Engage The Culture!

Justice . . . With Eyes Wide Open!

2012-01-26T16:03:00.004-05:00

By George W. Sarris

If I had a nickel for every time someone made the comment – God is not only loving. He is also just! – I would be a wealthy man.

People say that so often, and with such confidence and sometimes even condescension, that you would think that this one statement suddenly provides the final answer to all the questions, objections, and ethical dilemmas that result from a discussion about how God deals with mankind. The problem, as I mentioned in an earlier blog post, is that this idea suggests that God is somehow internally conflicted – that the loving and just elements of His character are somehow in conflict with each other.

However, God is not conflicted internally. The loving and just elements of His character are not at war with each other. His love is not in opposition to His justice. It was His justice working together with His love that led to Christ dying on the cross for our sins.

Doing Justice

The concept of justice is often misunderstood. We tend to think of it as “getting even” or “making things even.” If someone does something bad to us, we will “get justice” by seeing that person punished. If we don’t have what we would like to have, we will “get justice” by making others pay their fair share.

Leviticus 24:19-21 is often brought up in support of this idea of justice -

If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution . . .

Punishment for sin and making restitution are definitely a part of the Biblical concept of justice. However, the purpose of that Levitical injunction was not to tell people how to “get even” – it was instituted to restrict excessive punishment or penalties at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state. Requiring a life for an eye, or a hand for stealing a loaf of bread, for example, is not just.

But the Biblical idea of justice actually goes much deeper. The Bible doesn’t just talk about “getting justice,” it talks about “doing justice.”

In Genesis 18:19, the LORD says of Abraham, “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice …” In Psalm 82:3, we are admonished to “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.” Isaiah 56:1 – “Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice . . .”

Justice is not simply getting even or making things even. It is making things right. It is restoring things to what they should be.

George MacDonald

Most people have never heard of George MacDonald. But, they have heard of someone whose life was deeply influenced by him.

George MacDonald (1824-1905) was a Scottish author, poet and minister. He is not as well known as CS Lewis, JRR Tolkein or Madeline L'Engle, but his fairy tales and fantasy novels were inspirational to those later writers. In fact, CS Lewis published a book of extracts from MacDonald's writings entitled, George MacDonald: An Anthology.

In the introduction to that book, Lewis wrote,

This collection, as I have said, was designed not to revive MacDonald's literary reputation but to spread his religious teaching. Hence most of my extracts are taken from the three volumes of Unspoken Sermons. My own debt to this book is almost as great as one man can owe to another, and nearly all serious inquirers to whom I have introduced it acknowledge that it has given them great help - sometimes indispensable help toward the very acceptance of the Christian faith. . . . I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself . . . . I have never concealed the fact that I regarded him my master, indeed I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him.

MacDonald approaches the issue of God's justice from a completely different perspective than most other writers. He uses an example of someone stealing a watch. If the thief is caught, dragged into court and convicted of his crime, MacDonald asks,

Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him – but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. . . . Punishment of the guilty may be involved in justice, but it does not constitute the justice of God one atom more than it would constitute the justice of a man.

MacDonald understood that justice and restitution must go hand in hand. But, he went further. He was convinced that God's justice is intended to bring about a complete victory over sin and death - not simply to punish sin, but destroy it. He wrote:

Primarily, God is not bound to punish sin, he is bound to destroy sin. . . . For evil in the abstract, nothing can be done. It is eternally evil. But I may be saved from it by learning to loathe it, to hate it, to shrink from it with an eternal avoidance. The only vengeance worth having on sin is to make the sinner himself its executioner.
. . . Sin and suffering are not natural opposites, the opposite of evil is good, not suffering; the opposite of sin is not suffering, but righteousness. The path across the gulf that divides right from wrong is not the fire, but repentance. . . . The notion that the salvation of Jesus is a salvation from the consequences of our sins, is a false, mean, low notion. The salvation of Christ is salvation from the smallest tendency or leaning to sin. It is a deliverance into the pure air of God's ways of thinking and feeling. It is a salvation that makes the heart pure, with the will and choice of the heart pure.

The Power of Grace

The apostle Paul is an excellent example of what MacDonald was talking about. The “chief of sinners” became the “apostle to the Gentiles.” He was not simply punished. He was transformed by the grace of God. In his case, judgment led to transformation.

Some time ago, math textbook editor Diane Castro shared a profound insight into God’s grace. She asked, “Why shouldn't we believe that Jesus' redemptive work is more powerful and effective than Satan's destructive work?”

She went on to say:

Several years ago as I was working on a math book, I thought of an analogy that illustrates the verse ‘Where sin did abound, grace did much more abound.’ When I think about sin, it is so vast and overwhelming that its magnitude is on the scale of a googol – 10 to the 100th power, more than the number of elementary particles in the universe. A googol is a number that is so inconceivably huge that our minds cannot begin to grasp it.
But the magnitude of grace is like a googolplex – 10 to the googol power, 1 with a googol of zeros after it, a number that dwarfs a googol into nothingness. As I imagine God's grace extending to every human being and defeating all the effects of sin and restoring every relationship – that is a heaven I can get excited about!

That is ultimately what God’s justice is all about.

Visit George W. Sarris on Facebook or his website.

Tarzan Theology

2012-01-20T12:51:00.003-05:00

By George W. Sarris

Sometimes, God teaches important lessons in the strangest ways. He chose to speak to Balaam through a donkey. He revealed Himself to Moses through a burning bush. He got the attention of the prophet Jonah through the medium of a great fish. He taught me an important lesson through a cartoon – actually, it was an animated film.

But, perhaps I should step back a second and put the issue in context.

I had always wondered why Jesus would choose the phrase “Son of God” as a key reference to His deity. I knew it had to have a very profound meaning for the Jews of His day because they understood it as a clear claim by Him to be God. That is why He was put to death.

In the interchange between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in John 10,

Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus answered them . . . Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

After Pilate flogged Jesus and brought Him out before the chief priests and their officials to let them know that he could find no basis for a charge against Him, they insisted

We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.

Son of . . .

I have a son who has grown up to become a wonderful young man who I am very proud of.

My son shares many of my ideas . . . but not all. My son has many interests that are similar to mine . . . but also interests that are different. Some people have said my son sounds a lot like me on the phone . . . until they listen long enough to realize the difference. My son is like me in many ways . . . but he is not me. He is my son.

In a similar way, Jesus calling Himself the “Son” of God didn’t seem to me to equate with His claiming to be God. How does Jesus’ being God’s Son make Him God? It never really made sense, until . . .

Tarzan

Phil Collins wrote the music and lyrics for the songs in the Disney animated feature,Tarzan. He also sang the vocals. I have no idea where Phil Collins is spiritually, but his lyrics to one of the songs opened my eyes to a meaning for “Son of” that I had not seen before.

As most people know, Tarzan is the jungle hero creation of Edgar Rice Burroughs. In the story, Tarzan’s mother died of natural causes and his father was killed by Kerchak – leader of a tribe of apes who then raise the infant Tarzan as one of their own. Tarzan’s ape mother is Kala who he grows to love dearly.

In the animated feature film, there is a sequence where we see Tarzan growing from a weak little toddler who is barely able to keep up with the other apes into a strong and agile adult who becomes their leader. As we watch this transformation take place, the lyrics for one of the prominent songs in the film tell us who this child really is . . . and what he will eventually become:

Son of Man, look to the sky
Lift your spirit, set it free
Some day you’ll walk tall with pride
Son of Man, a man in time you’ll be
Son of Man’s a man for all to see

Tarzan is not an ape. He is a man. And therein lies the key to understanding the meaning of Tarzan as Son of Man.

Tarzan is, in essence, son of “Man.” He is not son of “Ape.” He is a Man-kind of creature. He is not an Ape-kind of creature. Tarzan is Man, not Ape.

Who Is Jesus?

When Jesus told the Jewish leaders He was the Son of God, they understood exactly what He was saying to them. He was claiming divinity for Himself. He is, in essence, God-kind of Being, not human or angelic kind of being. He is God, not man.

Jesus also used the phrase Son of Man – because He is also man-kind of being.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Nicene Creed expresses it well –

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

Jacob I Loved - Esau I Hated

2012-01-10T13:42:00.007-05:00

By George W. Sarris

God blessed me with good parents, and I will be forever grateful to Him for that.

They were certainly not perfect – they had the same weaknesses and shortcomings, and made many of the same mistakes as other parents. But, I always knew that they loved me. I always knew that they wanted the best for me. And, no matter how much I messed up, I always knew they would never give up on me or abandon me.

My parents didn’t treat me and my brother the same because we were different. We had different personalities. We had different interests. We had different skills and abilities. At times, when my mom would make something special for my brother, I would tease her by saying, “You always did love Brian more than me!” I could say that because she and I both knew that it was definitely NOT true! She didn’t love my brother more than me. She and my dad loved us both with the same quality of love – a love that always had our ultimate best interests in mind.

There are very few things that I can think of that would be more disheartening than believing that my parents would have favored one of us over the other. And, yet, that is what many Christians believe about God – that He shows favoritism – that He deliberately chooses to extend His love and grace to some of those He created while intentionally withholding it from the rest.

Does God Have Favorites?

While Scripture specifically says in several places that God is fair and impartial, and encourages us to act in like manner toward our fellow man, our traditional understanding of how God deals with mankind would have us believe that He definitely shows favoritism.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, specifically teaches that God has purposely chosen some of His creatures for salvation while ordaining others to endless suffering. In Chapter III, Article III, Of God’s Eternal Decree, it says

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

One of the most often quoted passages in the Bible to support this view is found in Romans 9:10-13 where Paul explains that God “hated” Esau.

. . . Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order thatGod’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls – she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’

Later in the chapter, Paul seems to justify God’s prerogative to choose some to be saved and some to be condemned by saying that God is the Potter who has “. . . the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use.” Then Paul asks, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction?

Don’t these passages clearly imply that God hates and rejects some people – Esau at least – and that He prepares some people for wrath and eternal damnation?

The Purpose of Election

To gain a proper understanding of what Paul is intending to say, it is important to look at the context. The common view of this passage is that God has sovereignly chosen some for salvation and others for perdition. But, that is not Paul’s argument here. The passage is, indeed, referring to God’s sovereign purpose in election, but Paul is not referring to election to salvation. Rather, he is referring to God’s election to service of those He has chosen to be His instruments.

Paul’s purpose in chapters 9-11 is to show how God is merciful to both Jews and Gentiles, and can justly incorporate Gentiles into His plan. He starts by telling his readers that God’s plan has always been to choose some for service, but not others. God chose Isaac, not Ishmael. He chose Jacob, not Esau. He chose them for a special purpose. But, that choice does not mean that the ones God did not choose are irrevocably rejected and destined for eternal suffering in Hell. It simply means that they were not part of the covenant community that God chose to use to fulfill His promise to Abraham that through him all nations would be blessed.

The comment Paul quotes about Jacob and Esau is from Malachi 1:2-3 and actually refers to their descendants – the nation of Israel and the Edomites – not to Jacob and Esau themselves. God is not talking about literally “hating” Esau. The true intent of His comment is in accordance with the Hebrew use of extreme statements to make a point. Jesus Himself illustrated this clearly in Luke 14:26 when He said,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus obviously did not mean that we should literally “hate” our parents, wives, siblings, and children because that would require us to violate the clear Biblical commands to honor our parents, love our wives and children, and love our neighbors as ourselves. He meant that parental, spousal and brotherly love must take second place to love for Him.

Similarly in the passages in Malachi and Romans, God explains that contrary to the established cultural conventions of the day relating to the inheritance rights of the firstborn son, Esau must take second place to Jacob. Paul’s point is that Scripture foretold that the promise to Abraham would pass through Isaac to Jacob, not Esau. Even though Ishmael and Esau were descendants of Abraham, they were not the chosen instruments through whom God would work to redeem the world.

God’s Mercy

In Romans 9:14-15, Paul asks if God can do this without breaking His promise to Abraham. Is it “unjust” for God to go around cultural conventions to use the descendants of Jacob instead of the descendants of Esau to fulfill His promise? Of course not! God has always been selective. But, His purpose has always been the same – to show mercy and compassion.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Paul goes on to explain that God made Pharaoh’s heart “firm” in order to proclaim His power and make His name known in all the earth. Then he tells us that God is a Potter who fashions out of the same lump of clay – in this case the natural descendants of Abraham – some vessels for honorable use and some for common use.

Ishmael, Esau, and most of the natural descendants of Abraham that made up the Jews of Paul’s day were not chosen to experience the honor of serving as God’s chosen vessels to bring about the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. That honor went to a remnant of the Jews and the believing Gentiles in accordance with what God has always purposed. But, “common” use does not in any way imply that those vessels are eternally rejected and cursed. They were simply not vessels chosen for that special, “honorable” purpose.

The “objects of wrath” that Paul refers to in verse 22 are those God bore with patiently in order to make them objects of His mercy. As he said in Ephesians 2:3,

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions . . .

Paul himself was once an object of wrath who later became an object of mercy. Assuming that you are now “in Christ,” so were you. And so was I.

Paul sums up his argument in Romans 9-11 by telling his readers,

God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Who Does God Love . . . Really?

The Pharisees prided themselves on their knowledge of the Law. But, in their zeal to defend the holiness of God, they completely missed the main point of what God was doing in the world. Jesus told them to

. . . go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

Does God love you more than your neighbor? Even worse, does He love your neighbor more than you? No! His love and mercy ultimately extend to all.

The Event That Changed History

2011-12-16T16:04:00.004-05:00

By George W. Sarris

Every day The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and every other daily newspaper acknowledge on their front pages that Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person who ever lived, and that his impact on the history of the world is greater than that of any other individual.

That acknowledgement is also on the cover of Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, and People every week. In fact, the same acknowledgement is prominently displayed on the home pages of atheist.org, athiestalliance.com, infidels.org, andcelebathiests.com. You probably placed a similar notice on any correspondence you recently sent out.

You see, each one of those newspapers, magazines, websites, and articles of correspondence had a date on them. The event we will be celebrating on December 25 was actually the pivotal event of history.

The Most Influential Individual

Jesus of Nazareth was born in a small Middle Eastern village as an obscure Jewish carpenter. He never held a political or military office. He never wrote a book. He never traveled extensively. He was put to death as a criminal after his most committed followers deserted him. Yet, the simple fact of the matter is that we measure time in relation to when he was born.

Every significant, and insignificant, person and event occurring before Jesus was born, we identify as BC - Before Christ. And, every significant, and insignificant, person and event occurring after his birth, we identify as AD - Anno Domini, which is Latin for, “In the Year of our Lord.” Even the alternative designation of BCE and CE used by some modern authors, archeologists, museums and others not wanting to specifically acknowledge the implications of the dating formula must admit that the “Common Era” began with the birth of Christ.

Unlike other major religious leaders, Jesus did not claim to be a great prophet showing mankind the way to peace and prosperity. He claimed to be the Way. Unlike other major religious leaders, Jesus did not point the attention of the people to God, encouraging them to follow Him. He pointed the attention of the people to himself. Jesus is the only major figure in history who ever claimed to be God, and the only person who ever lived who has convinced a significant portion of the world’s population that he actually is God!

In fact, many of Jesus’ statements about himself would clearly be blasphemous if he were not God. For example, Jesus said:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. . . .
I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. . . .
I am the bread of life . . .
If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. . . .
I am the Light of the world. . . .
I am the Good Shepherd. . . .
I and the Father are one. . . .
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. . . .
I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies . . .

God Loves You

It is not uncommon to see a bumper sticker on a car, or some graffiti written on a wall somewhere that informs you that God loves you. It is so common that we rarely ponder its significance. But, it is a distinctly Biblical message. "God Loves You" is an especially profound statement to those in polytheistic cultures where the gods clearly donot “love” their adherents. They tolerate them, at best, and must be appeased so they won't hurt their followers.

John Paton, a nineteenth century missionary to the South Sea Islands, saw this firsthand. He wrote of his experience:

The Tannese had hosts of stone idols, charms, and sacred objects, which they abjectly feared, and in which they devoutly believed. They were given up to countless superstitions, and firmly glued to their dark heathen practices. Their worship was entirely a service of fear, its aim being to propitiate this or that evil spirit, to prevent calamity or to secure revenge. . . . Sacred men and women, wizards and witches, received presents regularly to influence the gods and to remove sickness, or to cause it, by the Nahak, i.e. incantation over remains of food, or the skin of fruit which the person had eaten on whom they wished work.
They also worshipped the spirits of departed ancestors and heroes, through their idols of wood and stone. They feared these spirits and sought their aid, especially seeking to propitiate those who presided over war and peace, famine and plenty, health and sickness, destruction and prosperity, life and death. Their whole worship was one of slavish fear, and, so far as I could ever learn, they had no idea of a God of mercy or grace.

The great significance of the event we call Christmas and the distinctive Biblical teaching about who Jesus really is can easily be completely overlooked.

What the Bible is saying is that God Himself loves us and is our Savior. God did not ultimately only send human or angelic messengers to tell us who He is, what He is like, and provide some kind of means to salvation. Rather, He Himself came into the world to save us.

