Here We Go Again...

 Am I wrong here, or is the evangelical church missing the mark?

Preface: I heard a sermon on this text before, at a church I attended before. I struggled with that message. I seemed to me that the speaker had read the text and then just looked for 3 moral messages that he could preach to the choir. Choose action over apathy, choose faith over fear, choose to give glory to God. All good things. Moral things tend to be good. But is that what God desires us to learn from this passage? Or is it about the Gospel message that follows. Fact is, in his sermon series, he skipped over the verses that come next, in which Peter proclaims Jesus as the healer of the beggar.

So the church I am attending (virtually) was also addressing this text. Ten minutes in, and I have heard the name of Jesus several times. That is a plus. Then he starts talking about Peter and John, and particularly the fact that they had no silver and gold. He talks about their empty pockets. This seems to be the thrust of his message from this point onward. 

Point one: Empty pockets allow us to TRUST God's PROVISION. (His emphasis) Again, a great moral point. Peter and John saw the value of empty pockets. Really? Were they really focused on what was in their pockets? Is the only way we can effectively give out of complete poverty? Yes, I believe that in order for us to best serve God, we need to realize that whatever we give Him is nothing compared to what he has provided us in grace and mercy. But that doesn't quite seem to be the point here. Or is it, and I am just missing it? That is an honest question. He goes on to talk about how in these trying times the church he works for was able to help another church out that had a desperate need. But somehow, even in these desperate times, I do not see this church as having empty pockets. They have a large building, beautiful, with elaborate services put on by multiple staff members. They own several of the properties around the church, which they have purchased over the years. While I do not know their financial status, their pockets do not seem to be filled with only lint. 

Point two: Empty pockets allow us to experience the JOY of WHOLENESS. (His emphasis) What he is "longing for is the day that we value empty pockets enough to trust God to make provision in our life and in our world..." He is passionate. He is emotional. He talks about how this might be the time we will look back to see that this moment might just be what God used to restore wholeness to the world. Is that how it is going to work? What about what the Bible says the end times, and all ofthe challenges that believers will face?  Isn't what is happening now more likely to lead us into these kinds of times? Didn't God send Jesus to restore wholeness to the world? Or is there going to be some kind of prosperity phase prior to that, and we are the ones who get to experience it. Why are we always looking for heaven on earth? Is that even a promise in the Bible? Is the suffering just there to lead us to some realm of prosperity? 

Point three: Empty pockets allow us to be amazed at the POWER of God at work in the WORLD. (His emphasis) God has the power if we will value our empty pockets. If??? So God is just waiting for us to empty our pockets? I am at a loss for what to say regarding this type of theology.

Well, at least he does not skip the next section of the book of Acts. I guess I will need to listen to that now.

PS: I did listen to it. It was not the regular speaker, so I will not post on it, although if I did...

Aren't You Missing the Point?

One of my problems with the institutional church, at least the ones that I have been to, is that they are missing the point, the gospel.

I was listening to a sermon from a large, nearby church. One that my children are involved with in the Youth programs. It was a missionary speaker, and he was telling stories about some of his experiences with the people of Tanzania. He spoke of having to eat really rare meat, eating honey with all of the components (like the comb, larva, and bee parts) not filtered out by the bowlful, and about their hospitality when housing visitors.

In housing visitors, he spoke of how this people liked to give their guests the best of their accommodations, even when their best is somewhat meager. He spoke of how in Tanzania and other African cultures as well, putting others first is just a part of their culture. Not that this is everywhere in Africa or even Tanzania, but it is evident among many there. He then spoke of how he is in a season of transition as he is taking a new role in ministry. He asked the questions, "What will you do with your opportunities? What will you do with your resources? What will you do with the relationships that God blesses you with? How will you serve?"

These are great questions! But it is how we answer these questions that determines how successful we will be at honoring the God we serve. He even narrows that question down as he wraps up his talk. Since the verse he was focused on is Matthew 7:13-14, he asks, "How do I stay on the narrow path?" I thought, he is getting to the meat now, what an opportunity to present the gospel. But no. Nothing. Just a challenge to serve better, mentor better. Recommit yourself to God. Do more. Try harder.

