Monday, October 14, 2013

The Current Showdown in Congress - Dr. Stan Murrell

As a Christian, I confess to looking at world events through the presuppositional teachings of the Word of God. As a realist, I understand there are ideologies that drive men to do what they do. Specifically, I comprehend that the current president, along with the Moderates, Liberals, and the Clueless, in Congress, are driven by an ideologue that is best known as Secular Humanism. There are at least five pillars to this philosophy.

Scientific naturalism (which is a clever cover for atheism or agnosticism). According to this worldview, science is the only reliable path to knowledge. The scientific method is the most respected means for revealing the mysteries of life and origins of the universe.

Evolution. The secular humanist wants people to believe mankind evolved from a lower species to form the rational being he is now. But that would require a miracle. In fact, it would require several miracles. “The miracles required to make evolution feasible, are far greater in number, and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation” (Dr. Richard Bliss, “It Takes A Miracle for Evolution”).

Amorality. The secular humanist demands there are no moral judgments made, and then the secular humanist will proceed to make moral judgments. The amoral person denies a Bible-based morality and is completely without a conscience awareness of God. Because the conscience is seared, it is easy to be inhumane to others. Euthanasia and genocide are acceptable behaviors, along with abortions, sexual immorality, and homosexuality. What does it matter that the hallmarks of amorality is disease, discouragement, and death?

Autonomous man. Man longs to be independent of God in order to govern himself. Men think of themselves as god-like, with unlimited goodness and potential. In reality, man is a depraved creature, selfish and cruel, and in desperate need of regeneration. If man is really good, then it ought to be reflected in daily life. But pick up a newspaper in any country in the world and see if the goodness of man is on display, or his total depravity.

Global socialism. Since the Tower of Babel, man has been trying to unite in rebellion against God. Secular Humanist love big government, which they call world government. Little do they realize they are merely pawns in the grip of their father, the devil, who is in revolt against God, and wants to be like Him. The assumption is that government is good, and the more there is of government, the better everyone will be. History shows us that excessive government destroys the individuals initiative and God given right to pursue life, liberty, and personal happiness. Freedom has always been enjoyed in reverse proportion to the size and scope of government dominating the individual’s life. When there is less government, there are more personal freedoms. The failures of global socialism are documented in the evil empires of Russia, China, and in the failed nations in Eastern Europe, Africa, Cuba, and the Welfare State in America.

While America is being fundamentally transformed by a president who is a Secular Humanist, and assisted by a willing Congress, with many members of the same ideological persuasion, the church is called upon to be different, and not become a captive to the philosophy of Secular Humanists.

Colossians 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

According to Paul, the Secular Humanist deceives others. How many deceptive statements has the nation heard about the Affordable Care Act, the National Security Agency, and Benghazi?

According to Paul, the thinking of the Secular Humanist is grounded in man, and not in God, and divine revelation.

Finally, according to Paul, the thinking of the Secular Humanist is framed by the rudiments, the principles of the world, and not after Christ.

The word of exhortation to the church is simply this: “Beware.” Do not be deceived. Do not embrace the philosophy of a president and a Congress that is hostile to Christ but in love with themselves.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Reformers - a few reactionaries?

Over the last week, I have been engaged in a Facebook discussion regarding Bill Maher’s comment that Liberty University “isn’t a real school”; primarily because LU teaches creation, and any “intelligent” human being knows evolution is fact (because its science and eh hum..the assurance of Science never changes).  When some LU graduates semi-agreed with Maher, I entered the discussion as an unapologetic “young earth creationist” subsequently pitting me (a caveman) against the great scholars like Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, and like minded scholars that make up the “new” (I think less than two years old) website   Not to mention some young LU graduates who are excellent writers.      

After an exhausting amount of comments, an LU graduate named Matthew ends the thread with some of the following comments.  It should also be noted he may or may not adhere to Roman Catholic teachings (which I would argue are anti-Christ).  It should also be noted, I do believe there are "Roman Catholics" who are saved despite the church's false teachings.  I told him I would respond here. 

