Tommy Mann

Should Christians Vote for Gay Rights?

2012-01-27T09:03:00.000-05:00

Popular issues in recent years have included “don’t ask,don’t tell,” and gay marriage and adoption. Where are Christians supposed tostand when it comes to giving more rights to homosexuals, especially in lightof the command to love our neighbor as ourselves?

My very first blog was also on this topic (read Christians and Gay Marriage).

What Christians have to realize about giving rights tohomosexuals is that this is a direct assault on the family, which is somethingthat God created and Satan loathes. Satan would have nothing more than todestroy the family unit, and he tries to negatively influence it through showslike Family Guy and Modern Family (click the show titles to readarticles I have written on them).

Giving homosexuals rights is far different than the civilrights movement, for it is not a sin to be a woman or black, but the Bible isvery clear that homosexuality is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13;Romans 1:26-32; I Corinthians 6:9). Why should we give more rights to help themsin more?

This is like saying you want to show love to your unsavedfriend by paying for their abortion or marijuana; you cannot show them lovewhile doing something that God hates.

I realize that their salvation does not come as a result ofkeeping them unable to marry, but it certainly doesn’t come by allowing them tomarry either.

I also know the criticism here that Christians are the new“party of no.” I am familiar with, and disagree with, the lyric from theCasting Crowns song that says, “Nobody knows what we’re for, only what we’reagainst when we judge the wounded (Jesus,Friend of Sinners).” The idea is that people only know that we are againstthese things, but doesn’t that mean that we are for the opposite of them? I don’t mind people knowing I am formorality and for actually believing that God’s Word still applies to us today.

As I have stated here before, we don’t show love tohomosexuals by giving them the right to marry, we do it by showing them theconsequences of living their life apart from God. The way I came to Christ wasthrough the preaching of His Word; the message of my sin and separation fromGod convicted me and exposed my desperate need for a Savior, and I chose torepent and give my life to God. That same message can lead a homosexual torepentance, and you don’t even need to mention the specific sin ofhomosexuality to do it.

I was sharing the gospel with a man recently, and I wasusing the Way of the Master method which uses the 10 Commandments to debunk theidea that we are good enough to go to heaven. Here is a sample from ourconversation:

Me: Jesus said that if you look at someone with lust it isthe same as adultery. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?

Him: No.

Me: Never?

Him: Never.

Me: What, are you gay?

Him: Yes sir.

Me: Well have you ever looked at a man with lust?

Him: Yes.

Me: Now we’re getting somewhere.

I then continued sharing the gospel with him and I nevermade it about his homosexuality, just the fact that he was a sinner and neededa Savior. He has admittedly lusted, stolen, and lied; those sins, I pointedout, were enough to separate him from God.

But that doesn’t mean that I support his right to marry aman though.

I can show him love and share Christ with him withoutendorsing the legalization of something sinful.

You wouldn’t push for showing love to a child rapist bygranting his request to open a daycare in his house, would you? But people will only know that we areagainst raping, not what we are for! We can’t legislate our anti-rapingmorality on them! Outlawing his daycare won’t save him!

No, it’s just a little common sense to oppose something youoppose. To quote Dr. James Kennedy in HowWould Jesus Vote?, we should not “lose all moral discernment and proclaimthat what [homosexuals] do is acceptable (p.167).”

So if you still think that the Bible is true andhomosexuality is a sin, then cast your vote for a candidate that will protectthe sanctity of marriage.

Should Christians Vote for War or Capital Punishment?

2012-01-23T12:15:00.001-05:00

As a Christian is there ever a time that we can justifygoing to war? War obviously involves taking lives, and aren’t we supposed to beagainst that? What about the death penalty: isn’t killing a killer stillmurder?

Some Christians are opposed to these concepts, and I want tobe very clear here. I am not writing this to argue with you; I respect thatstance, and I am not trying to start a war of words. This is just my personal belief after studying this topic.

At the same time, I am not a hawk when it comes to war. I donot believe in going to war for selfish reasons, like gaining territory,resources, or money.

But I do believe the Bible teaches the concept of just wars,to wit, some wars are justifiable.

But aren’t we calledto be peacemakers? Yes, in His famous sermon on the mount Jesus said,“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God(Matthew 5:9).” But this sermon was given to teach how to conduct ourselves inour individual lives; national matters are a different story.

Jesus was teaching His followers to live at peace with eachother, and not to take up vigilante justice.

Remember that this Man who taught about peace making was notafraid to make a whip and cleanse the temple.

For a person to become an anti-war activist from this oneverse is to also ignore a very large part of the Bible, namely Old Testamentpassages that are just as important as the New Testament.

Consider the fact that Solomon said that there is a “timefor war (Ecclesiastes 3:8).”

The first war recorded in the Bible takes place in Genesis 14after Lot was kidnapped. Abraham, one of the heroes in the hall of faith,gathered an army and went to war to retrieve his nephew. Does being a peacemakermean that he lets Lot remain in captivity for the rest of his life, or evenallow him to lose his life at the hands of evil men?

After Abraham was returning from this just war he meetsMelchizedek, whom many people believe to be a pre-incarnate appearance ofJesus, or at the very least a picture of Jesus (He is the “king of Peace”).Melchizedek says, “Blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered thineenemies into thy hand.” The passage refers to the battle as a “slaughter.”

Why would Jesus or a man sent to typify Jesus praise God formilitary victory over an evil nation if God were opposed to war?

The Old Testament is full of commanded wars, especially inthe book of Joshua. In that book God used Joshua and his army to bring aboutpunishment in the form of war. These nations were extremely pagan, and in God’ssovereign patience, it was time for their removal, just like with the GreatFlood.

When you read the Old Testament how many times do you seethe command from God to not leave any survivors? God did not want to leave evena trace of these pagan nations, and He used war to accomplish it.

One of those times comes in I Samuel 15, where Saul iscommanded to kill all the inhabitants of Amalek. Saul brings back one survivor,their king Agag. Because Saul didn’tkill this man when the Lord told him to, God rejected Saul as king, and theprophet Samuel killed Agag himself.

But isn’t one of the10 Commandments “Thou shalt not kill?” Kind of. A better translation wouldbe “Thou shalt not murder.” It is interesting to note that the Bible makes adistinction between killing and murder. This also applies to capitalpunishment.

If taking the life of a human were absolutely wrong 100% ofthe time, then why would God command His followers to institute a death penaltyjust one chapter after He gave the commandment not to kill? In Exodus 20 wehave the 10 Commandments, then in Exodus 21 God lays out six instances wherepeople should be put to death for certain crimes.

In the New Testament when Jesus is being arrested in theGarden of Gethsemane, Peter pulls out his sword and takes a swing at Malchus; Jesusthen rebuked Peter and affirmed capital punishment in the same breath. Jesustold Peter that those who take up the sword will die by the sword (Matthew26:52); in other words, if Peter killed Malchus, then Peter would also be putto death.

Aren’t we supposed toturn the other cheek? Yes, this also comes from the sermon on the mount. Jesussaid that after He referenced the old “an eye for an eye” expression. The eyefor an eye remark was God’s law as given to Moses, and it referred to howpunishment would be meted out under their new system. These commands werecarried out as part of the legalsystem.

Once again, the sermon on the mount was given forinstruction on living an individual’s life, not for the legal system. Inessence Jesus was telling the disciples not to take matters into their ownhands, but to leave those things to the legal process.

I shouldn’t get tochoose who lives and who dies! So are you more comfortable with themurderer making those decisions? It isn’t our choice to make when it comes tothe death penalty; God commanded it.

But the death penaltydoesn’t rehabilitate people! Prison will hopefully rehabilitate manypeople, but not everyone is in there just for rehabilitation. The death penaltyis not about making someone a better citizen, it is about justice being served.The lake of fire will not rehabilitate either; people are there for justice.

Imagine for a moment what the world would look like if weabolish the death penalty and refuse necessary wars. Do the words mayhem orchaos come to mind?

Is it possible, then, that by having war or a death penaltywe are being peacemakers?

If you want to vote for a peacemaker, fine. But please makesure that it is one who realizes that peace is made and maintained by bringingevil men to justice.

Should Christians Vote for Abortion or Stem Cell Research?

2012-01-19T11:24:00.000-05:00

(part 3 of the series)

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court made theircontroversial decision known as Roe v.Wade, which made abortion legal in this country. The young lady, known as“Jane Roe,” was said to have conceived after she was raped, and she wanted anabortion, which were being performed illegally at the time (called “back alleyabortions”).

Ms. “Roe” (Norma L. McCorvey) has since come out andadmitted she lied about having been raped, and that the child she conceived washer third out of wedlock. She is now a pro-life advocate, and her case McCorvey v. Hill (2005), sought tooverturn Roe v. Wade, but was deniedby the Supreme Court.

The fact that the little lady who started the big war (touse the language of President Lincoln) has been on both sides of the issueserves to typify the fact that the country itself is split. Where shouldChristians stand on this matter?

I personally believe that the Bible teaches that life beginsat conception. In my most recent book Asleepin Heaven’s Nursery (available Here and Here) I lay out these days in the life of adeveloping unborn child:

• Day1—fertilization

• Day6—embryo implants in the uterus

• Day 22—aheart pumps the baby’s own blood

• Week3—spinal column, nervous system, liver, and kidneys forming

• Week4—the baby is 10,000 times larger than it was at conception

• Week5—eyes, hands, and legs are developing

• Week6—brain waves are noticeable; mouth,  lips, and fingernails are forming

• Week7—eye lids, toes, and nose are forming; he is swimming and kicking

• Week8—every organ is in place; cartilage is turning into bone; he has uniquefingerprints and he can hear

• Weeks9-10—teeth are developing in the gums; he can hiccup

• Weeks11-12—he can urinate and “practices breathing”; he has a full skeletalstructure

• Week12—vocal chords are complete

• Week14—the heart pumps several quarts of  blood per day

• Week15—he has all his taste buds

• Month4—his bone marrow is forming and he weighs half a pound (from chapter 3, “Whendoes a life become a life?”

This timeline shows that the child isdeveloping and is very much alive when an abortion takes place. In that samechapter I make the case that an unborn baby is a human in the same way that anacorn is a tree, just in its smallest form.

The pro-choice person might say that if afetus has to develop into a baby, then it is not a baby. But I say that thischange is no different than a baby developing into a toddler, who will developinto a teenager, who will develop into an adult. To cut off the processanywhere is to terminate the life of a human.

To quote Ray Comfort in his groundbreakingdocumentary 180, “Finish this sentence: it’s OK to kill a baby in the womb when______.”He asked that question to abortion advocates, and no one could give him ananswer. Comfort pointed out that the Holocaust of the Nazi’s murdered 6 millionJews, but abortion has murdered 55 million babies in America alone.

Butmore important than my book or Comfort’s documentary, consider the words of theMost High God. In Psalm 139:13-14 David says that God formed him in hismother’s womb (some translations say “knit together”), and in Jeremiah 1:4-5 weread the Lord saying those same things to Jeremiah.

If these are lives knit together or formedby God, then the mother has no right to choose if the baby lives or not. Herchoice should be to not have sex if she doesn’t want a baby. Our Sex Ed classesspend all their time passing out condoms and putting them on cucumbers; maybethey should get back to the basics of the birds and the bees. No sex = no baby.(For the record, I wish these classes didn’t even exist)

Rapeand Incest

I know that some women conceived againsttheir will, and the previous paragraph doesn’t apply to them. Should we vote tokeep abortion legal for these women? People running for office on thepro-choice side usually claim to only want to keep abortion legal for thosereasons, and yet I have never seen a pro-choice candidate actually propose anylegislation that would make abortion illegal if there were no rape or incest.

What is important to remember is that lessthan 1% of abortions performed annually were because of rape or incest (this ispointed out in Randy Alcorn’s book Why Pro Life?). And the notion that babies conceived in incest should beaborted because of the tendency for handicapped births? This is also somethingthat is blown out of proportion.

Just because a woman is raped, why does thechild have to die? He could be viewed as a blessing that came from a tragedy.He could also be put up for adoption, where plenty of famous people made theirstart, like President Bill Clinton, the late Steve Jobs of Apple, and BabeRuth, who learned the game of baseball at an orphanage.

I sympathize with the woman who did not wanta baby and conceived one after she was raped. But there are millions offamilies who would love to adopt your baby.

I’m one of them.

StemCell Research

This issue goes hand in hand with abortionbecause it involves terminating a tiny life. Famous people like Michael J. Fox,First Lady Nancy Reagan, and Christopher Reeve have become the faces for thiscause.

The idea is that by harvesting stem cells wemight make a scientific breakthrough and cure some diseases. But the media isnot exactly straightforward on this issue. We must remember the differencebetween adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells are collected withoutterminating a life; embryonic stem cells cannot be. Adult stem cells have cureddozens of diseases; embryonic stem cells have not.

Even celebrity doctor Dr. Oz told Oprah thatembryonic stem cells have done more harm than good, transforming themselvesinto cancer in case studies. They have not, and cannot, cure diseases, heconcluded on her TV show.

Matt Maher, whose opinion should never betaken seriously, told David Letterman that, because President Bush believed inGod we cannot cure Parkinson’s Disease. But the reality is that embryonic stemcells had been experimented with for years before they were brought to thespotlight during the Bush Administration, and they were not going to cureParkinson’s, or anything else.

Adult stem cells led to the cure for Polioand dozens of other things, and hopefully they will lead to the cure for cancerand Parkinson’s, and diabetes, and everything else that ails us.

What should matter to the Christian voter isthat embryonic stem cells are harvested in a lab. This means that an egg isfertilized to produce the necessary ingredients, or in other words, a life iscreated to be destroyed for science. These embryos could be implanted into awoman (IVF) and carried to term. In President Bush’s newest book, Decision Points, he has a picture ofhimself with a “snowflake baby,” a child born that was once in a lab that couldhave been killed for his stem cells (type “George W. Bush snowflake baby intoGoogle images and select the first picture). That boy and his parents were inthe White House when President Bush banned the practice of harvesting life forits destruction.

If you think that your vote for a candidatewill not affect this issue, consider that the absolute first thing PresidentObama did in office was overturn the Bush decision on embryonic stem cellresearch. I only say that to caution the voter: know where the candidates standon this issue.

So how should a Christian vote when it comesto abortion or embryonic stem cell research? The Bible shows us that lifebegins at conception, that even a baby in a womb or a lab is still a life. Tovote for a candidate that will keep these practices legal is to share in theirjudgment.

Each president will have a say in how thisissue plays out. I always hear people say that we shouldn’t care so much aboutthis issue because no president can overturn Roe v. Wade. While that much is true, consider what the last threepresidents did on this issue.

President Bill Clinton signed partial birthabortion into law, which allowed for 3^rd trimester babies to beaborted by the cruelest of means.

President George W. Bush immediately bannedpartial birth abortion, and it took the Supreme Court years to uphold his ban.He also banned the harvesting of embryonic stem cells for research.

President Barack Obama overturned the Bushdecision on stem cells.

What will the next president do? You betterknow before you vote for one. Also consider that the Supreme Court Justices areappointed by the president, so you should know what kind of judges thecandidate will appoint, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.

If the bench had 9 Justices that werepro-life, then McCorvey would have gotten her way and won her case to undo thefirst case she won.

To stop abortion and embryonic stem cellharvesting, cast your vote for someone who will work to end these practices.

Should Christians Vote Part 2: Aren't All Leaders Appointed by God Anyway?

2012-01-16T18:45:00.001-05:00

One of the arguments against Christians getting involved inthe political process is that God is the one who appoints our leaders. Thisidea comes from Romans 13:1, which says that there is no ruler that was notestablished by God.

While I certainly agree with that verse 100%, that doesn’t meanthat God is in favor of each ruler. Let’s revisit a dark time in Israel’shistory.

Israel never had a king before because their king reignedfrom heaven. God had established the priesthood and His prophets, as well asthe judges, to lead His people, and the last of these judges was Samuel. WhenSamuel was getting old and near the end of his life, the Israelites began toask for a king.

They wanted to be just like everyone else.

Samuel asked them if they would jump off a cliff if everyonedid (not quite, but it was a similar exchange), but they insisted on having aking. God told Samuel to tell them what a king would be like, and here is thedescription that Samuel relayed to the people:

He will take your sons and put them in his army and makethem drive his chariots; he will harvest your fields for his food; he will takeyour daughters and make them cook for him; he will take your cattle and putthem to work and use them to feed his entourage.

But the people still wanted a king. Samuel went back to theLord, who acknowledged that the people were rejecting Him, and God told Samuelto give the people what they wanted. Even though the Lord was going toestablish a king, He was going to wait for David, who was a man after God’sheart. Instead, Israel got Saul, who was a terrible king that was soon rejectedby God.

So did God appoint Saul? Yes, but does that mean that Saulwas God’s plan? No.

Sometimes God steps back and says, “If you want it so badly,just do it.” Just as Romans 1 records God releasing people to follow their ownsinful passions, so I Samuel 8 records God giving the people the king they wanted.

If a candidate is elected with a majority vote, then thepeople are getting what they ask for. We can’t blame God for the poor job thatSaul did, and we can’t blame Him if we elect an ungodly leader. In God’ssovereignty He allows rulers to come to the throne, but that doesn’t mean theyare there with His blessing.

So get out there and vote, and realize that your vote makesa difference.

Should Christians Vote?

2012-01-13T13:26:00.000-05:00

It’s an election year and the political scene is front andcenter on every news network. What are Christians supposed to do with politics?Are we allowed to vote, commanded to vote, or permitted to vote? What does theBible say?

I am going to start a series on how Christians should voteon certain issues, but first we have to establish the fact that Christians canand should vote. I am not one of those political pastors who uses the pulpit totell people whom they should cast their ballot for, neither am I going toaddress secular issues such as taxes, military defense, or the budget. Thesewill be moral or Christian issues, such as abortion/ embryonic stem cellresearch, wars, and gay marriage.

Authors like Donald Miller and Shane Claiborne have made aliving by accusing the church of forcing its members to vote Republican, butthat is not what I am setting out to do. I simply want to show people what theBible says about issues and what our obligation is in light of the issues.

Should Christians vote? I believe that they should. Somepeople believe that Christians and politics do not mix, that we have nobusiness at the ballot box. But I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that we aretold to stay out of the legislative process. Consider the fact that Jesus saidto “render unto Caesar” what belonged to him, which meant that people shouldpay the taxes that were required of them. If paying taxes to the governmentwere immoral, then Jesus would have taken a stand against them, and probablywould have overturned a few more tables. Instead, He said to pay them (Mark12:17), and He paid them Himself (Matthew 17:27).

Then consider Zacchaeus(Luke 19). Aside from being a weelittle man, Zacchaeus was a tax collector. Part of tax collecting includedknown thievery, and Zacchaeus made part of his money by overcharging people.After giving his life to Christ Zacchaeus decided to repay fourfold everyperson that he had ripped off. Jesus never told him that repaying was a goodstart, but that he should also leave his government job. No, Jesus allowed himto go back to work, and to work honestly.

The same is true of the Roman soldiers who responded to Johnthe Baptist’s preaching. Their questions was, “What should we do?” John toldthem to be content with their wages, do violence to no one, and make no falseaccusations (Luke 3:14). John didn’t tell them to leave their government posts,but to continue to serve them in a Christ like manner.

So the Bible doesn’t forbid us from being involved in civilissues. But does it command it? I believe that it does. James 4:17 says,“Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it issin.” If getting involved is something good we should do, then it is a sin notto.

Just imagine that there are two people running forpresident. The first candidate vows to euthanize every person over the age of65, while his opponent adamantly opposes that idea. Would you not think youhave a moral right to help keep that lunatic out of office? What if you sat byand did nothing?

What if more people stood up to keep Hitler out of office?

Politics might not seem like an important issue to you, butevery time we cast a vote we have a chance to keep evil people from doing evilthings, and to assist good people who are doing good things. There may havebeen a lot of Christians that sat home that day in Germany, thinking their votedidn’t matter, or that politics weren’t important.

The issues that we will look at here will be of upmostimportance for Christians to consider. I encourage you to prayerfully considerhow the Lord will lead you to vote.

“It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christiannation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Jay

1^st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Christianetiquette: How a Christian Should Act in an Electronic World

2012-01-06T12:08:00.002-05:00

We used to teach our children good etiquette because wewanted them to know how to behave in public. The dictionary defines etiquettethis way:

‘The form of conduct or behavior prescribed by custom or authority tobe observed in social, official, or professional life.”

For years this was meant to understand that we do not talkwith our mouth full, we do not interrupt, we make eye contact, we says “Yesma’am” instead of “Yeah,” etc. When our children went off to school we expectedthem to put this etiquette into use. The Golden Rule of etiquette is “Do untoothers as you would have them do unto you.”

But those days are long gone. This is the 21^stCentury. We are the technological generation. For those reasons a new word hasbeen created: netiquette. This word came about by mixing the words network andetiquette, and it’s definition, according to www.networketiquette.net, is

“the social code of the internet, because the internet is a network andetiquette is a social code.”

Among the rules of netiquette are do not type all in capsbecause that is considered shouting, spell check and proofread, and don’t sendemails late at night because that will call your lifestyle into question. TheGolden Rule of netiquette is “do unto others on the internet as you would havethem do unto you.”

If someone can create a word by adding on to the wordetiquette, then I think I should also be able to create a word by adding on tothe created word netiquette.

So I did.

I created the word Christianetiquette, which I define as

“How a Christian should behave in an electronic world.”

There are basic rules of courtesy, like don’t text at thetable, don’t interrupt a face-to-face conversation to answer the phone or checka text, and don’t wear earphones when in a social setting.

But there are also rules of morality as well. We all need toremember to respect God, respect others, and respect ourselves.

#1, respect God. Capitalize His name! I can’t stand seeingFacebook statuses that say “9 out of 10 of you don’t love jesus enough torepost this.” I want to comment, “If you love Jesus you would capitalize Hisname.”

Don’t take His name in vain either. OMG is taking His namein vain. You might justify it by saying that the G stands for Gosh to you, butthe person who reads it isn’t thinking Gosh; that is both confusing anddisrespectful.

And be consistent. Don’t post Bible verses one day, thenbrag about watching Family Guy thenext day. Don’t “like” “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”and “baseball players have nice butts” at the same time. I have seen both ofthose, and it confuses me. I can’t imagine what it does to a person who doesn’tknow Christ.

#2, respect others. Don’t air your dirty laundry. Commentslike “I hate fake people,” “I see who my real friends are,” “I guess somepeople never change,” or “Not surprised by how she acted” don’t model the loveof Christ. They come off as unforgiving, unkind, and unloving, which should notbe modeled in a Christian’s life.

#3, respect yourself. Respect yourself enough to not postpictures you will regret, to not “check in” places you shouldn’t be, and to notlist favorite things that should not be your favorite things. Remember that asa Christian everything you say and do will either lead people toward Christ oraway from Him. When you write things like “effing” in your status you areprobably leading people away from Him (Matthew 5:14-16).

Have you taken your problem to God before you aired it outin public? Have you taken your problem to the person one on one before you sharedit with all your friends? Consider the biblical model to follow in Matthew18:15-20, and ask yourself if you are following that.

Do things you do glorify and uplift the name of Christ, ordo they confuse people and turn them off to Christ?

Perhaps you need to edit your profile today.

Jim Bob, Michelle, and Jubilee Duggar

2011-12-19T09:05:00.001-05:00

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, whose family is chronicled onthe hit TLC show 19 Kids and Counting, recently lost the baby that Michelle wascarrying. Jubilee Shalom Duggar was stillborn on December 11^th whenshe was 19 weeks along; she weighed just 4 ounces.

This family is obviously mourning the loss of theirdaughter, and they should be given time to grieve. I have debated blogging onthis issue because I believe in privacy, but yet it is the need for privacythat has compelled me to write this. I have been disgusted by the criticismthis family has received.

This family has many critics for the same reason Tim Tebowdoes: they are successful Christians, and non-believers can’t stand that. Theypassionately love Jesus, live holy lives, and enjoy life. They are proof thatChristians don’t need filthy TV, sexual music, or alcohol to have a good time,and for that, liberal Christians have become their critics as well.

The 19^th Duggar baby, Josie, was born early and spenta few months in the NICU. There were harsh comments made then about howcareless it was for them to continue to have children. So last month when theDuggars announced that Michelle, now 45 years old, was pregnant again, theblogosphere erupted with more of the same.

I’m having trouble reconciling these comments of concern forthe loss of a baby with the political agenda that says Michelle could haveaborted this baby if she wanted to. These people are saying that the Duggarfamily’s selfish desire for another child has caused this tragedy, but sincethe majority of their critics are liberals, these comments are being made frompeople who would be just fine (some even delighted) with her choosing to abort.

The family has even been criticized for having a memorialservice for little Jubilee. At the service the family passed out a black andwhite picture of Jubilee’s feet in Michelle’s hand, and an inscription thatread, “There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on the world.”

An article in The Daily Beast reported on this event: “It just seems too public and almost seemslike, ‘OK, we’re stars, everybody wants to know abut us.’ From what I know ofparents who have lost children, it’s horrific. It’s not something you want picturesof. There are people who will argue with me and say it’s a way of coming toterms with the death. But given the Duggars’ history, their television show,and the way they exploit their children, I just find this a cog in the samewheel. I find it rather distasteful.”

What I finddistasteful is a woman who hasn’t lost a child trying to weigh in on how theparents are supposed to grieve. The woman who said that, a psychologist named Susan Newman, shouldknow that there is not a textbook way to deal with a loss. A frequent critic ofthe Duggars, she is putting her professional skills aside to take a stab atthis family. She assumes that parents will not want pictures of their lostchildren, so I wonder how she explains organizations like Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, which take pictures especially for families that have lost a child.

When my aunt anduncle had a stillborn daughter they took many pictures, some of which are stilldisplayed in their house along with their other children’s photos. They alsohad a memorial service. For this psychologist to claim that the Duggars areonly doing those things to exploit their children is absurd.