I think if I were an average pew-sitter, I might be leaving here with a few questions. Like, "If these people were already basically good people who followed Jesus's teaching (even though they did not necessarily know Jesus himself) and put others first, why send missionaries to them?" Or, "How am I going to do this?" I already struggle with just doing what I do and being who I am. I don't know how to do any better. Nice stories though." Or maybe I would just smile, say amen, and start looking for my car keys.

Maybe he could have told us that even though these were basically good people, that still was not enough. Maybe he could have told us how he shared the gospel message with them, showing them that while their hospitality was appreciated, there was still something missing in relation to God.

The gospel is not "Try better, do more, don't give up." The gospel is, "Jesus has done it. Relax. The burden now is light." Not that your good deeds are in vain, but that your good deeds are now a response to the glory and mercy of God. Anyone can try harder, and many do. But on the narrow road, the lives that we now live we live for God. We have seen his glory, and our response is to love Him and others in a powerful way.

Who wouldn't want that?

I used to attend University Christian Church in Muncie, Indiana. I stopped attending there a while back, about the time I started this blog. Many of my initial postings were the spiritual issues that were happening in my life, and in our dealings with the church there and its leadership. For some reason today, I was drawn to listen to one of the speaker's sermons, to see if there was anything different.

As I listened to the message, I realized that he was preaching through "The Story" by Max Lucado. He was in Exodus 1:6-10 for his text. As I listened, I heard a factual story, I thought for a few moments, was I wrong in choosing to leave? Would time have made a difference? Could I have been fed there? Yet even as I listened to this message, there was that nagging feeling (some would call it the prompting of the Spirit) that something was wrong or missing, there was something about this message that didn't ring true.

As I listened to the message at any single moment, it was difficult to disagree with what was being said. God is mighty and powerful and can deliver us out of any circumstance. But it wasn't until I looked at the message as a whole that I realized what it was that bothered me (again). He spoke of God's power, he spoke of God's deliverance, he spoke of God's plan, he spoke of the trust that we need to put in God. He even spoke of how we can be sure of God's deliverance. But it reminded me of the used car salesman who would tell you how wonderful the car you were looking at was, but didn't want you to get the car fax. Or as Paul Harvey would say, he wasn't telling "the rest of the story."

What does it mean for God to deliver us? What does it mean for God to provide? He gave an illustration of how God provided the right house for him and he even got a generous gift to help him renovate it. Is that what it means to give your life to God? He will provide your needs and wants? Who wouldn't want that? God can get rid of my issues? Who wouldn't want that? God will heal my marriage? Who wouldn't want that? He can fix my finances? Who wouldn't want that? But doesn't this turn my whole relationship with God into what He will do for me? Is that what Christianity is all about?

Or is it about what Christ has done for us (past tense). Nowhere in this message did I hear this. (Well, there was the obligatory invitation at the end that touched on this, connecting it to the message somehow. It reminded me of the closing arguments of the salesman, telling one that this car had been once owned by a little old lady from Pasadena who only used it to drive to church on Sunday.) It was not that God would deliver us from our sinful state, only that He would deliver us from our problems. Surrender meant healing and that all would go well. How did that work out for John the Baptist? Or Jonah? Did Job persevere only because of what would come later? It was not about God's power to defeat the evil that binds us, but His power to give us good things in this world. It was preaching to the choir, it was telling itching ears what they longed to hear.

I pray for this speaker. I pray for those who hear his message and think that is all there is to it. I pray that God would open their eyes. I pray for myself too. I pray that God would continue to convict me of truth. I pray to continue to trust in Him, even when things don't go the way I think they ought. I pray that my contentment would be found in Him, and not what He brings to me. That may not be what a lot of people want, but it is what I want.

The Story

The church I attended last week was going through "The Story." It is a book written by Max Lucado. They are passing out the book, have the large posters up, and are preaching through it. Someone is making a lot of money somewhere, me thinks.

I was okay with the sermon. He was talking about Joseph and of the many trials that he went through, and how God was in complete control. Then he spoke of what was obviously a difficult trial he experienced. I am not sure if the child he spoke of was close to him, or if it were the child of someone in his congregation. In any event, in his illustration the child died. He then went on to say, "God did not do that, I could not worship a God who would do such a thing."

Read on in the story, because that is what God does to David's son. It is what he does to his own son. Dare we draw a line and say, "God, if you cross this line, I cannot worship you?" Did Joseph stop worshipping God because he was sold into slavery, accused of rape, put in prison, etc.? Was he not listening to his own sermon?

