Sunday, April 27, 2014
Messages From Heaven: Jesus: The Only Way to Heaven!
Messages From Heaven: Jesus: The Only Way to Heaven!: In the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and '70s, the "One Way" sign — the index finger held high — became a popular icon. "O...
Jesus: The Only Way to Heaven!
In the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and '70s, the "One Way" sign — the
index finger held high — became a popular icon. "One Way" bumper
stickers and lapel pins were everywhere, and the "One Way" slogan for a
time became the identifying catchphrase of all evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism in those days was an extremely diverse movement. (In some ways it was even more eclectic than it is today.) It encompassed everything from Jesus People, who were an integral part of that era's youth culture, to straight-line fundamentalists, who scorned everything contemporary. But all of them had at least one important thing in common: They knew that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. "One Way" seemed an unshakable belief that all evangelicals held in common.
That is no longer the case. The evangelical movement of today is no longer unified on this issue. Some who call themselves evangelicals are openly insisting that faith alone in Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They are now convinced that people of all faiths will be in heaven. Others are simply cowardly, embarrassed, or hesitant to affirm the exclusivity of the gospel in an era when inclusivity, pluralism, and tolerance are deemed supreme virtues by the secular world. They imagine it would be a tremendous cultural faux pas to declare that Christianity is the truth and all other faiths are wrong. Apparently, the evangelical movement's biggest fear today is that Christians will be seen as out of harmony with the world.
Postmodernism
Why has this dramatic shift taken place? Why has evangelicalism abandoned what believers once all agreed is absolutely true? I believe it is because church leaders, in their desperate quest to be relevant and fashionable, have actually failed to see where the contemporary world is going and why.
The dominant worldview in secular and academic circles today is called postmodernism. To the postmodernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is "true" is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to humanity universally. The postmodernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person's perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another's. "Truth" becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.
That is the one essential, non-negotiable demand postmodernism makes of everyone: We are not supposed to think we know any objective truth. Postmodernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect. And therefore, on the surface, postmodernism seems driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims-particularly biblical Christianity.
Postmodernism and the Church
The church today is filled with people who are advocating postmodern ideas. Some of them do it self-consciously and deliberately, but most do it unwittingly. (Having imbibed too much of the spirit of the age, they are simply regurgitating worldly opinion.) The evangelical movement as a whole, still recovering from its long battle with modernism, is not prepared for a new and different adversary. Many Christians have therefore not yet recognized the extreme danger posed by postmodernist thought.
Postmodernism's influence has clearly infected the church already. Evangelicals are toning down their message so that the gospel's stark truth-claims don't sound so jarring to the postmodern ear. Many shy away from stating unequivocally that the Bible is truth and all other religious systems and worldviews are false. Some who call themselves Christians have gone even further, purposefully denying the exclusivity of Christ and openly questioning His claim that He is the only way to God.
The biblical message is clear. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The apostle John wrote, "He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36).
Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. "For there is on God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:11-12).
Those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of postmodernism. They make exclusive, universal truth claims, declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate postmodern sensitivities.
Instead, many Christians just pass over the exclusive claims of Christ in embarrassed silence. Even worse, some in the church, including a few of evangelicalism's best-known leaders, have begun to suggest that perhaps people can be saved apart from knowing Christ.
Christians cannot capitulate to postmodernism without sacrificing the very essence of our faith. The Bible's claim that Christ is the only way of salvation is certainly out of harmony with the postmodern notion of "tolerance." But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. And the Bible, not postmodern opinion, is the supreme authority for the Christian. The Bible alone should determine what we believe and proclaim to the world. We cannot waver on this, no matter how much this postmodern world complains that our beliefs make us "intolerant."
Tolerant Intolerance
Postmodernism's veneration of tolerance is its most obvious feature. But the version of "tolerance" peddled by postmodernists is actually a twisted and dangerous corruption of true virtue.
Incidentally, tolerance is never mentioned in the Bible as a virtue, except in the sense of patience, forbearance, and longsuffering (cf. Ephesians 4:2). In fact, the contemporary notion of tolerance is a pathetically feeble concept compared to the love Scripture commands Christians to show even to their enemies. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you" (Luke 6:27-28; cf. vv. 29-36).
When our grandparents spoke of tolerance as a virtue, they had something like that in mind. The word once meant respecting people and treating them kindly even when we believe they are wrong. But the postmodern notion of tolerance means we must never regard anyone else's opinions as wrong. Biblical tolerance is for people; postmodern tolerance is for ideas.
