IMMIGRATION and CHRISTIANS

At this stage of my life, I have absolutely no expectations of the general population, the world's people, those who "are of their father, the Devil."  Their self-righteousness, their selfishness, their hatred, their racism, none of it surprises me, nor does it make me "disappointed in their behavior."

Professing Christians, however, I still have expectations of.  Christians by definition possess the mind of Christ and demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit, compassion, kind-heartedness, forgiveness, empathy with the suffering and struggling people around us.

On paper, anyway.

When one reads the vituperative, vicious, vindictive rantings from professing believers on the subject of "illegal immigrants' in the U.S., he is (I am) hard pressed to attribute those words to a child of God.
The theme is, essentially, 'pack 'em all up and ship 'em back where they came from'--men, women, children....all of 'em.......now!

The rationale for this drastic action is based on the advocates' view of The Law.  All these undocumented immigrants are in violation of The Law, therefore they must go!
That would be 12 million immigrants shipped back to such places as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc, places which have government by drug-gang and the highest per capita murder rates in the world.

That would be 12 million immigrants many of whom have been here for 10-15-20 years and have families and children.....children who, by the way, are U.S. citizens according to The Law.  Will you tear them from the arms of their children or deport U.S. citizens with their "illegal" parents?

A word or two about The Law:  For one thing, much of what these people are in violation of is not The Law but some administrative regulation or other...some missed deadline or not-properly-filed form......though the anti-immigrant forces generally equate such bureaucratic miscues with murder and mayhem.

And an especial word to Christians about The Law.  You are outstanding in your hypocrisy and pharisaical attitude in applying The Law so selectively.  May I remind you that you have broken The Law?  Not the law of a state or a nation regarding immigration but the greatest Law of all......God's Law.  Yes, you're guilty, but you're not suffering the consequences of your crime against a holy and righteous God because, without any merit or right to it, you received mercy and compassion.

I see this wholesale opposition to all "outsiders" as thinly veiled racism, self-righteous demonstration of superiority to such "lesser beings" coupled with a thin veneer of legal standing based upon The Law.  It is totally lacking in grace, mercy, love, tolerance, empathy, compassion......all that silly, sentimental slop one might find in the Bible.

Of course, the hypocrisy is heightened now that the spokesman for lenient treatment of immigrants is the current President.  I am not naive in political matters.  He is a typical politician and uses veterans, immigrants, etc, for whatever purpose he has on his agenda.  At the same time, the words of his speech the other night had some value.  One commentator said "He sound like Bush (W)"  And he sounded like Reagan.....and when Bush and Reagan said such things, they met with opposition at the time.

But the reaction to the President's intentions in this matter is a new record-high (or low).  The hatred directed toward this man is stunning...and I will restrict myself to that calumny originating with professing Christians.  Shame on you!  Shame on you for the nasty, vulgar, insulting memes and other trash you post on your pages.  Shame on you for your utter disregard for Biblical instruction regarding our correct attitude toward the rulers God has put over us.

The bottom line is born out of the Biblical statement on the nature of sin:  "lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life."  Here we have the pride of life in full feather.  Here we see professing believers acting out their sense of superiority based on where they were born and the color of their skin.  Had Reagan or Bush made that speech, the reaction would be much less intense......they're white.  But to have a Black President advocating for all these non-white interlopers and acting as if we should show them some mercy and compassion.....Pride holds high their banner "The Law," and one day those same proud people will stand before God desiring mercy and compassion for themselves.  "For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy." (James 2:13)

ROMAN-BAPTIST EXCOMMUNICATION......Part 2

The thrust of this letter is:  Because you are inactive in this local assembly where you are a member, we infer that you are forsaking the Church and therefore forsaking Christ who is the head of the Church.  Because of your inactivity, you are being removed from the "roll." 

Now, two rolls were specified in the letter:  the Roll of Salvation and the Roll of Service.  Neither of these rolls has any scriptural foundation that I've ever seen.  The only "roll" I've seen in the Bible which would be relevant to such a discussion is the Lamb's Book of Life....in which are recorded the names of His people.  It seems to me that this roll was established before the foundation of the world (Ephesian 1:4) and I don't think that refers to any church membership list.

Today's version of the New Testament church is so far removed from the model given in the epistles that it's often hard to recognize.  Man has piled tradition upon tradition for the past 2000 years and made a monster.  The idea of "membership" and the regulation thereof is part of the monstrosity.

The equating of salvation, being in The Church (the Body of Christ), and being on the rolls of a local assembly is a perversion of the scriptures, a high-magnitude perversion.  I'm afraid this has evolved out of the man-ipulative impulses of a leadership mentality which pursues control over the lives of the membership.

The dire implications of this letter--that I am being removed from God's "roll" of some kind, something related to my standing with Him and my relationship to Christ--those implications are designed to scare me, to frighten me into obedience to the leadership.  It is, in a word, blackmail.

 

ODYSSEY, IRONY, AND EXCOMMUNICATION (In the style of the Roman-Baptist Church)

This might prove to be a fluid article, one which is edited and expanded from one day to the next, but I have to start somewhere, sometime.

First:  Odyssey.  When we moved to this area 14 years ago, we eventually settled in at the downtown Southern Baptist congregation....not for any reason of "great preacher" or "beautiful 15 million dollar building" --just a matter of "where else?"  Lots of things on which I could comment but to get to the point, we were soon hearing that "IT" was all about the local church.  Pastor was teaching/preaching thru Ephesians and time and again remarked how the entire epistle was "all about the local church"  When he finished Ephesians and moved to Philippians, it introduced that epistle with the statement that it too is "all about the local church."

There has been for years an element of the Baptist world known as "Landmark Baptists" or "Baptist Bride" who, to put it simply, teach that the local church is The Church and there is no other, no "Universal Church" made up of all believers.  In other words, if a believer is in "the church" he is a member of a local Baptist congregation.  Of course there are degrees of this, variations and permutations, but that's the basic idea.  And it's this school of thought which leads to teaching that Ephesians is "all about the local church" since, in the teacher's mind, there is no other church.

We left that congregation and eventually moved our membership to First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Alabama (now known as Grace Life Church of the Shoals).  It seems like a good idea at the time.  We're credo-baptists with a calvinistic soteriology (quite unwelcome in most SBC circles) and this congregation was led by a man who seemed in line with that, plus it was represented to be a very mission-minded congregation.  The fact that Paul Washer had just moved Heart Cry Missionary Society under the headship of that congregation seemed like a strong recommendation at the time.

In 2010, we stopped attending the services there because of our disintegrating health.  I wrote to the Administrative Pastor and asked to be removed from the rolls under a specific provision of the by-laws which I quoted in my request.  This request was "pooh-pooh-ed" as unnecessary in view of the congregation's desire to continue its "ministry to [us]"  I never pursued the idea and we never returned.

