Posts

Hardcharger

hardchargersIn the USMC, “hardcharger” was a term you used to describe someone who was motivated. They were constantly striving for excellence and all the while being the kind of person you wanted to either work with or work for.

They had an energy about them that got you fired up. You enjoyed just being in the same room with them because of the way they effected the disposition of those within the sphere of their influence.

I came across several “hardchargers” during my nine years in the Corps. Master Sergeant “Top” Harris was a Vietnam vet with two purple hearts. Catalog Marine. When he gave the command, you snapped to attention and there was a part of you that took pride in working for an individual that had earned the right to light you up based on his combat record as well as his personal example.

Sergeant Major McGuirk was another Vietnam war vet. Personal decorations that extended to his collar bone. What made him so memorable was his perpetually cheerful demeanor. I remember standing outside as he came by and said, “Morning, Marines! Hope you’re doing good. Terrible day to be pissed off…!”

Then there was Sergeant Major Kellogg. He had earned the Medal of Honor as a Sergeant by using his body to shield his squad from the blast of a grenade. Although he was enlisted, you still saluted him as is the case with all Medal of Honor winners. What made his situation especially inspiring is that he was the only Sergeant Major in USMC history beside Dan Daly that had won our nation’s highest honor. I still get chills as I recall “sticking” my salute as his car drove by.

And there were others. Top Mike, Petty Office Dunaway, Major Croswell, Gunnery Sergeant Burd. And it’s not limited to the military. “Hardchargers” are everywhere, but while they’re not exclusive to any one walk of life, they’re not especially common.

You have to wired in a special way. It’s not something that can be quantified entirely, but the one characteristic that is consistently present is passion. It has to be complimented with a sense of humility and integrity. There also has to be an authentic commitment to the welfare of others, but “passion” is the underlying quality that gets your attention and makes you want to listen. The other virtues will “keep” your attention, but what initially gets you in a place where you’re positioned to be influenced and enriched is the sense of excitement these people bring to the table.

Pause of a minute.

In the early 1900’s, the percentage of boys aged 12-18 who chose to dismiss church as an unnecessary and irrelevant practice was 60-80 percent. 1 It seems that contemporary Christianity has always been challenged when it comes to presenting a relationship with Christ as being practical and not just profound. As a result, Christianity becomes regulated to something either academic or mystical – either way it’s processed as a three hour chore to be performed every Sunday as opposed to an every day paradigm that translates to an ever increasing collection of advantages over those things that would otherwise have you existing rather than truly living.

When you take a look at Christ as He truly was and is, you have the Ultimate Hardcharger. Don’t hear that as a segue into something “theological.” I have no trouble processing my Savior as as Personality worthy of my respect and admiration as well as my reverence. Go with me…

I aspire to individuals who carry themselves well. Theirs is a physical bearing that communicates an appreciation for discipline and a familiarity with hard work. In the Marines we were taught to speak with a command tone to your voice when tasked with directing others and you were to always lead by example. “JJ DID TIE BUCKLE.” Leadership Traits: Justice, Judgement, Decisiveness, Integrity, Dependability, Tact, Initiative, Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, Endurance. Jesus had all of that.

And while the common “picture” of Christ is a frail, blue-eyed whisper of a man, it’s laughable when you try to reconcile that image with 30 years of hard, physical labor as a carpenter and the capacity to endure six hours on the cross before passing away – and that after being beaten and flogged. I’m not trying to suggest that Jesus was an action hero or a fitness model. What I am trying to do is strip away the tradition that insists on a Christ figure with perfect skin, a delicate bone structure and a voice perpetually accompanied with soft singing and a professional string ensemble.

Is the physical appearance of Jesus an issue? No. It’s His Identity and His Message that needs to be the focus (Is 53:2-3). But while there was nothing majestic about His look to the point where people were inclined to conclude He was Divine, that’s not our cue to assume a lack of discipline (gluttony [Dt 21:20; Prov 23:21]) or a pasty physique (sluggard [Prov 21:25; 24:30-34]). Look at Christ as He’s playing with the kids (Lk 18:16) but don’t try to “edit” Him when He’s driving out the money changers in the Temple (Jn 2:12-25). Hear the approachable nature in His Voice as He’s delivering the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-10), but hear His Authority when He refers to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers (Matt 12:34).

Bottom line: Recognize that every admirable trait you could possibly appreciate in someone you look up to was authored by God. And when we’re commanded to imitate God (Eph 5:1), we’re being admonished to be “hardchargers.” Think about it! The Fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the attributes of godly wisdom (Jas 3:17) – those are the foundational attributes that qualify an action as truly heroic. Those are the characteristics that certify one’s actions as virtuous and not just commendable. The Leadership Traits encouraged by the Marines? When the wisdom you’re deploying has as it’s philosophical starting point a fear of God (Prov 9:10), everyone of those traits is manifested in its purest and most effective form.

The term “Christian Solider” is often used to describe someone who is putting points on the board more so in terms of theological values than practical gains. And that’s part of why society sometimes has a quizzical look on their face when confronted with someone who excels in the marketplace and is also born again. But that shouldn’t be the case. God never restricted His Resources for tragedies and crisis situations only, nor was His Lordship designed to be one file folder among many. Rather, He’s the Filing Cabinet and the whole of life is to processed from a position of Divine strength and a sanctified sense of Purpose (Is 41:10; Phil 2:13).

That’s the quintessential hardcharger, right there!

Bring it!

 

1. Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity, First Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003), Kindle edition.

James Harrison Ain’t Sorry

635754285577940443-sws38-harrison-0526I like it when I see guys pushing back against what’s either politically correct or just plain wrong, even when it’s easier and more appropriate from a cultural standpoint to simply go with the flow.

I don’t know that much about James Harrison, other than the fact that he was recently called out of retirement to help out with the Pittsburgh Steelers’ defense. He’s been getting some press recently because of his having returned his two sons’ participation trophies, insisting that a trophy should be awarded for something noteworthy and not for simply participating in an activity.

Here’s what he put on Instagram:

I came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing, participation trophies! While I am very proud of my boys for everything they do and will encourage them till the day I die, these trophies will be given back until they EARN a real trophy. I’m sorry I’m not sorry for believing that everything in life should be earned and I’m not about to raise two boys to be men by making them believe that they are entitled to something just because they tried their best…cause sometimes your best is not enough, and that should drive you to want to do better…not cry and whine until somebody gives you something to shut u up and keep you happy.

I don’t know where James is coming from spiritually, but what he’s saying “preaches.” It’s one thing to encourage someone, it’s another to honor them for something that’s not especially noteworthy.

When King David resolved to worship God in a way that was befitting the One he sought to honor, he was given the option of offering to God something he had been given free of charge. David refused saying, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering  that costs me nothing.” (1 Chron 21:24). In other words, I’m going to do more than just show up. I’m going to present something that represents a legitimate effort and resonates as “excellent.” I will not expect my King to be satisfied with a token presence and a nominal sacrifice.

What I hear James Harrison saying is the same thing I hear King David saying: There is no substitute for quality. Sacrifice and discipline are the bedrocks upon which noteworthy accomplishments are built and you can’t substitute either one of those with either an expedited process or …

… a trophy.

Doing your best and falling short hurts. But a lot of times, it’s that pain that inspires you to train harder, to study more and to go farther than you would otherwise. Anyone can attend, many people “give,” but it’s those who sacrifice and work beyond their best effort that truly succeed, both in the eyes of man and in the eyes of God (Prov 22:29; Col 3:23).

That’s the kind of thing that’s worthy of a trophy. I’m glad James Harrison ain’t sorry! A person shouldn’t be sorry for reserving awards for those who are truly deserving.

The Good Parts – Part I

glass_bibleReading the Bible is always a good thing to do because of the way it translates to several benefits that are nothing short of significant. Bottom line: The more you know God’s Word, the more you situate yourself in a position of strength when it comes to living your life.

Today we’re going to look at the Bible and show you “how” to read it so you can better appreciate what it is you’re holding when it’s God Word that you have in your hands.

