The Balance Of Pure Religion

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James is opposed to a lazy Christianity. Throughout his writings he promotes the notion that Christian faith is an active faith. God's work in our lives flows from our work in His life. In this passage he teaches that Christian growth comes from active Christian experience. Simply put, good works produce spiritual change in our lives.

The word religion as used here is the practical behavior that springs from devotion to and worship of God. I will use it in that sense throughout this post. The word “visit” means: to go see a person with helpful intent. Affliction means: suffering brought on by outward circumstances. "Keep" is a word for personal discipline.

In previous verses James had highlighted the self-deception in religion that is so common among us, so in this verse he plainly states what pure God-accepted religion looks like so there can be no personal deception or mistake.

The two phrases that end this great verse are not connected by “and” in the text. Literally it says, “ To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, to keep himself unspotted from the world.” I point this out to illustrate the fact that these are not two independent actions. They are deeply associated with each other and the order is by design. One springs from the other.

Personal religious discipline that does not come from compassionate action is self-delusion. Probably one of the most common self-delusions. The self-test is easy: Does my personal religious discipline rise from my visits to help struggling orphans and widows? If I have never visited and/or helped orphans and widows then the answer is obvious, and my personal discipline may be cold and harsh because it does not flow from overwhelmed compassion. Read Jesus' comments in Matthew 23:23-28.

There is another side to this coin. Compassionate action without personal religious discipline is another form of self-delusion. This self-test is also easy and much like the other: Have my visits to help suffering orphans and widows led to greater religious discipline in my personal life? If the answer is no then my commitment to meeting the needs of orphans and widows is probably more about myself than them. Read Jesus' comments in Matthew 6:1-4.

When my personal discipline has a compassionate purpose there is balance in my soul. I will find that the needs of suffering people in this world are of such great magnitude that it overwhelms me, and the depth of religious discipline needed to fulfill the responsibility that compassion has laid upon me seems far beyond my ability. So my soul becomes overwhelmed with the burdens of love and I cry out to a God who is called Love, and who sent His son to visit me in my affliction and to keep Himself unspotted from the world. And... by sharing His burden I move closer to Him, and understand Him more than I ever have before... which leads me deeper into the struggle.

What Educated Snobs Can Learn From A Madman About Christianity

Recently I read a post by the President of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, Dr. Albert Mohler, about recent conversions of a few pastors to open atheism through the influence of an organization promoted by atheist Richard Dawkins called the Clergy Project. Dr. Mohler, a man I admire, uncharacteristically betrayed a bit of snobbery when he twice pointed out that one of the Clergy Project converts had “no college degree” and “no education”.

My first response when I read this was, “Isn’t that the same accusation they (some educated atheists) make about most Christians?” They say we are a generally uneducated people. And their snobbish accusation is actually true to some extent. If by “educated” some atheists and Dr. Mohler mean a college graduate then that would leave out the majority of Americans since only 30% of Americans have a Bachelor’s Degree while a little over 10% have a Post-graduate degree. A Barna Research Group study revealed that 40% of US pastors have no formal theological training.

In the world of the educated the uneducated are sometimes given little credibility and often marginalized by the gate-keepers of the educated class. When it comes to the Christian faith of the uneducated there may even be less credibility granted.

Christians should always avoid playing the education card in a debate. Not just because it is an endless argument that lends nothing to the exposure of truth, but because it runs counter to some basic principles laid out in the Scriptures. One principle is: God is intentionally unimpressed by our education. Re-read 1 Corinthians 1:17-21

Don't get me wrong, unlike the pastor who said in the preface of his sermon, “I'm like Charles Spurgeon (the great 19^th century Baptist pastor) I ain't got no education neither!” I don't consider ignorance in ministry to be a virtue. It is true that Charles Spurgeon had no formal theological education, but, as one who has read much of what he wrote, he was a broadly read, amazingly gifted, highly educated man. So while I wholeheartedly support balanced formal education I must state that it isn't the door to Christianity and has nothing to do with what it means to be a Christian. I'll illustrate this by a man who was arguably the first non-Jewish missionary commissioned by our Lord in the New Testament: the “maniac of Gadara”.