Accepting every belief as equally valid is hardly a real virtue, but it is practically the only kind of virtue postmodernism knows anything about. Traditional virtues (including humility, self-control, and chastity) are openly scorned, and even regarded as transgressions in the world of postmodernism.
Predictably, the beatification of postmodern tolerance has had a disastrous effect on real virtue in our society. In this age of tolerance, what was once forbidden is now encouraged. What was once universally deemed immoral is now celebrated. Marital infidelity and divorce have been normalized. Profanity is commonplace. Abortion, homosexuality, and moral perversions of all kinds are championed by large advocacy groups and enthusiastically promoted by the popular media. The postmodern notion of tolerance is systematically turning genuine virtue on its head.
Just about the only remaining taboo is the naïve and politically incorrect notion that another person's alternative lifestyle, religion, or different perspective is wrong. One major exception to that rule stands out starkly: It is OK for postmodernists to be intolerant of those who claim they know the truth, particularly biblical Christians. In fact, those who fancy themselves the leading advocates of tolerance today are often the most outspoken opponents of evangelical Christianity.
Why is that? Why does authentic biblical Christianity find such ferocious opposition from people who think they are paragons of tolerance? It is because the truth — claims of Scripture — and particularly Jesus' claim to be the only way to God — are diametrically opposed to the fundamental presuppositions of the postmodern mind. The Christian message represents a death blow to the postmodernist worldview.
But as long as Christians are being duped or intimidated into softening the bold claims of Christ and widening the narrow road, the church will make no headway against postmodernism. We need to recover the distinctiveness of the gospel. We need to regain our confidence in the power of God's truth. And we need to proclaim boldly that Christ is the onlytrue hope for the people of this world.
That may not be what people want to hear in this pseudo-tolerant age of postmodernism. But it is true nonetheless. And precisely because it is true and the gospel of Christ is the only hope for a lost world, it is all the more urgent that we rise above all the voices of confusion in the world and say so.
Evangelicalism in those days was an extremely diverse movement. (In some ways it was even more eclectic than it is today.) It encompassed everything from Jesus People, who were an integral part of that era's youth culture, to straight-line fundamentalists, who scorned everything contemporary. But all of them had at least one important thing in common: They knew that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. "One Way" seemed an unshakable belief that all evangelicals held in common.
That is no longer the case. The evangelical movement of today is no longer unified on this issue. Some who call themselves evangelicals are openly insisting that faith alone in Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They are now convinced that people of all faiths will be in heaven. Others are simply cowardly, embarrassed, or hesitant to affirm the exclusivity of the gospel in an era when inclusivity, pluralism, and tolerance are deemed supreme virtues by the secular world. They imagine it would be a tremendous cultural faux pas to declare that Christianity is the truth and all other faiths are wrong. Apparently, the evangelical movement's biggest fear today is that Christians will be seen as out of harmony with the world.
Postmodernism
Why has this dramatic shift taken place? Why has evangelicalism abandoned what believers once all agreed is absolutely true? I believe it is because church leaders, in their desperate quest to be relevant and fashionable, have actually failed to see where the contemporary world is going and why.
The dominant worldview in secular and academic circles today is called postmodernism. To the postmodernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is "true" is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to humanity universally. The postmodernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person's perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another's. "Truth" becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.
That is the one essential, non-negotiable demand postmodernism makes of everyone: We are not supposed to think we know any objective truth. Postmodernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect. And therefore, on the surface, postmodernism seems driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims-particularly biblical Christianity.
Postmodernism and the Church
The church today is filled with people who are advocating postmodern ideas. Some of them do it self-consciously and deliberately, but most do it unwittingly. (Having imbibed too much of the spirit of the age, they are simply regurgitating worldly opinion.) The evangelical movement as a whole, still recovering from its long battle with modernism, is not prepared for a new and different adversary. Many Christians have therefore not yet recognized the extreme danger posed by postmodernist thought.
Postmodernism's influence has clearly infected the church already. Evangelicals are toning down their message so that the gospel's stark truth-claims don't sound so jarring to the postmodern ear. Many shy away from stating unequivocally that the Bible is truth and all other religious systems and worldviews are false. Some who call themselves Christians have gone even further, purposefully denying the exclusivity of Christ and openly questioning His claim that He is the only way to God.
The biblical message is clear. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The apostle John wrote, "He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36).
Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. "For there is on God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:11-12).