Two weeks ago, I got this letter:

This introduces the "Irony" mentioned in my title.  We moved at least partially to escape the "local church only" view and it appears we never escaped at all.  There's a lot which could be said about the content of this letter, but I want to (at least in the beginning) focus on the theology of the main thesis:  the implication that "forsaking" the local congregation is forsaking Christ the "head of the church"--an implication that this local congregation is indeed the Body of Christ, the Body into which all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit.  "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." (I Corinthians 12)

We'll look at this in detail in the second part of this.  I hope those reading this will post their views and comments.

OH, HOW THE POLITICIANS LOVE OUR VETERANS!

The scandal du jour in Washington is the apparent book-cooking at the VA Hospital in Phoenix.  This photo-op has brought out from under many rocks all the politicians who want to wave a flag and kiss a veteran (or wave a veteran and kiss the flag...).

Few things infuriate me more than the hypocritical use of veterans as a pawn by the self-serving, greedy, power-hungry politicians who, in truth, don't give a rat's a** for veterans (or hardly anyone else in their constituency).  And, please, please, spare me the "Oh, the Democrats are not like that...." or "Oh, the Republicans are not like that...."  If you believe that your lovely party is really the veterans' friend, then you are naive beyond recovery.  (And I'll stick to "naive" rather than what I really think)

The truth is that veterans are the tissues which did not disappear after use, and we're stuck with them and have to tolerate them and pretend we really care.  We waved a flag and sent them off to die in some third-world country to benefit some institution or another.  Those who died, we waved the flag again, sang a song, and buried them.  The problem is that not all of them died.  Some of us have survived for going on 50 or 60 or 70 years.....and all those teary-eyed promises have come back to haunt the politicians.  We're a great burden but dare not be labeled as such. 

For all the costs involved in maintaining the image of a "veteran-loving" nation, the pols have to extract some benefit.....so they take vets out of mothballs and wave them around whenever there's a political point to be made.  We're like a flag, a slightly fat and greying flag......And the pols really hope the moment passes quickly so we can be put back into storage--out of sight and out of mind.

REFORMED THEOLOGY, BEARDS, BEER, CIGARS AND TATTOOS

IS THIS YOUR PASTOR?

Within the 21st century world of "reformed theology" there is a growing number of young men who couple their doctrinal position with some external evidences:  primarily their beards......but there are secondary features including tattoos, beer-guzzling and cigar-smoking.


The beard thing is almost cultic.  They have websites like "Bearded Gospel Men" and so forth.  One would like to think the attitude is tongue-in-cheek (and perhaps it is for some), but as time goes on, it looks more and more serious, more of a shibboleth for this subset of what was once referred to as the "young, restless, and reformed"

Many of the bearded bunch associate themselves with Spurgeon....who indeed sported a beard and reportedly enjoyed his cigars.  I've seen one fanatic styling himself to resemble (as much as possible) Spurgeon.  Of course, Spurgeon was also a total abstainer from alcohol and encouraged his flock to follow that example.  The imitators often skip that part of his character.  Spurgeon was also overweight......and I see a number of good imitations of that in this crowd.  So, Spurgeon smoked cigars and was overweight, and was in very poor health for years, died at age 58.  The beard probably did not contribute to his health problems, but the other stuff......

I have no problems with Spurgeon's theology (or very minor ones) and would encourage any young Christian to read his works.  My own theology is a bit of a mix of Spurgeon, Pink, and for a modern example, John MacArthur (clean-shaven, teetotal).  Also, I have a beard.  Had a beard before these fellows were born; had one continuously for the past 20 years and for 80% of the past 45 years (since I got out of the military).  So, this is not an anti-beard rant.

My point is that I had a beard as an atheist, a vociferous Bible-denying, God-hating heathen.  I had a beard as a young convert and was subjected to severe criticism for it by the "church."  I had a beard as a young preacher and cannot count the times I heard "We'd like to have you preach for us, brother, if you'd just get rid of that beard"

So, what is this drive to associate beard-wearing with "reformed" theology?  I do not know.  It's an affectation and like all affectations, in speech or walk or other mannerisms, it's off-putting.  You want a beard?  Fine.  You want to shave?  Fine.  Don't try to associate yourself with Spurgeon via a beard.  Any (male) moron can grow a beard.  You want to stand out in your crowd?  I suggest you follow the Biblical principles which lead to holiness and Christ-likeness.  That result will make you a stand-out in this modern "church."

I'm afraid that in many cases it's a way of rationalizing a desire to be like the world in which we dwell.  The beards, the tattoos, the beer-swilling, cigar-puffing world has some appeal to many young folks.....and they don't want to miss out on the fun just because they're Christians.  It's a way of having "the best of both worlds."

Today we have web sites promoting "calvinist brews" and "Christian tattoos"--I'm expecting a "Christian" porn site within a few years.

Think about the perception of those around you.  What is your witness to the world, even before you open your mouth?  They see just another young, bearded, tattooed punk with a cigar stuffed in his mouth.  You think that image inspires them to listen to you when you broach the subject of the Gospel?

"Judgmental" you say?  Yep.  If I walked into a new congregation and saw such a person step into the pulpit, I'd leave.  Not interested.  You don't need the $1500. suit and military haircut but you need a statement of attitude other than that which says to me:  I love this aspect of the world and I'm keeping it in the forefront of my "ministry"

The Author

Bearded, but

finding no spiritual advantage

in so being

No Cigar

No Tatts

No Beer,

and finding that 

the absence of those 

worldly devices is

not a hindrance

FRED PHELPS IS ALIVE!

...or, at least his spirit is--alive and flourishing in the "Christian" world, perhaps a bit more subtle than the Westboro brand but equally disturbing.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6)

"There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers." (Proverbs 6)

I want to make two points here:

1.  One can make no objection to preaching against sin, or even preaching against specific sins if the text leads in that direction.  What I see as objectionable is the single-minded focus on homosexuality and the resultant neglect of other sins which are even more prevalent in our culture.

Note the passage of scripture quoted above which enumerates specific sins, including homosexuality--Now I ask you: Where is the outrage against general sexual immorality (such as we are entertained by regularly via television and Hollywood)?...against drunkenness, greed, thieving and swindling....all of which are far more wide-spread than homosexuality.  Public opinion polls often indicate that people think 25% of the population is homosexual, but scientific studies show the number to be far lower--4%-8% range.  One does not need a "scientific study" to know that 100% of the population is guilty of sexual immorality, thieving, lying, and so forth.

So, the question remains-- Why the emphasis on one sin?  Some of the efforts to justify this pattern of preaching falls into the "God hates homosexuality more than other sins......" category.  We get the "Sodom and Gomorrah" reference.  No one can deny that God hates sin, God hates homosexuality....but there's no evidence that He hates it more than He hates other sexual sins for example.  Note the passage I quoted from Proverbs:  That's not an exclusive list of things God abominates, I'm sure, but I will point out that homosexuality did not make the list.  Some of those other items on there maybe should get some "air time" from American pulpits.