This pitiful madman... this “maniac” mentioned in Mark 5:1-20 most likely could not read or write, but he was not uneducated when it came to the power of Jesus Christ. His testimony about that one experience in his life shook the people who knew him because they knew who he had been before Jesus walked into his life.

I'm sure there were people who questioned his credibility because of his background, but this former madman knew the extent of what Jesus really did for him that day. Imagine an atheist trying to tell him there is no God. It would forever be his experience with Jesus that anchored his soul, not his future education. In fact he would attribute any future learning to Jesus putting him in his “right mind” when he saved him.

He asked Jesus if he could go with him and Jesus told him no, then sent him back to his people to tell his story of God's merciful power in his life. In this we see the essence of true vital Christianity and, therefore, Christian ministry: a saving experience with Jesus. A Pastor who has not had a life changing experience with Jesus will never be a fit Christian minister no matter what level of formal education he obtains. The passion that flows from this personal experience with Jesus becomes the energy for Christian growth and learning.

I remember when I, nothing much more than an animal, first experienced Jesus’ power. I didn’t have a High School diploma at the time I met Him, so the credibility of my faith is, I'm sure, suspect for many. But, like the “maniac of gadara” I know who I was and what Jesus did for me. I have spent 40 years since that day studying, educating myself, and being taught by others, but if all I have learned since that day were put together it would not come close to what happened on that single day. I am a beast without Jesus, and even if I had a PHD when I met Him it would be meaningless compared to the treasure Jesus gave me. Doubt as you might… this former maniac knows...

A Borderless World

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Most of Old Testament history is about a specific place in the world: Israel, a specific people: Jews, and one city: Jerusalem. Now for the first time in Biblical history this focus, led by the Spirit of God, was radically changing.

The earthly government of God would be moved from a central government with a single location to a worldwide mission without any boundaries or capital. It was mobile and led directly by Jesus through His Holy Spirit.

Jesus' ministry moved from a nation with borders to no borders. His government on earth remains border-less today. His ministry moved from a specific race of people who depended heavily on their lineage, to every race regardless of their heredity. There is now no racial identity to the Government of Christ, and no multi-generational structure or dynasty. And its language is every language, God’s truth in every language… wow...

Throughout history since this radical change there have been multiple regular attempts to centralize the government of Christ or place its identity on a particular nation, government, party, or system. When radical nationalism creeps into the vocabulary and thinking of professing Christians it is always a corruption. Those who use the identity of Christ's government to attempt to heal the ills of their national government will always find they have only deepened the corruption by producing a poisonous hybrid. Christ's earthly government will remain free... no borders, no earthly capital, no single language, no exclusive race, and no dynastic structure.

Follow Up: President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin

I am posting this tonight, as the polls close, to remove the notion, as best I can, that my reason for publishing it is political. I assure you my purpose is not political. This is a follow-up to my earlier article President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin. I will publish it again perhaps tomorrow. No matter how the election turns out I think my observations are extremely relevant. If you are going to comment on or discuss this post please read my first article and this one fully before doing so.

Since publishing that article I have been willingly, and at times unwillingly, engaged in lengthy discussions by every conceivable means: texting, e-mail, social media, and, my old favorite, verbal discussions. I have been amazed, encouraged, disappointed, and sometimes downright disillusioned at much of what I have heard. Mostly I have experienced the latter two.

Let me first say that I, as a supporter of religious liberty, have no problem with someone running for office who doesn't agree with my faith or worships a different god. I also understand that in American politics someone's religious belief will not generally be part of the public debate. I actually thrill at the diversity of my country, and shall pray for God's grace to be upon us and our leaders no matter who is in office. I love my country.

But I am also Christian and a Bible believer. I cannot separate my citizen self from my Christian self, so my faith will influence the level of my support for any candidate. What a candidate believes about God is primary to me. It is the first commandment, the first table of the law, and the ground upon which God judges the people of the earth. This was the premise for my first article.

When it comes to Governor Romney, discovering the detail of his personal religious beliefs has been very difficult. I respect, in some ways, his reticence to discuss his faith while running for office. But he has stated publicly that he knows and believes the major teachings of his church. The most basic teaching of any church is their definition of God.