II) The Benefits

Why would you “want” to read the Bible? How does studying God’s Word translate to something practically advantageous?

     A)   20,000 Feet

          1) Temporary

To access this content as a downloadable lesson guide with listening sheet, click here.

As a human being, I’m inclined to view myself and the world around me according to what I can control and anticipate. The problem with that paradigm is that everything I use to either manipulate my status or validate my accomplishments will either die, quit or change at some point. In other words, it’s temporary. Ultimately, I need and want something durable upon which to base my existence and sense of success (Ps 27:5; Matt 7:24-27).

          2) Limited

Secondly, I can’t perceive what’s beyond the immediate future. I want access to a Resource that can guide my steps according to, not only what I can see right in front of me, but also what’s coming down the pike (Prov 16:9; 27:1; Matt 6:34; Jas 1:5; 4:14).

In short, I want a vantage point that places me above the fray. I want to be at a cruising altitude of 20,000 feet as opposed to being in the mud where I can do nothing other than react. I want to see things as they truly are and not just how they appear to be and to do that, I need the Perspective of my Heavenly Father.

      B) Not Just a Divine Emergency Kit

Oftentimes, Scripture is perceived as a Divine Emergency Kit – the kind of thing you keep handy if you find yourself in a difficult situation, but not before.

That’s  garbage.

You want to stay on top of your spiritual game so you can:

• Hit a Grand Slam and not just get on base (Josh 1:8)
• Make a difference and not just an appearance (Eph 5:15)
• Succeed in all areas of my life (Jn 10:10)
• Be  wise and not just “smart” (Prov 9:10; 14:12)
• Live and not just exist (Matt 6:19)

In other words, I don’t want to settle for anything less than the absolute best. And it’s not so much that Christ is going to help me get to where I want to be, as much as it’s me constantly reaching for what God would have me become (Phil 3:14).

Fact is, God’s got a plan that’s uniquely tailored for me (Jer 29:11; Phil 2:13). The success I long for – the sense of fulfillment I seek – is bound up entirely in the accomplishment of God’s Purpose in my life (Jn 4:31-34). It’s that Purpose that I’m targeting and the only way I’m going to see that accomplished in my life is if I’ve got my ear to the ground and I’m listening for the direction that’s coming from my King (Ps 119:9, 11; Jas 1:5).

     C) Standard Features

Psalm 19 outlines several things about God’s Word that resonate as genuinely appealing, especially after having looked at the kind of perspective and focus I want for my life:

“making wise the simple…” (19:7)

“joy to the heart…” (19:8)

“light to the eyes…” (19:8)

“your servant is warned…” (19:11)

III) The Good Parts

Some parts of the Bible are easier to read than others. That doesn’t mean that some sections can be dismissed as much as it means that some sections require more than just a casual glance in order to understand what’s being said and why it’s important.

As a “primer,” here’s a quick guide that will direct you to some of the more well-known stories. This will get you started. Ultimately, you’ll want a Study Bible so you’ll have access to the kind of background info that allows some of the more complex portions of Scripture to make sense.

Enjoy!

Old Testament – Pentateuch
Creation and the Fall of Man Gen 1-3
Noah and the Flood Gen 6-8
Isaac Gen 21-22
Jacob and Esau Gen 27-33
Joseph  Gen 37, 39-46
Moses (from his birth to the Exodus) Ex 1-14
Exploration of the Promised Land (Caleb and Joshua) Num 13-14
The Bronze Snake Num 21:4-9
Talking Donkey Num 22:21-41
A Huge Bed Dt 3:1-11
Greatest Commandment  Dt 6:5
The Death of Moses Dt 34

 

My Bride

MarriageLicense_webWhen I’m in my car, I like listening to either music or comedy. On occasion, I’ll listen to a podcast of some sort, but generally speaking, I usually want to either groove or laugh.

A lot of the comedians I listen to will poke fun at domesticity – specifically the dynamic that often exists between a man and his wife. For the most part, it’s hysterical. But every now and then, I’ll get a little uncomfortable at the way marriage is portrayed as an institution that robs a man of his masculinity.

The schtick usually revolves around the way a man is prohibited from doing what he wants to do. It may be something trivial or it may be something significant, but in either case the wife is portrayed as an obstacle to her husband’s preferences in terms of how he wants to spend his time and even the way he thinks.

It’s funny because there isn’t a married man who can’t identify with the task of having to occasionally alter his perspective on himself and the world around him in order to preserve the harmony that exists between himself and his bride. But does that qualify as a surrender of one’s hold on what it means to be a “man?”

I don’t think so.

When I took my vows, I promised to honor Michelle. To honor her, I’ve got to be both willing and able to make her perspective a priority. That’s not difficult for a man who’s secure in himself, but it’s a potential dealbreaker to the male who’s determined to remain fundamentally prideful and self absorbed.

That’s not to say my wife is always right, but I will say that I have benefited from my bride’s viewpoint on multiple occasions. I may not have been open to it initially, but because I had been taught that true strength is expressed in the context of humility and a willingness to listen, my situation as well as our collective dynamic, was dramatically improved (Phil 2:3-4).

Much of the literature that’s out there that pertains to leadership emphasizes the importance of character and leading by example. Nowhere is that more important than in the way a man leads his family, which starts with the relationship he has with his wife. There’s no other person on the planet who possesses a more comprehensive view on my strengths as well as those areas where there’s room for improvement than Michelle. In the same way, there’s no other human being that can breathe life into me as profoundly as she can. The reason she has such complete access to me is because I love her and the reason I listen to her, even when I may be inclined to dismiss what she has to say, is because I choose to honor her above myself.

That’s not a compromise of my masculinity, that’s an expression of it.

 

But Look How Much They Care for One Another…

coupleIt’s interesting to pop the hood on those relationships that are, by definition, contrary to the way God has set things up. For example, two people who live together, but are not married. Or, an extramarital affair or even a same sex marriage. There’s a tendency to bestow an element of honor on those relationships based on the way the couple in question appears to genuinely care for one another. But is that an accurate response? Is it healthy to, in some ways, minimize the fact that every one of those scenarios is frowned on by God, based on the way the parties that are involved seem genuinely committed to one another’s welfare and happiness?

No. And I’ll tell you why.

Everything about the aforementioned relationships is based on a resolve to rebel against the “good” that God has put in place. If you love somebody, you’re not going to put them in a position that invites the consequences of disobedience. If you insist on compromising them, it’s not their welfare that you’re looking to protect as much as it’s your determination to rebel that you’re wanting to promote.

There are those out there who will raise their voices in an anthem of praise and affirmation for those who choose a path that is characterized by pain, ruin and despair (Phil 3:19). If in any way, shape or form you affirm an individual who’s engaged in a condemned relationship, you’re inevitably contributing to the agenda that seeks diminish the substance of what each of those scenarios represent: Rebellion. And those stories never have a happy ending.

An adulterer who cares for his mistress, a homosexual couple holding hands or a guy and his girlfriend saving money so they can buy a couch for their apartment – it’s not that they care for each other as much as they’re determined to live out a selfish resolve to replace God’s Word with their own law.

And that doesn’t work…

Maundy Thursday | Part II

h2_leon_1I) Intro

“The Last Supper” is one of the world’s most famous paintings. Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned by Lodovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan in 1495 to create, what is now considered, a legendary work of art. Today, the painting resides in the dining hall at the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. At the time, however, it was Sforza’s family mausoleum.1

 The painting measures 28 feet long and is 15 feet high. While it took three years to complete, it has been admired and studied for centuries. 

Da Vinci chose to depict the apostles’ reaction to Christ’s statement that one of them would betray Him. He does an amazing job of portraying a number of emotional reactions which can be seen in the faces of every one of the disciples, all of whom are grouped in threes.

While there are obviously no captions on the painting to reveal which disciple is which. Notes penned by Da Vinci himself have been discovered that reveal who’s who.2  If you take a look at the restored version of Davinci’s work crafted by Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli below, you can better decipher which disciple is which by using the key to the left.