The birth of Jesus of Nazareth changed history. The Creator of all entered time and space to become a man, and provide a way for all to be reconciled to Himself.

Merry Christmas!

Getting Eternity Into The Hearts of the Next Generation

2011-12-08T14:11:00.004-05:00

By George W. Sarris

Over the years, I have become increasingly convinced that the family is by far the most important and strategic agency for communicating the content of the Christian faith to the next generation. Churches, Christian schools, and youth ministries have a place. But, none comes close to the effectiveness of the family.

As a youth pastor once told me, “How can I expect one or two hours a week to have any kind of significant impact on a child. My job is to help parents do their job.”

So, what can we as parents do practically to help get eternity into the hearts of our children?

What Can A Family Do?

I have served on the staffs of three Christian organizations, have participated in numerous Biblical and family conferences, and have been an active church member throughout my adult life. During that time, I have heard many people tell of the importance of having a “family altar.” I’ve read articles in magazines about how to have vibrant “family devotions.” I’ve seen materials that are designed specifically to help parents get their children excited about reading the Bible as a family.

However, I have very rarely met families that actually had anything like regular family devotions. I know many who have tried. Almost all have given up, because what they were trying to do was just too hard to implement for any length of time in a typical family setting.

Interestingly, my wife and I began to follow a very simple plan for having regular family devotions with our children back in 1985 that we still have today – over 25 years later! During that time, we have read through the entire Bible at least 10 times together. And, we and our children have enjoyed it!

Three Simple Principles

I will be forever grateful for Gary Fraley who shared three simple principles that taught a frustrated young father (me) trying to read to wiggly, uninterested children (my kids) how to successfully get them excited about reading through God’s Word.

Principle #1 - The motivation for having successful family devotions must come from a conviction, not a preference.

What that means in practical terms is that when everyone else in the family complains, you continue anyway!

Anytime you add a new activity into your family’s schedule it will be hard to keep going. That is true even when what you are adding is fun. When we began, some days went well. Some did not. There were even times when I yelled at the children, threw the Bible down on the table, and said, “I quit!” Fortunately, my children looked up at me through their tears and said, “But, daddy. We thought this was a conviction!” I asked for their forgiveness and continued on because I was convinced that what I was trying to do was what God clearly wanted me to do. After a relatively short time, our “wisdom searches” as we call them became something that the children didn’t want to miss.

Principle #2 - The schedule for when the family devotions will take place should come from the wife.

Each family’s daily routine is different. And, those routines change from time to time as children get older and situations change. A wife is generally in a much better position to coordinate her schedule, her husband’s schedule, and the children’s schedules than is her husband.

At times over the years, we had our “wisdom searches” before breakfast, but after everyone got dressed. At other times, we had them right after we got up and before we got dressed. Sometimes, we had them after breakfast. My wife knew how long it would take each person to get ready for the day, what they would be doing, what was being prepared for breakfast, and how long it would take to prepare it.

Principle #3 - Family devotions should take place around a table, with young children being given something to do with their hands.

This was totally counter-intuitive to what I had always thought. Before that time, I had told my children to “stop fidgeting” and listen! After that time, they actually stopped “fidgeting” and listened!

Sitting around a table helped tremendously to focus their attention and interest on what we were doing. Giving them something to do with their hands enabled them to listen without getting bored or wiggly. Handwork, like drawing or coloring with crayons or markers or colored pencils, stickers, making cards for people, working on a simple craft, stitching, embroidery, weaving potholders, Hama Beads, and “stained glass” ornaments provided the entertainment, while I read through the Scriptures. We even had kids in highchairs eating Cheerios and listening to God’s Word.

Lest you think this won’t work, let me point out that people often listen to lectures, sermons, or talk radio while driving a car. Men often doodle in important meetings. Women sometimes knit while listening to a speaker. We are actually able to do something with our minds and something else with our hands. And, our children are no different. On many occasions, I would stop what I was reading and ask the children what I just read. In every case, they were able to tell me – most of the time word for word – what I had just said.

The Plan

The plan we started with, and the plan that we still follow to this day, is to use 3 bookmarks and a Bible.

We put the first bookmark in Genesis, chapter 1, and continue until we finish the Old Testament. The second bookmark is in Psalm 1. When we finish reading through the book of Psalms, we continue on to Proverbs, then to Ecclesiastes, and then back to Psalms. The third bookmark is in Matthew, chapter 1. We continue until we finish the New Testament.

We simply read a chapter or two from each section each day. We’re not in a hurry to read through the Bible in a set time frame. We’re not even concerned if our children always understand everything we read – I still don’t understand many things in the Bible. Scripture speaks to our spirits, not just to our minds.

We generally have had our “wisdom searches” for about 30 minutes each day in the mornings for five days a week. I read for about 25 minutes, and my wife prays at the end for about 5 minutes. There is nothing sacred about the time of day, the amount of time, who reads, or who prays. This plan fits my family. You should do what fits with your family.

The “rules” that we have are simple. If we or the children have a question or comment that relates to what we have read, we can talk. If not, we have to be quiet. If I think of something to say about a certain passage as I read, I share it. But, I don’t need to prepare anything. I’m not expounding on the Scriptures. I’m simply reading God’s Word to my family.

More than anything else, this practice has helped to make me, my wife, and our children Biblically literate! There have been many times over the years when I would hear Sunday School teachers at a church we were visiting tell me how amazed they were at how well my children knew the Bible. Sometimes, my children even corrected the teachers!

Getting Started

All you need to get started is a Bible, three bookmarks, and some handwork for your kids. I am a narrator by profession, so I like to read. If you don’t feel comfortable doing that, you can always purchase or download an audio version of the Bible. If you search my name on Amazon.com, you can download my narration of various books in the NIV or KJV Bible quite inexpensively.

If you’re interested in a great Christmas gift for your children that will help Get Eternity Into The Hearts of the Next Generation, you can go to my website to hear samples and order my children’s audio stories. There are six volumes of stories. The text of each story is taken directly, word for word, from the Bible, but they are read very dramatically and include carefully selected music and sound effects. They are available in the King James Version or the New International Version.

God wants us to teach our children His Word and His ways. One of the most effective ways we can do that is by having an effective plan of family devotions.

The Psalmist asked, "How may a young man keep his way pure?" His answer: "By living according to Your Word."

Hell: Where Did It Come From . . . Really?

2011-12-02T15:28:00.004-05:00

By George W. Sarris

You are going to die. It makes no difference if you are rich or poor, wise or foolish, educated or uneducated, successful or unsuccessful. You are mortal, and you are going to die!

Most of us don’t want to hear those words, but they are true nonetheless. For that reason, death has always occupied the minds of the living. And, more particularly, what happensafter we die? That is a question that everyone thinks about at one time or another. That is the question everyone wants to know the answer to.

Coupled with the fact that we will all die is the fact that injustices and inequities are part of life in this world. Inherent in all of us is a sense that something has to be done in the next world that will somehow rectify the unfairness we see all around us in this world. Throughout history, people in every culture have wrestled with what that would look like and tried to come up with an answer. Most have concluded that there is some kind of balance scale on the other side on which humans are weighed, with those who are found wanting being cast into a place of anguish and misery.

Contrary to popular opinion, however, the idea that people will be tortured and suffer forever in that place of misery did not come from the Bible! It is not originally a Judeo-Christian concept at all, although most people today think of it that way.

Old Testament Teaching

The Old Testament is often maligned by those who flippantly say that the God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is one. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Neither the God of the Old Testament nor the God of the New Testament is a God of wrath and vengeance.

The Old Testament talks often of punishment for sins. God deals decisively with those who turn from His ways to pervert justice and equity, and whose behavior will ultimately bring pain and sadness to themselves and others. But, the only form of divine punishment prominently presented in the Old Testament as occurring from the time of Adam through to Israel’s return to the Promised Land and the rebuilding of the Temple was temporal. It was punishment meted out on this earth, and did not refer to the spirit-world or a future state, at all.

Noah’s Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were temporal judgments threatened and inflicted by God on the people who turned away from Him. So were the plagues that came upon Pharaoh and Egypt in the days of Moses. The blessings and curses of the Law were derived entirely from the material sphere. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promised health, long life, fruitful seasons, military ascendancy, honor and power for Israel if she walked in the ways of the LORD. It threatened disease, famine, defeat in war, shame and weakness if she chose to disobey the LORD. The periods of the judges and kings illustrate graphically how these temporal punishments were meted out.

In all their warnings against the wickedness and idolatry of the nation, the great prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel did not refer at all to future punishments in the spirit-world or to some kind of redemption from them. They referred to the terrors of the siege, of famine, of the capture of the city, of captivity in a strange land, or to their being brought back from such captivity. These were all things that occurred on this earth in this life.

What Did The Pagans Think?

In contrast to the Old Testament teaching, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans each had a fairly well developed idea of what would happen to the wicked when they died. And, each is very close to the traditional view of Endless Punishment.

For example, in an ancient Egyptian tomb from the 20^th Dynasty (1190 BC-1077 BC) there is a funerary text that has come to be known as the Book of Caverns. It was written on a wall inside the tomb for easy reference by the deceased after he died. It describes the journey of the sun god through the six caverns of the underworld. In the lowest register of the sixth section, we see pictures and descriptions depicting scenes of torture and punishment in the next world. It is a place

. . . where at first, goddesses wielding knives torture supine, beheaded figures with their heads set at their feet and who's hearts have been torn from their bodies. The accompanying text also explains that the soul and shadows of these enemies have also been punished. In the second scene, we encounter four bound female enemies who are guarded by two jackal headed goddesses. Re has condemned these enemies, once again, to the ‘Place of Annihilation, from which there is no escape.

An account from ancient Babylon and Assyria tells of the descent of the goddess Ishtar into the netherworld. Ishtar is the goddess of life and fertility. She descends into the land of no return to the place where the goddess of death and sterility dwells. It is a place where those who enter cannot leave, and where travel is a one-way street.

To the Kurugu, land of [no return],
Ishtar daughter of Sin was [determined] to go.
The daughter of Sin was determined to go
To the dark house, dwelling of Erigalla’s god,
To the house which those who enter cannot leave,
On the road where traveling is one-way only,
To the house where those who enter are deprived of light,
Where dust is their food, clay their bread.
They see no light, they dwell in darkness,
They are clothed like birds, with feathers,
Over the door and the bolt, dust has settled.

The Greek writer, Plato (428—348 BC), told his readers about a place in the depths of the earth filled with great rivers of fire. It’s a dreadful place where those who have committed gross sins are cast. It is also a place from which these wicked sinners will never leave!

. . . there are everlasting rivers of huge size under the earth, flowing with hot and cold water; and there is much fire, and great rivers of fire, and many streams of mud, some thinner and some thicker, like the rivers of mud that flow before the lava in Sikelia (Sicily), and the lava itself. . . . But those who appear to be incurable, on account of the greatness of their wrongdoings, because they have committed many great deeds of sacrilege, or wicked and abominable murders, or any other such crimes, are cast by their fitting destiny into Tartaros (Hell), whence they never emerge.

The Roman author, Virgil (70 BC-19BC), also writes of a place of deep distress and sadness:

The gates of hell are open night and day;
Smooth the descent, and easy is the way: . . .
Just in the gate and in the jaws of hell,
Revengeful Cares and sullen Sorrows dwell,
And pale Diseases, and repining Age,
Want, Fear, and Famine's unresisted rage;
Here Toils, and Death, and Death's half-brother, Sleep,
Forms terrible to view, their sentry keep.

Unlike what we find in the Old Testament, these ideas sound a lot like the descriptions in the “hellfire and brimstone” sermons we looked at briefly in an earlier post. These pagan writings talk of supernatural beings torturing the souls of men and women. They tell of a place where darkness dwells and from whence there is no escape. They speak of rivers of fire and a place where the inhabitants are filled with revengeful cares and sullen sorrows. But, they were written by people who had little or no contact with the Bible.

Where did the teaching about endless punishment in Hell come from?

It was not the Bible that influenced the pagan cultures regarding the fires of Hell. Rather, it was the pagan cultures that actually influenced some of the later Jewish and Christian writers to incorporate themes into their writings that were completely foreign to Biblical teaching.

Being Shrewd With Worldly Wealth

2011-11-19T09:07:00.003-05:00

By George W. Sarris

I was fascinated to see a picture of President Barack Obama kissing Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez on the lips with the words prominently displayed, “UNHATE!”

It turned out to be a photoshopped image for a controversial series of ads by the Italian clothing manufacturer, Benetton.

Several years ago, that company instituted their “United Colors” ad campaign to promote tolerance – of various ethnic groups, of various lifestyles, and of various controversial issues. They had a priest kissing a nun. A black woman breastfeeding a white baby. Three actual human hearts sitting side by side labeled “Black,” “White,” “Yellow.”

It was a very successful way to bring attention to their company and sell their products. It was also a very effective way to press the culture into dialoguing about issues that were not considered polite conversation. And, it was funded by a clothing company, not by charitable donations.

When I saw the picture for the recent ad campaign, I was reminded of Jesus’ words to His disciples in the parable of the shrewd manager:

. . . the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

Benetton is being shrewd in their use of worldly wealth. And, we can learn something from what they are doing. If Christians are going to successfully impact our culture, we need to enter the world arena with truth, wisely presented, with excellence. To do this, we must communicate the right message, utilize the right delivery method, and finance the media presentations by the right means.

Communicating the Right Message

Christians today are casting good seed on hard ground, and the seed is not taking root and growing. This is true in part because we have failed to understand two very important truths.

First, American society has insulated itself against the truth by basing its values on the false premise that "all that is in the world - the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life" lead to happiness, meaning and fulfillment. In reality, immorality, greed, and the abuse of power actually lead to guilt, frustration, and deep sadness.

John the Baptist prepared the way for the coming of Christ by proclaiming a message of repentance. Christians today need to prepare the way for the message of salvation by engaging in a strategy to “roto-till” the hard soil in our society. We need to proclaim messages that expose the true consequences of false values.

Second, major scandals in recent years by prominent spokesmen for Christianity, alignment with groups primarily concerned with political interests rather than spiritual interests, and media presentations with poor production values have resulted in the Christian community losing credibility with the public. Christians also need to engage in a strategy to re-establish lost credibility by communicating positive messages about their underlying integrity and their actual work in helping people.

Following the crises of 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, America began to see Christian ministries in a different light. Almost all of the relief organizations that provided help for those in need were clearly Christian based. Instead of being seen as hypocrites and charlatans, Christians were for a time seen as people with true hearts of love and compassion for their neighbors. When credibility was established, many people wanted to know more about the faith of those who helped.

Utilizing the Right Method

One of the most effective ways of entering the public arena with thought-provoking ideas is with an advertising methodology. The Benetton ads are a great example. While major motion pictures and television programs reach large numbers of people with very effective messages, only a portion of the general public actually sees them. By contrast, advertising messages reach almost the entire population because they are aired multiple times in a variety of media – radio, television, print ads and billboards.

Major national advertisers produce “image” ads that often only casually mention their products. Benetton has chosen to strategically address the issues of racism and hate in the world. Whether or not their solutions are correct, they have succeeded in effectively getting their message out to the public while also communicating an image of their company that actually sells their products.

Financed by the Right Means

The major challenge associated with an advertising methodology is where to find the necessary finances to purchase airtime or advertising space. The cost of production can usually be raised through donations from likeminded people. The “delivery” costs, however, are astronomical. While various Christian and non-Christian charitable organizations have sought to develop advertising strategies in the past to get their messages out, most have failed to make any significant, long-term impact on the society as a whole because they lacked the necessary finances to mount a sustained campaign.

Benetton has actually pointed to an answer to this problem that has not adequately been pursued as a strategy by the Christian community. Companies built on Christian values can include image building media messages that communicate Christian themes into their overall advertising plans. Then, the necessary “delivery” finances come out of advertising budgets, not from donations.

Christians are empowered by God with the most powerful messages the world has ever known. Biblical truth relates to all areas of life – family relationships, principles of business and finance, meaning and purpose in life, reconciliation with one another and with God.

God has also blessed the Christian community with successful businesses and skillful media professionals. I have worked with a number of tremendously talented, sincere Christians in the media industry in New York who would love to be involved in projects that have an eternal significance.

As people of the light, we need to be more shrewd in our dealings with the world. When the resources of the Christian business and media communities are coupled with a vision for impacting the culture through an advertising methodology, there will be a significant impact!

Hell: What Do You Really Believe?

2011-11-11T12:57:00.005-05:00

By George W. Sarris

It’s been said that the best indicator of what people really value is what’s written in their checkbook!

That’s because what we do speaks louder than what we say. Proverbs 20:6 is a clear example of that truth –

“Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find?”

When it comes to the issue of Hell, what we say often doesn’t match up with what we do.