My brother used to say the same thing, I cannot worship a God who lets little children die. There is a fine line of difference between the two thoughts. In one, God is the cause. In the other, God watches helplessly. But I don't see the difference from a worship standpoint. If God is sovereign, then we should worship Him without reservation.

I think what we do is water down God, rather than lift Him up.

I think of my daughter, stricken with an awful disease. Currently she is under care and doing okay. We don't know what the long-term will bring. There are many complications in our life because of her health. Did God bring this on her? Even if not, He could remove it. So am I justified in ceasing to worship Him? David knew better. He prayed for his son, but to no avail. God took his son's life. And what did David do after his son was dead? He worshiped God.

When are we going to start preaching that truth?

Knowledge Can't Accomplish Everything

I find it very ironic that this lesson was taught in view of recent events (which I haven't had time to blog about, but will if time allows.)

One of the points of the sermon regarded how the visions of the temple guard and religious leaders had been clouded by their perceptions. They had agendas, and refused to hear what Peter was saying, instead focusing on what they wanted.

I had breakfast with one of our elders Saturday. We discussed my concerns as well as theirs. His perception, as well as that of the pastor, is that I am attacking the pastor. They have made it clear that his sermon material or presentation is not a matter for debate. I assured him that I am not attacking the pastor, but merely wish to discuss some concerns that I have. Were I attacking, I would not have sought a private audience with him. But if there are some concerns, should they not be discussed? I was able to discuss some of my concerns over breakfast. The elder stated that although he could not argue with my concerns nor find any fault in my logic, that the bottom line was, I just needed to stop what I am doing and embrace what the pastor says and try and learn from it. He even went so far as to state that my concerns were affecting the spiritual lives of my wife and children. Yet it is because I am concerned for the spiritual lives of my wife and children, as well as those of the congregation as a whole that I have voiced my concerns.

One of the points of the message this past Sunday (from Acts 4) was that Peter and John had done nothing wrong in proclaiming their message. Even in going against the Jewish religious rulers, their authority at that time, they were innocent. It was the rulers who had done wrong. They, in their blindness of wanting to keep Rome happy and not lose their positions, refused to listen to Peter and John. I feel their frustration. Not only did they refuse to listen in the face of incredible evidence (not just their message, but the crippled man who had been healed was still there), they sought to silence them. But I love their response, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)

Peter and John were ordinary men, not men of great learning. They did not possess PhDs or seminary degrees. But they had been with Jesus, and were filled with the Holy Spirit. I find it frustrating when the pastor says that he has his sermons vetted by PhDs or other ministers and I should just accept that as enough. No need to discuss matters any farther, the religious ruling body has given their approval. But I have to wonder, is this just a flock of birds of the same feather, meeting to agree with one another? I don't know. But if I am wrong, tell me, don't hide behind others. I am not afraid of an honest discussion.

All this talk in the message about not worrying about what to say, and how at those time we will be led by the Holy Spirit, does that not apply here? Or do we not want to hear what the Holy Spirit might say? For thousands of years the church has existed, yet in those years it has faced massive corruption and deception. Have we finally reached a point where that is no longer an issue? Is accountability not a good thing? Tell me, Captain, Caiaphas, Annas, why can't we talk?

Money Can't Buy Everything - Part 3

Just some questions or thoughts about one more statement made during the message.

Around the 13:20 mark, referring to the parable of the talents, he says, "And the moral of that parable is to make the most of what you have and you will be rewarded for it."

Read the parable here. Please read from verse 14 all the way to verse 46 to get the full message.

Now, I suppose one way to read this parable is to look for a moral lesson. Some "thing" that I can do to make me a better person. And there are many people who believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher. But I don't believe that Jesus came to give us moral lessons about being better people. He came to transform us, from the sinners we are to lovers of God we should be. He came to reveal God's presence and glory to us. So in this story, we have two men who respected and obeyed their master. One received five talents and the other two. These two men took their talents and honored their master with them. He gave them a task and they performed it to the best of their ability. And they were successful. But the third man, who only received one talent, did not honor his master. All he thought of was himself. He thought about how his master was cruel, how he would not benefit from his own labors, maybe he was even jealous that he had not been given more responsibility, so he took the talent and buried it. It sounds as if he hated his master!