The real reason whythis is disturbing people is that these beautiful pictures of tiny hands andfeet hurt the abortion issue. An overwhelming percentage of women (every surveyputs the number in the 90%’s) who have aborted said they were given very littleinformation about how abortion works and about the life that was developinginside of them. Pictures like these might help young ladies realize that it isnot a “glob of tissue,” but a tiny human. This scares liberals.

As I explain in mybook Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery, lifebegins at conception, and these babies that were lost too soon are immediatelyushered into heaven. The Duggars’ strong faith in the Lord assures them ofthis, and they know that they will see Jubilee in heaven.

I hope that noprofessing Christian is criticizing this family during this time of tragedy. AsChristians, let’s take this opportunity to pray for them. Pray that God’s HolySpirit will provide the Comfort that He promises, and pray that this familywill continue to be a light for Jesus Christ to millions of people everyday.

Was Jesus Born on December 25th?

2011-12-13T15:32:00.002-05:00

Christmas is the Christian holiday that remembers the birthof Jesus Christ, but was this whole idea just borrowed from other religions?

I was told last week that Christianity is a hoax that hastaken bits and pieces from other religions and created its own. Consider someof these other ancient gods:

Dionysus (Greek)was born on December 25^th. He was known as the son of Zeus, and hisfollowers symbolically ate his body and drank his blood in the form of breadand wine.

Attis (Roman) wasborn on December 25^th to a virgin. Attis was sacrificed throughcrucifixion on a tree, and he spent three days in the underworld. On the thirdday, Sunday, he rose again. Later, his body was symbolically eaten in the formof bread.

Osiris (Egyptian)had his birth announced by three wise men, and his followers ate his body inthe form of cake.

Other gods claimed to have been virgin-born, like Ion,Pythagoras, and Hercules.

If these things are true than it would seem as if Christianitywere nothing more than a chapter from mythology. Is Jesus just another ancientgod along with Dionysus, Attis, and Osiris?

Let’s look a little closer at these similarities. Startingwith the virgin birth accounts, none of these supposed births came from ahuman. While Jesus was born to the human Mary, these other gods were born toother gods, which tarnishes the whole miraculous part. Anyone can write a storyof a fictional god producing another god; the biblical account of Mary could bevalidated by all who knew her.

But what is more important is the date of these events.Proponents of these conspiracies teach that these gods were “pre-Christian,”meaning that they happened before Christianity, and thus, Christianity copiedthem. But Christianity did not begin with the resurrection of Christ, or evenHis birth.

Consider that Isaiah prophesied that Jesus would be born toa virgin some 400 years before the event came to pass. Even more impressive isthat God Himself told Adam and Eve that the Son of a woman would bringsalvation (Genesis 3:15). Every other child in the Bible is referred to asbeing from the father, but Jesus was from the mother.

These prophecies about the virgin birth predate anyreligions of antiquity, so if anyone is doing the plagiarizing, it would seemthat others have ripped off God’s story.

The same case can be made for people eating bread tosymbolize the body of other deities. Jesus first told His disciples to rememberHim when they ate the bread in the year 33, long before other followers beganto eat bread to symbolize their gods. Even still, the meal that Jesus wasreferring to was the Passover, a feast that Jews had been eating since theExodus. This was a centuries old practice for the Jews, which certainly doesn’t“pre-date” Christianity.

For the ones who claim that Attis was crucified, there is norecord of that report until 150 years after the resurrection of Jesus, meaningthat all the Gospels were in circulation when this report first surfaced. Attiswas known of before the birth of Christ, but his crucifixion and resurrectioncame much later.

Other claims of resurrections do not hold up either. Osiriswas murdered by his brother, who mutilated his body and chopped him into 14pieces. Isis, who wanted to give Osiris a burial, was only able to find 13 ofhis pieces. He never resurrected, but instead was declared to be the god of theunderworld. This doesn’t look like it was stolen by Christianity, does it?

In fact, no ancient gods ever claimed to have been sacrificedfor sin, and none ever claimed to have risen back to life. Attis came back inthe form of the son god, not to a bodily resurrection.

Osiris’ birth was announced by 3 wise men, but that does notmean that Christians stole that detail. For one thing, Jesus' birth wasannounced by angels. For another, wise men visited Jesus, but not until He wasabout two years old. Tradition puts 3 wise men in the nativity, but theBible does not.

And so that brings us to December 25^th. Was Jesusborn on that day, or is that copied from ancient religions? We have alreadyseen that other pagan religions have stolen from Christianity, so the caseabout His birth is not under fire any more, but let’s look anyway.

December 25^th coincides with the winter solstice.On that day the night is longer and the day is shorter than any other day ofthe year. The night gets progressively shorter while the day gets progressivelylonger on the proceeding days. Ancient pagans created gods to be born onDecember 25^th and said that as their gods grew, so did the day. Thesun gods were especially common to have been born on the winter solstice, andthat is why older gods claimed that day.

(The winter solstice is officially December 21^st,but in ancient days December 25^th would have been the first day thatpeople would notice the changing of the length of the day)

Was Jesus born on December 25^th? No. But didChristians plagiarize that day? No.

This is similar to Halloween, which is filled with paganpractices. While ancient pagans were out indulging in their holiday, Christiansbegan to find ways to combat it. Consider how your church might utilize a“trunk or treat,” Fall Festival, Judgment House, or Halloween Alternative (Ihave been to Hallow-Teens, for example). This doesn’t mean that Christiansstole October 31^st from pagans; it means that they are combatingwhat is sinful with something holy.

We don’t know the date that Jesus was born, so earlyChristians began to observe His birthday on the day that pagans were observingthe birthday of their gods. When the pagans were celebrating, so were theChristians.

Jesus was most likely born in the fall. The fact that Josephhad to return to his hometown to be taxed is a good indication. These taxationstook place after the harvest when people had the most money on hand, so manybelieve that Jesus was actually born around late September. The Feast ofTabernacles (or Booths) was also at this time, and travel was not unusual.

The shepherds in the field with their flocks is alsoimportant. In December the fields would not provide grass for grazing, andshepherds usually gave up on the fields after the fall.

Christmas literally means “Christ-mass,” which refers to theCatholic mass, or their rendition of the Lord’s Supper. Since the date of thebirth of Jesus is not known, the Roman Catholic Church established that aChrist mass would be observed on December 25^th while the pagans werecelebrating the new sun.

So Jesus was not born on December 25^th, but Ihave no problem celebrating that day. As Christians, we say that we actuallycelebrate His birth every day, just as we celebrate His resurrection more thanjust at Easter.

So let me wish you a Merry Christmas, and let us wish Jesusa Happy Birthday, for both take place in the lives of believers every day ofthe year.

Rachel Dowd Book Sponsorship Program

2011-12-09T10:15:00.001-05:00

Several times over the last few weeks I have had theopportunity to sit down with people and hand them a free copy of Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery. These peoplewere parents who had recently lost children to infant mortality, and I wasdirected to them by mutual friends.

While there are no easy words to say in these situations, itis an honor to be able to provide a free book that will hopefully answer somequestions they are facing, and that will definitely present the gospel.

Even though I am the one sitting on their couch and givingthem a free book, I am not the only one who plays a part. These books that Ihave donated have been paid for through the Rachel Dowd Book SponsorshipProgram.

Rachel Dowd was stillborn on May 31^st, 1995, toChuck and Carol Dowd in Alabama, and their story can be read in the Testimoniessection of Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery.

The Rachel Dowd Book Sponsorship Program was created toprovide free books as a ministry to those who have lost a child. A gift of just$10 will put a book into the hands of one of these grieving parents.

Your donation is tax deductible, and it can be made in honorof or in memory of someone. Gifts made in someone’s memory or honor will belisted on the Tommy Mann Ministries Facebook Fan Page.

Donations can be made at http://www.wix.com/tommymannministries/asleepinheavensnursery#!rachel-dowd-sponsorship-program

Thank you for your generosity!

Mark Driscoll: A Leader We Shouldn't Follow

2011-11-29T19:32:00.001-05:00

As a young pastor I keep getting told that I need to learnfrom the leadership training of Mark Driscoll, who is the leader of the Acts 29Network and pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington. He is consideredto be a leadership guru for young church leaders, but I believe that hismethodology is dangerous.

To Driscoll’s credit, he teaches a lot of good theology.Most of Driscoll’s fans seem to be in the emerging church, but Driscoll himselfis no fan of the emerging church. He is the first to point out the fact thatthey do not believe in absolute truth, and that they care more about handingout “muffins and hugs” than they do about preaching the gospel. In a day wherethe emerging church spends more time giving happy pep talks, Driscoll is a teacherof theology. And while I do not agree with all of his theology, I do appreciatethat he is teaching it. Unfortunately, it is guys like him that say just enoughgood stuff to give themselves credibility.

First of all, he admits to and even brags about committingtheft in his book Confessions of aRadical Rev. He boasts that he never had to pay for electricity in one ofhis first buildings because “the building was illegally hooked up to the powergrid and all our power was stolen (p.125).” And in case you think that is nobig deal and I am just being picky, consider that he stole something tangibleas well. “I stole an unused sound console from my old church, along with aprojector screen, which were sins Jesus thankfully died to forgive (p.62).”

Talk about making a mockery out of grace! He is braggingabout being a thief and making a joke about the blood of Jesus! It would be adifferent story if he premised these accounts by saying he regrets what he didor he has repented, but it is this type irreverence that makes him too immatureto be considered a good leader.

I also disagree with him on the issue of drinking alcohol. Iam not going to use this blog to make the case for abstinence from alcohol, butI certainly believe in it. Driscoll feels differently, making comments that“God has come to earth and kicks things off as a bartender (The Radical Reformission, p.30)” Hemakes comments about drinking beer frequently in his books and sermons, but thething that gets me is that he requires the people he trains to brew their ownbeer at home. He has a chapter titled The Sin of Light Beer in The Radical Reformission where he makesthe case that light beer came about to please feminists, and that goodChristians should oppose feminism by drinking “good beer.”

With that knowledge of good beer versus sinful beer,Driscoll says in Confessions of a RadicalRev. that he holds boot camps to teach guys how to “brew decent beer(p.131).” He also says that he became convicted of his “sin of abstinence fromalcohol. So in repentance, I drank a hard cider over lunch with our worshippastor (The Radical Reformissionp.146).”

I also have a problem with the way that he uses the secularto make his points. I know that Jesus and Paul made illustrations of thingslike fishing, running, and farming, but those things are not sinful. InDriscoll’s book The Radical Reformission heincludes examples of radicals on mission with him. Among them are David Brucefrom Hollywood Jesus, who calls himself a missionary because he takes clipsfrom movies and uses them to make comparisons to Christianity (I have been along time critic of using movies that are full of curse words, sexual content,and God’s name in vain as “witnessing material”). He also features IcabodCaine, a country music DJ in Seattle, who said we are “basically clueless” asto the difference between the secular and sacred, and yet he views himself as amissionary even though he daily plays music that is filled with drunkenness,divorce, and profanity.

Another example of Driscoll using the secular in place ofScripture comes from his owning and operating of The Paradox, which was a venuethat was designed to host concerts. Driscoll said he rarely used the venue tohost Christian bands because his goal was to get unsaved people into thebuilding. But the problem is that the gospel was never presented to theseunsaved kids; they would basically pay secular bands to come perform (thussupporting what they stand for), then let the crowd leave unchanged. Instead ofbeing a pastor, this makes Driscoll nothing more than a concert promoter. Inhis own words, Driscoll never “preach[ed] at the kids” or did “goofy thingslike handing out tracts (Confessions of aRadical Rev. p.127).”

The basement of the building, he says, was a place wherelocal junkies would do black tar heroine, and the back is where junkies would“shoot up drugs and poop on the ground (p.125),” and he laughs about theJapanese punk band that randomly stripped naked during the show. Don’t worrythough, because during these concerts Driscoll saw “many kids come to faiththrough relationships (p.127).” This might sound elementary, but relationshipsdon’t save people, faith in Jesus and repentance does.

He also has one of his church leaders routinely leaddiscussions on movies they watch, including “unedited R-rated” movies, to teachpeople to think critically (Confessions,p.157). Humans are totally depraved; why do we need to look at sin in order tocritique it?

But what drives me crazy about Driscoll is his crudeness. Iwill break down this final point into three areas: his general crudeness, hisobsession with crude sexuality, and his crudeness when referring to my Lord.

His language is foul, crude, and offensive. I can’t even dojustice to how crude he is because I refuse to write most of the words he uses.He makes no apology for the time he “cussed out the poor guy” who came to himfor counseling when he was having a bad day (Confessions of a Radical Rev. p.128), or for the fact that he“cussed a lot” when he was frustrated (p.129), including cussing at the bareoffering plate (p.47). On page 133 he uses a crude word for prostitute and acrude word for an illegitimate child.

In The RadicalReformission he uses yet another crude term to refer to a loose woman(different from the one mentioned above) on page 29. In Vintage Jesus he quotes Brad Pitt from the movie Fight Club, where he uses the longerform of being P.O.’ed (p.201).

His crudeness is also sexual. In Confessions he refers to intercourse as “banging (p.128).” On thesame page he admits to being burned out in the ministry due to “anunspectacular sex life,” and he makes a reference to a woman being “hot likehell.” On page 96, when admitting that he isn’t like most pastors, jokes aboutusing words in sermons like a term to refer to the male reproductive organ, aswell as having “an aluminum pole in the bedroom.” Some of those “sermons on sexwere R-rated (p.134).”

One of those R-rated sermons was when he gave all the guys twostones to symbolize what they needed in order to be real men (p.129). Hislingo was cruder.

In Radical he saysthat Adam and Eve were “horny (p.28—on that page he also uses a crude term fora prostitute)” and he makes a joke about a gay orgy on page 33. He makes wisecracksabout people using Viagra on pages 75 and 165. There is also a joke about avasectomy on page 76.

Driscoll talks frankly about a threesome on page 92, andabout girls’ tight pants making their backsides look big on page 95, about agirl having “junk in her trunk” on page 119. On page 187 he references a man’s genitals, and on 185 he brags aboutteaching on subjects like the different ways that a woman can climax.

In Vintage Jesushe refers to intercourse as “knocking boots (p.11) and “shagging (p.41).” Whileattending a Monday Night Football game, he writes that “half-naked young womenprovide eye candy (p.164).”

On page 169 he says that our culture worships “goodold-fashioned naked crazy-making” and he makes yet another reference to eatingViagra on page 183.

He also makes references to graphic sexual practices thattake place, both as couples and alone, dozens of times. Not only does he talkabout these topics that shouldn’t be mentioned, he does it in such a crass way.These references do not include his forthcoming book which will deal with thesetopics and much more (http://www.christianpost.com/news/mark-driscoll-answers-the-can-we-do-that-questions-in-upcoming-book-55728/print.html).

But the worst of all of his crude comments comes in aconversation he felt the need to include in Confessionswhen a member of his church called him during the night crying, and told himthat he had just watched a dirty movie. Driscoll asked him, “Was it a goodporno?” When the young man asked for prayer, this is the prayer that Driscollrecords: “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen.”Driscoll then told the man not to call him at night when he is sleeping, andsaid he didn’t have time to be his accountability partner.

But it gets worse. When the man asked for advice, here isDrsicoll’s reply: “You need to stop watching porno and crying like a babyafterwards…a naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask herto get naked, and look at her instead (p.60).”

Not exactly a good leadership technique.

Mark Driscoll is also crude when speaking of Jesus. In Vintage Jesus he has a four-wordsentence: “Jesus was a dude (p.31).” This dude “did things that normal peopledo, like farting, going to the bathroom, and blowing boogers from his nose(p.32).”

On page 43 he says that Jesus acted as if He needed Paxil,that He was cruel for calling the Pharisees hypocrites, that He neededsensitivity training, and that He commissioned His disciples to “take a donkeywithout asking like some kleptomaniac donkeylifter.”

On page 44 he says that Jesus yelled at his disciples forsleeping “as an obvious workaholic who needed to start drinking decaf andlistening to taped sounds of running water while doing aromatherapy so he couldlearn to relax.”

I don’t care who this offends: I’m not taking leadershipadvice from a “pastor” that calls my Lord a pill-popping, cruel, insensitive,workaholic kleptomaniac dude who farts and blows boogers out of His nose. Andneither should you.

I know Driscoll defends himself by saying that humor is histhing, but there is nothing funny about belittling the King of the universe.Jesus is not a dude or my homeboy, He is my precious Lord and Savior. I wouldnot let anyone talk about my wife that way, so why would I let him talk thatway about the one who has saved me?

But that is just one book. In Radical he refers to “the God-Man” going “through puberty” andspeculates that He had to have received at least one wedgie (p.29).

I have called Mark Driscoll a pervert from the pulpit, andwill do nothing less here. If you are a pastor or leader who looks up to thisman, or if you are a believer who reads or listens to him, please consider whohe really is. I know the hip thing in churches is to be edgy and be theopposite of your grandparents preacher who wore a suit, parted his hair on theleft, and used the KJV exclusively. And that is fine. But if you are lookingfor a good preacher, look for one who loves and respects the Lord and His Word,and do not turn your ears to these shock and awe men who are ear pleasing.

Consider Paul, who was a godly man that the young pastorTimothy looked up to. Paul warned Timothy to preach the Word because the daywould come when people would recruit teachers to say what makes them feel good,and Driscoll is one of those men.

Finally, consider these paradoxical excerpts from Vintage Jesus. On page 159 he explainsthat lordship means that “Jesus has authority over the… shows we watch.” Thenon 160 he says that we are to “say no to ungodliness in all its forms.” And onpage 167 he uses the TV show South Park asan illustration, even referring to it as “hilarious.” If you know anythingabout that show you know it has the worst language on TV; South Park was actually the first show to ever use the “S” word onTV, and after weeks of advertising that they were going to do it, they kept a counteron the screen that kept track of each time the word was used, totaling 162times on a half hour show.

Real hilarious, Mark.

And if Jesus has authority over the shows you watch, and yousay no to ungodliness in all its forms, then how does South Park fit into that equation?

I wonder if Driscoll ever preaches from Ephesians 4:29: “Letno corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.”

Pastors, if you want real leadership I have a suggestion.“Look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).”

Literal Translation vs. Dynamic Equivalence

2011-11-21T18:31:00.001-05:00

When it comes to deciding which Bible to purchase, use, ortrust, there is a good test to use. Since a new translation seems to come outabout every fifteen minutes in this country, there is no way to have a memorizedlist of which translations to trust.

The test is simple: open the Bible and see if it is aliteral translation or if it is a dynamic equivalent. This information will belocated somewhere on the inside cover or in the first couple of pages. Thisfinal installment of the Bible Blog will show the difference between the two.

Literal Translation

For the last 2,000 years the textus receptus, also known asthe majority text, has been one the most trusted and accepted set of documentsthat we have. In the first century the Bible was just our Old Testament, whichwas written in Hebrew but was already available in Greek. So as the NewTestament was written, it was written both in Greek and Latin. Therefore, theearliest Bibles were written mostly in Greek. Some of the best and most trusteddocuments made up what would later be known as the textus receptus.

It was from these documents that other translations came tobe, including the 1611 King James Version. The reason that I am such a bigsupporter of the King James Bible is I am a big supporter of where it camefrom.

The KJV translators did a meticulous job of translating wordfor word, making sure that they had the best English translation of the Bible.They even continued to meet for almost two hundred years (other people,obviously) to make sure they still had the best. This word for word renderingis what is meant by the term literal translation.

In 1971 the New American Standard Bible (NASB) was producedby the Lockman Foundation, but instead of using the textus receptus, they usedthe Biblia Hebraica and Nestle’s Greek New Testament, 23^rd edition.This project took over a decade, and this is considered by most scholars to bethe best English Bible available.

A hundred years passed without an update to the KJV, and in1982 Thomas Nelson Publishers commissioned 130 people to produce an updatedversion of the Bible. This team went right back to the textus receptus andtranslated what came to be known as the New King James Version of the Bible. Theysimply took what had been done in 1611 (and the next 200 years) and updated theEnglish words, not the meaning of the document.

Other good literal word for words translation include, butare not limited to, the American Standard Bible (1901), and the EnglishStandard Version (2001).

Dynamic Equivalence

While the literal translation takes a word for word translation approach, the dynamic equivalence (or “functional equivalence”)takes more of a paraphrase approach. This method is not as concerned with gettingthe word for word message, but for just getting the message across. The obviousproblem with this is that key words can be left out, we are not getting theBible the way it was inspired, and we can lose a lot of the cultural heritage.

The most notorious dynamic equivalence is the NewInternational Version (NIV), which debuted in 1978. I have problems with thistranslation for the reasons stated above, and also for the fact that this was agateway translation in that it opened the door for more liberal documents toemerge. Not the least of these liberal documents was the NIV’s daughter,Today’s New International Version (TNIV, 2002), which was like a feminist’srendition of the NIV.

The dynamic equivalence also gets messy when one considersthat in 1971 The Living Bible (TLB) came out, which was not a translation of anancient text, but a paraphrase of the KJV. TLB’s author, Kenneth Taylor, simplytook his KJV and rewrote it.

It is a very dangerous game when we embrace a book thatcalls itself a Bible, and yet that book was not translated literally word forword. The margin of human error becomes magnified exponentially, and liberalismbegins to creep in. This whole notion of just translating the gist is whateventually gave way to the heresy known as The Message.

When it comes time for you to make a decision on which Bibleyou will trust as the Word of God, use this little test to see if it is a wordfor word rendering of God’s Word, or if it is just the basic idea.

As one who has read many of the dynamic equivalences outthere, believe me, there is nothing dynamic about it.

KJV Only

2011-11-16T11:33:00.001-05:00

Is the King James Version of the Bible the only translationof the Bible that we should read? As a child I was taught that it was the onlyaccurate Bible, and my BA degree in Bible came from a KJV only college. I lovethe KJV, and it is the only translation I have ever taught or preached from.But is it the only Bible we should read?

Before I begin, I want to be clear that this is by no meansan exhaustive review of this topic, for that could go on and on. This is justdesigned to point out a few surface level points.

The KJV only crowd likes to criticize the newer translationsby asserting that they are leaving out words, phrases, or verses, and that theychange words. The problem with this line of thinking is that they are comparingthese newer translations to the KJV and not to original texts. For example,when the KJV-onlies criticize some for leavingout verses 9-20 of Mark 16, they are missing the fact that those verses donot appear in any ancient texts. Those verses were actually additions by theKJV translators who were worried that Mark’s gospel didn’t include any eyewitnesses of the resurrection.

Other words and phrases that were allegedly left out areactually just phrases where the old English of the KJV was unnecessarilyrepetitive.

KJV only defendants use verses like “I am the Lord, I changenot” to defend their point. If that verse means that we should not change fromthe Bible that we have, then we had better all become fluent in ancient Hebrewand Greek. As I will point out here, they make the mistake of believing thatthe KJV was the first Bible ever produced.

They also use biblical commands to not add to or take awayfrom the Word of God. They use these verses to usher in strong warnings aboutthese newer translations, but again, theirs is the one that has added to. [1]

So the question isn’t whether the NIV left out verses, butwhether the KJV added them. It isn’t fair to attack a translation for leavingout something that was not inspired in the first place.

Websites like http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm have alist of verses that are left out of the NIV, but the reality is that theseverses were added by the KJV.

In the same way that the KJV translators added verses forclarification, they also tweaked other words to please King James. John theBaptist should be known as John the Immerser, but King James did not believe inimmersion for baptism, so the word was changed.

KJV-onlies like to say that theirs is the most formaltranslation. They believe that there is more holiness in their thee’s andthou’s and their adding “eth” to every other word. The King James Version hasmany words that have other meanings today, and all of this together makes thedocument difficult to understand.

On this point, I once had a KJV only pastor point in my faceand scream at me, “If you can’t understand the KJV with a simple dictionary,you have problems.” But the real problem is the fact that the KJV requires adictionary. The New Testament writers chose to write in a style of Greek knownas koine, which was the most commonand understood form in its day. It would be the equivalent of an elementaryschool comprehension level.

So while I agree that the KJV is very poetic in its sound, especiallyin the Psalms, that is not a reason to condemn other translations. The Biblewas never meant to be something that required a Master of Divinity tounderstand; it was written by common people for common people.

Even though I preach from my King James, when I come to apassage that mentions a donkey, I say donkey out loud, but we all know thatthere is another three letter word used for donkey. The king James also refersto men as those who “[urinate] against the wall.” Of course, their word forurinate is a word most of us would wash our children’s mouth out with soap forusing. On this passage I once heard a pastor say that those words aren’t foulbecause the Bible says all the words of Christ are wholesome words. Once again,this mindset shows that the KJV-onlies think that Jesus spoke King James. TheHoly Spirit didn’t inspire those words, He inspired them in Greek and Hebrew,and now, hundreds of years after their English translations, those words have adifferent meaning.

Other words in the KJV are different. The KJV uses the wordconversation to mean lifestyle, and it makes a huge mess out of Hades by alwaystranslating it as hell. When newertranslations try to update these words, the KJV only proponents get upset. Butthis is contradictory because the KJV translators themselves used to do this.

1611 was the year that the KJV was authorized and translatedinto English. Every few years a team of scholars met to update the words inthat translation, always being careful to make sure that the words had theirtrue meaning and that it was on the common man’s level. But 1798 was the lastyear that this happened. So when the New King James Version (NKJV) wasreleased, it was nothing more than what the KJV scholars had done for almosttwo complete centuries, and yet the KJV-onlies were against it. All the NKJVdid was change the thou’s to you’s and leave off the eth’s (they also correctedthe hell/Hades problem).

To be clear, I do not support every translation that comesdown the pike. My last blog (The Message by Eugene Peterson, http://tommycmann.blogspot.com/2011/11/message-by-eugene-peterson.html) shows that, and mynext blog will as well. I am a textus receptus fan, which I will blog aboutnext, and that is where the KJV came from. A KJV only pastor, who was one of mycollege professors, said that he supported the KJV because it came from thetextus receptus. I asked him if he would support a newer translation if it camefrom the textus receptus, like the NAS, and his reply was, “Just stick to theKJV.”