I don't want to rewrite my previous article, but I must expand my statement about the god of Mormonism. In my article I said that Mormon theology “is a confusing sort of humanistic polytheism (a man-like god and deified men and women)”. Recently I have been reading Mormon theology almost to the point of blindness. I have deliberately avoided non-Mormon writers because I didn't want to be influenced or slanted in my assessment. 

I have been surprised to find Mormon theologians who are openly struggling with their theology and who seem to be aware that there are deep problems. I appreciate and encourage their struggle. But with that being said there are still some hurdles that will probably never be overcome no matter how much struggle takes place. The intractable problem is with the teachings of their early prophets and church hierarchy about their god.

I will state it as simply as I can: the Mormon belief that God the Father and God the Son have eternal, necessary "bodies" is a seemingly impossible theological roadblock to any consideration that Mormons believe in the same God as mainline Christians. Many Mormon theologians seem to agree. This is not a mean-spirited statement, it is clear to me that theologians on both sides of this divide politely agree with that general statement.

Here are a few quotes from James E. Faulconer, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, he has a PHD in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. I don't think anyone can reasonably question his credentials to speak about Mormon theology. I came across his writings while searching a list of Mormon scholars. The article I quote is Divine Embodiment and Transcendence: Propaedeutic Thoughts and Questions as published in the Mormon periodical Element; Spring 2005. The word “propaedeutic” simply means a preliminary or preparatory instruction. Dr. Faulconer struggles in this article with the subject of the body of the Mormon god. I do not use the small g in god as an insult, but to highlight the fact that we disagree on the definition of God. Dr. Faulconer also uses this device. He wrote:

“Latter-day Saint doctrine is that the Father and the Son have bodies: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also" (D&C 130:22). At first glance this seems straightforward: the Father and the Son are embodied. However, it requires very little reflection to begin to wonder what that means. Joseph Smith's first vision tells us that their bodies are able to hover in the air and that they are bright beyond description (Joseph Smith History 1:17). Brigham Young and others taught that, though their bodies are bodies of flesh and bone, they do not have blood (cf. Journal of Discourses 7:163, Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History 5)”

“Joseph Smith's most clear statement of God's embodiment comes as part of a denial of Nicean trinitarianism: "That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones" (Teachings 181).”

“By not defining God as "wholly Other," existing in a realm absolutely transcendent of this world and being the being on which this world absolutely depends, even for its existence, LDS thought makes a radical break with traditional thought.”

Next Dr. Faulconer says the same thing I have said:

“The consequences of rejecting onto-theology, in other words, the consequences of believing that God is embodied run deep in our cultural and intellectual heritage, to their very roots. As a result, some of our theological discussions may simply be wrong-headed, trying to speak of God with concepts that do not apply or at least implicitly trying to make our understanding of him fit inappropriate concepts and conceptual structures. Even if we somehow manage to escape those problems, our discussions are likely to be shot through with deep equivocation. These sorts of problems make it easier to be sympathetic to those who accuse Latter-day Saints of not worshiping the God of Christianity. If by "God of Christianity" they mean "God of traditional Christian philosophical theology," then they are right: we do not believe in or worship that god.” (Emphasis mine)

I politely, but firmly, agree with Dr. Faulconer, we do not worship the same God. In his conclusion he wrote:

“The scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith allow us to say little more about divine embodiment than that God has a body with the same form as ours. From that I think we can also infer that the ontological gulf between ourselves and God cannot be as wide as the tradition assumes, whether the tradition takes God to being itself or to be the Good (and, so, beyond being). Though it is difficult to go confidently beyond that negative conclusion, two things seem to follow: First, the Latter-day Saint understanding of what it means to be in the world is, implicitly, radically different than is the understanding of any other Christian group, though it is not at clear what additionally follows from that difference. Second, our experience of the body, the only standard we have for understanding embodiment, suggests that to say that God has a body is to say that his omniscience and omnipotence must be understood in ways quite different from traditional Christianity because embodiment implies situated openness to a world. In other words, divine embodiment also implies that God is affected by the world and by persons in his world. This means that the belief that God is embodied implies that he encounters the world and that he is, in some ways, passive with respect to that which he encounters, and his passivity may include some notion of unconsciousness.”