Those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of postmodernism. They make exclusive, universal truth claims, declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate postmodern sensitivities.
Instead, many Christians just pass over the exclusive claims of Christ in embarrassed silence. Even worse, some in the church, including a few of evangelicalism's best-known leaders, have begun to suggest that perhaps people can be saved apart from knowing Christ.
Christians cannot capitulate to postmodernism without sacrificing the very essence of our faith. The Bible's claim that Christ is the only way of salvation is certainly out of harmony with the postmodern notion of "tolerance." But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. And the Bible, not postmodern opinion, is the supreme authority for the Christian. The Bible alone should determine what we believe and proclaim to the world. We cannot waver on this, no matter how much this postmodern world complains that our beliefs make us "intolerant."
Tolerant Intolerance
Postmodernism's veneration of tolerance is its most obvious feature. But the version of "tolerance" peddled by postmodernists is actually a twisted and dangerous corruption of true virtue.
Incidentally, tolerance is never mentioned in the Bible as a virtue, except in the sense of patience, forbearance, and longsuffering (cf. Ephesians 4:2). In fact, the contemporary notion of tolerance is a pathetically feeble concept compared to the love Scripture commands Christians to show even to their enemies. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you" (Luke 6:27-28; cf. vv. 29-36).
When our grandparents spoke of tolerance as a virtue, they had something like that in mind. The word once meant respecting people and treating them kindly even when we believe they are wrong. But the postmodern notion of tolerance means we must never regard anyone else's opinions as wrong. Biblical tolerance is for people; postmodern tolerance is for ideas.
Accepting every belief as equally valid is hardly a real virtue, but it is practically the only kind of virtue postmodernism knows anything about. Traditional virtues (including humility, self-control, and chastity) are openly scorned, and even regarded as transgressions in the world of postmodernism.
Predictably, the beatification of postmodern tolerance has had a disastrous effect on real virtue in our society. In this age of tolerance, what was once forbidden is now encouraged. What was once universally deemed immoral is now celebrated. Marital infidelity and divorce have been normalized. Profanity is commonplace. Abortion, homosexuality, and moral perversions of all kinds are championed by large advocacy groups and enthusiastically promoted by the popular media. The postmodern notion of tolerance is systematically turning genuine virtue on its head.
Just about the only remaining taboo is the naïve and politically incorrect notion that another person's alternative lifestyle, religion, or different perspective is wrong. One major exception to that rule stands out starkly: It is OK for postmodernists to be intolerant of those who claim they know the truth, particularly biblical Christians. In fact, those who fancy themselves the leading advocates of tolerance today are often the most outspoken opponents of evangelical Christianity.
Why is that? Why does authentic biblical Christianity find such ferocious opposition from people who think they are paragons of tolerance? It is because the truth — claims of Scripture — and particularly Jesus' claim to be the only way to God — are diametrically opposed to the fundamental presuppositions of the postmodern mind. The Christian message represents a death blow to the postmodernist worldview.
But as long as Christians are being duped or intimidated into softening the bold claims of Christ and widening the narrow road, the church will make no headway against postmodernism. We need to recover the distinctiveness of the gospel. We need to regain our confidence in the power of God's truth. And we need to proclaim boldly that Christ is the onlytrue hope for the people of this world.
That may not be what people want to hear in this pseudo-tolerant age of postmodernism. But it is true nonetheless. And precisely because it is true and the gospel of Christ is the only hope for a lost world, it is all the more urgent that we rise above all the voices of confusion in the world and say so.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Messages From Heaven: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!
Messages From Heaven: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!: Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the...
Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!
Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s
time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the
closet and take away our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion.
Consider for a moment that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty could have said in his GQ interview, “I think you’ve got to be crazy to be a polygamist,” or, “In my opinion, polyamory is just another word for adultery,” or, “A man who sleeps with lots of different women is no better than an animal,” and there would have been no reaction from A&E and no outcry from the gay censors.
Consider also that his comments about pre-entitlement black Americans were considered highly offensive by many, but these comments did not prompt A&E to take action, as I pointed out in my interview on Piers Morgan. (If you missed the interview, I encourage you to take 15 minutes to watch.)
Rather, it was comments about homosexuality that crossed the forbidden line, comments that, when read in context, although crude, simply expressed biblical perspectives. And that was more than gay censors like GLAAD and the HRC could tolerate.
