Brotherly Love

  I read on article last night that disturbed me greatly.  The article was about a book called "TORN: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate".  The premise of the book is that you can be both a practicing homosexual and a practicing Christian.  In fact the article did help me to understand the exegetical position that seems to reconcile the lifestyles by focusing on Jesus' teaching about love over the commands for sexual purity.

  The author of the book goes into detail about how he realized he born gay.  He was at a Christian concert with a date (female) and he began to be "attracted" to a male he saw there.  He had been battling homosexual tendencies - even trying to date girls.  However, that one event seemed to solidify in his mind that he was indeed gay, and he began a journey to reconcile his Christianity with the desire to have sex with a man.  He goes on in the book to basically dismantle Scriptural teaching about homosexuality by focusing on "committed loving relationship".

  I never cease to be amazed at how people can take a clear teaching from the Bible and proclaim the very opposite using the Bible.  Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, "prove" that Jesus is not God using the very Bible that proclaims Christ's deity.  They simply avoid the many references to Jesus being equal with God and focus on a few verses that seem to back their proposition.  In this case the author of the book takes Romans 1 and "proves" his case that what God desires is committed loving relationships - gay or straight.  So clearly deception, and so clearly he has become one of the ones mentioned in Romans 1:32.

  If you do not believe Jesus is God why would you call yourself a Christian?  If you continue to have gay sex why do you still want to call yourself a committed Christian?

  If we took the example of other sexual perversion and applied the same standards we could justify adultery, bestiality and pedophilia.  It is absurd.

  My experience in Ethiopia has taught me alot about male relationships.  Homosexuality can be found in Ethiopia no doubt.  However, men are free to express physical affection toward each other without it being sexual.  From a very early age boys walk hand in hand and sit with their arms around each other.  We see this same behavior in very masculine situations such as the American football field, but only the most depraved would imply sexual connotations to these situations.

  In the West we are assailed with sexual imagery from birth, and even products such as bacon are sold with "sex appeal".  No wonder our thoughts about perversion and immorality are askew.

   At an early age I felt attraction to certain men.  I was drawn to men who were godly in their behavior.  I was drawn to men who were interested in the things I was interested in.  At the same time I was attracted to the opposite sex, but for wholly different reasons.  Eventually I was attracted to a godly young lady that was interested in many of the things I was interested in - she became my wife.  Many of the men I was attracted to became my mentors.  The godly influences won out over those who only sought to take advantage of me.

  I believe that men are "naturally" attracted to other men, but it is sin that twist this attraction until it developed into perverted sexual desire.  Indeed this is the clear teaching of Romans 1.  People who practice sin (which begins in our thought life) were given over to "uncleanness".  I don't believe young men are born desiring anal sex, I do believe boys are born with a desire for intimacy and relationships.  When this "natural" desire for intimacy is not found in healthy God honoring relationships a counterfeit can be found.

  Many young men that I have counseled who are struggling with same sex attraction began their struggle when their father did not give them the love and affection they desired.  The same is true for many young women who struggle sexually.  Not all who struggle with homosexuality have poor, bad or absent fathers - it just seems to be common.  Many of the ones I have counseled also had an older male who paid them attention and then took advantage of them.  The desire for a father's love and affection was counterfeited by sexual attention.

  Ultimately it is our desire for intimacy with God that is the driving force for many of our relationships in life.  If those relationships are lived out in obedience to Scripture and the commands of Christ we will find that they benefit us spiritually.  A godly marriage is sacramental and aids us in our relationship with God.  A bad marriage can hinder us, and draw our attentions away from God.  A good spiritual brother can sharpen me like iron sharpens iron.  A bad relationship can draw me away and hinder intimacy with God.  Any time we place someone or some desire before God we had become idol worshipers.  We fly in the face of God and proclaim that we know what is best and most fulfilling.

  Men can also have inordinate relationships of a wholly mental sort.  Our desire for intimacy with God can be given over to spiritual masters and gurus.  We can begin to follow people or personalities rather than develop intimacy with God.  It is easier to follow a great Bible teacher rather than to have an intimate relationship with the God who knows how many hairs I have on my head.  Hero worship may be more appealing than intimacy with the God that demands our full allegiance and obedience.

  Romans 1 says that men exchanged worship of the Creator for worship and service of the creature.  Men served their own bodies and feed their lusts rather than submitting to God's "natural" design and purpose for humanity.  We were created for intimacy with God, not simply to serve the desires of our flesh.