It has become apparent to me that the real reason thatpeople are KJV only is that they were raised that way. When confronted withsimple logic that refutes their beliefs, they become explosively angry andspout out verses like, “Forever, oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Thatverse in no way proves their point, and once again shows that they think that Pauland Peter directly wrote the King James) There is no logic that affirms thatthe KJV is the only accurate English translation.

This blogeth wast copyrighted; thou shalt not add unto nortaketh away from, lest thou be smitten with copyright infringement.

[1] Tobe clear, these commands are in reference to people changing God’s Word fortheir own gain. When translating a document from one language to another, therewill always be words added or subtracted. There are thousands more Greek wordsthan there are English words, so entire phrases have been added to EnglishBibles. Good translations will italicize those added words.

The Message by Eugene Peterson

2011-11-04T13:45:00.002-04:00

The Message by Eugene Peterson brands itself as “The Bible in contemporary language,” but is it really a trustworthy easy-to-read Bible? I intend to show you why this book is dangerous and should not be considered the Word of God.

Every English Bible had to have come from somewhere; that is, they had to be translated from something since the Bible was Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin long before it was English. The opening pages of each Bible will tell the potential reader where this translation drew from.

For example, translation like the KJV, NKJV, and NASV are literal translations from the textus receptus, meaning that they are literal word for word translations from Greek to English, Hebrew to English, etc. Translations like the NIV are dynamic equivalents from English Bibles, meaning they took someone’s English Bible and simply updated words. There is no literal word for word translation, just taking the general idea and tinkering with it. I have long been critical of this line of translating, and I do not trust any dynamic equivalent.

But which method did The Message (TM) use? Its publisher, NavPress, isn’t really sure. Their description and advertising material begins: “For the first time, all sixty-six books of the Bible are now available in one book!”

Not to sound picky, but I’m pretty sure all 66 books of the Bible have been together in one book for quite some time. This handy all in one version of the Bible is called The Bible.

But the description continues: “Translated directly from the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts…” So it must be a literal translation, right? But the problem is two-fold. First, it doesn’t tell us which texts, which can mean literally anything, including Gnostic texts. Second, it doesn’t claim to just be a literal translation. The publisher’s description invites the reader to “join the millions of readers who have been drawn to God through Eugene Peterson’s…paraphrase.” In one paragraph the publisher says it is both a literal translation and a paraphrase.

This might sound like small potatoes (sorry The Message gets me the mood for some idioms), but this is a big deal. There is no Scriptural authority or support for anything found in TM. The Publisher knows better; they are aware that Bibles are judged by their cover, or inside cover, for that important information. They cleverly chose to slip both methods into this one. This information sets the tone for the rest of this review, because it shows that Peterson isn’t giving us any way to check his facts. We are just relying on the fact that he is smart, most people don’t read Greek or Hebrew, and he used ancient texts.

One of the loudest criticisms for this book is that the Bible tells us not to add to or take away from its pages. Verses like Proverbs 30:5-6 warn against this: “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words...” Look how Peterson conveniently side stepped this warning:

“Every promise of God proves true…so don’t second guess him.”

Instead of “every word of God is true” Peterson tells us every promise of God is true. Don’t add to His words becomes “don’t second guess him” There is a huge difference here. And unfortunately for Mr. Peterson, he is not the only one who reads Greek and Hebrew. The word used for words in these verses actually means “utterance, speech, or word,” not promise. Likewise, the command to not add to the Bible also means exactly what the Bible said it meant.

He also leaves out part of the exchange between Jesus and Satan in Luke 4:4. The Bible says, “It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” Peterson rendered this passage this way: “It takes more than bread to really live.” The problem is that Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy verbatim, and Peterson left out the command to live by every word.

So with the groundwork laid (unclear origin and no command against altering the Word), Peterson is now free to write whatever he wants.

There are weird insertions, like characters named Madame Day and Professor Night in Psalm 19:2, and a person named Syzgus to Philippians 4:3. These are both bizarre because nothing in Scripture indicates that these characters should appear here. There are also a host of alleged omissions, but these cannot really be confirmed, because again, Peterson doesn’t tell us which texts he directly translated his paraphrase from.

Peterson’s book changes God’s plan of salvation. John 3 is a great passage to show the need to change one’s life for salvation, that we must be born again. In the 17th verse of that chapter, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “For God sent not His Son into the word to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” But Peterson uses this verse to say that Jesus “came to help, to put the world right again.”

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again; Peterson is telling him that Jesus will just set things right. This is universalism, not biblical salvation. It is also Gnosticism.

Gnostics believe that we are all gods at the core of who we are, and by enlightenment we will come to recognize our true selves. We don’t have to do anything to be saved except to realize who we already are. His rendering of John 17 is in keeping with that idea.

So is his translation of Matthew 5:45 and John 1:12. The Mathew verse tells us that we can become the children of God (ginomai in Greek, which means to instantly become). TM says that if we love our enemies, instead of becoming the children of God, you are “working out of your true selves.”

The John verse says that “as many as received [Jesus], to them [God] gave the power to become (ginomai) the sons of God.” TM says that these people who said they would believe in God, God made them “to be their true selves, their child-of-God selves.”

These references to true selves are not just some cool terminology from the man who didn’t want people to be bored with the Bible; this is central to Gnostic theology.

Peterson’s seeming obsession with the word luck is also Gnostic. As Christians, we commonly say that we don’t believe in luck or coincidence, but it is clear that Peterson believes in luck. TM uses the word luck in 31 verses and lucky in 32 verses. He uses the phrase “bad luck” in 11 verses, and luckless or unlucky in 13 verses. 27 times he replaces “blessed” with “fortunate” or “fortune.” An example of this is in Psalm 25:22 and 73:14 where the discipline of God is referred to as “a run of bad luck.” (Footnote #1)

In Luke 23:29, speaking of the end times, Jesus said, “For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Peterson’s version uses the word lucky three times in this verse.

This is important because anyone familiar with Gnostic literature would see what he is doing. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (v.79) says, “A woman in the crowd said to him, Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you." He said to [her], "Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Lucky are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk.’” Peterson altered the Gospel by directly quoting a Gnostic gospel!

In further Gnostic style, Peterson reduces the deity of Jesus. Instead of having Jesus say that He and the Father are one (John 10:30), he has Jesus say “My Father and I are of one heart and mind.” He also has Jesus say that the Father “is his goal (John 14:28).”

He has clearly reduced Jesus into something less than God. He has presented Him as a child of God, no different than everyone else, according to the Gnostics. This is further evidenced by his descriptions of Jesus. TM never uses titles such as Lord Jesus, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or Our Savior Jesus Christ, despite the fact that those titles are used over a hundred times in the Bible. More shocking, while the Bible uses Lord or Jehovah almost 8,000 times, those words appear a total of 62 times in TM, and not all of those even refer to Jesus (Footnote #2).

We also see Gnosticism in other places. The model prayer begins Hallowed be thy name in Matthew 6:9, but Peterson begins it with “Reveal who you are (enlightenment).” “Lead us not into temptation” in that prayer is changed to “keep us safe (because we aren’t sinful),” and his use of the term “as above, so below” is more Gnostic theology.

Peterson himself had something very interesting to say about Gnostics in his 1991 book Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer. On page 76 he says that for Gnostics “metaphor is an affront to their gossamer immaterialities and inner-ring whispers, a loud fart in the salon of spirituality. Metaphor is the psalmic antidote to the dematerializing venom of the Gnostic.” While his language is harsh on Gnostics in 1991, he points out that their weapon is their pen and their ammunition is their use of the metaphor. And his Message, which is heavily Gnostic, is teeming with metaphors. If he isn’t a Gnostic, he has certainly taken a page out of their playbook.

I could go on with more offenses he has committed against the Word of God, but I believe the point has been made. Peterson wanted to create a bible that wasn’t boring, one that was easy to read with “no distracting verse numbers.” Which I appreciate, because we all know how distracting those pesky verse numbers can be. But what he created was a Gnostic’s version of the Holy Bible. To prove my point, the book’s publisher has a single review posted on their website. It says:

"After all the time I spent reading the Bible, nothing has enlightened me more than The Message. I now feel I am worth something to God."

Did you catch the word enlighten there? I’d say Mr. Peterson has accomplished his mission.

I don’t believe The Message by Eugene Peterson is the Word of God, but the message of Eugene Peterson.

(1) http://www.seekgod.ca/msgdoctrine3.htm
(2) http://www.life-everlasting.net/Pages/Corrections/Why%20the%20Messege%20bible%20should%20NOT%20be%20used.htm

Repent: The Shortest (and Best) Sermon Ever Preached

2011-10-26T11:28:00.001-04:00

The word repent means “to change one’s life for the better.” It carries with it the idea of making a 180 degree turn, of totally changing directions in your life. In short, repentance is a command for the thief to quit stealing, the drunk to quit drinking, the fornicator to quit fornicating, the gossiper to quit gossiping, etc.

But that doesn’t sound like a good sermon. Aren’t sermons supposed to make the listener feel good? Maybe talking about repentance every now and then is ok, but just during an invitation or somewhere near the end of the message. We should never begin a sermon with a call to repent, and we should never harp on it the whole time. After all, won’t all that repent talk offend the lost or turn them off from Christianity?

For starters, if a person is not a Christian, a sermon, no matter how bold, cannot make that person any more lost. But what about the claim that we have to warm people up to the idea of repentance? Let’s look at how some of the greatest preachers of all time dealt with the subject of repentance.

John the Baptist. Jesus once said that his cousin John was the best person who ever lived. Here are the first recorded words of this great man: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near (Matthew 3:2).”

Jesus. God became flesh and lived among us. When He was thirty years old He began His ministry by being baptized, then spent time alone fasting in the wilderness. After that event, the first recorded words of Jesus to begin His ministry are “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near (Matthew 4:17).” This verse says that Jesus “began to preach” this message, meaning that it was the message He kept coming back to, which is what we see in Luke 13, 16, and 17.

Peter. The great apostle and New Testament church leader was present when the Holy Spirit fell from heaven. Christians began to present the gospel message, and each person was hearing it in his own language. Peter stood up to explain what was going on, and he did so by telling the crowd that they were responsible for murdering Jesus. The question was asked, “What must we do?” The first recorded words of Peter in response was, “Repent, and be baptized (Acts 2:38).”

Jesus, again. In Revelation John received a vision of Jesus speaking to seven churches. In these accounts Jesus would tell the churches what they were doing wrong, and His remedy was the same: Repent (Revelation 2-3).

In Acts 3, 8, and 26 the early church leaders are still preaching repentance, and in Acts 17:30 we are told that God commands people everywhere to repent. And while it is true that Paul never used the word repent as a command to others, the bulk of his writings were telling people, usually in a confrontational manner, that they needed to turn from specific sin.

So why have we become so afraid to use this word? I have two possible theories.

#1, we have no moral authority.

#2, we want to be popular.

We have no moral authority to call out sin when we are living in it, so instead of repenting ourselves we just keep quiet about the speck in our brother’s eye. If I am watching TV shows that take God’s Name in vain, then I can’t preach that you should not use those words yourself. If I am living in adultery, then I cannot preach that you shouldn’t lust.

But Jesus never told us to have a “live and let live” approach to each other’s sin. Yes, if there is a beam in your eye, you shouldn’t call out the speck in your brother’s eye, but the Bible commands us to remove the beam in our eye so that we can help our brother remove the speck from his (Matthew 7:3-5).

We also want to be popular. Let’s face it, who has more fans, Joel Osteen or John MacArthur? The guy who tells you God is a genie in a bottle who can’t wait to give you a million dollars draws a bigger crowd than the guy who says God wants you to move out of the house of the lover you aren’t married to. We think that if we can disguise what God is really like than maybe people will like us more, we can draw a bigger crowd, then win the respect of the religious community.

I like how Francis Chan put it in his book Erasing Hell. He said we need to stop apologizing for God and start apologizing to Him for trying to repaint Him into a more user friendly deity.

I find it amusing that the emerging church hates the word repent, and yet they miss it right there in Acts 2. While they are busy building their theology around having all things common and meeting in houses, they miss the very thing that led to that: Peter’s call to repent. And while they love to talk about the kingdom of heaven, they don’t realize that there is no admittance without repentance.

God calls all men to repent, and I am not ashamed to declare that same message. Paul said he was not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that leads to salvation (Romans 1:16). I couldn’t care less if this blog makes you think I’m a conservative legalist; it might help someone experience the power of God unto salvation, and that is all I am interested in.

Do you need to repent of not telling people to repent?

Asleep in Heaven's Nursery: Why Every Christian Needs to Read This Book

2011-10-07T16:08:00.000-04:00

“I believe in the traditional Baptist doctrine on that subject.”

That answer came from a pastor when I asked him what the Bible says about the age of accountability. He clearly had no idea what he believed, and instead of taking time to research the matter, he simply deferred to the Baptist doctrine.

Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery is not just for people who have lost children, although that is a major part of it. I want Christians to know why I wrote this book, and why I think it can be helpful to them. This might sound self-serving, like I am writing this to just sell books. But I never would have written the book if I didn’t think it would serve a purpose. And as a not-for-profit ministry, I don’t make a penny off of these books, so this is not about financial gain.

This book looks at the age of accountability to see if it is biblical. It also lists the major criticisms for the age of accountability and gives a rebuttal for them. For example, if Jesus said that no one gets to the Father except through Him, then how can infants get to the Father? People use this logic to refute Christian truth, so it is important to know their arguments and what the Bible says.

This book also looks at the very sensitive issue of when a baby is considered to be a life. Is it at conception, at birth, or somewhere in the middle? On this extremely important topic we must know what we believe.

Can people be forgiven for having an abortion? Is the baby punished for the mother’s sin? Can that mother go to heaven?

Is abortion ok if the mother was raped? What if her life is in danger? What if it was incest? What if the child will have a deformity?

Is adoption really a good option? Won’t these children have miserable lives in an orphanage? (By the way, as the world mourns the loss of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, did you know that he was adopted? He is even mentioned in this book)

What will babies look like in heaven? Will they be angels? Did you know that the overwhelming majority of mothers who have lost a child believe their babies are angels?

What should I say to my friend or relative who has lost a baby? Can I cheer them up?

These are all pieces of information that are good for Christians to know, even if you have not personally lost a child.

If you have not lost a child but know someone who has, buying them this book is a great way to show them the love of Christ. This is especially true if that person is not a Christian, because this book lays out God’s plan of salvation.

If you have lost a child, this book will hopefully answer every question that you have asked yourself.

Pastors and counselors, this book is a good resource to give out to people you minister to who have lost a child.

If you would like to donate a book in memory of or in honor of someone, you can do that through the Rachel Dowd Sponsorship Program for just $10. That will allow us to supply a book to someone who has just lost a child. This donation is tax deductible, and you can do that here: http://www.wix.com/tommymannministries/asleepinheavensnursery#!rachel-dowd-sponsorship-program

From now through October 15th, 10% of book sales will go to the March of Dimes.

You can get a copy at http://www.tommymannministries.com/. Facebook users can like Tommy Mann Ministries and use the store tab for special Facebook only deals.

Disney Music: China Anne McClain and Allstar Weekend

2011-09-28T14:59:00.001-04:00

When I was a child Disney music was harmless. In fact, one of the first cassette tapes that I owned (remember those?) was the soundtrack to The Lion King. The lyrics were always harmless, usually funny, and any music videos were animated. In those days, the only criticism of Disney music was that Elton John provided some of the vocals.

Like most things, though, Disney music has evolved. Thanks to Radio Disney, and their hit TV show Next Big Thing, and the fact that almost every character from the Disney Channel has their own band, Disney music is now pop music with real people and real music videos.

That is not what concerns me. My issue is with the lyrics. China Anne McClain (star of Disney Channel’s newest comedy show Ant Farm) is one of those actors who also also sings. Her debut song is called Dynamite, which is a catchy song with a harmless video. The chorus of the song says, “We gon’ rock this club, we gon’ go all night, we gon’ light it up like its dynamite.”

China Anne is not even in high school yet and she is singing about rocking a club all night. The majority of her fans will not even be old enough to enter a club for another decade, so that is a little confusing to me as a song choice by Disney.

Where it gets even weirder is when I found out that two other artists had previously recorded the same song. The original artist, Taio Cruz, who wrote the song, has a trashy music video to go along with it. The original Cruz version also has the f-word in it. Why would Disney have their newest and youngest star sing this song?

If you type “Dynamite lyrics” in Google, guess whose version comes up? China Anne’s doesn’t come on the entire first page, and her name doesn’t come up in the suggestions. Most of the hits are Taio’s version.

Then there is the group Allstar Weekend. These guys rose to fame on Disney’s Next Big Thing, and they have a song on the soundtrack to the newest Disney movie Prom. The song is called Not Your Birthday, and it is written to everyone who is not celebrating their birthday so they can party too.

Like with Dynamite there is another version, but unlike the other song, Allstar Weekend does both versions. Allstar Weekend’s original version contains both the b-word and the d-word (twice), and it glorifies drinking this way:

“Take a sip of the high life, chase it down until you fall.”

“Drop your calls, lose your keys before the drinks are gone.”

“Life is tough so fill them cups, one life to live so live it up, drinks go up, drink ‘em down, turn it up, wake up the town.”

In the music video the band is singing at prom, which is lame before the band arrives. Once they start singing people are drinking the “punch” and they begin to loosen up and have fun (including the school faculty).

In the Prom version the lyrics are altered:

“Take a moment of the good life, chase it down until you fall.”

“Drop your calls, lose your keys before the night is gone.”

“Life is tough so loosen up, DJ, turn that Weekend up, get down, get loud, everybody stand up, everybody go nuts, throw your hands up.”

In this video the punch drinking is replaced with scenes from the movie, but the rest is the same. If you type “Allstar Weekend Not Your Birthday” in Google, once again, you get the original version. “Clean version” comes up in the suggestion box, but even after I selected that, the first one to come up was not the clean version.
Disney owns the copyright to both versions.

If a child watching the Disney Channel or listening to the radio station decides to use the internet to watch their music video or buy their song on iTunes, they will most likely end up with the “unclean” version. And since most children these days have smart phones or unrestricted internet access, this is a recipe for disaster.

These two songs are designed to glamorize drinking and the club life. For their music videos, instead of having alcohol make everyone have a good time, they should show what drinking and the club scene really look like. They should use real footage of the vehicular accidents, homicide, suicide, rape, hangover, broken marriage, abandoned children, and ultimate misery that comes from rockin’ the club likes its dynamite.

And before you leave a comment about how a glass of wine won’t send you to hell (Moderationists are always so classy with their “glass of wine” when they really mean “6 pack”), let me point out that these songs aren’t about moderation, they are about a party lifestyle.

As parents we need to make sure that we don’t glamorize sin that can destroy our lives like dynamite.

Alicia's New Kidney

2011-09-22T14:59:00.002-04:00

As many of you know, my wife Alicia had a kidney transplant last week in Charlotte, North Carolina. I wanted to take a few minutes to brag on God and record some of the details that are nothing short of miraculous.

When Alicia was 12 weeks pregnant with Reagan she was diagnosed with a specific kidney disease called FSGS, or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, which is hereditary. This disease was thought to only be passed on to males, so we were shocked to learn that Alicia had it. I have reported before that Alicia’s doctor thought that an abortion would be the best plan because the pregnancy would fast-forward the kidney disease, but we both have strong convictions against aborting a baby.

The fact that Alicia’s kidney function level stayed the same from the time she was diagnosed until the time she delivered (33% function) is a miracle in itself. But after Regan was born the disease began to pick up speed, and we began the process of getting approved for the transplant list.

A patient cannot get his name on a transplant list until he has declined to 20% function, and that day came for Alicia in April of 2011. She had already spent months going through orientation, testing, and dieting, so when her name went on the list she had done everything else she could do. Now we just needed to wait for a new organ, which we were told would take 3-5 years.

We had been given living donor screening packets to send out, but with the disease being hereditary, Alicia’s immediate family was ruled out. Next of kin make the best donors, so we didn’t expect to find a living donor. Just two weeks after being approved for the transplant list, we got a call that there was a match.

Sean Dietz, a man in our church, met the preliminary requirements (his wife Kelley was also tested but was not a match). He then went through months of testing to make sure he was healthy enough to donate and to live with just one kidney. In mid-August Sean was finally approved, and on September 13th his kidney was successfully transplanted into Alicia, whose kidneys were almost totally non-existent.

In most cases the patient will be on dialysis, which is a difficult procedure that does the work of the kidney for the body. A person on dialysis will have all the blood drained from his body, cleaned in a machine, and then funneled back into the body. There are several ways to do this, but each takes several hours and must be done several times each week. Alicia was told that she would probably start dialysis several times, but that day never came. She made it from December of 2008 to September of 2011 without having to go through dialysis, which was another miracle from the Lord.

As I mentioned, this disease is hereditary. Alicia’s father had his own transplant 10 years ago this November, and her father’s father received a transplant in 1969 during the early years of transplanting. Her grandfather’s body rejected the organ after 2 years, and he eventually succumbed to the disease. A generation later her father was able to undergo a much better process due to advances in the science. This generation’s advances helped to not only give Alicia a new kidney, but to also keep her off of dialysis. This incredible science is yet another testament of how great our God is. There is a 50-50 chance our daughter will have this same disease, but we know that our Lord will do what is right for her.

Alicia’s dad is a business manager for Frito Lay in the Dallas, Texas area. He has traveled occasionally, but rarely, for company training. The very day that we were told that the surgery was going to be scheduled, Alicia’s dad was told that he had to travel for training. Out of any city in the world where this training could have taken place, he was told to go to Charlotte, and was put in a hotel about 6 miles from the hospital where Alicia’s surgery would take place.

Obviously he would have been here for the transplant anyway, but this way his travel and hotel expenses were paid for by his company. And not being one to believe in coincidences, this was just an out of the blue reminder that every detail is in our sovereign God’s hands.

A surgery like this naturally comes with a high price tag, but we have been blessed beyond belief to be at such a great place like Philippi, and the insurance that they provide for me is incredible. And after Sean found out that he would miss 8 weeks of work without pay, the kind people of Philippi took up a special offering, during a recession, that would cover his lost wages.

I believe that this account preaches a wonderful sermon on who God is, and that the words of Matthew 6:33 are true: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all the things will be added unto you.”

Sean, the donor, is at home recovering, and Alicia’s kidney function is medically perfect.

I am from Orlando, Florida, and Alicia is from Dallas, Texas. The Lord moved us to Union, South Carolina, where He had prepared for us a perfect match, in more ways than one.

What a great God we serve!

Alcohol for Revenue

2011-08-30T11:44:00.002-04:00

This was an article I wrote for the Union County News.

I have heard some talk lately about the possibility that our county will increase alcohol sales to raise revenue. In this economy we should certainly explore options that might increase revenue, but are we willing to compromise our standards to do it?

The state of Minnesota recently contemplated the same issue. Just last year the state put out a fact sheet to see how much revenue was brought in through the sale of alcohol, and it was a staggering $296 million.

But the interesting part came when they calculated how much the sale of alcohol cost them.

After they calculated the cost on the state from alcohol related homicide/suicide, falling and other accidents, drowning, cancer, liver disease, other chronic illnesses, vehicular accidents, unintended pregnancies, birth defects, and alcohol dependence programs, Minnesota found out that they paid out $5.06 billion because of alcohol sales.

That is 17 times the amount of “revenue” brought in by alcohol.

Increasing our venues that can sell alcohol may bring in money off the top, but it will cost us far more than we want to pay.

Source: http://www.health.state.mn.us/cdrr/alcohol/alcpdf/costfactsheet.pdf

Is "Heaven is For Real" For Real?

2011-08-25T18:44:00.000-04:00

In Todd Burpo’s new book Heaven is For Real he recounts his son Colton’s medical problems, which included an emergency surgery that almost ended his life. According to Burpo, his four year old son later told his father that the angels sang to him during his surgery. From there, the rest of the book is devoted to the father retelling the son’s story of his trip to heaven.

This book was very well written and the story was captivating. Anyone would have to be heartless to accuse this cute toddler of lying or being wrong about what he claims he witnessed. While I am not prepared to accuse him of lying, there were some questions that I have. According to Burpo on page 66, his son’s story “matched Scripture in every detail,” and in order for this story to have been true, it would indeed have to match in every detail.

One of the first things that Colton told his father is that Jesus rode on a rainbow colored horse. To match Scripture in every detail, it should be noted that Scripture never mentions Jesus having a rainbow colored horse. It does, however, mention that Jesus will ride a white horse (Revelation 19:11).

Colton also told his father that everyone, including his Papa, had wings in heaven. The problem with this, as I describe in greater detail in Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery, is that people do not become angels once they get to heaven. Humans will still be humans in heaven, just with glorified bodies, and angels are separate beings. Matthew 22:30 and Hebrews 12:22-23 both make a distinction between angles and humans (“spirits of just men made perfect”).

Colton slowly shared details with his dad over the course of three years. Among those details were things like Jesus giving Colton homework to do in heaven, which again, doesn’t match Scripture.

On page 107 Burpo said that Colton’s description of the colors of heaven reminded him of the description of heaven in Revelation 21. The problem here is that Revelation 21 is a description of the New Jerusalem, not heaven. That is not to say that heaven isn’t colorful, but again, it is not fair to say that his description matched Scripture.

Colton said that while he was there he saw Jesus “shoot down power” from heaven in the form of the Holy Spirit to give his father the power to preach. This bit of news came more than a year after Colton started telling his father about his visit to heaven; when his story first started, this visit had taken place while Colton was in surgery and his parents were in the waiting room. His father was certainly not preaching during this time, he was in the waiting room “chastising God” for his son’s illness, so that whole story seems outright false.

Three years after Colton’s surgery, their family was at home watching The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on DVD. After the movie was over Colton’s mother asked if there were swords in heaven, and Colton told her that there were. He said that the angels carried swords in order to keep Satan out of heaven, and Colton asked if he could have a sword, and Jesus told him no because that would be too dangerous. This makes me wonder how heaven could be dangerous, especially since it is a perfect place where the humans have glorified bodies. Could Jesus not let this child have a sword for a little fun? Could Jesus not keep him safe?

