I have talked, increasingly, with more and more Pastors who define worship as a private singular event that has little to do with what goes on in our churches on any given Sunday. Not that they see this view as a problem. But, that they see this view as correct theology. As I see the new methods and programs employed in our churches today I have become suspicious of the motives behind this new definition of worship. But in so many pulpits today the preaching of the word of God is set outside of their definition of worship as is all other forms of service.Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with Reverence and godly fear:
Here we see that worship must be :
1. Acceptable to God
2. Done with reverence and godly fear
3. Done by the grace of God.
The word serve in this verse is the Greek word “Latreuo” which is a form of the word worship. In the NT this word is used as “serve”16 times, “worship” 3, ” do the worship ” 1, and “worshiper” 1.
Another form of the word “worship is the Greek word “Therapeuo”. This is most often seen as the word “heal” and is used in reference to the healing of others. In the NT it is seen in every case of Jesus’ healings. Interestingly enough it is the where we get our word therapy from.
“Proskeneuo” is another Greek form of the word worship. It is always used in the context of simply paying homage. This is seen clearly in 1 Cor 14:25.
“Sebazomai” is used only once in Romans 1:25 and is used in the sense of honoring religiously.
““Sebomai” is used in the sense of reverence and can be seen in Acts 16:14. We see this same word used in the sense of vain worship of God (Matt 15:9) Not all worship even directed at God is acceptable worship or correct.
Worship is defined by scripture as any act done in correct doctrine, (spirit and truth John 4:24) and for the Glory of God (reverence 12:28). The teaching of the word of God was included in the worship of those in Acts 2:42-47. There can be found no where in scripture a division between the preaching of the word and “worship”.
When the church reaches out to that single mother who can’t seem to make ends meet and provides a washing machine in the name of Christ, God is given sufficient adoration and praise. We give Him the credit, we direct our joy and thankfulness toward God as a result. Service is worship when done in that manner.
When a Christ centered message is delivered form the word of God as handed down from Him to His angel, God is most certainly lifted up, given adoration, peoples hearts are melted, changed, encouraged, and God is worshiped. Corporate worship is a biblical mandate.( Heb 10:25 ) All events that happen during the service are to be done with worship in mind. We are not to go to church to get something. For we cannot worship God and ourselves at the same time. Such worship is idolatrous. It is a focus on self rather than God. We should go to the worship service expecting to give God our praise, adoration, and thanks proclaiming His excellence, making known His majesty and declaring His glory. We are to give with no expectation of receiving anything in return. For a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. ( Ja 1:8 )
When God is lifted up and worshiped then the residual outcome is we ourselves are encouraged, but it is an encouragement found in Him. We are fed but it is a feeding founded in the Father. This godly and spirit lead worship gives us the freedom to worship God in spirit and truth with no need of self concern. (Matt 6:33)
In all that we do we are to worship God. I am quite sure we fail that from day to day but our hearts are to be unceasingly worshipful from moment to moment as I have shown through scripture. We are to have worshipful lives, not just worshipful moments. Truth is if we practiced this it would keep us from more error and more sin than anything else. It is a shame it is not often being preached from our pulpits. And what is being practiced in our Baptist churches on a regular basis has no bearing on the truth of scripture. And it is no wonder that out churches are filled with fighting and problems. True worship ( John 4:24 ) is ignored and people come to only get self fulfillment. And that is at the foundational level of greed and rebellion.Worship isn’t just about a private singular moment anymore than it is just about corporate worship. It is a life style not an event.
Now, here is why I am suspicious. If we redefine worship and in essence remove worship from our sanctuaries then we can employ any and all measures, methods, and programs in the church with little to no boundaries. However, if we define what is to happen in our sanctuaries as worship then we are held to a narrow and specific standard that inhibits our activities. Amazing how many ways rebellion finds to display itself.
July 14 2008 | Doctrines | No Comments »
There is a false movement by liberals to equate conservatism with the pharisees of Jesus time. It is false in that there is no real connection. The pharisees were in fact wrong on many practical doctrines. Jesus spent much time correcting them on their incorrect stance on doctrine ( Matthew 5)
Another reason why such a comparison falls short is that the pharisees were lost, without God, on their way to hell. I do not doubt at all that there are the lost in or churches who faithfully fill pews. They come to church, want things done only their way, and go home only to worry about themselves. This is a result of the five minute gospel that immediately invites anyone claiming to be saved on to our membership roles with no evidence of a true conversion. We have not been good door keepers. And our churches are full of people who will never have a true conversion in part because they think they are alright in their pew and in their stoney heart.
