Submit yourselves therefore to God...

The following was my response to a Calvinist who talked about "accepting Jesus into his heart." I thought I'd post it here as well.

I have a problem with the concept of US accepting JESUS. In my view, there is no place in the scripture which asks us to "accept" Christ. That's a worldly point of view. In fact, I feel like it's somewhat arrogant and presumptuous of any lowly human to feel that it's even his place to "accept Christ," as though we're picking and choosing saviors that meet our own style and wants. I do believe that's how a lot of the world looks at it, but it's simply not so. I mean, think about it... Christ was an innocent man (and he was also God to boot) and yet he gave himself to be cruelly and brutally murdered for the sins of the world at a time where he could've just chosen to call ten legions of angels and be done with it all. Does a guy like that deserve my "acceptance"??? No, he commands my full and unconditional OBEDIENCE, and if God didn't offer me heaven or any other reward for that obedience, I WOULD STILL OWE IT. I, a sinner, don't even get to rise to the level where I can deign to "accept" Christ. I simply owe him my allegiance and full servitude.

Christ accepts US, not the other way around. Saying that we "accept" Christ into OUR lives is wrong-headed. When we become Christians, we are not simply adding on a room for Jesus. We are supposed to be GIVING our lives to Him for His acceptance! I have trouble with this self-centered version of Christianity where Christ does this and that for us, we ever so graciously accept Him, doing lip service to him as our busy lives permit, and we give nothing of ourselves in return. I realize that this appeals to the worldliness and ego of many people who aren't willing to have anything to do with Christ if he doesn't fit THEIR wants, but simply we are asked to obey his commandments to show that we love him (John 14:15).

Those commandments aren't grievous, and essential to salvation (1 Pet. 3:21) is baptism (Acts 2:38). That is not "accepting Jesus." That is obeying His commands. "Accepting Jesus" is nowhere to be found in the Scripture.

I think the better word would be "submit." "Acceptance" implies that we're meeting Jesus on our terms, when in actuality Jesus calls us to submit to him on his terms and based on his commandments (which is especially emphasized in John 14:15--"If ye love me, keep my commandments." ) Jesus does not force his way in; he stands waiting at the door for us to come to him and join his body by our submission and obedience to his commandments. Everything is prepared, but it is our responsibility to follow the simple and non-grievous commands which Jesus has laid out in obedience to him. Otherwise, we do not truly love him.

I Thank Thee That I Am Not As Other Men Are...

I've had a lot of free time this Sunday. Not only are we on vacation, but we also were iced in, and the area congregations cancelled services. This turn of events afforded us the unique opportunity to worship at home with my wife's parents, siblings, and in-laws, and wouldn't you know it, even on vacation, I had to preach! It also gave me time to sit comfortably, get on the internet and spend some much-needed free time studying some things that are happening in the Church of Christ today.

I almost wish I hadn't done the research, if I'm being quite honest with you. The division that exists within the church today is appalling, and the attitudes displayed by those who profess to be gospel preachers are even worse.

I started my search today by googling for a list of brotherhood publications. I knew of a couple, but the only one I had read online was Seek the Old Paths, but honestly I've grown weary of their constant harping on other brethren for every little infraction and their Pharasaical attitudes. So I looked for more.

I found a great list of brotherhood publications. It has what is probably the most comprehensive list of magazines and newsletters published by Churches of Christ. It also denotes if the publishing congregations are subscribed to different "-isms" (i.e. no Sunday School, no eating in the building, etc.) And then I started to notice some labelled as "new Anti." I know what the "old" Anti-ism means: essentially no kitchens, no gyms, no support of orphans homes, no benevolence...basically if you can be against it, then they are. But I was confused about what "new Anti-ism" meant.

