Finding Meaning

August 20, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

Last January, after a trip “back home” to the east coast my mind was wrestling with a lot of “what ifs”. The trip had taken me back to the area where, at one time, I had envisioned spending most of my life and my career. The trip had reminded me of the friends I have who are doing what I thought I was going to do with my life. Eventually the spider webs cleared, the pity party was called off and I was reminded that the Lord has a specific plan for me–even if it is not what at one time I thought it would be. I would love to say I have conquered that particular weakness, but I have not. The reality is, in my heart I wanted something bigger, better, more impressive, more meaningful that what I am doing now. That sentence in and of itself should reveal that I sometimes feel like I am not doing much where I am–something I hate to admit. I suspect, though, that you may have similar thoughts at times–wishing for more. I do not know what your more might be–it could be money, influence, possessions, recognition or any number of other things–but I know I am not the only one who sometimes wants more.

Recently similar thoughts have crept into my mind again. As the start of a new school year rolled around and the enrollment was not what I wanted it to be, it did not take long for the “I could be at a bigger school” thoughts to pop up. Again, I was really asking myself if I am doing something that matters, or at least something that matters as much as I want it to matter.

Thankfully, I recognized pretty quickly this time that my mind was going in the wrong direction and I began to think, pray and read things that would hopefully get me back on track. In some cases it was not even intentional!

The truth is that what matters in God’s eyes is often the same thing that seems to matter in the world’s eyes, and what matters is God’s eyes is often not glamorous. There is a great line in the not-so-great movie Pearl Harbor. In it, we see the story of two friends, Rafe and Danny, who survive Pearl Harbor and enter WWII as fighter pilots. Rafe is one of the top fighter pilots in America, and when America holds back on joining in the fight against the Germans, he volunteers to go help the British. When he arrives in Britain, he is being shown around the airfield by the British commander when he sees airmen shot up in the previous day’s battle. While they are walking, a messenger informs the commander that two more British planes have been shot down.
The commander turns to Rafe and asks, “Are all Yanks as anxious as you to get themselves killed?” Rafe quickly responds, “I’m not anxious to die, sir. I’m anxious to matter.”

Stephen Cole, a pastor, wrote in Leadership Journal about reading a biography of Charles Spurgeon and praying that God would bless his ministry to become like Spurgeon’s. Which, being translated, can also mean fame and accolades. One day, during the time period he was reading the book, he was jogging when he had the thought, “What about John Spurgeon?” He was Charles Spurgeon’s father. He was a pastor, and the son of a pastor, but if it were not for the world-famous ministry of his son,we never would have heard of him. Cole wrote, “As I jogged, I thought, ‘Would I be willing to serve God faithfully and raise up my children to serve him, even if I never achieved any recognition? Even if no one but my own small congregation knew my name?’”

Then I was driving down the road listening to a CD by Christian artist Rebecca Friedlander. She has a song entitled “Driving” which talks about the desire for more prominence and greater influence. It is written as someone speaking to the Lord, and the chorus is the Lord answering. After telling the Lord of her desire for a more prominent ministry, and how she might even do it “better” than those whose ministries she cites as an example, the Lord answers her and He says, “What is that to you? You’re doing what I told you to / and as long as you are pleasing me, you just leave the driving up to Me.”

Jon Bloom, in May, wrote an article that appeared on the Desiring God web site, an article entitled “You Are God’s Workmanship”. In it, he writes, “No, there is nothing boring about you and there is nothing boring about what God has given you to do today. If you are bored, remember what Chesterton said: “We are perishing for want of wonder, not want of wonders.” Wonder at this: God has prepared just for you what he’s given you to do (Ephesians 2:10). Nothing you do today is unimportant. God is keenly interested in the smallest detail. You don’t need a more wonderful calling; you may just need more strength to comprehend the wonder of his loving ways toward you (Ephesians 3:17–19).”

Just last Friday, a Stephen Altrogge article appeared on Desiring God entitled, “When God Messes With Your Life Plan”. That title got my attention, because frankly, that is exactly what I sometimes feel! In this article, Altrogge wrote this: “Are you in a place you never expected to be? Has God taken you on a path you never would have willfully chosen? Take heart. God hasn’t deserted you. He hasn’t forgotten you. He hasn’t made a mistake. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He knows exactly what you need and where you need to be.”

A couple of Sundays ago I was listening to RC Sproul lecture on Ecclesiastes. The emphasis of Sproul’s lectures was on the meaning of life, the only way in which we can find significance, and the importance of what we do and how we live right now. Sproul referenced his column in Tabletalk, the one that is entitled “Right Now Counts Forever”, and he explained that there are two historical, secular views of the importance of our actions: right now counts not at all, or right now counts only for right now. Ultimately, he said, those are really the same thing—-because if right now only counts right now, it doesn’t really count. However, we know that our actions, our behaviors, our influences will have lasting meaning.

“We are all concerned with the lasting significance of life,” Sproul said. “Any hope of finding significance in your life that is limited to this world is an exercise in vanity (futility).” But, “We live in time and for eternity.”

What we do-—regardless of what position we may hold—-what each of us does this year, and every year, will count forever. One way or the other, it will make an impact. A lasting impact. My prayer is that I will continue to surrender my own selfish goals and schemes and be content allowing the Lord to use me where I am, or wherever He would have me be. May that be your prayer, as well.

Would you jump too?

August 11, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

You may have heard or read already about City Church in San Francisco announced this past March that the church would “no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation,” by which the church meant that sexually active gay and lesbian couples in homosexual marriages would be permitted to become members of the church. This was a reverse of position for the church, which had taught the church “was holding and would hold to the historic Christian view of homosexuality,” according to a report in the July 11, 2015 issue of WORLD. This change “shocked” church members and “surprised” a group of some 40 pastors who subsequently sent a letter to Fred Harrell, the pastor of City Church, questioning the process by which the decision was made as well as the decision itself. I have written enough here at other times on the biblical position on homosexuality that I need not elaborate on it here, and that is not the main point of this post. Rather, I want to consider one of the reasons cited in the WORLD report for the City Church position change.

Marvin Olasky reported that in October 2014 City Church elders met and a majority of them decided to accept a gay man as a member of the church without any requirement that he remain celibate. However, the individual did not join the church and, according to Olasky, “almost all church members remained unaware of the imminent change.” It was in January that Harrell pushed the elders to make that vote the church’s official position, and the five elders present at the meeting agreed. Here is where my concern heightened. Olasky reports that there were “two developments” in January that prompted some at City Church to believe the time had come for the church to change its position on homosexuality in general and homosexual church membership in particular. What were those developments?

First, “two big evangelical churches in other cities–GracePointe in Nashville and EastLake in Seattle–announced they would now admit non-celibate gays.” That is the extent of Olasky’s commentary on that motivator and I do not know anything further about the impact that may have had on the City Church position change, but this rationale smacks of the age-old parent-to-child question, “If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?” The decision by any church to compromise the teachings of Scripture should be an impetus for other churches to shore up their own position and ensure their own adherence to the Truth, not an excuse to join in and throw out the biblical instruction. This is why Paul instructed that believers need to test what they hear in church against the Bible, so that they are not misled by the “position of the moment” being espoused by any teacher or church when that position is contrary to Scripture. (This is also why, by the way, men literally gave their lives to see through the translation of the Bible into language the people could read for themselves–so that churches and church leaders could not mislead the people by ignoring parts of the Bible or claiming Scripture said something it does not say).