If we were to "stick to the text" there would be far more preaching across the spectrum against all sins rather than this selective, agenda-driven crusade against homosexuality.  Which brings me to my second point:

2.  Why is this happening?  What prompts the "church" in its monomaniacal crusade against homosexuality?......This from a church which, by omission, diminishes the consequences of other sins which Biblically are just as damning.

For one thing, I think we all, in whatever vestiges of self-righteousness remain with our flesh, we all love to find someone "worse" than we are.  We're proud that we're not like those sinners!  Yes, we're proud......

In our hearts, we know we're guilty of sexual immorality, theft, lying, gluttony, greed, etc, etc, etc......but we're not queer!  Good for us!  We can preach freely on that subject when all the other sins seem to be slightly less appealing subjects for a pulpit rant...with that conscience pricking us all the time we rave about adulterers and liars and thieves.  So, let's stick to a target where we suffer no wounds.

On a larger scale, however, I think this whole anti-homosexual movement is born out of something other than God's hatred of sin.  I think its true foundation is not Biblical at all.  It's getting a veneer of Bible gloss and, indeed, it is a sin, and it is contrary to God's word, but that may be merely a convenience for the Movement.

This Movement is the effort to save our culture.  People see the increasing presence, yea prominence, of homosexuals as a detriment to Western culture (and rightly so...no argument).  Historically, there is evidence that sexual debauchery, including homosexual practices, is a harbinger of a culture's demise.
I'm not here to elaborate on that Movement except to say that it's the driving force in this fracas, not the Bible.  That's why we see very little to none of the Biblical attitudes expected in a confrontation with sinners.  A friend told the story of Bob Jones University's response to a bunch of pro-gay pickets--rather than getting in their faces and having a shouting match, the school sent out box lunches with Gospel tracts.  That response is the exception rather than the rule these days.  Genuine Christians recognize their own sin and realize that apart from God's restraining grace, we'd all have gone to the extremes of our depravity and done every sinful thing possible.  Genuine Christians also know that homosexuals will not be converted by argument, debate, or by shaming them, or by hating them, but by the only possible way:  the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit bringing them to spiritual life.

If we don't have the love of Christ compelling us to take the Gospel to sinners of all stripes, we need to examine ourselves regarding the validity of our "faith"  Those who are more concerned about the cultural/political agenda of "defeating" the homosexual agenda than they are about proclaiming Christ to a lost and dying world need to be honest about their motives.  Do not claim your agenda to be God's agenda.  Christ came to seek and to save the lost.  Believers are commissioned to take that Good News to the spiritually blind ...take it with a loving heart and a prayer that God will save those sinners for His glory.

"OLD PEOPLE" In the Church

OLD PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH
A Rant

First of all, this is qualified as a "rant" because it's based on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and limited examples.  I am not writing a book on the subject; I am not researching it; I am not making any effort to establish statistically-reliable analysis relevant to all churches.  So, if you like, this is an unscientific, subjective, emotional reaction--hence, "rant."

I was prompted to this line of thought initially by a Facebook group ostensibly purposed for discussion of calvinism and digital fellowship among those who hold to that theological viewpoint.  This particular group is heavily populated by a subset of calvinists sometimes identified as "young, restless, and reformed"--which I translate "young, arrogant, and rude."  Many of these Thirty-somethings or younger are actually in pastoral ministry, frightening as the thought might be.  Time and again I read their posts and comments which were replete with condemnation of the "old people" in their congregations who were proving to be obstacles to "progress," hindrances to the implementation of the Youthful Leader's agenda.  It seems that the very redemption of the world and the implementation of the Kingdom of God was at the mercy of this bunch of old fuddy-duddies who stood in the path of Progress as defined by Youth.  This bunch of geriatrics proved so frustrating to several of the anointed ones that they all but called for euthanasia as a solution to their problem.

With that bunch in mind, more recently I was introduced to another Facebook group--a gathering of pastors on a page with the intended purpose of "mutual encouragement" -- a handy thing for anyone in pastoral ministry.  Very soon after I started reading thru posts in that group, I came across a thread on the subject of "old people in the church."  I'm going to interrupt myself right here to clarify one thing:  I'm going to use the word "church" in this article in the sense of "local assembly" or "local congregation"  Personally, I do not care for that usage because it often results in confusion with The Church, the Body of Christ....and the conflation of the local assembly and The Church is a serious problem.  But here, "church" is a reference to a local gathering (unless specifically stated otherwise).  So, "old people in the church"--I immediately skimmed through the initial comment, the o.p., and (mistakenly) thought:  This guy is talking about what I'm thinking about.

Well, no....hardly what I was thinking about.  The main commentator in this thread was spouting psycho-babble about how the young people just needed to "get to know" the old crocks and then they would love them.  His methodology includes nice little "show and tell" meetings where my peers can regale the kiddies with our war stories from Vietnam, and other bits of brilliance.

 "When you look at an older man as he describes his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier, you may find yourself thinking differently in regard to him."

Clearly this guy is totally out of touch.....You'll travel a long road before you find (m)any Vietnam vets who want to stand up and regale the crowd with the horrors we faced.  To think that we are surly and cantankerous in the congregation because we don't get to "share our story" is simply pathetic.

Another pastor persistently bemoans the "old people" in his congregation as those who cause the most trouble and are the greatest hindrances to the various ministries he would undertake.

"...in my experience those over 70 are more concerned with their comfort and holding to the past with an iron grip. In my own church the older adults have an issue with doing anything to bring the Gospel to the heathen God has placed in our community."

I'd really like to tone down my inclination to really rant on and on....Let's see if I can respond to this with two points:

1.  It's wrong-headed to present congregational problems as age-based.  Let's take that 70-year-old man who is "more concerned with [his] comfort rather than "doing anything to bring the Gospel...."--How was he doing at 45?.....60?  He was a faithful, obedient, active worker in his comparative youth, but when he got "old" he woke up stubborn and intransigent? 
No, I thought not.  Those who are unhelpful, undisciplined, and disruptive are not that way because they're "old"--they've always been that way.  And, they're probably that way because they've sat under ineffective, Bible-weak preaching for years, the product of lame leadership in the congregation.

2.  More importantly, much more:  To shove aside, to denigrate, to dismiss with the contempt I see so often, the older members of the congregation is a major sin.  First of all, we are taught in the Bible to honor the aged, to respect them, and to learn from them.  What's happening on such a wide-spread scale is just the opposite of the Biblical model.

The suggestion of that pastor I quoted, the one who wanted "war stories,"...that we have a nice dinner every month or so and a lovely "show and tell" with pictures from ancient history when we were "real people".....I cannot tell you how disgusting I find that sort of condescension.