  How I wish that I could roll back time to those pivotal moments in a young man's life when he first questions, "Am I gay?"  Young man - you are not gay if you do not feed those desires and give life to them, but rather put those desires to death!  You are not a drunk if you never get drunk!  Your are not an adulterer if you will stop lusting after those who are not your own!  Young man, what you need is a deep and committed relationship with your Creator!

  I am convinced that in many cases the godly attention of an older man could rescue the young questioner from a lifetime of sexual struggle and perversion.   Where are the godly older men who will become mentors to those wondering boys?  Where are the men who will not take advantage of the young, but rather build them up in godliness?  Where are the brothers who will love the young ones by commending them to godliness rather than feeding their flesh desires?

  May God help us to truly love him and each other by obeying His Word and being doers of it.

Method vs Proclamation

I was reading a book today about a modern method of "reaching Muslims for Jesus." The method is based on using the Koran, Islamic tradition and custom, but somehow sneaking Jesus into the mix. The tactic is to Islamify the "gospel" and take away the offense. Change the name of Jesus or Yeshua to "Isa". Change God to Allah. Exchange the title "Jesus, Son of God" for "Isa, Spirit of God". The hopeful end result is "Isa Muslim" (someone who looks, speaks and acts like a Muslim; but has been "saved" by Isa). If you have read much of this blog I am sure you know how I feel about this so I will not belabor the point.

The interesting thing is the story for how this particular method was started. Years ago a young Muslim boy was evicted from his school and family for asking, "How do we know the Koran is true?" He was literally labeled as a "sinner". Some time later the boy was befriended by a foreign missionary who gave the young sinner a Bible. The boy read the Bible, repented and received faith in Jesus. He was baptized and began sharing the Bible with others. Eventually hundreds were saved by hearing the Gospel as revealed in Scripture. After some time one of the leaders in the movement was killed for his faith. Then a method was developed in an effort to "bridge the gap", and hopefully "remove the offense".

I found it ironic that the gift of a Bible was the catalyst for this move of God, however the method now is to use the Koran. The impetus for the young sinner to receive the gift was his expulsion from Islamic society. The young boy exited Islamic culture and found Jesus. The product of using the Bible was a true convert to Christ who was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Why try to develop a scheme for evangelism when God has given us His Word?

Words - are they important?

I am totally understanding the need to be careful in our language
with prospects, and even the general public. I do not agree with lying
about our intentions to evangelize, or deception to gain access to "closed areas".
However, I can see the wisdom of prudent language when living or
ministering in a hostile land.

Recently I was asked to teach a seminar to converted Muslims. I was instructed to not call Jesus the "Son of God" or to mention "Trinity". Furthermore I was told to call God "Allah" and use "Al Masheia" rather than "Jesus".

When we are dealing with converted Muslims I think it would be irresponsible
not to teach the whole counsel of Scripture and introduce our new brothers
to good theology. I know that Muslims have a problem with calling Jesus
the Son of God because they know it means that He is literally God's Son
and therefore divine. But, that is the point.

Some years ago I had a bad experience with the IMB's "expert" on Muslim
evangelization. He said that Muslim, Jews and Christians all worship the
same god. I asked, "But, doesn't Jesus say, 'I am the Way, the Truth and
the Life... no man comes to the Father except by me.'"? The teacher
rebuked me and said that I was only interested in arguing semantics. I
responded that I was not speaking of semantics at all, but the very words
of God. He had said that Jews and Muslims worship the God I worship, but they do not
know Jesus. SO, in what way can they come to the Father? How can they
worship a God that can only be approached through Christ Jesus? It was an argument over words, primarily the Word of God.

Recently I had a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. In the past they
would have never said, "Jesus is LORD." However, they have recently
started saying, "Jesus is lord." Notice the difference? "LORD" =
God, Jehovah, the Word incarnate. "lord" = master, landowner, knight. When I
say "LORD" I proclaim that Jesus is God. When a JW says "lord" he is
saying "mister." Very subtle, and very dangerous. So it isn't just words I am
concerned about it is their meaning.

Allah is an Arabic word for the god of Mohammed. After thinking about it I might could use the term "allah" to refer to God, but not Allah. I think I would be compelled to clarify each time I said allah "notice the small 'a'." Or maybe "allah - I mean the triune God of the Universe". It would be difficult, but I think I could find some way to accommodate on this point.