It is in verses 31-46 where I believe we find the application to this parable. Jesus tells us that on judgement day, the sheep will be separated from the goats. The sheep are those who feed Christ, who give Him drink, who go out of their way to care for Him. And all the while, they don't even look at it as serving Him!

 WHY??????

Because it is a natural part of who they are! They love and respect their master and their lives have been changed. They are not trying to live up to a moral code, but are responding to Christ without thinking about what they are doing. So when He says "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me," they respond by saying, when did we do this for you? They were not trying to earn his favor or live better and more moral lives, they were just living a life that reflected the love of their master, a most natural thing for them to do!

But the goats, they hate the master. Not outwardly. Outwardly I believe even they think they love Him. Outwardly they do what they believe is right things for right reasons. Outwardly, they are very clean dishes and whitewashed tombs. Yet they too did not even realize what their actions revealed. But their selfish burying of their resources, their refusal to reach outside themselves, their inward focus blinded them not only to how they should live, but how they should love. Look at the third man's response. "Here is the talent you gave me." Perhaps he is saying, "Look, this is all that you should expect from me, just what you gave me and nothing more. Take this, it is yours. Now give me what is mine." But that is a very sad and inappropriate response.

Look at it this way. Say my wife is going to be gone on a Saturday, laundry day. She asks me if I can help her out. I say yes. So after she leaves I put a load of laundry in the washer and turn it on. There, I have helped her out. And that was tough, because I hate doing laundry. Or, do I wash, dry, fold and put away the laundry, do the dishes, tidy things around the house, get dinner ready, and even get the lawn mowed and the driveway swept. Both choices reveal my heart. Which response do you think is going to get her to say, "Well done?" Sure, I could justify the first response, because I have my "man" things to do. But when love rules, there is a strange joy that is found, even in doing the laundry. (Please note: It is not the deeds that matter, but the heart behind the deeds. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command," not "If you obey what I command, you love me." Both may look the same, but the difference is huge.)

So in a sense, yes, this parable reveals a message that says, "Make the most of what you have and you will be rewarded." But that is so simplistic and misses teaching the point. The real message here is one of a deep and abiding trust and love for the Master, living a life that honors Him and lives according to the law without the weight of the law crushing us. And I am afraid that a life that does not honor God is this manner, a life that does not see Him as beautiful and wonderful, is a life that just might be damned.

Money Can't Buy Everything - Part 2

I want to spend the second part of this critique talking about the missing part of the message, the good news of Christ. Without this element, all we have is a moral lesson or behavior modification. Christianity is so much more than that! Christianity, as I understand it, is about freedom and Christ, not about law-keeping and me. Even telling people to give glory to God, without sharing His beauty, is a guilt trip that could lead people to (in the words of C.S. Lewis) thinking that God was like an old woman begging for compliments.

Here is the text from Acts 3:11-26 (the missing pieces)


¹¹ While he clung to Peter and John, all the people, utterly astounded, ran together to them in the portico called Solomon's. ¹² And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? ¹³ The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. ¹⁴ But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. ¹⁶ And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
¹⁷ “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. ¹⁸ But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. ¹⁹ Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, ²⁰ that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, ²¹ whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. ²² Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. ²³ And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ ²⁴ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. ²⁵ You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ ²⁶ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”


Here are some important elements from those verses:


Vs. 11: The people were "utterly astounded." This opened the door for Peter. In education, we refer to this as a "teachable moment." Peter recognized that the people were hungry for an explanation about what had happened. And Peter was ready!

Vs. 12: Peter made it clear that he was not the power behind the healing. He gave the glory to Jesus. I find it interesting that he says here that it (the healing) did not happen "by our own power or piety." This miracle was not a result of Peter's strength or ability to be obedient. And although it is not stated, I believe that we can infer that this miracle was also not due to any strength or piety on the part of the crippled man.

Vs. 13: God did this to glorify Jesus. You remember Him, don't you? He is the one you rejected and crucified.

Vs. 16: This man's healing came through faith. But I find myself asking, whose faith and where did that faith come from? Was it Peter and John's faith, or was it the beggars? If it was the beggar's faith, how did this beggar get faith in Jesus without Peter first preaching Christ? Or was this just an act of the Holy Spirit imparting faith to a man as a gift from God?

Vs. 18: What God promised to do, He did. He sent a Messiah, Jesus Christ!