One of the paragon publications of the "new Anti-ism" movement, allegedly and according to this list, is Contending for the Faith. (Also referred to, aptly, as "Contentious for the Faith" among many brethren.) I was sad to find that this publication and their flagship congregation hold annual lectureships, which generally turn out to be little more than ultra-conservative neo-anti gab-fests and a listing of brethren who are...gasp..."false teachers" and should be "marked and avoided." Often the only qualification for marking and avoiding these "false teachers" are that these men have appeared on the same lectureship speaking roster with other men who have previously been marked and avoided (possibly for the same thing). Because as everyone knows, appearing on lectureship rosters with these men means that you are stating to the world that you agree with them on every single thing down to the appropriate color of socks to put on in the morning. That is unless, of course, you spend the entire balance of your lecture time refuting these men's liberal leanings with complete disregard for your assigned topic. And once you have "fellowshipped these false teachers" you cannot come back from it, unless you write a lengthy editorial (and it MUST be in their magazine, as no other periodical is "sound") condemning the first false teacher to hell and back again and quite possibly insulting their grandmother. (I suppose I am to be marked and avoided as well, because in my teen years I attended Winterfest and Jeff Walling--anathema to the neo-Antis--was the speaker. I didn't agree with him, but I also haven't repented of going, so I can never be a "sound" preacher now, I suppose.)

But I digress. I was moved to tears when I viewed online this past year's Open Forum. (You can view the entire lectureship here.) To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure how the issue at hand got started. From what I can tell, the entire argument started when someone on a Yahoo group accused a couple of preachers, Israel and Joshua Rodriguez, of going to yet another preacher to "gather ammo" to use against a FOURTH party. (I promise I'm not making this up. I fully realize that this could be the plot of an episode of Hannah Montana, or some other sophomoric high school drama, but these are men in their forties and seventies.) At the heart of this eighth grade conflict theological discussion is a preacher named Dave Miller, who I would find out through independent research had preached on the subject of re-evaluation and re-induction of elders fully EIGHTEEN years ago, and brothers still are shoving each other out of the way to distance and disfellowship themselves from here. Anyway, the brother that the Rodriguezes visited is a preacher by the name of Joe Metter, and they were visiting him to inquire if they agreed with Dave about the eldership thing, and oh, by the way, there was also the pressing matter of whether Joe had studied the secular psychological practice of gestalt therapy and/or practiced Hinduist yoga. (By the way, yes he studied it, no he didn't believe in all of it, and the yoga he practiced was a non-religious exercise done for his personal health.)

If your brain has already exploded, imagine how I must've felt after watching all three hours of it.

Anyway, Contending for the Faith baited invited the Rodriguez brothers to participate in the Open Forum at their lectureship to present their side of the story. The Rodriguez brothers foolishly accepted, and the fascist moderator, David Brown, barely let them speak, interrupting them constantly, rarely allowing them to finish a sentence, yelling at one of them to "SHUT UP!" and acting like a jerk for the better part of two hours. If ever there was an event that illustrated Luke 18:10-14, this Open Forum was it.

Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

I find it way beyond pitiful that there are large and vocal contingents within the church who have nothing better to do than to waste God's precious time with quibbles. I get that there is a need to preach the truth, but somewhere in the middle of all that, we've forgotten that we are to love each other. That's the second greatest commandment! (Mark 12:31)

Just looking at this debate, it's hard to tell what the doctrinal difference is all about. The whole of the conversation is who talked to who, and who went to the same parties with who. These same "new Antis" who preach so loudly about the autonomy of congregations then turn around and try to shout down other congregations who don't do things the exact same way that they do or who differ in opinion (not in doctrine). These "new Antis" have forgotten the second greatest commandment, and they've also forgotten the Great Commission of going into all the world and teaching the truth of Jesus Christ to every creature. Instead, they have appointed themselves to be the policemen of the church, the guardian against "error creeping into the church," and the avenging angels who war against "change agents" and "false teachers."

They'd do well to remember Jesus' words:

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Love one another and teach the lost. It's not that hard, folks.

He runneth upon me like a giant...

It has been my great pleasure and privilege over the past couple of weeks to get to know Glenn Hitchcock. Priscilla and I met Glenn first at the Palmetto Bible Lectureship over in Greer. His preaching style was so very refreshing and he sticks to the Bible, which I'm told is a very admirable quality in a preacher.

I should mention that Glenn is a rather large fellow. I'm 6'1, and when Glenn hugs me, my head does not even rest on his shoulder. Priscilla lovingly calls him the "gentle giant." The folks at Union have nicknamed him "Shorty." Glenn told us that when he was born, he weighed 13.9 pounds. (For the sake of perspective, Priscilla and I have an dog--whose name is Shorty as well, coincidentally--that doesn't weigh that much full grown.)