Let me be clear. The God of the Bible does not have a body as part of or a necessary extension of His being. Anyone who claims that their god does have an essential body worships a different god than the God who is revealed in the Bible. Furthermore anyone or any church which teaches that their god's body appears to be, is like, or is a human body is clearly included in the list of corrupt theology given in Romans 1:23-25, this passage clearly states that such a belief contributes to the wrath of God falling on a nation and the removal of God's preventative grace as I argued in my earlier article.

Some will argue that the Son Of God in orthodox Christianity has a body. This is a clear misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ and orthodox Christianity's teaching concerning Him. The eternal Son existed before the body of Jesus came into existence. Read John chapter 1. In orthodox Christianity the body of Jesus is not a necessary attribute of the being of the eternal Son. The body of Jesus is not God, it is human. God is manifest in it, but is not it.

The truth about the differences between Mormonism, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and orthodox Christianity has been taught and preached from fundamental and evangelical pulpits throughout this land for years. I have been a witness to this over the last 40 years in ministry. I have sat in conferences where Theology has been declared to the be the highest standard by which we humans are judged by our creator. But, sadly, for some it seems this truth was only valid when it didn't indict a favored political candidate. For that reason more than one commentator has labeled the Christian right as hypocrites.

No matter who is elected today that label will still stick and I think it does not bode well for our country. I have feared the mixing of politics and Christianity that began decades ago would lead to a corruption that might bring us into a direct confrontation with God and I have lived to see it happen... I think. It is my opinion that only God's grace will save us from the fruits of this defection. If you don't understand this then please read my first article.

To my more theologically trained readers please know that I am aware that the use of non-technical words opens me up to extensive clarification and disagreement. The more reasonable among you will understand that I wrote this post for a broad audience. With that said I will not now technically defend my choice of words to those who will take advantage of this non-technical post. I will, most likely, delete comments that attempt to do this. Thanks for reading.

President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin

There is a God. This is where all human thought should begin. But there is a sort of religious humanism that is revealing itself in our land, perhaps now more than ever. It is a kind of practical atheism or man based theology with political victory as its primary motive. It is upside down theology, with man at the top and God at the bottom. This confusion is deadly to a culture.

It is not surprising that many conservative Christian writers attack President Obama for his stance on the economy, homosexuality, abortion, gun control, Supreme Court nominations, etc. Many of these writers support Governor Romney because he is somewhat on the other side of these issues. Then, strangely, he is given a pass by many Christian writers on his Mormon theology.

David Barton with Wallbuilders, a Christian political action organization, recently said, “So why do we have a question here? Because he's (Romney) a Mormon? Hey, we've got to get past labels. Just like Obama's Christian label means nothing, Romney's Mormon label means nothing.” I wonder if Mr. Barton would shop in a grocery store that refused to put labels on any of their products. Labels are used to explain in brief what it is we are buying. Labels mean something, especially when someone chooses a label for themselves. Mr. Romney chose to label himself a Republican... that means something. He also freely chose to label himself Mormon... that also means something.

Anyone who knows much about Mormon theology knows it is a confusing sort of humanistic pantheism (a man-like god and deified men and women). It is not like Mr. Romney doesn't know this since he is a Mormon priest and former missionary. He has affirmed his unquestioning commitment to Mormon theology repeatedly.

Attempting to remove the corruption in our culture without addressing the corrupt theology behind it is like a firefighter attempting to put out a fire while ignoring the arsonist who is spraying gasoline on the fire. I realize our country is founded on religious freedom and I support that freedom along with Mr. Romney's right to run and folks to support and vote for him. But religious freedom is not a perfect answer to the problems that plague mankind. We are still accountable to the Creator for our beliefs as well as our actions.

While our constitution supports our freedom to define God as we wish it cannot free us from the consequences of doing so. There is a God and, based on the Bible, He doesn't give us unfettered freedom to redefine His existence. While Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, had the constitutional freedom to define his god as he wished, the Creator of this world did not give him or his followers freedom from judgment for their corruption of His revelation. Mormonism is not the only theological corruption out there, but this election has clearly put the issue of theological differences in the headlines with Mormonism at the center of the debate.