The-Last-Supper-Restored-Da-Vinci

The Last Supper, ca. 1520, by Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli, called Giampietrino (active 1508-1549), after Leonardo da Vinci, oil on canvas, currently in the collection of The Royal Academy of Arts, London; an accurate, full-scale copy that was the main source for the twenty-year restoration of the original (1978-1998). It includes several lost details such as Christ’s feet and the salt cellar spilled by Judas. Giampietrino is thought to have worked closely with Leonardo when he was in Milan.

1. Bartholomew
2. James, son of Alphaeus
3. Andrew
4. Judas Iscariot (Notice how he’s clutching what appears to be a money bag. He is also tipping over the salt cellar. This may be related to the near-Eastern expression to “betray the salt” meaning to betray one’s Master. He is the only person to have his elbow on the table and his head is also horizontally the lowest of anyone in the painting.)3
5 Peter
6. John
7. Thomas
8. James the Greater
9. Philip
10. Matthew
11. Jude Thaddeus
12. Simon the Zealot

When you pull back and pop the hood on all that happened that night, it’s evident that Jesus had a lot on His plate. There wasn’t anything haphazard about all that occurred, however. Ever since God’s initial conversation with Moses, where He laid out all that needed to be done for the Passover Meal, it was this particular evening that God had in His mind where everything would be brought together in a way that pointed to His Solution for man’s sin. In a way, you could say that Jesus had a Divine script before Him that outlined everything that needed to be done in order for His death and resurrection to resonate the way that it needed to. It wasn’t just about positioning Himself as a martyr, it was doing so in a way that was consistent with the Truth and the prophecies that gave context to what was about to happen.

II) Divine Documentation

It’s nothing short of phenomenal when you really study God’s Word and see all of the symbolism and the manner in which all of these Scriptural “threads” are woven together in a way that results in something profoundly supernatural.

Ravi Zacharias is Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), which celebrated its thirtieth anniversary in 2014. Dr. Zacharias has spoken all over the world for 42 years in scores of universities, notably Harvard, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the president’s cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. At the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders held in Mozambique.4

On a podcast entitled “Created for Significance, Part 2,” he explains how the existentialist lives for the moment, the utopian is always looking to the future and the Hebrew focuses on the events and the traditions of the past.

Given those dynamics, look at how Jesus addresses the present, past and future in the space of two sentences:

25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:25)

  •  “For whenever you drink this cup” – present
  • “…the Lord’s death” – past
  • “…until he comes” – future

When you really study the Bible as Divine documentation, it’s amazing what you discover in terms of 66 books all culminating into a rich, cohesive whole. 66 books written over 1,500 years all pointing to one central theme: the redemption of man.

Professor M. Montiero-Williams, former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books and said in comparing them with the Bible: “Pile them, if you will on the left side of your study table; but place your own Holy Bible on the right side – all by itself, all alone – and with a wide gap between them. For,…there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly, and forever…a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought.”5

III) Spiritual Propaganda –  Doubting the Credibility of Scripture

Some want to doubt the credibility of Scripture. Generally speaking, the hesitancy comes from one of two ideas that the Bible was compiled by strategically collecting a series of antique texts that happened to corroborate with the spiritual propaganda they wanted to promote. The other statement that you hear fairly often is that the Bible is “filled with errors” and is thus unreliable.

     A) The Old Testament

Here are some things to consider: First of all, the Old Testament is a series of carefully guarded texts, most of which come from people who had direct contact with God. Their credentials, as far as having had contact with God, coupled with the accuracy of their prophecies, make it very difficult, even for the most aggressive cynic, to doubt their integrity.

For example, the Pentateuch – the first five books of the Old Testament authored by Moses. These books document the activity of God, the Law of God and the words of God all written by someone who had direct contact with God.  Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Jonah – while they didn’t converse as frequently with God face to face, they nevertheless interacted directly with their King.

Most of the minor prophets present their content in the context of visions and oracles. In other words, God dictated to them what they were to proclaim through an experience similar to a dream. Though that may seem somewhat subjective, again, the accuracy of their visions from a historical perspective certifies their content as more than credible.

          1) Dead Sea Scrolls

While the notion that the OT should be perceived as reliable due to the supernatural conversations / interactions the writers had with God may resonate as logical, that doesn’t address the possibility that the original writings may have been changed and corrupted over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls was an archeological find that effectively puts those fears to rest.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a series of some 40,000 inscribed fragments from which over 500 books have been reconstructed, Among these reconstructed books is the majority of the Old Testament.6 What made the find so significant is prior to their discovery, the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament that was available at the time was from 900 AD on. The Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the book of Isaiah, was dated 125 AD making it over 1,000 years older than any manuscript we had previously possessed.

The number of extant Old Testament MSS is fairly limited. That’s not to say what we have isn’t sufficient enough to be certain that what we have in our hands today is an accurate rendering of the original text, but it’s the fact that we don’t have thousands of original copies that made the Dead Sea Scrolls such a significant find. When you’re able to take a document that was originally written in 900 A.D. and compare it to another rendering of the same text that was done 1,025 years beforehand (Dead Sea Scrolls were dated 125 B.C.) and determine that the texts are virtually identical, you have more than adequate justification to feel confident that your Bible is, in fact, the Word of God!

When comparing the manuscripts from 900 AD to the scrolls date 125 AD, the accuracy and consistency was nothing short of stunning. For example…

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word “light,” which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX and IQ Is. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission – and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage (LXX refers to the Septuagint and IQ Is is the Isaiah scroll found in the first cave at Qumran, the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). 7

Given the consistency of the texts, to doubt the overall credibility of the Bible is to adopt a prospective based on a nonsensical cynicism more so than an objective analysis.

     B) The New Testament – the Bibliographical Test

The New Testament is just as solid. In this case, you’re not having to reach back as far in order to examine the accuracy of the original manuscripts and the number of original MSS is significantly more.

When seeking to verify the integrity of an ancient manuscript, two things are considered:

  • how many original copies do we have
  • how many years have lapsed the original document and the first copy

These two dynamics combine to form what is referred to as the “Bibliographic Test” and is used to evaluate the authenticity of  ancient texts.

Compared to the New Testament, Homer’s Iliad is the most credible, based on the above criteria. Take a look at how the two compare:

Bibliographical Test – New Testament Compared to Homer’s Iliad
work when written earliest copy time span number of copies
Home (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643
New Testament 40 – 100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years over 24,000

The strength of the New Testament is nothing short of substantial. When comparing one copy to another, the variations that exist are minimal. Josh McDowell, in his book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” writes:

That textual variations do not endanger doctrine is emphatically stated by Sir Frederic Kenyon (one of the great authorities in the field of New Testament textual criticism): “One word of warning already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading…

It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially in this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one of other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.

Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.8

So, from the standpoint of consistency, as far the copy of the Bible that we have in our possession today being the same as what was originally dictated by God and documented by the writers He spoke through, we have an intellectually solid justification for concluding that we have an accurate copy of the original.

     C) The Canon

So, we’ve got an authentic collection of antique texts. But how were those texts assembled and was there conflicting literature that was strategically omitted in order to preserve a line of thought that was more of a human campaign than it was a Divine revelation?

Bottom line: No. The “canon” of Scripture was not assembled according to a template that accommodated preferences as much as it insisted on authenticity.

          1) The Old Testament

The manner in which the Old Testament was compiled is best explained by simply considering the Jewish people. As God worked in their midst through events and specific personalities, His Activity and Counsel was documented. The resulting literature was not a collection of commentaries as much as it was a record of what God said and what God did. It was not a subjective account manufactured by a panel of like minded spectators. It was an exclusive collection of individuals, each of whom had been specifically tasked to lead, speak and teach with the Authority that had been given to them by God.

Anyone that qualified as a “man of God” was not perceived as such because of their charisma or academic credentials. They were recognized as prophets because of the way in which they presented their platform under the heading of “thus saith the Lord.” You could conceivably pose as a prophet, but the consequences of falsely presenting yourself as a messenger of God were lethal (Dt 13:15). Only an obvious fulfillment of the prophecies you proclaimed could validate you as authentic (Dt 18:21-22). Hence, true prophets were easily identified and the content they disseminated as being Divinely Inspired was readily accepted.