Vs. 19: "Repent, therefore..." What is the basis of the repentance? It is not said in response to a question, as in Acts 2, but it is a response to what God has done for us in Christ! (Which is the same reason I believe he gave the response he did in Acts 2.) The therefore here refers back to Peter's sermon. We repent because of the faith granted us, we repent because we see Christ as we have never seen Him before. That, in my opinion, is an act of the Holy Spirit.

That is the gospel, my response to what God has done for me. Not me trying to show God how deserving I am of His grace, but me humbly understanding that I desperately need His grace. And if I see myself as the beggar, lame, crippled,  no real friends, etc. and then truly see how wonderful and gracious God is in healing me, there is no other response other than to repent of my sins and turn to God in love and sacrifice.


The healing of this man without the gospel is like Kool-Aid made of only water.  

It might quench your thirst, but it lacks the flavor to keep you coming back for more.

Money Can't Buy Everything - Part 1

This Sunday's message began with a talk about "perspective" and how that affects how we interpret things. AMEN! I think that the major issue I have with our pastor's sermons is exactly that, a matter of perspective, our perspective on the importance, meaning, and place of the gospel. Not the facts of the gospel, but the living out of the gospel in the life of a believer.  I say this in part, because the living out of the gospel perspective is very obviously missing in this week's message.


The text this week is Acts 3:1-10. So let's begin there. A miracle takes place in this text. A man that is crippled from birth is healed. That is an amazing event. I find it hard to believe that such an event took place only to teach some kind of a moral lesson or to encourage some type of behavior modification, that is so not Jesus. I believe that this event occurred to facilitate a gospel message.

In this event, we have a man who was crippled from birth, a man who probably had no family, a man whose existence was reduced to being left to beg all day. I dread to think of what his existence at night must have been. He also was a man who the Jewish community would have supposed to have been steeped in sin, either his own or that of his parents. And this from birth! So what change was given to him was probably done in a very condescending manner. He was an outcast, crippled, alone, and rejected.

So up walk Peter and John. Peter says, "Look at me." Most people would probably avert their eyes not just because they did not want to give because of who this man was and what he represented to them. I wonder if part of what he expected them to give him was a little "what for." I wonder how many times someone threw him a bit of change but also gave him another two cents worth as well. You know, that Pharisaical "I sure am glad that God didn't make me like you."

But Peter was not your typical Jew. He was a Jew who had been with Jesus. And although he had no silver or gold, he possessed something much greater, a love for and understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter is about to create a spectacle, but not a spectacle to draw attention to himself, but one that ultimately draws attention to Christ. Peter is about to, through Christ, free this man from such a great bondage that it is hard for me to fathom. Peter does not just say "stand up and walk, but he tells him to do it "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." He wanted to make sure that this man and everyone else within hearing knew that what was about to happen was the result of what Jesus was doing, and not himself. It was Jesus who would set this man free from his bondage, and not Peter, John, or even the crippled beggar himself. That is good news, that is the gospel.


It is not about the man's action over apathy. It is not about his choosing faith over fear. It is not even about a choice to give glory to God. Not that those are not all good things, but without a connection to the gospel and a sincere love for God, they are nothing. (I Cor. 13:1-3) It is about Christ, through Peter, choosing to bring glory to His name through the changed life of a man who had been crippled since birth. Anything more than the total sufficiency of Christ robs the gospel of its power. Anything that depends on me only weighs me down and will ultimately hinder my faith.


Peter understood this. Perhaps my greatest disappointment is that this is where the sermon ends for the preacher. Next week we move on to Chapter 4 of Acts. But what about the rest of chapter 3? Peter uses this event as a springboard to present a gospel message in verses 11-26. Not a message about how to handle your money, or how to behave better, but a message of what God has done for us in Christ!

The Power of Salvation

Random thoughts on Acts 2:38-41, the basis for today's sermon.
Listen to the sermon here.

THE BASIS FOR SALVATION
When the people asked, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) it was in was in response to Peter's presentation of the Gospel, which had cut them "to the heart." (Also Acts 2:37) Peter had used the Old Testament to show them that Jesus was the Messiah, and also showed them what they had done to Him. They were floored, flabbergasted, stunned, hurt by their own actions. This is what drives their question, "Brothers, what shall we do?" In other words, they had seen Jesus as they had never seen Him before, as Lord, and Messiah! They looked at Him and saw His majesty and beauty. They also saw themselves for who they really were, sinful, arrogant men in need of redemption. As Peter concludes his message, he does not offer an invitation to "accept Christ," he does not plead and beg or dangle the "heaven carrot" in front of them. These people were pierced by the Holy Spirit as a result of what they had heard, and their hearts were opened to the gospel.