So which is more important? Theological corruption or social corruption. Well actually they are both linked in a cause and effect relationship in Romans 1:18-32. It is easy to find the cause and effect terms in this section of scripture. When a certain condition exists: Romans 1:19-23; 1:25; 1:28  then a certain action is taken: Romans 1:24; 1:26-32. Based on this passage, when we see a corrupt culture we know that the cause is God's judgment on corrupt theology. Our country is not facing judgment, the corruption in our culture indicates we are already under judgment, and changing laws will not free us from that judgment. The evidence is all around us, and some among us continue to spray gasoline on the fire. Some, like President Obama, support laws to let the fire burn, while others, like Governor Romney, redefine God's revelation of Himself and spray fuel on the fire. Two sides of the same coin...

Romans 1 teaches that what we believe about God is the primary factor in our earthly relationship with Him, and the health of our culture is dependent on correct belief about God. The equation in Romans 1 is simple: corrupt theology leads to a corrupt culture. And our whole culture is in this together. There is no part of our nation that is free from the stain of judgment. There is also no part of our culture that is free from rejection of the notion that theological corruption is behind our current condition. In fact, I fear that the most common reaction in our country to the notion of the primacy of Theology in a culture is rejection.

If what I have stated is true, then we are at an impasse that politics and voting cannot change. This is unacceptable to many people. They want to believe that we can, in our own strength, change our condition. Romans 1 teaches us that the only way to reach those heights of change is to realize how far we have fallen into His judgment and, as fallen creatures, rest in God's strength to free us from this judgment through His Gospel. Romans 1:16-19

Is It A Sin Not To Vote?

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I guess the 11th commandment is now “thou shalt vote!” At least that’s what it seems in article after article written by various pastors and pundits with the express purpose of motivating Christians to vote for a favored candidate. Every time I read, “not voting is a sin” I shudder. The use of a persons faith to try to force them to do something based on fear is... well... cheap... a cheap religious trick. Our faith should be more valuable to us than that.

The outline usually goes like this: we are told that if we don't vote it is sin and then come arguments intended to persuade us to chose their candidate as the “lesser of two evils”. Some even try to make us think they are being objective. These writers basically try to convince us that one candidate is far too evil for our vote. Some firmly state they would never vote for such a candidate under any circumstances. I'm glad I'm already a Christian because if I wasn't then profane antics like this would cause me to avoid Christianity.

Instead of two evils they really give us a choice of three: Evil number 1: Not to vote for either candidate. Evil number 2: Vote for candidate one. Evil number 3: Vote for candidate two (the really evil one).

Some even seem to imply that evil number 1, not voting, is the greatest evil… but that doesn't seem to be supported by their logic. What if the only candidates were the one they would never vote for and one even worse. In that case they would be forced to choose sin number one and not vote at all. (I expect sin #1 would all the sudden lose its place as the 11th commandment)

But what if some folks have already come to the conclusion that both candidates have certain evils in their lives, beliefs, or policies which render them unworthy of their vote? Most people have a line of morality or principle over which they will not step to vote. Could it be that the question of voting or not voting is, for some thoughtful sincere people, a profound matter of conscience?

Might there be a time when the system has, or candidates have, become so corrupt that people of good conscience believe their only recourse is to not vote, but to pray that God’s grace will see us through the dark time? Some may intend to send a message to their political party by not voting.

Voting is a matter of conscience… and some of us still believe in liberty of conscience. I know I do, and I will not support a contrived religious doctrine intended to impede that liberty.

Christian Target Practice

A number of years ago I was showing a pastor, who had just dropped by, our newly remodeled church auditorium. Our members where thankful for it, and did most the work inside that ordinary metal shell of a building themselves. They could never afford to pay for the work, but there was a special joy in using their own hands in this remodeling project. He said, “What this church needs is some people with money, once you get those kind of people in here you will then have the assets to do other things. This church has always been populated by lower middle class people, and it will never grow that way.”

I was so shocked I was speechless... Yet, as I thought about it, I should not have been shocked since this seems to be a prevailing behind the scenes ministry philosophy in our day. This ministry “targeting” is simply profane religious institutional classism, which is a form of classism that occurs when ministry practices are structured in such a way as to effectively marginalize people from lower socioeconomic classes.