Many languages have a word for god and another for God. I have heard Muslims in America use "God" when speaking of Allah.

Really this whole issue for me is resolved in the Trinity. The Nicene and
Apostle's creeds predate Islam by several hundred years, and I would think
that a converted Muslim would readily agree with these historically
orthodox statements. In fact, for several hundred years you would not be
considered Christian, nor be baptized if you did not profess a Trinitarian
creed. Christ's divinity is almost impossible to discuss without a
discussion of the Trinity.

If former Muslims had sound teaching in this area I think it
would give them a foundation that would be unshakable. Someone recently implied that the Trinity is too advanced for new believers, but I
would argue that a child could understand - indeed we must have the faith
of a child to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe they would not be
able to explain, but I am confident that the Spirit (if indeed they have
the Spirit of Christ) would bear witness and they would shout "glory to
God" as the beauty of God's triune nature is proclaimed to them.

Often we make the mistake of not communicating deeper truth with new
converts. Somehow we think that a lack of formal education might mean
that they are too ignorant to grasp complex concepts. We think that
evangelism is too important to waste time on theology. However, we see
many examples in Scripture of men preparing for years (some for decades)
learning about God before serving Him.

Stephen Kennedy, Mission Coordinator for IOI, had a beautiful experience with a new evangelist. He came from the countryside and was very poorly educated. When he was joining IOI he had to sign a form that states that he agrees with the Apostle's
Creed. He did not know what it was, so Stephen read it to him. When he
heard what the creed contained he began to say, "Yes! Yes! Praise God!"
It was wonderful to see that the truth of this creed was readily accepted
by this dear brother. He was encouraged to find that this creed predated
his personal experience by over 1,700 years.

To contrast I heard a song tonight on Christian radio. The lyrics said
something like, "It isn't important that I understand some creed, or even
what I believe... I want to feel like I am falling in love." So, are we
saying that it does not really matter what we believe about God as long as
it feels right? Call Him Allah, or Baal, or Bob - Trinity, not trinity -
Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha - don't all roads lead to the same destination? -
words don't matter as long as it feels right, promotes peace and we keep
the numbers coming.

I cannot state emphatically enough how central the Trinity is to everything I might teach. I mean my name is PATRICK (as in Saint Patrick the Trinitarian theologian that won Ireland for Christ - and to this day symbols for the Trinity are plastered
everywhere in Ireland including on beer bottles) for goodness sakes!

Should I get a tattoo?

I would like to begin by saying that I do not intend to offend, pass judgement or condemn anyone. My purpose is simply to look at the issue of Christians trying to decide on the issue of getting tattoos, and to help young believers think through the issues.

I have read a lot of opinion on the issue and the debates about Levitical law. Both sides seem to make many good arguments, but there is apparently no consensus on the Old Testament Biblical prohibition. Generally most people end up saying something like, "Christians are not 'under' the law..." and the response is generally, "well then is murder still wrong?" These type of arguments don't really get to the heart of the matter.

Indeed it is the heart where Christ's work is done and God's concern for the individual seems to be focused. The New Testament teaching on circumcision is clearly about God's concern for our heart. The Apostles agreed that Gentile believers be prohibited from eating blood and sexual immorality (both of which are Levitical laws, btw), and that Gentiles not be burdened with the extent of ceremonial law. The heart is God's concern, and a transformed heart will change behavior.

But, does the New Testament have anything to say about tattoos? The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to command Gentile (and Jewish) believers that they should do everything within their power not to live "as the pagans do". Any behavior or meal that is associated with pagan behavior should be avoided. Christians should be know by the "Banner of Love". We should be "marked" with love. In other words, Pagans display their gods in carvings of stone, wood and skins -- Christians display our God through deeds of love and concern for our brothers. We should be known for our love.

This led me to investigate WHY many young Christians want tattoos. Obviously there are many reasons. One of the main reasons I hear is, "To witness Christ to others" or "so everyone will know I am a Christian". Kind of the Evangelical trump card - EVANGELISM.

One blogger said of his reasons for getting a tattoo, "To me it was the sense of taking control and doing what I want regardless of what anybody said or thought... Really what I think is it all boils down to is either you have the nerve to have ink carved into your body for life... That is why all of us with tattoos have a sense of brotherhood. Because each one of us knows the pain we went through for something we love (tattooing)."

So there we have it. "Taking control and doing what I want to do regardless of what anybody said or thought." As Christians we are to be intensely concerned with what others think, especially in regards to the perception of sinful behavior (real or imagined). Also, we are to be controlled by the Holy Spirit, not our fleshly desires.

While the Old Testament prohibition against tattoos might be up for debate I think it is clear that our society still views tattoos as "rebellious" and "to Hell with your opinion of me". A new term has evolved called "tattoo lifestyle" with magazines focusing on this evolving people group. (BTW, many Internet filters will block 'Tattoo Lifestyle' sights as "R rated"). I wonder how long it will be until people begin saying, concerning their desire to be tattooed, "I was born this way."

In conclusion I think the real issue concerns your heart. Why do you want a tattoo? Are you at all concerned about offending people for the sake of your freedom? Do you seriously want to do what pleases God, or what pleases you?

If you are truly concerned about lost souls or being identified with Christ then I would suggest a little soul searching. Is a tattoo glorifying to God? Will it offend others around you? Will it cause others to stumble?

The Apostle Paul put it this way, "So whatever you eat, drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God -- even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, so that they may be saved." (I Corinthians 10:31-33)

Against the doctrine of Drunkeness in the Spirit

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:15-20

It has been some time since I posted on this blog. But, today my heart is troubled and I simply must say something.

A friend recently gave me a web link thinking that I would enjoy the site because it featured self-proclaimed "modern mystics". When I think of mystics I generally am thinking about those throughout history who have had a deep love relationship with Christ, and that relationship is then manifest in the outworking of extreme love. In my opinion Mother Teresa would be an example. A modern mystic would be someone who, in their secret devotions, has a vision or dream that propels them to a deeper relationship with God that is worked out in tangible ministry to their fellow man.

Today I take a public stand against the "charisma" of "drunkenness". This foolishness is nothing new in the world of heresy, and it is demeaning to the holiness of God. Those who promote "Spirit Drunkenness" teach that being filled with the Holy Spirit means that you babble like an idiot, act like an animal and have ecstatic experiences like being "high". Scripture clearly teaches that we are not to be "drunk" with wine, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Someone who is truly "filled with the Holy Spirit" would then manifest the fruit of that Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

As I watched videos of "manifestations" on the "New Mystics" website I was literally sickened. I could not continue to watch as they used the Eucharist like it was pot, or crack. The sensuality of the videos was extreme - to explain to you in detail what they did with the elements would be a sin to even repeat. For those who would defend this behavior I ask you, can you see Jesus acting this way? Would Jesus act like an animal? Didn't Jesus actually cast demons out of people who acted like animals?

God is a god of order, not of chaos. Flee those who bring disorder and disunity over disputable matters! Run from those who preach the Gospel as a means of financial gain, or of self-promotion! Rebuke those who preach drunkenness in any form! Be sober minded for the days are evil!

The Word of God

Many in the States would say that the Bible is the Word of God. Just one example of this belief about the Bible comes from a website of a Baptist fellowship.

"1. By "The Holy Bible" we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God."

This organization is not alone in a statement like this -- it is very common among independent and fundamental Christians in America. In essence what they have accidental done with their words is to elevate the Bible to Deity - "The Bible IS the very Word of God."

One site I found (I believe it was God Tube.com) says, "The Bible is the living Word of God."

Now to be fair I do not believe that they actually mean what they say. I think what they are trying to say is that the Bible is more than a book, it is a perfect revelation of God to man in written form, and faithful for doctrine, etc. The scriptures are relevant to our lives today and God speaks through the pages into our lives. In other words they aren't liberals. The problem is that is not what they say exactly.

It is not only a belief among Baptist, but this belief can also be found among denominations such as the conservative Presbyterians. One Presbyterian pastor actual told me that the Bible is the Perfect which was to be revealed, and after its' coming would do away with knowledge, tongues, etc. Again, in essence this minister was saying (although I don't believe he means it this way) that the Bible is the second coming of Jesus. The Bible is the Word (God) incarnate (in flesh).

Now I want to be very clear that I do believe the Bible is the written record of God's words to us. The Bible is useful for doctrine, and all our beliefs and practice should be weighed against the whole counsel of scripture. However, Jesus is the Word of God that is revealed in the Bible. Jesus is the Sword of God that divides bone from marrow, and judges the hearts of man!