What I mean is that many Christians say they believe that Hell is a place of conscious, never-ending suffering, but don’t live their lives in ways that would indicate that they really believe it to be true. They don’t exhibit any serious concern for the billions of people supposedly destined to end up there. They have to be taught to “just walk across the room,” instead of running as fast as they possibly can to tell their lost relatives, friends, and coworkers of the horrific danger they face. And, very few seem to care enough for those they think are heading toward endless misery to go out of their way to try to stop them.

The lost may be destined to experience the “fires” of Hell. But, the saved often don’t seem to have enough of a “fire” in their belly to actually do anything about it.

So, what do most Christians really believe about Hell? Or, more importantly, what do you really believe about Hell?

The Real Issue

We, in our time, are not as bold about communicating our belief in Hell as many of our predecessors were. Consider the words of one of the best known, most learned, and well respected preachers and theologians of Protestant Church history, Jonathan Edwards. His sermons began the First Great Awakening in America in the 1730s and 1740s, and he is widely considered to be one of the greatest thinkers America has yet produced.

Do but consider what it is to suffer extreme torment forever, and ever to suffer it day and night, from one day to another, from one year to another, from one age to another, from one thousand ages to another, and so, adding age to age, and thousands to thousands, in pain, in wailing and lamenting, groaning and shrieking, and gnashing your teeth; with your souls full of dreadful grief and amazement, with your bodies and every member full of racking torture, without any possibility of getting ease; without any possibility of moving God to pity by your cries; without any possibility of hiding yourselves from him; without any possibility of diverting your thoughts from your pain; without any possibility of obtaining any manner of mitigation, or help, or change for the better any way.
. . . when after you shall have worn out a thousand more such ages, yet you shall have no hope, but shall know that you are not one whit nearer to the end of your torments; but that still there are the same groans, the same shrieks, the same doleful cries, incessantly to be made by you, and that the smoke of your torment shall still ascend up, forever and ever . . .

Is that what you believe?

A little over a century later, another great preacher and theologian, Charles Spurgeon, challenged his audience with these words:

There is a place, as much beneath imagination as heaven is above it; a place of murky darkness, where only lurid flames make darkness visible; a place where beds of flame are the fearful couches upon which spirits groan; a place where God Almighty from his mouth pours a stream of brimstone, kindling that "pile of fire and of much wood," which God has prepared of old as a Tophet for the lost and ruined. There is a spot, whose only sights and scenes are fearful woe; there is a place . . . where the only music is the mournful symphony of damned spirits; where howling, groaning, moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth, make up the horrid concert. There is a place where demons fly, swift as air, with whips of knotted burning wire, torturing poor souls; where tongues, on fire with agony, burn the roofs of mouths that shriek for drops of water—that water all denied. There is a place where soul and body endure as much of infinite wrath as the finite can bear; where the inflictions of justice crush the soul, where the continual flagellations of vengeance beat the flesh; where the perpetual pourings out of the vials of eternal wrath scald the spirit, and where the cuttings of the sword strike deep into the inner man.

Spurgeon was the foremost preacher of the nineteenth century and is still the most widely read preacher in history. In 1861, before the modern “mega-churches” of today that seat thousands, Spurgeon’s congregation built The Metropolitan Tabernacle which seated 4,700 people. In that same year, he preached at London’s Crystal Palace to a congregation of 23,654 people without the use of a microphone or any other means of amplification.

Do Spurgeon’s words reflect the belief that exists in your heart?

Most people today, including many devout Christians, feel embarrassed when they read or hear such hellfire-and-brimstone preaching. We don’t like to talk about Hell, and, when pressed by someone who questions it, we usually try to change the subject or explain that it is not a place of literal fire and torment. We would prefer to describe the suffering and pain of Hell more abstractly as a state of loss or separation from God. Many of us feel more comfortable if we say that it may not be inflicted pain, but simply felt pain.

But, any way you look at it, what people generally claim to believe is that Hell is a place where countless billions of people will experience unending agony, pain and anguish.

Words vs. Actions

The common and traditionally held belief within Christendom is that Hell is a place of conscious suffering that never ends, established by the God who talks of turning the other cheek, forgiving sinners who know not what they are doing, and loving enemies in this world, but who withdraws His hand of mercy in the next.

But, is that what we really believe? Is it what the Bible really teaches? Has it always been held by those who were considered true believers in the Church?

Is that what you really believe?

If actions really do speak louder than words, could it be that our actions are actually telling us something important that we should listen to? Are we instinctively questioning within ourselves whether or not what we have been told all our lives about the nature and duration of Hell is actually true? Is it an issue that we should take time to reconsider?

In 1742, British poet Edward Young published a lengthy poem titled, Night Thoughts on Life, Death and Immortality in which he eloquently expressed a question on behalf of the “lost” that we would do well to ponder:

Father of Mercies! Why from silent earth
Didst thou awake and curse me into birth,
Tear me from quiet, banish me from night,
And make a thankless present of Thy light,
Push into being a reverse of Thee,
And animate a clod with misery?

The nature of Hell is an important issue. In light of what our actions are telling us, maybe we should give more thought to what we say we believe.

How Do You Spell S-U-C-C-E-S-S?

2011-10-27T15:34:00.003-04:00

By George W. Sarris

As we approach the Halloween and Thanksgiving holidays, there is an important principle about success in life that we can learn from pumpkins!

My family and I went to the New England States Exposition a few weeks ago and we saw a pumpkin that weighed over 1,000 pounds. It was enormous and very impressive! I’m told that the world record for giant pumpkins is held by Chris Stevens of New Richmond, WI. His pumpkin weighed in at 1,810 ½ pounds. That could make a lot of pumpkin pies for Thanksgiving!

The first time I saw a winning giant pumpkin at a county fair I asked the grower how he was able to grow it that big. He told me it wasn’t really too difficult. You start by getting the right kind of seed. You have to water it and fertilize it. But, the key is that you must pinch off all the blossoms except one so that all the energy of the vine goes into that one plant.

When I asked him why farmers don’t grow more giant pumpkins like that, he explained that they don’t really taste very good, and they are extremely difficult to move.

“About the only thing they are really good for,” he said, “is showing off!”

The Giant Pumpkin Principle

Many of the “rich and famous” who our culture idolize as great successes have followed the Giant Pumpkin Principle. They have become “super-successful” in one area of life, but dismal failures in other areas. In order to get to where they are, they had to “pinch off” various facets of their lives so they could focus on just one thing – making lots of money, or standing out in the arena or on the ball field or golf course, or being masters of their craft on the silver screen or in a recording studio or on the political stage. Some Christians have done the same thing when it comes to building a ministry.

Unfortunately, in many cases, their personal relationships with family members, friends and others are woefully deficient. They receive accolades, win awards, and usually have impressive resumes, but they spend their energies on what is of value in the temporal world only and miss what is of value from an eternal perspective.

About the only thing they are really good for is showing off!

As Christians, we don’t need to be super-successful in one area. We need to be moderately successful in many areas. We don’t need lots of money . . . or fame . . . or influence to be truly successful in life. We need something different.

The Book of Job Principle

Job was a tremendously successful man in the eyes of all those who knew him or knew of him – including his friends, Satan, and God. He had immense wealth, extensive business holdings, political and moral influence over others, and a large and thriving family.

He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.

His friends regarded Job as a Giant Pumpkin. To them, he was great because of the size of his estate and the reach of his influence. Once his wealth and his health were taken away, they turned what had been respect for him into scorn and derision.

Satan, too, regarded Job’s greatness as a corollary to the extent of his possessions. When God summoned Satan in Job, chapter 1, He asked,

Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.

In response, Satan challenged God’s assessment by saying that the only reason Job served God was because of the abundance of the things God had given him:

Does Job fear God for nothing? . . . You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.

To Satan’s surprise, Job was not just a big show off! After all his possessions were taken away, Job said,

Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.

In chapter 2, God again summons Satan to stand before Him. In that second conference, God says exactly the same thing about Job that He said in Chapter 1 . . . except that He adds a statement to show why Job was a true success in God’s eyes. This time, God says to Satan,

Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.

While Job remained in full possession of all his wealth and prestige, Satan might have been right. Perhaps Job served God only because he had been given good things. After all, “Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find?”

After those things were taken away, however, the real nature of Job’s success was revealed. It was not because of the abundance of his possessions or the influence he had over others in the political or business spheres. It was because of the integrity of his character. True success is revealed most clearly after it has come through a time of testing.

So, how is success really spelled? I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y!

How Long Is Forever, Anyway?

2011-10-20T16:48:00.002-04:00

By George W. Sarris

Forever is a very long time!

Whether it’s measured in anything remotely analogous to what we call “time” or is some kind of “constant state of being,” the concept of something never ending is beyond the ability of the human mind to conceive – perhaps most especially when talking about the conscious suffering or anguish of Hell.

Not long ago, a friend who believes in a never ending Hell told me why he believes it – God’s “holiness” is His most important attribute. “Because of His holiness,” he said,“God cannot look on sin. He must punish it.” So . . . ?

Punishment for sin is not the issue. We see sin punished all the time in this life. People who sin in various ways experience all kinds of negative consequences to their behavior – just ask a recovering alcoholic, or drug addict, or repentant thief, or anyone who has come to understand the seriousness of sin in this life. They will tell you that the negative consequences or “punishment” that they have experienced is just and often severe.

But, punishment that goes on forever, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever ends is a completely different matter. To think that a good God or any other being in a place of heavenly bliss would be content looking on or knowing about other beings who are constantly and consciously suffering unbearable pain and agony that never ends does not in any way spring from a belief in God’s “holiness.” It is more in line with the behavior of an earthly despot who tortures his enemies or subjects because they do not do his bidding.

But, does Scripture teach that Hell is forever?

Forever in Scripture

The word translated “forever,” or “eternal” in the English versions of the Bible in relation to punishment is derived from Hebrew and Greek verbs denoting to hide or to conceal. The actual meaning is a period of time – longer or shorter, past or future – the boundaries of which are concealed, obscure, unseen, or unknown.

It can be a few days, a lifetime, or an age depending on what it is referring to. Itdoesn’t mean never ending. It means that the end is not known.

For example, Jonah's decision to disobey God resulted in his being swallowed by a great fish. In his distress, he cried out to the LORD with a prayer in which he tells how long he expected to be imprisoned:

To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me inforever.

Jonah did not know how long his imprisonment would last. In this case, “forever” meant three days, and was followed by release.

The word is also used to describe how long a slave will serve his master in Exodus 21:6.

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever.

The length of a slave’s service in this case is unknown since no one could determine the day of his death. At most, the slave would serve his master for his whole life.

In Leviticus 6:18 and many other places, the statutes and offerings of the Lord are to be “forever.”

All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statuteforever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire.

The Levitical system of sacrifices lasted a long time, but eventually came to an end. The first Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, and the rebuilt Temple was destroyed by the Roman forces in AD 70. There is no longer a Jewish priesthood. There is no longer a Temple in Jerusalem. There is no longer a system of sacrifices being offered. The purpose for that system was fulfilled, and it came to an end.

The Scriptural term translated “forever” did not mean endless in that case, and could not mean endless. If it did, the Jews would have been perfectly justified in rejecting the Christian religion that proclaimed the annulment of statutes and ordinances in their law which they had been told again and again were to be “eternal” or “forever.” If they could have established that meaning of the word they would have had an unanswerable argument against Christianity.

Endless Punishment?

The passage of Scripture that is most often pointed to as a clear statement that punishment in Hell will never end is Matthew 25:46. In that verse, Jesus Himself, referring to those who will be brought before the Son of Man when He sits on His throne in glory, says of the wicked and the righteous,

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

As with the passages we looked at earlier, the English word translated “eternal” gives the false impression that Jesus is talking about things that are “endless.” But, the underlying Greek word does not mean endless. It means the end is not known. The passage should actually be translated,

These shall go away into the punishment of the age to come, and these into the life of the age to come.

No one knows how long the “age” Jesus is speaking about will last. It does have an end, but the end is unknown.

But, it is not only the meaning of the word in the original language that indicates that the punishment Jesus talks about here is not endless. It is also strongly supported by the context of the passage.

This verse occurs at the end of an extended discourse that Jesus gives privately to His disciples in response to their questions about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem, and the sign of His coming and of the end of the age. That discourse extends without a break from Matthew 24:4 all the way to Matthew 25:46.

Interestingly, the same Greek word that is translated eternal in Matthew 25:46 is also used in the question that prompts the entire discourse. In that question, however, the word is translated by the English word age. Jesus’ disciples ask Him

. . . what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

The ages referred to in Matthew 25:46 cannot mean endless because the entire discourse begins with the acknowledgement that ages have an end. They do not last forever. The question the disciples ask is

. . . what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age.

Eternal Life?

Having said what we have just said above, have we proved too much? What about the eternal life of the believer? If we say that punishment in Hell is in some way temporary and not “forever,” does that mean that life in Heaven is also not “forever?”

Actually, no! The Greek New Testament makes it very clear that those who are in Christwill live forever in the glorious presence of God, but it does not do so with the term “forever.”

For example, in response to a question about life after death in Luke 20:35-36, Jesus explains very clearly that the children of the resurrection are God’s children who willnever die. Similarly, in John 10:27-29, Jesus assures His followers with the promise that His sheep will hear His voice and will never perish. They are in His hand and He will care for them. No one can snatch them out of His hand, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

In a truly powerful statement in the book of Romans, Paul, after explaining that we are more than conquerors in Christ, boldly proclaims his deep conviction that there is no power in all of creation that can separate us from the love of God in Christ. In I Corinthians 15:42, Paul tells his readers that the resurrection body is imperishable. He explains further in 15:53 that the mortal will be clothed with immortality.

Believers in Christ can be assured that they will live with Him throughout all eternity. But, that assurance does not come from passages that use the word that is generally translated by the English term “forever.”

Resisting That Old Deluder!

2011-10-07T12:22:00.004-04:00

By George W. Sarris

In 1647, The Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a very interesting law that has come to be known as the Old Deluder Satan Law. It was one of America’s first education acts, enacted for the expressed purpose of making people literate so they would be able to read the Bible for themselves, and therefore not be deceived by those who would try to lead them astray.

Those who drew up the Act knew that much error would be prevented if people would actually be able to read their Bibles.

It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with love and false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors. It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read . . .

What was true then is true today. I have been in many discussions – perhaps you have, too – where people will confidently declare that the Bible clearly teaches this or that, when I know that it doesn’t. What they are expressing is something that someone else has told them is in the Bible or taught in the Bible . . . and it isn’t true.

Unfortunately, too many people today, including many devout Christians, have never actually read the Bible in its entirety. In fact, many don’t read the Bible very much at all. They read books about the Bible, or devotional books containing Biblical truth, or booksbased on the Bible without actually reading the real thing. Even our churches have a tendency to preach sermons that touch on a Biblical verse or passage without spending much time or effort getting into the actual text to see what the Bible really has to say. As a result, this generation is, in many ways, Biblically illiterate.

The World’s Greatest Book

I can now prove to the English speaking world that I have actually read through the entire Bible, word for word, at least once!

That is because my narration of the 2011 revision of The Holy Bible, New International Version has just been released by Zondervan Publishing House and is now available on CD and as a download. I have also narrated the King James Bible, and I have recorded and perform a series of Bible stories I call the World’s Greatest Stories from the World’s Greatest Book. I chose to expend time and effort on these projects because the Bible is clearly the world’s greatest book.

To get an idea of how significant the Bible really is, it's helpful to know that the world’s library catalogs list a total of about 40 million distinct book titles, with about 900,000 new books being published each year in a total of 360 different languages. That is a lot of books in a lot of languages.

However, according to Wycliffe Bible Translators, the complete Bible has been translated into 457 languages; the complete New Testament into 1,211 languages; and, at least one complete book of the Bible (usually the Gospel of Mark) into an additional 897 languages – bringing the total number of languages having at least one book of the Bible to 2,565!

But, not only has the Bible been translated into far more languages than any other book, it has also been distributed in far greater numbers than any other book.

Discovering exactly how many copies of the Bible have been distributed is impossible because Bibles have been produced by so many different and unrelated publishers, and many Bibles are given away rather than sold. However, estimates of total distribution for all Bibles worldwide range from about 6 billion to 7.5 billion.

Most people know that almost every hotel and motel room in America has a copy of the Bible placed there by The Gideon’s. That organization alone has actually placed or distributed 1.6 billion Bibles and New Testaments worldwide since its founding in 1908, including 79.8 million copies last year.

To put those numbers in perspective – the number 1 best-selling regular book of all time is A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. Since its publication in 1859, it has sold approximately 200 million copies. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien ranks second at about 150 million copies, with The Hobbit next at approximately 100 million.

Other all-time best-selling books include The Lion, The witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis at about 85 million, The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown at 80 million, and Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery at 50 million. The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren has sold about 30 million copies.

Becoming Biblically Literate

As a seminary student many years ago, I was suddenly struck by the thought that I may not have ever actually read through the Bible. I thought that I probably had done so – I had been a Christian for a number of years and tried to read something from the Bible each day. But, I honestly wasn’t sure that I had read it all. And, if I had, I was definitely sure that I had not done so in any systematic fashion. There I was studying and preparing to teach others what Scripture taught, but I wasn’t sure if I had actually read in its entirety the Book that was at the center of my faith. I decided then to make it a practice to read through Scripture from beginning to end in an orderly way – a plan I have kept up ever since.