In this sort of classism a ministry team uses demographic models to identify and describe the specific type of person they will deliberately plan to target for evangelism and church membership. In the visiting pastor's case he was not the least bit bashful about this ministry philosophy. He was recommending that I target people based on their economic status. To be clear: I would rather not be associated or identified with that sort of dead bigoted classism, no matter what it is called... classism has no place in the Christianity I find in the New Testament. In fact, classism is soundly condemned in the Bible. Read James 2:1-17.

One of the overriding truths of James 2 is that gospel faith produces spiritual life, and spiritual life has certain characteristics which do not include classism. James was scolding churches who targeted anyone less than everyone for evangelism and church membership, or gave special attention or respect to people who had an abundance of material assets and/or status, while marginalizing the poor.

Actually Christians with a living faith are inclined to give special attention to those who have glaring needs, not those who don't. Jesus is a physician to the ill not the well. When you see a Christianity that is deliberately “targeting” specific areas and people who have abundant assets, as mentioned here in James, you are seeing a twisted form of Christianity soundly and repeatedly condemned in the New Testament.

The Descent Into Christ-less Religion

John 3:25 Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.

In a recent post I discussed the defection of some of the disciples of John the Baptist. The dispute in verse 25 happened some time after John had pointed his disciples to Jesus. When some of his disciples failed to move from following him to Jesus they began a descent into Christ-less religion.

Christ-less religion must have something to fill the empty space and time. What better filler than an argument about purification and the law. When Christ is not leading in the labor of the day religionists will always provide a list of fillers for the empty hours ahead. Fillers that only give the illusion that something worthwhile is really happening. If one tires of arguments about purification then culture and politics are always available for a good argument, lecture, or article. What are those Herodians up to anyway?

In vital Christianity Jesus is always leading in the work of the day. And there is always more to do than can be accomplished. Jesus is working in this world... right now. While productive Christians do have their arguments, those exercises take place while they work together in the fields of the Savior. It is the hard work that will keep them together, focus their efforts, temper their arguments, and sometimes silence them in shame as they look at the work that remains undone.

The Well Of Religion Is Too Deep

John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

In this historical account Jesus met a woman by an ancient water-well. To illustrate a truth in the ensuing discussion Jesus contrasted the water-well to living water, which is water flowing on the surface of the ground coming from an artesian well. The well is a metaphor for human religion, and living water was used to represent the everlasting salvation which comes freely though a faith relationship with Jesus by His Gospel.

In the metaphor of the water-well we find the marks of salvation-less religion.  If your religion has these characteristics, then you can be sure it is not the salvation offered by Jesus and illustrated by the metaphor of living water.

First of all, “the well is deep.” The water of salvation in religion is always out of reach to the thirsty person who walks up to the well needing a drink. A person who is thirsty for righteousness and looks for salvation in man-made religion will never find it flowing freely on the surface within reach.

Second, “Sir, thou has nothing to draw with.” Gaining salvation by religion will always take something more than a person has available. Thirsty travelers will have to go to someone in that religion to gain the tools needed to reach the water. But even with the tools the water always seems to remain out of reach. The depth of the well creates an economic niche for religion, but leaves the thirsty traveler unsatisfied. Christ Jesus offers tool-less access to the water of life. He died and rose from the dead to bring the water close... because without Him the water is too deep for any of us to access.

Third, “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:” Even when you know how deep you have to go for water, and have the tools to get there, human religion cannot give you a lasting, sure salvation. You find yourself chained to the deep well of religion by a reoccurring thirst for righteousness which religion can never quench. The process never ends... even when you purchase a golden bucket with a silk rope. In the Gospel we have all the righteousness we will ever need.

In the salvation Jesus offers, you go straight to Him for it, and He gives it freely. You don’t need anything but gospel faith, and you only have to go to Him once. He gives living water, an everlasting artesian well within you. It goes where you go. His salvation is free and eternal.

Righteous Vengeance, A Warning

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

The troubled Christians mentioned in these and surrounding verses where being persecuted for their faith. Christians continue to be persecuted in this world. Unless persecutors have certain criminal disorders their delusional self-justifying reasons have satisfied them enough to attack another human.