These young "hot shots" with all the answers, those who want to steam-roll congregations onto the Path To Greatness as outlined by their favorite personality-cult preacher hero, are dismissing centuries of experience jointly held by those congregation members who have walked with the Lord for years and years longer than that preacher has been alive.

Two examples and I'm done (for now).  My wife:  a Christian more than 60 years.  Her exegetical abilities far exceed those of more than half the preachers I know.  But who wants to have some old woman teaching?  At best, she would be assigned to teach the 5 other septuagenarian women in the congregation rather than putting someone like her to work teaching the young women (as we are instructed to do).

Finally, my prison co-laborer.  He'll be 84 this year.  He's been in the same church since his conversion over 60 years ago.  He's taught there for over 50 years.  When they finally convinced him that they had no place for him in these modern times, he started a Bible study in his home during the week.  He traveled to prison meetings faithfully until his body was too worn out to do the necessary walking.  Every conversation I have with this man is a learning experience for me; his insights on Biblical matters incline me to call him rather than reach for a commentary when I have a question.  But......he's one of those "old people"--the up-to-date, cool, relevant "church" does not want to be portrayed by his image....old, grey, frail.  He's not cool.  Maybe he'd like to tell his war stories from Korea?.....go on a nice church bus ride to the lake?....eat at Cracker Barrel?

NO ONE CARES

Look to the right and see: there is none who takes notice of me; no refuge remains to me; no one cares for my soul. (Psalms 142:4)

 After 35+ years in and around the "church" world, more than 30 years as an "ordained minister" and missionary, this is my conclusion: No man cares.... (Let's get through this now--All generalities are false, including this one. Sure, there is a man here and there who cares. I like to include myself in that cadre of "exceptions to the rule" So, "no man cares" is hyperbole, but barely) Examples of this non-caring abound. I'll give just a few, then move on to the conclusions I am drawing. First, a couple I know have in the past year been moved by God to take the Gospel to the streets by going among the homeless, the street people of their area. They provide food, clothing, kindness, counsel, company, and the love of Christ to the scorned, the shunned, the dregs, the hopeless. For their actions, their Biblically-sound church, well...."here's a nice pat on the back"..........and from the social activists, it's "well, thanks for the food, but lay off all that Gospel stuff; you're doing more harm than good" I was in a big, prominent church at one time, and in the early days used to ask stuff like: How about the jail ministry?......how about the nursing homes?.....how about street ministry?.......soup kitchen?......shelters? All this was met with responses like "Well, old Charlie used to go to the jail, but...." or "I think Betty goes to some nursing home, sometimes...." and then we went on to discuss the B I G "mission programs" where we sent several missionaries to foreign lands and at one time headquartered a large international mission operation. But those people right down the street, and in the state prison down the road, ........no one cares.

I worked in prison ministry for several years. Almost every prison has a Chaplain, a paid staff position pretty high up on the food chain. One big state prison in the South had 5 or 6 full time chaplains and a Head Chaplain. Most of these folks are nothing but bureaucrats. I can think of one exception but most of them do not care. It's a job, and a remunerative one; they're not going to rock the boat just because some private prison-for-profit (which profit pays their wages) is giving inmates substandard food, shocking medical inattention, poorly trained officers, and virtually no security. They don't care. Local churches are pastored by men who don't care. They'll be there Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night. It's their job. Let some stranger come by and they will probably get a follow-up call or visit...once. Let someone attend for several years, then drift away. They'll get a call after a week or two....but soon be forgotten. "Well, it's up to them....we're here if they need us" What do these men feed their flocks? Mostly regurgitated sermons gleaned from books of the "Preacher X's Greatest Sermons".....one hour reading and you've got a nice little 3-points- and- a- poem and can spend the rest of the week at the golf course....unless some idiot member goes to the hospital. Congregations are starving for the Word (at least those members who are regenerated)...but these "shepherds" do not have the inclination or ability to feed the sheep. They do not care.

 There are thousands of "missionaries" who do not care. Oh! How can you say that? Look at what passes for "missions"--all these 10-day trips to Costa Rica or some other tropical paradise where an afternoon or two is dedicated to a "prayer walk" or tract-passing in a market place, and the rest of the time is sight-seeing tourism passed off as mission work. Look at the comparatively wealthy American missionaries in third world countries--they live in relative luxury, employ household servants, sent their children back to the US for schooling, and take extended leaves as often as possible. Oh, yeah, on the mission field, but make it just like the USA as best you can....all the creature comforts. (For the record, I know some real missionaries....on the field for 20 years, has become a citizen of the nation he ministers to, his children schooled there and in the compulsory military service there, works there, his heart is there, not longing to be "home in the USA")

 So, what kind of "church" demonstrates that it does not care, does not care for your soul, does not love the brethren? This is the prevailing church, this is the most visible church, this is the church of the news media and the general population in the Western world, that church that people go to ....when you ask "Do you know Christ? are you saved?" and they respond "I go to church".....This is their church. This is Satan's Church. Satan is the Great Counterfeiter, the Great Imitator. He knows Christ has a Church, so he wants a church. This has always been the case but historically, men have identified Satan's Church as the obviously anti-Biblical, pseudo-Christian, obvious examples: Rome at its worst, the other cults, the wackos who take Christ's name in vain, all the exaggerated cases. But, Satan is not stupid. To counterfeit $100 bills, he would not put George Washington's portrait on the effort. His modern-day effort is a pretty successful work. It has all the trappings--formality, social respectability, educated preachers, even espouses pretty sound Bible doctrine. It looks like a duck and it talks like a duck!

But, does it walk like a duck? You have to watch it very closely....And when you do, you'll find that it does not care. It's an act. It's a facade. Scratch beneath the surface and you draw no blood because there's no heart. No heart for souls, no love of the brethren. It's a business, it's a complex organizational structure with a big budget and a big name, but it's heart-less. And it's been built up to this enormous extent we see in 2012 by years of shallow preaching, Gospel-less "conversions" of the "repeat this prayer" type, and the resulting product is a church building where the pews are populated with unregenerated souls and even pulpits are filled by unsaved men, highly educated, articulate, efficient, Christless men.

 Christ's disciples emulate Him. Hold up your congregants to that standard. "If any man loves the world, the love of God is not in him."....or that one. "A man who does not love his brother cannot love God"......or that one. Within this visible, miserable "church" certainly there are those who are His, but they are few and far between. "Few there be who find it...." weighs heavily on me these days.......few there be. "Many" however will be heard in That Day crying about all they did "in His name".....when in fact, they did not care.

WHY DOES THE WORLD HATE JEWS?

Why does the world hate Jews?

Every month or so we get a reminder from Ahmadinejad when he quotes Khomeini's statement that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

Many efforts to do just that have taken place throughout history including the most familiar Holocaust during the 1930s and 40s.