We got to have dinner with Glenn earlier tonight before hearing him preach on the final night of the gospel meeting in Union, SC. I don't think I've laughed so much while eating in quite some time. We were also blessed to be in the company of Richard and Carla Carlson and their kids Adam and Leah, so we couldn't have asked for any better company.

I've often said before that I really enjoy listening to African-American preachers, particularly while sitting in a predominately black congregation. In fact, given the choice, I'd almost always choose to be with our black brothers, because quite often the "black" churches have the most enthusiasm and spirit in their worship. And it seems like their preaching is more plain--less concerned with Greek etymology and more concerned with getting right! I've always enjoyed it when the audience said "amen" and got into the worship. And I've always enjoyed the vigor with which their preachers have spoken. I thought at first that this was what attracted me to Glenn's preaching, as well.

But I realized tonight that it wasn't a "black" thing, for lack of a better way to put it. It was a "truth" thing. Glenn is one of those very few gospel preachers who enters the pulpit with absolutely no fear at all. He doesn't hesitate to tell you the Bible truth, and he doesn't mince words with it. He, unlike many of us, is not concerned with the political correctness of his speech. He simply wants to tell the truth and have as many people come to heaven with him as he can. It's not his culture that shapes his preaching style; it's his pure zeal and desire that everyone within the sound of his voice would obey the gospel.

Listening to him for the past week, I've realized that at times I stop short in my sermons, because I'm afraid of offending somebody or making someone mad at me. I couch the truth behind soft words because I don't want to step on someone's toes. Listening to Glenn tonight, I wonder more and more if I shouldn't strive to preach more like him and give the gospel my full gusto, regardless of whom the truth of Christ offends. After all, if someone takes umbrage at the truth, is it not Christ they are rejecting, and not me?

In any case, Glenn has got me fired up, and it's a good feeling. And I hope that I may help you, dear readers, get fired up too by sharing a recent sermon of Glenn's.

Click the following link to get to the audio file of
Glenn's sermon on Biblical Authority

If you'd like to follow along with his lesson, you can find the outline in the Palmetto Bible Lectureship book.

I hope to bring you more great gospel sermons in mp3 format to take with you and learn from as the blog continues. Some of them may even be my own!

God bless!

And he made him ruler over all the land...

The 2008 presidential election is upon us. I'm sure most of you are like me and just a bit over-burdened by hearing about it on television or radio. It seems like every 4 years, the elections keep getting more and more over-exposed until you almost can't escape hearing about it.

This one is no different. And unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that in 13 very short days, we'll know whether our next president will be named Obama or McCain.

So the question is this: Which one can a Christian in good conscience vote for??

There are certainly faults in every party. I don't agree with all the ideals of any one party, be they Democrat, Republican, Constitution, Libertarian, Green, etc. But which of these parties should we as Christians support in the election of our next president?

There are several key issues which I believe should be the focal point for any Christian when they go to the polls on November 4.

ABORTION:

What does the Bible say?
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Clearly the Bible teaches that we are not to kill, nor are we to harm children. The Psalmist David also repeatedly refers to his life starting in the womb at conception.

What does Barack Obama say?
From barackobama.com, "Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."

What does John McCain say?
From johnmccain.com, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH:

What the Bible says:
The verses applied for abortion also apply here, as the Bible strongly protects the sanctity of human life and therefore prohibits the use of unborn children as simple lab rats.

What Barack Obama says:
From Obama's Senate website:

I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President’s desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, including in vitro fertilization. At this very moment, there are over 400,000 embryos being stored in over 400 facilities throughout the United States. The majority of these are reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these embryos will go unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or disposal. We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos, just as we should continue to explore the viability of adult stem cell use, cord blood use, and amniotic fluid use.

My hope, and the hope of so many in this country, is to provide our researchers with the means to explore the uses of embryonic stem cells so that we can begin to turn the tide on the devastating diseases affecting our nation and the world.