In A.D. 70, a council of Jewish religious leaders congregated in Jamnia to discuss the canonization of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon and the book of Esther. Some want to point to this conference as an example of a subjective human element being used to establish the content of Scripture. Thing is, these books hardly constitute the bulk of the Old Testament. Furthermore, these books weren’t disputed as much as they merited discussion for a variety of reasons – one of which is the book of Esther doesn’t mention the Name of God even once. This quartet of unique texts would be recognized as canonical and the discussions that took place were documented, thus providing evidence for future generations that not only were these books recognized as Scripture, but the majority of the Old Testament at the time of Christ and before had been established and embraced unreservedly.

          2) The New Testament

The criteria used to define a particular New Testament book as worthy of being included in the Canon was similar to the attributes that were considered where the Old Testament was concerned. Namely, apostolic authority. Did the writer interact with Jesus himself, or did the writer have the approval of one who did? Given that kind of filter, the field is narrowed considerably.

The early church was staffed by the apostles. This was not due to a lack of qualified personnel or a knee jerk reaction to the departure of Jesus. This is the way Christ had set it up. For three years, Jesus had taught and led these men so they could accurately and effectively promulgate the gospel. In John 16:13, He explains how the Holy Spirit would guide them and you see that Authoritative Guidance in Acts 2:42 where it says that the early believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Matthew, John and Peter were both apostles, having walked with Christ during His three year ministry. Paul was commissioned as an apostle by Jesus on the road to Damascus in the ninth chapter of Acts. Between those four individuals, you have the majority of the New Testament (Matthew, John, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1-2 Peter,  1-3 John and Revelation). In addition, you have the brothers of Jesus; James and Jude (the books that bear their names). These men do not promote themselves as apostles, but in  1 Cor 9:5 they are referenced alongside the apostles which implies an apostolic dynamic. The fact that Jesus appeared specifically to James (1 cor 15:7), along with the way in which Paul sought him out when he visited Jerusalem in the immediate aftermath of his conversion (Gal 1:19), makes it obvious that James possessed credentials that were recognized as apostolic (see also Gal 2:9). While there isn’t a specific biblical account of Jude having been visited by the risen Christ, 1 Cor 15:3-7 references a group of people referred to as “apostles” that are listed independently of the “Twelve.” Jude may have been a part of that group. The bottom line, however, is that both James and Jude had a unique relationship with Christ given the fact that they were all a part of the household of Joseph and Mary. They were both initially skeptical as to the Divine Identity of Christ (John 7:5), but were committed champions of His gospel after the resurrection. So while Jude is not mentioned as prominently as James, given the aforementioned realities and the content of his epistle, his book was embraced as canonical and was referenced as such by Clement of Rome in A.D. 96 and Clement of Alexandria in A.D. 200.9

Generally speaking, when the term “Apocrypha” surfaces, it’s usually in reference to the Old Testament additions that were made in 1546. In some instances, however, you’ll hear about the “New Testament Apocrypha” which applies to the literature that was being circulated between 65 and 170 A.D.. Books such as the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (A.D. 70-79), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 115-140) and the Acts of Paul and Thecla (A.D. 170) – these were some of the writings that concerned the Synod of Hippo. But as was the case in the past, when it came to clarifying what was biblical and what was not, there was no need to engage in lengthy, subjective discussions. Dismissing the notion that they were worthy of being considered inspired was an easy conclusion to make given their obvious lack of apostolic authority and subsequent want of Divine substance.

They Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 was a gathering of religious authorities whose purpose was, in part, to confirm the 27 books that comprised the New Testament as canonical. There wasn’t any doubt as to which books belonged and which did not, but it was nevertheless an appropriate step to take in order to reinforce the fact that in order for a book to qualify as Scripture, it had to be penned by an apostle or someone who represented an authenticated extension of that ministry. Some had attempted to sidestep that test of authenticity thus making it needful to clearly define the books of the New Testament. The thing that’s crucial about this meeting is that nothing new was established. They simply stated what was already understood as far as what books in the New Testament qualified as Scripture.

There’s a group of texts called the Apocrypha that were added to the Old Testament in 1546.10. The books in question had been in circulation for a while, having been written over a period of centuries dating as far back as 200 years before Christ (Judith) and 100 A.D. (Baruch). But while the books, in some cases, deal with biblical themes, they are sorely lacking when compared to their Scriptural counterparts in terms of authority and accuracy. Many Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period, as well as Luther and like minded reformers, rejected the Apocrypha. It was only at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent in 1546 that the Apocrypha was awarded canonicity by the Catholic leadership. Thing is, the Council of Trent was more about protecting the Catholic paradigm that it was upholding the Truth. The Reformation had brought to the surface inconsistencies that existed between what the pope was advocating and what Scripture proclaimed. Martin Luther lead the charge under the heading of “sola Scriptura, ” which means “Scripture alone.” He said “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.”11 Catholicism would not yield without a fight, however, and the Council of Trent was , in some ways, an attempt to reclaim the people and the reputation it had lost. But the Council appealed to tradition more so than Truth when attempting to defend its various practices. Thus, the adoption of the Apocrypha fails to resonate as an Inspired decision and is not included in the Protestant canon.

     D) The Bible is Full of Errors

Skeptics will sometimes justify their refusal to take the Bible seriously by insisting that it’s “full of errors.” The reason for their skepticism, however, is not based on a careful study of Scripture. Rather, it’s more often than not,  the perspective of a cynic that’s resolved to keep the Word of God at a distance in order to avoid having to perceive themselves in the light of its Truth.

That’s not to say there aren’t passages that are difficult to process and understand. The gospel writers sometimes describe the same scene differently to the point where critics insist that they contradict one another thus disqualifying the whole of Scripture as credible. But “differences” don’t necessarily equate to “contradictions” provided the elements that give each account an air of distinction don’t conflict with one another.

For example, when describing Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem in the context of his “triumphal entry,” Mark, Luke and John mention one donkey (Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15). Matthew 21:2 mentions two.  Take a look:

saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. (Matt 21:2)

Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)

Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. The “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,” says as much:

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.12

So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.

You can read about more examples of “difficult to understand” passages in another “Muscular Christianity” post entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The bottom line, however, is that the Bible is not flawed. Passages that are difficult to understand do not constitute reasons to doubt the accuracy of the text as much as they are cues to pop the hood on said passage and actually study it. Look at the original languages, consider the culture of the time, ponder the audience that’s being addressed. Deploy the approach of an investigative reporter, and do so in the context of a disposition that seeks to understand what happened, as opposed to a prejudiced perspective that questions whether it happened at all.

It’s interesting to watch the amount of academic dust that gets kicked up when educated critics of the Bible unleash the full fury of their sarcasm into the marketplace. Their credentials and the dogmatic tone of their rhetoric can come across as quite compelling as they dismiss the Authority of Scripture. Yet, on the other side of the aisle stands a formidable constituency of learned individuals who, while they don’t get the same amount of press, are nevertheless just as educated and just as forceful in their defense of God’s Word and the Christian perspective.

From a layman’s standpoint, it’s not always easy to sort out the weeds from the grass, but those who defend the integrity of Scripture inevitably win out because their defense is founded on a comprehensive analysis of the facts as opposed to their adversaries whose platform is characterized by a disposition that dismisses everything save that which is consistent with their intellectual preferences. In other words, of the information that exists to either verify or explain a particular passage of Scripture, the only facts they’re willing to admit into the dialogue are those that match their definition of what’s reasonable. The resulting exchange isn’t so much an objective evaluation of a biblical text as much as it’s an attempt of the part of the skeptic to overwhelm substance with sarcasm.

Dr. Gleason Archer is the author of the “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.” In the preface, he describes his inspiration for writhing the book and the experiences he draws from as he sets out to resolve the intellectual tension that some verses can create.