It’s really not very hard. You don’t need a “plan” that someone else has drawn up. You don’t need to read it in a specified period of time. All you need is a bookmark. Start at the beginning, and read through to the end. If you’re a poor reader, download an audio version and listen.

As Christians, we need to have a deep love and respect for God’s Word that translates into time being spent actually reading or listening to it!

Doing that will enable us to successfully resist that Old Deluder!

Hell: Help or Hindrance to Heaven?

2011-09-29T09:51:00.007-04:00

By George W. Sarris

In any discussion about the possibility that Hell may not be forever, one question almost always comes up:

If everyone will eventually get to heaven anyway, why share your faith?

Some time ago I received a fund appeal letter from a mission organization that directly related to this issue. The letter explained,

The work of missions is not a numbers game, but numbers don’t lie. Statistically, in the time it probably took you to scan the envelope, open the letter, and read these first two sentences, 10 human beings died having never heard the good news about Jesus. Gone forever.
I’m told that about 150,000 people will die today! Nearly half of them will have never heard that Jesus came that they might have life. In fact, most of them live in places where they have no reasonable access to that truth . . .
We can sensationalize the numbers, but people are not numbers. Jesus died for people, and as Dr. Henry said, “The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time.”

Won’t proclaiming the message that God will ultimately restore all of His creation to its intended perfection strip people of the motivation to give and to go? Why should missionaries and other dedicated Christians subject themselves to ridicule and deprivation by going out of their way, often to distant and backward lands, to tell others the “Good News” if they’ll all get to heaven someday, anyway? Won’t the message that God will eventually restore all have a dangerously negative effect on missions and evangelism?

Is Hell important for getting people into Heaven?

Is the “Good News” . . . Good News?

A number of things could be said in response, not the least of which is to mention that the Gospel does much more than simply provide a fire insurance policy to keep people out of Hell.

The Great Commission that Jesus gave commands us to make disciples, not just to make converts. Evangelism is a by-product of making disciples and loving your neighbor. If you are a true disciple of Jesus Christ who is growing in faith and in your relationship with God, you will be prepared and have a desire to share the truths you have learned with others. If you genuinely love your neighbor, you will be alert to opportunities to not only try to convert them, but genuinely help the whole person by ministering to the various needs in their lives that the Gospel addresses.

God has made each person uniquely for a purpose. His laws are just and true. As people fit in with His plan for their lives, they will experience reconciliation with God, forgiveness of their sins, power to overcome and defeat sin and wickedness in their lives, and true purpose. The result is the greatest joy and true fulfillment possible. They will also want to tell others of this wonderful news.

But, another answer to the question is also important to point out – and it’s one that we evangelicals don’t really want to hear.

For a great many people, the traditional concept of Hell is actually a major stumbling block to coming to faith. They cannot believe that an all-powerful, all-loving God would consign people to endless, conscious suffering because they are not part of an esoteric group called the “elect,” or because they have never responded positively to a message they have never heard. I have often been in discussions with people who have told me that people they spoke to about God would not make a commitment because they just could not believe that a good God would send anyone to Hell. Maybe they were right.

The message of endless suffering is not good news! It is not good news for a person who has grown up in a non-Christian environment or where the Gospel has rarely or never been preached to hear that every ancestor, relative, friend or loved one who has died, and the vast majority of those still alive, have no hope. It is not good news for them to be told that all or almost all of the people they love and honor are experiencing or will experience endless, conscious suffering at the hands of the God you are telling them about. To many of them, that is not the most joyful news ever announced. It is the most dreadful news ever announced.

That is one of the reasons it has been so hard for the gospel to take root in cultures that place a high value on family relationships. The first Christian missionary to Japan, St. Francis Xavier, experienced this response to the message he preached, and wrote in 1552:

One of things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope . . . and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. The grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. . . . They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

Not Then . . . Not Now

Over the years, I have listened to many people share testimonies of how and why they became Christians. Many have mentioned the example of a friend or acquaintance who demonstrated an inner strength, power over sin, or quality of life that impressed them. Others have said that entering into a personal relationship with God gave them a sense of purpose in a world that seemed to have no direction, or that He provided a solid source of security at a time in their lives when everything else was falling apart. A number have mentioned that Biblical Christianity provided clear answers to questions about life and the world around them that had a ring of truth to them. Some have told of how they witnessed true love and compassion shown by Christians toward others who were not even part of their faith.

I can honestly say that very few of the people I have heard have said that they came to faith because they were afraid to go to Hell, and becoming a Christian gave them peace of mind in that area. It is definitely true for some, but it has not been my experience that it has been a primary motivation for very many. In fact, in my experience, the doctrine of eternal damnation has caused far more people to be driven away from the faith than drawn to it.

The experience of a friend speaks to the issue very well.

I used to be afraid to share the gospel, for fear that the conversation would come around to the subject of hell. I was afraid that someone would ask, “What about those who have never heard”? or “How can a good God allow billions of people to be tormented forever?” or “What’s the point of bringing people into existence only to suffer in this life, die, and then suffer forever with no hope of relief?” I had no good answers. Sure, I knew all the standard answers, but they didn’t satisfy me any more than they satisfied those who asked the questions.
Now I am free to share the gospel without worrying about getting trapped by good questions that have no good answers. I can confidently proclaim that God is Love, that He is not a monster who allows people to spend eternity in perpetual suffering apart from Him. At the same time, I can confidently proclaim that He is holy and righteous, He is a consuming fire, and He will not let anyone get away with anything. He will do whatever it takes to make sinners holy, fit for spending eternity in His presence.

The greatest time of expansion of the Christian church was in the first few centuries after Christ, when the dominant view of the church was that God would ultimately restore all of His creation to its intended perfection.

Perhaps they remembered something about God's sovereign power coupled with His unfailing love for all that we have forgotten.

What The World Needs Now Is . . . Fathers!

2011-09-20T15:28:00.002-04:00

The film, Courageous, will be released in theatres at the end of this month. It’s a film about fathers. I’ve not seen the film, but I did have the privilege of narrating the companion book, Resolution for Men.

It’s actually quite amazing to see how many films in recent years have been about fathers. From Finding Nemo to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to Iron Man II to Courageous, many have plot lines that directly deal with the relationship of fathers to their sons – and often the need for reconciliation between the two. Fathers have not done a particularly great job of leading their families for over half a century.

In the mid-1950’s, there was another important film about fathers that offered a very insightful social commentary on the society of the day. It was recognized by the American Film Institute in 1998 as #59 in its list of the 100 most important films of the twentieth century. It was a film that explored the reasons behind the growth of the peer dependant, teen culture that was developing in those years and is still with us today. But, more than that, it was a film about the lack of strong fathers.

Rebel Without A Cause is an iconic film starring James Dean, Natalie Wood, and Sal Mineo.

James Dean's father was weak. One of the key scenes in the film shows Dean earnestly pleading with his father to support him for standing up for what is right in the face of his mother’s fears. His father backed down.

Natalie Wood’s father was insensitive. She was becoming a beautiful young woman who wanted her father’s affection and affirmation. Instead, she hears him repeat crude remarks about her looks. When she tries to steal a kiss from him, he slaps her.

Sal Mineo's father was absent. We’re not really sure who he is or where he is. He just isn’t there.

Each of the three principal characters was looking for a strong father – someone who would stand with them when they faced the tough decisions of life; someone who would stand near them as they navigated the changes that happen in life; and someone who would just be there when needed. They didn't find those qualities in their real fathers, so they looked to each other.

It was getting late when we watched that film several years ago as a family. So, I said to my teenage kids, "Let's turn it off for now and finish it at another time." Their response was immediate and earnest - "No, dad. You can't do that. We're seeing our friends in this film!" Many of their friends had weak, insensitive or absent fathers and they were getting a better understanding of their friends' situations.

Are Fathers Expendable?

Ever since the sixties and seventies the role of men has been downplayed in our society – to the extent that many see fathers as a necessary evil in families. They may provide needed income, but they are too volatile and undependable to be of any real value in the long-term. Unfortunately, far too many men have contributed to that understanding by abandoning their families in pursuit of self-centered agendas. I'm no longer amazed when I hear of politicians, sports figures, celebrities, or even religious leaders who have left their wives and children in their desire to find "greener pastures" somewhere else. In reality, they're not acting like men – they’re acting like little boys.

But, are fathers expendable? Do they really fulfill an important, on-going function in a family or is their role finished once a child is conceived? Outside of their necessity in pro-creation, do fathers really need to stay around?

Some time ago, I came across some staggering statistics that made the answer to those questions absolutely clear:

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from homes where no father was present
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
71% of teenage pregnancies are born to children who grew up in homes with no fathers
71% of high school dropouts come from homes without fathers
70% of juveniles in long-term detention grew up in fatherless homes
36% of all children in America live in homes without their biological father
40% of children who live in fatherless households have not seen their fathers in at least a year

We face a lot of problems in our culture. But, one of the greatest problems by far is the lack of strong, responsible fathers. Those men provide stability in a family, proper discipline for children, and guidance. Without them, the culture disintegrates.

For Generations To Come

One of the most important messages of the film, Courageous, and the companion book,Resolution for Men, is that fathers can have a significant, positive influence on their families for generations to come – regardless of how good or bad their fathers were at parenting.

A friend of mine who grew up in another culture once asked me why I was the kind of father I was to my children. He was having difficulties with his own family and appreciated some of the things I had been doing. He asked if it was because I was a Christian, or because I was an American, or because I was from a Greek background. What was the most important influence in my growth and development as a father?

I was about to tell him it was because I had studied Scripture and learned important principles about parenting from God's Word, when it suddenly dawned on me that the real reason behind who I was as a father was my own dad. I was the kind of father I was because my dad was that kind of father to me. I modified some of the things he did because of my faith, but the way I approached being a dad was basically modeled after him. He was approachable, and I could always rely on him for guidance when I had a problem. He spent time with my brother and me. And, he laid the groundwork in my life that encouraged me to pursue truth regardless of where it led. My dad was a good father, and my brother and I have benefited tremendously from his example.

But, my father did not learn that from his own father.

I once asked my dad about his relationship with his father and he said, “I grew up at a time when children were to be seen, but not heard.” His own father was not the role model my dad followed. He sought something different. And God, in His grace, gave my father what he needed to raise his two sons. And, those two sons, with all our weaknesses and shortcomings, are passing along that heritage to the next generation – who will prayerfully carry it on for generations to come.

Real “fathers” are not boys. They are God’s image bearers who are called to be responsible leaders in their families. God gives grace to the humble and wisdom to those who ask Him for it. There are many resources available for men today on how to be fathers, and many men will freely share what they have learned with others if only they are asked.

What is most important is for fathers to see that fathers are important. It’s what the world needs . . . now!

Why Can’t Christians Get Along?

2011-09-12T10:56:00.004-04:00

By George W. Sarris

It’s no secret that Christians have a hard time getting along with other Christians with whom they disagree. Historically, sincere Christian believers have been persecuted, defamed, tortured, and sometimes put to death by other sincere Christian believers who didn’t agree with their positions on baptism, election, church government and authority, and a host of other issues.

In order not to be caught in some kind of doctrinal or ecclesiastical error, almost all churches and Christian organizations have put together some kind of written statement defining what they consider to be their core beliefs. Whether it be the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion, The Baptist Faith and Message, or the Statement of Faith of one or another Christian church or group, they all seek to set out in some clear form what they consider the essence of what it is to be a true Christian believer.

The primary purpose of these statements is to let those outside the faith know what Christians believe, and to make other Christians aware of their distinctive positions on doctrinal or ecclesiastical issues so they can find a place for fellowship with like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, these “Statements of Faith” actually impede unity by separating one group of Christian believers from other Christian believers who do not share their views. Sometimes, those who disagree are considered untaught or mistaken. Sometimes, they are considered heretics whose views must be eliminated and the proponents silenced.

Is Unity Possible?

The word “ecumenical” has come to be known in certain circles within the Christian world today as a synonym for theological compromise. However, it actually refers to the desire within the Christian community to define clearly the essence of what it means to beChristian.

In the early centuries of the Christian Church, the “Ecumenical Councils” were those comprised of representatives of the entire Church who assembled to discuss issues and define positions that were of vital importance to their identity as true followers of Christ.

The idea behind these councils was expressed eloquently in a tract written in about AD 1627 by a little known German divine. Although generally attributed to St. Augustine, it was actually Rupertus Meldenius who penned three short and very profound statements that sum up the central focus of what these councils were trying to do, and what Christians of all ages should be seeking to attain:

In essentials unity. In nonessentials liberty. In all things charity.

Most Christians, even today, would agree with that sentiment. God certainly wants His people to be united in those beliefs that are essential to the faith, gracious towards others who disagree with them with regard to disputable matters, and loving in all interactions with those with whom they differ.

But, “What are the ‘essentials’? And, “Who decides what those ‘essentials’ really are?”

What is “Essential”?

I was quite surprised recently to hear John MacArthur, never one to be accused of advocating theological compromise, utter something that sounded very “ecumenical” in the true sense of the word – although I’m sure he would not refer to it in that way.

He was being interviewed about his views on the doctrine of election – a view which he clearly explained and vigorously defended as the true and accurate teaching of Scripture. Toward the end of the interview, he was asked for his opinion on what those listeners should do who were convinced that Scripture does teach the doctrine of election, but who attend a church where that view is not taught. Did he think this is an issue important enough for them to leave or disassociate themselves from a church that disagreed with their belief?

Dr. MacArthur’s answer was clear and definite. No!

No, you know, I want to say that you don't want to split a church over anything, really, unless you're talking about the deity of Christ, or the character of God, or the nature of salvation. . . . I think if you're in a church where this is not taught, or where there seems to be a resistance to it, you need to humble yourself and be meek and be gracious and celebrate the glory of God in His electing grace in your own life and do the best you can to live your Christian life in that environment. . . . But don't make this some issue that you're going to split a church or create conflict.

Although clearly a central part of his belief system and something he definitely thinks is the true Biblical teaching, Dr. MacArthur did not consider it to be an essential belief that should separate Christians. For him, it is a nonessential element where liberty should be allowed.

All of which brings us back to the questions, “What are the ‘essentials’? And, “Who decides what those ‘essentials’ really are?”

The Statement of Faith of the Christian Church

Interestingly, a document actually exists that was agreed upon by the entire Christian Church assembled for the specific purpose of defining what it was that was essential to believe in order to be considered truly Christian. That document is the Nicene Creed. It was originally drafted at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, with later modifications made at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. It is a statement of faith accepted by almost all those who claim to be Christians even today.

And, interestingly, that same group specifically prohibited other creeds from being formulated and presented as the official teaching of the Christian Church.

The holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other Creed (ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι),besides that which was settled by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicæa, with the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed is the true Statement of Faith of the Christian Church.

The distinctions spelled out in the various other statements that churches and organizations have drawn up since then are real and held strongly by those with whom they regularly fellowship. However, those distinctions should not become so important that they cause one group of believers to deny other believers the right to disagree with them on disputable issues.

Perhaps we should rename them, Statements of Distinctives.

Why can’t Christians can get along? In part, because we have failed to accept the heritage of our faith and humbly follow the simple advice of Rupertus Meldenius:

In essentials unity. In nonessentials liberty. In all things charity.

How Wide is God’s Mercy . . . Really?

2011-08-19T16:29:00.001-04:00

By George W. Sarris

The controversy about the nature of Hell continues.

USA Today published an article in its Opinion section last week by Oliver Thomas, a Southern Baptist minister and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, challenging the traditional view. The article asked, Should Believers Fear Hell – And God?

His conclusion?

Though we may speak of such a God as loving . . . deep down, we know it's a sham.

Then, last Sunday, John Piper asked in a sermon, Is God’s Salvation Plan a Failure Since Many Are Going to Hell? Piper acknowledged that God desires that all people be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, but he went on to explain,

God does not act on His desire. . . . God knows what he's doing in having this desire and not fulfilling it at this level of decisive action in peoples' lives. He has his reasons.

He concluded that God’s plan is not a failure because some of those He desires to save are, in fact, saved.

The Real Issue

All true believers know that salvation is by grace. But, the question at the heart of the controversy is, “How far does that grace extend?”

To put the question in context, it is helpful to note that the current world population is rapidly approaching 7 billion people. Of that number, about one-third—roughly 2.3 billion people—call themselves Christians in some way. That includes liberal and conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics, members of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and a large variety of other groups.

Even if all of those who profess to be “Christians” were true believers, that would mean that well over 4 billion people are currently outside the faith – the vast majority of whom will not profess Christ in their lifetime. Of that number more than 2 billion are non-Christians living in unreached people groups where Christ is unknown. Historically, even larger percentages of the world’s population have never heard about or professed faith in Christ in any way.

