The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Is this what Jesus had in mind when said, "Go into all the world..."

From time to time in my life I've seen people standing on a street corner with a homemade sign that lists a variety of things that God hates.  Sometimes the things on the list are accurately taken from the text of the Bible, and sometimes they reflect the beliefs of the person who made the sign, often involving politically motivated choices as well.

What then should the average Christian think in response to such demonstrations, most of which involve anger and shouting, a tactic far more likely to make enemies than friends.  Should Christians care about offending the Lost?  Should we be presenting the Gospel with anger or love?

The most important question, which should be obvious to all who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ but perhaps is not, is this: What does the Word of God say about the tactics we should be using to witness to those who don't know Jesus as Lord and Savior?

1 Peter 3:15-16 is one such key passage, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Do you mean, Peter didn't write, "Shout at the unbelievers, ridicule them, call them names, for then they will want to join you."  And he didn't write, "disrespect the lost, treat them with unkindness, and say horrible things, especially false ones, about anyone who dares to befriend an unbeliever."

Peter did write that we must witness with gentleness and respect, and he did write that we must conduct ourselves always with good behavior as representatives of Christ.

So, why all the yelling, why the hatred?  For some, it is a misguided notion that they have to defend the Law of God against societal or governmental forces, and therefore they have appointed themselves as judge, jury, and executioner on God's behalf.  For others, it might be a form of racism or ideology based hatred that is driving their counter-productive attempt to hate-witness.  The most obvious example of this in action in the West today relates to Islam.  There are some in the Christian community, at least they claim to represent Christ, who feel the need to warn about the dangers (which are of an apocalyptic level in their mind) of terrorism from individuals/organizations influenced by Islam, and therefore their only interaction with Islam is angry and militant.  They say things like "All Muslims are terrorists", or "Islam is of the devil".  They think that they're defending Western civilization and Christendom, but in reality all they accomplish is to make terrorism more likely by further marginalizing Muslims living in Western nations, and even more importantly, shutting the door against the Gospel's message even more firmly.  What Muslim, who believes in Muhammad and the Qur'an, is going to listen to what you have to say about the love of God and the desire that God has to offer forgiveness in Christ, when you approach that Muslim by insulting Muhammad and spitting upon the Qur'an?  In what reality does this tactic work even 1 in a million times?

Do you want the Lost to hear the Gospel so that they can be saved, or do you just want credit for yelling it at them?  Do you actually love the Lost, in imitation of our heavenly Father, who sent his Son to die for our sins, while we were still sinners, or has hatred clouded your mind and convinced you that some people are beyond God's saving grace?  (As if you deserved God's grace, but they don't!)

If you can't speak to those who don't know Jesus with gentleness and respect, maybe you should just keep your yap shut and let those whose hearts are burdened for a world full of people without God's love in their lives, be the ones to represent Jesus.

Sermon Video: Apollos and the Whole Gospel - Acts 18:18-28

What happens when the Gospel message is missing a key component, or has something added to it?  The danger in such a case is that the Gospel will be devoid of the power that it has to save the Lost.  For example: If someone knew who Jesus was, but not what he had done for us, how could that partial information lead such a person to repentance and faith?  Likewise, if a person knew who Jesus was, and what he had done for us, but was also told that our response is to imitate Jesus and earn our salvation (as opposed to trusting in his work on our behalf), how could such a Gospel with that spurious addition lead such a person to repentance and faith?
In the book of Acts, Luke recounts the return of Paul at the end of his 2nd missionary journey, and his subsequent start to his 3rd missionary journey, but in between those trips he also recounts the arrival of Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, in Ephesus.  Apollos knew a good deal about Jesus, and his information was accurate, but he didn't know the whole story.  Apollos had believed the message of John the Baptist, the call to repentance and the identification of Jesus as the Messiah, but Apollos didn't know the end of the story, for he had not yet heard of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Even with the right intentions, and a zeal for the Lord, the truths that Apollos was sharing fell short of what was needed to save, it could point people toward Jesus, but not help them come to him.  Thankfully, the will of God was not idle, and Paul's friends Priscilla and Aquila enlightened Apollos by sharing with him the rest of the Good News about Jesus.
A Gospel missing any of its key elements: who Jesus is (both God and man), what he has done (his vicarious death and resurrection), or what we must do in response (repent in faith), is a defective Gospel, just as a Gospel with additional requirements tacked on (the normal one being human effort instead of faith).  We, as the Church, must always protect the integrity of the Gospel message, insisting upon it in our preaching and teaching, refuting those who preach a different Gospel, and trusting as Scripture tells us that the power to save comes from God, not us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Do Christians really want Muslims to be saved?