One of the things I often hear with this text is the changing of the question, from "What must we do?" to "What must I do to be saved (or rescued)?" (4:05) From the original language, this question can also be interpreted, "What is the next step?" or "What shall we bear forth?" or even "What should this cause? It depends on how you interpret the question as to how you interpret the response. I take note that Peter's response does not begin with the phrase, "Here's what to do..." or "Just follow these steps..." but rather he starts right off with "Repent..." which indicates to me that perhaps rather than presenting a method of what to do, he is showing them what the appropriate response is to being "cut to the heart" by the gospel message through the power of the Holy Spirit.


METHOD OR RESPONSE? (8:05)

If we can do nothing to earn salvation, how can we do something to receive it? Does it make sense to say, "Here is a gift for you at no cost to you, but if you accept the gift, you will have to make these payments." Or to look at it another way, if we are dead in our sins and trespasses, how can we make ourselves alive? (Eph 2:1, Col 2:13) Perhaps repentance and baptism are not "God supplying a method" as much as they are the response of a  heart opened by God to begin to comprehend the truth of the gospel message. (This is called sanctification, and it is what follows our justification.)Repentance is change, and if God opens your heart to the truth of the gospel, change should be and will be the result. And baptism, or immersion into Christ, is perhaps both literal and figurative. Literal in the sense of taking the plunge under the water, as Christ Himself did, but figurative in that now our lives are immersed in Him rather than self. Isn't this true conversion? We do well to quote the verse from 1 Peter 3:21, telling us that it is not the water of baptism that saves us. But do we really understand the implications of what a "pledge of a good conscience toward God is?" The word "pledge" can also be translated as "intense craving." So it is not our baptismal act in itself that saves us, but the intense craving we have to please God through our moral behavior that does. Therefore I ask, is repentance and baptism a cause of our salvation, thereby making it something we must do in order to receive that which is free, or is it a response, satisfying our craving to show our love for God, but in no way able to repay our debt? You tell me, which is "good news?"

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. (15:20)

To whom was Peter speaking in Acts 2:38? Verse 39 tells us that this promise is for "you (the hearing audience) and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Is this then, telling us that part of the nothing we can do is nothing? That unless the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, and our conscience is turned to God (we are "cut to the heart"), then our repentance and baptism are perhaps premature at best and not a guarantee of salvation at worst. (See Matt 7:21-23) Is not many a response to the call to "repent and be baptized" done more out of a fear of hell than a piercing of the heart toward God? This does well to fill pews and satisfy our need, but in the end may be the cruelest of all possible actions, making people feel that they are safe when they are not. Why do we skip verses such as these in our preaching? Is it because we do not like what they imply, that the nothing we do really is nothing! (See also Acts 16:14)

What are we teaching our Youth?

I recently read this article. In it, the author talks about how college students have a misunderstanding of what Christianity is. She quotes Kara Powell, who has done extensive research on the issue. "The students involved in our research definitely tended to view the Gospel as a list of dos and do-nots, a list of behaviors. We asked our students when they were college juniors, “How would you define what it really means to be a Christian?” and one out of three—and these were all youth group students—didn’t mention Jesus Christ in their answer; they mentioned behaviors."


I do not believe that this is a misconception that is only reserved for students. I believe it is one that many adults and even pastors struggle with. Early on in our attending UCC, my wife was talking to someone about the church, a member who had been around awhile. Her perception of the church? She said it seemed to be growing slowly, but that for the most part it was a revolving door. She had seen a lot of people come and go during the couple of years that she had been attending.

Is it any wonder? The author of the article quotes Michael Horton from his book, Christless Christianity, a man whom was also quoted a lot in a book I just finished reading. He states, "The law guides, but it does not give. For all who seek to be acceptable to God by their obedience, love, holiness, and service, the call to obedience only condemns. It shows us what we have not done, and the more we hear it properly, the more we actually lose our moral self-confidence and cling to Christ. It stops our inner spin machine that creates a false view of God and ourselves, (pg. 132, emphasis mine)

I've already ordered it for my Kindle. Should make for some good reading. Is it any wonder I want to turn a few tables over?