Second, Olasky reports, “An article in The Guardian on hip Bay Area churches focused on new entries: Reality, Epic, C3, and The Table. City Church didn’t receive even a mention.” Sadly, this too is an incredibly childish motivation. This reads like one child seeing that another was getting more attention than he, so he decided to throw a tantrum or do something outrageous in order to ensure that all attention shifted back his way. Churches that concern themselves with being labeled “hip” by any publication, much less a secular one that tends to lean to the left, are clearly churches whose priorities are in the wrong place. I do not know how much connection there is between the article and the church decision, but it troubles me deeply to think of any church suddenly embracing any position that contradicts Scripture even in small part in order to attract media attention or improve some kind of hip-ness rating. Jesus said that the world will hate His followers because the world hated Him first. Peter said that followers of Christ are blessed when they are insulted or persecuted for the name of Christ. I am unable to find anyplace in Scripture that commands, encourages or even suggests that Christians are to seek out the approval of the world.

City Church was not the first church to flip-flop on the issue of homosexual marriage or homosexual church membership and it certainly will not be the last. Anytime a church, a pastor or teacher or any individual Christian, for that matter, does a 180-degree change on any position to which he held previously there needs to be careful evaluation and examination of why the position or conviction was changed and whether or not that change was truly informed by Scripture–and a proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture, at that. Sometimes there may be legitimate reasons and sometimes the change will be one that needed to be made. When the change results in a new position that is clearly contradicted in Scripture, though, Christians need to take a stand and call the position change what it is–error, false teaching, heresy. When the change is motivated by a desire to follow the crowd or get back into the in-group, not only should the position change be questioned, so to should the very church making the change. Any church that changes a foundational position of the church’s faith for such shallow and temporal reasons will surely have other, far deeper problems.

Impossible to Dismiss

August 3, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

On June 8, Eastern University professor and well-known Christian speaker Tony Campolo released a statement in which he urged the church “to be more welcoming.” That is a very nice-sounding euphemism for what he really did, which is “call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church.” Campolo is no stranger to more liberal positions within the church, but this endorsement contradicts what Campolo himself has written in the past and is based on, well, nothing really other than Campolo’s stance that holding to the biblical position on homosexuality is not effective and does not demonstrate the love of Christ. He said that his position change came about after “countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil.” I am in no position to doubt or question the sincerity of that statement. I am, however, willing to question what Campolo was studying and/or praying–and with whom he was conversing–that his “countless hours” brought him to this conclusion.

In 1988 Campolo wrote a book entitled 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch. I am not sure how well it sold, but I happened to have a copy of it on my bookshelf, so I took a look. I suspected that even in 1988 the issue of homosexuality would have been one of the hot potatoes, and I was right; the ninth chapter of the book is called “Does Christianity have any good news for homosexuals?” In that chapter Campolo calls for believers to get over their homophobia and reach out to the gay community in love. I cannot disagree that Christians are to show love to homosexuals. Campolo also wrote, “I am not asking that Christian people gloss over biblical teachings or ignore their convictions that homosexual acts are sin.” Even in 1988 Campolo was insisting that some homosexuals are born with their homosexual inclinations and that it is not a choice they are making. (Interestingly enough he stated that this was much more likely true for homosexual males than females, that the research into homosexual female behavior was “much more confusing” and that female homosexual activity was much more likely to be the result of “sociological/psychological causes”). Still though, despite making a number of claims that would tend to take a relaxed stance on homosexuality, Campolo ultimately came down on the side of Scripture and its clear teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin. For example, Campolo wrote:

[P]ersonally I hold to a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, regardless of what motivates it. I hold to this position not only because I disagree with my homosexual friends about this particular scripture [Romans 1:26-27], but also because for centuries the consensus of church leaders and theologians has been that homosexual behavior is against the will of God. I believe that our contemporary reading of Scripture should be informed by the traditions of Christendom. The traditional interpretations of Scripture should not be considered infallible (else there would have been no Protestant Reformation) but they should be taken seriously.

Campolo then went on to explore the position that Paul was writing, in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 about pederasty, not about a mutually and consensually chosen relationship. Yet, he still followed that up with this statement: “Please remember that I do think that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God.” In his nest Tevye-esque attempt to explore what might be “on the other hand,” though, he next posits that the New Testament does not give nearly as much attention to homosexual behavior as it does to other sins like neglecting the poor, that Jesus never taught on homosexuality, and that “the fact that homosexuality has become such an overriding concern for many contemporary preachers may be more a reflection of the homophobia of the church than it is the result of the emphasis of Scripture.”

Shifting back to “the other hand”, Campolo speculates on the possibility of homosexuals living in celibate covenants, suggesting that such relationships would be possible. He wrote that he refrained from calling them marriages, though, because, by his way of thinking, marriage “implies a sexually consummated relationship” while a covenant “connotes a lifelong commitment of mutual obligation which does not necessitate sexual intercourse.” Just a paragraph later, then, Campolo writes, “On the one hand, our obedience to the teachings of the Bible and the traditions of the church necessitate that we withhold approval of homosexual intercourse. Even if the New Testament case against homosexual intercourse is not as pronounced as some people think it is, there are still passages in the Old Testament that speak directly to the issue which I find impossible to dismiss (see Lev. 18:22, 20:13).” Finally, Campolo wraps up the chapter with a proposal for some sort of homosexual Christian communities in which homosexuals could live together, be honest about their orientation and make special efforts to encourage one another to live lives that glorified Christ, all while simultaneously “holding in check” through “loving and prayerful support” the “temptation to consummate sexual urges”.

If, after reading that, you’re thinking Campolo may have some kind of philosophical/theological version of bipolar disorder, you’re not far off. Quite simply, in his 1988 writings, Campolo wanted badly to affirm homosexuals. He believed that homosexuals needed to be shown the love of Christ and be treated with love by Christians, and that is correct. However, it is clear that he was trying to find every possible way to affirm homosexuals and provide explanations for homosexuality as well as opportunities for living a life that celebrated homosexuality while remaining chaste. (His homosexual communities is an incredibly bizarre notion, in my opinion; try, for example, putting a bunch of males and females together in a community and ask them to affirm the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other and then also encourage each other not to have sex. Let me know how that works out….) Still, despite his clear desire to affirm homosexuality, Campolo in 1988 was not willing to ignore the clear biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Now, though, 27 years later, he has changed his mind and yielded to what I suspect he wanted to do back then–said that, despite the biblical teaching, we should celebrate, embrace and welcome sexually active homosexuals who have married.

So how does Campolo justify this new position without simply saying, “The Bible is wrong?”

First of all, he re-defines marriage. He acknowledged in his June 8 statement that many Christians agree with Augustine that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, which would “negate the legitimacy of same-sex unions.” Others, though, including Campolo himself, believe there is “a more spiritual dimension of marriage.” This dimension is of greater importance than procreation, indeed is of “supreme importance” and includes the belief “that God intends married partners to help actualize in each other the ‘fruits of the spirit,’ which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, often citing the Apostle Paul’s comparison of marriage to Christ’s sanctifying relationship with the Church.” Marriage, Campolo said, should always be “primarily about spiritual growth.”

Should marriage promote spiritual growth? Of course. Husbands and wives should encourage each other, support each other, pray for each other, even lovingly rebuke each other at times. However, that cannot be the primary purpose of marriage because that could be the primary purpose of any number of relationships. Indeed, it is the primary purpose of the church and the relationships between believers within the body of Christ. Procreation and the raising of children is what sets marriage apart from any other relationship. Remember, in 1988 Campolo said that marriage “implies a sexually consummated relationship.” God designed the male and female to fit together in the physical act of sex and to enjoy sex within the marriage relationship. Redefining marriage as Campolo suggests not only diminishes the importance of procreation and parenting but it necessarily eliminates the biblical teaching that sex is to be limited to marriage. Campolo may suggest that is not what he said, but it is the logical outcome of what he said. If the chief thing that sets marriage apart from any other relationship is no longer the biblically-approved sexual relationship then how do we confine sex at all? Does sex not then become just a physical activity that can be enjoyed between any two individuals who so desire to engage in consensual sexual activity?