If God is sovereign and God is good, why would He cause or allow billions of people – the vast majority of the human beings He created and supposedly loves – to suffer conscious torment forever?

He Has His Reasons

The answer most often given to that question, and the answer that John Piper gave in last week’s sermon, is that “God has His reasons.”

There is certainly a great deal of truth in that simple statement. God obviously has many reasons for doing things that are far beyond our limited ability to understand. God is infinite. We are finite. There are many mysteries and questions about life where God has chosen not to reveal to finite human beings the reasons why He has chosen to do certain things in His infinite wisdom.

The example of Job comes quickly to mind. That blameless and upright man never received a specific answer to his questions, except that he needed to trust God’s character. That was the answer God gave to Job . . . and it’s the ultimate answer He gives to us, as well.

But, Job was arguing with counselors who were asking him to believe something about God’s character that was not true. He was asked to believe that God was punishing him for great sins that he had not committed. In effect, they were asking him to believe that God was not good.

Job was perplexed and tested to his core, but in the last analysis he trusted in the fact that the God he worshiped would not unjustly punish a righteous man.

I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see Him with my own eyes – I, and not another. . . . He knows the way that I take; when He has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Does God Mean What He Says?

In the present discussion about the nature and duration of Hell, are we, like Job, being asked to believe something about God that is not really true?

The original Greek term the apostle Paul used in I Timothy 2:4 where he tells his readers that God desires that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth actually meanswill, as translated in the KJV:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Young's Literal Translation reads:

. . . for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth.

Are we justified in translating that comment to mean that God would like it if all were saved and came to a knowledge of the truth, but that it is not really His will? Or, as John Piper explained, God does not act on His desire?

The Ways of God

Scripture clearly teaches that God’s ways are different from our ways, and He certainly has reasons for doing things that we will never know or fully understand. But, His ways are not baser than ours, they are higher. He is not less merciful than we are, He is farmore compassionate than we are. Jesus, quoting the prophet Hosea, told the Pharisees who held to the traditional view they had received from their elders that they should go and learn this – I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

We rightly look with contempt on earthly rulers who either torture their subjects or sit by idly and watch them suffer. How can it be “good” for the Ruler of all things to do the same on a scale so vast that it dwarfs the imagination?

John Stuart Mill, nineteenth-century British philosopher and economist, correctly observed,

. . . I know that infinite goodness must be goodness, and that what is not consistent with goodness, is not consistent with infinite goodness. . . . To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good? To assert in words what we do not think in meaning, is as suitable a definition as can be given of a moral falsehood.

Somehow, the idea that a sovereign God has a desire to save His creatures but choosesnot to act on that desire seems hollow. It doesn’t square with the idea that God really is good.

As mentioned in an earlier blog post, many in the Early Church had a the deep conviction that God loves and desires to save all, along with a fundamental confidence in His ability to carry it out. Perhaps, we should look more carefully at their reasons for that belief.

How far does God’s grace extend? How wide is His mercy . . . really?

Could it actually be wider than we think?

It's NOT The Economy . . . Stupid!

2011-08-12T18:12:00.003-04:00

The United States is now 14.5 trillion dollars in debt, and the number keeps rising. That is a lot of money! In fact, it’s so big that we really don’t have clue how much it really is. There is nothing in our experience that even comes close to a number that large.

But, an illustration may help.

If you wanted to count to a million, and counted once every second for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would take you a little over 11 ½ days to get to one million.

If you wanted to count to a billion, and counted once every second for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 ¼ days a year, it would take you over 31 ½ years to count to one billion.

If you wanted to count to a trillion, and counted once every second for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 ¼ days a year, it would take you over 31 ½ thousand years to count to one trillion.

If you wanted to count to 14.5 trillion, and counted once every second for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 ¼ days a year, it would take you over 456,000 years to count to the number that represents our national debt!

We owe a lot of money!

The Real Problem

But, the problem we’re facing is really not the economy. The economy is only a symptom of a much deeper, underlying problem. Americans love money. Those who are rich want to get more. Those who are poor want more to be given to them.

The rich don’t believe that the barns full of money they already have are large enough. They want to build larger barns. The poor don’t believe that two years of unemployment benefits on top of food stamps and other programs are enough. They want the benefits to be extended and expanded.

Wealthy Liberals in Congress and in our communities across this nation, and there are many of them, live in luxury and say they want to help the poor. Some could actually privately fund several multi-million dollar programs to provide help, but they would rather continue living in luxury and use other people’s money to fund those programs.

Wealthy Conservatives in Congress and in our communities across this nation, and there are many of them, too, also live in luxury and say that the poor should learn to work hard so they, too, can become rich and live in luxury. Most have never actually visited a poor person to see what factors are holding them back. They prefer that any help come from private charities.

So, they give away a little of their money, but spend most of it on themselves.

Fatherlessness and Foundations

For several years, I worked as a consultant at a private charity in New York City. My responsibilities were to contact foundations that had been set up by the wealthy to raise funds to help the poor. It was a great opportunity for me to learn about the ways of the rich and the poor, because I was placed right in the middle between the two. I learned a lot, and my views on a number of things changed as a result.

I wanted to help the poor, but I learned quickly that the poor often have learned how to work the system. I was told on a number of occasions by those who had experience in the area not to just give them a hand-out. Direct them to a program that deals with the underlying problems that have led them to where they currently are. I also learned that they needed more than to learn to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Many of them had no bootstraps to pull. The school system had not taught them how to read, they had few marketable skills, and many had no clue how to conduct themselves in a job interview or even know how to go about finding a job.

I learned that the real problem in the inner city is not poverty. It is a lack of fathers. It sounds almost inconceivable, but in parts of the inner city 90% of the children are born out of wedlock. Fathers provide necessary strength, discipline, and guidance for a family. The old saying is true, “When Mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy!” But, it’s also true that “When Papa not around, the family don’t go nowhere!” In most of the cases involving drugs, alcohol, and homelessness, the fathers had not been or were not around.

I learned, too, that those who started foundations tended to be people who stockpiled money. They wanted to make sure their descendants would not need to work hard to provide for the necessities of life, and therefore would be able to do worthwhile things with their lives. Unfortunately, many of the descendants ended up wasting the money on trivial things. A brief look at the tabloid accounts of the frivolous escapades of the rich and famous are an almost constant reminder of how true that is.

Many of those who started foundations did so in order to guarantee that their goals for giving would be continued after they died. However, no matter how specific the guidelines for the foundations were originally set up, those who control the money now dictate what it will actually be used for. In many cases, it ended up funding exactly the opposite of what the original donors would have wanted. The motivation behind much of the giving is like that of the Pharisees of old who loved to stand on the street corners blowing their horns so others could see how generous they were!

The Love of Money

The economy is not the real problem. It’s the value system underlying it. We love money.

Warren Buffett suggested in a New York Times editorial that the super rich should definitely pay more taxes, to which Pat Buchanan asked, "Why doesn't he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government?"

One way to help get rid of the nation’s debt problem would be to add a line on the federal income tax form giving people the opportunity to donate any amount they wish to help lower the debt. That's not a bad idea. My only concern would be that the politicians would probably use the extra cash to dig us deeper in debt.

“St. Peter don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the . . . “

Whatever Happened to "Honorable" Intentions?

2011-08-03T18:11:00.000-04:00

In the culture wars we’re facing today, the stakes are high. The battles we win and lose directly affect the legacy we will leave to future generations. So, it’s imperative that we fight the right battles and focus on the right issues.

I am convinced that the recent emphasis within the Christian community opposing homosexuality and gay marriage is actually a distraction from the real moral issue that Christians in our culture should be concerned about.

The real issue is not gay marriage vs. straight marriage. It is not heterosexual sexual activity vs. homosexual sexual activity. The real issue is what is God’s purpose for sex, and what are we as Christian parents doing to prepare our children for successful marriages?

Border Wars

My friend, John, is a former career military officer who has taught me a lot about how battles, including battles in life, are won and lost. One of the main concepts he has shared is what he calls “border wars.” All battles are fought on borders. The goal of the aggressor is to swiftly and continually move the border as close to the heart of the enemy as possible until victory is attained. The goal of the defender is to keep the border as far away from the center of power as possible.

That concept often plays out in family relationships and in society at large. For example, there will be battles between parents and children over a myriad of issues. The concept of border wars says that no matter where you as a parent set a limit – or border – you are going to have a battle. If you set a curfew, you will have to fight a battle whether the time you set is 9 PM, 10 PM or 1 AM. So, set the border where you want it to be instead of where the child wants it to be – and prepare for the fight.

The problem we are facing on the moral front in our society is that we have been setting the borders in the wrong place for decades.

There was a time when the father of a young woman would ask a potential suitor if his intentions were “honorable” – meaning, “Are you interested in pursuing my daughter as a possible marriage partner, or are you just interested in fooling around?” Then, society told us that border was outdated, and we should really only be concerned with making sure our children didn’t “get into trouble” – which translated into “use a condom and don’t get pregnant.” Later, the battle lines were drawn at whether or not it was right to live together out of wedlock. Now, it’s gay marriage.

Why Sex?

Just looking at what we see on the TV screen, the silver screen, the covers of supermarket tabloids, and in the behavior of even Christian teens and adults throughout our society, one could easily get the idea that the primary purpose of sex is recreation. We kiss, we pet, we engage in sexual intimacies of various kinds because they are pleasurable! Isn’t that what you are supposed to do with someone you care deeply about, or find particularly attractive?

No! It’s not.

Our society has focused for far too long on promoting sex outside of marriage as normative behavior to be engaged in casually by anyone older than about twelve. And, the Christian community has fallen into the trap of thinking that as long as our children don’t get pregnant or get someone else pregnant, or acquire some kind of sexually transmitted disease, or become gay – then whatever they do in private is okay.

But, teen pregnancies, abortion, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, pornography, and homosexuality have not increased because we don’t use condoms, or aren’t careful when engaging in sex, or don’t have the right filters on our computers, or don’t have laws on the books against gay marriage. They have arisen because we have failed to successfully understand and communicate to our children and our society God’s real purposes for sex, marriage and family.

There is definitely a pleasurable, recreational aspect to sex that was expressly put there by God for the enjoyment and delight of His creatures. But, that is not its primary purpose. And, it is not to be engaged in casually. The primary purpose of sex is to create life. And, the primary purpose of marriage and family is to provide a safe, hospitable place for the expression of intimacy and the growth and nurture of new life.

Sex . . . When And With Whom?

One of the major problems Christians should be addressing is the almost constant focus on paring up young people long before the feelings that are generated in those relationships can be righteously fulfilled. It is almost assumed today that if teens or young adults do not have a boyfriend or girlfriend, or if they are not dating someone seriously, there must be a problem. But, the dating pattern, itself, is the cause of a much greater problem.

Many years ago, Paul Jehle made a very profound observation about typical dating relationships. They don’t always happen this way, nor do they have to. However, it has been my experience that what he said is almost prophetic.

He noted that dating typically goes through five stages:

It starts with Attraction, and very quickly leads to Pairing Up, which in turn leads toIsolation – spending lots of time alone together.

So far, so good. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly problematic up to this point. It’s the fourth and fifth stages that lead to a great many young people being deeply hurt, and their ability to experience successful marriages significantly hindered because of the emotional scars that result.

The fourth stage of a typical dating relationship is Physical Intimacy – and it is generally the case that the longer the time together, the more intimate the involvement.

The fifth stage is Breaking Up, which often results in feelings of rejection, shame, bitterness and anger. Two people who couldn’t be separated suddenly don’t want to have anything to do with each other. Then, the cycle repeats itself.

What happens is that this pattern undermines morality, and actually prepares for divorce.

The apostle Paul made it very clear that God desires relationships between the sexes to be characterized by moral purity.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Moral purity is not simply refraining from intercourse outside of marriage. It’s keeping oneself pure from all kinds of physical intimacy before marriage in preparation for true physical intimacy in marriage.

But, the typical dating pattern not only undermines morality, it also prepares for divorce by providing training in how to break close relationships. Because there is no real commitment to begin with, there is no need or incentive to work through the difficulties that always arise in close relationships. It’s just easier to break it off and look for someone else. Many today think of marriage in a way very similar to going steady or hooking up. It’s expected that there will be a breakup sooner or later – serial dating that often leads to serial marriages.

Life Partner Relationships

This may sound incredibly naïve, but Christians need to reset the borders back to “honorable” intentions.

We would do well to encourage our children to pursue life partner relationships, and quit engaging in the boyfriend/girlfriend relationships that will almost inevitably lead to emotional hurt and prepare them for failure. The time to start looking for the right life partner is when you are ready to become the right life partner.

Before that, you are just playing with a loaded gun.

In the cultural battle for morality, some people who play with loaded guns shoot themselves and others in the foot. Some people who play with loaded guns shoot themselves and others in the heart.

Predestination or Free Will? . . . The Debate Continues

2011-07-22T13:04:00.001-04:00

The wagons have circled, and the second round of shots is being fired.

What I am referring to, of course, is the series of books by well-known evangelicals opposing Rob Bell’s Love Wins. Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle, andGod Wins by Mark Galli have recently become available online and in bookstores, with others set to be released soon. Bell shot first, and now the return fire.

Roger Olson, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, made a very perceptive observation in that regard:

After reading Mark Galli’s book God Wins and reviewing it here, I went back and re-read Bell’s Love Wins – looking for the weaknesses and dangers Mark points out. What I find is this: IF I were a Calvinist, I would find Love Wins troubling. But as an Arminian, I find it challenging, but not particularly troubling. . . . The [attacks] I have read and heard ALL arise out of Reformed assumptions about God rather than out of Arminian assumptions about God. And there’s the main difference. Not all Arminians will agree with everything Bell says, but the general thrust of his theology in Love Wins is classically Arminian.

What Is God Like . . . Really?

Volumes have been written down through the centuries about the attributes of God. In fact, a hallmark of every systematic theology is a section on who God is and what He is like. These attributes are divided up and stated in different ways by different theologians, but all mention two specific qualities that scripture points to as the overarching qualities from which all the others are derived.

In Psalm 62:11-12, when King David faced opposition from those who sought to depose him, he found rest for his soul by reminding himself of these two aspects of God’s nature that are at the heart of who He really is.

One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving.

Of all the attributes that characterize the God of heaven, His sovereign power and His unfailing love are foundational.

Scripture makes it very clear that God alone has the absolute right and power to do all things according to His good pleasure. He can do anything and everything He wants. There are no limits on God except those that He Himself has imposed because of the goodness of His nature. God cannot do certain things because He will not do them. Which brings us to the second attribute of God that Scripture makes abundantly clear.

God is loving. In fact, Scripture says that He is not simply loving, He is love! And, it even defines love in I Corinthians 13. Two of its central features are that love suffers long, and is kind – it is not vindictive. And love never fails – not in this age or in the ages to come.

Interestingly, these two “attributes” of God relate directly to the distinctions between Calvinists and Arminians that Dr. Olson has referred to. That distinction is even seen in the titles of the two books he mentions at the center of the debate. Rob Bell focused on God’s love and titled his book, Love Wins. Mark Galli focused on God’s sovereignty and titled his book, God Wins.

Calvin vs. Arminius

If you have ever attended a Bible study, Sunday School class, or some other activity where people get together to discuss serious issues of faith, you probably witnessed a debate between those who believe that God predestines certain individuals to be saved and others who believe that mankind has a free will. I have participated in many such discussions over the years, and sometimes the arguments have gotten quite heated.

God’s sovereignty undergirds all of the reformed theology of John Calvin and his followers, and led directly to their belief that God predestines those who are saved. For them, it is God’s sovereign grace alone that results in mankind’s salvation. We were dead in our transgressions and sins, and salvation comes only because God Himself is able, and, in fact, has sovereignly chosen to give life to those who were dead.

The problem they face, however, is that the ones whom God has chosen not to save actually represent a dramatically larger portion of the human race than those whom Godhas chosen, which opens them up to the charge of making God into a cruel tyrant. The answer generally given in response to that charge is that God is not only loving, He is also just. For them, what is most important in the end is that God ultimately wins.

Jacob Arminius held most of Calvin’s teaching in very high regard. However, he strongly disagreed with him with regard to predestination and election. Why would God limit the extent of His grace? Is it not God’s will that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? God’s love extends to all. And, because God is love, He has given mankind a free will. The unsaved are those who have freely chosen to resist God’s grace.

The problem the Arminians face is that they have placed a limit on God’s sovereignty, and the ones who ultimately resist God’s grace also represent a dramatically larger portion of the human race than those who accept it. That opens them up to the charge of making God into a defeated sovereign. The answer generally given in response to that charge is that God may not get everything He would like to have gotten, but He has been true to His nature. For them, what is most important in the end is that love ultimately wins.

Internal Conflict?

There are actually strong, Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue. And, there are also weaknesses inherent in both of the positions.

The Scriptures clearly teach that God is both sovereign and loving. However, by choosing to focus on one quality over another, strict Calvinists and Arminians have actually raised a new question that is, at least to me, far more problematic: Is God internally conflicted? Is one of His divine attributes at war with another? Is there a hierarchy within God’s nature that makes one quality – love – grudgingly submit to another quality – sovereign justice?