The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism. As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects. Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian. Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites. 13

He goes on to say that his faith has been validated and strengthened, rather than challenged and weakened as he’s tackled some of the more difficult- to-understand passages:

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information.14

When you step back and consider the intellectual strength of the man who is speaking, coupled with the hands on experience he’s had with a variety of archaeological  and literary artifacts, it’s virtually impossible to dismiss his content as a desperate attempt to protect a set of flawed convictions. What he brings to the table resonates as more than a mere “response.” Rather, it’s an objective platform as compelling as it is substantial – to the point where the criticisms leveled against the Word of God are quickly revealed as pathetic shadows that are effortlessly dispelled by the Light of God’s formidable Truth.

IV) Conclusion

George MacDonald was a Scottish minister as well as a prolific writer. He’s been cited as a major influence by authors such as C.S. Lewis (“The Chronicles of Narnia) and J.R. R. Tolkein (The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring). He once said, “To try and explain the truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”15

Some want to say that the Bible represents the quintessential example of circular reasoning. In other words, some will defend the Truth of Scripture by citing the Bible as its own witness. But Scripture is validated by history, archaeology, literature as well as the multitudes of changed lives over the centuries. It is not lacking for evidence, uniqueness, consistency or accuracy. As Professor Williams stated, there is a gulf between the Bible and every other book that’s ever been authored. It is, quite simply, the “words” of God.

The substance of Christ’s comments to His disciples at the Last Supper is but one example of the richness of Scripture. It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the entire Bible is God-breathed. It truly is. And the benefits that accompany obedience to God’s Word are as abundant as they are advantageous.

It’s true.

It’s God.

…and it’s only Thursday. Wait till you see what happens this weekend!

 

 

 

 

1. “The Last Supper”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo_da_Vinci), accessed May 12, 2015

2. Ibid

3. Ibid

4. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, http://rzim.org/about/ravi-zacharias, accessed June 2, 2015

5. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 15

6. “The Levon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library”, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls, accessed June 17, 2015

7. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 58

8. Ibid, p45

9. Although Jude had earlier rejected Jesus as Messiah (John 7:1-9), he, along with other half brothers of our Lord, was converted after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:14). Because of his relation to Jesus, his eyewitness knowledge of the resurrected Christ, and the content of his epistle, it was included in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170). The early questions about its canonicity also tend to support that it was written after 2 Peter. If Peter had quoted Jude, there would have been no question about canonicity, since Peter would thereby have given Jude apostolic confirmation. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 96) plus Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) also alluded to the authenticity of Jude. Its diminutive size and Jude’s quotations from uninspired writings account for any misplaced questions about its canonicity. (notes on the book of Jude [“The MacArthur Study Bible”, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2010, p1922])

10. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 36

11. “Sola scriptura”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura, accessed July 23, 2015

12. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334

13. Ibid, p12

14. Ibid, p15

15. George Macdonald, quoted by Ravi Zacharias

 

 

On Your Feet!

1006011-M-1549W-00I) Intro

In the military, when a commissioned officer walks into the room, you’ll hear the senior NCO call the room to attention. Oftentimes, the command will be as succinct as “On your feet!”

At that point, you’ll hear a rush of uniform commotion as everyone in that room quickly rises to their feet and snaps to attention. When it’s done right, there’s a sense of pride that wells up within you as a casual congregation of different personalities suddenly stands as polished military professionals while simultaneously shutting down and shutting out everything save the officer that’s just entered the room.

It’s awesome!

It also serves as a good way to visually capture the kind of disposition I want to advocate in the context of our discussion this morning.

          A) Sunday Morning –  On Top of Your Spiritual Game

When we meet to worship on Sunday mornings, I like that phrase “on your feet” as far as how it can apply to the way in which you want to be on top of your game spiritually in order to focus your attention and your energies in a way that’s befitting your King.

It says in the Old Testament:

Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. (Lev 19:30)

But I, by your great mercy, will come into your house; in reverence will I bow down toward your holy temple. (Psalm 5:7)

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong. (Ecc 5:1)

And then in Mark, chapter eleven:

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: “‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[a]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Mk 11:15-17)

You want to be “on your feet” every time you walk into God’s House. Being reverent is appropriate, given the fact that God merits a worshipful and respectful disposition. It’s also beneficial in that by being intentionally engaged, the Purpose, Peace and Power that is our King is legitimately accessed and not just casually acknowledged.

          B) A Lifestyle and Not Just a Weekly Appointment

Thing is, being diligent and at your best from a spiritual standpoint isn’t something you want to limit to Sunday morning. As believers, each one of us is a Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) 24 /7 and, as such, verses like 1 Peter 5:8 makes even more sense:

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1 Pet 5:8)

It’s a lifestyle and not just a weekly appointment. Nor is it a mere defensive play that you call when you see the offense getting ready to run you over. It’s a strategy that you have perpetually in place so you’re constantly moving the ball down the field (2 Cor 3:18).

That’s the thing, I believe, is lacking in many of the Christian circles that exist today. When Joshua was getting ready to take over for Moses, he didn’t have much of an opportunity to start in the shallow end of the pool. Joshua’s very first assignment was to cross the Jordan River at flood stage and then to make his way to Jericho where a strong city stood with a silent resolve to endure and triumph over the nation of Israel and their God.

Consider for a moment the Canaanites. These were combat hardened warriors that were as ruthless as they were decadent. Israel lives in tents. Jericho is a city surrounded by a wall of stone. From every perspective, on every level, the Israelites are outmatched, out gunned and out manned. But Joshua is nevertheless told no less than four times in chapter one to be strong and courageous.

Are you hearing that? Can you smell the desert sand? Can you hear the din of the Israelite nation around you? Can you feel the tension in the air as a new generation of Hebrews is preparing to embark on a military campaign built on their faith more so than their armory? And there’s Joshua, Moses’ right hand man, now in charge. No doubt, he’s terrified given the odds, the stakes and the hundreds of thousands of eyes that are now on him.

But when God says, “Have I not commanded you?” You can rest assured that regardless of how things appear, there’s a prize that’s not only worth taking, but a fight that’s already been won. And to Joshua’s credit, he caught that vision, he embraced that Reality and he went on to do great things in the Power of the One Who commissioned him.

You hear the same dynamic in the New Testament. The Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). Matthew 6:6 where God says not to worry about your life – what you’re going to eat or what you’re going to wear. Matthew 10 where it says not to worry about what you’re going to say when someone calls you on the carpet to defend what you believe and why. Philippians 4 where it says to not be anxious about anything.

Folks, there has never been a time where a victimized mentality was appropriate for the believer (1 Jn 4:4). Like Joshua, while it’s not always easy to “feel” confident, we’ve got every reason to “be” confident nevertheless (Is 41:10; Acts 4:23-31; Rom 8:28; Phil 2:13).

Yet, that confidence is in direct proportion to the degree of intensity with which we engage the Source of our confidence. Correctly handling the word of Truth is not something that happens by itself (2 Tim 2:15). Maintaining a perspective that positions God’s Sovereignty as the filter through which one processes themselves and the world around them requires discipline (Ps 121:1-2; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 9:24-27; 1 Pet 5:8). And being an effective witness and one that truly makes an impact mandates more than just a quick overview of Scripture – especially when it comes to the issue of “judging” and championing the idea of moral absolutes.

That’s why we’ve got to be “on our feet” at all times when it comes to being fit, spiritually. Not just for the sake of being able to effectively navigate our own lives, but also for the sake of being a compelling witness to those who are on the outside looking in.

          C) Salt and Light

Matthew 5:13-16 says:

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matt 5:13-16)

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was legal in all 50 states. I was in Vegas when I learned of their decision and it struck me with an even greater impact given the way in which Vegas can be so extravagant in the way it sometimes promotes perversion and decadence. Seeing the news broadcasted on a the side of a brilliantly lit skyscraper seemed both appropriate and telling given the way in which Vegas, to some extent, requires an amoral dynamic in order to prosper.

In some ways, though, it’s baffling. How can something so contrary to that which is logical and morally sound be embraced and celebrated as a personal right? It becomes even more convoluted when you have popular speakers within the Christian community supporting the decision, as though the Bible is either silent or presents homosexuality as agreeable to God.