Second, Campolo, like so many others who have flipped their position on homosexual activity, was swayed by seeing “so many gay Christian couples whose relationships work in much the same way” as the relationship Campolo has with his wife. In other words, because there are homosexual couples who seem to love, support, encourage and aid each other, it must be okay for them to marry.

To his credit, Campolo acknowledges that he might be wrong: ” Obviously, people of good will can and do read the scriptures very differently when it comes to controversial issues, and I am painfully aware that there are ways I could be wrong about this one.” He concludes his statement, though, by suggesting that this issue of homosexuality is much like previous positions held by sincere believers who claimed biblical support for keeping women out of teaching roles in the church, prohibited divorced and remarried individuals from being part of a church fellowship and even the practice of slavery. This, of course, hints at some of the ways in which Campolo disagrees with some believers, since there are still plenty of Christians who do not believe the Bible permits women to be in positions of leadership within the church, including the office of pastor or elder. I am one of those individuals. There are still plenty of believers who believe that divorced and remarried individuals are welcome to be part of a church but cannot hold leadership positions if the divorce took place after becoming a Christian and for any reason other than those that are biblically permissible. I am one of those individuals. Most importantly, however, Campolo seems to ignore the fact that while there were some individuals who used Scripture to support the practice of slavery, there is nowhere where the Bible explicitly states that slavery is okay. Indeed, it was belief in the biblical teaching that all humans have dignity and worth, that all humans are created in the image of God, that lead so many of those who opposed slavery to fight for its abolition. The Bible does, though, explicitly state that homosexual behavior is an abomination and a sin. It does not matter how many nice, loving homosexual couples Campolo knows, and it does not matter how he or anyone else wants to redefine marriage–there is simply no way to change that fact. Indeed, I will end by quoting the 1988 Tony Campolo in opposition to the 2015 version: “There are still passages in the Old Testament that speak directly to the issue which I find impossible to dismiss.” Me too.

The Narrow Way

July 29, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Last month my wife and I spent a few days in Denver. Odd though it may sound, it seemed to me that the Denver area had the narrowest parking spaces I can remember ever encountering. Even if I was parked squarely within the lines of my space, and the car in the next space was as well, I felt cramped. It seemed like we were much too close together, and I had to be very careful when opening my car door not to hit the car next to me. When I mentioned this to a friend who had also been in the Denver area recently she said, “Well, Colorado is supposedly the fittest state in the nation; maybe they don’t think they need the extra space!” She was joking, but at least it is a possible explanation… Of course, it is also possible that I have become used to the area in which I live, where parking lots are as likely as not to have no spaces marked off and people figure it out. I am inclined to doubt that, though, as I do encounter delineated parking spaces often enough. Still, I am not going to blog about narrow parking spaces, which I am sure is a relief to you. You were just about to stop reading, weren’t you?

Instead, I want to write about the Narrow Way. Jesus talks about this concept a number of times in the gospels, most notably in Matthew 7. He said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (verses 13-14). Jesus was making the point that pursuing a life that is pleasing to God, living a life that endeavors to demonstrate Christ to others, will not be easy. It will not be comfortable. Just as I was irritated by the proximity of the cars next to mine while I was parking in Denver, we do not like the feel confined, closed in or restricted. When given the option, most people will choose the wide way, the way with plenty of elbow room, the way that allows them to do their own thing without bumping into anyone else or anything else–anything like walls, fences and boundaries. Of course walls, fences and boundaries, when it comes to life, can mean rules, guidelines and expectations. It can mean putting personal preferences, desires and tendencies aside in order to pursue Christ and live according to His direction. It can mean yielding to the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives instead of following self.

It is interesting, I think, that Jesus instruction to take the narrow way comes immediately after His instruction to do to others as we would have them do to us. The Golden Rule is followed immediately by the instruction that taking the wide way will lead to destruction. In fact, if your Bible has section headings, it likely sets verses 12-14 apart, possibly under the heading “The Golden Rule.” Immediately before this section is Jesus’s instruction to ask God for what we need and to trust that God will provide for our needs; immediately after is instruction about false prophets and recognizing trees by their fruit. Taking the narrow way, then, necessarily means doing to others–living proactively in a way that lives out the teachings of Jesus, the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives. As I have mentioned here before, this was a revolutionary teaching by Jesus. The Jewish leaders had always taught “do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you,” but that is not nearly the same thing as what Jesus said. After all, I can refrain from smacking you across the face without ever being kind to you, without ever considering your needs ahead of my own, without ever helping to bear your burdens.

The truth is, I can refrain from smacking you across the face without being all that uncomfortable. There may well be times when I would like to do it, and when doing so might seem like it would feel really good, but I can probably live a perfectly content and comfortable life while still resisting any temptation to smack someone. Going beyond that, though, can be rather distressing. Showing kindness to you when I do not feel like being kind–or when, frankly, I do not even like you all that much–is not comfortable. Setting aside my preferences in order to make way for yours can be annoying. Forgiving you when you have wronged me unjustly can be, let’s face it, excruciatingly difficult. Still, this is all part of what it means to take the narrow way. As Jesus said, it is hard. It would much easier to take the wide way, to avoid the unpleasant elbow rubbing and shoulder bumping of the narrow way. The wide way, though, leads to destruction. It may be n easier path, but the destination is not worth it. I much prefer life to destruction, even if the path is a bit narrow.

Truth Matters

July 1, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I want to talk to you about truth. If I were to say that this was not influenced by recent events in Washington, DC I would be less than honest, and you would know I was. You may be very disturbed by the recent Supreme Court decisions -— and we should all be —- but the reality is that these decisions are but the latest in a long line of events in our country and decisions by our leaders that frustrate, sadden and even anger us. As I reflected on what has happened recently my mind flashed back to a message that I preached in the late 1990s in the midst of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. I went back through my files and I found that message and I found that it is entirely relevant today, as well.

Here is what I found in looking back at those notes: I did not set out to prepare a message which would deal with or even relate to current political events and the message I prepared was not going to deal specifically with that event. In fact, based on my notes for that message I had been working on something else entirely and in the process of looking up a cross reference to a verse I was dealing with this passage in Isaiah grabbed me. Have you ever heard someone say, or maybe seen in a book advertisement, “a gripping read”? Well, this was a gripping read. I turned to it and started reading and literally it was as if I had been grabbed by the collar and told, “read this!” It was a gripping read. In this instance I sought this out, but it is just as gripping and just as relevant today. This is not going to be specifically about the recent decisions, but it will relate to them clearly. We are going to talk about truth and why truth matters.

Look at Isaiah 59:1-15. This is what grabbed me all those years ago when I was reading. I am sure I had read this before, I imagine many of you have read this before as well, but never had it grabbed me like this—and that’s the thing about God’s Word, isn’t it? It never gets old, it is always new. This passage screamed to me then that it needed to be preached, because it is so much like the current situation in this country.

Look at verse 4. I read from the ESV, but I like the NKJV here better, and it reads like this: “No one calls for justice, Nor does any plead for truth.” Does that not sound like America today? We could give many examples of people in the United States, of all walks of life but particularly among our leaders, who have dismissed calls for the truth. “What difference does it make?” they may ask. The truth is not desirable for most people, they do not want justice. They would rather, as verse 4 says, “conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity”. Why is that? It is because truth and justice necessitate right and wrong, and right and wrong necessitate an unchanging, unalterable definition or determination. In other words, truth and justice, right and wrong require an almighty, sovereign God and humanity does not like that because truth and justice, right and wrong get in the way of us doing what we want to do, what seems expedient at the time, what we feel like doing, what makes us happy and brings us pleasure.