After reading my last blog post about treading lightly in areas where wise, godly individuals disagree, a friend emailed me to say,

It reminds me of one time when I was talking with another Christian about salvation . . . Is it free will? Is it predestination? My friend said both! That threw me for a mental loop. Then I started asking myself why not? God can do anything! Why should I limit Him with my finite thinking?

God is not conflicted internally. The loving and just elements of His nature are not at war with each other. It was His justice working together with His love that led to Christ dying on the cross for the sins of the world.

So, who is right . . . the Calvinists or the Arminians? Is it predestination or free will?

When faced with two choices, each with some inherently unsatisfactory elements, sometimes the best course of action is to keep on looking.

Calvinists are right about God’s sovereignty. Arminians are right about His love . . . which is why I sometimes call myself a “Calvi-Minian.”

Will Love Really Win . . . Today?

2011-07-14T17:07:00.000-04:00

Jesus made very clear what He thought was the key characteristic of those who are truly His followers. Interestingly, it wasn’t right doctrine.

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

That is not to say that right beliefs are unimportant. What we believe is very important. However, those of us who are old enough to remember what we thought to be true and essential twenty or thirty years ago know that our minds have changed in some important ways since then. We are all in a process of spiritual and intellectual growth as God’s Holy Spirit works within us to draw us closer to Him. Jesus makes it clear that He values how we act toward one another more than whether or not we always agree on what we think. It’s the heart that is most important to God, not the brain.

Scripture makes it clear that this sentiment is not limited to an isolated comment by Jesus. The apostle Paul, never one to be accused of being an intellectual slouch, clearly explained his perspective on the issue – if we have all knowledge and can fathom all mysteries, but do not have love, we are nothing.

The apostle John was actually quite blunt when he expressed his views on the subject. He said that anyone who claims to love God whom he has not seen while hating his brother whom he has seen is a liar.

While attending a dinner party at Matthew’s house that included a number of people who clearly did not have their doctrines in line with the “teaching of the elders,” Jesus told a group of critical Pharisees what God really desired – mercy, not sacrifice.

So . . . ?

I mention this because of the angry and very unloving remarks that have been expressed on many occasions from Christian brothers and sisters who have spoken very pejoratively about the views of Rob Bell. His controversial book about Hell and future judgment was soundly condemned by a large percentage of the evangelical community because what he said didn’t fit in with what has become the “teaching of the elders” for us. However, he asked a lot of honest questions that people in both the religious and non-religious communities have been asking for centuries.

The editor at HarperOne who was in charge of Rob Bell’s book posted an article recently addressing this very issue, and asking some questions that we would do well to ponder:

But why such hostility? Why would leaders attack as a threat and an enemy someone who shares their views of Scripture, Jesus, and the Trinity? What prevented leaders from saying, “Thanks, Rob, interesting views, but here is where we disagree”? When did “believing the right things” become equated with determining who is “saved” so that, as some have claimed, affirming Rob’s teachings might jeopardize one’s eternal destiny?. . . What exactly is so threatening about Rob’s expansive vision of God’s love and grace?

Dealing With Controversy

Over the years, two underlying principles have governed the way I approach controversial issues within theology.

The first is that, because all systems of theology are written by human beings, I assume that all systems of theology are flawed to one degree or another. John Calvin and his followers were brilliant men. Jacob Arminius and his followers were also brilliant men. Francis Chan, Mark Galli, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, Richard Mouw, John Piper and many others who have opposed or supported Rob Bell are brilliant men who have all done wonderful things for the kingdom of God. But they are all human, so some of their ideas are incorrect.

The second principle I try to follow is that when wise, Godly individuals differ on a theological issue, tread lightly. One of the two groups may be right and the other wrong. But it may also be the case that both are right and both are wrong – that a third alternative that neither is considering may ultimately reconcile the two.

I pointed out in an earlier post that the view that Hell is not forever was a prominent view among many in the Early Church who spoke the language of the New Testament as their mother tongue, and who were closest to the Apostles. Some were actually instrumental in formulating the creeds that undergird our Christian Faith today.

Rob Bell and the early Greek Fathers have suggested a third alternative. Perhaps the best response from us would be to listen to what they have to say, consider it carefully, and then treat them as Christ commanded us to . . . in a loving manner.

Evangelicals: Social Gospel or Faith Gospel? Choose Two!

2011-07-06T12:24:00.000-04:00

In my last blog post, I pointed out that the evangelical church in America has grown phenomenally in size during the last 50 years. But at the same time, its influence on the surrounding culture has dramatically diminished. I suggested two reasons for this: we misunderstood the Great Commission to mean make converts instead of disciples, and we failed to love our neighbors without a hidden agenda.

The roots for these problems can actually be traced back to a series of events in the 1920’s and 1930’s that resulted in a major split within Christendom in this country. At its heart, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy was a disagreement over the authority of Scripture. It began in the Presbyterian Church, the fourth largest Protestant denomination at the time, but its effects quickly spread to most of the other denominations, as well.

The Modernists had abandoned the belief in the historicity of the Bible and favored what has come to be known as a “social gospel.” For them, issues involving social justice, racial tensions, crime, liquor, child labor, bad hygiene, slums and poor schools were at the center of the church’s mission to the world. They were concerned about helping people in need, but turned away from many of the historic doctrines of the Christian faith. They focused on the horizontal relationship between man and man.

The Fundamentalists were committed to the authority of Scripture and favored what might be called a “faith gospel.” They were convinced that the most important issue facing humanity was the need for reconciliation with God. They were steadfast in their commitment to the doctrines of Biblical faith, but tended to withdraw from activities that had their focus on helping people. For them, the vertical relationship between man and God was paramount.

The Fundamentalists who were the predecessors of modern Evangelicals were godly people who desired deeply to be faithful to Scripture and the tenets of their faith. However, the net effect of their decision to emphasize faith issues to the exclusion of social issues was that they withdrew from the culture around them. They sought to obey the first and greatest commandment – to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. But, they forgot the second commandment which is like it – to love your neighbor as yourself. They were legitimately concerned with not being “of” the world. But, the result was that they withdrew from the culture and were no longer “in” the world.

Separatists or Puritans?

Throughout history, different groups have approached problems in the Church or the culture in radically different ways. “Separatists” see the errors in an institution and decide to withdraw to set up a new order. “Puritans” see the same errors, but choose to work within the system to bring about change.

The Fundamentalists chose the way of the Separatists. They looked to the instruction in the Old Testament for their model, but misunderstood the differences between God’s purposes for the Old Testament people of God and His purposes for the New Testament people of God.

Ancient Israel was called by God to be a separated community. They were to be attractive to the pagan, non-believing world. But, their primary purpose was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah.

Through the Old Testament instructions about the Tabernacle and Temple worship, the ceremonial laws, and God’s work in the events of history, God laid a foundation for a proper understanding of the Person and work of Christ. Because of this, when John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God,” his hearers clearly understood that the One who would take away their sins had arrived.

The New Testament people of God, however, were to be different. The Messiah had come and accomplished His work, and the command now was to enter the world and impact the culture! They were to "go" and be an infiltrating community who would transform the world.

One of the clearest messages that God gave to indicate that a change had occurred in how He wanted His people to interact with the cultures around them related to what they were to eat.

The dietary restrictions God instituted for His people in the Old Testament were a very practical way to help keep them separate from the people around them. If you can’t eat the same food as your neighbor, you probably won’t become close friends. But, after Christ had come and accomplished His work on the cross, God removed those restrictions. When the apostle Peter failed to understand this truth and hesitated to reach out to the Gentiles, God used the illustration of the food laws to confirm this change of direction. Now, God wants His people to eat the same food as their neighbors so they can impact their lives.

The Long Term Result

Although there were certainly exceptions, the general direction of the Fundamentalists to separate themselves from the culture and focus on “faith only” issues led them to remain silent when faced with the defining moral issue facing this country in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They did not see God’s heart as it related to the injustice associated with segregation and the Civil Rights Movement. They had removed themselves from the culture and were quiet – when they should have been vocal.

When the next defining moral issue hit in the early 1970’s, the Fundamentalists, who were now calling themselves Evangelicals, were lukewarm in their response. One spokesman for the evangelical church at the time was asked why he did not speak out against abortion. His response was, “I speak out against sin, not against sins.” But, you can’t really speak out against sin unless you define what it is. Again, we were silent – when we should have been vocal.

When evangelicals ask themselves why they have lost their influence in the culture, part of the answer is because we withdrew when we should have engaged. When the chips were down and we had an opportunity to speak out boldly for truth as it related to the defining moral issues facing our society, we were not part of the conversation. We lost our credibility and became irrelevant. We were, as the saying goes, “so heavenly minded, that we were no earthly good!”

God certainly wants us to focus on our vertical relationship with Him. But, He also wants us to be alert to our horizontal relationship with the people around us. The two great commandments go together – we are to love God with all our hearts, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

When asked to choose between the “social gospel” or the “faith gospel” . . . we should choose two!

Evangelicals: Larger in Size, Smaller in Influence ... Why?

2011-06-22T13:28:00.002-04:00

During the last 50 years, the evangelical church grew in size at a tremendous rate to the point where we have mega-churches and mega-ministries. Unprecedented numbers of people have attended seminars, crusades, concerts and large arena events. We’ve built publishing companies and broadcast organizations to get our messages out to an ever increasing public. In 1960, there were less than 100 churches in this country that had over 1,000 members. Today, more than 10,000 churches have congregations of that size and much, much larger.

However, during that same half century, the values of our society have moved rapidly away from Biblical standards. There is rampant immorality. Cases of abuse have proliferated, even in the church. And, we see a headlong quest for wealth, power, and sensual pleasure all around us. What is most disturbing is the fact that Biblical values and ideas have been relegated to the arena of private discussion. They have become the values of a “fringe element.”

What did we do wrong? We have grown tremendously in size, but smaller in influence. There are many reasons, of course, but I’d like to suggest two that are at the heart of the matter.

The first thing we did wrong was to misinterpret the Great Commission.

Instead of focusing on making disciples, we focused on making converts. We told ourselves we were saving people from Hell, but we didn’t take the time or put forth the effort to build them up in their faith. As a result, our churches were quickly filled with infant Christians who stayed infants for most of their lives.

We remained stuck in the 1950’s when it came to evangelism. The late 1940’s and early 1950’s saw the establishment of a number of significant evangelical Christian ministries. It was at that time that Billy Graham began to see people coming to faith in unprecedented numbers. It was then that Bill Bright founded Campus Crusade for Christ which has now become the largest sending Protestant missionary organization in the world. Bible camps, radio ministries, and a host of other very prominent organizations began at that time and experienced tremendous growth and success in their outreach efforts.

They were successful, in part, because society in the 1950’s was well prepared for hearing the clear, Biblical messages that these ministries presented.

America had just come out of World War II. Most Americans had experienced a relative or close friend who had died in the war and were mindful of the fact that life on this earth is short and fragile. People were very much aware of their mortality and were generally open to hearing more about the realm of eternity.

People of that generation were also “Christianized.” They were not Christians, but they were generally familiar with the terms of Christianity and the moral imperatives that undergirded it. When someone said God loved them and had a wonderful plan for their lives, they understood that God was good in His nature, and His plan would be something desirable. People knew what sin was, even if they chose to indulge in it. All the ministries needed to do to be successful was “connect the dots.”

But, the culture didn’t remain in the 50’s. As the decades rolled on, the “dots” became harder to find until they were not there to connect. People became all wrapped up in the moment and decided that life is composed of “things.” After all, death comes to “old people,” and usually occurs behind closed doors in a hospital or nursing home. As a result, people forgot they were mortal, and no longer saw their need for God.

They also became increasingly unfamiliar with the terms of Christianity. For many, God was and is “The Force.” We need to be careful not to get caught up with the “Dark side of The Force.” For others, Allah is “God,” and he commands his followers to blow themselves up in suicide bombings – along with as many innocent civilians as possible. Depending on my definition of God, His plan for my life is not necessarily something I want. Engaging in immoral behavior has become acceptable. “It isn’t 'sin.' We live together to make sure we’re compatible!” “I don’t have an anger problem – I’m being harassed and oppressed!”

The “converts” we made didn’t grow to understand their faith. Nor did they grow in their love for God. In fact, they didn’t really grow.

The second thing we did wrong was fail to truly love our neighbors – without a hidden agenda.

People inherently know if your interest in them is genuine. Unfortunately, much of the “love” that we showed to the non-believers we came in contact with always had a hidden agenda. We were like the proverbial multi-level marketers who love you as long as you are a potential sale, but leave you high and dry when they realize that you aren’t going to buy their products.

Why should a non-Christian neighbor or friend come with us to an event at church where they will hear a gospel presentation when we’ve never invited them to our home for dinner? Or, played a round of golf with them? Or, took them out for coffee? Are we really interested in them as people, or are we just trying to build up brownie points with our church?

In our zeal to make converts, we tended to focus on winning arguments instead of building relationships. One of the major problems in the evangelical world is that Christians think they need to express dissatisfaction and outrage at every misstatement others make about God and the Bible. But, people are not the problem. They are the ones who need to be loved. They are the ones who need to be rescued. We should expect non-Christians to talk and act like non-Christians. They don’t claim to embrace our value system, so why should we be angry with them when they talk and act like who they really are?

The gospel is more than simply a message of salvation. Biblical truth relates to all areas of life – marriage, family, work, health, finances, government and many other areas. It’s God’s perspective on life. If we truly love our neighbors without a hidden agenda, we will want to help them in any way we can.

True disciples know their faith and love their neighbors. When people who were hungry came to Jesus, He fed them. When they were sick, He healed them. When they had a spiritual need, He met that spiritual need.

We should go and do likewise.

Can An Evangelical Be a Universalist?

2011-06-02T15:35:00.001-04:00

The wagons are circling around what seems to have become the defining issue for evangelicalism today – the belief that Hell is eternal, conscious punishment.

According to Christian Post reporter, Audrey Barrick, Rick Warren “held back a few tears” in his interview with John Piper as he expressed his deep sadness about the 74 million people who will die this year alone and spend an eternity in Hell. “I can't live with that," he said. "My love compels us to care about that.”

Publishers Weekly noted that four books from evangelical publishing companies will be coming out this summer supporting the traditional view. David C. Cook will be publishing a book by well known pastor Francis Chan in July and another by Brian Jones in August. Tyndale has set a July release for a book on the subject by Mark Galli, Senior Managing Editor of Christianity Today, and Zondervan will likewise be coming out with a short compilation of essays on the subject from contributors including Timothy Keller, R. Albert Mohler Jr., and other prominent evangelicals, also in July.

All of which brings us back to the question that has suddenly become a major focus of attention in recent weeks – are evangelicals required to believe that Hell lasts forever?

In a recent blog post, I pointed out that many in the early Church, including some of the leaders who actually helped formulate the classic creeds of the faith, believed that Hell was remedial in nature and temporary in duration. But, what about today? Is that belief still a viable option for someone who is part of the modern evangelical church?

Without question, the belief that Hell is a place of never-ending torment is clearly the dominant view within the general Protestant evangelical Christian world. In a special report entitled “The Nature of Hell,” the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE), a group based in the UK, explained,

We recognise that the interpretation of hell as eternal conscious punishment is the one most widely attested by the Church in its historic formulation of doctrine and in its understanding of Scripture. We also recognise that it represents the classic, mainstream evangelical position.

The Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals reads,

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the guiding document of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, says, in Chapter III, Article III, Of God’s Eternal Decree,

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

Similarly, the Statement of Faith of the Southern Baptist Convention – the largest Protestant denomination – states:

The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment.

Most . . . But Not All

While most of the evangelical evangelistic ministries hold to the belief that Hell is the place of eternal torment, there is at least one notable exception. The Statement of Faith of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association does not specify anything about the nature or result of God’s judgment. It simply says

That all men everywhere are lost and face the judgment of God, and need to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through His shed blood on the cross.

In recent years, several well-respected scholars, such as John Wenham, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, and others, have questioned the traditional teaching. Most of them have rejected the idea of Endless Punishment and lean toward Conditional Immortality – the idea that the “wicked” will ultimately be annihilated and cease from existence. The effect of this is seen in another statement in the ACUTE report mentioned above:

Evangelicals diverge on whether hell is eternal in duration or effect – that is, whether an individual’s punishment in hell will literally go on ‘for ever’, as a ceaseless conscious experience, or whether it will end in a destruction which will be ‘forever’, in the sense of being final and irreversible. It should be acknowledged that both of these interpretations preserve the crucial principle that judgment is on the basis of sins committed in this life, and that when judgment is to hell, it cannot be repealed (Matt. 25:41-6; Mark. 9:43-8; Luke 16:26).

An Evangelical Universalist?

But, can an evangelical actually believe that God will ultimately restore all of His creation to its initial perfection?