Sermon 1/8/2012 "The Power of the Word" (Part 3)

Listen to the sermon here.

Read part 1 here.

Read Part 2 here.

SOMETHING I AGREE WITH

At about the 18:20 mark, this statement is made, "...our obedience is actually evidence that we really do love God."

AMEN!

Of course, he then goes on to focus on our obedience and how we need to concentrate on it. He quotes four verses from the 14th chapter of John, and in every one of them he focuses on the obedience. But there is another element in each of those verses that is neglected. That element is love.

Let's take a look at the word "evidence" for a moment. Webster's defines evidence as "an outward sign, something that furnishes proof." Our obedience is what proves that we love God, not what causes or creates it!

Let me share a personal illustration. In 2002, my mother was killed by an off-duty Lake County sheriff's deputy. He was in his patrol car on his way to work, and was travelling approximately 70 m.p.h. in a 20 m.p.h. school zone, as school was getting ready to dismiss. The normal posted speed limit is 35 m.p.h., but he was running late, no sirens and no lights. Mom made a left hand turn into her neighborhood just as he came over a crest in the road. He panicked and lost control of his vehicle, smashing into the passenger side of her vehicle even though she had already made it through the intersection and should have been out of harms way. He nearly tore her vehicle in half. Later, state police at the scene determined that mom was 100% at fault, and the offending officer was not even issued a speeding ticket. But I am not going to talk about the evidence against him, the smashed car or the 50+ foot long skid marks he left. I want to talk about the evidence against me. Because according to the evidence against me, I should have a deep and abiding love for police officers. Why? Because I know and obey the law. Every time I stop at a stop sign or a red light, or go the speed limit, or don't shoplift or murder, I fall a little bit more in love with the police. Sounds silly, doesn't it? That is because we know that the effect (following the law) does not drive the cause. In fact, every time I see a police cruiser I immediately have two reactions: 1. Am I doing anything wrong, and 2. How unfair it is that they can get away with things that I am held accountable for. That is not love.

Evidence is the result or effect of an action, not the cause of it! If I want to have a better body (evidence), then I must exercise and eat right (cause). If you go to the doctor, he doesn't show you pictures of people in perfect health and say, "Look at this, focus on this, dress better, take more pride in your appearance and you will live longer." No, he focuses on the cause. He tells you to eat better and exercise. So he gives you things you should do, but you do them because you love yourself and want a longer, healthier life. So why is it we focus so much on the effect rather than the cause or cure? Why are we focused on obedience, but not connecting it to the cause of our obedience, love for Jesus. Let's look at the verses quoted:

• John 14:15  "If you love me (cause), you will keep my commandments (effect)."
• John 14:21 "Whoever had my commandments and keeps them (effect), he it is who loves me (cause)."
• John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me (cause), he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (effect)."
• John 14:24 "Whoever does not love me (cause) does not keep my words (effect)."

So later, when the pastor tells us that we must make the "necessary life changes, whatever they may be," (19:25) he is only focusing on the effect, and ignoring the cause. The effect never drives the cause, the cause always drives the effect. Jesus is not saying "obey me" in these verses, He is saying "love me!" We don't unleash God's power through mere obedience, nor do we limit it through disobedience. He does not work his power in us "when we decide to obey." Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

That is the Gospel. The work is done, Christ has accomplished it all for us, we no longer have to strive for a certain level of behavior. There is peace, there is freedom. And it is when I truly grasp the Gospel (cause), then I am transformed (effect), then my life can be changed (effect). Then I will keep his commands because I love Him, not because I am striving to impress Him.

Get it right, PLEASE!

Sermon 1/8/2012 "The Power of the Word" (Part 2)

Find sermon here.

Find Part 1 here.

This "me centered" theology continues throughout the message. At about the 15:55 mark the question is posed, "But what would happen if the disciples would have disobeyed Jesus?" He infers that they would not have received the promised Holy Spirit and would not have turned the world up-side-down. He backs this up with several examples from the Bible where God disciplines those who disobey. Let's take a look at just one of those examples, Jonah.