The truth is that GLAAD has been on a campaign for years to censor all opposing viewpoints, as I noted in March 2012: “This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like [the late] Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins [and me too!], even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one ... [stating that] ‘God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.’ And this earns praise from GLAAD...
“And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging ‘CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.’ Yes, said GLAAD, ‘It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. ... CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.’”
GLAAD even asks its constituents to alert them if people like me (or Jim Daly of Focus on the Family or psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow or political consultant Gary Bauer or Princeton professor Robert George, among many others) appear on the mainstream media.
GLAAD is undeniably in the business of censorship, which is why I believe they should be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement rather than the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Most recently, GLAAD commended comedian Bob Newhart for canceling a scheduled appearance at a Catholic businessmen’s event sponsored by the Legatus Summit.
According to GLAAD, “It is possible that Newhart, like many people were unaware that Legatus was such a rabid anti-LGBT organization. The organization was created by former Domino’s Pizza CEO, Thomas Monaghan, for Roman Catholic businesspeople, and membership is only available to top level executives.” Yes, the Legatus Summit’s website states that it was established to “bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life—Faith, Family and Business—connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.” How utterly nefarious! The website also states, “Undergirded by their parish and diocesan life and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Legatus nurtures an interior transformation as members grow in their love for Christ and fidelity to the teachings of his Church. They become genuine ambassadors who study, live and spread the Catholic faith.” And GLAAD commends Newhart for canceling his scheduled appearance. How dare he crack jokes for committed Catholics! Even more remarkably, GLAAD’s actions come at a time when the Advocate, the flagship gay publication, named Pope Francis its man of the year for his softer tone toward gays. But this was not good enough for GLAAD, which represents the new face of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the face of unabashed censorship in the name of gay rights. This censorship and bullying will only get worse unless we make a determination to stand for what is right and speak the truth in love, regardless of cost or consequence, recognizing that our strategy of appeasement (which has often been a cover-up for our spinelessness and fear of man) has failed miserably. The reality is that in the last 12 months, it is not just private individuals who have been punished for refusing to bow the knee to gay activism or for speaking out of turn, but also public figures like Dr. Ben Carson, pastor Louie Giglio, and Sen. Rick Santorum. (In case you missed what happened with Mr. Santorum, in April, a Michigan high school canceled his speaking appearance out of concern that he would address same-sex marriage, eventually agreeing to let him speak with the caveat that students could only attend with parental permission [!]. In stark contrast, Bible-bashing, gay-sex-exalting speakers like Dan Savage are hailed as heroes in our schools and campuses, given carte blanche to talk about the most vile subjects to our young people.) Now the gay censors have tried to bully the ultrapopular (and, yes, backwoods, Bible-thumping) Phil Robertson, which for many finally means that enough is enough, a conclusion which is long overdue. It really is high time that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to capitulate or bow down, following the Jesus principle that we find our lives by losing them (Matt. 10:39). This does not require name-calling or rightwing rhetoric or anger on our part. To the contrary, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:20, NIV). Rather, our stand for righteousness requires a heart in tune with the Lord and His Word, a life of personal purity without hypocrisy, and a genuine love for LGBT individuals, whose lives we protect and defend even while stating that homosexual practice is sin, that gay marriage is not truly marriage, and that God has a better way. We really have no choice, and, as I’ve said many times before, either we stand up and do what is right today or we apologize to our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
What will it be?
Consider for a moment that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty could have said in his GQ interview, “I think you’ve got to be crazy to be a polygamist,” or, “In my opinion, polyamory is just another word for adultery,” or, “A man who sleeps with lots of different women is no better than an animal,” and there would have been no reaction from A&E and no outcry from the gay censors.
Consider also that his comments about pre-entitlement black Americans were considered highly offensive by many, but these comments did not prompt A&E to take action, as I pointed out in my interview on Piers Morgan. (If you missed the interview, I encourage you to take 15 minutes to watch.)
Rather, it was comments about homosexuality that crossed the forbidden line, comments that, when read in context, although crude, simply expressed biblical perspectives. And that was more than gay censors like GLAAD and the HRC could tolerate.
The truth is that GLAAD has been on a campaign for years to censor all opposing viewpoints, as I noted in March 2012: “This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like [the late] Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins [and me too!], even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one ... [stating that] ‘God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.’ And this earns praise from GLAAD...
“And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging ‘CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.’ Yes, said GLAAD, ‘It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. ... CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.’”