The skill in devising mischievous schemes – as the spider weaves its web, the comparison is made – will not save them. They shall not, verse 6 says, cover themselves with their works of iniquity. Why? Because no schemes of self-wrought salvation can avail in the light of God’s truth!

Still, we see in verse 7, their feet run to evil, they shed innocent blood, they think evil thoughts. I don’t know about you, but this reminds me of how we see the world described before the flood in Genesis 6:5, where we read, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” It reminds me of the description of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18.

Now look at verse 8 – “the way of peace they do not know.” You could certainly argue that we have not been in a time of peace since the 9/11 attacks, though we do live in a time of greater peace now than we have at some other times in our nation’s history in terms of day to day armed conflict on the international stage. But are we at peace within our own country? No. Far from it. Look at the chaos that has erupted around the country in recent months, of which Ferguson and Baltimore are but two examples among many. We have, as verse 9 says, shut our eyes to the truth. We have shut our eyes to the light of truth to the point where we stumble around at the brightest of day, groping for a wall like a blind man, because we have closed our eyes to the light. We wait for brightness yet we walk in darkness. When we have turned so much from God is it not just for God to hide from us the things which belong to peace? Why would we have peace when we have ignored the truth? How could we?

Verse 12 says that the transgressions of the people had been multiplied before God. He sees every single one, and they are multiplying—they are piling up before Him. “And our sins testify against us,” the verse says. Not only before God, by the way, but before man. Our sins testify against us around the world. The sins of those who profess to be God’s people are worse than the sins of others, and, like it or not, we still claim to be a Christian nation—though that is certainly diminishing and that claim is certainly becoming more difficult for anyone to make with any degree if sincerity. The sins of a nation are public and they will bring public judgement—especially when they are not restrained by public justice! How tragic it is when those individuals charged with overseeing public justice are the very ones committing the most heinous sins.

Verses 14-15 describe our country exactly. Justice is turned away backward. Righteousness stands far off. Truth has fallen in the streets. Equity, justice, uprightness cannot enter. Truth is lying dead in the streets of America. And, the second part of verse 15 says, “the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no justice.” God is displeased. There is no way around that, no other way to imagine it; God is displeased when we make a mockery of what He has created—and marriage, mind you, was created by God, to be between one man and one woman. And man and woman, mind you, were created by God as well, not as concepts or identities which we can choose for ourselves.

There are three things about truth and the wicked that we can see in Scripture that are important for us to note. First, the wicked do not ask for truth. In Isaiah 59:4 we see that none plead for truth. In 2 Timothy 4:4 we see that the wicked “turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” The wicked turn away from the truth, they do not ask for truth, because they do not want to hear it.

Second, the wicked do not defend truth. In Jeremiah 9:3, in the KJV, we read this: “And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.” The wicked do not stand up for the truth, they do not fight for truth.

Third, the wicked do not speak the truth. Jeremiah 9:5 says, “Everyone deceives his neighbor, and no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves committing iniquity.” Quite simply, the wicked lie.

I could provide you with abundant examples of lies coming from the mouths of our elected officials, from our unelected judges, from celebrities and supposed role models, from preachers and professors and religious leaders, from common everyday people like you and me. I could, but I am not going to, because you have no doubt seen and heard them yourself and you do not need me to provide examples of something you already are aware of. I will tell you this, though: God does not like the lack of truth. Isaiah 59:15 tells us that God is displeased. In Hosea 4:1 we read these words: “Hear the word of the LORD, O children of Israel, for the LORD has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land.” God had a controversy with the people of Israel because there was no truth in the land. Yes, these passages are talking about the people of Israel, but the principles are the same. God is no less intolerant of wickedness and lies today than He was then. I will tell you, the last thing I would want is to have a controversy with God, but I believe our nation does…because there is no truth. We have turned our backs on truth.

Let me remind you that I would be the first one to stand up and point out that we have a biblical responsibility to pray for our leaders, and to respect them, because they are ordained by God. Scripture makes it abundantly clear, in a number of passages, that the powers and authorities over us are ordained by God and we are to respect them, to pray for them and to obey them—unless and until they instruct us to disobey God. So we must respect Barack Obama, we must respect the five justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage, because they hold offices that God has ordained. At the same time, we must also realize that God made us a people of free will and we elect who we wish. The very fact that we have turned so far from God and from truth is both a contribution to, and a result of, the fact that we have not elected for ourselves great leaders, godly leaders who desire to do what is right regardless of what is popular.
Do not doubt—the wicked will be punished. In Jeremiah 5:29 we read this: “Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?” Jeremiah 9:9 says the exact same thing. God will visit this nation, I believe, just as He visited the nation of Israel, and He will be avenged. Why? Because there is no truth.
So what are our responsibilities, as those who follow Christ? As those who are to be lovers of truth?

First, Look at Jeremiah 9:1. “Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” We should be crying for our country. When was the last time you did that? When was the last time you wept in prayer because of the state of our union? I confess, I do not know the answer for myself. It is easy to become hardened and cynical and callous toward the sin around us, but we need to be praying for this nation. Some of us are faithful to pray for our nation regularly and consistently, and that is good. But we need to do it not just because we recognize our biblical obligation to do so but because we really think about and care about what is going on in our nation. If we think about it, really think about it, and care about it, it will bring tears. It will bring anger, too, by the way, and that can be good if it motivates us to do the right thing.

Second, we see from Isaiah 58:1 that we have a responsibility to identify the transgressions of our nation—to call them out. “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins” it says. We who know the truth have a responsibility to point out the problems that exist. We should be able, figuratively speaking, to hear people yelling about the problems in this country, lifting up their voices like trumpets to call to repentance a nation that is all too content to pursue its own purposes and desires. We have to recognize the transgressions and point them out. Why? Because the national mindset is formed by one of two dynamics—propaganda or truth. Today it is being molded by propaganda. The church needs to respond to her responsibility in the formation of the national mindset. Churches must assume their responsibility for shaping the biblical mind and confronting the national mind. We must find ways to assert biblical values in the public square. If the secular mass media inundate the nation with propaganda, the church must counter with the truth.

Third, look at Psalm 51. This is a well-known psalm in which David cries out to the Lord after the prophet Nathan confronts him on his sin with Bathsheba. We need, as a nation as well as individually, to acknowledge our sin. We do not need to apologize for it; an apology is a verbal defense, and it does not bring forgiveness. Nowhere does Scripture say that we are to apologize for our sin. Rather, we need to acknowledge it, confess it, repent of it and turn around. 2 Chronicles 7:14 contains this instruction as well. That verse tells us that if God’s people call on Him, humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways, then He will hear, forgive and heal their land.

Finally, look at Malachi 3:5-7. The punishment will come. It most definitely will. That is not up for debate. But it is not too late to return to God. I believe it is still possible for a revival to sweep through this land. Look back to Isaiah 59, where we started. Verses 1-2 tell us that God’s hand is not shortened that He cannot save. God is not tired or weary of hearing our prayers. We as a nation, however, grown tired of praying. We have separated ourselves from God with iniquities and sin has hid our face from His. Truth is lying dead in the streets. It is not too late to turn back; God is ready to hear and He will forgive. No matter how disappointed, how frustrated, how saddened, how angered we may become, we must not give up our responsibility to stand for the truth. This is what we are called to do, no matter the cost, no matter the popularity, no matter the penalty that may result.