What John McCain says:
From johnmccain.com: Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

MARRIAGE:

What the Bible says:
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Mar 10:6-9 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Clearly, the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible also clearly teaches that a homosexual union is abnormal and an abomination. God has even shown in cases such as Sodom and Gomorrah that he is willing to let a civilization perish because of embracing homosexuality.

What Obama says:

From the website Lesbian Life: Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

What John McCain says:
From johnmccain.com: "As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress."

Other issues:

Sigh... do other issues really matter in the mind of the Christian?

It's quite obvious from the way that Obama's team is running their campaign that they are trying to force the ECONOMY as the issue. (This is quite similar, actually, to Bill Clinton's very successful tactics.) It's fairly difficult to even find Obama's stance on most moral issues, as they are buried deep within his website and often not even present at all.

Christians need to remember, though, that each time a nation has left the Lord, that nation has fallen. (Study the recorded history of the Israelites in the Old Testament, for example.) Jesus made it clear in Mat. 16:26 that it would do us no good to gain the whole world if we lost our soul. So it's not the economy that a Christian should have on his mind while voting. Financial good times come and go. The important thing is that we not favor economic solvency over moral fiber.

In all these tests, Barack Obama fails. John McCain is the clear choice for the Christian.

Another point: many of my friends are strong advocates of third parties, because they are more conservative than McCain. That's true. But a vote for one of these third party candidates is a vote for Obama. Don't think that's true? Two words for you: Ross Perot. He's the reason why we suffered through 8 years of an immoral Clinton administration.

Obama, if elected, will have the opportunity to nominate a couple of Supreme Court justices. His presidency could tip the majority of the Court over to the liberals. Think about that when you're voting for your third party.

Please vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning...

A preacher often needs time and space to sort out the things that are in his head. Some do this by talking to their wives. Some do this by silent meditation. Still others do it by heading out and playing golf. My particular "comfort zone," if you will, is usually in writing. Or, at least, in trying to do something creative online.

I guess every religious blog for one reason or another has to have a "purpose statement" as a first post. It's going to be tradition in twenty years, I imagine, if blogs and/or the Earth are still around. The problem is that I don't want to limit this blog's purpose. I'd like for it to be a place where (once they find me) I can pick the brains of other preachers on certain topics. I'd also like it be--if the members of our congregation are willing to participate--a place online where members can pick MY brain. (Careful, there's not much left!) And then, also, I hope it will be a place where I can post things that are helpful and encouraging to you that can assist you in your own spiritual walks.

That being said, I reserve the right to go off on any tangent that my whim takes me upon on any given day.

Alright, now that we've got that out of the way...

Today I wanted to start sharing with you something that was uplifting to me in my childhood. My parents always wanted to keep the Bible fresh in our minds, and one way they did so was to have an audio Bible around. The theory--a well-founded one, I might add--was that if we couldn't be bothered to read the Bible, then perhaps we'd have an easier time listening to it being read.

My dad always preferred the records of Alexander Scourby. For those of you who might not be aware, Scourby was an actor of note back in the 40's and 50's. He was the first person ever to record the whole Bible on any sort of audio media. I grew up listening to his gentle British baritone reading the words of the gospels to me.

Now, hopefully, barring any copyright limitations, you can too.

I was out and about earlier this week, and I noticed a Scourby record set in a thrift store. It was, I believe, the original 1944 set, which was recorded by him for the American Foundation for the Blind. The records themselves are encoded at 16 2/3 RPM, which hasn't been used for years. (Most current record players have settings for 33 and 45.) The box is brittle, but the discs themselves have been well kept. I have run the recordings through several filters on the computer, and I have what I think to be a pretty accurate restoration.

In any case, my plan is to post one of these files per week for download. My hope is that each of you will take this, put it in your iPod or burn it to CD, take it to work with you, take it on vacation with you, and listen to it whenever you have the time. The Lord's words can only help each of us.

Download by clicking on Matthew 1-7.

And last thing: I really would like any of you who visit or read to comment on any blog posts you may have something to contribute to. For the moment, I will leave them unmoderated, as I trust that everyone can behave themselves in a seemly manner. I am, however, employing a CAPTCHA code to keep ads and spam out of our way.

God bless!