GLAAD even asks its constituents to alert them if people like me (or Jim Daly of Focus on the Family or psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow or political consultant Gary Bauer or Princeton professor Robert George, among many others) appear on the mainstream media.
GLAAD is undeniably in the business of censorship, which is why I believe they should be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement rather than the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Most recently, GLAAD commended comedian Bob Newhart for canceling a scheduled appearance at a Catholic businessmen’s event sponsored by the Legatus Summit.
According to GLAAD, “It is possible that Newhart, like many people were unaware that Legatus was such a rabid anti-LGBT organization. The organization was created by former Domino’s Pizza CEO, Thomas Monaghan, for Roman Catholic businesspeople, and membership is only available to top level executives.” Yes, the Legatus Summit’s website states that it was established to “bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life—Faith, Family and Business—connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.” How utterly nefarious! The website also states, “Undergirded by their parish and diocesan life and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Legatus nurtures an interior transformation as members grow in their love for Christ and fidelity to the teachings of his Church. They become genuine ambassadors who study, live and spread the Catholic faith.” And GLAAD commends Newhart for canceling his scheduled appearance. How dare he crack jokes for committed Catholics! Even more remarkably, GLAAD’s actions come at a time when the Advocate, the flagship gay publication, named Pope Francis its man of the year for his softer tone toward gays. But this was not good enough for GLAAD, which represents the new face of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the face of unabashed censorship in the name of gay rights. This censorship and bullying will only get worse unless we make a determination to stand for what is right and speak the truth in love, regardless of cost or consequence, recognizing that our strategy of appeasement (which has often been a cover-up for our spinelessness and fear of man) has failed miserably. The reality is that in the last 12 months, it is not just private individuals who have been punished for refusing to bow the knee to gay activism or for speaking out of turn, but also public figures like Dr. Ben Carson, pastor Louie Giglio, and Sen. Rick Santorum. (In case you missed what happened with Mr. Santorum, in April, a Michigan high school canceled his speaking appearance out of concern that he would address same-sex marriage, eventually agreeing to let him speak with the caveat that students could only attend with parental permission [!]. In stark contrast, Bible-bashing, gay-sex-exalting speakers like Dan Savage are hailed as heroes in our schools and campuses, given carte blanche to talk about the most vile subjects to our young people.) Now the gay censors have tried to bully the ultrapopular (and, yes, backwoods, Bible-thumping) Phil Robertson, which for many finally means that enough is enough, a conclusion which is long overdue. It really is high time that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to capitulate or bow down, following the Jesus principle that we find our lives by losing them (Matt. 10:39). This does not require name-calling or rightwing rhetoric or anger on our part. To the contrary, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:20, NIV). Rather, our stand for righteousness requires a heart in tune with the Lord and His Word, a life of personal purity without hypocrisy, and a genuine love for LGBT individuals, whose lives we protect and defend even while stating that homosexual practice is sin, that gay marriage is not truly marriage, and that God has a better way. We really have no choice, and, as I’ve said many times before, either we stand up and do what is right today or we apologize to our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
What will it be?
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Messages From Heaven: The Forward Life of Faith!
Messages From Heaven: The Forward Life of Faith!: During the Korean War, enemy forces were advancing on a military unit known as the Baker Company. This unit was cut off from the rest of t...
The Forward Life of Faith!
During the Korean War, enemy forces were advancing on a military unit
known as the Baker Company. This unit was cut off from the rest of the
regiment, and for several hours, no word was heard, even after
repeated attempts to communicate with them.
Finally, headquarters picked up a faint signal. Straining to hear each word, the radio operator asked, "Baker Company, do you read me?"
"This is Baker Company."
"Baker Company, what is your situation?"
"The enemy is to the east of us. The enemy is to the west of us. The enemy is to the north of us, and the enemy is to the south of us...and we are not going to let them escape this time!"
That is the kind of attitude we ought to have as believers. But sometimes, we feel like we are in the same dilemma as the Baker Company: the enemy is to the north of us, the south of us, the east of us, and the west of us. Everywhere we look, we see the devil's dirty work.
It can be overwhelming. We may think, "What's the use?"
But we can't let that happen. We must have faith and say, "We can move forward. God can work through our lives."
We need to be active in the work of the Lord. The devil is active in his work, because he recognizes that his time is short and his judgment is sure.
Even if some liberal theologians don't believe it, the devil believes that Jesus is coming back very soon. Therefore, he is stepping up his efforts.