Keith Getty and Stuart Townend have written a hymn entitled “O Church Arise,” and the first verse reads like this:

O church, arise and put your armor on;
Hear the call of Christ our captain;
For now the weak can say that they are strong
In the strength that God has given.
With shield of faith and belt of truth
We’ll stand against the devil’s lies;
An army bold whose battle cry is “Love!”
Reaching out to those in darkness.

That is what we are to do; to go in the strength and armor of the Lord, standing against the lies of the devil. We may be spitting mad about the SCOTUS decision, the five justices or the people who pushed and fought for this decision. But Jesus died for them, too, and they are in darkness, and we are to reach out to them with God’s love.
The second verse of that hymn says this:

Our call to war, to love the captive soul,
But to rage against the captor;
And with the sword that makes the wounded whole
We will fight with faith and valor.
When faced with trials on ev’ry side,
We know the outcome is secure,
And Christ will have the prize for which He died—
An inheritance of nations.

We are called to war. Make no mistake about that; we are in the thick of a very real, very intense spiritual war! Our enemy, though, is the captor—Satan—not the captive souls who have fallen under his lies. We must fight on, faithfully and confidently, because even when we seem to be making no ground, even when we seem to be losing, we know, “the outcome is secure.” No decision by any number of human beings will ever change that, and we are on the side of victory.

Love Wins

June 29, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Unless you live under a rock you have been already been inundated by news stories, blog posts, Facebook status updates and tweets about the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday making homosexual marriage legal in the United States.I could comment at length on the decision itself, and perhaps at some point I will. In reality, most of what I would say has already been shared in this space before in my warnings about the slippery slope we are on and where that will lead once we step onto it. With Friday’s ruling I believe we have stepped fully onto that slope–not gingerly or cautiously, but jumped on with both feet. As we slide down that slope we will pick up momentum and there is, sadly, no telling what kind of condition we will be in when we come to a crashing stop at the bottom.

Perhaps the most common hashtag over the past few days has been this one: #LoveWins. I have no idea how many times it has been tweeted or otherwise posted around social media but I suspect it would be in the millions. President Obama and Vice President Biden both tweeted it. Hillary Clinton tweeted it with instructions on how to get a free bumper sticker from her presidential campaign that features the word HISTORY in the ubiquitous rainbow color scheme of the homosexual movement. Above the bumper sticker was the headline “All love is equal.” STOP-Homophobia.com tweeted “It’s only a matter of time before #LoveWins worldwide.” Coca-Cola was one of many companies quick to embrace the ruling and be sure everyone knows that they celebrate the decision, and Facebook made it possible for uses to place a rainbow-colored overlay over their profile pictures in a show of support.

The problems here are almost innumerable, so I am not going to get into many of them. Let me just say this briefly. The definition of marriage, and the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, has nothing to do really with love. Love is both an emotion and a decision, and it is something that many people feel and have toward many other people. Whether or not someone loves someone else is not the only necessary ingredient for marriage. (Indeed, one could argue whether or not it even is a necessary ingredient, but that is a completely different conversation). That “love” seems to be what everyone is celebrating with this decision is part of that momentum with which we are hurtling down the slippery slope toward a high velocity collision at the bottom. If marriage will be based and defined solely on whether or not people love each other than we have–as I have warned repeatedly before–obliterated any grounds on which we could now restrict marriage to a man and a woman, two men or two women. How could we now say that if a man and three women love each other they cannot be married? How can we say that if an adult and child love each other they cannot be married? If someone claimed to be in love with a dog, how could we not allow that person to marry that dog? Anyway, enough on that; it is not really my point here today.

What troubles me most of all about the #LoveWins mess is that it distorts what love really is. I will not delve too deeply into that right now either, though. Instead, I want to focus on the fact the love won a long, long time ago. Actually, Love won, and God is Love. In the beginning, God created humans with a free will. If I were God, I would have seriously considered nixing that idea I think, particularly since God’s omniscience means He was well aware of what we would do with that free will. That free will led to Eve yielding to Satan’s temptation, Adam following her lead, and the sin nature that each of us is now born with. That free will God gave us paved the way for every sin we have ever committed, every decision we (collectively) have made to reject God completely or to reject His instructions and guidelines periodically or consistently. It was because God loves us that He gave us a free will; He would rather be loved by those who have chosen to love and follow Him than by legions of human robots who have no choice but to love and obey.

More importantly, God’s love is so great that when sin did separate us from Him He decided to send His only Son to pay a penalty we could never pay–a perfect, sinless blood sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. When Jesus Christ was crucified, paying for your sins and mine, when He was buried and rose again, conquering sin, death, hell and Satan, love won. Satan cannot win. He still fights on with dogged determination but even knows how the story ends. Our understanding of love from a human perspective is distorted, perverted and skewed by selfish desires and the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. God IS Love, and His love is unfathomable. We can understand it enough to appreciate it and accept it, but the realities of its scope and depth and breadth are incredible. I have addressed this here before as well, and it would be easier for to you just read God’s Love Is than for me to restate what I think has already been well articulated. What I want to leave with here is this: Yes, Love Won, but not on Friday when five people in black robes decided to redefine marriage. Love Won over two thousand years ago when Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. Love Won from the moment God spoke the universe into existence. The approval of a redefinition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry is not evidence of love; rather, it is evidence of the workings of Satan and of man’s desire to remake truth to fit his own wants and whims. Despite our best efforts to ignore, change or destroy His Truth, God’s Truth and God’s Love are the same today as they have always been and as they will always be. Not because of the SCOTUS decision, but in spite of it, Love Wins.

Messing with the Master Plan

June 23, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

You perhaps have heard the comments made by Adam Swift during an interview on Australia’s ABC Radio National. Swift is a Professor of Political Theory at Warwick University and he has been doing research, with Harry Brighouse, on family values. Swift and Brighouse published a book entitled Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships last August. According to the blurb on Amazon, the book “provides a major new theoretical account of the morality and politics of the family, telling us why the family is valuable, who has the right to parent, and what rights parents should–and should not–have over their children.” I have not read the book, so I will not comment on what it contains. From the description I just quoted it sounds both interesting and frightening. I say scary because when someone starts talking about the “morality” of family I get nervous. The family is an institution created by God, so its morality is unquestionable. I am also somewhat troubled by the question of who has a right to parent. While I agree that the act of procreation does not a parent make in any sense other than biological, if we start questioning who has a right to parent we are necessarily implying that some people do not have the right to parent. When we reach the conclusion that some people have the right to parent and others do not, we also necessarily imply that someone, or some group of someones, have the right to determine who has the right to parent and who does not. This notion should trouble us all. Still, it is not the book itself that led to Swift’s rise to national, even international, attention. That was due to the comments he made during his radio interview.

In that interview, Swift said that from a purely utilitarian position it would seem desirable to eliminate the differences between families and the resulting gaps that can impact educational opportunity, material provision, employment and more. “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” Swift said. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.” Plausible maybe…if we were all robots or the human differences that make us unique could be eliminated. Swift is not the first one to speculate on this, though; Plato suggested it a couple of millennia ago. Aristotle did not agree with Plato though, and Swift tends more toward the Aristotelian position. So that’s a relief, at least. Swift and his colleague determined that the parent-child relationship is valuable and in the best interest of the child. That did not satisfy them though, as they wanted to know which familial activities contribute to the social inequalities that exist in the world. “What we realized we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children.” So this was what Swift and Brighouse set out to examine. Again, I maintain that this entire notion should scare us all. Do we really want to explore the possibility of forbidding parents from doing certain things because of the possibility that it might disadvantage someone else’s child? Of course we should prohibit things like cheating and bribery, but behaviors that are not illegal should be permitted and even encouraged because, again, where do we draw the line? Who decides where we draw the line? For example, my daughter wears eye glasses. Would Swift and Brighouse suggest that by purchasing those for her I am providing her with an unfair advantage, since many children around the world do not have parents who can purchase glasses for them?