When one considers the nature of this hatred, it seems to rise above other prejudices such as those forms of racial and ethnic animosity like whites hating blacks; blacks hating whites; orientals hating whites; etc, etc. All this is born out of man's sinful nature, a manifestation of pride, a sense of superiority to anyone who is not like himself.

The hatred for Jews seems to transcend these skin-color/cultural parameters. For one thing, Jews seem to be universally hated, not just hated by their Arab neighbors, for example. They are hated in the East and hated in the West; they are hated by men of all racial compositions. What is it about Jews which makes them the target of almost universal enmity?

I think the answer lies in the perception, not just held by Bible believers but by the world in general, that Jews are in one way or another representative of God. Men naturally hate God, are at enmity with God, are alienated from God by their sin. Since Jews are almost universally viewed to one degree or another as "God's Chosen People" this hatred of God is transferred to the people considered to be His.

One could ask, considering the present state of Israel, how this Christ-less, God-less political entity draws any fire from God-haters. It is as God-less as any nation on earth; it should be right at home with the rest of the world. The present state is as rebellious, unbelieving as ever in the history of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, the world system through its spiritual father, Satan, recognizes both the history and the future of this people created for God's purposes....and because the world hates God, they instinctively hate Israel and the Jews.

Well, it's one thing when the unbelieving world acts out its sin nature and hatred for God in this way--hating a group which is closely associated with God. It's entirely another matter when we find the professing church demonstrating the same attitude, albeit sometimes more subtly. When the German government led by Hitler began and perpetrated their efforts to eliminate Jews from the population of the world, the "church" was silent and consenting for the most part. The leadership in Rome has been condemned for their acquiescence and accused of complicity.

The Protestant "church" in Germany was silent. Apart from a few courageous leaders like Niemoeller and Bonhoeffer, the pews and the pulpits turned their heads as the Jews were led to the gas chambers and ovens.

Today, I see a similar situation. I say "similar" with the intention of being clear that it is not "identical"......maybe "reminiscent".......similar.....like this:

First, we have a political force, growing in strength and openly advocating and diligently working toward the eradication of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. That group is Iran and all its Islamic Jihadist friends and neighbors, some more covert than others.

And then you might ask: Where is the parallel to the professing church's complicity and consent? Especially in view of the obvious "Zionist" element in evangelical circles, the John Hagee types and their ilk, those heretics who have manufactured in their minds the salvation of Jews apart from Christ and solicit millions from the sheep for such projects as moving Jews to Israel from all over the world.

Two things about that group: they are vocal but tiny in numbers; and they are clearly outside the realm of orthodoxy. It's more of a cult. Their abberant views are even further removed from Biblical truth than the majority view which is in my sights here.

Rome played a role in the Holocaust. Rome is playing a role today in the minimalization of Israel. Note how "ecumenical" Rome is these days.......note their efforts to bring back into the fold, for example, the Church of England. Note their outreach to Mormons and Muslims....note their efforts toward building a one-religion world (the capitol of which is Rome, of course).......note further, than there is no equivalent outreach to Jews or Israel.

The Protestant churches were involved in the most recent eradication effort, if only by their silence. Many are involved in today's more subtle efforts, not so much by silence but by proclamation--the proclmation that God is finished with Israel; that their time is past; that God has moved on in His plan, and that the Church has replaced Israel, has been named heir to the promises of God made to Israel and will be the recipient of all blessings once directed toward Israel.

I'm not going into a detailed description of this "replacement theology"...you can look it up, or look up 'supercessionism" for expanded study. My point is that this is a majority view in the professing Protestant church. It allows Christians to say: Israel has no importance to the Church today. God is finished there. The theologians who promote this view are clever word-masters who spiritualize vast portions of scripture which promise future blessings and earthly activies for a restored nation of Israel.....like Jeremiah 33 and the millennial temple passages in Ezekiel 40-48.

The question here is this: Why? What is the motivation for "doing away with" Israel and the Jewish people so far as their future in the plan of God? I cannot help wondering if this is not a much more subtle manifestation of this natural enmity with God and with the things of God. Even as I write this, I am aware that it seems harsh....and I do not mean to condemn any individual who holds to this viewpoint. At the same time, I see no valid hermeneutics at work in arriving at the supercessionist viewpoint. So, what is the source? What is the impetus? What presuppositions are at work when one casts out lengthy passages of scripture, negating them with obfuscatory jargon, rather than taking God at His word?

LAW vs EMOTION, JUSTICE vs VENGEANCE

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/23/ny-taxpayers-pay-big-heart-transplant-convicted-rapist/?test=latestnews

This link is to an emotion-laden article in the Fox "News" on-line tabloid but reflects thinking which extends far beyond the tabloid mentality.



Look at this exceptionally wicked crime, and now the perpetrator is about to get an expensive medical procedure at taxpayer expense! (Insert gasps, gags, and cries of despair)



Our much-vaunted "justice" system is supposed to be a rule of law rather than rule of mob-mentality or popularity poll. We take men and women out of our general population and incarcerate them when they are convicted of crimes. The crimes are stipulated and the punishment outlined in L-A-W which supposedly is what we're all about.



It is a well-established legal position that incarcerated persons are still human and still have the right to medical care and that care is to be at the "community standard"--that is to say, we do not have inmates treated by veterinarians or shamans.



The questions which arise when sensational cases like this appear are disturbing:



Shall we admit, as a nation, that our heart is indeed so depraved that we would rejoice in seeing offenders locked up without any medical care?....."let 'em die like dogs!" Maybe we could quit feeding them, too?



Suppose this case involved: a woman, not a man? a woman who shot an abusive husband, for example (or something which inspires some sympathy....)? The volume of protests would be much lower, I'm sure. So, maybe for some crimes, for some offenders, the sentence ought to include "no medical care, no food, and no television for 40 years" ?



And, let me include this thought: I'd be happy to see laws changed to include the possibility of the death penalty for such crimes as this guy did....I have no sympathy for him, but I would like to see us obey the law, respect it as the Law, all the while we are bemoaning his law breaking.



Maybe we should take a poll. That's how much policy is determined these days. I wonder what portion of our population would be content to simply execute all felons upon conviction? No muss, no fuss....Guilty! Take him out and shoot him. No more overcrowded prisons, no more escapes, no more medical care for perverts,



The fact is that the State takes on a great responsibility in instituting a legal system such as we have. It does allow that convicted criminals are still human and have human rights. Supporting that highly moral legal code is an expensive project. I think our culture is disintegrating rapidly and that this is questioned at all is an indicator of how sick a society we are.

A BIT OF TESTIMONY + A NEW RANT

Caught myself thinking again the other day.....actually I was listening to a recording of Bob Kauflin leading "In Christ Alone" (Keith Getty, Stuart Townend) at T4G.
In Christ alone my hope is found....