Our mandate as believers is to be salt and light. We’re to be distinctive in a truly appealing way in order to inspire curiosity and admiration on the part of those who don’t know Christ. But that doesn’t happen if we’re either so casual in our faith that we can’t discern the difference between what’s acceptable to God and what isn’t, or so willing to believe that darkness and light can occupy the same spiritual space.

           D) Avoid All Extremes

This morning, we’re not going to be looking at homosexuality, per se. But we are going to be considering it in the context of how we need to get “on our feet” in terms of the way in which we champion the Truth of God’s Word. Is homosexuality wrong? Certainly. But what is it that represents a truly biblical response? Some would say that you simply embrace the sin in the name of Christian fellowship and refrain from “judging” them for their choice of a perverse lifestyle. On the other extreme, you have those whose words and actions repel those who might otherwise be open to hearing about God’s Love.

Ecclesiastes 7:18 says:

It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:18)

Proverbs 9:10 says:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)

          E) Make a Difference and Not Just an Appearance

We’re not here to make an appearance, we’re here to make a difference (Eph 2:10). That difference is made according to the extent we align our spiritual tires to the axle of God’s Truth and Power. He is our template and it’s His Word that constitutes the foundation upon which we build our convictions. And it’s in His Word that we find content that not only teaches us what to say, but how to say it as well. That’s part of the “balance” referred to in Ecclesiastes (see also Prov 25:11). That’s the “wisdom” in Proverbs 9:10. We can’t just run into a room and start blowing people away with biblical bullets all the while believing that because we’re using Scripture they should welcome our assault on what they believe is essential to their happiness.

This is more than just a controversial issue and the stakes go beyond legislative action. It’s not even the soul of our nation as much as it’s the heart of a culture that has drifted into a sea of question marks and is desperate for some exclamation points. If we’re going to be any help, we’ve got to get “on our feet” and do more than quote Christ, we’ve got to be Christ.

Buckle up!

II) John Adams on the Constitution

You’ve heard his name. John Adams. 2nd President of the United States. A position he secured after having served as two terms as Vice President under George Washington. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, America’s ambassador to France along with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and one of the chief architects of the Massachusetts Constitution which would go on to serve as the primary model for the United States Constitution.1

At one point, he said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”2

He’s right. A society that longs to distance themselves from any notion of a moral absolute should not be expected to create legislation that fosters godly behavior.

III) Is Homosexuality Sinful?

Is homosexuality sinful? Absolutely! It’s referenced both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In every scenario, it is referred to as a godless abomination and totally contrary to the created order. Period (see Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9-10).  For more reading on that subject, feel free to visit muscularchristianityonline.com.

By the way, I’ve written several articles about homosexuality, not because I’m especially fixated on that issue, as much as it’s because, in many ways, it’s one of the more visible topics that demonstrate the moral deterioration that results in a society where the Christian element allows itself to be become either more relaxed or seeks to be more isolated.

But, here’s the thing:

Neither of those two responses constitute legitimate options.

          A) Don’t Judge

Let’s pause for a moment and look at the way in which some within the Christian community processes the decadence that we sometimes encounter in our culture.

First of all, the Bible offers a comprehensive guide to addressing sin and helping both believers and non-believers better appreciate the compromises they’re making and the prize that they’re missing (Ps 19:12; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 9:24; Phil 3:14).

Some want to interpret Matthew 7:1-2 as a general admonishment to not be judgmental. That is a misinterpretation which is immediately revealed by considering other verses like Matt 18:15-17; Jn 5:24; Eph 5:11; 2 Tim 4:2. The text in Matthew 7 is saying you don’t ever want to try and correct someone when you’re guilty of the very thing you’re criticizing. Throughout Scripture we are commanded to be discerning, as far as identifying behavior that is contrary to God’s Word. But there’s a difference in the way you approach a believer versus a non-believer. Let’s take a look.

                    1) Non-Believers

First of all, non-believers are born into a no-win situation. They are / we were slaves to sin from the start and devoid of a spiritual pulse (Job 5:7; Ps 51:5; 58:3; Rom 6:17; Phil 3:19; 2 Pet 2:10-12). Again, this is who we were before we were redeemed (Eph 5:8; Col 1:21). We should never feel superior or more enlightened then our unsaved counterparts. Rather, it’s a cue to be all the more grateful to a God that was willing to pick us up and clean us off. It’s possible to “act” good, but “being” good is an entirely different matter and requires a Divine Solution. That’s the good news of the gospel and that’s the gift of grace. Prior to that, however, one’s moral compass isn’t founded on any Absolute save the one that resonates as the most advantageous at the time.

That’s part of the justification that some use when they say that we are to simply love those on the outside and not judge them according to their sinful lifestyle. Either they don’t know any better or lack the spiritual foundation that honors and embraces the reality and advantages of a moral Absolute. Either way, their disposition is such where they’re not going to respond to a presentation predicated on their “moral filth.”

That’s true and that’s consistent with the example of Christ that we’ll look at in a moment. But there’s a difference between focusing on a person’s heart – which in turn inspires their sinful lifestyle – and that situation where you’re advocating the idea that their lifestyle is not sinful.

Jesus never glossed over a person’s sin (Jn 4:17-18; 5:14; 8:11). He never even implied that their lives were devoid of anything that mandated the grace of God. But He didn’t need to. When He spoke to those people that are referenced in the aforementioned verses, the substance of His interaction with them was recognized as a potentially huge increase in their overall happiness and fulfillment. What they had done, in terms of their lifestyle, was neither a topic nor a distraction simply because one’s sin – regardless of what that sin may be – is a byproduct of the condition of one’s heart and their relationship with God. That is what Christ focused on. And those He spoke to knew that they were in the presence of the only One Who could facilitate the new life and the new heart they required. When one stands before Christ, your unworthiness is a given. But because of His grace, it’s a non-entity and the only thing that registers is the greatness of God and an intense desire to immerse yourself more in His Presence and Power.

But the one thing that represents a common denominator in each of these interactions is that those who were being addressed by Christ recognized their need for Christ. If you’re not willing to acknowledge yourself as a sinner, then you don’t need grace. That’s why it’s important to recognize that there is such a thing as wrongful behavior and that it’s ultimately defined in Scripture. To water it down or to muffle its voice is to minimize its utility. If I’m not a sinner, I don’t need a Savior. If there’s no need to repent, then I don’t need to be redeemed.

So, when interacting with someone who’s not born again, you want to present an approachable pathway to the grace of God by focusing on who they are (their heart) and not what they’ve done (their actions). That doesn’t mean you discount God’s verdict. What it does mean, is that you highlight God’s grace.

                     2) Believers

Believers, on the other hand, are handled a little differently. Unlike non-believers, they have the wisdom and the power to recognize temptation and rise above it (Jn 16:13; 1 Cor 10:13 Jas 1:5; 2 Pet 1:3; 1 Jn 4:4). Therefore, when they determine to rebel, they’re not doing so because they have no other option. Rather, they’re willfully turning their back on everything that God is saying and offering.

When they do this, Scripture says to “expel the wicked man from among you” (1 Cor 5:13). But the goal is restoration and not merely condemnation (2 Cor 2:5-11). You reprove to improve (Eph 5:11).

Some are very vocal with their criticisms as far as how the church will sometimes seemingly “kill their own.” If it’s done right, that won’t be the case. But it’s important to realize, too, that believers never fall into temptation, they have to jump. There is a sinister resolve in place that’s even more incriminating then their unsaved counterpart because of the Strength and the Truth that lives within them. To be that blatant in their disregard for the One they supposedly worship is a problem that needs to be addressed and not just observed.

It’s important also to remember that not everyone who claims to know Christ is, in fact, born again. Should a believer exhibit rebellious behavior with no sense of remorse and conviction, it could be that the lights aren’t on and that’s one more reason to be vigilant as far as inappropriate behavior within the church community (Matt 7:18; 1 Jn 3:6).