Matthew states:
Mark, you're obviously a sola scriptura guy, and I'm sure others in this thread would say the same of themselves. I affirm that the Bible is inspired word of God, but I question how historically honest this uniquely Protestant position really is. It's a tradition that took full form ~500 years ago and one which I find troubling, as it rejects Apostolic Tradition and the first 1500 years Church history. Add to that the fact that the Canon did not exist for the first 400+ years of the Church, and I wonder just how worthwhile any of your scriptural readings really are. Did the early Church behave like headless chickens because they had no Bible to interpret literally and guide them?

To be fair to Matthew, if I understand him, yes there is indeed a long history of attempts to establish authority whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, on wrong sources.  What Matthew is completing disregarding is the historical fact that God has indeed given us the supreme authority for all matters of faith and practice - His Holy Word, the Bible.  There was never a time in history that the True church (individual body of believers) did not resist the false teachings of “denominations” that derived their authority from outside scripture.  Yes, it was  Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and John Knox who established what would be known as the “Five Solas”, but that does not make the doctrine less authoritative, since they rely and are judged solely upon scriptures.  

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

How one can claim this (the five solas) “rejects the first 1500 years of Church history” is beyond my understanding.  The only thing it rejects – is the unbiblical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and all likeminded.  In addition, to claim the dating of the “canon” is relevant to its truthfulness is to miss a historical fact - it simply confirmed “officially” what the church had already accepted and believed.  

Did the early Church behave like headless chickens because they had no Bible to interpret literally and guide them?

No Matthew, the early church did not “behave like headless chickens” because they had no scriptures to “interpret literally and guide them” (nor did they need a Pope).  God hadn’t fallen off His sovereign throne to become impotent in getting His word to His people.  In addition, God made sure He spread enough copies around the known world so that NO one group could change them without obvious detection. 
I also gather that you embrace the form of Christian fundamentalism that became popular in the U.S. 200 years ago as a rejection of 19th century liberal theology (a la Schleiermacher, etc). My point in raising all of this is that Christian fundamentalism (which as you have demonstrated here, is caustic) only exists because of the Reformation a few hundred years earlier. I'll agree that Reformation needed to happen because of the problems in Rome, but the spiraling-out-of-control effect is not something Luther intended and neither was the creation of a new church body. When it comes to the Church, is it ecclesiastically, theologically and historically acceptable to simply re-create that with which we are unhappy?

The old “fundamentalist” accusation again raises its ugly head.  I must not be putting the “fun” in “fundamentalist” again.  Apparently “my views are caustic” since I will not negotiate with, or give equal weight to teachings (doctrines) that are unbiblical?   You know, like evolution, grace plus works, modern ideologies usurping divine revelation, mythical virgin births, papal infallibility, and dead men have never walked out of their own graves predicted thousands of years beforehand.  Perhaps your biggest misunderstanding is you think the Reformation was some sort of historical anomaly?  I would argue the Reformation simply re-claimed (with divine backing – scripture) the Truth from the decaying cancer of false teachers and teachings.  I think a similar thing happened when Peter preached at Pentecost.     
I tend to think that belief stems from tradition. The tradition I'm willing to embrace is that of the apostles and the things which took shape out of their efforts, including the Bible. I guess that my real problem with the beliefs you espouse and which you claim stem from your understanding of the Bible, Mark, is that you condemn others to adhering to Falsehood by erecting the tradition you believe in. The tradition you believe in is a doctrinal-system that a few reactionaries pulled out of a hat 200 years ago.

This comment is utter trash.  All Christians are theologians (whether they realize it or not), and the Christian faith is a faith of “doctrines” – and all “doctrines” have a history, just like man.  You seamlessly weave between the words “tradition” and “doctrine” as if no one will notice or you are indeed Roman Catholic.  The problem I have is not only with your line of logic (reasoning – “belief stems from tradition”), but with you insinuating that “doctrine” shouldn’t divide people.  First, belief stems from God alone.  Second, if those involved in the “five solas” are characterized by you as “a few reactionaries”, you’re either Roman Catholic and or utterly misinformed.   If you and I both “embrace” scripture, then I can only understand your comment to mean either - 1. Scriptures teachings should not divide people or 2. We disagree on hermeneutics or worse and most offensive - Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God.    

When it comes down to it, I'm more interested in being closer to the source, which comes from both Apostolic and Biblical tradition. If you can find a problem with that, then go right ahead and correct me, but from within Christianity, I think it would be difficult. This isn't a school-yard argument where I'm trying to claim that my tradition is better than yours. This isn't about me as an individual and it's not about 'mine' and 'yours'; this is about the Body of Christ and treating it properly.