In light of recent venomous criticism raised by self-proclaimed Christians against Christian author and apologist James White because of his willingness to dialogue with and debate Muslim apologists and imams with respect and fairness, an important question needs to be asked of the Church.  Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, really want Muslims to come to know the love of God that is in Jesus Christ?  Do we want Muslims, any and all of them, to be violently killed or saved by love and grace?

If you actually do, as a Christian, want Muslims to come to know the love of Christ, (like any of the Lost: Atheists, Mormons, Hindus, etc.) what attitude would best help that evangelistic effort?  Do expressions of hatred help spread the Gospel?  Does calling all Muslims terrorists help them see that they need to come to Jesus by faith?  Or do we actually push forward the cause of the Gospel through dialogue, openness, respect, honesty, and charity?

James White has been the lightning rod of this issue, but it is far bigger than him.  The Church is being challenged by the violence of terrorism to reject hatred and remain steadfast in the embrace of the peace of Christ.  Giving in to hatred it easy, it appeals to our fallen human nature, it appeals to our tribalism and racism, but it is the opposite of the Fruit of the Spirit which we are supposed to be cultivating as disciples of Jesus.

Consider Saul of Tarsus.  He was a violent man, full of hatred, responsible for the deaths of Christians.  Should the Early Church have killed him in self-defense?  Should they have spewed hatred at him in return?  What did God do about Saul of Tarsus?  He showed him Jesus, and turned him into the Apostle Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary the Gospel has ever seen.  If Peter or John had given in to the temptation to respond to Saul with hate, how many souls would have remained Lost instead of hearing the Gospel?

A related question that we, as Christians, need to answer: Is our hatred of Muslims being driven by our politics?  When contemplating the criticism directed his way, much of which has only a token connection with the truth, James White recently said, "If your politics destroys your passion for the Lost in your life, dump the politics, stick with what has eternal value."

Are you a Christian?  Do you want Muslims, the vast majority of which are non-violent no matter what nonsense you read online or hear from politicians trying to get your vote or businesses trying to get your money, but even the terrorists who have killed Christians, to find forgiveness in Christ?  You have been forgiven for your sins, you came to Christ by grace, are you willing to be so ungrateful an adopted child of God that you would push others away from God's love?  All have sinned, all need a savior, if you think you have any right to be God's gate-keeper and decide who deserves God's grace and who deserves God's wrath, you are woefully and dangerously mistaken.

If the Gospel you claim to believe isn't for everybody, then you don't really believe it.

If you don't show love to the Lost, you have failed in your responsibility to share the Gospel.

Sermon Video: The Best Dad in the Bible - Job 1:1-5

Who is the best dad in the Bible?  If you ask that question about mothers, there is some stiff competition, but unfortunately, when considering fathers in the Bible, many of the most famous men struggled in their role as a father.  One exception to this trend is Job.  Job was not only a father of ten children, but also a man of noble character, exceptional reputation, and a successful businessman.  How do we know that Job was a good father?  First, Job made sure that his own character and relationship with God were exemplary.  To be a good father, one must first be a good man.  Too many fathers have destroyed their ability to be a good father by failing morally as a man, Job did not falter as a father by falling to temptations.  Beyond this firm foundation, Job also saw the spiritual health of each of his children to be his responsibility.  He acted as priest for his family, making sacrifices on behalf of his children to ensure that they maintained their relationship with God.  Therefore, Job provided for his family, both physically and spiritually, this same combination of responsibility belongs to all of us who have been given the privilege by God of being called a father.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The future of the Church, why do I keep worrying about it?

We spend a lot of time and a lot of energy worrying about the future of our own local church.  We also spend a lot of time and energy worrying about the future of the Church in America, or in the West, perhaps even globally.  Is my church heading in the right direction?  Is my denomination heading in the right direction?  How will the Church respond to the increasingly secularized culture of the West?  What about millennials, everybody keeps saying they aren't going to church anymore?...

These worries, or "concerns", if we want to feel better about what we call them and avoid admitting that we're worried, are probably unavoidable, to some extent.  We all want to know that our contribution and sacrifices will stand the test of time, that they are "worth it" and not wasted, and we have a natural and appropriate place in our hearts for our own local church, our denomination, and the Church in our nation.  If any one of those levels fails, or seems to be failing, it will be emotionally brutal for those for whom much of their identity is defined by being an American Christian, from this particular church, in that denomination.

Our emotional investment is natural, and for the most part a good thing, but it may also be somewhat misguided.  The Church, from the local one that you are attached to (hopefully), to the denomination to which it belongs, to the collection of churches throughout this nation (or any nation), doesn't belong to you.  The Church is the bride of Christ, the object of the New Covenant, the subject of Jesus' promise to his disciples that, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Mt. 16:18)  The Church in our generation will have its ups and downs, it will win some and lose some, it may shrink in one area only to grow in another.  Through it all, from this generation to the next, and the next after that, the Church will continue to be the instrument of the will of God for declaring the Gospel and making disciples here on Earth.  And as an instrument of the will of God, it cannot be defeated, our worst or best effort notwithstanding, for its success or failure is not predicated upon our power, but God's.