To say that the Bible IS the Word of God is like saying that the badge IS the policeman. Certainly the badge reveals to us that the person holding it is a policeman. The badge may tell us where the policeman comes from. It may tell us the limits of his authority (ie. federal or local). There are certain things implied for one who holds a badge, and certain things expected. The badge bears a certain amount of authority (a symbol that actually does/bears something). But, the badge is not the living policeman, nor is the badge the authority that it represents. The badge is only a symbol that communicates a great reality.

What fundamentalists are trying to do is to say that they believe the Bible is the final authority on every subject. They want you to know that they believe the Bible from "Genesis to Maps". They want you to know that they are REAL Christians. They want to convey that they try to live a holy life and obey the commands of God. They want you to know that they do not believe that God is still revealing information about Himself. Most of all they want you to know that they are not charismatic pentecostal and that there is not going to be any new prophets who make new revelations about God or His plan for mankind.

The problem is that most fundamentalist know very little of the Bible. There are many good Baptists who have memorized a plethora of proof texts and can argue them against the barrage of the best trained Jehovah's Witness proof texts. But, when it comes to a good understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture, or finding Christ revealed in the Old Testament, or even an elementary understanding of Church history the average fundamental evangelical Christian will have as poor an understanding of these things as the average Christian cultist.

An example of this poor understanding would be the belief that Jews are blessed and Arabs are cursed. This is a strong belief among fundamental evangelicals in America, and it is not found in Scripture. In fact the we find that God blessed Ishmael. We also see throughout the New Testament that "all of Israel is not Israel", and that Paul even desired the salvation of his fellow Jews so much that he was willing to die in their place -- however, it is "by faith that we (or anyone Jew or Gentile) are saved."

This same phenomenon is happening to the Gospel. Some ministers say that "it is all about the Gospel." In some sermons you might hear the word "Gospel" a dozen times, but you never actually hear the Gospel -- the death, burial and bodily Resurrection of the incarnate Word of God. In deed if you ask the average evangelical the question, "What is the Gospel?" You will get a strange variety of answers that includes, "The Bible. The Good News. It has to do with Jesus." Now, when you point them to I Corinthians 15:1-5 they will say, "Yeah, right the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus."

If you watch much Christian television in America you will hear a lot about money, how to have a successful life, how God wants to bless you, the Crucifixion, the Gospel (although few explain what they are talking about with that phrase) and our need to pray the Sinner's Prayer. What you will not hear much of is public reading of Scripture (I don't think I have ever heard an entire chapter read on Christian radio or TV, much less an entire book of Scripture).

I believe we are perishing for lack of knowledge. Although we firmly believe the Bible is the word of God, we don't know it. Although we believe the Gospel, we cannot articulate it. Although we believe the worship of God is our most important duty, we cannot really tell you what it means to worship God. We have protested the Catholic system and all her creeds, only to replace them with inferior copies. At least the Nicene Creed does not elevate the Bible to being the fourth person of the Trinity, and the ancient creeds speak more of hope of the bodily Resurrection than some kind of secret evaporation of the faithful. There is no doubt that the Church in America is already left behind, we have exchanged our inheritance for a bowl of porridge. Rather than using the Bible to know about God we have practically elevated it to a god, and use it to divide and conquer.

Jesus says, "If any will come after me let them take up their cross and follow me." "You must eat my body and drink my blood."

In America we come to a table of empty calories - cute sayings, proof texts, guilt, prosperity, "Jesus will fix all your problems." No wonder so many leave the table hungry!

This is only partly the reason for why you see so many young people in America who are hungry for the ancient things of our faith. The modern methods depend of theological maxims and meeting of perceived needs. All the while what we desire is to know and be known by God. We desire the Man of salvation, not the plan of salvation. We want to see and know that He is God. Truly it is by hearing that we receive faith, but we must hear Christ not just proof texts. The Bible reveals Christ, and to quote a common phrase among fundamentalists, "It (salvation) is a relationship." As we hear about Christ revealed in Scripture and walk with Him in the community of His Bride (the Church) we should be moved to obedience to Him. If He is God then what does that mean to me, and how should I then live?