If you are truly interested in being close to the source, you would never stand in judgment of God’s word; nor make God’s word (its teachings) subject to modern ideologies.  If I didn’t care about the body of Christ, I would leave false teachings and teachers alone; that just doesn’t come “naturally” to me.       

Saturday, May 19, 2012

A BOOK REVIEW – David Platt, Radical

I. Introduction
David Platt is the pastor of The Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Alabama; the church exceeds a four-thousand membership.  Platt’s education consists of three advanced degrees and a doctorate from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.  His book under review is Radical.[1]  This review will include a summary of each chapter, a critical perspective, a personal application section, and conclude with brief reflections and recommendations for further study.  The purpose of this review will be to examine Platt’s views (specifically his understanding of “radical abandonment” to Christ) against the light of scriptural evidence, or lack thereof.       
II. Summary
Chapter one (Someone Worth Losing Everything For) attempts to answer the question of what “radical abandonment” to Jesus really means.  Platt readily admits he is the pastor of a large (mega) church and yet can’t help but think somewhere he has gone wrong.  He reflects on his church spending twenty-three million for a new building, yet only raising five thousand for refugees in Sudan (p. 16).  Platt cites examples of wealthy church members selling their homes, giving it all to the poor, and heading overseas in ministry (p. 20).  He concludes the chapter with the challenges to “commit to believe” and commit to obey” Jesus (p. 20) and that a believer’s “meaning” is found in giving for the sake of others (p. 21).
Chapter two (Too Hungry For Words) Platt recall his times spent outside the US with believers who have nothing but the word of God in their gatherings (p. 26).  He explains the human condition of being spiritually dead and blind (p. 31) and the biblical fact that no man can save himself (p. 32).  Platt argues against the “catch” phrases often heard in Christian circles about “accepting Jesus” into your heart; he emphasizes the believer’s total need for Jesus, not acceptance (p. 37).  Jesus alone is worthy of total surrender (p. 39).
Chapter three (Beginning at the End of Ourselves) stresses the importance of relying solely upon God’s power.  Platt contends the “American Dream” stresses our own power and abilities, while the gospel is solely centered on God’s power (p. 45).  Platt criticizes the American definition of the “successful church” (p. 49); entertainment, musical talents, and grand marketing strategies because it is done at the expense of prayer and calling out to God’s power (p. 51).  In essence, Platt calls all believers to imagine doing those things that only God can do, not them (p. 60).
Chapter four (The Great Way of God) Platt contends believers are created to enjoy God’s grace and to extend His glory (p. 65).  Platt objects to the concept of Christianity’s message being “God loves me”, instead he argues the message should be “God loves me so that I might make him - his ways, his salvation, his glory, and his greatness – know to all nations” (p 70-71).  No matter where one lives, their hearts must be consumed with making the glory of God known to all nations (p. 77).  God has purposely designed the Christian’s life on a collision course with the world (p. 83).  
Chapter five (The Multiplying Community) Platt reminds his readers of the intensity and costly investment Christ made for His disciples; in fact Jesus lived for them (p. 89).  Jesus has asked His followers to do the same – ‘go and do the same’ (p. 90).  The context of “making disciples” is always done in a relational context (p. 93); learning God’s word should be done with the constant thought of how one can teach it to others (p. 102).  Platt contends something is terribly wrong when church members get saved and yet have no more impact on the world than before they were saved (p 105). Christians, who are true disciples, will have a life that involves going into the world risking their own lives for the sake of others (p 105).
Chapter six (How Much Is Enough?) examines the great gap of American wealth to a world in utter poverty.  Platt argues part of the problem rests in man’s sinful nature; choosing to ignore what we want and only seeing what we like (p. 108).  Platt makes it clear that caring for the poor does nothing for one’s salvation (p. 110), yet “materialism” could be a “blind spot” in American Christianity (p. 111).  Wealthy people, who neglect the needs of the poor, do not belong to God (p. 115).  Platt makes it clear; there is a war in the heart, a war against materialism (p. 136).  This is perhaps a blind spot that has been ignored for far too long in the Christian church.      
Chapter seven (There is No Plan B) examines seven scriptural truths that must be taken to the lost world.  To summarize: all people have knowledge of God, all people reject God, all people are guilty before God, all people are condemned for rejecting God, God has made away for salvation, all people must come by faith in Christ, and all believers are to take this message to all peoples (p. 143-157).  Platt argues a soft drink company in Atlanta has done a better job of getting sugar to the peoples of the world, than the church has done getting the gospel message to the world (p. 159).  Platt asks – “will we risk everything” to make the gospel known to all lost people groups? (p. 160). 