Much of the recent discussion surrounding the publication of Love Wins has focused on whether or not Rob Bell is a “universalist.” Bell denies the accusation. But, his book and the fury surrounding it brought the issue to light in an unexpected and very visible way.

In point of fact, there are those who clearly claim to be “evangelicals” who believe in the classic doctrines of the Christian faith except for the area of ultimate destinies. Like some of those in the early Church, they believe that the Scriptures teach that Hell is remedial and temporary.

Jan Bonda, a Dutch Reformed pastor, supported this view in The One Purpose of God: An Answer to the Doctrine of Endless Punishment published in English in 1998. His argument focused on a systematic study of the apostle Paul’s teaching in the book of Romans.

Robin Parry wrote a book with the actual title, The Evangelical Universalist, under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald. The book is a scholarly work that addresses the philosophical problems associated with a belief in endless punishment, points out broad outlines of Biblical theology that support a belief in ultimate restoration, and examines specific passages in the Bible that relate to the issue. The book was published in 2006.

Gerry Beauchemin has been involved in missions since 1986. He served as a missionary in Mexico, the Philippines, and Senegal, West Africa. Since 2001, he has directed Dental Training For Missions where he trains missionaries in primary dental care. His book, Hope Beyond Hell, lays out a detailed argument in favor of ultimate restoration from a clearly Biblical and theologically conservative perspective.

One of the leading proponents of the belief in universal salvation is Thomas Talbott, currently Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Willamette University. In 1983, he authored a series of articles in the Reformed Journal debating the issue with John Piper. He penned The Inescapable Love of God in 1999, and was the lead contributor toUniversal Salvation: The Current Debate, published in 2004.

In a discussion of how his views on the subject developed, he wrote,

. . . the Western theological tradition seemed to leave me with a choice between an unjust and unloving God, on the one hand, and a defeated God, on the other. But of course this hardly exhausts the logical possibilities; there remains the additional possibility that it is God’s very nature to love, as I John 4:8 and 16 appears to declare, and that he is also wise and resourceful enough to accomplish all of his loving purposes in the end. Why, after all, should an assumption concerning everlasting punishment be the only unquestioned assumption in a context where some are limiting the extent of God’s love and others are limiting the scope of his ultimate victory? Why not at least examine the pros and cons of universal reconciliation alongside those of limited election and those of a limited victory over sin and death?
. . . I now view universal reconciliation as something more than a vague hope of some kind. To the contrary, I now view it as essential to a proper understanding of salvation, essential to a Pauline understanding of grace, and essential to the inclusive nature of election. For even as many Augustinians are utterly convinced that God’s salvific will cannot be defeated forever and many Arminians are utterly convinced that God at least wills the salvation of all human sinners, so I am equally convinced that both claims are true.

An extensive internet site addressing the issue from an evangelical perspective iswww.tentmaker.org, maintained by Gary and Michelle Amirault. They produce and provide books, articles, audio and video material specifically focused on showing that the belief in universal salvation is a Scriptural teaching.

So, can an evangelical be a universalist? The answer to that question really depends on how one defines “evangelical.”

If an “evangelical” is someone who subscribes to the statements of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, and most modern conservative churches and evangelistic organizations, then the answer is definitely “No.” If an “evangelical” is defined as one who believes in the authority of Scripture, the centrality of the gospel message and the classic creedal statements of the Christian faith, then the answer is actually “Yes.”

Judgment Day - Are We Out of Sync With God?

2011-05-24T16:25:00.003-04:00

Judgment Day (May 21, 2011) has now come and gone, and Christians have once again given the non-believing world an occasion to mock and blaspheme God!

The gigantic earthquake that was predicted did not occur. The relatively few “true and wise” believers who boldly proclaimed that we could count on it because “The Bible guarantees it!” were not suddenly taken out of this world to enter eternal bliss. And the wrath of God was not poured out in terrible fury on the rest of mankind as never before in the history of the world.

I, personally, was encouraged to see that this prediction of the End was confined to a generally small group of people - it was not a band wagon that the majority of Christians jumped on. However, the whole event seems to me to be indicative of a deeper problem that has pervaded the evangelical church for a long time.

Somewhere along the line, Christians came to believe that unless God intervenes in some very dramatic way, sin will win. On a level playing field, evil will grow more and more powerful until God has to personally step in and do something supernatural to stop it. And, even then, evil will continue to be one of the most significant aspects of God’s creation for it will exist eternally in Hell. In effect, we have come to believe that, ultimately, Love Loses.

In my previous two blog posts,[1] I pointed out that there were well respected leaders in the early Christian Church who were convinced that God would one day defeat sin and death completely and restore all of His creation to its initial perfection, and that this belief was not considered heretical at a time when Christianity was making its most profound mark on the history of the world. Yet, when the idea that Love actually Wins was suggested by a prominent evangelical pastor in the twenty-first century who asked some very honest questions, it was soundly condemned by a large percentage of the evangelical community because it didn’t fit in with what has become the “tradition of the elders.”

But, is that tradition consistent with what Scripture teaches? Or, is it possible that we, like the Judgment Day enthusiasts, are out of sync with God?

In September of 1782, another pastor published a notice in a Baltimore newspaper that similarly asked honest questions that suggested that love might ultimately win in the end. The writer of the notice asked his readers to consider a few philosophical questions relating to the purposes of a sovereign God. Did God have a good plan for the final state of mankind from the beginning? Is it possible for God to finally fail in accomplishing any of His intended purposes? Does God change His mind? These and the other questions he asked created quite a stir in the city. He wrote in a style consistent with his time, but, like Rob Bell, he asked some honest questions that we would do well to consider:

I. Must not God who is the Builder of all creation, in creating such noble beings which are superior to all the rest of His lower creation, have had some particular and grand design concerning the final state of those beings?

II. Is it possible for any being inferior to God, by freedom of will or anything else, to prevent the effecting of that which God intended to effect? No doubt, many may oppose and thereby involve themselves in ten thousand sorrows, but is it possible for God to finally fail or have any of His intentions frustrated?

III. Is God, who is infinite in knowledge, capable of a succession of ideas?

IV. Was it essential for God to hate a part of His creatures? Or, did sin produce such a disposition in God and thereby cause Him to act toward some of His creatures in a way contrary to what He essentially intended?

V. If the devil’s design in introducing sin into the world was to ruin a part or the whole of mankind which God originally designed for happiness, and the devil’s design should be effected in any wise, will it not thence necessarily follow that the devil has manifested himself more powerful in effecting his designs than what God has in effecting His?

And if, in consequence of this, God should become an enemy to some to whom He was once a friend, will it not follow that the devil by introducing sin into the world has produced a change of disposition in God towards some of His creatures, while the devil himself remains unchangeably the same in disposition that he was from the beginning of his existence as a devil?

VI. If it be a truth that there is a part of mankind for whom Christ did not die, can it be the duty of that part to believe that Jesus is their true and full Savior? And if they were to believe it to be a truth that Christ did not die for them, could that belief make them happy or save them from endless woe?

VII. If God’s word shall accomplish that which He pleases and prosper in that whereto it was sent, and God pleases that all should obey and believe the truths therein contained, and His word was sent to accomplish that pleasure, what must be the final result?^{^[2]}

Rob Bell and this eighteenth century pastor asked sincere questions that thoughtful people everywhere have asked and continue to ask. Sincere questions that are not answered satisfactorily never go away. The Judgment Day enthusiasts were clearly out of sync with God. We need to make sure that we are not.

[1] http://blogs.christianpost.com/good-reads/2011/04/hell-it-hasnt-always-been-forever-25/, http://blogs.christianpost.com/good-reads/2011/05/hell-bell-and-heresy-a-caution-08/

[2] Rev. Abel Sarjent, from Universalism A History, Volume I, Richard Eddy, DD, Universalist Publishing House, Boston, 1884,pp. 396-397, reprinted here with some minor modifications.

Hell, Bell and Heresy - A Caution

2011-05-10T14:16:00.004-04:00

You may not have thought about it before, but no matter who you are or what you believe, you are a heretic!

Or, at least you would have been considered one by some group or another at a certain point in the history of the Christian Church, and been subject to beatings, imprisonment, torture and possibly death. That fact alone should caution us to be careful when we call someone a “heretic” or accuse a Christian brother or sister of teaching “heresy” when they hold views we disagree with.

Heresy is a very serious charge. And, it has resulted in very serious consequences – not the least of which is the fact that excesses by some who have sought to stamp out heresy have led to God’s Name being blasphemed among non-believers!

The Eastern and Western Churches each considered the other “heretical” after the Great Schism in AD 1054. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others – were deemed “heretics” by the Roman Catholic Church. Members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were considered “heretics” by the Reformers. And, both groups persecuted as “heretics” the Anabaptists who didn’t believe in infant baptism.

I mention this because the charge of heresy has come up repeatedly in conversations, articles and blog posts about Rob Bell and his position on Hell.

What people usually mean when they say his teaching is “heretical” is that it is wrong teaching. But, that is to use the word much too loosely. A teaching may be wrong without being heresy. For example, most Calvinists believe in predestination while Arminians believe in free-will. Each would say the view the other group holds is wrong. However, it is not heresy.

What is True Christianity?

Many individuals and groups throughout the world today claim to be “Christian,” but differ significantly from others who claim the same thing.

Some who claim the mantle of Christianity meet in large edifices that are beautifully adorned with gold, fine wood, or massive stone work. Others who make the same claim meet in houses or under a tree. Some who claim to be Christians use a variety of electronic and acoustic musical instruments to sing contemporary songs with upraised arms waving in the air. Others who claim the name Christian use no instrumentation at all, sit quietly, and only sing the Psalms. Some who say they are Christians handle snakes as part of their worship practices, or wash one another’s feet, or speak in tongues, or claim to have the gift of healing or prophecy or wisdom. Others do none of these things. Most who claim the name Christian meet together with like minded people on Sunday for a time of worship. Others meet on Saturday, and some on Friday. Some who claim to be Christian baptize infants. Others baptize only adults. Some “have communion” or “share the Eucharist” every time they meet. Others do so only once a month, or once a year.

If you ask an Independent Baptist if he is a Christian, he will say, “yes.” If you ask a Roman Catholic if he is a Christian, he will say, “yes.” If you ask Anglicans, or a members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or people who attends services at a Charismatic, Pentecostal, or Seventh Day Adventist church if they are Christians, they will answer, “yes.” However, many in each of those groups would say that the others are not.

So, who is right? What does it mean to really be “Christian?”

The Ancient Church

Most churches, organizations or groups today that call themselves “Christian” have some kind of statement of faith that explains what they consider to be their core beliefs with regard to who God is, who Jesus Christ is, who the Holy Spirit is, what they believe about the Bible, or church polity, or specific worship practices. This is an important tool that distinguishes them from others who they believe do not represent true Christianity.

The ancient Church wrestled with this same issue. As the Church grew during a time of great persecution, it became necessary to clarify what truly represented the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Interestingly, the only official statement of faith that has come down to us from the early Church that put forth what they considered to be the essence of the Christian faith is the Nicene Creed. In fact, the council that issued it specifically prohibited other creeds from being officially formulated and presented as the authoritative teaching of the Christian Church.[1]

In addition to this, the Apostles Creed which preceded it (although not actually written by the Apostles) has generally been accepted by almost all those individuals and groups in the East and West who call themselves Christians.

Most committed Christians today, from a wide variety of theological backgrounds, would have no hesitation whatsoever in declaring that these two creeds contain what they believe is the heart of their faith. In fact, many of these same Christians actually recite them on a regular basis in their Sunday morning worship services as part of their declaration of what “we, as Christians, believe.”

So, what do these ancient statements of faith put forward by the combined Church assembled have to say about after-death punishment? Nothing! Neither creed contains a hint of the belief in the endless punishment of the wicked. The reason, as mentioned in an earlier article[2], is that endless punishment was not considered an important tenet of the faith at that time, and there were a great many believers who did not subscribe to it.

The Apostles Creed

As printed here, the portion in regular type was probably written in the early or middle part of the second century and was in Greek. The portion in italic was added later by the Roman Church, and was in Latin.[3]

I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he arose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The earlier form of the creed speaks of the “resurrection of the body,” and the later form mentions the “life everlasting.” But, not a word is written about Hell. The belief that the wicked suffered endless, conscious punishment was not included in the creed because it was not universally held and taught by those who were leaders in the church at that time. It was also not considered to be an essential tenet of the faith at a time when Christianity was first being introduced to the pagan world around it, and making its greatest impact.

The Nicene Creed

The next oldest creed, and the only one officially authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene Creed. This creed was originally drafted at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, with later modifications made at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. It is a statement of faith accepted by almost all those who claim to be Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and almost all of the Protestant churches, including the Anglican Communion, most Baptist and Independent churches, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed churches.

Like the Apostles’ Creed before it, the Nicene Creed says nothing at all about endless punishment. That doctrine was then professed by a portion of the Christian church, but it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average or official belief.

The portion of the creed printed here in regular type is that composed at Nicea in AD 325. The portion in italic was added in AD 381 at the Council of Constantinople.[4]

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (or ages), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father,[5] who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As with the Apostles’ Creed before it, not a word is written in this clear statement of faith about the nature or duration of after-death punishment. None of the four great Ecumenical Councils held in the first four centuries of the Christian era – those at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon – condemned the belief that God would one day restore all of His creation or even mentioned endless punishment as the consensus belief of the church, although both doctrines were held by various key participants at the time.

Is Rob Bell a heretic or is his belief about Hell heresy? Not according to the giants of the faith in the early Church upon whose shoulders we stand. We should be careful not to use the term heresy too lightly.

[1] Conc. Ephes. Can. VII. “'The holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other Creed (ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι), besides that which was settled by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicæa, with the Holy Spirit. But those who shall dare to compose any other Creed, or to exhibit or produce any such, if they are bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed, but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematized.' The Council of Chalcedon (451), although setting forth a new definition of faith, repeated the same prohibition (after the Defin. Fidei).” Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes, Volume I, The History of Creeds, Harper & Brothers, 1877, p 35, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.v.html

[2] http://blogs.christianpost.com/good-reads/2011/04/hell-it-hasnt-always-been-forever-25/

[3] cf. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes, Volume I, The History of Creeds, Harper & Brothers, 1877, p 14, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.ii.html

[4] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. I, Harper & Brothers, 1877, Sixth Edition Revised and Enlarged, by David S. Schaff, 1905, 1919, p. 28-29

[5] In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking Western Church added the words “and the Son” to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit in what the Eastern Church argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicea or that of Constantinople.

Hell: It Hasn't Always Been Forever!

2011-05-01T15:13:00.001-04:00

Has a paradigm shift occurred in the evangelical Christian world?

Scot McKnight, the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, commented recently that Universalism, or at least the prospect of it, is the single most significant issue running through the undercurrent of evangelicalism today.[1]

That observation is certainly being supported by the phenomenal level of interest in Rob Bell's book Love Wins. It rose to number 3 on the list of bestsellers on Amazon.com. Articles about it have been written not only in religious periodicals like Christianity Today, but even in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USAToday, and many other secular news outlets. It even became the cover story for Time. What had been a marginal issue that most evangelical Christians ignored has suddenly become the central issue under discussion. If nothing else, Bell's book has revealed a deep level of interest in the possibility that God's plan may actually be the restoration of His entire creation.

Unfortunately, the discussion so far has generally been characterized by heat and not nearly as much light. Much of the response has consisted of name calling, with a great deal of mis-information being printed and disseminated. One area in particular that has been victimized by mis-information is history. It has generally been assumed in the various reviews and articles that the idea of an ultimate restoration of all is a belief that has only been held by a few ancient "heretics," generally beginning with the controversial figure of Origen.

Actually, Origen was not the first or most noted "universalist" in the early years of the Christian Church, and the belief was not a minority view held only by him and a few isolated followers. According to nineteenth century pastor and theologian Edward Beecher (1803-1895) – son of Lyman Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, and one time pastor of Park Street Church in Boston – four of the six theological schools in the ancient church favored some form of ultimate restoration, while only one favored endless punishment. [2]

Clement of Alexandria

The concerns of people in the ancient world were actually not as different from ours as we sometimes think. Like us, they wanted to know what God is really like, and what would happen after they died. Is He all-powerful, or is His power limited like the gods of Greece and Rome? Is He loving, or does He have some of the same capricious qualities that their gods had? What is the final destiny of mankind?

One of the first of the early Christian leaders to articulate a belief that God would ultimately restore all was Clement of Alexandria. Clement was a Greek who was born in Athens about AD 150. He was very knowledgeable of all branches of Greek literature and all existing systems of philosophy. He also knew the Old Testament and understood well the gospel of Jesus Christ. He considered it his task to demonstrate to pagans that Christianity was intellectually respectable and philosophically rigorous, and to Christians that Christianity was not only for the uneducated.

Clement's deep belief in God's absolute goodness and sovereign power undergirded his understanding of eternity. God cares for all His creation, not just part of it, and is both able and willing to save all. For him, to believe that God is unable to save all was unthinkable because that would be a proof of His weakness. To believe He is unwilling was also unthinkable because that is not the attribute of a good Being. God is the Lord of the universe and He has arranged all things with a view to the salvation of the universe.