It was in the secret meetings in homes, the reading of books of Scripture, the breaking of bread and the giving of life that the early Church was formed and conformed to the image of Christ. It was their life and death together. It is the same today -- we long to be in community, we want to know Christ now in flesh and blood. We long to worship God in spirit and truth, not simply meet once a week for a presentation of a "worship experience." The ancient traditions involve our bodies - we sing, we pray, we stand, we listen, we smell, we eat, we drink, we kneel, we bow, we hold out our hands, we repeat, and then we go back out into the world and live a life of worship.

The Word of God

He That is of God Hears God's Words
by James Tissot (Art.com)

Never one to shy away from controversy -- my question today is what (or who) is the Word of God?

My brothers at the largest Baptist church in Memphis have erected a 20' statue of the Bible in the foyer of the church. These same brothers would rightly proclaim that a statue of Mary in the church at Fatima, Portugal is an idol. However, just like the faithful Portuguese Catholic that erected the statue of Mary they too are blind to the fact that they have made an idol of the Bible. It is Bibliolotry.

Growing up Baptist I was taught that the Bible is the Word of God. Many proof texts support this claim (and for regular readers of the Bishop's Beard you know how I loath proof texts). However, a reading of many of these proof texts in their context prove that this proclamation is not correct. Hebrews 4:12 was a memory verse in VBS (Vacation Bible School) and a favorite verse to find at Bible "Sword" Drills. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edge sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, as is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Sounds like the Bible is a powerful sword, unless you read this same verse in its context and see that the entire passage is about Christ, not the Bible. Because Jesus is the Word of God He is also the Great High Priest that discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. Romans 8 proclaims that the Spirit of God is the One who searches hearts and makes intercession for us.

After preaching at a Presbyterian church I was gently rebuked for preaching the hope of seeing Christ "face to face" as though it was a future event. I had made reference to I Corinthians 13 where our hope of Resurrection ("...when that which is perfect has come...") is hope for a physical event where we will know Christ as intimately as He now knows us. I was told that the "Perfect" in this passage is the Bible, which has already come so that we can know Christ through His word. Knowledge, tongues and prophesy have all been done away with because we now have the Bible. The problem that I have with this interpretation (other than the fact that it is wrong) is that the Bible does not contain every word of Christ (John 21:25), and I don't know how many hairs He has on His head, much less can I see His face or look into His eyes. The Christian hope is that we will be physically resurrected and we will know God like He knows us.

I understand what the fundamentalist is trying to do when he says that the Bible is the word of God and the final authority for life and faith. He is trying to distance himself from the charismatic chaos of modern times and the "Christian" cults who have extra Biblical "scripture" and anti-Christ "revelation". The problem is that interpretation of Scripture can vary greatly, so how then is the Bible the "Final Authority?"

I am always looking for balance. I think the balance in this issue is simply that we must look to the whole counsel of Scripture, which contains the written revelation of the Word of God, for instruction in life and faith. Certainly the Bible is the bench mark by which all revelation, prophesy and tongues should be judged. The Bible is a way to know about God. The Apostles gave us timeless instruction in how we should live. The prophets foretold Christ, and Christ revealed the Father to us. Ultimately it is by faith that we know Him, and His Spirit lives within us aiding us as we struggle to know, understand and comprehend the depth, width and height of His love.

There is no doubt that the Bible contains the words of God. But, Jesus IS the Word of God.

Hindu god manifest on butterfly's back

According to a report from Reuters News the Hindu god Krishna has appeared on the back of a butterfly in India.
Krishna has joined with the Virgin Mary, Elvis and Abraham Lincoln on a growing list of manifestations on both animate and inanimate subjects.

The Virgin Mary tops the list with appearances in thin air as well as physical manifestations on various breads, hospital windows and other objects. The "Virgin Toast" actually sold on EBay for almost $30K. Mother Teressa appeared on a cinnamon bun in Nashville at Cafe Bongo, now known as the home of the "Nun Bun". Elvis has been spotted on at least one tortilla (which admittedly was a hoax), still the faithful have witnessed his miraculous appearances. Even Abraham Lincoln has appeared in the profile of a french fry. Even Islam is not without their "Miracle Tomato of Huttersfield".

Personally I only see a butterfly. But, the faithful Hindu sees Krishna. Maybe you see it too?

The man who discovered this butterfly said that it has "increased his devotion." Another worshiper named Vilma said, "We have no option but to believe what we are seeing. But after seeing it, our devotion to the Lord has increased."