When he told his parents that Jesus wouldn’t let him have a sword, he was “dejected” and “slumped toward the floor.” He was also disappointed earlier when his angel wings weren’t as big as the other angels’ wings. My final concern with this testimony is that I can’t imagine anyone going to heaven and feeling disappointment due to lack of possessions or fun.

The whole story is also fishy because it took three years to get all the details. And those details didn’t start right after he woke up from surgery, like any natural person would expect. The first details about this visit first emerged four months after the surgery. Once he gave these first details, his parents waited a week before they asked him to explain what he was talking about. I don’t know how any parent would wait a week, or even 30 seconds, to ask him for more details.

I’m not accusing anyone of lying, but if Jesus really took this child to heaven, then as his father admitted, every detail would have to match Scripture. If there are extra biblical details then it is a new revelation, which Paul warned us about in Galatians 1:8-9.

In my opinion, Heaven is For Real is not for real.

Tortured for Christ

2011-08-18T13:10:00.000-04:00

The Voice of the Martyrs founder Richard Wurmbrand wrote about the 14 years he spent in a Communist prison. In his book Tortured for Christ he recalls the night that he and his wife were in attendance at a special congress called by the Communists to discuss Christianity.

At this congress Joseph Stalin was elected as honorary president (Stalin, who was a mass murderer of Christians, was currently “serving” as president of the World Movement of the Godless). The leaders of this congress declared that Communism and Christianity were one in the same and that the church should tolerate Communism and all its evils.

Wurmbrand’s wife, Sabina, told him, “Richard, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ. They are spitting in his face.”

What would you have done if you were in his situation? Richard knew the penalty for standing up and speaking out against Communism.

“If I do so, you lose your husband,” he told her. His wife’s reply was, “I do not wish to have a coward as a husband.”

Wurmbrand stood up and began to praise Jesus Christ as the only one we should pledge loyalty to. His speech was broadcast throughout all of Romania. Listen to how he summed up what happened next:

“Afterward I had to pay for this, but it was worthwhile.”

Paying for this consisted of 14 years in prison in which he was beaten without mercy, starved, brainwashed, and faced many other horrors.

This is a book that every American Christian should read. Too often we take our freedom for granted. We can preach the whole Bible, share our faith, pray in Jesus’ name, attend a local church, and buy or download a Bible at almost no cost. These are all luxuries that the persecuted church risks their lives for.

We deny our faith just so that people won’t think we are crazy for not watching TV shows that take God’s name in vain. People who won’t stand up for what they believe now would never stand up before a Communist congress.

Are you willing to be tortured for Christ?

Free in Christ

2011-07-06T11:26:00.001-04:00

As our nation celebrates her freedom I cannot help but to stop and think about my freedom in Christ. That is an expression we might hear in our churches—freedom in Christ—but I hope we understand what it means.

For over a hundred and fifty years the United States of America understood what freedom meant. Free speech meant that no person could be censored by the government for talking to or about God. Free exercise meant that government could not force a single religion or denomination onto the people, and that the people were free to worship as they saw fit. Freedom in general was understood to be God-given, and therefore used to be God-honoring.

But beginning in the ‘60’s, thanks in no small part to the very liberal Warren Court, our nation began to redefine freedom. Freedom of speech changed to mean that we can say or do the most immoral or perverted things, but we dare not pray to or talk about Jesus. The only exceptions would be to take His name in vain or to insult Him. Free exercise began to change into a legend called “separation of church and state,” which has no Constitutional bearing. Under this new freedom, Christian principles like prayer or Bible reading in public are a violation, while a Muslim can miss work to pray, an atheist can demand the removal of nativity scenes, and the media industry can roast Christianity on any given channel each day.

Freedom in Christ has been redefined in the same way. For centuries the church understood that Christ came to give us freedom from the power of sin, but in recent years we are seeing that brought into question. For many, freedom in Christ means freedom to sin, not freedom from it. As America can embrace any immorality and call it free expression, so the church is embracing immorality calling it grace, freedom, tolerance, and acceptance.

Jesus wants us to be free. That is why He said “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32).” Here is what He did not say would make us free:

You shall be sincere, and your sincerity shall make you free.
You shall be on a journey, and this journeying shall make you free.
You shall probe and question, and this probing shall set you free.

Jesus was clear: knowing the truth will make us free. And the definition of the word for free is “free from sin’s dominion.” How can we know the truth?

One of the new “in things” in the emergent church is the idea that the gospel is a mystery. I have read extensively the writings of the emergent church leaders, and book after book comes down to the idea of this gospel being a mystery to us. They cite Pauline expressions about this mystery and, like all good emergent leaders, fail to actually study what it really means.

In Romans 11:25 Paul said he did not want the church to be ignorant of the mystery.
In Romans 16:25 Paul said the mystery was revealed unto them.
In Ephesians 1:9 he said that Jesus made the mystery known unto us.
In Ephesians 3:3 he sad that Jesus made the mystery known unto him.
In Ephesians 6:19 he said he was going to make the mystery known with boldness.
In Mark 4:11 Jesus Himself said the disciples could know the mystery of God.

I could go on and on here, but suffice it to say that the mystery has been revealed. In I Corinthians 1:26 Paul says that the mystery that had been hidden was now being revealed. The gospel was primarily accepted by the Jews, but Paul was revealing the mystery to us Gentiles, who could not understand it until the Spirit of God came (I Corinthians 2).

The gospel is not some big, clouded mystery. And yet I am so often criticized for claiming to know the Word of God with certainty. Now I realize that there are some things that I will never understand, like the actual working concept of the Trinity, or some of the imagery of the Revelation. But to not understand the black and white nature of sin or what the Bible says about the need to forgive, well that is simply from a lack of Bible study. Those things are written therein, and they are not mysterious.

So it baffles me when someone gets bent out of shape when I make an absolute truth claim. “You just think you’re right!”

Uhhhmm. Yeah. If I didn’t, then I would make some changes. And once I did, then I would think I was right again. What is wrong with that?

That line of reasoning doesn’t work anywhere else. Tell that to your doctor when he writes you a prescription for life saving medication. You just think you’re right. His response would probably be, “I’ve just studied this.”

Bingo.

So it is no wonder that we think freedom in Christ means we can live however we want to while Jesus sits back in heaven and says, “That’s why I died. So they can live however they want to.” We think that is what freedom in Christ is because we hide behind the mystery of the gospel, and brag about not having it all figured out.

Hey man, we’re all just on a journey.
We just need to probe and question and push back.
We’re just trying to be sincere, and we have to tolerate and accept all opinions.
What’s true for you is not necessarily true for me.

If you want to be sincere, do what Jesus sincerely said. In that same passage where Jesus said knowing truth can make us free, He continued: He that sins is a servant of sin, and the servant does not abide in the house (v.34-35).

So then freedom is freedom from the power of sin. But as long as we are still committing those sins we are not free in Christ. We are not even abiding in the house!

In America we are actually losing our freedom when we are told that we cannot pray in schools, mention Jesus in public settings, or say “under God” in our pledge. In the same way, Christians are losing their freedom when they embrace sin in the name of grace; they are becoming slaves to sin and excusing themselves from the house.

If you have really been set free in Christ, then you are free indeed! Don’t forfeit your freedom for the sin that is only fun for a season. Be free!

Bring Your Bible

2011-06-29T12:43:00.000-04:00

Bringing your Bible to church is becoming a lost art. Do we really need our Bibles at church?

Imagine that I invited you over to my house for a dinner that I prepared. After the main course I pull out the recipe and begin to read you all the ingredients; it all sounds good until I get to the last one: rat poison.

You think I’m joking, but I insist. Or maybe I mention some ingredient that I know you are severely allergic to. Or maybe I mention something that violates your diet.

The only one of us that knows the truth is the one who is holding the recipe.

And when we are listening to a sermon, the only ones who know the truth are the ones who can follow along in their Bible. In many cases the preacher is the only one with a Bible, and is therefore the one who posses all access to truth.

But wait! His text is on the projector screen. Which was typed by a person. Possibly the preacher himself.

I’m not saying that he his trying to deceive anybody, but he is human and capable of making mistakes. Misspeaking. Misspelling. Mistyping. Misapplication.

The best way to guard against this is to bring your own copy of the Word of God (hopefully the one you are reading all through the week, not leaving behind to save your seat).

Did you know that people were burned at the stake so that we can have a copy of the Bible in English? They were drawn and quartered. Imprisoned. Beaten. Executed. All so that we can have the Bible in English, and yet many English speaking Christians don’t care enough to read it at home or at church.

In Acts 17:11 Paul admonished the Berean believers for searching the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul and Silas taught them was true. Because of this, Paul said they were more noble than the Christians in Thessalonica.

We clearly have a biblical precedent for following along and making sure the doctrine we receive is sound doctrine. Over the years I have heard people in leadership roles make claims that the Bible clearly refuted:

* Jesus only died for certain people, but John 3:16 said that He died for “the world” and that “whosoever” believes can be saved.
* The earth was created by a big bang, but Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3 both say that God created all things.
* Hell is not a real place of suffering, but Luke 16:23 shows a man in hell who was “tormented” in the flames.
* There is a line we can cross where Jesus will no longer forgive our sins, but 1 John 1:9 says that God will be faithful to forgive all sin that we confess.

In the early days of the Catholic church, before printing presses, English Bibles, and literacy, a single Latin Bible would be chained to a pulpit in each church. People didn’t have their own Bibles, they couldn’t read, and they didn’t speak Latin; therefore, the priests could tell the laity that the Bible said whatever the priests wanted it to say.

After the invention of the printing press and the English Bible, people began to see that a lot of what the priests had taught them were absent from the pages of the Bible. That is when the priests began to teach that they were enlightened and the only ones who could understand the truth.

This abuse of power is what led to heretical ideas like indulgences, excommunication, purgatory, the office of the pope, and the idea of an elevated priesthood over laity.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and without checks and balances evil men will rise to power and manipulate the truth for their own gain. This was clearly never God’s intention. As Christians we have the duty to protect sound doctrine. We are not Kool-Aid drinking cult members who blindly follow our leaders, but are Spirit-led sons and daughters of God who can have a personal relationship with Him.

In these last days more and more false prophets will become deceivers, and if we stay in tune with the letter that God has given, we can continue to know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

So make sure you are hiding God’s Word in your heart, and bringing it with you to church. You won’t fall for it if someone tries to excommunicate you.

When is the Rapture?

2011-05-25T13:59:00.002-04:00

Harold Camping. May 21st. October 21st. These are things we keep hearing about from the news, the pulpit, and the water cooler. I have personally received many Facebook messages, texts, and other questions as to when the rapture will be.

One thing is clear. We can now safely rule out May 21, 2011.

I have read and heard some within the Associated Press claim that most Christians reject the idea of the rapture; they have mocked it (referring to it as God “beaming us up”) and even pointed out that the word does not appear in the Bible. So before we can discuss when the rapture will be, first we have to see if it is even biblical.

The word rapture does not appear in the Bible, but it would if our Bible were Latin. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Paul refers to a time where all Christians will be “caught up” together to meet the Lord in the air. That is a description of the event in which all living Christians will instantly be taken to heaven, and the words caught up are the English equivalent of rapimur in Latin. So the rapture (or The Catching Up, if you will) is certainly a biblical concept. But when will it be?

Harold Camping, who is famous for his now debunked claim for May 21st, is not the first person to incorrectly predict the rapture date. In fact, another person was wrong on May 21st, 1994. The person: Harold Camping. For the last 2,000 years people have been making claims about the exact date. Many believed the Y2K theories, that the rapture would happen at midnight as the year 2,000 rolled in. That theory was about as accurate as the predictions of worldwide power outages and computer crashes.

There was a book put out in 1984 called, 1,984 Reasons Why Jesus Will Come Back in 1984. I have a book in my office called, 2008: God’s Final Witness. Both books give their reasons for the Lord’s return that year. I wasn’t able to get my money back when 2009 came around.

How do people come up with these dates? They believe that God left us some encrypted codes in the Bible, and if we grab our Sherlock Holmes pipe and magnifying glass, we can put together all the clues. There are so many numbers in the Bible that I can make them say anything I want them to say. If I multiply the number of candlesticks in the Tabernacle by the number of lashes Paul received, I have my first clue. There are two problems with this: #1, that’s not how the Bible works. OK, that’s only one, but it’s enough for me.

The Bible has this to say about the time of the rapture: “But concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need that I write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night (I Thessalonians 5:1-2).”

*Note: I know many want to use the verse that says that no one knows the day or the hour from Matthew 24:36, but that is in reference to the 2nd Coming, not the rapture. The context of I Thessalonians 4-5 is the rapture, not the 2nd Coming.

Paul wrote that the rapture would be like a thief at night. If you knew a thief were coming, would you tuck yourself in for the night? Of course not! That is why Paul goes on to warn that we must be watchful. He compares the rapture to a pregnant woman; she might have an idea of when she is due, but she doesn’t know the exact minute she will go into labor. She must be ready—bags packed, gas tank full, route mapped out—because in a second’s notice she may make the trip.

Like a pregnant woman we can have an idea that the day is drawing near. The signs of the times are hear. We have a great deception (ear-pleasing “preachers”), crazy weather (Joplin, Tuscaloosa, etc.), and wars (War on Terror, Middle East turmoil, etc.). These are the signs that Jesus gave us to look out for (Matthew 24:3-8), but we must be ready for the exact minute. The Scriptures are clear: no one knows when that minute will be.

If the rapture had been May 21st, would you have gone to heaven, or would you have been left behind? I’m glad the rapture wasn’t last Saturday, because that means that people still have time to get right.

So when will the rapture be? I know with about as much certainty as I know when a thief is going to break into my house. So let’s not waste time with a calculator doing apocalypse algebra; rather, let’s be busy about spreading the Word and inviting people to get caught up with us.

But I’m not going to get caught up in predicting a date.

The Empty Tomb

2011-04-26T20:29:00.001-04:00

In light of the Easter season I want to talk about the empty tomb of Jesus. We know that Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, but was the Resurrection just a myth started by the early followers of Jesus? I want to share a few things that refute that idea.

1. Consider the women witnesses. The gospels show us that the first ones on the scene that first Easter morning were women, including the mother of Jesus. They were the first to discover the empty tomb, and they went back and told the male disciples (Matthew 28). Of the disciples, only two bothered to go check it out. Thomas never went to the tomb, and he doubted that it was really empty until he saw the risen Lord for himself (John 20).

It is important to remember that in the First Century women were looked down on (by culture, not by Christians). Women were not allowed to testify in judicial matters because they were not viewed as being capable of giving an accurate account. If the disciples simply created the notion of the empty tomb, they never would have recorded that women were the first to make the discovery, and they never would have sold Thomas out for doubting, unless they were more concerned with accuracy than with their own pride.

2. Nobody found no body. I know that is not good grammar, but it is good preaching. If the disciples had made up the story of the empty tomb, than all the Romans would have to do is roll the stone away and produce the body. There were throngs of people in an uproar wanting to see if Jesus had actually come back to life, and the uproar could easily have been silenced with Exhibit A. The only problem was that there was no Exhibit A. The body of Jesus was not found, for indeed, He has risen.

3. Sleeping soldiers. Since nobody found no body, then perhaps the disciples simply stole the body of Jesus. But how did they get past the guards? Think about these Roman soldiers. They were armed and dangerous, and they were dressed in superior armor. They were trained killers, and if someone they were guarding ever escaped, they paid for it with their lives. On the other hand you have the disciples. Fisherman mostly, and the equivalent of an IRS agent. Men who were too chicken to follow Jesus after His arrest; one even denied knowing Him for fear of his own life. Did these disciples overpower the guards and steal His body?

That is obviously impossible. So the story was created that the soldiers fell asleep and the disciples stole the body. If you were a Roman soldier, a trained killer who would be executed for letting Jesus’ body be stolen, would you lay down for a little shut eye? This is very unlikely.

4. Crazy conversions. The fact that people were converted after the Resurrection is a proof that Jesus did not stay dead. Consider Paul, for example. He believed that Jesus was a liar and a lunatic, not the Lord. He felt so strongly about his belief that he even killed anyone who worshipped Jesus. What accounted for Paul’s conversion? What made him become the greatest missionary the world has ever seen? Simple. He saw the resurrected Jesus on the Demascus road. James is another good example. Aside from being a disciple, he was the son of Mary and Joseph, making him the half brother of Jesus. From what we read in the gospels James did not believe that his brother really was the Christ. And yet we read the letter that he wrote (the book of James) and we realize that he became a great Christian leader; he even died a gruesome martyr’s death. What made the difference in his life? He was in that upper room when his half brother walked through the closed door in His resurrected body.

And aside from the death that James died, consider how many other disciples died. Decapitations, upside-down crucifixions, exiles—these were no pleasant experiences. But, you might say, many people die for what they believe! That is true, but no one dies for a lie. The 9/11 hijackers sincerely believed that Allah would give them eternal life for their suicide bombings, or else they would not have done what they did. If the disciples stole the body and lied about the resurrection, would they really suffer some of the worst deaths imaginable without recanting? No, these men would rather die than deny seeing the risen Lord!

5. Timely texts. There are some critics of the empty tomb that say that the gospels were written 150 years after the resurrection, and these accounts were not written by eye witnesses. If this were true then it would be easy to see how legends could creep in and influence the texts. But it is not true. While the Discovery Channel may only promote late texts, the majority opinion among scholars is that Mark, the first gospel written, was actually written fewer than sixty years after the resurrection. Mark worked in conjunction with Peter, an eye witness. Matthew and John were eye witnesses who wrote two of the gospels, and Luke was a historian who wrote his gospel with help from Mark’s gospel.

These texts were written early enough after the resurrection to be verified. For example, when John wrote about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, all the people had to do was ask Lazarus if it were true. When the gospels mentioned specific people that Jesus revealed Himself to, all the skeptics had to do was ask them. If those people denied the claims than the Christian movement would have stalled.

These are just five simple statements that help us see that the tomb really was empty on that first Easter morning. Of course, even without these statements, I still would believe in the resurrection, simply because the Bible records it, and that is enough for me.

“He is not here, for He is risen like He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” Matthew 28:6

If you believe in the resurrection, then spread the word—Jesus is risen!

Love Wins, Bell Loses

2011-03-25T22:40:00.002-04:00

I’ve never wanted an author to be so right.

I’ve never seen an author be so wrong.

First, before we get into Bell’s teachings on hell that are at the center of this controversial new book, I want to point out some flaws in his thinking. On page 10 Bell is busy criticizing the evangelism methods that some Christians employ, and he says that the Bible never tells people to have a personal relationship with Jesus; Jesus didn’t say that, he points out, nor did Paul, Peter, John, James, or the woman who wrote Hebrews.

We do not know who wrote Hebrews. Many believe it was Paul, others, Barnabas. I have heard theories and opinions, but to matter-of-factly attribute the book to a woman like we know who wrote it is wrong. This might not seem like a big deal, but it flies in the face of the premise of his book, that we don’t know anything. On the opening page he blasts someone for asserting that Gandhi is in hell. His response: “He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt?”

But beyond focusing on how he knows who wrote Hebrews, look at his first claim, that the Bible never tells us to have a personal relationship with Jesus. Well it certainly tells us what happens if we don’t have one. In Matthew 7:23 Jesus tells the people condemned to the real place called hell, “I never knew you.” It has been well reported that the word used for knew describes the most intimate relationship people can have with each other. In fact, it is the same word that is used when Adam knew Eve and she conceived a child (Genesis 4:1). So yes, salvation is based on a relationship with Jesus.

Not that it matters to Bell though. He makes it very clear that he does not believe the Bible teaches that we must do anything. Basing his arguments on endless, open-ended questions, he makes the case that some Christians have gotten the message wrong. I’ll agree with him there. But he attempts to make the case that Christianity is something that happens to us “unilaterally” and that God is not waiting for us to “get it together, to clean up, shape up, get up. God has already done it (p.189).”

Always the fan of a good paradox, Bell has insisted during his media blitz that he is not a universalist (a universalist believe all people go to heaven, no matter what); to further his point, his website insists that he is not a universalist. But yet in his book Bell writes “In spite of…what we’ve done, God has made peace with us. Done. Complete. As Jesus said, ‘It is finished’ (p.172)” He then uses several verses out of context to make his point that God forgave all sin at the cross, and that we don’t have to do anything—believe, repent, surrender, or any other biblical concept—we are just at peace with God.

Well if we are born automatically at peace with God “in spite of what we’ve done,” then who goes to heaven? Everyone. And that, Mr. Bell, is universalism. Why does he bend over backwards to not be called a universalist? Because everyone knows the Bible teaches something quite different.

On hell
Does Rob Bell believe in hell? Yes. But not hell like Jesus taught. No, he believes that hell is African genocide (p.71) and a cheating husband (p.73). But an actual place? No.

In this chapter Bell sets out to show that he believes that hell is simply choosing to live apart from God’s law, not the actual place that Jesus referred to eleven times. The word hell might just mean the poor choices we make in this life. Might. This is a whole book hinging on his might.

He says that Jesus uses hyperboles to make his points. It would be better to gouge out your eyes than to embrace the hell of destroying your marriage. If that is simply strong language that Jesus is using to make a point, then it is not that big of a stretch for him to make the rich man in Luke 16 a hyperbole as well. For the rich man, hell was not flames in the afterlife (although Bell ignores the fact that the rich man was “tormented in these flames”); hell was just the reality that he still doesn’t get it. He points out that the rich man’s request for Lazarus to bring him water shows that his heart is unchanged. He still thinks Lazarus should be serving him. No Mr. Bell, he wanted Lazarus to bring him water because he was tormented in the flames of a real hell!
If this story were nothing more than a gifted storyteller using graphic language, then Luke 16 would be a parable. The problem here is that this is not a parable. A parable, by definition, is an extended simile—a story that draws outs a comparison that uses the word like or as. “The kingdom of heaven is like…” “The kingdom of God is as…” Luke 16 doesn’t begin that way. Also, Jesus never used real names in His parables, and Lazarus is mentioned by name here. This was a real account of a real man in a real place with real flames. For the rich man, hell wasn’t a state of mind or a poor decision. Hell was a place of torment.

Bell dismisses hell based on the notion that a loving God would never send anyone there. Using arrogance and sarcasm, Bell implies that a God that would send people to hell would be torturing them, and this God should be rejected.

It is also clear that he does not believe that God is sovereign. His opening chapter asks dozens more hypothetical, open-ended questions , each mocking the Christian idea of people going to hell. “What if the missionary that was supposed to tell that person about Jesus has a flat tire?” “What if the 15 year old atheist who died was going to accept Christ on his 16th birthday?” And mocking the age of accountability, “Did the 15 year old only have a 3 year window to accept Christ, and now God will punish him for all eternity?”

(For information on the age of accountability, check out my newest book Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery this summer)

If Bell believed in the sovereignty of God then he wouldn’t ask questions like that. In God’s sovereignty He will give everyone a chance to accept Him.

Bell’s idolatry peeked through on page 182 when he said, “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us.” Not only has he shaped himself a god, he has shaped a theology that is more ear pleasing.

Which is more likely, that the church has been wrong for 2,000 years about hell and God has chosen Rob Bell to enlighten us, or that he is simply wrong? Well if God chose Bell then I think God would have given him a message that was clear, not endless questions to engage in an emergent-loving dialogue or conversation. What is more likely then, is that this is part of the great deception (Matthew 24:4-5), and that this is another gospel (Galatians 1:8).

Something interesting that I picked up on was Bell’s view of the earth. No, not his environmentalist agenda. I’ll get to that next. On five occasions he refers to the Genesis account as a poem. At first mention I found it curious, but then as he continually referred to the poem I became a little suspicious. Then I remembered on page 2 he referred to the earth as being tens of thousands of years old, and then he spoke of the earth as still “evolving” on page 145. It would appear to me, and I can’t prove this, that he believes the Genesis creation account is a poem not to be taken literally, and that the earth evolved over at least tens of thousands of years. You might think that is crazy.

So is a belief that hell isn’t real.

In Bell’s last book Jesus Wants to Save Christians he promoted his environmentalist agenda, and that theme was back in Love Wins. To sum up his beliefs (or what we infer his beliefs are based on yet another chapter of unanswerable questions and out-of-context verses), Bells believes that heaven will come on earth as we make it happen. In other words, once we make this earth into heaven, then heaven will be here. That is what happens when people misunderstand Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom of heaven.

Some places of the world don’t have access to water. According to Bell, once we get them water, we will be a little closer to heaven. I would like to ask him what place Jesus went to prepare for us, and if this earth becomes heaven as we build it, why did John write that this earth passes away and a new heaven and new earth come down? All that work for nothing?

Bell takes more verses out of context to show that God’s ultimate goal is to reconcile creation, not just mankind but plants too, back to Himself. That is why the environmentalism here is dangerous. He literally thinks that recycling and good soil rotation trump personal holiness and sanctification.

In the chapter called Does God Get What He Wants? Bell needs to be reminded of God’s permissive will. He basically says that God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, which is true, but if people go to hell then God doesn’t get what He wants. “What kind of God is that?” he asks. The answer is a loving God that has given us a free will and the power to choose Him or reject Him. God doesn’t unilaterally force salvation on anyone.

There are other issues in this book where Bell tries to have it both ways. After making his point that there is no hell after this life, on page 117 he says that God will respect our choice if we want a life free from Him. The logical conclusion then would be that these people won’t go to heaven after they die, so hell is the alternative. This is doublespeak.

And for the record I should point out that God doesn’t send anybody to hell. Mr. Bell goes on and on about how he can’t believe in a God that would torture people in hell, but that is not how it works. The consequence of the Adamic nature—Adam’s choice to sin in his free will—is that we are all sinners separated from God. God is holy and we are not. So God doesn’t send anybody there; we are headed there because of our sin, and in His grace and mercy, He saves all who choose to put their trust in Him.

I can’t let this review end without mentioning his presence at an Eminem concert in 2010.
He was there.
In attendance.
With Shady.

And because old Slim is wearing a cross necklace, Bell wonders out loud if he has been reconciled to God. Never mind the fact that Captain F Word’s new album is just as filthy as all of his others. What pastor would ever be in attendance at an Eminem concert? Even my liberal friends will have a hard time justifying that.