This passage teaches that their self-justification and subsequent actions are really a “token” of God’s present and future judgment of them. A person who commits a crime of hatred against and in the sight of the Judge of all the earth has willfully endangered himself. Judgment will come.

Vengeance, as used in this verse, can mean retaliation, vindicating justice, or punishment. In this case it is not retaliation. It is justice that vindicates the harmed person(s) and justly punishes the person(s) who harmed them.

Righteous vengeance is not bad or wrong. It is the result of a process involving evidence and a judge with the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In this situation the Judge is God, the judged are those who have persecuted His children, and punishment of the guilty is intense and justified.

It is clear that those who persecute Christians are the ones intended in this passage to be recipients of this righteous vengeance. Some modern translators have tried to lessen the intensity of the language, but, believe me, this is a harsh, brutal warning. But it is also clear that the persecutor can be freed from this deserved vengeance by obeying the Gospel. Obey means to repent, believe, and trust the Gospel. The writer of this passage, the Apostle Paul, had been a horrible persecutor of Christians, but he obeyed the Gospel and found forgiveness for all his sins including those committed against God’s children.

Misplaced Loyalty And Religious Corruption

John 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

To some of his followers, the ministry of John the Baptist had become a movement with it’s own existence as its primary goal. This was not God’s intended goal, and John knew that fact even if his disciples did not. John’s ministry was ordained by God to be temporary. It had the threads of death woven into its fabric.

John’s disciples displayed a serious flaw which seems to be omnipresent in human character. We tend to struggle for control in matters that belong solely in God’s hands. We set goals and ends for God’s institutions that He never set. This is a sort of religious covetousness that corrupts vital Christianity and turns it into empty man-made religion.

I spent the first 20 years of my pastoral ministry trying to help troubled churches. In one case I allowed the survival of the institution to become my driving goal... under this guise of survival I allowed myself to use methods and engage in actions I now regret. By trying to do what I thought was good I was actually fighting God, because good is defined by His will not mine. And, whatever His will was, it was clearly not what I was pushing so hard to attain. So... I know first-hand the defection of John's disciples.

When confronted with this obnoxious specter John answered by pointing to God’s Sovereignty over all the affairs of men. He saw his disciple's feigned concern for what it really was: jealousy and envy that flowed from covetousness. They had become followers of John… not followers of God. John must have been dismayed by their defection.

The first loyalty of any Christian must be to God, even if it means our “decrease” or death, or the end of a movement, church, or ministry we value. We must trust God's sovereignty. He always knows best, and makes no mistakes. We must not make more of something He intended for less, even if we believe more is better.

Their loyalty was misplaced. John believed true ministry was in the hands of God, so he simply did what he was ordained to do, and left the rest with God.

Cutting Off The Thief's Hand

Matthew 5:48 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Earlier in this sermon Jesus told His audience that their personal righteousness would have to exceed the standard of the most morally disciplined among them. Without this excess they would “in no case” enter the kingdom of heaven. He then proceeded to display the insufficiency of biblical law to reach this goal.

A person with perfect moral nature would never have to be told what to do or not to do. Their pure heart and mind would guide them, making a statute unnecessary. The very existence of moral law points to a deficient morality in the first place. Corruption precedes law.

Let me illustrate it this way. Some middle eastern cultures highlight their moral purity by touting the precision of their laws and the harshness of their punishment. Some will go so far as to cut off the hand of a recalcitrant thief. But such law really only advertises the moral failure of the people and their culture. Imagine how corrupt a people must be to be threatened by their leaders with amputation to keep them from stealing. A morally pure people would never think of a law against stealing. It would be totally unnecessary because their nature would never be tempted to steal. Moral law and punishment is evidence of corruption not righteousness.

This text gives the true standard of moral righteousness. It is a person not a body of laws. Only an intelligent being can possess the beauty and balance of moral purity. This purity flows from the inside out, and only becomes a law for impure moral creatures. The impure study the statute, systematize it, and enlarge it, but those very acts reveal their failure to attain it... To BE it.

This is where all human religion is deficient: it is law based. The Bible uniquely claims to have given the law to show the inability of the law to bring true righteousness. From Adam to Israel the Bible displays the failure of statute law to bring righteousness. The failure is in us... not the statute.