I suppose my point is that for all the "supernatural" (or lack thereof) evidence that we see the Christian hope is not in butterflies and tortillas. Our hope is not seen and our faith is not in the tangible. Scripture proclaims, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Our faith is a gift from God, and our hope is the resurrection. The promise of God is that all who believe that Jesus is the Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, will be saved.

If you believe in Christ's (the Messiah, God in the flesh) death, burial and Resurrection you will be saved. The faith that you have is the evidence that you possess, you need look no farther.

Why some hate the Reformation Movement

What, you don't know?

There is a "movement" among Baptists these days. I think the word movement should indicate that there is a potential error afoot. Most movements seem to unintentionally breed cultish behavior by focusing too much on a particular teaching or passage. Even what may be called "good movements" such as the Great Awakening promoted a pendulum swing in the other direction. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and every other Christian cult that I know of was the result of or a reaction to a "movement."

You will notice that I have avoided the word "revival." Revival carries with it too much baggage and the picture of a mad man in a three piece suit pounding a pulpit. Revival also implies a connection with our emotions. So, I believe most people prefer to call what is happening a movement. However, this term is not without its connotations as well.

The charismatic movement has birthed a great number of heretics as the emphasis has been on emotions, feelings, prophesy, manifestations and revelation. Not all charismatics are heretics, mind you. This movement affected Baptists in that many churches shifted to a more emotional worship style and preaching that was pointed at the perceived needs of the congregation (salvation and personal happiness) which is now termed "man-centered preaching." Evangelism focused less on the work of God and more on the "decision" of the man.

Today there is a growing minority among Baptists that are reacting to the emphasis on emotion by appealing to reformation theology. Reformation theology being the theology that resulted (or was recovered) in the reformation movements of the 1500s in Europe. Luther, Calvin and many others had restored the doctrines of the Church Fathers, and they focused heavily on the doctrines of grace, election, predestination and salvation. Today's reformist would claim that they are seeking "God-centered preaching."

Luther was a monk that never felt saved. He tried with all his might to be saved and it was not until he understood that the "just shall live by faith" that he was freed from the bondage of a works-based salvation. He was free indeed. His was not a passionless salvation, but rather one that was worked out in fear and trembling.

Calvin seems to have been much more intellectual and scholarly in his approach (Not that Luther was a dope, he did translate the entire Bible into German. He was just more "earthy.") Both men gloried in the doctrines of grace concerning salvation and the fact that God is the one who elects to save according to His will. It is God who gives faith and God who has predestined those who receive faith to be conformed to the image of Christ.

While many may think that it is election or predestination that causes fellow believers to hate the Reformation Movement, I would submit that it is neither. I have come to the conclusion that the movement is hated because it is imbalanced.

When I first read the passages (in a college Bible study) in Romans that concern God's election, I was offended. I had grown up with an imblanced view that I had saved myself. "I was sinking deep in sin far from the peaceful shore..." But, if the Apostle Paul was right I was not sinking -- I was "DEAD in sins and trespasses." I was not seeking God, but He was seeking me. The offense was replaced with joy and a sureness that I had never known concerning my own salvation. It was not my work, rather it was the work of God. It was not MY faith, nor my sincere prayer that saved me. It was faith that God gave me regardless of my emotion, sincerity or manifestations.

My zeal for good theology sent me gorging on words about God. The more I knew the more proud and arrogant I became. I began to hate the Church in America. I came to see most churches in America as fulfillments of the prophesy concerning Laodacea (although they were rich and had need of nothing they were poor, blind, miserable and naked). I gloried in the wrath of God that was being stored up for the sons of disobedience. I gloried that I was chosen before the foundations of the World. I hated the ignorant preachers who spent more time beating me up for not tithing or being a good person than speaking about Christ.

I was becoming full of good theology. I was so full that I could not eat another bite. The sweetness of God's love had become repulsive to me as I had feasted on His glory, wrath and election. Some years later, God brought me to a point of starvation.

The day that I was told that my daughter had brain damage all of my good theology flew right out the window. "God is without body, parts or passions." "God does everything for His own glory." Extra Biblical theological statements and maxims were useless to me. All I knew was the Gospel, and I wanted God to speak to me. I cried and moaned for hours. Quote Calvin to me, are you kidding me? God had deformed my child for His own egocentric glory?!? I didn't want to hear Calvin, Luther or Billy Graham for that matter. I had to hear from God Himself. I was not hungry; I was famished.