The return of the Lord is bad news for the devil, but it is good news for the church. For him, it is an incentive to attack our faith and try to make us stumble and fall. For us, it is an incentive to share our faith and live holy lives.
Simply put, the devil does not want you to follow Jesus Christ. He did everything he could to keep you from coming to Christ in the first place, and now he wants to do everything he can to keep you immobilized and ineffective for the kingdom of God.
But here is what it comes down to: if you are a Christian, there is no room for spiritual pacifism, because you will become a spiritual casualty. If you are a Christian, then you are going to be in a battle.
The question is, will you advance or retreat? You can either stay in the wilderness, or you can enter the Promised Land.
In the Christian life, either you are an overcomer, or you will be overcome. God has brought you out of the life of sin and bondage to bring you into a life of power and victory in which you are serving the Lord.
Unbelief will whisper in your ear and say, "Let's stay where it is safe." Faith says, "Let's go forward to where God is working." Unbelief says, "We can't do it," while faith says, "Let's go for it." It's all in how you look at things.
In the Book of Ephesians, we learn a very important truth about spiritual warfare: the battle already has been won. According to Ephesians 1:21-22, "Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else in this world or in the world to come. And God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the church" (NLT).
Maybe you're thinking, "That's great for Jesus, but what does it have to do with me?" Notice what the apostle Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-6:
Finally, headquarters picked up a faint signal. Straining to hear each word, the radio operator asked, "Baker Company, do you read me?"
"This is Baker Company."
"Baker Company, what is your situation?"
"The enemy is to the east of us. The enemy is to the west of us. The enemy is to the north of us, and the enemy is to the south of us...and we are not going to let them escape this time!"
That is the kind of attitude we ought to have as believers. But sometimes, we feel like we are in the same dilemma as the Baker Company: the enemy is to the north of us, the south of us, the east of us, and the west of us. Everywhere we look, we see the devil's dirty work.
It can be overwhelming. We may think, "What's the use?"
But we can't let that happen. We must have faith and say, "We can move forward. God can work through our lives."
We need to be active in the work of the Lord. The devil is active in his work, because he recognizes that his time is short and his judgment is sure.
Even if some liberal theologians don't believe it, the devil believes that Jesus is coming back very soon. Therefore, he is stepping up his efforts.
The return of the Lord is bad news for the devil, but it is good news for the church. For him, it is an incentive to attack our faith and try to make us stumble and fall. For us, it is an incentive to share our faith and live holy lives.
Simply put, the devil does not want you to follow Jesus Christ. He did everything he could to keep you from coming to Christ in the first place, and now he wants to do everything he can to keep you immobilized and ineffective for the kingdom of God.
But here is what it comes down to: if you are a Christian, there is no room for spiritual pacifism, because you will become a spiritual casualty. If you are a Christian, then you are going to be in a battle.
The question is, will you advance or retreat? You can either stay in the wilderness, or you can enter the Promised Land.
In the Christian life, either you are an overcomer, or you will be overcome. God has brought you out of the life of sin and bondage to bring you into a life of power and victory in which you are serving the Lord.
Unbelief will whisper in your ear and say, "Let's stay where it is safe." Faith says, "Let's go forward to where God is working." Unbelief says, "We can't do it," while faith says, "Let's go for it." It's all in how you look at things.
In the Book of Ephesians, we learn a very important truth about spiritual warfare: the battle already has been won. According to Ephesians 1:21-22, "Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else in this world or in the world to come. And God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the church" (NLT).
Maybe you're thinking, "That's great for Jesus, but what does it have to do with me?" Notice what the apostle Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-6:
But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so very much, that even while we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God's special favor that you have been saved!) For he raised us from the dead along with Christ, and we are seated with him in the heavenly realms — all because we are one with Christ Jesus. (NLT)In other words, what Paul is saying is that Christ is above all other powers. Because you have put your faith in Him, you are seated positionally with Jesus. Therefore, we don't need to fight for victory, because we fight from it. We rest in the finished work that Christ accomplished on the cross.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Messages From Heaven: The Philip Approach to Evangelism!
Messages From Heaven: The Philip Approach to Evangelism!: You’ve been there. You know—that place where you should bring up the gospel, but, for whatever reason, you don’t. It’s that awkward mome...
The Philip Approach to Evangelism!
You’ve been there.
You know—that place where you should bring up the gospel, but, for whatever reason, you don’t. It’s that awkward moment where cotton peaks for harvest in your mouth, your brain puts a padlock on any memory verses, your breathing becomes irregular, and your excuse Rolodex is spinning to find a way out of the conversation.