But all the problems with Bell’s theology (his first three books, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality, and Jesus Wants to Save Christians all displayed bad theology in some form) are revealed in a statement he made on page 114. He said that “it’s important that we don’t get too hung up on details [of the Bible].”But just a few pages later on 132-134 he employs a ridiculous Bible-algebra formula to come to a bizarre conclusion about God’s ultimate motive of reconciling plant life.

Here’s the point: he urges us not to concentrate on the black and white details of the Bible (like all good emergent leaders), but yet he can play Sherlock Holmes if it helps promote his agenda. His Easter egg hunt Bible study methods are dangerous.

There is so much more I can say, for this book had many more false statements. But suffice it to say that this would not have survived an early church book burning.

That is, of course, if there was literal fire at those book burnings.

None Righteous

2011-03-15T12:09:00.001-04:00

Are there really no righteous people?

I have heard many times that we are not to call anyone righteous, for, as Romans 3:10 clearly tells us, “There is none righteous, no, not one.”

Really? None righteous? What about my grandmother, my Sunday school teacher, or missionaries? Are there really none righteous? Let’s see what the Bible says on the subject.

Matthew 10:41 acknowledges the fact that righteous people do exist. This verse says, “He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward (Matthew 13:17 speaks further of these righteous men).”

If there are none righteous, then how do we account for these righteous men?

Lest you think this passage in Matthew is speaking generally or figuratively, let me point out that II Peter 2:8 refers to Lot as being a righteous man. He was a real, righteous man. Not to mention that half of the book of Proverbs talks about righteous people.

Maybe the answer to this dilemma is found in the context of the Romans 3:10 passage. Instead of believing that there never has been and never will be any righteous people, let’s see what Paul was actually trying to convey here.

The book of Romans flows with such continuity that it is hard to preach a single verse from the book; the book needs to be preached as a whole (with regard to context) to get the right message across. The first three chapters of the book build the case for mankind’s guilt before God.

Just as Romans 3:10 says there is none righteous, so 3:23 says that all have sinned; this is part of the case that Paul is systematically building. But the story dramatically changes over the next few chapters, which is highlighted by 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This means that through Jesus Christ our Lord we can find eternal life. But how can an unrighteous person have a home in heaven? The answer: he can’t.

Heaven is not for the unrighteous. That is why we have to become righteous ourselves. As Paul was building his case for mankind’s acquittal in the next section of Romans, he says these words in 5:19: “For as by one man's disobedience (Adam’s) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.”

There you have it. Jesus makes us righteous. Consider these words of Paul in 3:22—“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.”

All who believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation have the righteousness of God upon them. Some might think that it is arrogant to claim God’s righteousness for ourselves, but I John 3:7 speaks about this: “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” Don’t let anyone talk you out of God’s righteousness (“he that doeth righteousness” should refer to the saved, for what truly saved man will not do righteousness?).

So if you have put your trust in Jesus Christ, and you are now living a righteous life, then let me encourage you to never stop. Let John encourage you too: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still (Revelation 22:11).”

If that is you, then you are righteous, and don’t let any self-righteous person talk you out of it.

Revival

2011-02-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

At least once a year most churches will set aside time for revival services, usually a Sunday-Wednesday. This is certainly a good thing to do, for it conveys the idea that we need to be revived by God. Besides, as bad as our world is getting, how can we go wrong with having more church?

While most Christians realize that genuine revival is not simply something you pencil into a calendar, we still hope and pray that revival will fall from heaven. But if revival is not merely a calendar event, then what is real revival?

King David of Israel was one of the first to use the term. In Psalm 85 the king begs the Kings of kings to bring salvation to the people. Listen to his question: “Wilt thou not revive us again, that thy people may rejoice in Thee? Show us thy mercy, oh Lord, and grant us thy salvation.”

The word revive means “to restore to life or consciousness,” and in our revival services we are asking the Lord to bring us back to life spiritually. There are critics of revival that say, “They never had revival services in the Bible.” While that is true, in 21st Century America we have made ourselves so busy that we need to be shaken up spiritually to keep from getting lukewarm, and a good way to do that is by setting aside time for nightly meetings.

As a pastor in student ministry for more than six years now, I know full well how summer camp brings revival and bonding to a group. In a similar way revival services can bring a closeness to the entire church family as we are moved spiritually.

Another element to keep in mind is the pastor. During revival services he gets a break from his routine, and instead of feeding the flock himself, he gets fed along with the flock. This can bring a spiritual restoring of life to a man that is giving his all to his congregation that may give him fresh Holy Ghost power to preach for months to come.

So we are not being arrogant and assuming that God will send revival simply because we scheduled one, but the remnant of God, like David, is asking God to revive His people, and to bring salvation to the lost.

But we cannot make the mistake of thinking that we have done our part just because we booked a speaker and sat on a pew. The most important things we can do are pray and repent if necessary. The best formula for revival is found in II Chronicles 7:14, where God says, “If my people who are called by my Name will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

If we will do those things then God can truly heal our desperate land. And when He does, look what David said would happen: “Surely His salvation is near them that fear Him; that glory may dwell in our land. Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven. Yea, the LORD shall give that which is good; and our land shall yield her increase. Righteousness shall go before Him; and shall set us in the way of His steps (Psalm 85:9-13).”

Will you join with David in begging God to “revive us again…and grant us thy salvation”?

30 Hour Famine

2011-02-13T22:13:00.001-05:00

Hey guys. I wanted to let you know that our student ministry at Philippi is doing World Vision’s 30 Hour Famine on February 23rd-24th.

If you are not familiar with this project, we will go 30 hours without food to get a taste of what starving children experience all over the world every day. But this is about more than simply walking a mile in their shoes; we are getting people to sponsor us for our famine.

In each of the last three years we were able to raise over $1,000 (twice we raised over $1,500), and we are hoping for even more this year. All of the money goes straight to feeding children, and since World Vision is a Christian organization, they also share the gospel of Jesus with them.

Will you please consider helping us with your prayers? Or maybe you would like to help us by sending some of your money to help feed these children who are starving both for food and a Savior.

If you would like to give to can visit www.wix.com/tommymannministries/30hourfaminedonations and make a secure donation through PayPal. And if you are old school and still don’t trust online transactions, you can always mail a donation to 327 Philippi Church Rd., Union, SC. 29379.

Thank you for your support!

Saved by Thanks

2011-01-29T17:17:00.001-05:00

Many of us know that the Bible says that Christians are saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), but did you know there was a man that was saved by thanks?

Luke 17 records the time that Jesus was encountered by 10 lepers; lepers were people who suffered from the debilitating disease known as leprosy. Leprosy was thought to be contagious, although we now know that it wasn’t. Out of fear of causing an outbreak, lepers were quarantined and confined to spend out their days in leper colonies. Since there was no known cure for the disease, its victims would gradually decline until they lost their battle.

Since there were no real doctors in those times, people who were thought to be infected with leprosy had to appear before a priest, and that priest would follow the guidelines from the Law (Leviticus 13) in diagnosing it; in the same way, if a leper thought he had been healed he would go back before the priest. It is possible that the lepers we are about to see in Luke 17 had just been diagnosed by a priest and were on their way to their new fate in the leper colony.

As Jesus was passing by these 10 lepers spotted Him and asked for mercy; Jesus responded to their request by telling them to go show themselves to the priest, which meant that they would be going back to the priest for a second opinion. As they were walking they noticed that they had each been healed.

Although ten had been healed, only one man returned to Jesus to tell Him thank you. But what appears to be a simple story about thankfulness is really a picture of salvation.

Notice how the ten address Jesus at the outset of this event. They lifted up their voices and addressed Him as “Jesus, Master.” Now compare that to the one who returned: he fell on his face and glorified God. At the beginning Jesus was nothing more than a miracle worker that might heal these men of a disease. They address Him by name and call Him Master (or Teacher), showing that they regarded Him as a man with a lot of Scriptural wisdom, but they did not regard Him as the Son of God.

Also notice the healings that occur. All ten were healed of a physical condition, but the one was healed of a spiritual condition. Jesus told that man that his faith had saved him (not “made him well” as in the NIV). Your Bible might say his faith made him whole or well, but the Greek word that is used is related to salvation. It is very similar to the verses that say that all who call on the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13) and we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

Why would Jesus be telling this man that his faith made him physically well? All ten were made physically well; Jesus was telling this man that he would be saved because he had made a journey from viewing Jesus as a good teacher to viewing Him as a good God. Then, his knowledge of who Jesus was led to action and worship, in this case, by returning to Jesus to glorify Him.

And we cannot overstate the importance of his thankfulness. I do not believe that anyone can truly be saved if they are not thankful; once we realize that we are sinners who deserve hell and we are in desperate need of a Savior, and then we learn that Jesus is that Savior, our hearts should overflow with gratitude.

Romans 1 shows the steps that lead away from God, and before we look at steps like being disobedient or being idolatrous, we need to realize that the first step is to recognize what God has done and not be thankful (v.21).

Have you been saved by God? You cannot save yourself; it is only through God’s grace, but it also requires your thanks.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

2011-01-21T14:02:00.001-05:00

This sounds like a title for a good science fiction movie, but it might actually be scientific proof that the Bible is accurate.

In Joshua 10:1-15, the Bible records that Joshua and the army of Israel had come under attack by the combined armies of five nations. It was late in the day, and with the sun about to go down, Joshua found himself completely surrounded by the armies of his enemies. If night fell on his army, they would surely be destroyed during the night.

To give the army the sunlight that they needed the Bible says that the Lord caused the sun to stand still for about a day—23 hours and 20 minutes. The Lord (who Joshua’s predecessor Moses called a “man of war” in Exodus 15:3) also caused a great hail to fall on the enemy armies as He supernaturally protected Israel.

Since the 1960’s a story has circulated about how NASA computers discovered that there had to be a missing day in the universe, and this passage from Joshua was used to account for that missing day. However, the man who popularized this NASA tale, Harold Hill, was a proven fraud who never worked for NASA as he had alleged. There were several details of his story that were inaccurate, and NASA even issued a press release debunking his story; NASA admitted that they had no such computers that could project thousands of years in the past or future.

And so a simple internet search would make this whole idea of a missing day sound ridiculous; almost as ridiculous as the Christians who would believe it. And this comes as no surprise. When they can do nothing to prove evolution, their best defense becomes to continually debunk Mr. Hill’s NASA story.

But long before Harold Hill was wowing audiences with his fanciful stories about new fangled “computers,” a Yale professor had come to a similar conclusion. In 1980 Professor C.A. Totten wrote a book in which he laid out his case that the earth was only 4,000 years old at the time that Jesus was born. Using commonly accepted biblical chronologies he stated his case, but the only problem was that he encountered a missing day. He concluded that it must have come from the account of Joshua 10. In the 1930’s Dr. Harry Rimmer wrote a book called The Harmony of Science and Scripture in which he cited Totten’s earlier findings.

What is more likely is that Harold Hill caught wind of Rimmer’s book and read about Totten’s missing day, and he decided to further the story with a little science fiction. Hill’s engine company had a contract to service NASA’s diesel engines, so he embellished his ties to NASA, and he added details about computers that no laymen would understand for decades. As Hill wrote in his own book, he dismissed his critics and said that no need for proof was needed (he claimed to have “misplaced” his NASA documentation about the missing day); in his mind, it seems, that if people’s eyes were opened to God through his concoction than the end result justified his means. Unfortunately, his means have been used against Christianity and biblical creation for several decades now.

In Hill’s account, he found an additional 40 minutes from II Kings 20 where the Lord caused the sun to move backwards 10 degrees—which is 40 minutes. The 23 hours and 20 minutes from Joshua and the 40 minutes from II Kings make a 24 hour day.

Can NASA’s computers actually indicate there is a missing day? Can a professor use genealogies to pinpoint a missing day? I don’t know. But is there a missing day? I absolutely believe it. I believe every word of the Bible, and if God said He held the sun still and made it move backwards, then there is a missing day.

Sometimes we are fortunate enough to have scientific, historical, or archeological proof, as I have written here before (see the archives). But even if we don’t have proof, we still need to believe.

We don’t need Totten’s or Hill’s facts, we just need faith.

Waiting on God

2010-12-28T16:08:00.001-05:00

One of the hardest aspects of the Christian life can be waiting on the Lord. We live in a culture that gets everything it wants immediately. We even complain if our fast food doesn’t come quickly enough, and we want the Lord to answer our prayers just as quickly.

But if we go back a few thousand years—long before instant grits and minute rice—we still see people who were impatient with God. Many times the men were guilty of taking matters into their own hands, while four women in particular stand out as being patient prayers. They were not perfect, but when it came down to it, they kept their trust in the Lord. They are Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Hannah.

All four of these women had the same plight: bareness. In their culture it was humiliating for a woman to not be able to provide a child for her husband, and in any culture it is at the very least saddening. And so these women each continued to pray that God would send them a child, and the Lord eventually blessed them with children according to His timing.

To Sarah He sent Isaac, the child of promise who made Abraham the father of God’s people. To Rebekah He sent twins, Jacob and Esau. Jacob’s name would be changed to Israel, and that name would stay with his descendants forever. To Rachel God sent Joseph, then Benjamin. Joseph became the second most powerful ruler in the world, and through him the world was saved from famine. And to Hannah the Lord sent Samuel, a prophet, the final judge, and the man who anointed David to be Israel’s king.

Listen to how Warren Wiersbe describes the conditions that preceded the birth of Samuel:

“As He often did in Israel’s history, God began to solve the problem by sending a baby. Babies are God’s announcements that He knows the need, cares about His people, and is at work on their behalf. The arrival of a baby ushers in new life and a new beginning; babies are signposts to the future, and their conception and birth is a miracle that only God can do (Be Successful, page 14).”

Maybe you have found yourself in the shoes of these women, waiting on the Lord. Perhaps, like them, it is bareness that bothers you the most. Or maybe you have been waiting on the right mate, job opportunity, or for that prodigal son to come home. Whatever it is you may be waiting for, remember that God’s timing is not ours.

Do you realize that we would have peace in the Middle East if Abraham had waited on the Lord for his son Isaac? Instead, he took another wife and had a son with her first, and their descendants have been at war ever since.

The providential timing of the birth of Isaac led to the providential timing of the birth of Isaac’s son Jacob, and to Jacob’s son Joseph. The timing of Joseph’s birth put him in a position to keep the world, including Israel, alive through a severe famine.

And the birth of Samuel during the time of the judges is also significant. God raised him up at the perfect time to revive Israel and anoint David to be their king.

In every situation God’s timing brings about what is best for His purpose. You might not see it right now while you are waiting, but you must trust that God has not forgotten you, and that He has a plan for your life.

“For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Jeremiah 29:11

Christmas Music

2010-12-03T09:16:00.002-05:00

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, and that means that it is time for Christmas music. Most people love Christmas music. For many of us, we have heard the same songs over and over for years, and many of those songs, like the ones from Bing Crosby, have been around for generations. Some songs have been redone while others are timeless classics. I’ve never eaten a chestnut that roasted on an open fire, attended a Christmas party hop, or enjoyed a figgy pudding, but that has never stopped me from enjoying those songs. There is something about Christmas music that can put a smile on anyone’s face, even if it only comes from remembering the glories of Christmases long, long ago.

As much as I enjoy songs about the most wonderful time of the year, especially during a white Christmas, I still prefer songs about the first noel, the ones that sing about the birth of Christ. I wanted to share some of my favorite lesser known lyrics about the first Christmas and the birth of Jesus.

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
“From God our heavenly Father a blessed angel came,
and unto certain shepherds brought tidings of the same,
how that in Bethlehem was born the Son of God by name.
Oh, tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy, oh, tidings of comfort and joy!”

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
“Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
‘God is not dead nor doth He sleep,
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.’”

What Child is This?
So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh, come peasant, king, to own Him.
The King of kings salvation brings, let loving hearts enthrone Him.
This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing.
Haste, haste to bring Him laud, the babe, the Son of Mary.

We Three Kings of Orient Are
Glorious now behold Him arise, King and God and sacrifice.
Alleluia! Alleluia, sounds through the earth and skies.

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ the everlasting Lord.
Late in time, behold Him come, offspring of the virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the incarnate Deity!
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell—Jesus, our Emmanuel.
Hark! The herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King!”

Mary Did You Know?
Mary did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new?
And this child that you delivered will soon deliver you…
Mary did you know that your baby boy has walked where angels trod?
And when you kissed your little baby you kissed the face of God.

Oh Holy Night
Truly He taught us to love one another; His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother, and in His name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we, let all within us praise His holy name.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel
O Come, thou Rod of Jesse, free thine own from Satan’s tyranny
From depths of hell thy people save, and give them victory o’er the grave.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

So as you are having yourself a merry little Christmas, I hope you enjoy Jingle Bells and Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer. But if you really want to have a holly, jolly Christmas, remember to keep Jesus at the forefront of your mind, and don’t forget one of the best songs of all:

O Come Let Us Adore Him
O come let us adore Him, O come let us adore Him,
O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas!

What is a Curse Word?

2010-10-22T13:53:00.001-04:00

I know. Stupid question, right?

But lately I have heard Christians begin to debate what actually makes a word a curse word. Since the Bible never says, “Thou shalt not say the ‘s’ word,” how do we know that a word is bad? Because of this I have heard Christians justify cursing.

The Bible gives a broad command for Christians to adhere to: let no corrupt word come out of your mouth (Ephesians 4:29). The word corrupt means rotten; therefore, we should never say a rotten word, whether it is on the list of curse words or not.

First, we have to realize that there are curse words. On the night of Jesus’ arrest Peter was found guilty of using one himself. Matthew 26:74 tells us that when Peter denied knowing Jesus that he began “to curse and to swear.” This verse shows that there are curse words, and that they are wrong to use.

I’m sure whatever words Peter said were not the same curse words that we have in our culture today. Here is the point: a curse word (or rotten word) is any word that culture deems inappropriate.

If our motion picture and TV ratings system can recognize a word as being rotten, then why can’t Christians? Our culture has a list of words that are simply considered to be inappropriate, and we all know what they are. If our culture decided that the expression “holy cow!” was offensive, then I would not say it. In the mean time, I will not say the words that culture really has deemed as being inappropriate.

If you are a Christian and you want to justify profanity so badly, I can’t help but wonder why. II Corinthians 6:17 tells Christians to come out from the world and be separate, and to not touch any unclean thing. Instead of wanting to talk like the world so badly, why not try to be separate from the world. Just like I say so many times, we don’t have anything to offer the world when we are just like them.

I Thessalonians 5:22 tells Christians to stay away from the very appearance of evil, so even if you think you have the right to curse, you should still abstain from it because of the appearance. Why do we have to borrow the world’s profanity?

If you realize now that you shouldn’t say bad words, then do you also realize that you shouldn’t watch or listen to them either?

According to Paul in Romans 1:32, all who take pleasure in watching people sin are as guilty as the ones who sin. In other words, enjoying a movie, show, or song that uses curse words is just as wrong as saying the curse words yourself.

I recently heard a Christian justify her use of a three letter word that referred to a person’s gluteus maximus by saying that the Bible uses that word (think "donkey" in KJV). This is an example of culture dictating what words are profane. A word that meant donkey for so long now has a profane definition. In fact, consider that the Bible goes to great lengths to not use profanity—when it said that Peter cursed, that is all it says. Notice that Matthew didn’t say, “And Peter said, ‘Oh @$#%!’”

So for Christians I believe this issue cannot be any clearer. If there is a word that is deemed as inappropriate, don’t say it. Don’t demand that you have a right to say it, because you are not abstaining from the appearance of evil, and don’t take pleasure in listening to others use profane language.

You have the right to disagree, but please watch your language.

A Change of Heart

2010-10-14T15:25:00.000-04:00

Have you ever met a woman named Bitter? Neither have I, but I have read about one. In the book of Ruth we see a lady named Naomi, which means “my delight,” but some hard times leave her anything but delightful. Following the death of her husband and two sons, Naomi blames her problems on God and tells people to call her Bitter instead of Delight.

But then she has a change of heart. After hearing that a godly man named Boaz was providing for the needs of her daughter-in-law Ruth, Naomi again realizes that God is good. Three things ultimately help Naomi have a change of heart.

First, Ruth was loyal. In the 16th verse of the book of Ruth, Ruth makes the most beautiful pledge to her mother-in-law. Instead of staying where she was comfortable in her homeland, Ruth decides to move with Naomi, even though she had no obligation to do so following the death of her husband. Listen to this promise Ruth makes:

“Where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord do so to me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death shall separate us.”

Ruth showed loyalty to a woman who believed that God had mistreated her, and after they moved to Bethlehem, Ruth continued to be loyal. After long days working in the field gathering food, Ruth brought home enough to give Naomi as well.

Not only was Ruth loyal, but Boaz was loving. Boaz gave Ruth food and drink, ordered his men to protect her, and he took a financial loss by providing barley for her to make bread. This man could have ignored the needs of a foreign widow, but he chose instead to show her the love of Christ. I John 3:17 says that if we see someone has a need, and we are able to meet that need and refuse to, then the love of God is not in us.

Naomi had a change of heart because Ruth was loyal, Boaz was loving, but most importantly, because God was longsuffering (patient). Psalm 86:15 says that God is “full of compassion, gracious, and longsuffering.”

Because God is God, He would be perfectly justified in wiping us out when we sin. The first time Naomi criticized God, ZAP! No more Naomi. But God is patient, preferring us to learn a lesson over annihilating us. God’s patience is a blessing, but we had better not abuse it since we don’t know when it will run out.

For the person who is not a Christian, God is being patient, allowing you time to change your heart and give your life to Him. He could have destroyed you years ago, but He has sustained you, maybe even just to read this blog, to have one more opportunity to give your life to Him.

And Christians, do you know someone who has not been saved? If you are loyal, loving, and longsuffering, then you can help them change their heart.

A Better Day

2010-09-24T14:46:00.000-04:00

This week has been one of those weeks. Sometimes we have “one of those days” where everything that can go wrong does, but this has been one of those weeks.

We have made visits to hospitals, hospice, and homes.

We have had death and disease.

We have seen sentencing and suffering.

We have given counsel and received criticism.

And those are just unique circumstances. There are still the daily things that bring people down, like war, poverty, and a list of prayer requests a mile long.

I’m sure that all who are touched by these hard times want just one thing: a better day. If you lose a loved one today, tomorrow has to be a better day. If you are diagnosed today, tomorrow has to be a better day.

But these better days still do little to help when we have one of those days. Or weeks.

Ultimately, you and I are just pilgrims passing through this life on earth (I Peter 2:11). As long as we live here we can expect hard times to come our way. Hey, even Jesus Himself said that in John 16:33.

We can expect to keep having some of those days until that real better day comes. For those of us who believe in Jesus Christ and have given our lives to Him, we will experience this in heaven.

Speaking to His disciples about heaven, Jesus said that where He is (heaven), we can be also (John 14:3). Paul added his two cents to that idea by saying, “So shall we ever be with the Lord (I Thessalonians 4:17).”

Christians, in this world we will have tribulation, but in the next world we will have Jesus.

If today has been one of those days, know that a better day is coming.

Dogmatic Christians

2010-09-14T15:47:00.000-04:00

The word dogmatic means to “arrogantly assert opinions,” and I know that many times Christians are called out by fellow Christians for being too dogmatic. I’ll be the first to admit that there are many arrogant things done in the name of Christianity—whether it is hosting a Koran burning, bombing abortion clinics, or protesting at funerals, these things are all wrong. And what I’ve tried to get people to see over and over is that 99 times out of 100, the people doing those things aren’t real Christians anyway.

Should there ever be dogma among Christians? Are we allowed to give our “two cents” or are we supposed to tolerate and accept all other views?

Always remember one thing: these other views send people to hell.

The real question should be, “Why would I ever not assert my opinion?” We don’t need to be arrogant, but neither should we be tolerant of this live and let live mindset that has crippled our evangelism.

Consider how Paul handled himself in Acts 17:16-18. While Paul was in Athens “his spirit was being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols. So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. And some were saying, ‘What would this idle babbler wish to say?’ Others, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’-- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.”

When Paul saw how many people were being deceived and worshipping false idols his spirit was provoked within him. He wasn’t tolerant, he wasn’t accepting, and he didn’t keep quiet. The problem is that too many Christians are no longer provoked by the world’s sin.

Paul went into the synagogue, which was their equivalent of church, and he began to reason with them, which means he was preaching “Jesus and the resurrection (v.18).”

The Stoics and Epicureans were religious leaders, yet they were also false teachers. They called Paul an idle babbler, which means they accused him of knit picking what they were teaching, and they said that the resurrected Jesus that he was preaching was a strange deity. How sad it is when leaders in the church think the resurrected Jesus was a strange deity!

But many people today think a God that is jealous and has wrath and hates sin is a strange deity. And if we preach those aspects of God, we get criticized by the modern day Stoics and Epicureans.

Notice that Paul was persistent. He boldly continued to preach day after day to these people because he knew what would happen if they died in their sin. And yet today so many of us don’t want to be annoying or look like religious fanatics, so we keep the gospel to ourselves, or maybe share it with a person one time. Let us continue to preach day after day until we see change.

Finally, notice what Paul preached. He didn’t tell the crowd to repeat a prayer. He didn’t tell them to walk an aisle or get baptized. He didn’t tell them that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. He didn’t tell them to ask Jesus into their hearts. He didn’t tell them to just believe. He didn’t tell them that God loves everybody.

No, his message was the same as the message of Jesus, John the Baptist, and all the apostles. His message was “Repent! (v.30)” Some mocked Paul for his message, but others believed.

I don’t mind taking criticism for preaching repentance and the resurrected Christ. And if you think that I am being too dogmatic, just remember, your opinion shows that you are being dogmatic.

Judgmental Christians

2010-08-29T22:22:00.001-04:00

This one is going to make some people angry.

That is not the reason why I am writing it, though. Lately I have seen so many people getting bent out of shape and yelling that Christians can’t judge them. “Only God can judge me!”

By the way, if you are having to constantly make yourself feel better by saying that, you are probably doing something wrong.