In chapter eight (Living When Dying is Gain), Platt attempts to argue both the risks and rewards of the “radical life”.  Platt argues the risks are clear – one’s life (p. 165).  The “radical life” will involve being betrayed, hated and persecuted (p. 166).  The rewards, on the other hand, will most assuredly not be associated with the “American Dream”; safety, security, comfort or greater prosperity (p. 171).  In fact, Platt argues the reward is indeed “radical” – since it is death (p. 179).  The great reward of the gospel is God Himself (p. 181). 
Chapter nine (The Radical Experiment) contains Platt’s one year plan that is to be utilized in turning the believer’s life upside down.  He encourages the reader to test his book’s claims to either discover them to be futile or reality (p. 183).  The challenge involves five components: pray for the entire world, read through the bible, sacrifice your money for a specific purpose, spend time in another context, and commit to a life that is multiplying community (p. 185).  He concludes with a summary of what he thinks the costs are in following Jesus: give up everything you have, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and go to places you may lose your life (p. 215).   When a martyr’s death becomes the “normal” characterization of obedience to Christ, then the believer has a “new normal” that is more concerned with eternal matters, than short term comforts (p. 216).       
III. Critique
            The first “red flag” that many evangelical conservative Christians may have, is the book’s endorsement by The Huffington Post’s writer, Jonathan Merritt; perhaps there is indeed a social gospel (curing the world’s ills) theme running heavily throughout Platt’s book.  Nevertheless, Platt’s book does raise some concerns in his treatment of specific scriptures to build upon his points.  Platt’s understanding of Mark 10:17-30 regarding the rich young ruler, is an example (p. 120-121).  Platt does not argue Christ will ask every believer to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor, but he does argue if Christ does, the believer must be willing to obey.  There is no problem here.  The problem arises when Platt argues the believer should ask God if this is His will for their lives (p 120).  This misses the entire point of the text.  Platt ignores, perhaps unintentionally the context of these verses; the rich young ruler had just told Jesus he had kept the law (verse 20), evidence of self righteousness, furthermore the young ruler was indeed genuinely seeking salvation.  Only Jesus, God in flesh, could have known the young ruler’s true love; his possessions. First and foremost, the young ruler had a heart problem, not an obedience problem.  At the same time, Platt is correct – God doesn’t give options for people to consider, He gives commands (p. 121).
            Dr. Gary Gilley, the long time pastor at Southern View Chapel in Springfield, IL gives a quick snap shot of some of Platt’s contradictions:        
• He condemns the American dream throughout the book (pp. 2, 7, 26-26, 48-50, 115, 119) and then concludes with an admission that every facet of the American dream is not negative (p. 214).
• He elevates, and gives examples of, people giving away all their wealth to the poor (pp. 13-17), then calls for simply placing a cap on our lifestyle so we can give more (pp. 127-128, 194-196).
• He complains of rich American churches as he pastors one of the richest in the country (pp. 15-19).
• He touts the story of a couple randomly giving away their possessions (p. 131) and then calls for informed giving so that our efforts are not wasted by giving to those who will misuse it (pp. 195-196).[2]
Perhaps the best way to described Platt’s views, taking into consideration the above, is that Platt almost implicitly sets up a ranking system among believers.  In other words, there are “first class” and “second class” followers of Christ.  He draws this out clearly in chapter eight: “Would I be willing for my wife and me to be that first missionary couple?  Would I be willing to be killed and cannibalized so that those who come after me would see people come to Christ?” (p. 165).  It appears as if Platt desires believers to do a thorough self examination, yet he fails to present any clear case that sacrificial living is not exemplified in works, but rather a changed heart.  By the end of this book, the reader may be begging for the gospel, the very message Platt argues believers should be willing to be cannibalized for simply because resting in God’s grace is virtually ignored.  In fact, even if every believer breathing today took Platt’s “radical” advice and gave all their money to the poor – the world’s spiritual condition and physical suffering would be absolutely no different.  One might argue there is an uncomfortable notion of a wealth redistribution philosophy underpinning some of Platt’s ideas, perhaps unintentional.          