But true conservatives are and have been reaching out to the lost, the hurting, and the weak. There is a balance to be maintained between standing against premarital sex, out of wedlock births, and ungodly dating habits with ministering to single mothers (those divorced and never wed). There is a balance to be maintained between standing against drug and alcohol abuse and ministering to the addicted. There is a balance to be maintained between standing against the homosexual lifestyle and ministering to those with aids as a result and are dying.
Lost people are like children and only care for themselves. Even those who fill the pews from Sunday to Sunday. For their day to day happiness and future hope are only tied up in what comes from within themselves. But those who rely on the salvation that comes only from God have an inner peace that gives them the freedom to serve others without any thought of self gratification.
We cannot minister to a lost and dying world if the holiness of God is set aside. What is being dubbed as doctrinal correctness is in fact a concern for the true nature of God. You cannot lead people toward salvation by means of scriptural proclamation if your articulation lacks any semblance of provocation. For the love of God shows you the state of your true condition. You have to get them lost before they can get saved.
Words like judgment and condemnation are battered around in defense of withholding the holiness of God. Are those who are quick to catapult such words merely fearful for the lost, or are they also fearful for their own lives? Why would a child of God avoid the conviction that brings them closer to the heavenly Father? It is my position that the conviction of God is a bitter sweet necessity that should be cherished and not disdained.
First it reminds us that we are the children of God. And for the lost it tells them that God has yet to give up on them. There is no sweeter news to the righteous nor to the lost in all of creation. Second it reminds us of our true state as created and imperfect beings in need of the grace of God to walk in the Spirit day by day.
The term “doctrinal correctness” is a pejorative of late describing the stance on the holiness of God. Such holiness should be ever before our face and should be placed before the faces of the lost and the dying. The woman that was a sinner ( Luke 7:38-39) understood all to well the holiness of God as she wept at Jesus feet. Sinners cannot come to Jesus joyfully with the only motive to simply “follow Him”. Such nonsense bypasses the work of the cross and makes it of none effect. Those who understand the holiness of God have a love of God that drives them to the feet of God ( Luke 7:47 ).
May we, the church, always stand for the holiness of God ( doctrinal correctness ) so that the lost world may see Him as they should.
Isaiah 6:5-8
5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me
July 06 2008 | Doctrines and SBC Issues | No Comments »
I found this today. Thought it was well worth repeating. The original post can be found here.
…would be a man who has a deep longing for revival and renewal in SBC churches. He would be the kind of man who has a fervent passion for the Lord Jesus and an unshakable commitment to His Word. He would be the kind of man who would travel to all 50 States and tell pastors that the Bible is not only inerrant, but wonderfully sufficient for our lives and ministry. He would recognize that in the long term more souls can be reached for the Lord Jesus not through yet another evangelistic initiative, but by healthy SBC churches where members are living in obedience to the Word of God. He would have a passion to see Christians love their Lord with all their minds, and he would not denigrate theology but celebrate it. Yet his most pressing concern would be that SBC churches are, well, “together for the gospel”, and he would do all he could to see that Southern Baptists around the world know the gospel, love the gospel, and are willing to defend the gospel at all costs. He would be a man of prayer, and he would call all Southern Baptists into a season of repentance for our faithlessness to Christ and our spiritual lukewarmness. He would urge all Southern Baptists to join together in praying and fasting for God to bring about a great awakening in our land. But he would also recognize that such an awakening can only come from sound preaching and a proper understanding of Biblical evangelism, and he would be earnest to see both increase in our denomination. He would be a man of integrity, a man who puts his family first, and man with a backbone. He would not be a politician, but he would be a statesman, and he would be characterized by humility.
Do you know such a man? It matters little to me whether he is a layman, a small-church pastor, or a megachurch pastor. If he loves the Lord Jesus and has a passion for revival and renewal in our convention, accompanied by a firm commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture - please consider nominating him today.
April 01 2008 | SBC Issues | No Comments »
“No church has ever lost its tax exempt status.” Matthew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel.Â
 During  this current election cycle it is important to consider what we can and cannot do with regards to preaching and teaching on political issues and how that may effect the churches tax exempt status.Â
“Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Â
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Â
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS.
Although there is no requirement to do so, many
churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the
IRS because such recognition assures church leaders,
members, and contributors that the church is recognized
as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits.
For example, contributors to a church that has been
recognized as tax exempt would know that their contributions
generally are tax-deductible.”