Is this idea true? Can only God judge? Well, if you want to be technical, Jesus said that God has passed all judgment on to Him. But are Christians forbid from judging? Every time someone’s Facebook status is “Only God can judge me,” they usually follow it up with Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Standing alone, that verse certainly seems like a universal command to not judge anybody. But the passage goes on to say that we will be judged back by others when we judge (I thought only God judges us!). The whole “get the log out your own eye before you judge the speck in mine” argument is really foolish. Jesus finishes that verse by saying to get the log out your eye, THEN you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye.

How do you know there is a speck in your brother’s eye? By making a judgment.

What Jesus is condemning is hypocritical judgments—those made by people living in sin themselves. This is like a man who looks at pornography or a woman who sleeps with her boyfriend judging a homosexual. You are in no position to make a judgment when you yourself are living in sin.

Judgment is also condemned when it is done for the purpose of trying to make the person feel bad, or to make you feel better about yourself. Jesus said to remove the speck in your brother’s eye; we do this to make them better.

Don’t pretend you never judge people. If you wake up at 2:00 AM to a noise outside your window, and you investigate the noise and see a man dressed all in black wearing a ski mask and holding a giant bag with a dollar sign on it, what would you do? You’d better not call the cops. After all, only God can judge him.

In John 7:24 Jesus said “Judge not according to the appearance of man, but judge righteous judgment.” What? A command to judge? From Jesus?

*For the record, the outward appearance here doesn’t refute the armed robber from the previous paragraph; Jesus is referring to judging a book by its cover and writing people off. By the way, you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but you can judge it on its content.
The reason we prefer the “judge not” sermon over the actual command of Jesus is that the former frees us to live however we want to without conviction, while the latter puts the ball in our court to keep any logs out of our eyes. It also sets us up to be judged back.

Most people are familiar with the passage for church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-20; that is the passage that says we go to someone one on one, then with a few witnesses, then before the church. Verse 15 clearly says that if your brother sins against you, go to him privately about the matter. Yet whenever that happens today, all we hear about is, “You can’t judge me!”

Remember, we are not the judgment police, constantly on patrol to find someone to judge. I know we are constantly branded as being agents of hate who think we are perfect, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The only reason we “judge” is to make people better. If a professing Christian is doing something wrong, Galatians 6 tells us to help them get right.

When people lovingly show me an area where I need to get better, I may not like hearing it, but as a Christian I ultimately appreciate it and welcome the chance to become more like Christ. What Christian wouldn’t?

So if there is a log in your eye, remove it. And once you have, if you see a speck in your brother’s eye, lovingly help them remove it.

If a brother is lovingly helping you remove your own speck, don’t blast them (or use a Facebook status) about not being able to judge; they are just doing what Jesus commanded and trying to make you better.

If you plan on leaving a negative comment, please remember that only God can judge my blogs.

Closed-Minded Christians

2010-08-21T10:57:00.002-04:00

One of the most common insults hurled at Christians these days is that they are closed-minded. Critics of Christianity label Christians as already having their minds made up, and therefore they will not consider the “facts.” By facts they are usually referring to pseudo-science or fraudulent inventions to promote evolution. “If only these Christians were more open-minded,” they lament, “then they would learn the truth.”

Despite the fact that there is a mountain of evidence which supports Creation, and the fact that there is not one verifiable fact that proves Darwinism, these atheists remain closed-minded to the possibility of Intelligent Design. But we expect to get criticized by the lost world; Jesus said that would happen. The thing that bothers me is when liberal Christians call other Christians closed-minded.

This new brand of “anything-goes” Christianity features no absolute truth. Each person is free to interpret the words of Jesus however he sees fit, and this open-mindedness is supposed to be appealing to the unchurched. They pride themselves on the fact that they respect each opinion and do not assume any one belief to be superior over another.

But there is a time to be open-minded.

The Bereans were in Acts 17:11. Luke wrote that they were “more noble” than the Thessalonians, and that they received the Word with “readiness of mind.” This would be like saying they were open-minded today. So was being open-minded a good thing? Absolutely! Read the next verse:

“Therefore, many of them believed.” Because they were open-minded they received the Word, believed it, and gave their lives to the Lord. But don’t miss this important truth.

They were not Christians when they were open-minded. They had not believed yet. And because their minds were opened Paul was able to present the gospel to a ready audience. So what should happen to their minds after they believe? They should be closed! I know that it is OK to keep an open mind to things that can change, like music and dress styles, but there are plenty of things that we should keep our minds closed to.

I am a closed-minded Christian when it comes to how to get to heaven. Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the way, truth, and life, and that no one gets to the Father except through Him. If some liberal with a new idea or interpretation or hidden message finds a new way to the Father, my mind will remain closed.

I am closed-minded when it comes to the Person of Jesus Christ. I believe He is the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin, and that He lived a perfect life, suffered a vicarious death, was raised from the dead by God, and now is seated at God’s right hand.

I am closed-minded about salvation. It is a gift from God, not of works, that was settled before the foundation of the world, and yet still required my choice. Good works can not earn it, but good works will come from it. All who claim salvation for themselves must first deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow after Jesus with nothing less than 100% surrender.

There are many other things that my mind will remain closed to. God said it, and that settles it; my mind is closed.

Ephesians 4:14 warns of spiritual babies who get carried away with every wind of doctrine from the sleight of crafty men who lie in wait to deceive. When asked for a sign of the end of times, Jesus’ first response was not about war or weather, but about false doctrine that would be so strong that it would almost deceive the very elect of God. False prophets abound as wolves in sheep’s clothing, and if we keep our minds open to new and exciting religion, we might just end up following a wolf instead of the Good Shepherd.

In light of all this, whose idea do you think it was to encourage Christians to keep an open mind, Jesus’ or Satan’s?

I believe it was Satan’s, and I will remain closed-minded about that.

Real Liberalism

2010-08-10T17:32:00.001-04:00

Many times in my blogs and other writings I have referred to liberals or liberalism, and I feel that those terms need to be defined. When I have made comments like saying that militant recycling is a liberal idea, I have been criticized for trying to make something spiritual into a political debate (which is not true—liberal politicians beat me to it). But what I think most people do not realize is that being liberal is not necessarily a political label.

The word liberal just means to be “tolerant” and “not strict.” The opposite of being liberal is being conservative, which means “traditional” and “cautious.” Each person is either liberal, conservative, or somewhere in the middle, and politics is only one area in which this happens. In the realm of politics, when a person looks at the Constitution, he must decide for himself if he will interpret the document cautiously or with more tolerance. For example, when it comes to abortion, the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life and makes no mention of being able to murder any unwanted baby. A person with a conservative view would be traditional in what the Constitution says and would be very cautious about ever giving anyone the right to kill a baby. On the other hand, someone with a liberal view would be more tolerant, and not being strict, he would allow for a new law that murders the unborn.

When it comes to science we must also decide if we will be conservative or liberal. With issues like evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and man-made global warming, the science shows us that evolution is laughable, embryonic stem cells won’t cure anything, and man is not responsible for destroying the planet. If someone is conservative and sticks to the evidence, he will come to accurate conclusions. A person would have to be quite liberal to look at the mountain of evidence against evolution and still think it could be true.

Being liberal is not always a bad thing. I even consider myself to be liberal in some areas. For instance, when it comes to dress code in the church, I take a more liberal approach than others. My grandparents’ generation believed that a man must always wear a suit and a lady must always wear a nice dress. A traditional conservative person would still hold to that belief today, but someone who is more tolerant has no problem relaxing the dress code (as long as it is still modest). Even though I usually wear a suit on Sunday morning, I do that because I like to, not because I believe there is something spiritual about it.

The Bible even says that God can be liberal. In James 1:5 we are told that if we lack wisdom then we only need to ask God for more. If we do, God will give us wisdom “liberally,” meaning that He is not strict with it. So in and of itself being liberal is not a bad thing.

But more often than not liberalism leads people away from what is right. When it comes to the Constitution, we are dealing with a completed document, so a cautious, traditional approach is usually best. The same is true with the Bible; God’s Word was completed 2,000 years ago, so we should also approach it with caution. A liberal tolerates new interpretations of its timeless passages, but a conservative would not. Let’s look at some of the teachings of Jesus.

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).”

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you (Matthew 5:44).”

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).”

“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).”

“If ye love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).”

These are just a few of the commands of Jesus, and we haven’t even touched on the writings of Paul or the Ten Commandments. But when you look at these words from Jesus do you take a conservative or a liberal approach? Our lives would be much easier if we could interpret these teachings liberally, but our eternity will be better if we interpret them conservatively.

What gives people the right to think that they can take the words of Jesus and tolerate new interpretations to them? Just because “everyone else is doing it” doesn’t mean that the words of Jesus can be redefined. If we love Jesus, we need to keep His commandments, no matter how hard that may be. And when our culture tells us to keep our faith to ourselves, we must stick to the command to teach all nations. Just because most professing Christians only act like Christians on Sundays, we still have a command to be the light of the world. Getting even and hating enemies is what comes naturally to us, but we must stick to the truth of Jesus to only show love. And when everyone’s favorite cop out is “no one is perfect,” that doesn’t give us the right to reinterpret the command from Jesus to strive for perfection.

As you live your life, are you working hard to rightly interpret God’s Word the way that God intended it, or are you taking the easier route and tolerating any new interpretation that comes down the pike?

Following Jesus requires denying yourself and giving Him your life (another command from Jesus in Matthew 6:24).

So feel free to give your life to Him liberally.

Is the Bible True? Proving the credibility of the Word of God through archeology

2010-07-12T23:13:00.003-04:00

I firmly believe that the Bible is the eternal, infallible, inspired word of God. I don’t believe that there is a single error contained on any of its pages, and as a Christian, this is a matter of faith. The Bible claims to be the very words of God (II Timothy 3:16), so I believe that it is.

But to say that I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is may sound like circular logic. This might seem like a politician saying that we can trust him because he has never lied to the people; it is ultimately still a matter of faith.

And that is a good thing. Hebrews 11:6 tells us that it is impossible to please God if we don’t have faith, and Jesus Himself said to Thomas, “You believe in the Resurrection because you have seen me, but blessed are the ones that have not seen me and still believe (paraphrase of John 20:29).”

So faith certainly plays a big role in our spiritual walk, but our faith only goes so far with an agnostic or a spiritual skeptic. What do we do when these people have genuine questions but are not yet prepared to put their faith in the Bible? If they ask us, for example, to prove that God created this world, and all we can tell them is that the Bible says He did, what do we do if they say, “How do you know the Bible is true?”

After all, when a scientist lists pages and pages of data about Carbon 14 dating, fossils, and missing links, we may sound a little naïve by only being able to say that the Bible says so.

So without downplaying the importance of faith, here are six simple findings from archeology that help to affirm the validity of the Bible.

#1. Noah’s Ark. Yes, the actual ark from the story of Noah (Genesis 6-8) has been reportedly discovered. In fact, all you have to do is go to Google images and type in “Noah’s ark found” and you will find thousands of images of the ark. Now there is still a little debate on this topic, as several people have found fragments of what appears to be wooden structures, but one, at the top of Mount Ararat, matches the biblical description in its dimensions. Oh yeah, the Bible also says that the ark came to a rest at the top of Mount Ararat. Check out this story: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/

#2. The Hittites. Throughout the Old Testament the Hittites are listed with many of the other “ites.” They are mentioned as early as Genesis 15:20, and there are at least 21 other references to this people group. For years critics of the Bible have scoffed at these references since there is no known record of their existence. In fact, it wasn’t until 2006 that there was ever a shred of evidence confirming their existence. A recent archeological dig has unearthed a tablet where Ramses the Great bragged about his army defeating the Hittites. This might not seem like a big deal, but if the Bible is wrong about the existence of these people, then doubt would be cast on all of its pages, especially the ones that contain the teachings of Jesus. Discover the Hittites for yourself here: http://www.prevailmagazine.org/how-archaeology-proves-the-bible/

#3. The city of Ur. The Bible records that Abraham was from the land of Ur, but just like with the Hittites, the city of Ur had long been unfounded by historians. That is until the discovery of not only a tablet mentioning the city’s name, but also the genealogy of Abraham was discovered. The genealogy matches the list recorded in Genesis 11:18-26. Read the story at this website: http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm

#4. The Pool of Siloam. One of the most random and humorous accounts in the recorded life of Jesus takes place near the Pool of Siloam. In John 9:1-7 Jesus gives sight to the blind man by spitting in the dirt, making mud, and telling him to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. As soon he did the blind man received his sight. The only problem with this story is that the Pool had continually evaded excavators. But a recent finding has uncovered this very Pool where this remarkable miracle occurred. Like with Noah’s ark, you can find pictures at Google images, and you can read it for yourself here: http://www.s8int.com/page34.html

#5. The Library of Nineveh. The city of Nineveh is mentioned several times in the Bible, but it is most famous for being one of the chief cities in the life of Jonah. In that story Jonah finally agrees to go preach the message of salvation there, and the entire city comes to know God. But many critics have accused this of just being a biblical fish tale because there is no record of the existence of that old city. They are singing a different tune now after the discovery of the Library of Nineveh. This is not a library with selves of books, but rather a collection of tablets that all deal with the city of Nineveh. Among the chronicles in this library is a tablet that refers to the city’s founder as Nimrod. Aside from being an awesome name, biblical scholars know that Genesis 10:10-11 cite Nimrod’s family as settling Nineveh. Don’t take my word for it, read it here: http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm

#6. The Walls of Jericho. Someone recently told me that there was no way I could prove the Bible; he said, “How can anyone ever prove the walls of Jericho?” That seemingly random challenge was a quick backfire. The walls of Jericho refers to the large walls that surrounded the ancient city, and that were utterly destroyed by the rag tag bunch of Israelite soldiers. God told them to march around the wall, then blow their trumpets, and the walls would fall. They were then to take the city, but the spoil belonged to the Lord. That was a significant command because in those days a soldier’s pay was the spoil; he would take clothes, food, money, or anything else he wanted after they took the city.

Archeology has revealed that the large walls that once surrounded the city did fall inward all the way around, as if an earthquake caused them to all fall at once, but that is not the best part. Other discoveries have shown that the city was relatively well preserved; money has been discovered there, as well as sealed jars that once contained grain, and there are remnants of other types of valuables. If there were an earthquake or if any army invaded, everything would have been taken. Unless, of course, that the God of the army told them not to take the spoil (Joshua 6). Look up pictures on Google images and read about the discoveries at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp

These have only been six simple findings to help prove the validity of the Bible. There are scores of other things that can be listed, like goblets with King David’s name inscribed, for example. The Bible contains literally thousands of names, dates, cities, rulers, and genealogies that could be used to discredit it, but instead, they continually affirm what the Bible says. There still has not been a single one of these things ever proven to be false, which certainly cannot be said of the Koran, which contains more errors than my 9th grade algebra homework.

All of these validated cities and names aid in giving the Bible credibility. If the Bible is wrong about the existence of the city of Ur, then the crucifixion account may be wrong. But if it is right about thousands of details, while batting 1.000, then it is much easier for a skeptic to believe the account of the crucifixion.

Archeology has helped us confirm many of the claims of the Bible, including the Bible’s own claim to be true.

Can We Be Americans And Christians? (Tony Campolo Exposed)

2010-07-05T19:52:00.003-04:00

This past weekend our nation celebrated the anniversary of her independence. The 4th of July is always a day with filled fireworks, cooking out, and patriotism with the red, white, and blue. But this year on Independence Day I came across some writings that troubled me. I was doing some research for a future blog (which I decided to put off until next time) when I came across some things written by Tony Campolo.

If you are not familiar with Campolo, he claims to be a Christian, and yet he is in favor of keeping abortion legal, gay rights, and he does not believe in the Genesis creation account. In his book Red Letter Christians he blasts the “moral majority” for trying to influence Christians to vote based on their morality, and in turn, he urges Christians to vote based on his warped version of Christianity. In his book Partly Right he goes on a diatribe about how all people are divine from birth, but aside from teaching Christians to vote based on unchristian principles and teaching that we are all gods, Campolo has also made a name for himself with his teachings about God’s Kingdom.

He believes that we are presently living in Jesus’ Kingdom. Since that belief shapes part of his worldview, it is easy to see how that has led him down the road to putting an over-emphasis on his social agenda. Living presently in God’s Kingdom has become a major part of his speaking and writing.

Specifically, in his book The Kingdom of God is a Party, he states that we are all living in God’s Kingdom, and God’s main objectives are having a ball and taking care of creation. This is why the followers of Campolo’s theology put all of their time and resources into fighting poverty and saving the planet.

Before I go any further, I want to clarify that some green initiatives are okay, as long as we don’t go off the deep end and make it a religion, as too many have done. Also, helping the poor is both good and biblical. However, these two things were not found in the Great Commission; instead, we are told to evangelize and to pull as many as we can out of the fire. Jesus said we would always have the poor with us (Mark 14:7), so we need to realize that we won’t end poverty. We should help those whom we can, but our higher calling is to reach the lost (Matthew 28:19-20).

On pages 43-44 of The Kingdom of God is a Party, Compolo makes the case that some people can’t enjoy this kingdom and have a party if they are poor inner city children, Palestinians who were kicked out of “their” land, or Catholics who are oppressed by a Protestant majority.

First of all, that paragraph is in keeping with his elevation of Catholics (which has been a part of his ministry for a quarter century) and his ant-Semitism.

But secondly, it shows that he is missing the point. Jesus didn’t come die on a cross so that we can party on earth; we are strangers and pilgrims passing through this land, and as Christians, we have heaven to look forward to. Campolo says we need to do whatever we can do to give those who are oppressed something to party about. You want them to celebrate? Teach them about Jesus and show them how they can be saved!

This life is not a party; Jesus didn’t call us to happiness, but to holiness.

Campolo further shows his poor Bible study tactics by committing an entire chapter to showing that God wants us to give a tenth of our money to partying. He cites Deuteronomy 14:22-29, and then he applies that Old Covenant ceremony to us today. He continues this Bible study method by quoting Jesus out of context: “The kingdom of heaven is a wedding feast.” Jesus was actually beginning a parable about heaven, and Campolo failed to realize that Jesus was making a larger point than saying that heaven is a big party.

When Jesus spoke about the kingdom, He was not telling people to denounce their citizenship and join His kingdom. Campolo fails to understand the difference between a physical and a spiritual kingdom. It is possible to be part of the spiritual kingdom of God and still maintain one’s own citizenship. Consider how Paul appealed to Caesar by invoking his own Roman citizenship (Acts 25:11).

The disciples of Jesus made the same mistake that Campolo made when it came to the kingdom. They, too, thought that Jesus was coming to establish a kingdom right then, and that is what led to all of their problems. The Old Testament contains prophecies about the coming of the Messiah and about the second coming of the Messiah, and the disciples merged those into one event. Therefore, when Jesus came claiming to be the Messiah, they thought He was coming to establish a physical kingdom and free them from the oppression of the Roman government.

Because Jesus didn’t start a kingdom, many Jews rejected Him.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus will start a kingdom on earth when He returns. But until that day comes, the kingdom of God is spiritual, something we understand in our minds and hearts. According to Bibleworks, an eminent Greek and Hebrew software, the word kingdom in the New Testament is “not to be confused with a literal kingdom (version 7.0).”

This is not the only time we do this in Christianity. We say that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, but we know that we are not referring to a biological kinship.

Therefore, it is entirely possible for a person to be both Christian and American; that is, their heart and life belong to Christ while they are citizens of a country. To cease to be of nationality because we join the kingdom of God would be like saying “I am no longer Caucasian” or “I am no longer African-American.” It is a part of who we are, not something we must give up or deny.

I Peter 2:17 tells Christians to “honor the king,” while Jesus said in Matthew 22:21 to obey Caesar. There is a biblical precedent to maintain one’s own nationality with respect, even while our hearts belong to God’s Kingdom. One day, in the Millennial Kingdom, we will live in God’s Kingdom.

I also find it ironic that Campolo leads people into his “kingdom now” theology while telling people to vote for his social agenda. If he is part of another kingdom, then he has no business voting in this kingdom. Honestly, I wish he would stop voting in this country anyway; that would be one less vote for abortion/homosexual rights.

I chose to write this blog because it was the 4th of July and I was bothered by the fact that he has led people to stop calling themselves Americans. But his false views about the kingdom are the least of Campolo’s problems. For anyone who buys into the Red Letter Christians concept or the kingdom now concept pushed by Campolo, consider all of these other beliefs that he holds. I believe a person’s ideas should be rejected if they show a pattern of flawed thinking (i.e. Sigmund Freud).

Campolo described his salvation experience in his book Letters to a Young Evangelical. He said that he never had a “conversion experience” like his mother, but instead, he became close to God by reciting Catholic prayers and repeating the name of Jesus as a mantra. Jesus warned against those vain repeated prayers (Matthew 6:7), and Jesus said we must be “born again (John 3:3). Being born again is a conversion, not a long path of chanting prayers. Is Campolo even saved? Not by his own salvation testimony; so should we really embrace his theology?

Campolo also rejects the idea that the Bible is inerrant. This means that he believes there may be errors in the Bible. In an interview with Shane Claiborne, Campolo described an evangelical this way: “An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle’s Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture, though not necessarily inerrancy (“On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation,” Crosscurrents, Spring 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048).”

In Partly Right, page 99, Campolo indicates that personal experience supersedes what the Bible teaches.

He also believes that a person does not have to be a Christian to go to heaven. In an August 9th, 1999 article in the National Liberty Journal, Campolo said “there may be people who enter the kingdom who did not call themselves Christians.” He made that claim after saying that the “work of Christ on the cross may be broader than some of us think.” On the Charlie Rose Show on October 1st, 1999, Campolo reaffirmed his position by saying “I am not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians.”

In a January 27th 2007 article in the Edmonton Journal, Campolo was asked if non-Christians can go to heaven, and after dancing around for a minute, concluded by saying that “we have no way of knowing to whom the grace of God is extended.”

On MSNBC, Campolo told Bill Moyers “I learn about Jesus from other religions. They speak to me as well.” That was his defense on his position of not trying to convert Jews to Christianity (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4117713232348817752).

Then, in a very disturbing interview with Shane Claiborne in 2005, Campolo said these words: “I’ve got to believe that Jesus is the only Savior but being a Christian is not the only way to be saved... Now Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross, but…I do think we have to say is that the grace of God extends way beyond the limitations of my religious group. Our Muslim brothers and sisters can say Islam is the only true faith but we are not convinced that only Muslims enjoy salvation. I contend that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, but I am not convinced that the grace of God does not go further than the Christian community.”

Claiborne later said that instead of trying to convert Muslims, we should “stop talking with our mouths and cross the chasm between us with our lives. Maybe we will even find a mystical union of the Spirit as Francis [of Assisi] did.” This confirms my theory that Claiborne is just as nutty in his theology as Campolo is.

Campolo then responded by saying “It seems to me that when we listen to the Muslim mystics as they talk about Jesus and their love for Jesus, I must say, it’s a lot closer to New Testament Christianity than a lot of the Christians that I hear. In other words, if we are looking for common ground, can we find it in mystical spirituality, even if we cannot theologically agree? Can we pray together in such a way that we connect with a God that transcends our theological differences?” He made similar claims on pages 149-150 of his book Speaking My Mind.

In his book The God of Intimacy and Action, Campolo says that we should emulate the supersaints of Roman Catholicism (page 9-10). And an article in the Baptist Press from June 27th, 2003, quoted Campolo as branding those of us who agree with the Bible about only men being pastors as being “instruments of the devil.”

Obviously I could go on and on with outrageous beliefs and statements, like when he said that the Harry Potter series was good for children to read, but that pastors needed to preach out against the Left Behind series, but I think that the point has been made. Tony Campolo is a dangerous false prophet.

What are the odds of him being wrong about so many things of theology, and then being right about his kingdom now belief? If he is so wrong about so much, then his minority view about the kingdom should also be rejected. Whenever a pastor claims to have some new insight that people have missed for 2,000 years, beware. Especially if that person has a track record like Campolo’s.

If you still want to believe in Campolo’s theology, that is your right as an American…I mean, as a Kingdom citizen.

Why Satan Recycles

2010-06-24T14:10:00.001-04:00

Recently I have taken some heat by suggesting that perhaps the sole power to destroy this planet does not rest in our hands (or our aerosol cans). I was even called arrogant for saying that, which is funny, because I believe that real arrogance is believing that I can destroy the planet. So when I celebrated Earth Day by finally getting to that pesky burn pile in the back yard, I viewed it as a sign of my humility. Nevertheless, I felt like this would be a good chance for me to clarify my position.

Obvious point #1: Jesus will destroy this planet, not us. Read Revelation. People try to rebut this by saying that we should still preserve it. That is arrogance! Who are we to think that we can in any way affect God’s sovereign timetable?

Obvious point #2: God created this planet with a protective water canopy that covered the earth and filtered out the harmful UV rays. This caused people to live longer and be healthier, and it also made the planet ideal for plant and animal life. However, because of the gross sin of mankind, God destroyed most of the earth’s inhabitants with a flood; this was not natural rain, but God pouring the water canopy onto the earth (Genesis 6). This brought punishment to that population, but its effects are still felt today. That is the reason we are in this mess, and it has nothing to do with SUVs.

So the new Christian battle cry has become, “Stewardship!” We must be good stewards because God loves this planet. Over the past few months people have continually told me that God loves this planet and told us to preserve its beauty. That sounds nice, except it isn’t biblical.

In the first two chapters of the Bible God repeatedly calls His creation either good or very good, but then Adam sinned, God cursed the planet, and He never calls it good again. He never calls it beautiful. He never told man to preserve it. In fact, he told man to have dominion over it.

Now let me be very clear. I think that stewardship is a great thing, and I love this planet. I am thankful for this planet, and there is nothing wrong with doing things to help make it an even better place. I also have no problem with recycling. Neither does Satan.

See, for thousands of years Satan has employed different means to distract God’s people, and more often than not, the things that he uses are not sinful. When I was a student in Bible college I was always sad to watch as many of the young men around became distracted by video games. Halo was popular when I lived in the dorms, and guys would pull all-nighters playing it. They stopped doing their work and they started sleeping through their classes. One by one these guys who were studying to be pastors began to flunk out of school.