IV) The Example of Christ

Having looked at the Biblical Truths that apply to the reality of sin and the manner in which we want to approach either a believer or a non-believer that’s headed down the wrong road, let’s consider the conversation Jesus had with the woman at the well and look at the way He navigated that discussion.

First of all, ask yourself, “Do I like to be told that I’m wrong?” Of course you don’t! And if the subject has anything to do with what you equate to be crucial to your personal happiness and fulfilment, the conversation is that much more volatile.

If you want to bring something to the table that you know is contrary to the way the person you’re talking to is currently operating, you need to consider the example of Christ and the way He engaged those who were antagonistic to His Message.

When someone is telling you something you don’t agree with, you’re either thinking or saying, “No.” Now consider this:

The psychological patterns here are quite clear. When a person says “No” and really means it, he or she is doing far more than saying a word of two letters. The entire organism—glandular, nervous, muscular—gathers itself together into a condition of rejection. There is, usually in minute but sometimes in observable degree, a physical withdrawal or readiness for withdrawal. The whole neuromuscular system, in short, sets itself on guard against acceptance.3

When you’re saying “no” to a person who’s attempting to win you over to their way of thinking, you’re not simply expressing an unwillingness to agree with what’s being said. There’s a formidable wall being built, comprised of emotional, psychological, and physical elements, that make it very difficult for even the most logically sound idea to be embraced.

On the other hand:

…a person says “yes,” none of the withdrawal activities takes place. The organism is in a forward—moving, accepting, open attitude. Hence the more “yeses” we can, at the very outset, induce, the more likely we are to succeed in capturing the attention for our ultimate proposal.4

When you can be convinced that there’s some common ground between you and the person who’s attempting to win you over to their school of thought, you are far more inclined to go along with what they’re saying the more you hear yourself agreeing with what they’re advocating.

In light of that, consider Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well in John 4.

Jesus has a Message that He wants to communicate. He has something He wants to “sell” this woman who’s approaching the well that He’s sitting beside. He wants to let her know that the Messiah has come and that all of the religious sounding rhetoric that has weighed her down with indictments and guilt can now be replaced with a liberating Truth that will change her life.

But this particular woman is hard. She’s coming to retrieve water during the hottest part of the day. Everyone else comes in the morning, before it gets too hot. But she’s not interested in coming when there are other people around because she has a reputation and she doesn’t want to be maligned by all the other women who know who she is and some of the choices she’s made. She wants to get her water and get home. The last thing she wants or expects is some random guy to start talking to her. And it’s just then that Jesus asks her a question.

“Will you give me a drink?”

By asking her that question, Jesus has demonstrated a willingness to step over several cultural boundaries. He’s a Jews, she’s a Samaritan. Those two people groups don’t mix. The fact that He’s willing to brush those aside is at least surprising, if not intriguing.

She’s not necessarily impressed yet, but she’s interested enough to ask Him a question.

Compare that to the stereotypical way in which some well-meaning believers will initiate a conversation with someone by suggesting that they’re on the way to hell.

Do you see the difference?

Jesus segues right into the subject of “living water.” “Living water” was not processed by her as some lofty, theological term. She heard it as fresh water as opposed to the stagnant water that people were sometimes obligated to endure because of the lack of healthy water sources.

She’s definitely interested now, but still a little guarded. Jesus tells her to go get her husband at which point she tactfully responds by saying that she doesn’t have a husband.

She’s been married five times and is currently living in sin. Contemplate for a moment the manner in which Jesus could’ve responded.

He could’ve rightfully said that she was an adulterer, which, according to Old Testament law, was punishable by death (Lev 20:10). He could’ve called her on the carpet for her current level of promiscuity. But instead, He simply said “You’re right.”

He’s not excusing her sin, but He’s strategically refraining from anything that could come across as negative. By guiding the conversation in the context of questions and statements that inspire a positive response, Jesus is able to blow right past all those things that would otherwise distract from that woman’s true, spiritual need.

V) Hittin’ the Pavement

Truth and reality often appear to play very well together when you’re discussing topics such as these in the context of like-minded people what at least have some sort of regard for God’s Word.

The moment you hit the streets, however, you’re contending with a spiritual landscape that’s punctuated with demonic forces that are aggressively countering anything you might do or say that points people to the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jn 14:6). While there is a place for well-rehearsed scripts and aggressive campaigns, it is the light of a life well lived and an approachable witness that is intentionally fueled by a knowledge of God’s Word and a resolve to imitate Christ in the way He interacted with those on the outside looking in that makes the biggest difference.

The Homosexual Agenda is as sinister as it is effective. It doesn’t stop at legislation that provides for same sex marriages. While it strategically uses words like “justice” and “compassion,” at the core of their mission is to retool and / or silence any institution that advocates the existence of moral absolutes.

Under the guise of “hate speech” and “discrimination,” the church stands to be positioned as something that is ultimately detrimental to an enlightened society.

We don’t have the time to be anything less than effective as far as the way we respond. So how do we respond?

You’ve got to get on your feet.

  • Know what you believe and why you believe it
  • Be on top of your spiritual game by studying your Bible. Read for yourself what God has to say about controversial issues and own your faith
  • Pray. Pray like your Savior. (Matt 6)
  • Ensure that your faith manifests itself in a way that translates to a life worth imitating

The homosexual lifestyle pales in comparison to a truly godly home. I’m not talking about a family devoid of tension or struggles. I’m talking about a family that prays and laughs together. I’m talking about a husband and wife that still date. I’m talking about kids that leave home and make a difference because of the Truth and the Power of God that’s been breathed into them by their Mom and Dad. I’m talking about a family that’s humbled when they win and strong when they lose.

And on a grander scale, I’m talking about a church that serves in a way that is seen and felt in their community. I’m talking about a reputation that’s defined not so much in terms of “activism” as much as it is changed lives.

I’m talking about something so appealing, so obvious, so powerful and so beyond the realm of anything human, that people want to know the God you serve more than the sin that controls them.

VI) Conclusion

This morning’s invitation is simple. If you need to “get on your feet,” then get up here.

If you need to get saved, let’s get it done. If you’re spiritual disciplines as far as spending time with God every day in prayer and Bible study is lacking, get up here. Let’s get you hooked up with an accountability partner and get that taken care of. If you want to just pray with somebody or have somebody pray for you that your life would be a better billboard for the King that you serve –  that your family, your workplace, your city and your nation would be positively impacted by the strength of the life that you’re living -c’mon!

Get on your feet!

1. Massachusetts Court System, John Adams, Architect of American Government, http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/sjc/edu-res-center/jn-adams/john-adams-architect-of-american-government.html , accessed July 1, 2015
2. Message of John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, belief.net, http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/115/Message_from_John_Adams_to_the_Officers_of_the_First_Brigade_1.html, accessed July 1, 2015
3. Dale Carnegie, “How to Win Friends and Influence People” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1936), 284
4. Ibid, 284

For further reading…

https://bible.org/illustration/how-jesus-interacted-people
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/the-problematic-hunt-for-a-gay-gene.html

Christianity – It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person

hitchensBut in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)

I) Intro

There are a number of very vocal and very articulate people out there who sneer at Christianity, as though it were a preposterous notion to subscribe to something so ridiculous. Christopher Hitchens is one of those people. In this installment of MC, we’re going to take a look at some of what he says and offer a rebuttal that reveals his platform as flawed, limited and nonsensical.

Let’s take a look…

II) Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens was born in 1939 and recently passed away in 2011. He was an English writer who spent a great deal of time in the US and eventually became a citizen. A gifted speaker, he was a forceful orator, especially when it came to the issue of religion. At one point, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion”.1 Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and an avowed atheist, said of Hitchens, “I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants, including imaginary supernatural ones.”2

Today we’re looking at one example of Hitchens’ commentaries on Christianity which you can find on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw. Here’s a brief summary of some of what he had to say: hitchens_comments III) Privacy

Privacy, in this instance, is an issue only if you’re interested in hiding something from God. And the only reason you would be interested in hiding something is if you had something you were hesitant to divulge before Him. In other words, you, like Cain, are trying to slip by unnoticed in order to preserve the illusion that you are blameless (Gen 4:9; Ps 51:5). No one is. But that is not an occasion to resent God’s Omniscience, rather it’s something to celebrate as far as being completely known and yet completely loved.