Â
Â
Most people assume that churches are required to apply for a non-profit 501 (c)3 tax exempt status. However, according to the tax code churches have a special status and do not need to apply for tax exempt status. For the purposes of tax exemption to do so is redundant and unnecessary. There are other benefits of being incorporated but tax exempt status is not one of them.Â
Â
I would encourage every church member and Pastor to get the publication created and distributed by Matthew Staver founder of Liberty Counsel that delivers a wealth of information that debunks some myths about what churches can and cannot do in dealing with political issues and candidates.Â
www.libertycounsel.orgÂ
What you will discover is that a churches tax exempt status cannot be pulled from the church on a permanent basis. Since the exemption is automatic and does not rely on a letter of recognition from the IRS the automatic exemption applies to the church everyday. If the IRS attempts to pull the status from the church today, then tomorrow is a new day and the exemption begin a new. Not one church has ever lost its tax exempt status in the history of IRS oversight.
Â
Many churches apply for tax exempt status because they feel it is required. There have been approximately 5 churches that the IRS has pulled this letter of recognition from. However, since the tax status is automatic and does not require this application or letter of recognition their tax exempt status remains in tact.Â
Â
 In 1992 the church Pierce Creek in Binghamton NY  did lose its letter after placing a full page add in USA Today and in the Washington Times. In this add expressly endorsed Bill Clinton for President of the United States. As a result of this the IRS  approached the church in 2002 long after the election was over. The IRS wanted to know if this church would promise not to do this again. However the church wanted to poke its finger in the eye of the IRS and simply told them to go away and to leave us alone. The IRS then revoked the churches letter of tax exempt status. At this point the church filed suit, not to get back its tax exempt status (since a letter is not required for churches) but to retain its letter. This case ended up at the federal court of appeals. This court said that the IRS could take the letter from the church, but it could not take the tax exempt status. This federal court of appeals specifically said the church does not lose its tax exempt status even though it ran full page adds endorsing a political candidate in two national newspapers. The courts ruling was as follows: “Because of the churches unique tax exempt status the revocation of the letter is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.”
Â
 The federal government at the appellate court level recognizes that the churches tax exempt status is not to be lumped in with all other non-profit organizations. Its tax exempt status is outside of all others.
Â
Â
Barry Lynn with the organization Americans United For Separation of Church and State has sent out countless numbers of warning letters to churches threatening to turn you in for any perceived political activity by the church. And to date he has not been successful in getting one single church prosecuted. Not one. His organization has been and remains today a complete failure in their endeavors. So why would we listen to men and organizations like these who are acting erroneously and unsuccessfully? They are not to be listened to or feared.Â
Â
Preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ should preach boldly the message of a holy and righteous God. This requires that we speak to issues that are brought up in the product of campaigns. We should preach against the murder of unborn children, God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, we should preach against support of unbiblical religious and political positions. Let’s continue to proclaim the gospel with boldness.
Â
Â
“It is a poor sermon that gives no offense; that neither makes the hearer displeased with himself nor with the preacher”  ~George whitefield
Â
 “The only reason some of us are not exiled or thrown into prison is simply because we do not preach as fervently and as sternly as did Paul, John, Peter and others. This modern “santa claus” religion that is sweeping country today is not the religion Jesus taught and John practiced.” ~Oliver B. Greene
Â
January 22 2008 | Politics and SBC Issues | 1 Comment »
This article which can be found here is a no nonsense article that makes a relvent and concise point about the state of preaching today:
It’s been fun sparring with the atheists lately. I truly appreciate their blasts against God, Christ, Scripture and the church as they serve to shape up the intellectually flabby and spiritually indolent Christians who’re coasting through life picking lint out their navels instead of engaging our culture.
Therefore, muchas gracias mis hermanos del diablo.
Look, Christian, if it weren’t for the atheists busting our chops and asking us the tricky questions and bringing up the offensive aspects of Scripture, most of the church wouldn’t lift a manicured, uncalloused finger to investigate such topics and formulate a non-whacked answer to the gloves-off godless inquiries.
So, quit crying church, the atheists are good for you. Embrace them. They’ll put meat on your bones and hair on your chest, Nancy boy.
Frankly, the people who concern me—the ones I think are more malevolent than the obstreperous atheists—are the postmodern prevaricating pastors and priests who sidestep the stout aspects of Scripture because of the pressures of political correctness.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, brethren, but I’m pretty certain that Christ saved his most scathing invectives for the in-house boys who were ashamed of His person, works and word and who bowed to the crowd.
I was thunderstruck the other day at how far the church has moved away from preaching the raw gospel when I happened upon an old black and white Billy Graham crusade on the tube. It had to be at least 40 if not 50 year old footage.
Billy was in his prime. He was young, had dark wavy hair, and he was full of P&V. I’m thinking this is pretty cool. However, let’s check Graham out. Let’s see if he preaches Oprah verses Obadiah like a lot of postmodern therapeutic Tony Robbins wannabe ministers are doing in the pulpit today.
As you can imagine, Billy didn’t play. The man delivered the goods. He didn’t bee-bop and scat around the difficult sayings of Christ and the gospel. He clearly wasn’t on TV preaching to get rich, to sell his latest book, to be Christendom’s playmate of the month, nor to soul stroke an impenitent mob of vapid narcissists.
Graham simply stood up there with boldness and verve and delivered the gospel unapologetically. It was heaven or hell . . . turn or burn . . . that came rolling off Graham’s tongue. I was blown away by how non-PC Billy G was.
Here’s a list of what Graham touched on during his 40 minute sermon. You won’t hear this stuff talked about much anymore, especially by the TV and mega church ministers. Too costly. Too offensive. Matter of fact, why don’t you take this list to church with you this Sunday or have a copy handy next time you sit down to watch the next televangelist and see how many times they mention what the respected Graham did, namely . . .
• The holiness of God
• The fear of God
• Man’s innate depravity
• The heinousness of sin
• The wrath of God
• Our eventual death
• Our personal accountability to God
• Our pending eternal judgment
• The reality of Hell
• The commandment to repent from sin
• The death, burial and resurrection of Christ from the dead
• Faith in Christ being the only way to God
• The command to the repentant to radically obey Christ in all things
Graham hammered home all the above without an apology or some befuddled explanation. He didn’t attempt to dull down God’s holiness, lessen His terror, go easy on man’s sinfulness, throw water on God’s wrath, sweep everyone into heaven, or make Christ one of many ways to paradise. Nope, he was clear, convicting and convincing, and there was a marked silence in the crowd as he ministered. There was an incredible sense of awe. No, not awe. Awe is too tame. It was more like . . . let’s see . . . um . . . fear. Yeah, that’s it—fear. The fear of God.
Y’know it was interesting that Billy didn’t talk about . . .
• Your success
• Your prosperity
• Thinking positive thoughts
• Confessing positive things
• Your personal happiness
• Your purpose in life
• Your personal destiny
• Turning your dreams into reality
• Creating your future now
• How to be a super you
• Broadening your vision
• Developing a strong self-image
There was zilch, zero, zippo, nothing, nil, and nada about you-you-you. It was strangely Christocentric instead of anthropocentric. It was crazy.
If someone were to preach today what Billy Graham preached in that old video, he’d get tagged as an extremist or a hater as we have become so entrenched in the politically correct gospel of gooey goose bumps for impenitent altar tramps.
Face it gents, Scripture is offensive, and if you stand for the unprocessed and uncensored truth claims of the gospel you will be barbequed within our nation which has officially become nicer than Christ. Jesus himself promised it in John, remember?
“If you find the godless world is hating you, remember it got its start hating me. If you lived on the world’s terms, the world would love you as one of its own. But since I picked you to live on God’s terms and no longer on the world’s terms, the world is going to hate you. When that happens, remember this: Servants don’t get better treatment than their masters. If they beat on me, they will certainly beat on you. If they did what I told them, they will do what you tell them.†(John 15: 18-20, The Message)
Matter of fact, Jesus said, “you’re pretty much eternally screwed (woe to you!) when all men speak well of you and you’re the big cheese. That’s how they spoke of the false prophets who loved to tickle the ears of the licentious listener†(author’s translation).
As you can tell political correctness bugs me more than atheism. I appreciate, in all sincerity, the atheist’s attacks. They have served to bolster the church by pushing it back into sound doctrine and practice and away from superficiality and selfishness.
Pluralism and political correctness, on the other hand, continue to weaken the church by removing or vilifying the very hard and exclusive truth claims of Christ that can truly save and change a person and a nation both now and in eternity.
These truths, to be sure, are offensive to the selfish, but they happen to be the very thing which brings about real and lasting transformation. And that’s what we need: transformation. A radical 180 from the direction we’re going as a people and a country.
So my advice is twofold: First, let’s continue to wrangle with the atheists. They’re only helping things by rapping our knuckles. If we embrace their verbal mace we’ll come out as better believers. Secondly, seeing that PC-riddled Christianity is more dastardly than uncut atheism, why don’t we call to account ministers who have drifted from the whole counsel of God and have substituted it for a different gospel, a different spirit, and are preaching a different motivational-type-Deepak-Chopra-Kenny G-with-a-beard-guru kind of Jesus?
Yeah, that’s it. No matter how popular the pastor, no matter how much they grin, and no matter how much they love puppy dogs and candy canes, let’s challenge the PC priests of the new millennium to quit preaching half truths, psychobabble, trite clichés, cutesy sayings, sweet ditties and hackneyed aphorisms from their amputated Bibles.
Let’s press ‘em to just deliver sound doctrine, please. Nothing fancy. No gimmicks, por favor. Tell them that you’ll get your motivational stuff from Tony Robbins or Donald Trump and that you’d really, really appreciate them giving you the ungarnished gospel of God. Be patient, as some of these guys haven’t preached the gospel in so long they might have forgotten it. However, if after correction they don’t get back on track after a few months, I’d leave that “church†and find a church that’ll deliver the goods as Graham and other great preachers of old did back in the day.
November 05 2007 | Doctrines | 4 Comments »
I found this post from the Americna thinker interesting.
Last week, my hometown paper, The Atlanta Journal & Constitution, ran an online story entitled, “Clinton Pollster Predicts Defection of GOP Women.” Depending solely on his own “internal” polling, Mr. Mark Penn - Public Relations guru extraordinaire, and Hillary’s campaign strategist — says that a full 24% of Republican women will punch their ballots for Hillary based on the “emotional” appeal of electing the first woman President.
Clearly, Mr. Penn is either purposefully spinning or indulging in a rather perverted, nearly delusional form of magical thinking.  Â
We Republican women are far, far too smart to fall for Hillary Clinton’s ruse. We are not the mindless ninnies that vote with the Special-Interest Express. We think for ourselves and vote for the candidate of our choice based on merit. We cast our precious votes for the candidate we believe would be the best President, not the one with an “emotional” appeal aimed at our womanhood.
Mr. Mark Penn, I have read, is currently the worldwide CEO of one of the largest public relations firms in the world, Burson-Marsteller. He is also the president of his own polling firm, and is best known for his service to Bill Clinton as pollster and political adviser from 1996 through 1999. His chief talents seem to be polling and messaging, with special corporate expertise in image, branding and competitive marketing assignments. Wow; I’m impressed.Â
So, let me see if I have this straight: Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female President; it has been her lifelong ambition. When her popularity as First Lady (enhanced by Penn’s amazing PR prowess) was at its lowest ebb, the Monica-Gate scandal broke wide open. What to do? Ask Mark, of course; he’ll know.
Choices:
- Ditch the scumbag who had finally humiliated her not only in private, not only in Arkansas, not only in the inner circle, but on the front pages of newspapers around the entire globe?Â
- Or pretend to be utterly surprised by the devout husband’s infidelity, act positively shocked, wounded to the core, and then magnanimously forgive him in a “Christian” act of self-sacrifice?Â
Mr. Penn, no doubt, was on call around the clock with his crystal ball and gut feel on the whole of the electorate, giving Hillary just what she wanted most. Direction on how to play the part for her American audience and turn it to her advantage.
I’m betting it was Mark Penn who offered her his polling expertise, and she has played her scripted part with Bette-Davis acumen. Not to mention the side benefit of the You-Owe-Me-Now-Bubba card forever in the hip pocket of her pants suit.
But I think Mr. Penn has been hanging out with Democrat women nearly all of his life and maybe doesn’t know one whit about the female portion of the Republican Party. For all of his astounding political prowess, he probably thinks that women who think like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Janice Crouse, Melanie Morgan, Sandy Rios, et cetera, et cetera, are just very successful aberrations of a sort, and that the rest of us have done absolutely nothing all of our lives but stay home, bake cookies and let other people raise our children while we watch The View. (I personally don’t know any woman who has ever seen that show, but I hear they have some really great cat fights, and that occasionally one of the women even makes a coherent statement.)
Most of the women I know have spent a great portion of their lives — in addition to raising fine American citizens — doing volunteer work in our communities trying to put band aids on the myriad of social problems that have become epidemic in the wake of Democrat social policies. Unwed motherhood. Broken families. Absent mothers and fathers. Broken government schools. Sex education that teaches nothing but how to do a great imitation of an alley cat in heat.Â
These mostly Republican women are still trying to make sense out of a political Party that would so strenuously object to pornography filters on public library computer terminals, while exposing their seven year-olds to lessons in how to put on a condom. These “soccer moms” (a phrase coined by Mr. Penn) give hours each week to Crisis Pregnancy Centers that offer actual help to young girls whose boyfriends flunked the condom lessons, but got the alley-cat impersonations down perfectly. These conservative women are providing meals to homeless shelters and holiday celebrations and gifts for those in need. These women are a veritable army of soldiers on the front lines of social decay, fighting not with the empty rhetoric but with actual labor to right real wrongs.            Â
So, when Hillary Rodham Clinton wails about those in our midst who have been “invisible” to Republicans, we women stand, with our mouths agape and our consciousnesses fully raised, in utter incredulity. For “the smartest woman in the world,” she comes off as pretty darned dumb or blind. You pick.
From where we’re sitting, Mr. Penn, it looks like you and Hillary don’t get out of your little self-created bubble enough. We Republican women are  plum full of emotion every time we see Mrs. Clinton put on yet another female face for the cameras, but it isn’t the kind that you ever want to be with in a dark room alone.
October 31 2007 | Politics | No Comments »
And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other god’s before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.Exodus 20:1-6 God takes worship pretty seriously. Even the manner in which we are to partake in the Lord’s Supper is to be done in reverence. However the church today in America does not take it as seriously as God always has. What you hear today to excuse irreverence and self worship are phrases like ” God doesn’t care how you dress”, and “Whatever it takes to draw the lost into the church”. The first phrase originally had the intent to refrain from judging people who could not afford certain types of clothes to wear to church. The evolution of that phrase has produced an excuse to come to church in beach wear.Worship as intended by God is to be focused on Him and Him alone with no expectation of anything in return. But the church is drawing people in the doors by promising certain types of worship experiences. Worship of God can not include the expectation of an experience. That is looking to receive something and it is idolatrous. It is a focus on yourself and not on God. To many people are catering to the “What have you done for me lately” crowd. But we are to worship God in Spirit and truth and there is not any truth in that kind of worship. Our worship services have turned into attempts at evangelism using the latest psychology that is handed down through the newest fad.Sunday morning worship of God in His house is not an evangelism moment. We are not to focus on our experience, our needs, or the lost. We are to focus on God and God alone. Anything else is idolatry. As a result of this our services are weak and spiritless. Our churches have lost their Holy Ghost power, their influence in a lost and dying world, and are lifeless and dead. All the lighting and power point, all the methods and programs in the world cannot change the state of the church. Psychology has determined our methodology because doxology has replaced theology. The church hires Pastors through elaborate human resource processes rather than gets on her knees and prays and fasts to determine who God has sent to the church.The alters in our churches have become a place of disdain. It is a place of embarrassment and a place to be avoided. It is looked at as a place only for lost people and not for the Saints. But the worship service is for the saints and not for the lost. As is the alter. The emptiness of our alters are a sign of the spiritual condition of our churches. And our spirits are just as dry and empty as our alters are. Our worship is exposed by the amount of time we spend on our knees.I see revival meeting after revival meeting but I have never seen an actual revival of men under the power of the Holy Ghost. The church sets meeting dates, makes all kinds of plans, invites speakers and singers, and everyone goes home just as they came. Unchanged. I am firmly convinced that we cannot schedule a revival of God. How arrogant are we to impose a schedule on God. What the church needs to do is to pray for revival and wait on Gods to bring it just as the disciples did in Acts 2. There are many men who call themselves preachers. There are many groups who call themselves churches. Heaven Help us to know the difference between a church and a crowd.
October 17 2007 | Doctrines | No Comments »
We live in a climate of success today that has permeated the church to its marrow. We have grabbed a hold of a theology that suggests that the move of God can always be seen, counted, & measured. We prop up our theology with phrases like ” If you are serving God faithfully as a Pastor the church will always grow in number.” “That is just the end result of faithful service.”
Exodus 13:19
And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry my bones away hence with you.
No one knows the name of the individuals or individual who carried those bones. And for forty years they traveled with those bones through the wilderness. An obscure service to say the least. How many men and women serve in our churches from day to day and from week to week with no recognition, no observation, and no fruit except a clean bathroom or a vacuumed sanctuary? How many Pastors have preached faithfully under the anointed Holy Ghost power year after year with little to no fruit except that he was obedient and faithful.
No one could see what God was doing when Rome conquered the world. But as a result of their rule the world was made safer to travel and share the gospel. Where is the success of all the Martyrs of God who was called by God to die at the hands of the enemy? Where is the success of Crystal Bernard who looked down the barrel of a gun in the library of Columbine High School and said,”Yes, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.” Where is the success of the weeping prophet who never had one convert?
There are two kinds of ministries, success drive ministries which focus on numbers. They want to see, count it, report it and brag on it. Then there is the service driven ministry. They want to serve God because they love Him even if they see no numbers that can be counted, reported, and bragged about.
Christ stood on the beach one day and told Peter to feed His sheep. This was a mandate from Christ to a Pastor. Paul wrote to a young Pastor to “Preach the Word!” No where in scripture is success driven ministry even elluded to. But as Pastors we are called to feed Christ’s sheep. I had to resign a position of youth pastor of a small church in central Florida because the membership had become increasingly hostile toward me. At the time of my arrival we had 12 -20 youth who came. On the best day the youth out numbered the adults. After several months of serving I was asked why I was not drawing more children into the program. At the earliest point of my arrival to that small country church it became quite apparent that the youth who was already attending had no heart for God. As the Associate Pastor with responsibilities over the youth my heart was broken over the clear lack of focus on God that prevailed throughtout the church. But my focus was on the youth. So I determined to spend my focus on their spiritual well being and focus less on bringing more into the church like them.
The church became increasingly hostile and distant from me and my family as I endeavored to feed Christ’s sheep. They wanted numbers that could be counted, reported, and bragged on. Since I was not ready to give them that the relationship became strained. I believe sometimes the focus on numbers is a means to ease our conscience about our poor relationship with God. Numbers are easy to get when you cater to the lost with gimmics, entertainment, and a watered down gospel that widens the path to life in a way that Christ will never allow. I am not against reporting on what God is doing. However the motive behind that reporting makes all the difference in the world.
Pastors are we feeding Christ’s sheep or are we just counting them?
October 16 2007 | Doctrines | No Comments »
In the most recent post by Wade Burleson entitles “What Christ Says About Christians and Lawsuits”  he makes a poor attempt to justify the current law suit by Sherri Klouda which has made the dispute quite public. What has also made the suit quite public was the willingness of Wade Burleson to speak to the Dallas Morning News in which he said “Sheri Klouda is not a pastor, she has not been ordained or licensed, she does not perform ministerial duties. She is a professor, for heaven’s sake”. I want to address his post point by point.Â
Mr. Burleson takes  issue with the following statement :
“I am unalterably convinced that a significant percent of those who listen on any given Sunday to your message, though they are church members, are in fact lost. I judge that based on much of the behavior of the church member. I cannot imagine a situation occurring among saved people where this one is taking that one to lawsuit in front of the pagan world”.                 Dr. Paige Patterson
The snippet was taken from a sermon preached by Dr. Patterson as part of the annual Mullin’s lecture held at Southern Theological Seminary What Preaching Ought To Be. I can say without reservation that I am in complete agreement with Dr. Patterson. I would encourage you to listen to the sermon as a whole rather than rely on a snippet of words. It has become fashionable to act like the lost world in our churches. The church has lost its power and influence because it fails to rely on God. The constant bickering in our churches and the desire to make these issues known to the lost world as a means to garner a larger group of support is not representative of a church of God, filled with the Spirit of God. It is however representative of the lost and hopeless world.
Next Mr. Burleson attempts to further justify ungodly lawsuits between Christians by stating “The courts have been appointed by God for the purpose of justice”. Here he makes the following statement “When Christians follow Matthew 18 and the offending party shuns or refuses to listen to the offense, or where there is not a church (or church court) to sit in judgment, then it seems that I Peter 2:12-17 comes into play”.It appears that even Mr. Burleson sees his position as weak. If I were absolutely convinced that I were standing on the truth of God’s word I would choose a more confident word than “seems”. However God addressed the things that seem right: There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12.It is a shame when men who claim to be called of God do not make more careful attempts to deliver God’s message with a more fearful heart. 1 Peter 2:13 is not in the context of Christian disagreements nor should we make attempts to apply it as such. It does not reflect the heart of God.
Next Mr. Burleson states: “There is biblical precedence to appeal to secular authorities when a religious people or a religious institution is poorly treating a Christian”. Here he makes use of Acts 22:25 where Paul states: “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”. Mr. Burleson gets this only half right. It can be said that Paul appealed to the secular Roman government, but it was not in the same way that Mr. Klouda is in the process of. When you start out with a presupposition and then go to scripture to find supporting evidence, your ability to discern scripture relies on your natural observation but lacks the supernatural observation that is needed to discover the heart of God.  Paul’s appeals were made in defense when he was brought before the Secular Government. The same secular government that he was forced to go before by the lost religious leaders. They may have been religious leaders but they were’nt Christian leaders. The comparison between acts 22:25 and any other law suit between Christians falls short of equality.
Mr. Burleson goes on to make his case with the idea that “In an ideal situation, as was the case in the first few centuries of Christianity, a church court would listen to the grievances between brothers and rule justly. But except in a few, rare situations in certain denominations, all church courts have since been abolished. This leaves only secular civil courts as the final appeal.”. I would argue that this is incorrect the church courts have not been abolished but are largely unused. the elders of the church are the church court and it is very seldom that it is taken advantage of. He goes on to present a commentary of 1 Cor 6:1-8 that describes this passage as being irrelevant because of a lack of available church courts today. He then goes on to suppose that it is now necessary to appeal to secular courts as a result of this. Even if his first assertion is true of church courts (of which it is not) it still does not lead to his second assertion, that we must then go on to appeal to the secular courts in disputes between Christians. In fact it is addressed in this passage. Verses 7 & 8 instruct us to allow ourselves to be defrauded rather than take our conflicts to civil courts.
In his continuing attempt to justify his incorrect position Mr. Burleson again applies scripture inappropriately by making use of Matt 5:25,26. His conclusion of it was this: “Jesus Christ gives specific instructions regarding lawsuits and He says that those sued should make things right quickly IF they have done wrong. Notice, Jesus pronounces judgment upon the wrongdoer - but He makes no moral judgment regarding the person who sues the wrongdoer”. This is because the context was not about the one who sues. Not addressing the one who sued does not allow for Christians to sue one another. This is eisegesis and continues to lack the appropriate fear of God in delivering His heart to His people.
The unequal comparison Mr. Burleson makes after all of this continues his shameful attempt to justify his ungodly position. And Mr. Burleson would do well to read further in Matt 5 and study verse 40. This whole address in Mat 5 with regards to law suits actually destroys Mr. Burleson’s position. Christ is in effect teaching that we avoid court. And in verse 40 rather than allow yourself to go to the secular court beyond the Sanhedrin court you should settle the dispute and do so by giving more than is just and more than what is being requested. If they request a coat then give them your cloak also. But in all things avoid the court. We see in Mat 5 that even church courts seemed to not be enough to some and the matter would then be taken to a secular court. Christ said do not do this at all costs. Mr. Burleson and Mrs. Klouda are willing to go to a secular court and be judged by the lost, who have no heart for the things of God.
Co 6:2-5 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame.
Â
September 27 2007 | SBC Issues | 2 Comments »
Exodus 19:5,6
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.Â
 It appears there is a rather large misconception as to what this doctrine is. I see and hear arguments more and more that it refers to Christian liberty. While it is a number of things Christian liberty is not related to this doctrine. It is being used today to espouse a teaching that scripture can only be interpreted through a communal process. And yet scripture never suggests that Christians must come together as a group to discover God’s intended meaning in His words. When Paul wrote to young Timothy he said “I charge thee therefore before God….Preach the word!”. The man of God is to take the word of God, filled with the Spirit of God, and deliver His messager as the Angel of God. (Rev 2:1)
This doctrine was established long ago among the OT Saints. Its stated purpose was to make known the responsibilites of God’s “called out” people toward Him and Him alone. Anyone who looks at this doctrine and asserts some form of Christian liberty is engaging in eisegesis that results in a twisting of scipture that allows fro all kinds of erroneous interpretations, substandard doctrines, and a distraction that pulls the minds of men away from the heart of God.
I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, this simply means we are consecrated by God to do His will, a royal, this denotes our realtionship to God. God is the King of all Kings and the Lord of all Lords and we are born from Him, priesthood, this establishes our responsibility to God not our freedom in our walk with God. It does not speak to our freedom to interpret scripture as a group or as an individual. It does not speak to who is in charge in the church. This portion of this scripture speaks to our sacredotal responsibility toward God. It is all about worship, a holy nation, the word holy speaks to the position in Christ. It signifies our redemption by His blood. Nation speaks to our being separated from this world, we are foriegn and not residents, a peculiar people, we are a people above all people who have a special place in the heart of God, we are redeemed the lost are not, we have a relationship with God, the lost do not, we will spend eternity with God, the lost will not, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light:, here in lies our roll and calling as a member of the fraternity of the Preisthood of Believers. This doctrine is bout our responsibility toward God and does not speak to our liberty.
We have many who spend way to much time worrying about freedom. This is not the Spirit of God. What we need to focus on is our responsibilty toward God. Paul’s words have been used to prop up an ungodly agenda. The convention recently made a change to the statement on this doctrine. Apparently many think adding an “s” to believer will clarify the reality of the intent of this doctrine. Some are using such to prop up a theory that God leads the church through the church congregation. Some use it to prop up the ungodly notion that scripture must be interpreted in a group rather than have it expounded to them from a pulpit. Niether is correct. Both are in error. The church is in rebellion
September 22 2007 | Doctrines | No Comments »
Next »