There is nothing wrong with most video games, but Satan can use them to be a distraction. I’m convinced that Satan loves Halo more than those guys did.

Satan also uses religious things as a distraction. He sits back and laughs when he gets churches to split over drums, dress code, and denominations.

He also causes distractions by making people focus on the wrong thing. A person can live an ungodly or immoral lifestyle, but they feel OK at the end of the day because they gave their tithe or they taught a class. Now Satan is doing the same thing with recycling.

I’ve noticed over the last few months how many Christians have become militant earth-savers, and they are quick to criticize anyone who doesn’t have their same passion. Here is the point: Satan has gotten us to care more about saving the planet than about saving souls.

Just like with the person who pats himself on his immoral back because he tithed or taught a class, I am finding that recycling has replaced Christian service. How many people did you tell about Jesus today? None, but I recycled!

Jesus left all of His disciples with the commission to make disciples of all nations, but the Great Commission of the church today has become, “Go and conserve water and recycle all materials.”

Don’t misunderstand me: I will be the first to recycle. In fact, I already have today. But let’s not fall into Satan’s deception and believe that recycling somehow replaces holiness and evangelism. You can recycle all you want to, but if you are not living a holy life, you will still go to hell.

Let’s focus on the things Jesus actually said to do, like showing love and forgiving others, and let’s stop inventing fake commands from Jesus, like recycling and carpooling.

If you want to recycle, have at it! But that doesn’t make you any better in God’s eyes than a person who doesn’t recycle. Satan wants you to think that it does. His new goal is to make you feel so spiritual because of your recycling that you don’t feel the need to pray, study God’s Word, or tell people about Jesus.

And this plan is working. Churches gather today in the name of being Green and not Godly. They emphasize recycling but not redemption. They preach conservation, but not Christ-likeness.

And here is the irony. These Church goers that feel right with God because of their planet saving stewardship will be the very first to criticize a real child of God who is trying to live right. “You don’t watch movies with cursing? You’re a legalist!” “You wear a tie to church? You’re a traditionalist!” “You still believe God created the world? Simple minded!” “You knock on doors and tell people about Jesus? Only because you think that makes God love you more!”

Recycling has become the new legalism. I firmly believe that if the Pharisees of the 1st Century were our religious leaders today, they would have us all recycling for admittance into heaven.

I don’t care if you wear a tie, wear flip flops, play the drums or just a piano. If you love Jesus and live for Him then we are on the same team, and I won’t let Satan use something petty to be a distraction. Let’s focus on the things that really matter, and in the minor areas, let’s live and let live.

Oh, and by the way, if you print this blog out, be sure to recycle it when you’re finished.

Who is God? part 2

2010-06-19T09:49:00.001-04:00

God is wise. That sounds like an obvious statement, and it really is, but God’s wisdom must be looked at. Many people are wise, but our wisdom either comes because we have been taught, or it comes through trial and error. God’s wisdom did not come about by either of these means, which is why God’s wisdom is unique. In God’s sovereignty He possesses total knowledge, and wisdom is simply the application of that knowledge. Therefore, we can conclude that God is totally wise.

God acts in wisdom for His glory and for our good. I Corinthians 1:25 teaches that no one will ever compare to the glory of God, which brings Him glory, and He puts that wisdom into place for our good. Jeremiah 29:11 shows that God is so much wiser than us that we cannot even figure Him out sometimes. God also gives His wisdom to us, and James 1:5 says that if we lack wisdom we simply need to ask God for more. To see what this godly wisdom looks like, read James 3:17.

God is eternal and immutable. God’s eternality is clearly stated in Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 1:8. Exodus 3:14 shows the same idea. But God is also immutable, which means that He cannot change or vary. This idea is demonstrated in James 1:17 and Malachi 3:6.

God’s word won’t change: Psalm 119:89
God’s love won’t change: Jeremiah 31:3
God’s mercy and truth won’t change: Psalm 100:5
God’s rewards won’t change: I Thessalonians 4:17
God’s punishments won’t change: Ezekiel 8:18

God is jealous. This sounds like such a nasty attribute of God; in fact, it even caused Oprah Winfrey to walk away from Christianity when her Baptist pastor in Mississippi preached on God’s jealousy. But there are actually three ways to define jealousy.

The first meaning is “feeling of resentment against someone because of that person’s rivalry, success, or advantages.” An example would be he is jealous of his rich brother. A second meaning of the word is “suspicion of rivalry or unfaithfulness, as in love. An example of this would be he is a jealous husband. The third definition is “vigilant in maintaining or guarding something.” An example of this kind would be the American people are jealous of their liberty.

Only the second two meanings can apply to God, for He has no rival, but He is a jealous husband, and He is vigilant to maintain His holy name.

God’s jealousy is caused by our sin. When we choose to love someone or something else more than God we make Him jealous, and when we sin and lower His reputation, we make Him jealous.
This is not an attribute to be ashamed or to leave the church the over. It simply shows that God hates sin. Grab a concordance and look up the multitude of verses that show God’s jealousy, and if you understand it, then thank God for it. If you are making Him jealous, then repent of the sin and get right with God.

Who is God?

2010-05-27T12:08:00.002-04:00

For several weeks in our youth services we have gone through a series I called Who is God? This was designed to not only teach our students more of who God is, but to help equip them to tell their friends who God is. In a world where there are so many gods for people to choose from, what makes our God so special?

First of all, God is sovereign. Sovereign means “supreme in rank or authority” so God is absolutely in control of this universe at any given second. We don’t always know why God does the things that He does, but we must trust that God is working. At the end of the word sovereign is the word reign, and that is exactly what God does. Consider Isaiah 45:5-7: I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God is sovereign in creation—Genesis 1:1/John 1
God is sovereign in salvation—I John 4:19
God is sovereign in redemption—I Peter 2:24
God is sovereign in sanctification—James 4:8

Next, God is love. I John 4:16 says that “God is love.” This means that the words God (Elohim) and love (agape) and synonyms. God does not simply show love, He is love. His love is not a romantic love (eros); His love is not a lustful love (porneo); His love is not a brotherly love (phileo), but it is a special, godly, unconditional love (agape), and God loves the whole world.

What God’s love did—Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8)
What God’s love does—Jesus disciplines us (Hebrews 12:6)
When God’s love dies—Never (Jeremiah 31:3)
What God’s love doesn’t do—Save us (Proverbs 11:4)

Remember, it is not the ones that God loves that go to heaven, it is the ones that love God back. And who loves God? Jesus said that if we love Him then we would keep His commandments. Is that you?

Also, God is wrath. Most people ignore this topic in an effort to make God seem more appealing. Fortunately, God doesn’t need us to work on His PR; the idea of a Creator and Redeemer that loved us while we were sinners is an amazing thought, but if you think about it, so is the thought of God being a God of wrath.

God’s wrath is an extension of His love. Consider the words of Max Lucado: “God loves you just the way that you are, but He refuses to keep you that way. He wants you to be just like Jesus (Just Like Jesus).” How does God make us just like Jesus? Through His wrath.

Anyone that has ever disciplined a child or trained a dog knows that the only way to make the student learn is through the rod of correction. Just smiling and saying I love you rarely does the trick. The Bible says “Whom the Lord loves he corrects, even as a father in the son of whom he delights (Proverbs 3:12)” and the oft misquoted “He that spareth his rod hateth his son (v.24).”

When we sin we are not acting like Jesus, so God graciously exercises His wrath in discipline to make us more like Jesus. The Bible demonstrates God’s wrath in three settings.

The wrath of God on the lost—John 3:36
The wrath of God on the saved—Romans 1:18
The wrath of God in the future—Revelation 15:1

For an example of how the Lord was provoked to exercise His wrath, which yielded a positive change in the people, read Psalm 78:31-35 (a psalm about Israel complaining about God’s goodness).

This blog will be continued next week…

Let's Go To Church

2010-05-20T10:34:00.001-04:00

A recent trend that I have observed in some churches has been over the issue of going to church. There is a movement that has stopped going to church. Now, right away I realize that we do not GO to church because we ARE the church (church means “called out ones,” not a building with a steeple), but that is not what I am referring to.

This new movement set its sights on the New Testament church, which did not own a building yet met together daily, and had all things common by selling what they owned and pooling their recourses. Some have wondered if we as American Christians are missing the mark by not doing church this way.

But there are several things that we must consider here before we put a for sale up sign in the foyer. First, it is important to remember that there are some things that the Bible contains, and there are other things that the Bible commands. For example, the Bible contains the story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah, but it certainly does not command that we mirror those actions; it is simply recorded history. Next, consider where this record of the early church is written: the book of Acts (or “The Acts of the Apostles” according to the Septuagint). The book of Acts is a New Testament history book of the first days of the church and the apostles, just like Exodus is an Old Testament history book of the exodus of Israel. The book of Acts contains stories, but never commands this way of life. If, for example, this information were brought up in the epistles, which were the letters to the church, this would be a different story. But there is no record of Paul writing to the churches to tell them to have all things common or to stay away from building ownership, or to meet on a daily basis. This would be a command.

Next, we must also remember the context of the first church. Jesus’ Resurrection and the empty tomb caused a big problem for the enemies of Jesus, namely the religious leaders and those in government. This led to torture, imprisonment, and execution of the church. Stephen was stoned, Paul was whipped, Peter was jailed, and that list could be typed out a mile long. These people were not able to gather together in public to do anything, so they met secretly in houses. Christians today in many countries secretly meet in houses or underground in countries where they choose Christ at the risk of losing their lives.

We must also take history into account. It is not as if God hated buildings, or even elaborate buildings. God is not even opposed to His people assembling in public together. To go back to the Exodus we see that God set up a tabernacle, which was not permanent and was easily moveable for His people who were on the go. But once they were settled God commanded the establishment of a temple. King David gathered all the supplies, but God told David that his son Solomon would be the one to build it. And what a temple it was! No expense was spared, even down to the golden candlesticks. This temple was eventually destroyed, another was erected, and in AD 70 that temple was destroyed. That brings us back to the early church, whose temple had been destroyed. If a tornado came through this week and destroyed our sanctuary, we would meet in houses or a stadium or anything else we had to do until our building would be repaired. That was state of the first church.

Also, we see accounts of both Jesus and Paul preaching in synagogues (the Bible says that Jesus stood in the synagogue, which is a funny verse to use when an emergent lead pastor sits on a bar stool to give his talk and he says that Jesus sat down every time He preached), and we never see them condemn the use of a building.

And the early church did have all things in common, but this bit of information is contained, not commanded. Again, remember the situation. People were hiding out to save their lives against the brutal hand on the government, soldiers, and religious leaders. This put the church in a unique situation where they were doing all they could to make it, even selling all that they had to pool their resources for food. If we know of people who are in need today we do have a command to help them, but not a command to sell all that we have and equally divide everything up. I’m not trying to downplay loving our neighbors and being need meeters, but sometimes being good stewards means not giving away everything all at once, but giving away smaller amounts over a period of time. Don’t create a command out of something the Bible never commanded.

And the fact that the church met together daily is not a command for us to do the same. In II Corinthians 2:16-17 and Acts 2:20 we see Paul referring to their gatherings as being on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Most Bible scholars agree that the early church quickly moved their church services to Sunday, which was the day of the Resurrection. This was especially true of the Gentile church that Paul wrote to, since they knew nothing of observing the Sabbath.

Many liberal Protestants have taken this information the opposite way and come to the conclusion that they don’t need to attend a church service, citing that the apostles had church in their homes so they can too. True, some people do have home churches, but these still contain fellowship with other people, preaching, and usually singing. This should not be a cop out for someone who wants to stay at home and watch a sermon on TV. The writer of Hebrews said we should not forsake meeting together (10:25), and if a person really loves Jesus he would want to be at a place where Jesus is praised.

I hope to see you at church on Sunday.

True Love Waits

2010-05-06T20:18:00.003-04:00

For those of you who were unable to attend our True Love Waits Rally, here is a recap of what you missed. By the way, this is normally a Valentine’s message, but our county-wide rally was postponed due to last February’s snow.

I have seen too many people waste time trying to beg teens to stay sexually pure until marriage by using statistics about pregnancy or scary images of STDs. These methods don’t work, and they shouldn’t have to. For teens who believe in Jesus Christ and live their lives for Him, they don’t have to worry about pregnancy or disease. Here is an easy 4-step method that every person must realize.

First, there had to be a Creator. The Bible tells us there is one in Genesis 1 and John 1, but even if a person does not believe in the Bible, common sense also tells us there is a Creator. Every building has a builder and every painting has a painter, so creation must have a Creator. Look around at the complexity of this universe, then try to accept the liberal teachings of evolution; it just doesn’t add up. Humanity cannot have been random chance any more than the planet we live on. Just imagine if we went to the runway of an airport, and as we were looking at all of the planes, I told you how these planes came to be: billions of years ago this runway was a garbage dump, and then a tornado came through. After the tornado spun for billions of years, this runway full of 747s was left! You would call me crazy, and rightfully so, yet such is the teaching of the big bang theory. And yet it is the Christians that are accused of hating science!

If there had to be a Creator, He has to be God. It is only natural. No random person could just speak this planet into existence; only a god can. But not just a god, but The God. Exodus 15:11-12 says, “Who is like thee O Lord among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? You stretched out your right hand and the earth swallowed them.” Anyone who created this world has to be God.

But if He is God, He has to be Lord. It is not enough to simply believe in God, for even the demons believe in God and tremble with fear (James 2:19). “God” appears 4,444 times in the Bible, and “Lord” appears almost twice as many times; it is not enough to just believe in God, but we must worship Him as Lord. The word lord means “the owner or controller of something.” We must live for God, not just as our owner, but in submission to Him as our controller. And what does our Lord say about premarital sex? He says it is a sin, and in I Corinthians 6:18 the Bible says, “Flee fornication.” Verse 9 of that same chapter says that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Our Lord is clear: don’t do it.

And we shouldn’t, because if He is Lord, He must be the Judge. Abraham referred to God as the “Judge of all the earth” who would do what is right (Genesis 18:25), and the Bible also tells us that we have an appointment with death, and afterwards is the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). So we will all die and then stand before the Judge, our Lord God and Creator. What will He say to you? Hebrews 10:31 says that it is a scary thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Some might be thinking that this is too harsh, or that teens are just going to do it anyway. But this method worked for me because I love my Lord for all that He did for me. And even if it is harsh, I care enough about you to risk upsetting you.

True love does not just wait until marriage, it also warns.

Jesus Did Not Condemn the World

2010-04-28T15:01:00.001-04:00

According to John 3:17, God did not send His Son Jesus into the world to condemn the world. This verse has led many people to develop a theology that says that Jesus is not a condemning God, and this belief is used to help build their case that Jesus is all love and no judgment.

The problem with this theology is that the reason Jesus was not sent to condemn the world is that world ALREADY was condemned. John 3:18 continues and says, “He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already.”

Ever since the first sin in the Garden of Eden mankind has been condemned because of our sin nature. We are all condemned from birth, so Jesus did not come to condemn mankind, but to redeem us!

Jesus’ own mission statement says that He came to “seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10).” He did not come to condemn, but to save us from our own condemnation. This is great news.

This means that all of us who claim to follow Jesus should be picking up where Jesus left off on earth: seeking the lost, and leading them to Jesus. Why? Because the way they are they are already condemned.

So if we take John 3:17 to simply mean that Jesus did not come to condemn anybody, it can come across as if there is no need to worry about being condemned. This is very wrong. People may call you judgmental, but that is a small price to pay to potentially bring a person who is condemned into a relationship with Jesus.

Even though Jesus did not condemn the world, He will judge the world, and many will be sent to hell after He judges them because they condemned themselves with their unbelief. Let’s tell them before it is too late. If we don’t, we are assisting in their condemnation.

Jesus did not condemn the world. Are you condemning it?

A Balancing Act

2010-04-14T16:52:00.001-04:00

A tightrope walker only has one necessary skill: balance. Move an inch to the left, or overcompensate two inches to the right, and he is finished for sure. Recently it has occurred to me just how much of a balancing act Christians need as well.

I am not talking about walking right down the middle. Absolutely not. We need to stand up for what we believe in, no matter how politically incorrect we might be. The last thing we need to worry about is being people pleasers.

The balance that we need as Christians is to avoid going to extremes on most issues. Now, if something is black and white in Scripture, than do no make it gray. But other things require good balance.

For example, take prayer. The Bible is full of verses that tell us that we will receive what we ask for if we do it with enough faith, or in the name of Jesus. But there are also verses that say to ask for God’s will to be done instead of our own. This has caused some Christian groups to believe that God will answer “Yes” to every single prayer, and if He doesn’t, you didn’t have enough faith. Other groups will never “let their requests be made unto God” because they don’t want to pray for their will to be done. We need a balancing act. We cannot take one verse of Scripture about prayer and ignore all the others. Find that balance between asking in faith while yielding to God’s will.

Another example is one that has led 21st Century Christians groups to each have their own Jesus. One group has the Jesus of love and the other has the Jesus of wrath. Jesus is not all love and no wrath, but neither is He all wrath and no love. Guess what? He is actually found right in the middle, doing His own balancing act. In His sovereignty, God will never tip the scale one way or the other. God is love, and His love requires Him to exercise His wrath. God is 100% love and 100% wrath at the same time.

One final example. In John 15 Jesus said that He called His disciples, not servants, but friends. What a great thought! But in John’s Revelation, Jesus spoke His own name and John fell down like he was dead. My grandparents’ generation seemed to have been more on the side of John, while this new generation prefers to focus on John 15. This has led one group to go overboard and, in a blasphemous manner, announce that Jesus is their homeboy. The other group is guilty of making Jesus a million mile away God. What do we do? We find a balance. Remember, the apostle John recorded both occasions, so he certainly knew where the balance was.

So how do we find the balance? We ask God for help. The closer we get to God the more we will know Him. As we get to know God more we will know where to find that balance. It is not an arrogant statement to say that we know God. We should get closer to Him each day. Here is how:

1. Diligently seek Him. God will reward that (Hebrews 11:6)
2. Draw close to God. God will draw close to you. (James 4:8)
3. Ask for wisdom. God will pour it out. (James 1:5)

The truth of God is not up for debate or left up to us to make Him who we want Him to be. We must properly know who God is.

Don’t go overboard, and don’t lose your balance!

Witnessing Tips from a Thief

2010-04-08T16:40:00.002-04:00

In honor of the Easter season I thought it would be a good idea to look at the thief on the cross next to Jesus at the Crucifixion. Jesus gave His disciples, and us today, the charge to tell people about Him (which we call “witnessing”), and I believe we can learn a thing or two from this thief.

First, we see that Jesus had two converts while He was dying. One of the Roman solders who was working the executions that day was forced to conclude that “truly this man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39).” And then there is the thief who was crucified next to Jesus. We see his prayer of salvation: “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom (Luke 23:43).” While Jesus was dying he had more converts to Christianity than most Christians will have in their lives. This is a great reminder to us as Christians that we should always be mindful of the unsaved people around us, and their eternal destination if we do not tell them about Jesus.

Another thing we can learn is the importance of planting a seed. This is not gardening talk, but more Christian terminology. We might tell somebody about Jesus, only to have them reject the message, but this is not a total loss. It plants a seed that might be cultivated over time and still lead to that person’s changed life.

That thief on the cross next to Jesus clearly had a seed planted in his heart before he was crucified. How else could he have come to his conclusion about who Jesus was when Jesus barely spoke that day? The thief obviously knew the Scriptures, and that there were prophecies that the Son of God would come to take away the sins of the world, and then later establish a kingdom. He knew the Scriptures, and had most likely rejected the idea that this carpenter was the one prophesied about. But that seed that had been planted continued to grow in his heart, and he is in heaven today because of it. Christians, even if you do share your faith but don’t see converts, keep your chin up. You are planting seeds.

We can also learn that, while Bible knowledge is important, that is not what brings salvation. The thief did not ask to go to paradise with Jesus, but that is where he went that day. He thought he would immediately become part of some new kingdom on earth, but that kingdom will not become literal until after the Great Tribulation. The point is this: you might not know the ends and outs of the book of Revelation, you might be totally confused on issues of free will or election, and you might have no clue what “propitiation” or “substitutionary atonement” are, and that’s OK. While those things are good to know, they are not requirements for your salvation. What are the requirements? Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and allow that belief to change your life so that you live for Jesus as the Lord of your life.

Finally, we can learn that we can learn from a thief. Yes, this convicted career criminal can teach us sanctified believers a few things. Even though he never told another person that he found the one the Scriptures prophesied about, his final recorded sentence has testified for two thousand years.

May we do the same.

GOSPEL

2010-03-25T09:51:00.003-04:00

Checklist Ministries, which was created by our 18 year-old friend Will Scott before he passed away from cancer last May, hosted a rally called Invasion last Saturday. I had the honor and privilege of presenting the Gospel at the rally.

We did this in such a way as to enable teens to share their faith in Jesus. We wanted to give them the opportunity to stop what they were doing and text at least one person with the message of the gospel, which means “good news.”

I believe the three most common reasons people don’t share their faith are they are hypocrites, they get nervous face to face, and they don’t know what to say. If you live one way at church and another way at school, you know you can’t witness because your life doesn’t back up the message. If that is you, remove that sin from your life and become a witness for God.

And the other two excuses are easy to overcome. By texting, emailing, or using Facebook, you can tell someone about Christ without being face to face, and they will not feel like they have been put on the spot. And by following this GOSPEL pattern, you won’t have to worry too much about what to say. So here is the GOSPEL that we presented at Invasion, as adapted from Dare 2 Share Ministries.

G od created us to be with Him. (Genesis 1-2)
O ur sins separate us from God. (Genesis 3)
S ins cannot be removed by good deeds. (Genesis 4 - Malachi 4)
P aying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again. (Matthew)
E veryone who trusts in Him alone can have eternal life. (John)
L ife with Jesus starts now and lasts forever. (Acts - Revelation)

Now, please don’t feel like you have to text this like it appears. That won’t make much sense; this is just designed to help you memorize it. Look how easy it is to use this method in a 15 second explanation: “When God created us, His desire was for us to have a relationship with Him, but our sin separates us from God. Just like how Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, so our sin separates us from God. Our sin cannot be erased, no matter how many good things we do—we need a Savior. So Jesus died on the cross to make that transaction between God and us, allowing God to punish the sin and let the sinner go free. Because of this, everyone who puts their faith in Jesus alone, and who lives for Jesus alone, can enter back into a relationship with God. This new life starts now, and goes on forever.”

The Great Commission of Jesus still applies to us, to teach all nations that Jesus is Lord. What are you doing to fulfill this command? Who is the last person you told about Jesus?

I heard of one young lady that used this method and led her friend to Christ through texting. I want to hear other stories. If you use this method, leave a comment and tell us what happened.

"For I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes…" Romans 1:16

All Things To All Men

2010-03-18T15:47:00.002-04:00

One of our favorite verses to use in our evangelism methods is where Paul said that he “becomes all things to all men” so that he might “by all means save some (I Corinthians 9:22).” This is certainly a good idea if we keep it in its proper context and application.

For example, I remember a time in high school where I knew a kid that loved skateboarding. Being the chicken that I am, I was never a skateboarder. All he would talk about was skating, and I knew none of his lingo. But to help develop a relationship with him (he was new to our church and didn’t know many people), I brushed up on my skating lingo so I could ask if he had done any sick ollies lately (impressed?). This would be like Paul saying “to the skateboarder, I became a skateboarder.” This is effective and necessary.

But then there are the people that use this verse to justify doing sinful things in the name of evangelism. The first one that comes to mind is about drinking. Some people will go into the bars to evangelize, which is a great idea, but then they order a round for themselves. If any sanctified Christian dares to oppose them on this practice, they will proudly cite their anthem: I’m becoming all things to all men.

Let’s step back and survey the damage that is done here. These pub evangelists have just given every lost person a license to continue in their very sin! “If he believes in Jesus and does the same things I’m doing, I must be OK.”

The same point was recently made to me in trying to defend a movie that used profanity. Someone told me that the profanity in this movie is being all things to all men. With that logic the same damage is done as with the pub evangelist. If this is the new justification in evangelism, where will we draw the line: Will we become porn stars to reach porn stars? Will we become drug dealers to reach our clients? Come on! This is ridiculous. Let’s stop taking the Bible out of context in order to excuse our sin.

Paul’s quote in I Corinthians 9 is being dangerously misapplied. His original point had nothing to do with giving himself extra liberty, but was all about denying himself the liberty that he already had! Look at his examples. To the weak he became weak, and though he was free, he made himself a servant. It is not that he fed his sinful appetite, but that he denied himself to reach some. We know for a fact that Paul denied himself the right to eat certain meat (which he had the right to eat) in order to keep the opportunity to reach others (read the previous chapter).

Do you really want to reach somebody for Christ? Then find a way to reach one by denying yourself, not by compromising your standards or beliefs. When we compromise, no one is actually reached for Christ, so we miss our goal. We are constantly reaching people by confronting them with their need for change. How many are being reached by drinking, swearing Christians?

Let’s be all things to all men so that we can reach some.

Evangelism

2010-03-11T14:32:00.002-05:00

“Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.”

St. Francis of Assisi is given credit for this famous quote (although that exact phrasing does not appear in any of his writings), and a lot of people would think that this is a great philosophy. His actual quote was that everyone should “preach by their deeds.”

Preaching with our deeds is not just a strategy, it is a necessity. We are commanded all through the Scriptures to let our light shine and be a peculiar people. People should be able to look at our lives and see that we are Christians. They should see the love of Christ readily on display, and thus feel compelled to live their lives in the same way. The sermon that we should preach with our lives is a sermon of love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, forgiveness, conviction, etc.

But this idea that has emerged that says we should ONLY preach with our deeds is a heresy straight from the devil himself. Think about it: who is the one that does not want you to tell people about Jesus—God or Satan?

Believers these days are acting as if we are being overly intrusive by asking people if they believe in Jesus. You would think we were working for the Census Bureau the way we have been criticized for asking people about Jesus.

