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:

Sermon Video: Who will enter the Kingdom of God? - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Writing to a church struggling with maintaining Christian morality, Paul reminds the people of the church at Corinth that, "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God".  Morality, that is obedience to the Law of God, is not optional for the people of God.  Morality is also not negotiable, for God has defined it according to his own attributes.  To imitate God is righteousness, to rebel against God is wickedness.  To illustrate this, Paul lists 10 examples of immorality that are not acceptable among the people of God.  As with any of Paul's lists of virtues or vices, the list is not exhaustive, but all those things listed do indeed belong on the list.
Paul begins the list of vices by saying, "Do not be deceived", which indeed seems a fitting warning as several of the things on the list are no longer considered to be immoral by segments of the Christian community in America.  How is it that we think we can overrule the Word of God?  All ten things listed by Paul are immoral, whether we like it or not, for God has declared them to be so through his inspired Word, and we have no right to challenge it.
Humanity is indeed wicked, fallen and lost, thankfully God has provided the solution, by washing, sanctifying, and justifying those who have faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  The wicked will not inherit the kingdom, thanks be to the grace of God, which by faith has declared his people to be no longer wicked, but instead righteous, in the name of Jesus.

To watch the video, click on the link below: