Everybody Ought to go to Sunday School...

     Yesterday, I read an article from Crosswalk.  Sometimes I like what they have to say, other times I don't.  This particular article was called Confessions of a Godly Man Who Doesn't Like Church.  Of course the title was meant to be a grabber, urging the reader to take the bait.  I decided to read it, even though I was pretty sure it was going to be a list of complaints about church.  

     

     This article was well-written and brutally honest, though not well-researched.  The author admits that he has a hard time learning from the lecture format of sermons, and does better with personal Bible study or one-on-one Bible studies, where questions can be asked and answers sought out immediately.  Some valid points were hit on.  One of these was that the culture of church is such that everyone asks everyone else how they're doing, and the standard answer is "fine" no matter how they're really doing.  In fact, this exchange ("How are you?"  "Fine.") happens in passing, often without either party stopping to really talk or even make eye contact.  That makes the exchange disingenuous.  This man who wrote the article also came off as humble, admitting he doesn't know all the answers or the best solutions, but that he stands before God, not other people.  This is all true, and these are the points from the article I can acknowledge as valid.  

     My problem is this.  This well-intentioned man joins a long list of fringe-Christians who criticize the church institution.  It is true that some people at church ask how others are doing without really caring or taking the time to stop for a deep conversation.  That is unfortunate.  But it isn't just a church problem.  Churches aren't in a vacuum.  They exist in a society, and are made up of human beings from that society.  It is our culture (both inside the church as well as outside) to ask people how they're doing and to just expect a "fine" answer.  It is basically our way of saying "Hi," because, even though it is a question, we really just mean it as a greeting, not a conversation starter.  If someone actually gives another answer besides "fine," that often takes us off-guard.  If we didn't count on that, we may not have the time to stop and hear their story of not being fine.  We should care and make that time, but we don't always as a culture.  Blaming this superficial relating on church alone is imbalanced.  People do this everywhere.  When I was in Zambia on a mission trip, I learned that their greeting "Muli shani" means "How are you?"  So, if you were in Zamiba and someone were to say "Muli shani," to you, you wouldn't answer by saying, "Muli shani."  You would say "Bwino," which means "Good."  Sometimes, even in English, I'd say hello to a Zambian person, and the person would say, "Fine," even though I didn't ask how they were, because they don't have an exact word for simply hello.  This just goes to show how worldwide our idea of superficial greetings can be.

     My bigger concerns came from some of the other things said in this well-written article.  The gentleman complained about people saying certain things were absolute truths.  He had a problem with someone claiming that all who die without Christ will go to hell.  He claimed not to believe that is true, and also, that one's eternity is between themselves and God.  This is where I have an issue. 

     There are many things we do need to leave between the individual and God.  However, when the Bible is clear about something, it is not only correct, but necessary to take that stand and agree with God.  Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes unto the Father except through Me. (John 14:6).  Therefore, those who die without Christ don't have hope of eternal life.  It might sound mean and exclusive to say this, but that is to superimpose our 21st century culture on the Bible.  The truth is, God calls the shots.  He is holy, and has demanded holiness in order to have a relationship with Him (Be holy as I am holy--First Peter 1:16).  No human is capable of that, and God knew it.  He was willing to do whatever it took for us to have a restored relationship with Him.  He couldn't just ignore our sin, because He is holy.  He didn't want to just punish us, because He is love.  Jesus solved the dilemma by taking the penalty for our sins.  He shed His blood and died for us, rising again on the third day.  Through faith in what He has done, anyone can have eternal life.  The invitation is open to all!  Those who reject that invitation have only themselves to blame.  So, no, it isn't wrong or mean for church people to say that those without Christ aren't going to Heaven.  That is the truth, per the Bible.  That should motivate us toward evangelism.  If it doesn't, that's a problem. 

     One of his complaints was that a group of his church friends referred to a different belief system as "stupid."  I would agree that this is an unkind thing to say.  Calling someone's faith stupid just sounds ignorant and rude.  It's better to at least understand why people hold those beliefs, and then refer to them as incorrect or erroneous.  You can say something is wrong without being unkind or disrespectful.  While I agree that stupid wasn't the best word for his church friends to use, it seemed like the man in the article has a problem with absolutes, which says a great deal more about him than about the church.  

     This man also claimed that the Bible is subjective, and means whatever you choose to read into it.  His proof for this?  The fact that there are so many denominations.  According to him, these denominations are all reading their own interpretation into the Bible and are in complete disagreement with each other.  What he fails to acknowledge is that most of these denominations interpret the core doctrines of Christianity the exact same way.  You can attend a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal or non-denominational church and still hear the exact same truths about who Jesus is.   Denominations are a result of church history, not always theological differences.  For example, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 when it split from what is now known as the American Baptist Churches USA over political differences.  Their biblical faith was exactly the same.  Today, the political issues that divided them no longer exist, and their basic statement of beliefs are the same, yet they remain two different denominations.  Other denominations arose out of great revivals and movements of God, such as the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  There was no split off another denomination in their founding.  Even when comparing denominations that were never related, such as Lutheran and Nazarene (for example), both groups would completely agree on who Jesus is and what He has accomplished for us.  Their differences are mostly in the culture and traditions of the church.  The theology where they might differ would be in the nitty-gritty, not the essentials of the faith.  I have known very godly people in many different denominations, and all of them took the Bible as literal and true.  Furthermore, some of the many denominations that exist today broke off of their parent group because that parent group started taking the Bible less seriously.  Earlier, I referred to the American Baptist Churches USA.  If you were to go to their website and read their statement of beliefs, you would find that it is totally biblical.  Many of their churches are God-filled, Christ-honoring places of worship.  However, some of the individual churches have de-emphasized biblical truth and elevated social causes above correct theology.  I was part of a very godly American Baptist Church in California.  The American Baptist Churches in that part of the country decided to break away from the denomination and become Transformation Ministries, a group that focused a little bit more closely on staying biblically-based.  To this day, that church in California is still called First Baptist Church.  It simply isn't affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA anymore.  Like so many other movements throughout church history, that church broke away in order to retain biblical integrity.  Many of these break-offs are not done because of a subjective view of scripture, as the article-writer would have us believe, but for the very opposite reason, to preserve biblical truth.  Denominations are veins in church history, not diametrically-opposed views of the Bible.  Most denominations I know don't consider other Christian groups their enemy either.  I've seen great fellowship between different godly churches.

     I can't address denominations without addressing looser affiliations that don't consider themselves a denomination, but have a connection of churches that are under their banner.  The biggest of these affiliations that I am personally related to is Calvary Chapel.  The Calvary Chapel movement started in my home state of California in the 1960's as part of the larger Jesus Movement revival.  Even churches that are not part of the Calvary Chapel movement have been influenced by their worship music and evangelical culture (before Hillsong, Calvary Chapel had all the latest worship music, and it was a lot more biblical than Hillsong!  A lot of the lyrics were taken directly out of the Bible.  If you were a Southern California Christian in the 70's, 80s and 90's your church probably sang praise songs that originated in Calvary Chapel).  The man credited as the founder of this movement, a kind, humble gentleman by the name of Chuck Smith (who went to Heaven in 2013), had been a pastor in the Foresquare, a Christian denomination.  He disliked some of the constraints the denomination put on his ministry, and ended up breaking away.  God did an amazing work through him.  But he didn't disagree biblically with his former denomination.  Calvary Chapel churches are very similar to Foresquare churches theologically.  Actually, as a Baptist, I have often been to Calvary Chapels, and I don't see any real difference at all.  The differences are only noticeable to me when I look at the organizational structure of leadership, and that is more church government philosophy than theology.  As for what really matters, there is NO DIFFERENCE.  My point?  There are so many biblical groups of believers-- denominations, affiliations, and completely independent churches.  These different organizations are not indicative of the Bible being subjective.  These groups are not divided in hostility toward one another.  Disunity is occasionally seen, but isn't the norm between Christian groups.  Most believers would consider themselves to be unified with each other, despite different church backgrounds.  For more  on denominations, non-denominationalism, and church history, see my May 24, 2020 blog post (De)Nomination.  

     Admittedly, there are churches and groups of churches that see the Bible subjectively.  However, this doesn't mean that the existence of different denominations (and non-denominations) indicates a lack of Biblical inerrancy.  The article's writer really didn't do his homework on that.  

     All in all, I was right.  The article was basically complaining about church.  What the writer fails to realize is that: 1) God never promised the church would be perfect.  2) Church is made up of fallen men and women that God chooses to use to accomplish His purposes.  We are told as Christians not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:25).  We are commanded to go to church, meeting with other believers.  We need each other.  It is a spiritual discipline we are commanded to practice.  When we don't follow that command, we're the one's who lose.  The pastor who impacted me as a teenager used to always say, "The church service you missed was the one you needed the most."  I grew up in church all my life.  I love church.  Yet when I grew up and started driving, I had to develop the habit on my own of getting up and getting myself to church Sunday morning.  It had to be a choice, and now it is a habit.  

     Listening to a sermon is also a discipline.  The writer of the article said that's not his learning style.  I can understand that, but that doesn't get him or anyone else off the hook.  We can and should be doing personal Bible study ourselves.  Attending an additional study with a more question-and-answer format is great for aiding in study.  But that doesn't negate the value of church services.  The Holy Spirit is stronger than your learning style and can speak to you through the Word of God being preached.  Church can be messy, and it has been that way from the beginning.  Sometimes hurtful and even terrible things happen at church, and that breaks the heart of God.  But there is no reason to be down on church.  Find a church that's a better fit for you, but realize that all Christians are part of God's body.  There is really only one church, and all believers from all congregations are part of it.  Jesus said of believers in John 17:22, that they may be one, just as We are one.  Other Christians are your family!  You need to be with them.  They're not perfect...but you aren't either.  You can complain about how things should be different, and you're probably right in many instances.  A lot of things happen in church that shouldn't.  But it is still God's institution to bring the gospel to the world, and to disciple the saints.  If someone in church is behaving and speaking wrongly, we should rejoice, because church is exactly where they belong.  It isn't the healthy who need a doctor (Mark 2:17).  

     I once heard a radio skit about the importance of church.  The church was likened to a noble group called the Brotherhood of Dutiful Youth--or the BODY.  The BODY served to help other people.  Each member of the BODY had skills that were necessary to accomplish their purpose (their ironic names indicate their strengths).  The leader of the group was Mr. Headly.  Another member, I.C. Clearly, had good vision, and kept a lookout for those who needed help.  Another member, Miss Lipman, talked to the people they found.  Still another member, R.U. Listening, would listen to them and hear their problems.  Hans Armstrong, the physically strong member, would do whatever they needed.  There was one more member, John Lafitte, was the transporter, and after I.C. Clearly had spotted those who needed help, it was his job to take the rest of the BODY to the people.  John gets tired of this job and wants to do something more important, like talk or listen, or do their repairs.  He decides to leave the BODY and help people on his own.  He fails miserably, because he is trying to do what other people are good at instead of what he is good at.  He decides to go back to the BODY, but unfortunately, it's too late.  When he left, the BODY couldn't do what it was supposed to.  Without him there was no one to take the group to the people who needed help.  The narrator ends the skit with, "And so, the Brother of Dutiful Youth dissolved.  And though each of the members went on to other things, they all were a lot sadder.   Where once there was a group who helped people, now there was just an empty room.  The body in it had died."  A powerful reminder of the vital roll each member of the body plays.  

     Go to church.  Maybe your being there--with all its imperfections--will encourage others to be faithful to the Lord.  

Say This, not That

     The title of this post is a spoof on the Eat This, Not That books.  Sometimes, people complain about Christians using catch phrases and clichés that lost their meaning because they're said so off-handedly, almost unthinkingly.  Is that true?  Do truths really lose their power?  No...and yes.  

     The truth of God's word is always true and will always be true.  First Peter 1:25 states, But the word of the Lord entureth forever...For that reason, the truth of the Bible will never be diminished.  

     On the flip side, there are times when commonly-used phrases are misconstrued.  Also, some phrases are unbiblical to begin with, but have made their way into Christian vocabulary.  We need to be intentional in what we say, especially when we are handling God's truth (Rightly dividing the word of truth. Second Timothy 2:15).  I am going to share some commonly-used phrases that Christians tend to say a lot, and then give the right and wrong contexts in which to use them.  I'll also be giving some alternative phrases that better express the spirit of what these original quotes are trying to say.  

     It's not a religion, it's a relationship.  The idea behind this phrase is that our faith as Christians isn't just some world religion that emphasizes doing good deeds to please some unknowable deity.  Our faith is made possible by God's grace when we place our eternal hope in the finished work of Christ, giving us direct access to God!  In that sense, the phrase, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship," is true.  On the other hand, a religion is a belief system, and Christianity does fit that description.  To say it isn't a religion isn't quite right.  Even the Bible itself calls our beliefs a religion (James 1:27).  I can understand wanting to emphasize the relationship with the Lord.  But insisting it isn't a religion at all is to remove the truth of our theology.  We can't have that relationship with God if we don't adhere to the claims of Christianity, as found in the Bible.  It would be better to say that Christianity isn't a works-based religion.  It is a set of theological beliefs, which, embraced by faith, lead us into a right relationship with God.  I have been aware of situations where unbelievers ask Christians about their faith, and, because they don't speak "Christianese" yet, they ask, "Tell me about your religion," and the Christian will proudly say, "It isn't a religion, it's a relationship," and the non-Christian looks very blank and confused.  That isn't right.  When to use this phrase: when you are helping someone understand that it isn't a works-based religion, but is about knowing Jesus.  Even in this case, though, I wouldn't use it without clarifying the difference between our religion (set of beliefs) and a works-based set of beliefs.  When not to use it: when answering a non-Christian's questions about our faith, or talking with anyone (Christian or non-Christian) who slips and uses the word "religion" and you know what they mean, but you just don't like their use of the word "religion."  Basically, don't use it to correct people. Maybe say this instead:   "Christianity is different from all other religions, in that, in most religions, it is man trying to be good enough to appease God.  In Christianity, it is God reaching down to us, sending His Son, so we could know Him."  From there, elaborate further on the gospel message.  

     It's God's will.  As Christians, should we care about God's will?  Yes!  Ephesians 5:17 says, Be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.  There is much we don't understand about the mystery of God's sovereignty, but we can rest in His will for our lives.  However, this can be used in a trite way.  When my husband attended Bible college, the students were promised that all alumni could have their weddings in the chapel on campus, free of charge.  Some time later, when he and I were engaged and planning our wedding, we went down there to collect on that promise.  The man at the front desk was some old classmate of Walter's, and he clearly felt some animosity (Walter barely remembered him).  He was very rude to us both, and told us in a very condescending tone, "Yeah...we don't do weddings anymore."  He was downright rude, and when we asked if he was sure, he yelled at us.  Dejected, we left.  We ended up having our wedding at my in-laws church (which was a better location for our guests than our own church, but we had our pastor officiate).  When we confided in someone about how rudely that guy at the Bible college had treated us, this person said very tritely, "It's God's will."  Maybe it was God's will we had the wedding at my in-law's church.  I liked having it there.  However, was it God's will that the Bible college reneged on their promise?  Was it God's will for that man to be mean to us?  No.  Those things clearly are not God's will.  Throwing around a phrase like that can be very insensitive.  When to use it: When you are confident God is leading in a certain way, or surrendering to His sovereignty.  When not to use it: to minimize something someone has gone through (a death in the family, a serious diagnosis, or even smaller things like inconvenience or hurt feelings).  Also, don't use it when you don't really know the Lord's will in a given matter. Maybe say this instead:  Honestly, silence might be the best answer, but, depending on the situation, here are a few things that might be appropriate: "I wonder what God's doing in this."  "I'm going to be praying for this situation and watching to see what God does in the days ahead."  "It looks like God might be leading this way."  "I'm sorry this happened to you.  I've experienced similar things myself.  I know God has good in store for you, and I'm going to be praying."  

    It's not me, it's the Lord.  I remember once giving a woman in a Bible study a compliment on her hair.  It really was gorgeous.   Her response: "Oh, that's the Lord."  To be honest, it seemed very off-putting at the time.  A simple "Thank you," would have sufficed.  Is everything good in us from God?  Yes.  James 1:17 says, Every good and perfect gift is from above...  In a sense, then, it is true that this woman's beautiful hair was "of the Lord."  In another sense, though, I felt put in my place for just offering a sincere compliment.   Also, when someone says, "It's not me, it's the Lord," it is denying any personal involvement, and that isn't accurate.  When you or I do something, God might be empowering us and using what we do, but He is still using us.  He chose to use you, with the gifting, personality, and everything else He put into you.  Of course God should get the glory.  But that doesn't mean we have no part in things He uses us to do.  God doesn't just take over our bodies beyond our control and do these great things.  We participate with Him.  When to use this phrase: when someone's compliment borders on worshipful, and you sense the person admires you beyond what would be healthy, or if a compliment tempts you to get conceited and you need to remind yourself as well as the other person that God is really behind it, or the thing you are being complimented on is of a very spiritual nature and it was very obviously a work of God, such as the Peter and John healing the lame man in Acts 3 (even if it is less dramatic than that!).  Even in these cases, when you use this phrase, don't be dismissive of the person.  Still thank them. When not to use it:  Mainly, don't use it at all except for the situations I mentioned.  Accept sincere compliments from people by saying "Thank you."  Telling someone, "It's not me, it's all God," can sound like you're sermonizing at them, and even rejecting the kind intentions behind their compliment.  That can actually hinder your witness.  Especially, don't use that phrase when a fellow Christian offers you a simple compliment.  They are already aware that God is behind it, and don't need the reminder.  They are just telling you they appreciate something about you.   Maybe say this instead: If it is a basic compliment, such as I gave the woman at Bible study on her hair, just say thank you.  Smile, and look the person in the eye as you say it.  That is gracious enough.  I find when I compliment someone on their outfit (which is in the same superficial league as complimenting their hair) the person will often tell me where they got it, and even have a brief conversation about that, which is gracious and fun.  But if nothing else, just thank the person.  That kind of compliment doesn't need spiritualization.  If it is a more in-depth compliment about something you've done, you could say: "Thanks so much.  It means a lot to me that you'd say that.  I'm grateful God worked in it."  Or  "Thank you.  I really appreciate that.  I'm so glad God used it to encourage you.  Tell me about what God's been doing in your life?"  I can't emphasize enough, DON'T BE DISMISSIVE!

Don't judge  I have tackled this one a lot in other blog posts.  This phrase is often used as a smokescreen to keep people from finding fault with something that really is wrong and should be criticized.  It is taken out of context . Jesus did say in Matthew 7:1, judge not, that ye be not judged... Unfortunately, people isolate this verse to mean that we can't use our brains to draw any sort of conclusion about things we see and hear.  They even use this as a caveat to excuse certain sins, sort of a "get out of jail free card" for their favorite sins that they don't feel comfortable addressing.  That isn't true at all.  If it was, Jesus wouldn't have said in John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, rather judge according to righteous judgment (underlined emphasis mine).  That sheds light onto Matthew 7:1  We should know all the facts before we draw conclusions.  But we are to draw those conclusions, and we are to draw them with God's word as our standard.  If something is against what God has said in the Bible, we call it wrong.  Period.  In fact, the verses following Matthew 7:1 even clarify this, explaining that you should make sure your own life is right before you help someone straighten out theirs.  It isn't saying you don't call out wrong, it just urges you to make sure that doing so isn't hypocritical for you, because you've dealt with the sin in your own life first.  If God was against any sort of judging, He wouldn't have given us brains.  He would never have sent the flood, the Babylonian captivity, or the prophets.  In fact, Jesus wouldn't have had to die.  When to use this phrase: I would say don't use this one as it is.  It is so overused that those who spout it sound like unthinking imbeciles, who are being used as puppets of a certain agenda.  Use one of the alternatives I'll give in situations where someone is really showing a critical spirit against someone when they don't have all the facts, or their own life has the same struggle they are criticizing in someone else.  When not to use it: When someone says something you dislike or makes you uncomfortable.  When someone is speaking out against something that is legitimately wrong, at least legitimately against their conscience.  When someone is expressing political views you don't agree with.  "Don't judge" is such a go-to phrase for those situations, but it isn't right.  Maybe say this instead: If a person is saying things you're uncomfortable with or disagree with, you could say, "I don't feel comfortable with this discussion.  I'm going to have to think about it more."  Then excuse yourself.  Or, if you have your thoughts and opinions gathered already, you could simply tell the person, "You know, this is my take on it..." and share your own view politely and confidently.  If someone is saying critical things about others (true "judgment"), here are a few ideas, depending on the situation "Are you sure about that?" "Why are you telling me this?"  "Have you told them?"  "Can I quote you on that?"  "I'm reserving judgment until I know the whole story."  

God won't give you more than you can handle.  People tell each other this one as an encouragement in hard times.  A teenage boy once told me, "My favorite verse is the one that says, 'God won't give you more than you can handle,' but I forget where it's found."  The reason he couldn't remember was because it isn't in the Bible!  The principle behind this saying is based on a few verses.  First Corinthians 10:13 talks about God not allowing us to be tempted above our ability to bear it.  He always has a way of escape so that we never have to sin.  In that sense, the temptations will never be more than you can handle, but that isn't the same is saying everything that comes your way in life will be within your ability to handle.   Another verse that gives the principle is Second Corinthians 12:9, My grace is sufficient for you... But saying, "God won't give you more than you can handle," is not the same as God's grace being sufficient in a situation.  God does allow things that are beyond us, but His grace gives us the strength to bear it.  He does stretch us.  Second Corinthians 1:8 says, For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were pressed beyond measure, beyond strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life. The Apostle Paul and his companions were pressed beyond anything they had gone through, anything they had handled, and they were to the point that they wanted God to just take them home.  Have you ever felt that way?  I have.  God will allow more than we can handle, so that we'll let Him handle it.  Once we make that choice, His grace is sufficient.  When to use this phrase: I would recommend not using it as stated, because it is worded in a self-focused, humanistic way, with the emphasis being on us in our own strength.  I encourage using some of the alternative phrases below in situations where a person is overwhelmed. 

When not to use it:  As I said, I don't encourage using this phrase as it is.  I definitely wouldn't say it in a situation when someone is deeply struggling and at the point of despair.  Maybe say this instead:  "God never allows anything into your life that He won't empower you to manage."  "God knows what He has prepared you for in your Christian walk.  He is with you in this." "It sounds like you're being stretched.  Can I pray with you?"  "God's grace is sufficient."   Be careful not to sound trite in saying these more biblical phrases.  You can also remind them of biblical promises of God's strength and victory in the believer's life.  There are many, and what you use will depend on the situation the person is dealing with.  There are also very practical ways you can help a friend in a desperate situation, such as invite them to join you for a Bible study, or some other uplifting activity that will get them into fellowship and encouragement.  Maybe God has even given you the resources to help in their exact problem situation.  As I said, that all depends on what it is, and how God has led you to be involved.  Just don't tell them God won't give more than they can handle. 

The Lord told me... Be very careful when claiming to speak for God.  God does speak to us, and I do believe there are times He wants us to say certain things to someone.  But we need to be careful we are hearing from God before we claim to speak for Him.  I used to know a very insecure Christian woman, and any time she wanted people to agree with her, she would say, "The Holy Spirit told me..." and then she'd state her opinion, or what she wanted to do.  It was a setup where you couldn't disagree with her, or it appeared you were disagreeing with God.  That was wrong on her part.  It was, in a sense, taking God's name in vain.  In another way, it is the same as being a false prophet.  Deuteronomy 18:22 says that if someone claims to speak for God, and what they say doesn't check out, that person is a false prophet, and shouldn't be listened to.  False prophets were to be killed (Deuteronomy 13:5).  Pretty serious.  I'm thankful for God's grace, because believers do mistakenly claim to speak for God at times, and it is a serious thing.  We need to really be careful, and humble.  When to use this phrase: when you are 100% sure, without a doubt, that God has spoken to you.  If your certainty is 99% or lower, preface it with, "I believe God is telling me..." rather than "God told me."  When not to use it: Definitely don't use it to manipulate people into agreeing with you or doing things your way.  That isn't right.  Don't use it if you're not certain God is the one who inspired it.  Maybe say this instead: Honestly, almost everything is subject to some level of doubt in our minds.  If you feel led to speak to someone, do it.  But instead of saying, "God told me...." say something like, "As I think about you today, I really believe God has laid on my heart to say..." This will come across as caring, rather than arrogant.  It will also give the person something to think about without feeling pressured to agree with you right on the spot, and that can actually be a lot more powerful.      

In the flesh  The Bible talks about being in the flesh and being in the spirit.  Galatians 5:16ff talks about the battle in our lives between the Spirit of God within us and our old "flesh" sinful nature.  This is a real battle that every believer experiences.  But I have known some people who obsess about whether they're in the flesh or the spirit moment by moment.  I knew someone who was just tortured, and would ask, "Was I in the flesh or the spirit when I was walking the dog?  Was I in the flesh or the spirit when I was brushing my teeth?" and they had no peace in their lives, because they were so obsessed.  Worse, I have known some who use this concept to manipulate people.  If you say something they don't like, they say, "You're just in the flesh."  A church I know of split a few years ago, with some people disagreeing with some changes the new leadership made.  Those who disagreed with leadership handled the situation biblically, speaking with the leadership before they made the choice to leave.  When their concerns were not given any sort of acknowledgement, they felt their only option was to leave.  They left without fanfare, without stirring up gossip.  Those who stayed just called everyone who left, "in the flesh."  Were they really?  I didn't know everyone involved on either side of it (it wasn't my church), but it doesn't sound like it was handled in a fleshly way.  It sounds like they tried to do right, and then followed their conviction.  It is immature to just say someone is "in the flesh" because they disagree with you, or go a different direction.  My husband constantly heard this at the Bible college he attended.  He was said to be "in the flesh" when he would share desires the Lord had placed on his heart but hadn't materialized yet, or if he expressed any sort of concern or disagreement with things that were going on.  The only way to be "in the spirit" was to be a yes-man.  That's not what God says about it.  Galatians 5 gives the evidence of being in the flesh and being in the spirit.  Read that whole passage.  When to use this phrase: When you are using the scriptures that talk about the subject of being in the flesh.  When you see someone (or yourself) do something that is clearly not of God.  When not to use it: When someone simply does something that rubs you the wrong way, or that you disagree with.  Maybe say this instead: What you say will depend on the circumstances in which you'd want to use this phrase, but here are some ideas: "I dislike what just happened.  I wonder what God's really up to in this."  "I wonder if God is behind what just happened."  "I wonder if their desire/struggle is God-given or not.  I'm going to pray for them."  

     These are a few phrases I hear Christians use that could stand to be examined, challenged, and changed.  If you can think of some more, let me know!  We can look at those in future posts!

Clear as Mud

     "Have you come to the point in your life that you know for sure that if you died, you'd got to Heaven, or are you unsure?" I asked my new friend.

     "Oh, I'd definitely go to heaven," she said confidently, almost dismissively.

     "Let me ask this another way," I said.  "If you were to stand before God right now, and He asked you, 'Why should I let you into my Heaven, what would you say?"

     I wish you could have seen her expression.  Her mouth opened, as if she had a quick answer, but then she closed it again.  Her eyes looked up, as if she were thinking.  "Well..." she began, but her voice trailed off.  Finally, she met my gaze.  "I've never thought about that before."  

     I met this dear lady at a revival on Sunday night (a good, old-fashioned Southern tent revival right here in Arkansas).  The evening began with a steak dinner.  My husband and I had sat at the same table as her.  She came from a small north Midwestern town, where she was part of a very traditional church in a mainline denomination.  She talked a lot about her baptism as an infant, and her questioning what church to join locally.  We hit it off with her, and enjoyed talking, but as we did, I sensed that she didn't have a strong grasp of salvation.  It was as clear as mud.  It had been muddled with church traditions.  When asked if she had ever been saved, she wasn't certain.

     There are a lot of different terms people use for salvation, and most of them are biblical.  Being saved (Acts 16:31, among other scriptures).  Born again (John 3:3).  Receive Christ (John 1:12).  Invite Christ into your heart (yes, that one is biblical too, read it and weep, John MacArthur! Ephesians 3:17).  Different Christian traditions use their preferred terminology, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Some speak of making a profession of faith.  Some simply calling it becoming a Christian.  My point is, regardless of the terms used, we are recognizing a time when we realized we were lost and needed salvation, and we took Christ up on His offer of eternal life by placing our faith in Him, and His finished work on the cross.  The Bible makes is so clear.  It saddens me when it isn't clear in someone's life, because it's been muddied by confusion.  

     Am I saying traditions are bad?  No.  In fact, every church has them--even very contemporary churches.  A tradition is just a way something is acceptably done.  Whether your church tradition is organ music and ministers who wear robes, or everyone in T-shirts and jeans with the latest Christian radio hits in worship (or whether your church is somewhere between those two extremes), that is a tradition that you feel comfortable with in your church.  I think sometimes, traditions get a bad rap, but traditions can draw us closer to the Lord, because of what they represent, or their history.  However, we can lose sight of their real significance, and just do them unthinkingly.  Even worse, traditions can take the place of truth, and that's when they become dangerous.  

     My husband and I lived in a small north Midwestern town for a few years.  Spending time in that culture was how I was able to identify where this woman at the revival was coming from.  But anyway, during our time in that town, when I would ask people about their faith, many would say things like, "Well, I was confirmed at such-and-such a church."  Or "I was baptized at such-and-such church."  They were much more apt to identify as their denomination than as a Christian.  Yes, there was a gospel witness in the town as well, but it was far outweighed by Mainline churches dominated by tradition.  Some who went to those churches were definitely saved.  Others weren't.  Walter and I visited a few of these congregations out of curiosity (we come from Southern California where you're either a staunchly on fire evangelical or you are an ashiest, but there is very little in-between).  These Mainline churches were new to us.  The gospel could be found there, but it had to be ferreted out by the hearer.  It wasn't being clearly explained.  This left a lot of very confused people, who didn't even know they were confused.  

     Salvation needs to be clearly presented.  Acts 4:12 says, Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name, under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.   Second Corinthians 6:2 tells us that Today is the day of salvation.  The Bible makes it so clear, and it needs to be presented that way.  Something people can point back to as the day they came to Christ.  In Acts 2, Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost, and 3000 people understood and believed the message, and were saved that day.  For the rest of their lives, these people surely remembered the day they were changed for eternity.  This is evidenced all through the book of Acts.  Direct encounters with people coming to grips with who Jesus is.  There is no place in Acts (or anywhere else  in the Bible) where people had this vague sense of "Maybe I'm saved, I do all the church stuff..." and yet were saved.  In Acts 19, Paul encountered some men who were disciples, but all they knew was what John the Baptist had taught.  They didn't yet know Jesus, or anything about the Holy Spirit.  Paul set them straight, and they received Christ, and then were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  These men were faithful to what they knew, and God was working in them, but they weren't saved until Paul evangelized them.  I believe that mirrors a lot of folks I've met who are faithful to their church tradition, but very fuzzy on salvation.  

     We are spiritually in need.  A church that clearly presents the gospel message is like someone being sick and going to their doctor, and the doctor giving them the medicine they need, clearly explaining how to take it, and what the medicine will do.  These unclear traditions about salvation are more like someone being sick and going to their doctor, and the doctor having a table with a huge meal set out.  The doctor says, "The medicine you need is buried somewhere in all this food.  I'm not going to tell you where, but if you eat all of it, you'll get the medicine at some point and get well."  There is so much uncertainty.  No definite assurance.  And what if you get too full to finish the meal, but don't know if you've gotten to the medicine yet?  

     Was this woman I spoke with at the revival saved?  She knew who Jesus was and believed in Him.  She wasn't certain about some things, but God knows where she's at.  She heard the truth, from us, and also from the evangelist who spoke (side note, this evangelist even said in a perfect drawl that "Even Yankees need Jesus!").  Our new friend (the north-Midwesterner) cracked up at that, and it eased the tension.  My prayer for her, and for everyone, is that we have assurance that we are saved, having full understanding of what it entails.  For those who actually aren't saved, my prayer is that they come to understand who Jesus is and what they must do in response.  And my prayer for myself, and those of us who share the gospel is that we'll be bold and clear in sharing this most important message, that God has entrusted to us!  

     I'm going to close with some phrases that people who are confused will use when questioned about salvation.  Note, these are actually good things, and perhaps they apply to you, but they don't provide salvation in and of themselves.  If someone is trusting in these things for their eternal life, it is a works-based religion, and they are not saved, according the scripture (Ephesians 2:9).  I encourage anyone in these discussions with someone who brings up these points to turn the conversations back to Jesus.

"I was baptized at X church."

"I help in the food pantry at X church."

"I memorized the catechism."

"I' was confirmed as a teenager."

"My late husband/wife was a [insert denomination], so I joined the church when we got married."

"I took my first communion."

"I spoke in tongues."  

"Our church has a coat-drive every winter."

"I went to a parochial school." 

"I grew up in Sunday school." 

"I had my kids all baptized at X church."  

"I'm a [insert denomination]"

"I come from a long line of [insert denomination]."  

 

Maybe you've heard more, but this is an idea.  These are good things, but they are muddying the water of salvation.  Jesus offers clear, living water!  Show it to them!  

God's Conviction, or Satan's Accusation?

      Have you ever had a certain area of your life where you just kept falling back into the old patterns?  No matter how hard you tried, you just weren't able to get out of certain destructive sins and habits.  Maybe it was a small area that no one else noticed, but it was ripping you apart inside.  Big or small, that's called a stronghold.  

     I was told the following story.  A woman just couldn't get victory over a certain sin in her life.  Every week, she'd go to her pastor for prayer, and in the midst of this, she would always pray, "Lord, remove the cobwebs of sin from my mind!"  One day, after several weeks of hearing her pray this way, the pastor led out and prayed, "Lord, kill the spider!"  That's how strongholds are defeated, by getting to the source of the problem, not just the surface symptoms.  

    A stronghold has been defined as a mental pattern of thought, burned into our minds, usually over a period of time, which affects our attitudes and ultimately our actions.  There is a digression into it:  First, we have the stimulation.  We're stimulated by something.  Maybe it's a dirty ad popping up online when you're not even trying to look for something like that.  Maybe it's deep feelings of fear or anger when an unresolved part of your past comes up.  Maybe it's compulsive spending, or finding self-worth in the wrong places.  It could be any number of things.  For me, personally, it is fear and feelings of invalidation.  I have struggled with this a little more in the past two weeks.  I'll elaborate in a little bit.  

     With the stimulation step, you haven't sinned yet.  You weren't even seeking out the stimulation.  Something outside your control triggered it.  Now, you face the next step, temptation.  Again, you still haven't sinned.  You haven't looked at that destructive website.  You haven't reacted in fear or anger.  You haven't overspent.  But you're tempted.  Jesus Himself faced these first two stages of stimulation and temptation, but He stopped it right there.  Matthew 4 tells us about how Satan tempted Him when He was at a vulnerable state of hunger and loneliness in the desert.  That's when Satan will bring on those stimulations and temptations for you as well. 

     After stimulation and temptation comes a further digression, and this is where sin comes into it if we don't stop at the temptation stage.  Consideration follows temptation, where we rationalize why it would be good and right to indulge the temptation.  Maybe clicking on that bad website would give us insight into how certain people live, so we can minister to them better.  Maybe reacting to the invalidating situation would help in some way.  Do you see how that's making something bad look a lot more innocent?  That's what happens when we consider sin.  

     Once we've considered things, then we make a choice.  We go ahead and choose to indulge or not.  We can stop it any time in this process, but it is much harder the further we get.  

     Action follows the choice.  We act on what we chose.  We might tell ourselves it was a one-time thing.  But it never is.  That's not how temptation works.  It doesn't let you off that easily.

     Once you've taken action, you form a habit.  An enslaving habit.  And that, my friend, leads you into the realm of stronghold.  These past two weeks, I have returned to the headquarters of the ministry I have been a part of in one way or another since I was fifteen.  Some of my best and worst memories in life happened here.  When I was a young college student, I faced a very confusing situation here.  All these years later, I struggle with condemnation and invalidation about it, and how I might have handled it differently (or maybe not).  I've been at ministry headquarters now taking a course that will further the ministry.  My husband is here with me.  It is a wonderful time, and yet this long ago stronghold doesn't want to let go.  It's a battle I've had to fight in the last few days.  

     We need to be guarding our hearts.  Proverbs 4:23 says, Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life.  Choices made have much further-reaching effects than we know or can anticipate.  In his song, Guard Your Heart, Steve Green says, We dare not leave the outcome to chance, we must choose in advance.   So important.  We need to be making godly choices long before we're ever even stimulated toward a stronghold.  

     At the point of stimulation, we need to be saying (out loud helps), "I refuse to give in to this thought of: inadequacy, fear, insecurity, inferiority, discouragement etc."  Be transparent with others.  Share your struggle with someone else.  Ask God to make you an encourager to someone who is struggling.  I have a few people I am accountable to, and it feels good.  These people cheer me on when I do right, and help me when I need gentle reminders.  No one can do it all by themselves.    

    In the midst of these spiritual battles in our lives, we feel terrible inside.  I know I did the other day when struggling with this.  Is that God convicting you, or is it the devil condemning you?  There are differences.  

     When God convicts you of a sin, He is doing it in love, whereas Satan condemns you in hatred.  God convicts you gently, with the Word of God.  Satan uses feelings and memories to accuse you.  God uses conviction to draw us close to Him.  Satan uses condemnation to pull us away from the Lord.  When God convicts us, it is so we might look ahead and have hope.  When Satan condemns us, he wants us to look back and give up.  Here are a few others, that I have observed from my own life.  When God convicts me, I know exactly what He is convicting me of and what I should do about it.  When Satan condemns me, it is often ambiguous, where I'm not even certain of the specifics, and definitely don't know what I'm supposed to do from there.  When God convicts me, I don't feel badly about who and what I am, just sober about what I've done.  What Satan condemns me, I feel terrible and ashamed.  I have concluded God is not behind the struggles I've had, but that they are Satan bringing up the past to ruin my effectiveness now.  I can't let him win.  

     Satan is called the accuser of the brothers in Revelation 12:10.  The very next verse tells us how we can have victory: And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.  The blood of the Lamb is Jesus' sacrifice for us.  He already defeated Satan and made a public display of him (Colossians 2:15).  The word of our testimony is our salvation in Christ.  Loving not our lives unto death means we are trusting the Lord even unto death, because we know our eternity is sure.  

     First John 2:1 tells us that if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.  Just as Satan accuses, Jesus pleads for you.  The holes in His hands win over Satan's condemnation every time.  Don't get caught up in strongholds.  Move forward in victory.  As Paul said in Philippians 3:12-14, Not as though I have already obtained this or were already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own.  But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead.  I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.