So, how true is that for you?......for me? My "thinking spell" led me down the paths of all these debates and discourses on Facebook, blogs, forums, etc. I have friends and have myself been involved in the calvinist-arminian debate; I have friends who turn all colors over the young earth-old earth arguments; I've been bent out of shape by paedo-baptist proponents. Now I have a friend who is majoring on "family integrated" assemblies, eschewing age-graded classes, etc.

Wandering further back into time, I revisited my "intellectual" roots. I was an absolute, total, vehement skeptic, unbeliever, "religion is the opiate of the masses" type of guy who by God's grace found himself married to a Christian woman (thank you, Lord!). Early in our marriage, I remember being asked by an acquaintance, a wicked, lying, crooked woman lawyer, "are you in that religious hooey?" meaning "like your silly wife?" I told her, Nah, she does her thing, I do mine.

A few years later, I decided to settle her hash about all that Bible stuff. "Read the Bible, read the Bible, read the Bible......" I kept getting that from her.......So, I said: I will read the Bible and I will show you, for your own good, what a load of baloney it is! I got me a nice "intellectual's Bible"--the Jerusalem Bible--a nice Roman Catholic production with twice as much text in scholarly footnotes as in Bible. I waded through most of the Pentateuch and was getting nowhere....made no sense whatsoever.....and she said: Go to the New Testament, read the Gospels. Yeah, right....

I never got all the way through the Gospels....the conviction of sin was so great, I was literally calling out: What must I do to be saved?!! Just another example of the power of the Word of God....absolutely remarkable, outside reason, outside intellectual understanding, simply supernatural. I pitted my intellect against God and it was no contest.

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
(1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

I need to wake up every morning being aware of this: In Christ alone my hope is found

My "great understanding" of scripture is not a source of hope; my hope is not in the truth of calvinistic soteriology. I think there is a real danger of straying into this intellectual realm, the realms of heated discourse or civil conversation are equally risky. We must not lose sight of Christ. This intellectualism is an aspect of the flesh, a manifestation of pride. Oh, I am so smart......I've got this nearly figured out! All those on the "other side" are so dense; how many more hours must I belabor them before they see the light?

I encourage you to think about these issues in the context of our presence in this world populated with lost and dying men. What's important? How much time do we have for debating, for example, "young earth vs old earth"? Do we want to be known as an outspoken leader in the field of "family integrated worship"? I am very skeptical of the field which is called "apologetics" because it seems over-run by debaters whose primary goal is outscoring an opponent, some sort of intellectual victory.....made him look like a monkey, I did! (Yes, there are a few men in this field who are doing a good job of making the Gospel the center-piece, and I am not referring to them, obviously)

Let's think about a "good debate"--suppose I call out some arminian and he and I debate "limited atonement" I'm an experienced debater (high school and college, albeit half a century ago)....I make him look like that monkey mentioned earlier; I score all the points. Does that make him a calvinist? More likely, it makes him bitter, having been humiliated, and more cautious about whom he debates in future. Me? It just puffs me up a bit more.......Then, I take on an unbeliever, a Muslim, or a cult member and really show them what's what. At the conclusion of the intellectual drubbing I deliver, will they convert? I think not; more likely, they will not see the same result I see, rather thinking they carried the day and affirmed all their own errors....so, both parties leave claiming victory and the lost are still lost; only my pride is enhanced.

I urge you to focus on the Gospel. Lost people do not need to be lectured or hectored about young earth vs old earth.....they are going to Hell no matter how old the earth is. Their only hope is in Jesus Christ........that's Christ the Person, not Christ the intellectual concept which you have garnered from your books........Christ the Person, the one of the song: In Christ alone my hope is found
Preachers, your congregations don't need you to be driven by "family integrated" church structure thinking; they sure don't need a spiritual leader who thinks he's CEO of a million-dollar business enterprise. They need the Gospel! What percentage of your congregation is lost? And you want to spend all your time selling some organizational concept? I'm talking about your FOCUS....incidentals have to be dealt with, I know.....but I'm talking to the way-too-many who are one-trick ponies, monomaniacs who get on some elaborate hobby horse generated by their fertile imagination and ride that poor horse to death, while their congregations starve spiritually for want of the Gospel.

Bottom line is: I don't care if you're young earth, old earth, or middle earth. I don't care if you have age-segregated classes or not; I don't care if you're supra or infra; I don't care if you are a total abstainer from alcohol or a wine sipper; I don't even care if you sprinkle babies! All that is between you and God. I'll tell you this for sure: Unless your hope is in Christ and Him alone, you're lost. Your intellect, your wisdom, your skills, your personality, your charisma, your experience, your education, your superior abilities in so many fields, you will carry them with you (or not) into eternity, lost.

In Christ alone my hope is found

ADDENDUM: A few hours after I posted this on my Facebook page, I added a comment there about preterists. That started a big debate which at the 4-hour mark already had nearly 40 comments.....a lot of them mine, of course. That debate is a great illustration of just the kind of intellectual rabbit trails one can be sidetracked by. Only a few folks probably read this, which I intended to be a call to the Gospel....but a good fight on some doctrinal hair-splitting draws a big crowd.

I also found this photo (which was not credited, so I cannot give credit here as I'd like to).....this is a visual illustration of just exactly what I've been trying to state verbally.

I LOVE CRAZY MISSIONARIES....

We are fools for Christ's sake ....(1 Corinthians 4:10)

I love folks who are so consumed by the love of Christ that their pride and self-consciousness is buried and buried deep.

Earlier I wrote about that "crazy Christian" Robert Park who barged into North Korea with the stated intention of taking the Gospel to the leadership there. He's back in the U.S. and silent....I have no idea what happened to him or what his heart is.....but his actions were crazy! In the eyes of the world "crazy" that is.....

David Brainerd was crazy like that. He devoted the last 4 years of his short life to preaching the Gospel to Native Americans in New England, living among them and suffering with them. This was a guy who could have had a cushy life, going to Yale (from which he was expelled) and living in "civilized" America, but he chose to act like a crazy man.

Next century we find a guy like C. T. Studd.....heir to a fortune, sports hero of the British Empire.....gave it all up and spent the rest of his life on the mission fields in China, India and Africa, eventually dying in the Congo. They all told him he was crazy! I suspect he told them a thing or two since he was notable for very "plain talk" (a man after my own heart....lol)

E. P. Scott was a missionary to India. Despite warnings to avoid the area, he was traveling inland to evangelize a warrior tribe when he found himself surrounded by spear-toting, aggressive men. He figured he was a goner, armed only with his violin......he closed his eyes, tucked the fiddle under his chin and began to play and sing "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" Those warriors were captivated....rather than kill him, they took him to their village where he lived and preached to them for a couple years, seeing souls saved. The man was "crazy"!