IV. Personal Application
             After reading the first chapter, I had a sick feeling in my stomach this book would be an utter chore to read.  By the second chapter, probably the best chapter in the book, I became compelled to keep reading with a renewed sense of expectations.  This book does have its share of contradictions, some are so blaring I wondered how a pastor with Platt’s credentials and solid biblical doctrine could have missed them.  Nevertheless, the book heavily convicted me both in a spiritual and physical manner.  It also left me with many questions, good solid questions, which forced me to search scriptures in order to work out.
            There is no doubt, my financial giving has been half hearted.  I have often given money, never considering the fact that I am not even making a financial sacrifice.  I was forced to ask myself if I had something in common with the rich man who tossed scraps to the Lazarus’s outside my own door.  Inevitably, I was forced to consider my own selfishness, not only financially, but spiritually.  I was forced to realize that I too often, if not outright regularly, rarely make true sacrifices for others.  There is a big difference between tossing some “scraps” to those in need, and investing (sacrificing) for others in need.  While I understand giving to the poor and to those in need earn me no “points” in God’s eye, nor contribute a thing to salvation, I also realize “giving” is a reflection of my heart.  My heart has much selfishness that must be purged, and this can only happen when I am at the foot of the cross, reflecting on His blood for my blood in utter gratitude.         
            Enveloped in this “sacrificial” giving theme, is the concept of “dying to oneself”.  While I have absolutely no plans to “prove” my faith and allegiance to God by packing up my family to risk their lives and mine to preach the gospel in order to save some cannibals in a far off jungle, I must reconcile what I value most.  This is the area that leaves me with more questions than answers.  Would I take a bullet for my faith? - Probably; a bullet is relatively speaking an easy death.  Would I be tortured for Christ?  This is no easy answer I suspect for any genuine believer.  At the heart of struggling with theses difficult questions, Platt is correct – our perspectives are better suited when they are centered on God and eternity.  It is very easy to be distracted, whether chasing after the security and comforts of the “American dream” or worrying about what troubles tomorrow may bring.  If I am to live a life dedicated to sharing the gospel, no matter what the context, I must learn to put greater trust in Him and His sovereign will to carry me through.  The bottom line seems to be, if God does in fact call me to a jungle filled with cannibals to preach the gospel, I should have a heart prepared to obey, not negotiate.  I think this is the heart of what Platt is arguing, and it makes perfect biblical sense.                          
            Lastly, as I stated earlier, the book does leave me with many questions.  I think exploring these questions in light of scripture is always beneficial.  Do I really take risks and make sacrifices to propel the gospel in the world around me?  Do I give “scraps” instead of real sustaining “food” to those who need it?  Are my short falls truly reflecting precisely where my heart is, and will I walk away like the young ruler did?  There is much work to be done in my own heart.  I think at the center of these issues lies the age old spiritual disease of self righteousness that all humanity is born with.  Self righteousness is in fact, very deceiving, whether played out in false religions or in the hearts of men and women.  Selfless living, and sacrificial love for others is the life Christ lived; all believers should be willing and ready to do the same, especially among fellow believers.        
V. Conclusion
            There is a part of me that desires to recommend this book to anyone, yet regrettably I don’t think it will be helpful to anyone who is not already a believer.  In fact, the book could actually fuel the already destructive and anti-Christ philosophies of a social gospel, which is no gospel at all; I suspect Platt would readily agree.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the “American Dream” depending on how one understands it.  Freedom, wealth, and living comfortably are not sinful.  Man’s heart, however, is desperately wicked outside of Christ.  Too often the self righteous seek to comfort themselves by “giving”, never realizing they are still God’s enemy.  If a believer remembers his “giving” to the poor, my guess is God will not remember – their reward will be in the present world. 
For the average American believer, I would whole heartedly recommend this book.  My only caution is to resist the notion of “upper class” and “lower class” followers of Christ.  God calls, equips, and will bring unto completion what He alone has started (Philippians 1:6).  For further study, a good complementary book to Platt’s book would be John MacArthur’s book – The Gospel According to Jesus.[3]  Obedience and dying to one’s own interests are imperative to living a life that follows Christ.        