The Creator is the standard of moral purity. Those who move from the coarseness of the statute to the living nature of the person find themselves facing an unattainable standard: perfection. We cry, “I can't ever be as He is! The standard is too high!” Ah... now we see the righteousness that exceeds. Now we understand why Jesus had to die, and why the Gospel is really good news. By faith God imputes to us a righteousness that is living, pure, and sufficient.

Conspiracy

Mark 3:6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

The more I have read this verse the more I am astounded by it. It is the open blatant expression of religious conspiracy. A conspiracy in which sometime political enemies participated because they had the same goal: destroy Jesus. The saddest meeting in human history...

The Herodians were the political supporters of Herod the Great and his descendants. You know the ones… they killed all children below 2 years old just to rid the world of the baby Jesus. They were willing to do anything to keep political power. The Pharisees... you know them too, they were also willing to do anything to keep religious/political power.

In every country today there are those who, like them, will do anything to keep power. And the missionaries of Jesus are working in those countries.

This Greek word translated “counsel” in the Gospels tracks the conspiracy to destroy the altogether lovely one, Jesus. The word culminates at the conspiracy to keep Jesus in the grave. Follow the trail: Mark 3:6, Matthew 12:14, 22:15, 27:1, Mark 15:1, Matthew 28:12. And… they believed they were right...

How many “counsels” will meet today to stop the ministry of Jesus? Will you pause now and pray for those who carry on the ministry of Jesus while in harms way? Missionaries who serve in Islamic countries. Missionaries serving in countries who are unfriendly to the Gospel of Christ. Missionaries who work among the tribes and in the regions beyond. These are amazing people who are worthy of our support and prayer. Know we have prayed for you today.

When Freedom Goes Too Far

I recently ended a series on Liberty of Conscience (to be published in the future) with these questions: To what extent does government have culpability for the behaviors and beliefs it allows? Liberty of Conscience demands a certain amount of liberty of action. But when does freedom go too far? Will God judge a whole nation because of the freedom given a few?

When some of us think of national judgment we tend to think in terms of disease, war, economic failure, or oppression. This type of judgment has certainly happened in history, but it is not the normal way God judges nations.

In Romans chapter 1, we are taught that God’s judgment begins by the removal of the spiritual force He uses to restrain wayward humanity. This restraining force has been in place since mankind first fell and God’s grace became the only preserving force. This restraint is necessary for fallen humanity to live in a productive, relatively peaceful society. Without this common restraining grace there can be no civilization.

The primary reason revealed in Romans 1 for this judgment is corrupt religion. That is: religion which dishonors God, the Creator. This is why many of our forefathers, and some founding fathers, declared that the United States would continue in liberty only so long as the Christian God is properly honored by the people of the United States. It was not a legalistic system they were promoting, but the recognition and honor due from and given by creatures to their Creator. They were students of history and Romans 1 enough to know the awful resulting judgment upon a population which dishonors the Creator.

Primary judgment comes in the form of dishonor. God, in judgment, withdraws His gracious restraint which results in a substantial number of citizens vigorously engaging in dishonorable behavior. The scriptures say God “gave them up”. That is: He released them into the captivity of dishonor in response to their dishonoring Him. This state of judgment is evidence of rotten religion.

This puts a nation into an insane spiral out of freedom into the cold captivity of reprobation. Corrupt religion points to the dishonorable behavior of fellow citizens and threatens God’s judgment if it isn’t outlawed. But… law will only lead to further judgment, because it is not fundamentally a problem that can be solved by force of law; it is a problem of corrupt religion. And one of the characteristics of corrupt religion is it points to law (human effort) instead of grace (God’s remedy) as the route to divine favor. But this religious humanism looks like the sin fighting, culture changing answer, so it is then given more power, politically and otherwise. And the spiral into judgment continues.

The judgment detailed in Romans 1 comes in the form of more freedom for dishonorable behavior demanded by the citizens, and more license granted by government to engage in these behaviors until the people become uncivilized and thoroughly corrupt. Religious humanists (addressed in Romans 2, 3) call for more laws… and a culture once blessed by grace moves into justice. May God have mercy upon us… sinner and saint alike. God’s mercy in Christ Jesus is our only hope, and it has always been our only hope.