We have some crazy missionaries on the fields today, too. Sadly, not enough of them. I am blessed to know one personally who is really "crazy"--he is in the Middle East, preaching the Gospel of Christ in the streets of places where Christianity is "outlawed"--Christians are under death threats and certainly subject to physical abuse, imprisonment and other persecution. He is undeterred, by the grace of God.

Too often missionary work is presented as a "tour of duty" like doing 3 years in the Army or something. Some churches promote these so-called "mission trips" which are nothing more than exotic vacations for folks who want to say they were on a mission field. They'd be better off taking the two or three or five thousand dollars they spend on these shallow endeavors and supporting a real missionary. I know indigenous pastors in Cuba who could live for a year or two on the amount of money some fat-cat American Christian spends on his glorified, "sanctified" mission trip to Costa Rica.

Real missionaries go where God sends them and they stay there til God calls them out (or Home). They do not go to take American culture to the "natives"--they go to carry the Gospel to the lost. They live with the "natives"--they live like the natives. It's incredible to see that there are still so-called missionaries in primitive cultures who insist upon having western-style housing, conveniences, and benefits, living far above the people to whom they supposedly care so much for.

In my wildest dreams, to show how "crazy" I am, too, there should be a way for missionaries on my field to "go native" There should be a way for prison missionaries to go into prisons and stay.....live as an inmate, live in a cell like any other inmate, eat with them, work with them, be one of them. He should stay there til his work is done. He should be subject to all the restrictions, rules and regulations, deprivations and degradations as his people. I speak from experience when I say it's easy to go into a prison and preach to men about the great blessings of Christ when I know in an hour I can just walk out the gate and return to the comforts of my home, family, plentiful, tasty food, and the freedom to do what I want.

Can you imagine how few candidates the NAMB would have for such a field? Naturally, this is for single men. No married man could abandon his family for this field where it would be impossible for them to accompany him. It costs about $30,000. annually for a state to maintain a prisoner. So, the NAMB could offer to pay the state that cost each year its missionary was in the prison. Of course, there would be a million waivers of liability involved should the missionary be hurt or killed or suffer from the lame medical care which most inmates get. But the IMB sends dozens of missionaries into dangerous places every year without a second thought.....why not into the danger zones of the U.S.?

I know there are a lot of practical complications of monumental proportions in this "modest proposal".....probably never happen, but it should happen--somehow. What passes for "prison ministry" is in many ways lame: give it a lick and a promise, make the gesture. We are weakened by chaplains who are drawing a check, mere bureaucrats with no heart for the inmates; we are weakened by Big Show performances by traveling circuses who think mission work is putting on an afternoon's entertainment for the inmates--a motorcycle jump and a couple songs.....we are weakened because the lack of sincerity on the part of some is discerned by the inmates who are then suspicious of all ministries.

How few Christians are willing to even look foolish for Christ! We have our pride--indeed we do. Just the idea of being rebuffed in efforts to make a Gospel witness at work or at the grocery store is intimidating most people into silence. How few there are who will really risk anything, let alone everything--or more than "risk" it, to forsake it! How we struggle to dilute this passage of scripture in order to continue in our self-justified inaction--

And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
(Luke 9:23-24)

"CLEVER" EVANGELISM & REGURGITATED "THEOLOGY"

The connection........

I've posted a number of photos of church signs with those incredibly vacuous, insipid, Gospel-less slogans -- ostensibly a way for that church to "reach" passers-by. Reach them with what is not quite clear....

A friend commented recently "wonder what goes on inside a church which puts that on the outside?" I told her the same type stuff was being proclaimed from the pulpit as from the sign. How could we think otherwise?.......surely no doctrinally sound pastor would allow such drivel as their public witness.

So, this is the "connection" I refer to. There is a dismaying amount of drivel falling from the lips of preachers, even some from whom we might expect better. Just recently, I've been exposed to a flood of sloganeering by supposedly sound preachers. These guys are masters of the quip and the quote. They can wow you with blurbs from all the Big Names.....MacArthur, Tozer, Spurgeon, Piper, et al.

This is a variant of the "spring board sermon" where the preacher starts with his idea, his theme, his point.......then he searches the Bible to find a verse (note: a verse) which he feels supports this idea. Building his structure upon one verse, he springs into action, lambasting the hearers with his own pet ideas whilst claiming Biblical support from the out of context verse.

Now we can get instead of a verse, a one-liner from Spurgeon or one of the other icons. From then on, the preacher goes where his own imagination takes him, having justified his thoughts by appealing to one of the Masters.

Another variant is the "borrowed sermon" These guys read Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon (less so) and next thing you know, they have a sermon! Nice little 3-pointer, sometimes complete will illustrations. This, of course, has been going on for centuries. Some of the most popular books I sell are collections of sermons by Clovis Chappell, Clarence Macartney, and F W. Boreham. Those sermons have been preached and re-preached for nearly 100 years.

The question is: Why do they do this?
The answer is: They don't have nothin' else.

Some birds (pigeons and doves, maybe some others) feed their babies by going out, finding a nice meal and eating it.....back in the nest, they regurgitate that meal in a form palatable to the babies. This is called "pigeon milk"

Lots of congregations of hungry Christians are being fed on regurgitated theology. Those preachers read a clever bit on Piper's website or a MacArthur book, or had a good time on Phil Johnson's Spurgeon site.....and they carry this bit into the pulpit with them Sunday morning and spit it out for the starving sheep.

Baby pigeons thrive on that stuff. Baby Christians will starve.

Much as I like all the Greats I have mentioned here, their writings are inadequate food. Where have we read that:

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which comes from the mouth of Spurgeon (Piper, etc)? No, that's not it. These guys who are imitating some other preacher, "borrowing" his sermons, quoting him endlessly, in fact, worshiping some man.....are on dangerous ground. They are in danger and their congregations are starving.

I have lots of books; I have lots of commentaries (though I will say I don't use them much these days except for a word study perhaps)...but what I need is a Word from God, not from Spurgeon. Some preachers think a dream come true would be them locked away in a luxury hotel room, with tons of food, hundreds of books to read and "study" and at the end of that stay, they'd be a more powerful preacher. I'm going to tell you that the ideal would be locked up in a bare room with some water and saltines, a pencil and paper, and the Word of God.....after a couple weeks, a changed man would emerge.

All this man-made stuff lacks nutrition. Preachers need a Word from God. They will not get it from reading second-hand stuff, even if it's written by Godly men. Cut out the middle man! Go to the Source! Lock up all those commentaries and sermons books and get into the Word! Your congregation is hungry, some of them are starving,

Feed my sheep!

WHAT ABOUT CHURCH "MEMBERSHIP"--IS IT SCRIPTURAL?