[1]David Platt, Radical (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books. 2011).
[2]Gary Gilley, “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream by David Platt” [article on-line] accessed 11May 2012 available from:; Internet.

[3]John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2008).

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Mothers and Fathers do matter Mr. President.

On the eve of "Mother's Day", it might be appropriate to re-mind the "pro gay marriage" folks that their position explicitly abhors the significance of Mothers and Fathers. In essence – Mothers and Fathers are mere options that hold no intrinsic value - the desires of individuals will always be superior to the obvious Truth which must be suppressed in their own unrighteousness. These people are exactly who God gives over in Romans 1:18-32. It is a horrifying thing when God says – “ok – I am done with you” - at that point, you belong solely and eternally to Satan. Repent and believe!

Saturday, May 05, 2012

Words of wisdom

The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ.

 - The Prince of Preachers

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

GLBT has been replaced with TWATS

I propose we stop using the acronym GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) and start using the acronym TWATS (This, Whatever, And That Sexual) for two primary reasons. 1. Twats is a word. 2. If history is any indicator - GLBT will be adding more letters soon, confusing us all. 
Changing the definition of "marriage" was easy - it is time we move on to embracing the TWATS generation.

Friday, March 30, 2012

The Problem with Evil; a New Perspective - by Dr. Stan Murrell

In his excellent work, A Baptist Catechism, Dr. W. R. Downing addresses the problem of evil:

“The possible answers, according to human reasoning, are:

“first, if evil exists [and it does as a sad and awful reality], then there is no omnipotent [all–powerful], benevolent God—the argument of the atheist.

“Second, evil exists and therefore, if God exists, he must be either limited in his power or arbitrary in his moral character—the argument of those who espouse a non–biblical [pagan] concept of God.

“Third, evil exists, therefore there is more than one God or there are equal dualistic forces [good and evil] in conflict. This is the non–biblical [pagan] argument of those who would posit a dualism (a “good god” and “bad god” or opposing good and evil forces or principles) in conflict for control of the universe.

“Fourth, evil does not exist, except as an illusion in our human thinking. This is the non–biblical view of some western cults and Eastern religions (e.g., Christian Science, Buddhism). This would make any ultimate distinction between good and evil arbitrary, and thus deny the moral self–consistency of the Divine character.

“Fifth, evil exists as a mystery, independent of God, who remains to a given [limited] degree powerful and benevolent, necessarily operating in a utilitarian sense. This is the inconsistent argument of some (including Pelagians and Arminians) who attempt to deliver God from the charge of being the “author of sin” and so unscripturally limit his power in order to retain his goodness.

“Finally, evil exists in the universe of an omnipotent, benevolent God, who is completely sovereign over it and uses it for his own glory and the highest good—the argument of the biblical Christian [consistent Calvinist].

“This final assertion is the only view that can be consistently aligned to the teaching of Scripture (e.g., Gen. 50:20; Judg. 2:15; 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14; 2 Kgs. 22:16; Psa. 76:10; Isa. 10:5–15; 45:7; Amos 3:6; Acts 4:27–28; Rom. 8:28; 9:11–21). Every other view, deriving from sinful humanistic reasoning, and so calling God and his actions into question (Rom. 9:19–21), seeks to point out an incoherence [inconsistency] in the Scriptures and the Christian system. These views either deny God and his power over evil, or limit God and seek to bring him down to the finite level (Rom. 1:21–25) and destroy his sovereignty and moral self–consistency—and thus any sufficient or consistent basis for Divine coherence.”

While this concise overview of the problem of evil is logical, biblical, and perceptive, the fundamental question as to why God has allowed (decreed) evil in the universe is still problematic. Must it always remain a mystery and without an answer? Perhaps not.

Perhaps Christians simply need a new perspective so that we see that the highest good in creation—including the presence of evil—is not our happiness; it is not even our holiness; it is the manifestation of God’s attributes. Could the love of God, His marvelous grace and infinite saving mercy be fully displayed apart from the black backdrop of sin? If the answer is no, then perhaps the mystery of evil finds purpose, definition, and meaning.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

How to blog as a cool "Relevant" Pastor...