"Do you hate your daughter?"

"No, God. Maybe I am angry with you, but how could I hate her?"

"Then why do you hate my Church? You say you love me, but you hate my Bride. Therefore, my love does not live in you."

That word was so bitter, but God's bitter word was sweet to a starving man.

Scripture does not teach us that God so desired to glorify Himself that He sent Jesus. On the contrary His word teaches us that "God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten Son." God's nature is love. He is LOVE. Of course His love brings Him glory; everything He does is glorious. But God is a God of passion and love. This passionate God loved us so much that He took on flesh, humbled Himself and became a man. He disrobed His glory and manifest His very nature of Love by submitting to death on a cross. His love and power resurrected the dead body of Christ, and it is by His love that He gives faith and His Spirit to men, and conforms them to His image. It is because of His great love that He has done this. It is because of His great love that He has maimed my daughter's body and afflicted us with trials. He is working all things together for the good of them that love Him and are called according to His good purposes.

I fear God. I mean shaking in my shoes terrified. I fear Him because of His great love. He is the Lion of Judah that tears us to pieces. He is also the Lamb of God that loves us with a jealous and divine passion. He loves us so much that we share in the sufferings of Christ so that we might be more than converted -- we might be made new creatures and conformed to His glorious image.

We have been commanded to make disciples. We have been commanded to teach and reprove. But the greatest commandment is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. If love is our motivation (as I believe it is God's), then everything that we do will be to the glory of God.

Why do some people hate the reformation movement? While it is full of zeal for good theology, it is often void of God's love, the love He has for Christ's body (His bride, the Church) and His passion that is all consuming.

Tolerance and the question of the Universe

I read a new blog recently that was written by a sincere Pakistani who was vainly promoting tolerance. He (or she) will soon find out how intolerant religious people are.

I do take issue with the idea that the center of Semitic religions is tolerance. The center of Islam, Judaism and Christianity should be God. Each religion has its own particular view of a monotheistic god and each religion's practice is determined by that view of a god. Quite simply none of these religions is based upon tolerance.

I cannot speak for Islam or Judaism, but I can speak as a Christian. Love of God and love for man is the greatest commandment, but that does not mean that I should condone all of mans' beliefs or behaviors.

Rather than teaching tolerance or ambivalence Christ taught that we should live in a way that brings light to a dark world and stands in stark contrast to other systems of belief and practice. While we are not to condemn others we are certainly not commanded to condone others.

In this nation (USA) tolerance carries with it the idea that anyone's belief is not above another's. Tolerance has come to mean submission. Nothing is absolute, nothing is true -- therefore, no one should have the the belief that his faith is true so as to disrespect others beliefs. This is a silly idea. If a man believes perfectly that the moon is made of cheese his belief is wrong. It is not my place to change his belief through argument or violence, but I certainly do not have to live by his belief, nor should I have to submit to it. To respect such a belief and place it as equal to truth would be ridiculous.

I (neither would the Pakistani blogger) respect the beliefs of anyone who is willing to kill others so as to force his/her beliefs on someone else.

Talk of tolerance is a diversion from the real issue.

The main question of the Universe is Who is God?

Islam says that Allah is God and there is no other.

Judaism says that Jehovah is God and there is no other.

Christ says, "I am the way, the truth and the life and there are none that come to the Father except by me."

These three teachings (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) are tri-polar opposites and cannot all be true.

In the blog a sincere peace-loving Muslim's question read, "How can someone who is truly religious kill themselves?" I do not understand the zealots who kill others, nor do I understand how they think this will persuade others to follow their example or their god. However, Christians are called to "kill themselves" in a sense.

We have been commanded to put to death the deeds of the flesh, which are murder, envy, strife, lust, etc. I submit that the man who truly knows God must "kill himself" and love all of man kind. Far from simple tolerance Christians have been commanded to active self-sacrificial love. Tolerance is inactive, I can sit on a log and tolerate everyone. Love is active, I must pursue love in deed and truth.

The blogger went on to say that all true religions promote tolerance as tolerance is the center of true religion. While I appreciated this Mulsim's hope for promoting peace and tolerance I think his assessment is superficial at best. I do not claim to understand Islam, however I would never say that the essence of Islam or religion is "tolerance."

The essence of religion should be answering the questions; Who is God? What did He say? How should I then live?