Psalm 139. He observes how God is completely aware of every nuance of his heart and mind. He revels in the freedom he has before God to be utterly transparent and, at the same time supremely confident that he is accepted by a Holy God.

What’s the difference between Moses and Christopher? The difference is that Christopher superimposes the flaws of humanity upon God’s holiness because the idea of Divine Perfection reside beyond the borders of his definition of what’s reasonable. Hence, God’s ability to know someone completely is processed as surveillance rather than omniscience. And in the same way, he processes omnipotence as arrogance.

It Can’t Be Believed by a Thinking Person
(Christianity) can’t be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. (Christopher Hitchens)

IV) Indifferent and Distant

He goes on to say that for the better part of 98,000 years God did nothing as man struggled and suffered. The Old Testament makes it obvious that God was very involved in the lives of His people, so to say that He was doing nothing is a gross understatement. Consider the Exodus, the enumerable military campaigns of the Israeli army, the time of the judges, as well as the way in which all of the Major and Minor Prophets describe God as being intimately aware of His people’s condition and completely committed to their welfare.

No doubt, Christopher questions God’s activity with the other people groups that aren’t mentioned in Scripture. What of those that didn’t have access to Christ? What of those who never heard of the Ten Commandments?

In Rev 5:9 that there will be people from every nation throughout history in Heaven. While the Bible doesn’t go into any kind of detail as to how that works, one can rest assured that the Message of God’s grace will have been communicated and his judgement will be fair (Acts 10:34-35; Rom 1:20; Jas 2:25). Click here for more reading on that subject.

V) In the Desert

Christopher’s also critical of God’s decision to announce His Solution to sin to a people “in the desert” who are not nearly as literate or as advanced as the Chinese. At the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was under the authority of Caesar Augustus. Never before had so many human beings acknowledged the authority of a single leader. His subjects formed more than one third of the entire global population.3 When you couple that with Rome’s educational system, which was heavily influenced by the Greeks, along with Rome’s engineering and technology, Hitchens comment is revealed as being less than credible. Rome was very well positioned to serve as a starting point for the gospel message (see Acts 25:12; 28:30).

VI) Christianity is Immoral

Hitchens then goes on to say that he regards the Christian message to be immoral. His conclusion is derived from a limited perspective on the consequences of any kind of wrongdoing. While it is both appropriate and biblical to take responsibility for the wrongful act that you’ve committed (Matt 5:23-26), the spiritual ramifications of sin are both eternal and lethal and cannot be offset by any kind of human effort (2 Sam 12:13 [see also http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-godcentered-understanding-of-sin.php]). In other words, being ethical may address the material debt incurred by your actions and it may even ease the tension felt as a result of your wrongdoing, but it accomplishes nothing as far as paying the debt that is owed to God.

That’s what makes grace so amazing. It’s not a question of the lengths you go to in order to compensate for your actions – that’s an expected response from a moral perspective. But neither you nor I can atone for our sin on our own (Heb 10:4). It requires a Divine Solution. And when you consider the price that God was willing to pay for said solution, to regard it as immoral is nonsensical. Rather, it’s a kind of love that is nothing short of outrageous in that it is entirely undeserved, yet freely given (1 Jn 3:1).

VII) No Win Scenario

Finally, Hitchens concludes that God has created a no win scenario by imposing expectations that are impossible to live up to. Coupled with the fact that He’s aware of, not only your outward behavior, but also the agendas within the hidden recesses of your mind, you are lost and condemned from the very start.

Paul refers to the same “no win” scenario that Hitchens observes in Romans 7. This is a man that was blameless, as far as keeping the law (Phil 3:6). But however pristine he may have looked on the outside, he knew that before God, all his righteous acts were like filthy rags and he was a slave to sin (Is 64:6; Rom 7:14). And it’s not that God has orchestrated this situation, rather it goes back to the fact that man chose this dynamic back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15-17; 3 :16-19). But while man chose to live in the context of this sitting, God provided a Remedy that Paul builds up to in Romans 7:24-25 where he says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

VIII) Conclusion

The fundamental flaw in Hitchens’ reasoning is that his philosophical starting point positions himself in the center of the universe as opposed to God. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you make yourself the center of the universe, all your perspective is skewed. There is only one moral center of the universe, and that is God. If you get into right relation with Him, then you have your right perspective and your right relation and your right size.”4 Hitchens has determined that God cannot exist outside the parameters of his intellectual preferences. His limited knowledge of Scripture coupled with a resolve to process the whole of life and creation according to a personal paradigm that reduces the enormity of the cosmos and the intricacies of the human experience to something that fits within an academic shoebox, results in something that appears controlled and calculated, but is revealed as being pathetically inept when confronted with the world as it truly is.

But here’s the thing: Hitchens isn’t going to be swayed by mere reason alone. For him, this kind of debate is more along the lines of chess where people position their arguments like they would move their bishops and pawns on a chessboard. That isn’t to say that you don’t engage people like Christopher. Paul never shied away from debating the logic of the gospel. You see that in Acts 17 when he was in Athens and engaged the philosophers and the great thinkers in that city. But for people like Christopher, you want to challenge their logic with not only your rebuttal but with your life. It’s there where the Power of God is most compelling. Ideas are one thing, but the ideals that guide and empower the life that is worth imitating – that’s what makes the difference, that’s what silences the critics and that’s what points people to Christ.

1. “Christopher Hitchens”, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Hitchens, accessed June 19, 2015
2. Ibid
3. Bible Hub, “The Roman Empire at the Time of the Birth of Christ. Upwards of a Quarter of a Century Before the Birth of Christ”, William Dool Killen, http://biblehub.com/library/killen/the_ancient_church/chapter_i_the_roman_empire.htm, accessed June 19, 2015
4. “Wilson”, A. Scott Berg, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, N.Y., 2013, p37

A Tapestry of Tiny Streets

I6-Countryf you’ve never had the privilege of delivering newspapers at 3:30 in the am, let me describe to you the joy and the fulfillment that one is treated to as part of this experience.

Upright at 2:30 AM

First of all, you need to be upright by 2:30 am, 2:45 at the latest. You’ve got to get down to the distribution building where you’ll receive your newspapers as well as your fliers. Those fliers will need to be inserted into each of your newspapers and then you’ll have to load those up into your vehicle. You don’t want to be dragging your feet, either because technically you’re supposed to have all of those papers delivered by 5:30.

Depending on the size of your route, you could have as many as a couple hundred papers that have to find their way to their subscriber. Most deliveries are pretty intuitive, but there’s always some random locations that are hard to find – especially the first time you’re on your route. Read more

A Position of Strength

overcoming adversityOvercoming Adversity

There was a time I worked for a guy who, although he was good to me, was the kind of character where if you were interested in securing a favorable deal for yourself, you needed to be able to approach him from a position of strength.

At least, that’s what I called it: A “position of strength.” 
By that, I mean that you had to be able to substantiate your terms with something that compelled him to agree to what you’re saying. For example, I want to see my hourly wage increase. If I was going to emerge from his office as a successful negotiator, I needed to be able say something like, “I’ve got another job offer,” or something comparable. Short of that, he had you in a place where you obligated to accept his deal, which wasn’t always inspiring.


The bottom line, though, is that you could get what you were hoping for as long as you had that trump card – as long as you were approaching him from a position of strength.

Wouldn’t That Be Sweet?

Negotiating life is similar. Of course, in life you’re not interacting with an individual per se, but if you could, for a moment, envision your need to overcome some kind of adversity as something you could manipulate via an exchange between yourself and this figure who can hypothetically alter your circumstances, you can see how approaching this meeting from a “position of strength” would constitute a huge tactical advantage. So, just as they’re getting ready to refuse your terms, you could lay that “something” on the table and suddenly your platform is dominant and you emerge with an ideal scenario.

Wouldn’t that be sweet? Read more