I've been thinking about this subject for two months and trying to get started on this article. I cannot get my thoughts organized, so I've decided to write anyway, disorganized as it might turn out to be.....random thoughts, shall we say?

Some time ago, I commented about a pastor who "snuck in" a new member for his congregation by concealing the fact that the man was not "scripturally baptized"--that is, according to Baptist practices and tradtions. Most all my experience in this regard (or any other) is Baptist in one way or another. I read about other denominations; I see talk among the "reformed" folks about baptism as a "means of grace" and all that but don't buy into it.

Anyway, the thinking I've done since writing about that membership issue has led me to a more radical position regarding church membership in general. Within the tradition, what I said about that particular incident is correct but now I question the validity of the tradition itself. I have several questions for us to ponder and am uncertain as to the order in which to present them. Let's start with this one: What is baptism?

Baptism is the center of much controversy in Christendom. I think it's clear from Scripture that there are two forms of baptism: Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism. It seems that the two are often confused, though I don't know why, unless it's a deliberate effort to support an otherwise untenable doctrine.

Water baptism is purely symbolic or pictorial. It is not efficacious with regard to salvation. As I understand "means of grace" it is not a "means of grace" It is testimonial; it is an effort to demonstrate visually to an audience something which has transpired on a spiritual level, to wit: one's death to the things of the flesh, his burial with Christ, his resurrection with Christ to live a life in Christ, for Christ, and by the power of Christ. Water baptism is an act incumbent upon a believer; it is to be done because of the transforming work of God which made that believer a "new creation"--it is done after salvation, as a demonstration of what God has already done. It is not done in order to effect change but to demonstrate the change which has been effected.

That change, that transforming work of God in the life of a man results from the "other baptism"--the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not an external, visible thing in which man plays a role, but the sovereign work of God. This is the work by which God makes men "new creations" and unites them with Christ. Some groups make a big deal about what man immerses another man in water baptism....they actually boast about it (in a spiritual way, of course)..."I was baptized by Jim Bob Miller!" Idolatry takes many forms......

Well, if one is gonna brag, he should go to the Top. As a believer, I can say I was baptized by Jesus Christ. Yes! He is the Baptizer....in the baptism which is most important: the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

The confusion over two baptisms and the conflation of purposes has led us into a real mess about church membership, baptismal regeneration, and numerous other issues. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,,,,(1 Corinthians 12:13) Water or Holy Spirit baptism? Clearly, "one Spirit"--so, what is this "one body"? And he is the head of the body, the church. ....(Colossians 1:18). So, believers are, by the work of the Holy Spirit baptism, united with the Body of Christ, the Church.

This forces us to state what the "Church" is and is not. The Greek word ἐκκλησία is rendered "church" throughout the New Testament when referring to both the Body of Christ and to local assemblies. This is the underlying source of confusion. Men begin to equate the local gatherings of believers with the Body of Christ. I have even heard pastors refer to their congregation as "the Body" when in fact they are not. Does Christ have more than one body? No. These local congregations, at least the truly regenerate persons therein, are members of the Body, but the entire Body is not there. I think we would be better off if we were able to purge our minds of the idea that these local assemblies are The Church (but that's probably impossible). If only we could call them something other than "church" so as to give the only True Church its full import and standing.

From my limited experience, I have the feeling that Baptists are particularly bad about overstating the nature of the local assemblies. I rank as one of the most outlandish statements ever heard one from a Baptist pastor who was "teaching" through Ephesians that "Ephesians is all about the local church" It was notable also that when he finished Ephesians and started into Philippians, he told his congregation that "Philippians is all about the local church" So, maybe his view of the local church is a bit warped.....

And, it's out of this confusion that we see arising ideas about water baptism and "church membership" To all my Baptist friends, what is the scriptural basis for this idea of being "baptized into church membership"? You see, it must be born out of the "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body"....the confusion of water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism and the confusion of being united with Christ by that work of God and becoming a "member" of a local assembly by immersion into water.

In my work as a missionary to prison inmates, I have been criticized by Baptists for baptizing inmates. "What church do you baptize them into?" "What church has given you authority to baptize those men?" Can you believe those questions? They're real....from sincere brothers. I ask them "What church did Phillip baptize the Ethiopian eunuch into?" "Where is the scripture outlining authority to immerse converts?" You want to tell me that the gathering of believers I met with last night is deficient with respect to being a local assembly of God's children? Oh! They don't have business meetings, they don't take up offerings, and they don't belong to the ministerial associations......and I'll assure you, some of those gatherings are closer to the model given in the Book of Acts than 99% of modern "churches" I'm familiar with.

So, what is this "membership" thing? The only Biblical references to "member" (primarily in I Cor 12) refer to individual believers being members (as in body parts) of the Body of Christ.....united with Him by the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of being a "member" of a local assembly; there is no procedure outlined for "joining" a local assembly. Men and women can join clubs, become members of Rotary or the Country Club, but there is no provision for "joining" a local assembly of believers via the baptistery. This is a man-made tradition and has the effect of continuing misunderstanding and promoting ignorance about baptism and the constitution of the Church.

We are commanded to forsake not the assembling of ourselves with other believers. God gives teachers and pastors to local assemblies for the purpose of edifying His saints. That assembly is not, however, a club or society which we "join" by being immersed (or by any other means). Believers are "members" of only one Church--the Body of Christ and union with that Church is effected by the Holy Spirit.

ONLY ONE LIFE--by C. T. Studd

I get a high number of hits on this blog from folks searching for "only one life...." because I have an article by that title. I took it from this oft-quoted poem which, apparently, some people are interested in but apparently don't know the author or complete text. For their benefit, here it is. If you are not familiar with C. T. Studd, I encourage you to read the biography written by his son-in-law Norman Grubb.

ONLY ONE LIFE

Two little lines I heard one day, Traveling along life’s busy way;
Bringing conviction to my heart, And from my mind would not depart;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, yes only one, Soon will its fleeting hours be done;
Then, in ‘that day’ my Lord to meet, And stand before His Judgment seat;
Only one life,’ twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, the still small voice, Gently pleads for a better choice
Bidding me selfish aims to leave, And to God’s holy will to cleave;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, a few brief years, Each with its burdens, hopes, and fears;
Each with its clays I must fulfill, living for self or in His will;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

When this bright world would tempt me sore, When Satan would a victory score;
When self would seek to have its way, Then help me Lord with joy to say;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Give me Father, a purpose deep, In joy or sorrow Thy word to keep;
Faithful and true what e’er the strife, Pleasing Thee in my daily life;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Oh let my love with fervor burn, And from the world now let me turn;
Living for Thee, and Thee alone, Bringing Thee pleasure on Thy throne;
Only one life, “twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, yes only one, Now let me say, “Thy will be done”;
And when at last I’ll hear the call, I know I’ll say ‘twas worth it all”;
Only one life,’ twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.