (although modern science believes they were probably carved by diamonds), and that they are either relics of the city of Atlantis or advanced technology left behind by visitors from another galaxy (yeah, that means aliens).  Such legends have even begun to become more mystical as there are said to be 13 stones which contain enormous power.  Many who own these stones attribute to them psychic power and even the ability to heal.  The most common legends say that these stones are evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

Now you may balk at the idea of aliens (having seen enough movies to realize the foolishness of such beings), but the idea of extraterrestrial life is now beginning to infiltrate many religions.  Just recently I read an article written by the Associated Press where Jose Gabriele Funes, the director of the Vatican Observatory and Chief Astronomer, said that "the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside the Earth, even intelligent ones."  He even goes on to say that if they exist then they are also "God's creatures."

Throughout the month I will add some thoughts about aliens and extraterrestrial phenomenon, but for now let me simply provide a basic rejection of these beliefs.  The search for extraterrestrial life is the search to prove evolution.  It is a search which has at its very core a denial of God and of Creation.  Obviously being from Orlando Florida I am quite familiar with Kennedy Space Center and the space shuttles taking off and touching down.  The primary focus of each of those space shuttles is an attempt to prove that there is something else in the universe that can explain our existence other than the Bible.  If you are familiar with the SETI satellite then you know that it stands for "Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence."  That means, if you follow the trail, that our tax dollars are being used to fund research to disprove the Bible.  However, Scripture mentions nothing about any other intelligent beings outside of what God created on earth (excluding angels who were created to serve Him as agents to earth).  We must conclude therefore that if there were other intelligent life-forms in the universe that God would have mentioned something about them in His Word, and yet we find nothing.  But more on this later.

America's Next Top Mormon

The article I am going to comment on can be found at http://www.newsweek.com/id/135758

Suppose you were sitting at home, reading a good book, when all of the sudden a knock came at your door. You went to answer the door and there stood two men wearing black pants, white shirts, and black ties. On their shirt pockets they had name tags identifying them as "elders." They greeted you politely and told you that they were from the local Mormon tabernacle.

Now the question I want to ask you is not "How would you respond?" but "Would you know what separates them from you?" Would you know what they believe as well as what you believe? Let's face the facts, Mormonism is spreading all over the United States. Whether it is Mitt Romney running for the Republican Presidential nomination, and now possibly the Republican VP nomination, or David Archuleta and Brook White singing on American Idol, we are seeing an advance of Mormonism in our culture. And my fear is that we will begin to see Mormons as "alright people" even though they radically object to fundamental biblical beliefs. Many people might be inclined to look at our battle as more political or scientific and see Mormons as "religious people" saying that "the enemy of my enemy (in this case liberalism, evolution, abortion, homosexual rights - all of which Mormons oppose) is my friend." However, the Bible pictures the world much differently. Jesus made a contrast in John 3 using light and dark, and He said that all who are not a part of His light are a part of the darkness. In many senses that would then make Mormons as much our enemies as abortionists, liberals, homosexuals, and evolutionist because they are all in darkness and lost. It doesn't matter that they have some semblance of religion, only that they have no relationship with Christ.

That said, let me now turn my attention to some fundamental beliefs of Mormonism that are opposed to what the Bible teaches.

First, Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God. They see Him as a Prophet, and as God's Son, but not as God Himself. By the way, when Mormons say that they believe Jesus is God's Son they mean that God came down in a physical body, had a sexual encounter with Mary, and as a result Jesus was born. Therefore they see Jesus as half God and half man, while we see Jesus as fully God and fully man. If you tell a Mormon that Jesus is God they will object and try to point out John 14:28 where Jesus says that the Father is greater than the Son (even though this verse refers to the heirarchy of the trinity rather than the nature of the trinity). A good response to this verse is to quote Jesus' opponents in John 10:33 or to show them John's statement about the the beliefs of His opposition in John 5:18.

Second, Mormons do not believe in salvation by faith. An essential Mormon belief is that good works are necessary to obtain heaven. Ironically, Mormons believe that the only way to get into the highest heaven (for them there are three levels of heaven: celestial - the highest, telestial - the middle, and terrestrial - the lowest) that they must be married in a Mormon tabernacle. So you can tell the Mormon missionaries (who are single) at your door that they can't even get into the highest heaven according to their own system. A good passage of Scripture to point out to them is Ephesians 2:8-9.

Third, Mormons reject the Bible as authoritative. They believe in the book of Mormon and they will accept the Bible so far as it has been "translated accurately," and so far as it agrees with the book of Mormon. The phrase "translated accurately" for them is subjective, so any time that you quote a verse that does not match what they believe they will attribute that to an error in translation. Interestingly enough, they are willing to accept the book of Mormon as correct, which has no verifable history (no names, dates, or places can be proven as real) while they reject the Bible, which has been proven time and time again historically, scientifically, medically, and archaeologically. One question I always ask Mormon witnesses is, "Can you prove that any of the events, places, names, or dates in the book of Mormon were real?" If they are honest they must answer no. My response to them is then, "Well seeing that to be the case it seems that the Bible makes a much better case for it's accuracy and authority than does the book of Mormon."

While there are many other views that Mormonism has that are diametrically opposed to biblical teachings these should give you a basis on which to address Mormon witnesses the next time they show up at your door step. It is my hope that these comments will help you to better understand the culture that you live in and that you will be ready to be a witness to Mormons the next time you should meet.

Introduction & Outline

Hey, and thanks for taking the time to read this blog. My hope is that this blog will be helpful to those of you are interested in growing in your faith and better understanding the world around you in light of the Scriptures. Therefore I have named this blog "Where Culture Meets Christ." The inspiration for this title came from a book entitled "Christ And Culture" by Richard Niebuhr. In his book Niebuhr outlines the possible relationships between Christ and the culture. Everywhere we turn articles are being written, books published, idea proliferated, and news reports presented. Behind each of these is an ideology, and unless we are trained by the Scriptures to discern and discriminate against these ideologies we could easily be swayed by unsound doctrine. As a result, this blog will help us work through what is happening in the culture around us and be able to understand these things in light of the Word of God.
Now allow me to take just a moment to outline how this blog will be presented and maintained. Each month I will select an article that I believe needs to be addressed and hopefully link that article to this website for you to read. My main post, each month, will be on the contents of that article. Throughout the month, once every week or so, I will post comments on the selected article and my blog article that provoke further thought, consideration, and exploration into the topic. If you have any comments or questions you are welcome to attach those to the topic thread. However, let me remind you that whereas there is room to disagree in the body of Christ we must never be disagreeable, so please keep your comments Christ-like and courteous. I hope this blog serves to edify and equip you to be a more effective witness in an antagonistic world.