The new trend is to “have a conversation” with people. If the other person brings up religion, maybe we can insert some harmless little pithy Christian statement in there (“God knows our hearts.”). If they don’t bring up religion, then we will mind our own business as to not “force our beliefs” on them. This mindset is OK to postmodern people because they “got a conversation started.” I have tried to understand this way of thinking, but I just don’t see the merit. If these people die, that conversation will not save their souls.

I love the quote from William Booth of the Salvation Army. He said that if Christians could spend just three seconds in hell, then they would have no problem sharing their faith with anyone. Let’s stop with this conversation nonsense and realize that people all around us are headed for a literal, eternal hell

Lost people know what we believe (that they will go to hell if they don’t change), and that we are supposed to love them. For those of us who are so worried about looking like an evangelical or fundamentalist that we never tell them about Jesus, we are actually selling them short. If we don’t tell them about Jesus, they will know we aren’t showing them love and that we are just hypocrites. If we do tell them about Jesus, even if they reject the message, they will see that we are sincere in our belief and our love. This plants a seed that may be cultivated over time; the “conversation” only highlights the fact that we don’t actually love them enough to tell them about their sin, separation from God, and salvation.

We should be preaching with words everywhere we go. "Conversations" should come after we have initiated the subject of Jesus.

Maybe a better quote would be this:

Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary, have a conversation.

Christian or Christ Follower?

2010-02-23T17:02:00.001-05:00

One of the newest debates among Christianity is over our name: are we still called Christians, or is it time for something new? Some have become so dogmatic in this discussion that they refuse to be labeled a Christian.

The Christ Followers say that the term Christian has a negative connotation in our culture; they assert that society has a bad taste in its mouth from all the hypocrites in Christianity, from disgraced leaders and fallen pastors, to money-grubbing faith healers and abortion-clinic bombers. On this issue, I cannot help but agree with them. These tragedies all hurt the cause of Christ.

But the way I see it, the world should have a negative view of Christians, just in a different way. In Acts 11:26 we see the first time that the disciples are called Christians. It is important to note that they were called Christians; they did not call themselves Christians. History shows us that the term was actually bestowed upon them by the ones who criticized them.

Society didn’t like them, so society called them Christians.

I Peter 4:16 says “If any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf.” So if the world doesn’t like Christians, we should glorify God (Matthew 5:11-12), not run and change our name. This makes it look like Christians had an emergency staff meeting and agreed to retool the whole operation. And since “Christian” means “follower of Christ,” Christ Follower was not too creative.

Other critics of the word Christian say that the word means that we are little Christs (or little anointed ones by definition), thus making ourselves little gods. That just is not true. We are simply followers of Christ.

We don’t see the Muslims changing their names, and they behead people who do not believe like they do. What group could ever have a worse reputation than that?

If we really get down to it, the reason that society today has a problem with Christians is that they know too many of them. And the ones they know act just like they do, then go pretend to be holy on Sundays. The real reason society should not like Christians is the opposite; there should be a guilt felt within them because they are not living like Christ’s followers. They should see real love, joy, peace, patience, sacrifice, conviction, and commitment. When they do, they will do one of two things: they will feel compelled to change their lives and live for God, or they will harden their hearts and hate God and His followers.

As a lifetime Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan, I know all too well the agony of defeat. The Bucs are arguably the worst franchise in the history of pro football. Around the turn of the century the team was doing some soul searching, trying to turn around their fortune. The solution was not in changing their name and tricking all the other teams into thinking they were somebody else. The solution was found in getting better personnel, which was what led to their 2003 Super Bowl victory (yes, they stink again, but only because they got rid of those good players).

So in our mission to reach the lost world for Christ, let’s focus on developing our personnel by making sure that all who follow Christ are living the way Christ wants us to live. No gimmicks, no tricks, no name changes. Let’s just infiltrate our culture with the love of Jesus as we seek to live a holy life.

We need to get our act together and reach the lost before the Allah Followers do.

Why I Blog

2010-02-18T10:49:00.002-05:00

In case you were wondering…

When I was living in the dorm of my Bible college there were a handful of guys that loved to stay up late debating the nitty-gritty matters of the Bible. These people would spend hours yelling at each other over the necessities, like whether or not Adam had a bellybutton (of course not!). And they loved to be the one to come up with the most controversial new idea, then adopt that into their theology.

I am not one of those people.

It doesn’t matter if Adam had a bellybutton or not (he didn’t!); I don’t want to spend all my time trying to convince a Christian about some unimportant biblical trivia question. Instead, I want to try to convince the lost to give their lives to Christ.

Furthermore, I want to teach Christians about the things that do matter. As the pastor of students at our church I have an obligation to teach our students, but this teaching should not be confined to just Sunday and Wednesday. If I have the opportunity to teach about where Christians should stand on the gay rights issue, or the chance to encourage our students to be encouragers, then I will do so. That is why I blog.

I also have an obligation to the parents of these students to provide them with the best information possible to help them make decisions about raising their children. Parents, we are on the same team, working together, not against each other. So when I am asked repeatedly if the peace symbol is okay to wear or if a certain movie is okay to see, then I also have an obligation to make that information available as well. That is why I blog.

If something that I have written has rubbed you the wrong way, just know that it was never my intention to do so. If you are reading this, and you clearly are, no one twisted your arm to make you read it (as far as I know). This blog is not my soapbox to try to conform everyone to look like me; this is simply an extension of my ministry to teach.

I realize that some things have caused some to disagree with me, even to criticize me. But that will not prevent me from continuing to do what I do. The way I see it, at my judgment it will just be me and Jesus, and I will have to give an account of what I did with my ministry. Since none of you will be there, I will not have to answer to you. My main goal is to please Jesus, and to continue the work that He has called me to do.

That is why I blog.

by the way, Adam didn’t have an umbilical cord. You do the math.

I'm Not a Legalist

2010-02-12T18:17:00.000-05:00

Aside from Tommy, Legalist might just be what I’ve been called most recently. The tricky thing about legalism is that it is easy to accuse someone of being a legalist, and it is hard to prove that you are not one. So with my work cut out for me, let me try to explain why I am not a legalist.

A legalist is a person who emphasizes the outward appearance over the inward appearance. For example, a legalist might have a rule that you always attend church on Sunday, but once at church, he may never pay attention. To a legalist, the matters of the heart don’t matter as long as you look right on the outside.

One of the obvious problems with legalism is that the legalist soon begins to demand that everyone else look and act just like he does, even though a lot of what he does is not biblical. There are no moderate legalists; they are all extreme, and they all think they are better than everybody.

To the observer, there is a very fine line between a legalist and person who is simply trying to live right. Why? Because the person who is trying to live right will, like the legalist, shun the things of this world. Neither will drink alcohol, neither will watch bad movies, neither will use foul language, etc. And since no one can truly know another person’s motives, it may be difficult to distinguish between the two.

The opposite of legalism is grace; this is the idea that a person can do whatever they want and causally ask for forgiveness later, citing Bible verses that seemingly put God in check-mate, forcing Him to forgive them because He promised to do so. There is no focus on living a holy life because, “God will forgive me.” The Bible calls this attitude licentiousness, or the idea that we have a license to sin.

I am not licentious, nor am I a legalist. I am just a guy who is trying to live right. When Jesus says to be holy, I actually want to be holy. When the Bible says that pride is an abomination, I don’t want to be proud. And when the Bible says to put no wicked thing before my eyes, guess what? I don’t want to put any wicked thing before my eyes.

Does that make me a legalist? No. In fact, I believe it only exposes the fact that the very ones who call me a legalist are actually licentious. They can put evil before their eyes because God will be forced to forgive them later (please note my sarcasm here: God is not forced, and He only forgives those who turn from their sin, not just casually pretend they are sorry).

I personally believe there is a guilt factor involved here that makes the licentious crowd attempt to decry the ones striving to be holy by calling them legalists. Deep down they realize that they are not holy, but instead of changing, they yell, “Legalist!” This is like the liberal strategy: they can’t win on ideas, so Dan Quayle can’t spell, Reagan is too old, George W. Bush is too dumb, and Sarah Palin is, well, take your pick.

Even if I am a legalist (which I’m not), does that change whether the other person is right or wrong? A legalist can make a good point. One might teach that Christians should abstain from gossip, and if he is dismissed as being a legalist, that does not change the point: a Christian should not gossip. The crowd might yell “Legalism!” but they had better stop gossiping too.

If a person thinks I am a legalist, that really doesn’t bother me. I have my convictions (not opinions), but I am not preachy about them unless I am preaching. I don’t picket, boycott, sign petitions, hold signs, or bomb abortion clinics. Those are the actions of the legalist. But I have been accused of forcing my beliefs on people.

The thing is, if my convictions come from the Bible, then I am right. And when I preach, teach, answer questions, or blog, I had better teach God’s Word. People living in sin might not like it, but they won’t be there at my judgment when I will answer to God for how I handled my ministry. I want to be able to tell the Lord that I never watered down, dumbed down, or put down His Word.

Here is the problem: preachers and teachers today have no definitive answer about what is right and wrong, and they therefore leave it all open for each person to decide for himself. These are the one who get upset that I am forcing my beliefs. The Bible is clear. There is no room for debate. What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong.

If the F word is bad, then the D word is just as bad. If a show with 10,000 cuss words is bad, then a movie with 1 is just as bad. If a movie with full nudity is bad, then a movie with partial nudity is just as bad. Let’s stop giving ourselves a license to decide how much sin we are allowed to have before it’s too bad, or as pastor Johnny Hunt says, let’s stop seeing “how much hell we can have on our way to heaven.”

So if that makes you want to call me a legalist, I don’t care; that is what the comment section is for. That will not slow me down from teaching what BIBLICAL holiness looks like.

And just in case I offended any legalists here, let me point out that I am wearing a tie.

A Little Note

2010-02-09T21:08:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite parts of what I do is going into the schools. We have a Bible study called First Priority that meets at the high school, and at our three junior highs at Lockhart, Sims, and Jonesville.

There are over a hundred 6th-8th graders that pack out Sims every Wednesday morning, and some days it can be difficult to keep the crowd quiet. I’ll be the first to admit that the majority of these students are not there because of their love for Jesus or their desire to hear the message, but we always believe that we are helping to make a difference.

Last Wednesday, due to other circumstances, I was the only pastor at Sims. The room quickly got out of control, and I was even mocked by a few students. In my frustration I later told my wife that I wasn’t going back to Sims.

That night at church a lady handed me a hand written note from one of her students who goes to Sims. The note was very simple, thanking me for visiting each week and teaching her the Bible. Aside from making me cry, the note reminded me that no matter how difficult it might be to deal with the masses, there is a room full of individuals that are eager to hear God’s Word.

So who is the person in your life in need of a note? Is there a school teacher, pastor, parent, friend, mentor, boss, coach, neighbor, relative, soldier, or any other person that you can say thanks to? It takes very little time, and the impact can last far beyond the occasion. Don’t be the king of good intentions; stop thinking about writing that note or making that call and just do it.

Personally, I want to thank the other pastors for all that they do with First Priority: it couldn’t happen without you guys.

The person you thank might just be encouraged to continue on in some work that they otherwise may have abandoned. You never know, you might be the Barnabas to encourage Paul when he needed it the most. In my opinion, Barnabas was as important in the ministry as Paul was, and when you pass on encouragement you are sharing in that person’s ministry.

So to all you encouragers out there, Keep it up!

Tim Tebow's Message

2010-02-04T14:13:00.001-05:00

You’re probably surprised that it took me this long to do it, but I am finally going to blog about one of my favorite people, Tim Tebow. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the 30 second commercial that Tebow will appear in with his mother, Pam, during the Super Bowl. The ad is sponsored by Focus on the Family (who did not put any money into the project).

Naturally, many women’s groups have been upset about the ad, which is a little funny since it has not aired, and only a select group has seen it. There has been no transcript released, except that CBS has said the words “abortion” and “pro-life” do not appear in the ad.

Every fan of abortion pretends that they view their sacred right as a necessary evil, claiming that they want to limit the number of abortions (while making it cheaper, easier, faster, and available to minors without parental consent—you know, all the things that will limit the number of abortions). They want the undecided segment of America to think they only want abortion to remain legal for the cases of rape or incest. (It should be noted that less than 1% of abortions are performed on women who say they were raped, and of those, like Roe herself, many lie about being raped so they will not be judged for their abortion.)

These women’s groups are supposed to be in favor of choice, but it is clear to me that they are only in favor of choosing abortion. Tebow’s commercial is not saying to make abortion illegal, it is saying to choose life. If these women really supported a woman’s right to choose, then they should support the Tebow ad, because keeping a baby is a choice. If they disagree with Pam Tebow’s choice to keep her son, then this confirms that they love abortion. And where is the respect for Pam? These groups say we need to respect women’s choices, but they are showing no respect for this respectful woman.

We have not seen the commercial yet, and sadly, I won’t get to see it on Super Bowl Sunday either. Why? Because the other commercials are so bad that our youth will be turning the TV off during our Super Bowl party. This is why I am sick of hearing people make the lame argument that the Super Bowl is no place for this message. What other ads are going to be aired during the Super Bowl? Coors, Budweiser, Victoria’s Secret, Viagra, Go Daddy, and who knows what else. What a shame that people are getting worked up over something decent interrupting the vile advertising that will be taking place. I think this ad will be a breath of fresh air on TV.

And for all of you that are upset that this commercial does not present the Gospel, please remember two things. #1, The CBS criteria will not allow them to. So what is the solution—not doing anything, or doing their best with what they can do? #2, Because of the controversy, which everyone involved in knew there would be, it is allowing them the opportunity to present the Gospel to millions of people.

For example, when the news does a story on this ad, they show Tebow, who is either preaching in a prison or wearing John 3:16 painted on his face, which has caused more than 93 million people to Google that verse.

So when the liberals of this country want to pick and choose which voices get heard and which ones gets silenced, Tim Tebow has once again found a way to penetrate and score. It is sad that we live in a society that is OK with vulgar commercials because of the right to free speech. These are the same people trying to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservative voices under the “Fairness Doctrine,” while allowing CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and every other biased news outlet to report whatever they want.

Tebow could be doing a Super Bowl commercial with Nike, Gatorade, or anything else, but he is putting his career on the line by standing for something. Instead of criticizing him, we should be encouraging him, because frankly, we need more of him.

In Florida, Tim Tebow is a legend.
If Tim Tebow goes into McDonald's and orders a Whopper, he gets one.
Tim Tebow can win Connect 4 in 3 moves.
Chuck Norris wears Tim Tebow pajamas.

There is nothing he cannot do, and he is, perhaps, the greatest college football player of all time. And that has little to do with his football stats.

God, give us more Tim Tebows, people who will take a stand, live for You, and point people to the cross, no matter who they upset in the process.

Go Gators, and Go Tim Tebow!

To Save a Life

2010-01-28T19:19:00.001-05:00

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.)

By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers.

But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting her shirt back on.

I know the arguments in favor of this movie. I realize that the curse words are before the young man gives his life to Christ, and I know that the bedroom scene is essential to the storyline.

The movie’s writer, who is a youth pastor in California, said that he prayed over every curse word he wrote into the script. While he admitted that cussing “is not cool,” he added that those words helped to make the story real. I have to take issue with this (here comes the part where I get called a Pharisee and legalist again). Where do we read in the Gospels that Jesus used curse words to appeal to those “real people” around Him? Where do we see Him stealing to reach the tax collectors, kicking people around to reach the Roman centurions, or bragging about Himself to reach the Pharisees? Obviously He did not do those things; instead we see Jesus transcending culture and urging people to change their lives and follow Him.

As followers of Jesus we are told to be light to the darkness, salt to the earth, and a city on a hill. What will really reach people is Christians living a different life, not doing what Casting Crowns sings about, “blending in so well that people can’t see the difference, and it’s the difference that sets the world free.”

Ironically, one of the elements in this movie is hypocrisy in the church. How is it not hypocrisy to live by the Bible that says to be separate from the world, then make a movie with profanity in it? A movie about hypocrisy is being hypocritical.

About the curse words, the movie’s producer said that kids hear much worse all the time. That is a terrible way of justifying sin. The reason many people, youth pastors included, don’t have a problem with 8 curse words in a movie is they are already watching movies and TV shows that use much worse language. If you have no problem watching and talking about sitcoms that use cursing and taking God’s Name in vain and movies that will use F-bombs and gd’s, then there is certainly no problem with a few of the “lighter curse words.” The same point can also be made for all the sexual innuendo on TV.

I know the bedroom scene sets up a crucial part of the storyline, and I know that many people are praising the movie for not showing too much, but in my opinion (here comes more legalist accusations) it does show too much. Can a young man’s mind not wander and continue to play out the scene in his mind? Can the image of the young lady putting her shirt back on (while the young man says, “Let’s do it again. You know you want to.”) not cause a student to lust?

While this movie can and will be used to compel many teens to look out for the outcasts in their school, I still see it as a wasted opportunity, as the movie’s writer admitted that he did not intend to make a Christian movie, and that this movie does not “share the faith.”

I have and do endorse movies, but I will not endorse a movie that can cause a student to fall into sin. Youth pastors, just imagine that one of your students goes home and uses the “A” word in front of his mother.
“Where did you learn to talk like that?”
“It was in that movie that Pastor ___________ took us to see.”

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

--Jesus, Mark 9:42

To save a life, I will not endorse To Save a Life.

Church Growth 101

2010-01-24T15:26:00.001-05:00

American churches have become obsessed with church growth and church growth techniques, which certainly sounds like a good thing. Obviously we should want our churches to grow, because, in theory, this means we are reaching more people for Christ. In many cases these techniques are filling buildings, but are they really reaching people for Christ?
A church in our area runs TV commercials that say things like, “What if church was a literacy program for homeless children…would you come?” Wow. To me this sounds like an insecure kid at school saying, “If I give you my pudding, will you be my friend?”
Now Al Gore, esteemed founder of the fraudulent man-made Global Warming hysteria, is on a campaign to have pastors “go green” and give special attention to saving the planet. As one pastor who is gung-ho about the idea put it, this is a great way for us to offer something that people are interested in (by the way, why does no one cry “Separation of Church and State” when a career politician tells pastors what to say from the pulpit?). Am I the only one that finds it sad that pastors are scratching their heads trying to come up with something that people are interested in?
Then there is the famous Rick Warren method of knocking on every door in the community, asking why people don’t go to church, then tailoring his church to their desires. That is what has led these churches to remove the cross, stained glass, songs about Jesus’ blood, and messages about sin. This has led to “bless me” music and feel good messages. Pastor Warren, do you really want to know why people don’t go to church? They don’t love Jesus! Tailoring church to the lost is doing them a disservice.
Why? Because church is not for the lost. “Church” means “called out ones.” Instead of making church comfortable for the lost, get the lost saved, then bring them to church!
If people love Jesus they will go to church. This is the same concept that makes a person who loves sports go to games, a person who loves to shop go to the sale, and a person who loves a musician go to the concert. A person who loves Jesus will gladly go to any church that lifts up the name of Jesus; after all, Jesus said where He is lifted up He will draw men to Himself.
So to all my pastor friends, please just lift up Jesus. Enough with the programs, the competitions, the brainstorming, and the idea-stealing. Preach the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Remember, what you reach people with is what you keep people with.
If you reach them through a literacy program, going green, or removing the “religious relics,” then as soon as your program ends or another church develops a better program, those folks will be gone. But if you reach them with Jesus, as long as you continue to preach Jesus you will be OK.
Some people will be offended by this blog, I know. I’m not worried about that. I will just stick to preaching Jesus, but just maybe,
If I stop blogging…would you come to church?

Don’t bet on it.

The Peace Symbol

2010-01-04T21:11:00.000-05:00

The peace symbol has re-emerged into our culture, but this time around it is not being used in the same way that the anti-war crowd last used it. Today we see the peace symbol primarily on clothes and jewelry marketed towards junior high girls. It has become a fashion symbol instead of a peace symbol. But was it always a symbol of peace?

If a person were to do a basic study on the origin of the peace symbol, most people would conclude that the symbol was birthed for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1958 by the British artist Gerald Holtom. However, Holtom was an anti-Christian artist who was fully aware that the symbol was not original to him.

Most people believe the peace symbol to be a harmless relic from decades ago, or at worst, simply a symbol of world peace. Unfortunately, the symbol means much more that.

The “peace symbol” can be found etched into the gravestones of Hitler’s SS officers
and it was engraved into the shields of the Saracens in A.D. 711, used to symbolize the “breaking of the Christians.” There is no denying the fact that Hitler was certainly not a peace activist.

The symbol did not originate with Hitler though. It actually has its origin in ancient Rome. In fact, the famous emperor Nero himself is credited with having developed this two thousand year old symbol.

Who was Nero? He was perhaps the worst Christian killer of all time. Nero made a decree that anyone who claimed to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth would be put to death. The emperor, who believed that he was god, used Christians to light up his parties…literally. He had them dipped in oil, tied to a stake, and burned alive. These Christian street lights lined his garden for his outdoor parties.

The most famous of all of his executions was Simon Peter, the apostle and disciple of Jesus. Have you ever heard a Christian suggest that the peace symbol is an “upside down broken cross”? Consider the fact that Nero crucified Peter upside down, on a V-shaped cross. Instead of the traditional method of affixing the arms outstretched and the feet overlapping, Nero developed the upside down V, with the arms over the head. The symbol was used back then to refer to “the broken Christian” or “the broken Jew.”

Those who opposed Christ were supposed to be responsible for all the violence and problems in the world. By eliminating the Christians, it was believed, there would be peace.

It is obvious that the peace symbol is anti-Christian in its origin, so why has it become a fashion symbol? This too is obvious. It is for the same reason that saving the planet, evolution, abortion, homosexuality, and whatever else the Left will cook up are shoved down our children’s throats. Adults who can think for themselves are smart enough to realize there had to be a Creator, so our children are indoctrinated in the public schools.

As parents, we need to realize that Satan is after our children, and he will use whatever avenue it takes to get them. Whether it is in the science book, on the Disney Channel, or sewn into their clothes, he is trying to brainwash them on to his side. This is why we have to pay attention.

Peace out.

Happy Holidays!

2009-12-30T12:58:00.000-05:00

Everybody realizes by now that the terribly offensive phrase Merry Christmas has been subtly removed from practically everything, and I will admit that I understand the reasoning. When I check out at a store and a person tells me "Happy Holidays" I politely respond with a "Merry Christmas." They have the right to say happy holidays, and I have the right to say merry Christmas. I disagree with the conscientious effort to remove references to Christmas (let's just be honest, holiday lights just sounds stupid; you don't decorate for the holidays, you decorate for Christmas), but there is a freedom of speech that cannot be ignored.

With that said, on the day after Christmas (excuse me, the day after holiday) someone told me "Happy New Year." Wait a minute, what if New Year offends me? It is no secret that I don't watch the ball drop or even stay up until midnight on New Year's Eve, so I shouldn't have to suffer through a cashier telling me to have a happy new year, should I?

If "happy holidays" is just a generic way of summing up all of the occasions of the season, then why are they allowed to specifically mention New Years? Let's just call it what it is and admit that this is an anti-Christian way of removing the birth of Christ from our culture.

If we cannot acknowledge Christmas, then why did I not get my mail on December 25th (or 24!)? If I were an atheist I would be a little offended that the government is honoring the holiday.

If we are going to be this immature as a nation then from now on there should be no more references to Valentine's Day, Martin Luther King Jr., Day, President's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, or any other event. Either they are all merely holidays, or they are to be recognized for what they are. Christmas is a holy day, and whether society likes it or not, Jesus was born. The government tried to put a stop to it back then, so we should not expect anything different now.

Happy New Year!

Christians and Gay Rights

2009-12-13T22:05:00.002-05:00

Christians have historically opposed giving rights to homosexuals--rights such as marriage, adoption, and service in the military. However, there is a new group rising up out of Christian circles that are calling for more rights to be given to homosexuals. They cite the command from Jesus to love their neighbor as they love themselves, and what better way to show love to a homosexual than by allowing them to get married and adopt children?

The first thing to point out is that all groups who believe the Bible is the Word of God should believe that homosexuality is a sin (Levitcus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-32; I Corinthians 6:9) . But to what extent are we to show love to them, or to any sinner for that matter?

In our culture if a pastor says that a homosexual needs to repent it is considered to be hate speech, and if a politician promises the right of marriage it is considered to be an act of love. We must realize how backwards that is. As a pastor, if I try to show a homosexual love by saying, "Get married, adopt children, be happy", what I am really saying is "Have fun in hell." To push for more rights and not tell them about their sin is the ultimate hate speech. This is the same as a doctor not telling his patient that he has cancer because he doesn't want to offend him. Ignorance is not bliss; it is certain death.

If you want to show true love to a homosexual explain to him the consequences of dying without having surrendered his life to Christ--you never even have to mention homosexuality! He must deny himself, repent of all sin, and follow Christ as his Lord. The same is true of heterosexuals living in sin. All sin leads to death and hell, and must be repented of.

One final thought: just because we want to show love to someone in blatant sin does not mean we take steps to condone what they do. Why don't we show love to axe murders and serial rapists by letting them live among society, own axes, and work in day cares? Jesus showed sinners love by demanding repentance and warning of their impending doom if they failed to do so. Where does the post modern crowd get the idea that Jesus went around high-fiving sinners and laughing at their dirty jokes?

Instead, every recorded exchange between Jesus and those who opposed Him shows that He was forceful, not friendly, to them. He called them vipers, snakes, hypocrites, sinners, and children of the devil. He used sarcasm, blunt language, and twice used a whip. Today a person preaching like that would be decried as extreme, a legalist, or flat out crazy. Jesus would not support homosexual marriage (just ask the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrahoh; oh wait; you cant); we need more preachers standing up today in opposition to sin, not accepting it as part of our culture.

So if you know a homosexual then show them love today. Do not do this by telling them God loves them, because this just gives them a false sense of security ("If God loves me then why do I need to change?"). Tell them of the reality of hell, and as Jude said, pull them out of the fire. They might get upset, but if you never have the conversation, they will be upset with you for all eternity, wishing you would have really shown them love.

**Also note: Romans 1 closes by saying that those who condone homosexuality are as guilty as those who practice it, and Paul says both groups are deserving of death.