Here is how Swift and Brighouse address that question. They developed a test for what they call “familial relationship goods.” Joe Gelonisi, who condicted the interview for ABC Radio National in Australia described “familiar relationship goods” as “those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.” That is a quite a broad stroke in my opinion, so what Swift and Brighouse have to say about these goods would be interesting indeed. What would be some examples of acceptable and unacceptable familial relationship goods? Providing a private school education for one’s children is not an acceptable example, Swift said. “Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods. It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.” Hmmm… I could convincingly argue that a private school education is not necessary for “intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships” but then I could just as convincingly argue that homeschooling provides a greater opportunity for such relationships that public education does–so are the parents who homeschool the only ones providing legitimate familial relationship goods? While he did not address homeschooling in his interview (that I can find), and I do not know if he addresses it in his book, I suspect Swift would argue that homeschooling is an illegitimate familial relationship good too, providing homeschooled children with an unfair advantage, particularly when the homeschooling is done by highly educated parents and/or in conjunction with the opportunity to travel extensively or pursue other private instruction in athletics, music or art.

What really got everyone’s attention was Swift’s assertion that parents reading bedtime stories to their children is an acceptable familial relationship good, but not one that parents should necessarily feel good about. “The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t–the difference in their life chances–is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” Swift said. He continued:

You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods. We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life. I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.

I have read innumerable stories to my children, at bedtime and otherwise, and I can say without hesitation that it has never once even crossed my mind that in so doing I was somehow “disadvantaging other people’s children.” Sure, I am aware that children who are read to are likely to perform better academically and more likely to develop both a love for reading and a greater level of literacy, but the fact that not all parents read to their children does not mean that I am disadvantaging someone else’s child. Indeed, the reality is that those parents who do not read to their children are the one’s disadvantaging their own children, if we must use that word. There is no need for me to feel guilty about reading to my children just because not all parents do. There is no need for me to stop reading to my children in some bizarre attempt to level the playing field.

So overwhelming was the backlash against Swift’s comments that he was forced to take to his faculty page at Warwick to refine his position. “We would never discourage anybody from reading their children bedtime stories, nor criticize them for doing so. Where parents are not willing or able to provide that kind of help, then they should be encouraged to do so, and where necessary supported in doing so,” he writes. The hullabaloo was a result, Swift says, of “careless polemical journalism” which “has seriously misrepresented my views and led to a barrage of abusive emails.” I am certainly not suggesting that Swift should receive any abusive e-mails, and I have not contacted him, but when one writes a book and goes on the radio to tout a theory regarding the appropriate role of families and the advantages that may result from some parent-child activities, one must also be willing to accept that the theory is going to be examined, critiqued and perhaps even attacked. Swift concludes his explanation about his position (and presumably that of Brighouse, as well) like this:

We argue that the various means by which parents confer advantage on their children are not all equally important for loving family life. In our view the grounds for protecting elite private education, for example, are considerably less weighty. We also think it is good occasionally to be mindful of the children who, due to factors entirely beyond their control, are disadvantaged because of lack of loving attention from parents. Of course many will disagree with those views. But if you have read or heard that we object to bedtime stories, or want to create a level playing-field between children in different families, then you have read or heard someone who has misunderstood our theory.

I do not think I would have a problem with the notion that elite private education is not necessary. I would, however, defend wholeheartedly the right of any parent desiring to do so, and able to do so, to provide such an education for their child(ren). (Please note that this position is not purely a result of the fact that I am the administrator of a private school, either; I believe that one of the fundamental rights a parent should have is where and how to provide the best possible education for their children). Swift says that he does not favor creating a level playing field among families, yet it certainly seems that he is suggesting that a more level playing field should be desirable and that, when it does not exist, parents should at least feel guilty about it. I fail to see how this will benefit anyone.

By the way, what has received far less attention, no doubt because this notion is much more politically acceptable these days, is Swift’s suggestion in the radio interview that “parent” is a position that is not restricted to the biological parents and that the number of parents may be more than two. “Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,” Swift said. “Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera. We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution. If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.” It is a relief to know that Swift thinks parenting by committee is not a good idea, but again, who decides how many “parents” is okay? If two, three or four are all acceptable but ten is not, who gets to decide where between four and ten that line is drawn? In reality, this is only an additional attempt to redefine what “family” is and what it means, and it is all connected to the redefinitions occurring the areas of gender and marriage, as well. After all, if one can decide what gender to be, regardless of the biology, and if we can change what marriage means, why not adjust what “parent” means too?

Ultimately, all of this chaos and confusion comes from our attempts to mess with that which God has already determined. God created human beings, male and female, God created the family and God created both the ability to procreate and the responsibility to parent. When we mess with the master plan–really the Master’s plan–that’s exactly what we end up with: a mess.

One Unchanging Message

June 22, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Dave Furman wrote an article entitled “The Same Gospel” that appeared in the May 2015 issue of Tabletalk. Furman is the senior pastor of a church in the United Arab Emirates. Based on his location and the description in his article, it seems that his is a culturally diverse church. His comments are specifically targeted at the unique challenges of cross-cultural ministry, by which I mean different ethnic cultures and nationalities. However, in light of recent research and efforts by those who claim to have the most effective approaches for reaching those of different generations within the same culture (such as Gen X in the U.S.), the principles he addresses are just as applicable there.

Early in his article Furman writes,

The gospel changes lives. Though there are certainly cultural differences between the West and the East, we must resist the temptation to change the gospel. If we do, and people respond, then we have won people not just to a “variation” of the gospel, but to a false gospel, which is no gospel at all. Only the gospel of God concerning His Son is the good news. We want people to hear God’s truth and not a deceitful version of the message. The truth is that our sin against a holy God deserves death and God’s judgment. It is only through faith in Christ’s sacrifice for sinners that we will be saved.

I have heard and read a number of arguments for “presenting” the gospel in a way that fits within the culture in which it is being presented. I have always been reluctant of these approaches however because (1) in almost every instance “presenting it” is code for the message itself, and (2) if the message itself is changed it is necessarily different than the message the Bible contains. Something cannot be both different and the same; that is simply not possible. Even many relativists would agree that this is an impossibility. So, if changing parts of the Bible message is necessary to make it palatable to someone then we have a problem. Let me put it this way: I do not like pecans. It’s not that I do not care for them, I really do not like them. At all. How ridiculous would it be then for someone to tell me they would fix a pecan pie for me but leave out the pecans? Whatever I ended up with may well be tasty, but it would not be pecan pie. That is exactly what happens when we alter the gospel message in some way in order to “overcome” or “avoid” elements of the gospel message that are unpleasant, undesirable or even offensive.

I have heard of this working various ways. In some instances, the idea of Jesus being God’s Son is inconsistent with the beliefs and traditions of some cultures, so that wording is changed. In some places, the idea of a blood sacrifice or the idea of sin is objectionable, so that is tweaked or removed. The idea that we are fallen sinners is not a popular notion. It does not create warm fuzzies for anyone. The reality that we cannot work our way to heaven or earn forgiveness of our sins is inconsistent with what we teach and believe in almost every other area of our lives. Why not change the message a little bit to make it more appealing? Some megachurch pastors have said they will not talk about sin because it offends people. Imagine that! The Bible says it will be an offense; the gospel message will be a stumbling block. Whether it is refusing to talk about sin, changing the message to “culturally appropriate” or using bells and whistles (read lights, loud music and silly activities) to attract people to church, the reality is simply that such methods are nothing other than false advertisement. Okay, perhaps the lights, loud music and silly games are not exactly false advertisement, but when we use gimmicks to bring people in so that we can try to slip in the truth for a few minutes in between the stuff we really attracted them with, are we not operating under false pretenses?