There are several reasons most of us are reluctant to witness for Jesus Christ. One is the feeling of ignorance. We don’t really know how to go about it.
Another is sort of an indifference that sweeps over us. We’re well-fed. We believe in the Savior. Our family is growing. We sort of shift that responsibility to someone else—the televangelist, the pastor, or the big conference crusade leader who’s able to declare Christ so well.
Another reason we are reluctant is fear. No one likes to be asked questions they can’t answer, especially with a stranger. We don’t enjoy the unpredictable. We’re afraid of a hostile response. We’re afraid of appearing foolish. So we choose to keep our faith to ourselves.
Make no mistake—witnessing takes a big dose of courage.
It also takes a proven method. Various methods are employed to communicate the good news of Christ to the lost. Some of the approaches appear to be successful and effective on the surface, but, underneath, they leave much to be desired.
Take the Sharpshooter Approach, for example: “The more scalps, the better.” This numerical method is decision-centered, and little (if any) effort is directed toward follow-up or discipleship or cultivating a relationship. Such anxious hunters are not difficult to identify. They can usually be overheard counting (out loud) the scalps on their belts or can be seen shooting their flaming arrows into every wagon train they spot. Tact is not their long suit.
The Harvard Approach is quite different: “Let’s all discuss the world’s religions.” This reason-centered approach attracts both genuine and pseudo-intellectuals, and while it is educational and occasionally quite stimulating, it suffers from one mild drawback—no one ever gets saved! Being sophisticated is more important than telling the truth about sin or heaven or hell. Discussion is in . . . decisions are out.
Perhaps the most popular is the Mute Approach: “I’m just a silent witness for God.” The best thing you can say about this method is that no one is ever offended. That’s for sure! The secret-service saint who settles for this self-centered approach could be tagged an undercover Christian: no one knows for sure but God. Somewhere along the line this person has swallowed one of Satan’s tastiest tidbits: “Just live a good Christian life. Others will ask you about Christ if they are really interested, so relax.” Frankly, I can count on one hand (and have fingers left over) the number of people who have suddenly come to me and asked me how they might know Jesus Christ. “Faith,” please remember, “comes from hearing” (Romans 10:17).
What we need, I submit to you, is the Philip Approach. This Christ-centered method is set forth in a series of seven principles drawn from Acts 8:26-40.
Philip was engaged in evangelistic meetings in Samaria when the Lord instructed him to go south to the desert road that ran from Jerusalem to Gaza. Faithful Philip “arose and went.” He was available (Principle 1). On the road he encountered an Ethiopian statesman traveling home from Jerusalem. The man was sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah! And the Spirit of God prompted Philip to approach the traveler. Philip was led by the Spirit (Principle 2). In other words, he sensed that God was clearly opening the door.
Philip cooperated, for obedience (Principle 3) is essential. He heard the man reading aloud and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” What an excellent start! A proper opening (Principle 4) is so important. Philip didn’t barge in and start preaching, nor did he corner the gentleman with a loaded question.
The man invited Philip to sit with him and assist him in his quest for understanding. Philip responded with great tactfulness (Principle 5). Even though he had his foot in the door, he remained gracious, courteous, and sensitive to when he should speak of salvation. When that moment came, he “opened his mouth” and became specific (Principle 6). No vague dialogue about religion. He spoke only of Jesus, the main issue. The last few verses then describe the brief but memorable follow-up (Principle 7) Philip employed.
Philip stepped out of his comfort zone because he had a passion for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with hurting humanity. What about us? It took courage to hop up on the chariot. It took even more to open his mouth. But what a legacy Philip created at that moment. Many scholars believe the seed Philip planted in this African statesman yielded crops a hundred fold in Ethiopia. All because of one man who was willing to speak up when so many others would have kept quiet.
As we rub shoulders with spiritually hungry and thirsty men and women and sense their inner ache for help and hope, let’s holster the Sharpshooter Approach, drop out of the Harvard Approach, and silence the Mute Approach. When God gives you the opportunity—and He will; probably soon after you read this—try the Philip Approach. Your one act of courage may lead to a spiritual legacy beyond what you could ask or even imagine.
I can’t think of a place I’d rather be at the moment Christ returns than riding shotgun in a twenty-first century chariot, speaking openly about trusting in Jesus.