For either the Lord does not care for all men; and this is the case either because He is unable (which is not to be thought, for it would be a proof of weakness), or because He is unwilling, which is not the attribute of a good being. And He who for our sakes assumed flesh capable of suffering, is far from being luxuriously indolent. Or He does care for all, which is befitting for Him who has become Lord of all. For He is Saviour; not [the Saviour] of some, and of others not. . . . For all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the universe by the Lord of the universe, both generally and particularly. . . .[3]

For Clement, God's punishments are medicinal and temporary, and for the ultimate good of those He created. Does God's patience have a limit? Clement answered, "No." God's chastening continues not only in this life, but even after we are released from our bodies because the active power of God is "everywhere and is always at work." God never gives up on the sinner.

God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of a sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh. . . . So I think it is demonstrated that the God being good, and the Lord powerful, they save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere. For it is not here alone that the active power of God is beforehand, but it is everywhere and is always at work.[4]

For Clement, God's sovereign power coupled with His unfailing love for all enables Him to ultimately bring about the restoration of all.

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa, along with his brother Basil the Great, and close friend Gregory of Nazianzus were a major force in the triumph of the teaching on the Deity of Christ that prevailed at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 where the Nicene Creed was finally shaped. Gregory of Nazianzus initially presided over that Council, and Gregory of Nyssa added the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come" to the creed.

Gregory of Nyssa died around AD 395 and is still revered as one of the greatest of the Eastern Church Fathers. In AD 787, the Seventh General Council of the Church honored Gregory by naming him, "Father of the Fathers." His credentials as an influential leader in the early Christian Church have never been questioned, and his position on restoration has never been condemned.

Does God punish forever with terrifying pain? Gregory explained that those who are immature think this, and fear it. They are thus motivated to flee from wickedness. However, those with more maturity understand the true purpose of after-death punishment – it is a remedial process instituted by a good God to ultimately restore those who are sick to health. Like a skilled physician who doesn't stop until his work is finished, God doesn't give up on those He created. If a soul remains unhealed in this life, the remedy is dispensed in the life to come.

If, however, the soul remains unhealed, the remedy is dispensed in the life that follows this. Now in the ailments of the body there are sundry differences, some admitting of an easier, others requiring a more difficult treatment. . . . For the healing of the soul's sicknesses the future judgment announces something of the same kind, and this to the thoughtless sort is held out as the threat of a terrible correction, in order that through fear of this painful retribution they may gain the wisdom of fleeing from wickedness: while by those of more intelligence it is believed to be a remedial process ordered by God to bring back man, His peculiar creature, to the grace of his primal condition.[5]

In his sermon on I Corinthians 15:28 where the apostle Paul says that God will ultimately be "all in all," Gregory explained how this can happen. Evil, in the end, will become non-existent. God will succeed in His goal to restore all of His creation.

So I begin by asking what is the truth that the divine apostle intends to convey in this passage? It is this. In due course evil will pass over into non-existence; it will disappear utterly from the realm of existence. Divine and uncompounded goodness will encompass within itself every rational nature; no single being created by God will fail to achieve the kingdom of God. The evil that is now present in everything will be consumed like base metal melted by the purifying flame. Then everything which derives from God will be as it was in the beginning before it had ever received an admixture of evil.[6]

Contemporary scholar John R. Sachs concluded his study of the belief in restoration among the early church fathers with the following observation:

. . . we have seen that Origen was not alone in presenting weighty reasons for his hope that all would be saved. Before him Clement and afterwards Gregory Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa argued in the same direction. It is notable that none of them were condemned; indeed they continue to be held in high esteem. None of them denied human freedom and responsibility. Each of them at times has rather traditional things to say about eschatological punishment. But what really motivated them was an even stronger conviction about the infinity and incomprehensibility of God's goodness and mercy, revealed and bestowed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. There, rather than in the philosophical currents of their times, is where, ultimately, each of these theologians founded his hope that all will be saved. Thus, their thought exhibits a certain dynamic tension – not an abstract, neutral tension that sees God's saving grace and human freedom as equal forces opposite each other, but rather a tension with a definite center of gravity, the eternal mercy and universal saving will of God.[7]

The belief that God will one day restore all of His creation to its initial perfection may or may not be correct. But, to say that it is a belief that has never been held seriously by well respected leaders in the history of the Christian Church is clearly not the case.

[1] http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/features/24878-universalism-and-the-doctrine-of-rob-bell

[2] Edward Beecher, History of Opinions on the Spiritual Doctrine of Retribution, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1878, p. 189ff

[3] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.ii.html,

[4] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VI, chapter 6 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.vi.html,

[5] Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, VIII, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.x.html

[6] Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon I Corinthians 15:28, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Editors by Maurice Wiles & Mark Santer, Cambridge University Press, 1975, p. 257

[7] John R.Sachs, "Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology." Theological Studies. Volume: 54. Issue: 4. 1993. pp. 617+,

http://www.questia.com/read/5000239554?title=Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology

A Sea Change Has Occurred

2011-03-18T23:57:00.005-04:00

A sea change has occurred in the evangelical Christian world.

Scot McKnight, the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, commented in a recent article in Relevant Magazine that Universalism, or at least the prospect of it, is the single most significant issue running through the undercurrent of evangelicalism today.

That observation is certainly being supported by the phenomenal level of interest in Rob Bell's book Love Wins. It is currently number 3 on the list of bestsellers on Amazon.com. Articles about it have been written not only in religious periodicals, but even in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and many other secular news outlets. Even Rabbi Brad Herschfield found it significant enough to write about it on the Opinion page of The Washington Post. His comments on the importance of the issue were perceptive: Tell me a person’s beliefs about the afterlife, including the absence of such belief, and I’ll tell you how they function in this life, for better or for worse. . . . Ultimately, it is this last issue which is the most important.

The Baptist Times in the UK thought the issue important enough to include an article by Robin Parry on seven myths about universalism. He observes at the beginning of the article that Overnight, universalism went from being a marginal issue that most evangelicals felt that they could ignore to being the next big debate.

It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out.

What We Did

2010-11-04T17:42:00.002-04:00

Over the last 50 years, the evangelical Christian church has grown phenomenally in size. In 1960, less than 100 churches in this country had over 1,000 members. Today, there are more than 10,000 churches with congregations numbering over 1,000. At the same time, however, the values of our society have moved dramatically away from Biblical standards.

We are significantly larger in size, but significantly smaller in impact! So, what did we do wrong?

First, Christians decided to withdraw from the culture. This happened in earnest in the 1920’s during the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy. At that time, the Modernists deemphasized the vertical relationship between God and man and focused on the horizontal relationship between man and man. They pursued what came to be called the “social gospel.” The Fundamentalists, seeing this error, over-reacted by focusing almost exclusively on the vertical relationship between man and God. They pursued a “faith gospel.” Interestingly, both forgot that there are really two great commandments: Love God, and love your neighbor.

By forgetting the Second Commandment, the evangelical church was not of the world, but it was also not in the world. We became irrelevant.

Then, when Christians realized that their impact on society was rapidly waning, they tried to reengage the culture, but in the process took on the values of the culture. The Moral Majority and Christian Right focused on political power. Those preaching a “health/wealth gospel” focused on material prosperity. As they lost their focus on godliness, high profile spokesmen for the Christian church fell into major moral failure. To those outside the faith, we were no different from the rest of the world.

By adopting the values of the culture, we went into the world, but also became of the world. In the process, we gave the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme.

So, what should we do right?

Enter the world arena with integrity. Be in the world, but not of the world. When we really do that, we will see the world changed.

The Purpose of Sex

2010-09-08T17:41:00.009-04:00

The primary purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation!

That statement will undoubtedly be maligned, criticized, and considered incredibly naive by a great many (if not most) of the people in our permissive contemporary society. But, it is true nonetheless. There is definitely a pleasurable, recreational aspect to sex that was expressly put there by God for the enjoyment and delight of His creatures. But, the fact remains that its primary purpose is to create life.

I write this because our society has focused for far too long on promoting sex outside of marriage as normative behavior to be engaged in casually by anyone older than about twelve.

We look at teen pregnancies, sexual abuse, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, pornography, and abhorrent sexual behaviors as grave societal problems, which they certainly are. But these problems have not arisen because we don't use condoms, or aren't careful when engaging in sex, or don't have the right filters on our computers, or don't properly enforce the laws that are already on the books.

They have grown to overwhelming proportions because we have totally missed the point that sex is NOT primarily a recreational activity. Sex produces babies. It was designed to do just that.

Several cultures in the ancient world practiced infant sacrifice. This occurred in part because their rampantly immoral lifestyles and worship practices resulted in unwanted babies. What do you do to get rid of unwanted babies? Offer them to your "gods!" We do something similar with the unwanted babies that have resulted from lifestyle choices in our culture. We call it abortion.

Do you know the real difference between infanticide and abortion? In abortion, you don't hear them scream.

True Love or True Lust?

2010-07-27T14:00:00.003-04:00

Whenever I see films where "true love" is demonstrated by the couple jumping in bed together, I cringe. That's partly because I have four daughters who I very dearly love, and I don't want them to be hurt by some irresponsible male whose focus is on something other than acting in their best interests.

I grew up in the sixties when "free love" was the mantra of the hip generation. It sounded great at the time - don't be like those married men and women of other generations who lived together in the same house but didn't really love each other. Rather, stay together as long as "love" lasts. Or, as the hit film of the day, Love Story, put it, "until love doth us part."

The real problem with that kind of love is that it focuses on a feeling that does not involve a commitment. That wouldn't be so bad, except for one thing: Love that is free from commitment still produces babies! And babies need parents who are committed to each other and to them. In a great many cases in the sixties and today, young girls are deceived into thinking a guy really loves them, only to see him abandon her and her child when she gets pregnant.

Most people don't realize that the feminist movement prior to the sixties was pro-life! That's because being able to conceive a baby is uniquely feminine. However, in order to protect themselves from irresponsible men, the women's movement in the sixties became pro-choice - with devastating results. Women abused. And, babies abandoned or aborted.

I often think about the "love children" of the rich and famous whose fathers try as diligently as possible to deny that they had anything to do with their births. How do you answer their soul stirring question: "Why doesn't my daddy love me?"

True lust doesn't care. True love does!

Are Fathers Really Important?

2010-06-17T11:24:00.004-04:00

Ever since the sixties and seventies the role of men has been downplayed in our culture - to the extent that many see fathers as a necessary evil in families.

Unfortunately, far too many men have contributed to this belief by abandoning their families to pursue self-centered agendas. I'm no longer amazed when I hear of politicians, sports figures, or celebrities who have left their wives and children in pursuit of "greener pastures." In reality, they're just being irresponsible!

But, is it true that fathers are expendable? Do they really provide an important dimension in a family or is their role finished once a child is conceived? Outside of their necessity in pro-creation, are fathers really important?

We face a lot of problems in our culture. But, I am convinced that the greatest problem is the lack of strong, responsible men. Those men provide stability in a family, proper discipline for children, and guidance. Without them, the culture disintegrates.

Some statistics certainly seem to indicate that I may be right.

* 70% of juveniles in long-term detention grew up in fatherless homes.

* 71% of high school dropouts come from homes without fathers.

* 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

* 71% of teenage pregnancies are born to children who grew up in homes with no fathers.

* 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

* 36% of all children in America live in homes without their biological father.

* 40% of children who live in fatherless households have not seen their fathers in at least a year.

Are fathers really important? I think the answer is a definite YES!

The Most Important Lesson

2010-05-28T11:01:00.002-04:00

My friend, Mark Chesner, just asked me what is the one lesson I taught my children that has yielded the biggest dividends. That is a very good question, and one that made me think for a while!

It may sound trite, but the most important lesson I taught my children was that I loved them. I did that practically by doing three things.

First, I showed them that they were important to me. I did that by spending time with them not only doing things that they wanted to do, but also involving them in things that I wanted to do. I always proudly introduced them to whoever I was with, and made sure that they knew that I was willing to go out of my way for them whenever it was needed. I remember one time when I drove two hours one way from a men's retreat I was on so I could be in attendance at one of my daughter's piano recitals. It was something I felt was needed at the time to show her that she was important to me, so I did it.

Second, I was careful to discipline them. Proverbs says that he who spares the rod hates his son! That is strong language, but clearly true. When my son was a young boy, we went to McDonald's with some friends for a meal. As we got out of the car, my son started running to the door - right in the path of a moving car. I yelled, "Billy, stop! Come back!" He immediately stopped, turned around and ran back to me. I had been careful to teach him to obey, and it saved his life.

Third, I always tried to be approachable. My children had to obey, but I wanted them to know that they could always challenge me and ask why I said or did something. And, on some occasions, I changed my mind. The key was that I wanted them to feel free to come to me honestly whenever they wanted to do so.

I certainly didn't always do things right. But, by God's grace, I think each of the children know that their father (and their mother) really does love them.

By the way, the most important activity I did with my kids was have regular "wisdom searches." But, that is information for another blog post!

What Do We Really Need To Teach?

2010-05-26T17:38:00.003-04:00

I was invited to participate in the recent Christian Homeschool Association of Pennsylvania annual convention. At breakfast one morning, I spoke with a woman who was teaching her 11 year old daughter at home, but was deathly afraid to teach her in the high school years - even though she desperately wanted to. I shared the following thoughts with her that proved to be very encouraging.

We really only need to teach our children four things in order for them to be well educated.

First, we need to teach them to listen. If someone has learned to listen carefully, he or she can ask someone who is knowledgeable about an issue or question, and the person will learn.

Second, we need to teach our children to read with comprehension. Then, if they have a question or want to learn about something, they can go to the library, check out an appropriate book and learn about that particular subject.

Third, we need to teach them to observe. All science is really observation. Sir Isaac Newton observed that apples fell down, not up, and formulated his understanding of gravity from his observation. Children who have learned to observe can watch someone or simply study a situation and, again, they will learn.

The last thing we really need to teach is how to communicate. Once our children learn, they need to be able to communicate what they've learned to others.

The specific body of knowledge that we teach is not nearly as important as teaching children to listen, read, observe, and communicate. I have forgotten so much of what I studied in high school, college, and seminary. But, when I have a question, I try to listen carefully, or locate an appropriate book or article, or observe. Then, I try to communicate what I've learned to others.

If we teach our children those four things, they will be well educated.

A Tribute to a Great Man

2010-03-01T19:02:00.004-05:00

I had an opportunity last week to attend a "celebration service" for a great man.

Most of you have never heard of George Merritt, although he was a star of a major Broadway hit several years ago. He had a beautiful baritone voice, and I think he once told me that he had been in four Broadway productions during his career. But, George was not great because of his voice or his career. He was great because of who he was.

He was an African-American who grew up at a time when it wasn't cool to be black. He was taken in by a white foster family who saw first hand what it was like to be discriminated against simply because of the color of your skin. But, George never held any grudges. He loved his Lord, and was grateful for the life he had been given. He was a true gentleman - always gracious and encouraging with his comments to others.

The service last week included songs by some phenomenally talented singers and musicians. I was really impressed. But, it was the testimonies about George from his wife, his grandchildren, his foster siblings and friends that spoke volumes about who George really was.

Those who knew him best clearly thought that George Merritt was a great man!

As I listened,I was reminded of another memorial service I was able to attend a few years ago for someone who was a household name in this country. He had won all the top awards in his field. The service incorporated performances by internationally known musicians, and included testimonials from some extremely influential people. But, all they talked about was how great this man was in his field. He had been married several times. None of his wives made a comment. His children spoke, but it was clear they really didn't know their father very well.

Those who did NOT know this person very well thought he was a great man.

For me, the contrast was striking. Both services were held at venues in New York. Both had wonderful music. Both had testimonials about the person who had died. But, George Merritt was respected as a great man by those who knew him best. That is a real sign of greatness. I hope the same will be true for you . . . and for me.

Saints and Sinners

2010-02-19T13:14:00.002-05:00

One of my highschool friends sent this poem. There is certainly a lot of truth in it. I hope you will enjoy it.

I was shocked, confused, bewildered
As I entered Heaven's door,
Not by the beauty of it all,
Nor the lights or its decor.

But it was the folks in Heaven
Who made me sputter and gasp--
The thieves, the liars, the sinners,
The alcoholics and the trash.

There stood the kid from seventh grade
Who swiped my lunch money twice.
Next to him was my old neighbor
Who never said anything nice.

There's the guy I always thought
Was rotting away in hell,
Who's sitting pretty on cloud nine,
Looking incredibly well.

I nudged Jesus, 'What's the deal?
I would love to hear Your take.
How'd all these sinners get up here?
God must've made a mistake.

'And why is everyone so quiet,
So somber - give me a clue.'
'Hush, child,' He said, 'they're all in shock.
No one thought they'd be seeing you.'

JUDGE NOT!!

Every saint has a PAST...

Every sinner has a FUTURE!

Thanks, Ted. Some really good food for thought.