Does what we do matter, then, at our local church?  Absolutely, for we have been given charge over the sheep of this particular pasture, we have been entrusted with the words of Life, and we have been tasked with making disciples here in our midst.  We have, as a local church, much responsibility of the utmost importance.  What we don't have, what we can't have, is responsibility for the future of the Church, from the local to the universal level, that power rest, thankfully, solely in the hands of God.

Is the Church shrinking in the West?  Statistics seem to say yes, but you and I will not be judged by God according to statistics.  What we will answer for is the quality of our prayer, worship, and service in the name of Jesus.  It has always been the work of the Holy Spirit to bring salvation to the Lost, to spur revival among the people of God, and to overcome the forces of darkness in this world with the light of Christ.  If the Spirit of God sends revival upon our local church, our denomination, or our nation, God will deserve the glory, for the power of God will have been the cause.  What then does the future hold for us?  As our church here approaches its 150th anniversary in July, we can't help but wonder.  God knows, God alone has the power to shape the future.  Our task, our responsibility, is the present.  Our own lives, our own discipleship, our own community and our role within it as servants of the kingdom of God.

How does the story end?

"Hallelujah!  For our Lord God Almighty reigns.  Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory!  For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready." (Revelation 19:7)

God will have the victory, his Church will be victorious, for the uncountable throng of redeemed saints who comprise it are the bride of Christ, and their celebration of his victory in the glory of heaven is already certain.

Am I optimistic about the future of the local church where I serve?  Yes.  Am I optimistic about the future of our denomination, the American Baptist Churches?  Yes.  Am I optimistic about the future of the Church in the United States or in the West?  Yes.  But my optimism or pessimism alone won't determine anything.  There will always be reasons for optimism and reasons for pessimism, regardless of them, we have a task to accomplish, a mission given to us by our Lord, and we are responsible for our effort on behalf of that cause, God, and God alone, is responsible for tomorrow.

"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)

What you win them with is what you win them to.

If you do a Google search on that quote, "What you win them with is what you win them to", you'll likely find a lot of blogs from pastors and other church leaders talking about what it means in relation to evangelism and outreach by the Church.  The quote is a variation of something A.W. Tozer said, "You win them to what you win them with", although figuring out who first turned it around isn't easy.  I first heard the new version of the quote listening to James White, Christian author and apologist.

Given the rancor and divisiveness of the 2016 election in the United States, it seems evident that the principle underlying the quote applies to elected officials as well.  If a politician runs an honest campaign, you can expect him/her to govern honestly, if a politician runs a sleazy and dirty campaign, you can expect him/her to govern in a sleazy and dirty manner.  That ought to be obvious enough to the average voter, but it seems that many voters, on both sides, have been operating under the illusion that the person/party in which they place their trust will govern differently than they ran for office, as if the character that is displayed (or lack thereof) in the attempt to gain power is somehow divorced from the character (or lack thereof) that will be displayed in the exercise of power.

The same principle holds true in the business world.  Any company which employs sneaky or underhanded tactics to get customers through the door cannot be expected to treat those same customers with honesty and integrity once they have their money.

I'm also reminded of the various commercials on TV from law firms hoping to recruit people to sue over this issue or that, can one expect a lawyer who would resort to such a blatant appeal to greed to gain a client to subsequently treat that client with anything other than that same greed?  Or consider the cash advance and structured settlement commercials, they too make their appeal based on short-term desires pumped up by greed in order to gain customers, would you expect your interaction with such a business to be based on any other principle than their greed?

Regarding the Church, we have a greater reason than what is practical to heed the warning of using tactics which are less than fully upfront and honest.  It is of course immoral for the people of God to try to increase our membership/attendance through duplicitous or sneaky means.  In addition to our moral imperative to avoid such things, they just don't work.  If you "win" a person for the Gospel with anything less than (or greater than) the Gospel's simple message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, you haven't "won" that person at all.  The Gospel's power is not based in our tactics or effort, but in its Truth.  If the Church offers the Truth, in love, and fails, so be it.  If we offer a diet version of the Truth, even our successes will be failures.

Should the Church be inviting and friendly, a place where those from the outside feel welcome?  Of course it should, for we have been commanded to share the Gospel with the Lost, but if in our efforts to be inviting and friendly we dilute the Gospel, minimize the focus on worship, or simply offer up a feel-good experience devoid of the Gospel's emphasis on repentance, we will have "won" the lost to our fellowship, but they'll still be lost.  Only the true Gospel, the Gospel of the Apostles as contained in the Scriptures, has the power to save, offering the world anything less is a fool's bargain.