Vacation Bible School and other activities designed to appeal to children can fall victim to this approach, too. There is nothing wrong with games, crafts, songs and skits in and of themselves. When those things became the primary focus of a VBS, though, the church is doing a disservice both to itself and to the children it is endeavoring to reach. If a church wants to offer a babysitting service or activity time or drama camp, no problem. Do that–and call it what it is. If a church wants to have a Vacation Bible School, though, the emphasis and most important part of the schedule need to deal with the Bible. (I have been a part of many VBS programs over the years, as a participant, a leader and as a parent of participants. Some of these out-of-the-box programs are much better than others in this regard. Answers in Genesis, for example, produces a program that is very “meaty” and ensures, when properly utilized, that children are receiving solid, in-depth instruction in the Bible. Generally speaking, though, I think VBS curriculum is like school curriculum. By that, I mean that the ultimate success of the instruction will depend far more on the teachers than on the materials being used).

Furman later writes, this:

There is no better message that we can share. And so there is no need to change it, distort it, rewrite it, add to it, or subtract from it. If you adjust the gospel, you destroy it. Gospel revision always equals gospel reversal. In a culture that is different from ours and even in dangerous contexts, why would we ever want to risk our lives to proclaim news that has no power unto salvation?

One of the most incredible and powerful evidences of the truth of the gospel message is the transformation that occurred in the lives of the followers of Christ after His resurrection. Where there had been fear, there was boldness. Where there had been cowardice, there was courage. Where there had been doubt, there was certainty. If we are going to go to the time, effort, trouble and expense of sharing a message–whether to children in our own church or to unreached people groups halfway around the world–shouldn’t we at least make sure that we are sharing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why waste the time and effort for anything less?

Finally, not only would it be a foolish waste of time, effort and resources to share message that was less than the truth, it would be unauthorized. Here’s how Furman puts it:

Long ago, before there was television and the Internet, when a military had a big victory the king would send a herald into the town centers of the villages, and they would declare the good news and then run into the next town square proclaiming the victory. The herald had no ability to make the news but only to share what the king had declared. That’s what we are called to do: to take the same gospel as it is and proclaim the good news about what our King Jesus has already done.

May we resist all efforts to alter, abridge, tone down or otherwise manipulate the message that all have sinned, all need a Savior, and God has provided one through His Son–a Son who lived a perfect life, suffered a cruel and undeserved death, was buried, rose again three days later and lives now in heaven with God the Father. Wherever we go, wherever the gospel message may go, may it go in boldness and in truth, unapologetically and unashamedly.

Exciting Worship

June 19, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

A few days ago Bob Kauflin, Director of Sovereign Grace Music, wrote a post on his blog Worship Matters entitled, “How Exciting Should Our Sunday Meetings Be?” He began his post by sharing a comment from a friend, who told him that his pastor “wanted their meetings to be more exciting.” Kauflin then proceeded to expound upon why striving for excitement in our church services–at least excitement as our culture defines it–is not what we should be pursuing. If you look at the definition of “exciting”, as Kauflin does, then you would no doubt agree with his conclusion that anytime the body of Christ is gathered together should be a time of excitement purely because of the very nature of the gathering. Kauflin writes,

Certainly, nothing should cause greater enthusiasm and eagerness than meeting with the church to recount what God has done to save us from his wrath through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. All our sins are forgiven! We have been adopted into God’s family! Jesus has triumphed over sin, death, and hell! We are new creations! We are part of God’s unstoppable, unchangeable, unrelenting plan to have a people on earth who will display his glory, truth, righteousness, love, and compassion!

What can be more earth-shattering, soul-shaking, and EXCITING than rehearsing and reveling in those realities?

To that I would say a hearty Amen! However, I would also agree with Kauflin that that is almost certainly not what his friend’s pastor had in mind, nor is it what many people in church leadership, worship ministry and the schools who train those individuals likely have in mind. When we think about the things in our lives that we might describe as exciting we probably think about things that get our juices flowing, that get our heart beating, that bring a smile to our face and a twinkle to our eyes–things that we enjoy in the moment and think back on fondly after the fact. Depending on who you are and what your interests are, “exciting” for you could be a theme park roller coaster ride, a deep sea fishing excursion, a professional sporting event, a classical music concert in a world class venue or a hike in the Rockies. All of those things are fine and good–there is nothing wrong with any of them. Rarely do any of us think about church the same way we would think about one of those activities, though. I think that is interesting for several reasons, and I see some similarities and some differences.

First, with the exception of hiking in the Rockies, each of the activities above occurs in a setting designed specifically for the purpose. (Yes, I realize the ocean is not a venue designed specifically for deep sea fishing, but the boat and equipment used would be specific to the activity). Similarly, church services are often–though, I realize, not always–held in facilities specifically designed for corporate worship or, if not designed for that purpose, at least set up accordingly. Second, excluding hiking again, each of those activities have personnel present for the specific purpose of aiding and assisting in your experience, whether to take tickets, provide directions, show you to your seats, explain the safety instructions, sell you food and beverages or ensure that you are outfitted appropriately for the event you are about to experience. Similarly, many churches have ushers, greeters, teachers, etc. to assist members and guests.

Here are a couple of differences I see, too. First, rarely does anyone engage in any of the activities I described above without planning and preparation beforehand. I realize that someone with easy access to the Rockies may decide on a whim to take a hike or someone in close proximity to an amusement part may decide to go spend the day there, but for many of us any of those activities will involve planning: buying tickets, getting direction, arranging our schedule, organizing our finances so that the necessary funds are available and so on. I would suggest that there are very few people–myself included–who put anywhere near that kind of preparation into going into the House of the Lord. I know I’m going to church on Sunday, so I do not plan anything else to do and I make sure I am up on time, but the intentionality, planning and preparation that goes into my attendance at church on Sunday is not even close to the level of preparation I would put into one of the activities above. Second, every one of the activities above would involve, for the vast majority of people, dressing in a manner specific to the occasion. Whether it means wearing the jersey of your favorite sports team, putting on a suit or dress for the concert, lacing up your hiking boots and strapping on your backpack for a hike in the Rockies, putting on your swim trunks and flip flops for the fishing trip or whatever the case may be, rarely do any of us engage in any of those activities wearing whatever we usually wear for our normal day-to-day activities. Many people do exactly that when it comes to going to church, but I have addressed that topic elsewhere, so I will leave it go at that.

Kauflin addresses the growing tendency in churches to make their services more exciting, more stimulating, more emotional. “[A]n increasing number of churches,” he writes, “have sought to add elements to their gatherings that will make them more ‘exciting.’ Meeting countdowns. Fast-paced videos. Engaging dramas. Creative humor. Breathless, energetic emcees. More upbeat songs. Smoke machines. Light shows. And a mindset that views dead space as the supreme excitement killer.” In other words, too many churches are trying to turn their services into a show that gets everyone’s adrenaline pumping and hands clapping. I am not suggesting that church services should be boring or sleep-inducing. I have defended the position that worship should be an emotional experience. (After all, how sincere can worship be if it has no connection to one’s emotions?) When we go to church and just go through the motions, God is not pleased by that. At the same time, when we go to church and get wrapped up in the show and the activities at the expense of why we are there in the first place and Who we are there to worship, God is not pleased by that either.