How to blog as a cool "Relevant" Pastor...

1) Show others that you are not afraid to be open and transparent with your love life... Seekers will really look up to this and will want to convert to Christianity in order to get a better love life like yours.

2) Share with your readers what Rock concerts you've been to recently. When seekers find out that they don't have to give up their U2, Bon Jovi , and INXS - they will realize that Christianity is not such a big step after all. In fact, maybe they'll feel like they can even invite you (their pastor) to some cool (wild) parties.

3) Refer to everybody in your church as a "dude". And for all 37 pastors that work for you, on your hand-picked staff, refer to them in your blog posts as "my boy". So a proper sentence on your blog might be constructed like this: "My boy Justin and I are taking a few dudes to the U2 concert next week". If you have no fear of God whatsoever, you can do what I've seen in the seeker blogs, and also refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "a dude" as well.

4) Whenever you go to a Rock concert, tell your blog audience how much better your church's Rock worship band is than the Rock band that you just paid to see. Say things like this: "Bon Jovi was cool, but my boys in our worship team Rock!". Also, don't be afraid to talk about how your church's half-million dollar sound system "rocks" ($?).

5) Put lots of pictures of yourself on your blog, especially ones of you "relating" with seekers, but make sure you are wearing jeans and a long untucked shirt. That's what everybody wears, so even if you happen to be 60 years old, show them that you can dress just like them, like a teenager. Then they'll be less afraid to come to church.

6) Use the following words as much as possible, because they really have an enticing effect on other seeker pastors. Then they will read your blog a lot, and perhaps one day they'll ask you to have your own conference to teach them about "your vision". The words are: Leadership, Connecting, Unchurched, Goals, Relevance, Buzz, and Vision.

7) Whatever you do, don't kill your blog by saying words like the following. Not only will you turn-off the seekers, but other relevant-pastors will see that you are not cutting edge and will stop reading your blog. Those words are: Doctrine, Theology, Elders and Deacons, Bible Commentaries (oops some of these are two words), Hermeneutics, or any of those kinds of things that pastors have cared about for centuries.

8) Talk a lot about the TV shows that you watch. Tell your readers how disappointed you were when certain shows ended differently than you expected. Mention how you watch TV with your wife.

9) If you bring up scripture on your blog, keep it short and sweet, perhaps give your "life verse" or maybe mention a verse that talks about "vision", but be sure to quote from The Message. It will often give a completely different meaning than any of the other bible translations, but the important thing is that people will be able to understand what it's saying.

10) Stay upbeat! I can't stress this enough. Christians are always supposed to be happy, and seekers will fuel off of your enthusiasm. It's contagious you know. Even if your dog dies, stay upbeat about it. Remember, even if you are not a very inspirational person, people will think you are, just because you are so enthusiastic.

11) Link to the right people. If you have all of the "cool pastors" in your blog roll, people will think that you too are cool. So be sure your blog has links to Perry, Gary, Tony, Andy, Mark, Ed, and Todd. Talk about those guys a lot in your blog posts, and make it sound like you are best buddies with them by using that familiar "my man" prefix when you refer to them by name.

12) You need to be prepared for anyone who might leave a negative comment on your blog that would seem to question "your vision". Those ruin the whole upbeat enthusiasm thing. The way to handle these is to cover-up any biblical points that they made, by citing the number of baptisms you had last month. Ask them how many baptisms their church had. Show them that "numbers" are the end-all indicator of ministry success, and try to make them feel less successful if they don't produce as many numbers as you do. That might discourage them from arguing with you. If they persist by questioning your obsession with numbers, remind them that "numbers are people" and "we count because we care" etc.

13) Your blog posts should be evenly distributed in this manner: 50% of them should talk about the EXCITING things your church is doing and how unique and innovative your approach to ministry is, 40% of them should be humor, and 10% should talk about your personal life (upcoming vacations, your entertainment preferences , the cold you just got over, your kids birthdays, etc.). Don't get too 'heavy' by talking a lot about things you gleaned out of the bible study time that you were able to squeeze in this week.
Full content at

Thursday, March 08, 2012


"To forgive is to smash a clay pot into a thousand pieces so it can never be pieced together again.”
I love it when God smashes stuff!
Biblical forgiveness is not about a feeling or even about fairness - it is about grace.