JONAH <--Click to go to Book of Jonah

The word of the Lord came to Jonah to preach to Nineveh. (1:1) Jonah ran in the other direction. (1:3) Then, after a series of events, including being swallowed and then vomited up by a fish, God again tells Jonah to go to Nineveh. (3:1) This time, Jonah obeys. (3:3) Or does he? Perhaps he does on the outside, but his heart is not in it. (4:1-3)

The point is, when God wants something done, it will get done. Do we really think that by our disobedience we can thwart God's plans? Or do we see God as the one who is sovereign and will accomplish His plans regardless of us and our behaviors? (Prov. 16:9  "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.")

Perhaps one of the more frustrating statements, at least for me, came around the 17:20 mark. He states, "When we pull away from God through disobedience, it is like pulling an electrical plug from an appliance out of the wall outlet. We are disconnected from the power source...It is very important for us to understand that there is a direct link between our obedience to God and our being plugged in to the power of God." Is this what the Bible confirms, that our disobedience disconnects us from God? Or, is it a lack of faith? Jesus never said, "Your obedience has healed you, but he does say "your faith has healed you." (Mt 9:22, 15:28, Mark 5:34, 10:52, Luke 8:48, 18:42. Also, see Acts 3:16 and 14:9) As far as obedience is concerned, there were none more obedient than the Pharisees, yet Jesus called them a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs." What about Peter's disobedience in denying Christ 3 times? Yes, he felt guilt and remorse, but it did not disconnect him from God. Or the Rich Young Ruler, who told Jesus that he had kept all of the commandments, yet would walk away when asked to sell his possessions and follow Him, Scripture says that "Jesus looked at him and loved him." (Mark 10:17-22)

Or consider for a moment the parable of the Prodigal Son. While his disobedience cost him greatly, it never disconnected him from his father. One of the big points of the parable is that even in his disobedience, the father still loved and longed for him, In fact, if we look at the cultural implications of the son's request, we find that the son asking for his share of the inheritance was an extreme slap in the face to his father, one for which his father could have had him stoned! Yet instead, he hands him 1/3 of the estate! (For a more detailed rendering of this parable, read Tim Keller's book, "The Prodigal God.") And at the end, what earns the son a place back in the family? Nothing that the son does, for the father runs to him when he sees him at a distance, long before the son can ask forgiveness and a place as a hired hand. That is beauty. That is the Gospel.

Next post: Something I agree with!

Sermon 1/8/2012 "The Power of the Word" (Part 1)

Listen to the sermon here.

I too believe that there is great power in the Word of God, and I also love the book of Acts. I found the beginning of the message to be well organized and accurate in the different takes on the name Theophilus. I do have a bit of a difference of opinion on the purpose of the book. The pastor states that it is "So we will continue what Jesus began." (Point I.3 of outline) I would look at it more as being "to bear witness to what Jesus completed, and to the work of the Holy Spirit." While this might sound like a minor difference in point of view, it is actually pretty big, and exhibits a very divergent interpretation of the Gospel message, the heart of Christianity.

About the 7:30 mark of the sermon, the statement is made, "You and I are a part of something big, and that makes our service very, very important." I touched a little on this idea in this post. (Scroll down  to the picture of Popeye.) For some reason, we enjoy the thought of being important in God's plans. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy all over. The disciples themselves even asked Jesus, "Who will be the greatest?" (Mt 18:1) Of course, Jesus response was not what they were expecting as he puts a child to in their midst and says, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." (Mt 18:3-5) Over and over in the Gospels, we are reminded that the first will be last, and that we should not seek places of honor, mercy triumphs over sacrifice. Religion that puts us at the center is the religion of the Pharisees. But it was the tax-collector who got it right! It was the Pharisee who made much of himself and his ability to pray, and it was the tax-collector who bowed his head, realizing his true standing before God, and just asked for mercy. Mercy is at the heart of the Gospel, not me. For it is God's mercy that should draw us into a relationship with Him, and not our actions or worth. The heart of the Gospel message is that we couldn't, so Christ did. That is the Good News! As Tchividjian states in his book, "God does everything through people who understand they're nothing. And God does nothing through those who think they're everything." And no one understood this better than Paul in Philippians 3:7-11, and 1 Timothy 1:16.

If you haven't yet viewed Matt Chandler's video on the Gospel, take a look at it here. He does an excellent job of illustrating how we twist the Bible and make more of ourselves that we ought, using the story of David and Goliath. Enjoy!