I have been to churches at both ends of that spectrum. I have been in churches where all the routines of a worship service were present but it seemed as if no one was engaged at all. There was no emotion, no energy, no excitement. Everyone was basically putting in their time. That is draining, let me tell you, and I would seriously question whether anyone was really worshiping. I rather doubt God was feeling worshiped! I have also been to churches where there are huge screens, massive choirs, full orchestras, live bands, “recognizable” personnel on stage and so on. It looks like, sounds like and feels like a major concert experience. There is a lot more emotion, energy and excitement but the question in that situation is, on what–or on whom–was that emotion, energy and excitement directed? If it was directed at the “worship leaders” then God is not pleased. If it was directed inwardly, at how it makes “me” feel, then God is not pleased with that, either.

“Strictly speaking,” Kauflin writes, “God never says the goal of the church gathering is excitement. It’s edification for God’s glory. We meet to stir up one another to love and good works, not simply to have an emotionally electrifying time. We meet to behold God’s glory in Christ through his Word, responding in ways appropriate to his self-revelation (Heb. 10:24; 2 Cor. 3:18).” Here is the rub. I do not believe God is displeased or dishonored by lights, bands, orchestras, mass choirs and recognizable people on stage. I believe any or even all of those things in combination can be used to worship the Lord and to lead a church service that is appropriate focused. To a certain extent, the focus of the service depends on the people sitting in the pews (or padded chairs). The person(s) leading the service can have their focus in the right place and the heart and mind of the folks in the congregation can be elsewhere. That is a personal matter between those individuals and God. What is not a personal matter is the heart, focus and intention of the pastor and other personnel leading the service. If the purpose is to generate excitement purely for excitement sake, that is wrong. If the intention is to sell more books or CDs, or to increase one’s Twitter following, that is wrong. If the purpose is to engage those in the congregation in order to help them grow in their knowledge and understanding of God, in order to stir them up for good works and to be doers rather than hearers only, then that is a good thing and God is pleased. Kauflin clearly sums up the purpose of a church service as follows:

Our greatest need when we gather is not simply to feel excited, but to encounter God: to engage with the certainty of his sovereignty, the reality of his authority, the comfort of his mercy in Christ, and the promise of his grace. We need to be strengthened for the battles against the world, our flesh, and the devil that will confront us the moment we wake up Monday morning, if not before. Mere emotional excitement, however it might be produced, won’t be sufficient. We need God’s Word clearly expounded, God’s gospel clearly presented, and God’s presence clearly experienced.

If that is what is happening in your church, then you are at a great church, regardless of whether you use hymnals or words projected on massive screens, whether you have an old upright piano or a live band, whether you have the local insurance salesman leading the singing or an internationally-recognized worship leader at the front. Ultimately, everything other than what is contained in Kauflin’s statement above is peripheral. Maybe that sounds harsh or oversimplistic, but that’s the truth. We could get into debates about all of those other elements of church services, and the odds are good that we may have very different opinions about what what we prefer or think is most effective. Since God does not give explicit instructions on the order or elements of a worship service, though, I think there is room for a variety so long as the focus and purpose remains where it needs to be. When he explains that church services are not to be rock concerts or pep rallies, Kauflin also explains, “They’re something much more mundane, and at the same time something much more eternally and cosmically significant. Our plans, lights, smooth transitions, technology, videos, sound systems, visual effects, and creativity don’t make it so. Christ dwelling in the midst of his people through his Holy Spirit makes it so. That’s why if we understand what’s going on, sharing the bread and cup during communion can be one of the highlights of our week, transcending the greatest of world championship sports rivalries in its effect on us.” That is where he hits the bulls eye. All of that extra “stuff” is, as I said, peripheral. None of it makes the church service successful from God’s viewpoint. At the same time, none of it prevents the service from being successful from God’s viewpoint when it is all used to accomplish the purpose of encountering God, growing in our knowledge of Him and truly worshiping Him, in spirit and in truth. So the real question is not, “Should our services be more exciting?” The real question is, “What are you trying to accomplish with that ‘excitement’?” If the purpose is excitement, then there is a real problem. If the purpose is to stir the hearts of the people to know and worship God, then go for it–so long as that focus never changes. Yes, church leaders need to carefully and prayerfully reflect on why they do what they do and why they want to do what they are considering. At the same time, each of us needs to carefully and prayerfully reflect, too. When we say we’re looking for something “more” from the services at church, what do we really mean? What do we really want–and why? If anything, and I mean anything, seems to be more exciting or desirable than the sovereignty, grace, mercy and love of God then we better check our definition of “exciting.”

Not Just a Nice Story

June 17, 2015June 21, 2015 ~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I speak in churches on a fairly regular basis, filling in when pastors are vacationing or when a church is without a pastor. It does not usually take long when I visit a church for the first time to get a sense of the atmosphere in the church. Specifically, it is fairly obvious whether most of the congregants are just going through the motions or the church is spiritually vibrant and healthy. In one of those churches that seems to tend toward the “going through the motions” end of the spectrum I was speaking once on the latter part of James 1. James is one of my favorite books. It is a to-the-point book that includes a plenitude of practical instruction and for that reason it can be uncomfortable to read, to preach or to hear preached. For all the those reasons it is also a book I love to speak on, even if I will only be in a church one time. (Or maybe especially if I will only be in a church one time!) Verse 22 in particular is a sure-fire way to step on the toes of those that like to just go through the motions and feel like they are doing their part for God. On the occasion I have in mind, however, I found that even the unmistakeable instruction to be doers of the Word and not hearers only will only penetrate a heart that is sensitive to the working of the Spirit. In fact, it made me realize that even “hearers only” is a step below listeners.

I have said on many occasions, primarily in teaching but not always, that there is a tremendous difference between hearing and listening. We can hear things without really listening to them. In fact, we do it all the time. We do it often when we are in a store or a restaurant and music is playing in the background. I do it to television commercials. Some of us have been accused of doing it when our spouse is talking. On this particular Sunday, some of the congregants were apparently doing it while I was preaching. As I said, I spoke on the latter part of James–verses 19-27–and I pulled no punches. I made it clear that James tells us that ritualistic religion is worthless and does not please God in the least. I made it clear that if we are doers of the Word it will influence every area of our lives. I emphasized that in the original language, the words translated “deceiving yourselves” in English referred to a mathematical calculation. In other words, James was saying that if we think we’re doing all we need to do by hearing the Word, we’ve got the wrong answer!

Imagine then, if you would, my delight (pardon the sarcasm) when I stood near the foyer of the church greeting the congregants after the service and had one older gentleman shake my hand and tell me, “That was a nice story.” Really? A nice story?!? I had done all I could, to communicate as clearly as I could, that living the Christian life is serious business, not a casual or passive one. I was as clear and direct as I could be. And this gentlemen thought I told a nice story. I felt quite sure that he certainly was not listening to what I said, and I was not even sure he actually heard me. For a moment I started to think, “Well, what was the point? A lot of good that did.” It did not take long for me to feel the Spirit prompting me, though, reminding me that (1) the “success” of the message is not for me to worry about as long as I deliver it faithfully, and (2) how often must God feel the same way? He has provided us with all that we need for living a life that is pleasing to Him. His Word includes instruction, correction, encouragement and more. We no longer receive visions or hear from prophets because we no longer need that; we have the complete revelation of Scripture. How often, though, do I treat it like a story? How often do I check off my Bible reading, my pre-meal prayers and my Sunday morning church attendance and then go about the rest of my life doing my own thing? I cannot imagine having the opportunity to shake hands with Jesus and saying, “Nice story”–but I might be living my life that way far more often than I care to admit. The Holy Bible is far more than a “nice story.”