You know—that place where you should bring up the gospel, but, for whatever reason, you don’t. It’s that awkward moment where cotton peaks for harvest in your mouth, your brain puts a padlock on any memory verses, your breathing becomes irregular, and your excuse Rolodex is spinning to find a way out of the conversation.
There are several reasons most of us are reluctant to witness for Jesus Christ. One is the feeling of ignorance. We don’t really know how to go about it.
Another is sort of an indifference that sweeps over us. We’re well-fed. We believe in the Savior. Our family is growing. We sort of shift that responsibility to someone else—the televangelist, the pastor, or the big conference crusade leader who’s able to declare Christ so well.
Another reason we are reluctant is fear. No one likes to be asked questions they can’t answer, especially with a stranger. We don’t enjoy the unpredictable. We’re afraid of a hostile response. We’re afraid of appearing foolish. So we choose to keep our faith to ourselves.
Make no mistake—witnessing takes a big dose of courage.
It also takes a proven method. Various methods are employed to communicate the good news of Christ to the lost. Some of the approaches appear to be successful and effective on the surface, but, underneath, they leave much to be desired.
Take the Sharpshooter Approach, for example: “The more scalps, the better.” This numerical method is decision-centered, and little (if any) effort is directed toward follow-up or discipleship or cultivating a relationship. Such anxious hunters are not difficult to identify. They can usually be overheard counting (out loud) the scalps on their belts or can be seen shooting their flaming arrows into every wagon train they spot. Tact is not their long suit.
The Harvard Approach is quite different: “Let’s all discuss the world’s religions.” This reason-centered approach attracts both genuine and pseudo-intellectuals, and while it is educational and occasionally quite stimulating, it suffers from one mild drawback—no one ever gets saved! Being sophisticated is more important than telling the truth about sin or heaven or hell. Discussion is in . . . decisions are out.
Perhaps the most popular is the Mute Approach: “I’m just a silent witness for God.” The best thing you can say about this method is that no one is ever offended. That’s for sure! The secret-service saint who settles for this self-centered approach could be tagged an undercover Christian: no one knows for sure but God. Somewhere along the line this person has swallowed one of Satan’s tastiest tidbits: “Just live a good Christian life. Others will ask you about Christ if they are really interested, so relax.” Frankly, I can count on one hand (and have fingers left over) the number of people who have suddenly come to me and asked me how they might know Jesus Christ. “Faith,” please remember, “comes from hearing” (Romans 10:17).
What we need, I submit to you, is the Philip Approach. This Christ-centered method is set forth in a series of seven principles drawn from Acts 8:26-40.
Philip was engaged in evangelistic meetings in Samaria when the Lord instructed him to go south to the desert road that ran from Jerusalem to Gaza. Faithful Philip “arose and went.” He was available (Principle 1). On the road he encountered an Ethiopian statesman traveling home from Jerusalem. The man was sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah! And the Spirit of God prompted Philip to approach the traveler. Philip was led by the Spirit (Principle 2). In other words, he sensed that God was clearly opening the door.
Philip cooperated, for obedience (Principle 3) is essential. He heard the man reading aloud and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” What an excellent start! A proper opening (Principle 4) is so important. Philip didn’t barge in and start preaching, nor did he corner the gentleman with a loaded question.
The man invited Philip to sit with him and assist him in his quest for understanding. Philip responded with great tactfulness (Principle 5). Even though he had his foot in the door, he remained gracious, courteous, and sensitive to when he should speak of salvation. When that moment came, he “opened his mouth” and became specific (Principle 6). No vague dialogue about religion. He spoke only of Jesus, the main issue. The last few verses then describe the brief but memorable follow-up (Principle 7) Philip employed.
Philip stepped out of his comfort zone because he had a passion for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with hurting humanity. What about us? It took courage to hop up on the chariot. It took even more to open his mouth. But what a legacy Philip created at that moment. Many scholars believe the seed Philip planted in this African statesman yielded crops a hundred fold in Ethiopia. All because of one man who was willing to speak up when so many others would have kept quiet.
As we rub shoulders with spiritually hungry and thirsty men and women and sense their inner ache for help and hope, let’s holster the Sharpshooter Approach, drop out of the Harvard Approach, and silence the Mute Approach. When God gives you the opportunity—and He will; probably soon after you read this—try the Philip Approach. Your one act of courage may lead to a spiritual legacy beyond what you could ask or even imagine.
I can’t think of a place I’d rather be at the moment Christ returns than riding shotgun in a twenty-first century chariot, speaking openly about trusting in Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)