Sermon Video: Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit - 1 Corinthians 6:14-20

Why does God care about what people do with "their own body"?  As our creator, God has the right to judge those to whom he has given life itself, but for the people of God, for those who by faith have become disciples of Jesus, the reason for God's concern is even deeper.  One of the benefits of being born again in faith is union with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This union means that sexual immorality (for example) on the part of the people of God ought to be inconceivable, for it would be uniting the unholy (immorality) with the holy (the person whom Christ has redeemed).  Likewise, with the presence of the Holy Spirit within each believer, God's people have become the temple of God, thus bringing immorality (sexual or otherwise) into that temple is to profane it.  Lastly, if those warning are not sufficient, Paul reminds the people of the church at Corinth that there is no such thing as "their own body", for all those who are in Christ have been purchased by God, a debt that can never be repaid.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Bernie Sanders and the Intolerance of the Gospel

In a recent exchange with a nominee for the position of deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took great umbrage with an online post made by the nominee, Russell Vought, which contained this statement:

Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

I have no desire to wade into a political debate, that should be obvious to anyone who has read this blog before, nor do I know whether or not Russell Vought would make a good deputy director of OMB, the larger question here is whether or not a statement like the one that Vought made, is in fact "indefensible" and "hateful" as Senator Sanders contends.  The statement made by Vought was in the context of a controversy at his alma mater, Wheaton College, but it touches upon a much larger and far more ancient context.
The Church has proclaimed for 2,000 years that Jesus Christ is, as he himself stated in the Gospel of John, "the way, the truth, and the life".  Jesus added clarity to his claim by also saying, "No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  Along with the verses previously by Russel Vought in his quote, John 8:19, Luke 10:16, John 3:18, could also be listed Acts 4:12, Romans 3:23-24, Ephesians 2:1-10, the list could go on and on.  The New Testament is boldly, unequivocally, and without reservation, absolutely exclusive in its claim that all of mankind already stands condemned by God, as our holy and righteous judge, and that the ONLY possible solution to our desperate state is to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord.  This was the belief of every writer of the New Testament, it was the belief of the early Church Fathers, it was the belief of the great theologians, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, and the belief of the Church in its entirety, with very few exceptions, until the post-modern era when universalist viewpoints began to be adopted by some Christian, and pseudo-Christian groups.  The point is simply this: It cannot be denied that the Gospel makes exclusive claims, claims that by necessity are a rejection of the claims of others, including other religions such as Judaism or Islam, but also those of the non-religious.  These claims are not secret, they're not new, and they're fundamental to the Christian faith.
The Gospel was controversial when it was first introduced, it remains controversial to this day.  The rebellious heart of man hates to hear that repentance is needed, that his/her own efforts are doomed to failure, and that submission to the will of God is necessary.  A response of anger, an attempt to silence those proclaiming the Gospel, is also not new.
To make the Gospel palatable to non-believers is to rob it of its power, to make it acceptable to agnostics and atheists is to slap Jesus in the face.  The Church cannot do this, it must not do this, and those in the "Church" who already have done so, have chosen to leave the historic and Biblical Church.  The Gospel is intolerant, it has to be, for the love of God compels us to share the hope of salvation with a world lost and doomed to destruction.

One final thought: If you think the Gospel if "hateful" and "bigoted", don't read what the Qur'an says about non-believers.  The Gospel in no-way teaches the followers of Jesus to hate unbelievers, to persecute them, and certainly not to kill them, any such actions on the part of "Christians" in the past or present are a rejection of the teaching of the Bible.  Islam has a different problem, the Qur'an both advocates peaceful co-existence AND the destruction of unbelievers (thus making task of moderate Muslims that much more difficult against the fanatics who resort to terrorism).

Sermon Video: Everything is permissible for me? 1 Corinthians 6:12-13

As followers of Jesus Christ, we have been set free from our bondage to sin, this is a fundamental understanding of the power of the Gospel, but to what end?  Why have we been set free, and what are we to do with our freedom?  As part of his ongoing attempt to help the church at Corinth solve its problem with immorality, Paul writes to them of the need for Christians to practice self-control and self-restraint by limiting their own freedom.  As a guide, Paul offers up to limiting principles to guide our freedom, "Is it beneficial?" and "I will not be mastered by anything".  In other words, Christians ought to seek to maximize that which is beneficial (to their own discipleship and to others) in their lives, and at the same time avoid anything which might seek to control them (an addiction for example).  This attitude advocated by Paul is particularly useful in those areas of life that the Word of God doesn't specifically address (such as things related to modern technology).
As an example of this approach in action, Paul notes the need for Christians to avoid sexual immorality, a common vice that too many Christians feel they can get away with, but which in the end is both harmful and addictive (not to mention forbidden explicitly by God).

To watch the video, click on the link below: