Nike and the spirit of this age

Nike’s new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick has proven quite controversial. The mere fact that Kaepernick is the face of the campaign has been enough for some people to claim they will boycott Nike. Others have proudly posted pictures of themselves wearing Nike shoes in solidarity with both Nike and Kaepernick. I just read that Tiger Woods called the Kaepernick ad “a beautiful spot.”

So what should we think of the Nike commercial? Specially, how should Christians respond to the Nike ad?

My basic problem with the commercial is that Nike and its recent ad campaign represent the spirit of this age. What is the spirit of this age? It is a self-exalting, self-glorifying ideology that you are your own god and the master of your own universe. There is nothing that you cannot accomplish. The god of this age is the self. And we find this god exalted throughout Nike’s ad campaigns. Whether they are telling you to “find your greatness” or that you are “unlimited,” they are preaching to you the god of self. Christians must recognize this as idolatry.

Even the religious language Nike uses should stand out. This language mimics the language of the Bible. The ad talks about “non-believers.” These “non-believers” might call your dreams crazy, but when they do so, they are really complimenting you for dreaming so big. But what do these “non-believers” not believe in? They don’t believe in you and your dreams. They don’t believe in the greatness within you.

The tag-line of the commercial also uses very religious language. “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” Some have changed this to “Believe in God. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” But this one-word change shows that the content of our belief, or as we might say the object of our faith, matters. What are we believing in? What are we trusting in? Nike’s answer to this question is two-fold. In one sense, it doesn’t really matter. Just believe in something. There is no objective standard by which we can determine what each person should believe. So just believe. But really, Nike’s more persistent answer is that you should believe in you and what you can do. Believe in yourself and the greatness within you.

To be clear, Nike is preaching a hopeless message. There is no hope in believing in yourself. There is no hope in finding the greatness within you. Nike is setting people up for disappointment because they are encouraging people to worship and exalt themselves, a false god if there even was one. If we know anything about ourselves, we ought to know that we will let ourselves down. We will make mistakes. We will fall short. So to worship at the alter of me is a recipe for disaster on so many levels.

So is there something wrong with Nike’s new ad campaign? Sure. But there has been something wrong with Nike’s ad campaigns all along. They have been preaching a false religion with a false god of self for some time now. They are preaching the religion of you and your greatness. And they do this because they are representatives of the spirit of the age in which we live. They may say they are only trying to sell shoes, but they are also trying to sell us on a philosophy. And they hope we will buy into this philosophy by buying their shoes. In the same way that the prosperity preacher appeals to someone’s love of money to try to get them to hand over their money to the preacher, Nike is appealing to our love of ourselves in an attempt to get us to hand over our money to them.

So why does any of this matter for Christians? Should we really expect anything different from Nike? I don’t see why we should. For those intent on boycotting, we can come up with many other reasons to boycott Nike. In years past we were told to stop buying Nikes because of their use of sweatshops. I stopped buying Nike shoes over 2 decades ago because their high arches didn’t work well with my flat feet.

So how will I respond to this Nike commercial? I am far less concerned about who delivered the message than the message that was delivered. I am not going to burn the Nike shoes I just bought my kids a few weeks ago. And I will not worry about buying Nike shoes for them the next go round, if for no other reason that I am not sure that New Balance or Reebok or any other shoe company will offer a better message. But I will seek to guard my kids against the dangerous idolatry of self and the self-exaltation that is so prevalent in our culture and in Nike’s ads. And I will continue to pray that they turn away from self and to Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

The God of self offers us no hope. The only hope we have is to be found in that while we loved ourselves and worshipped ourselves, a mockery of the creator of the universe if there ever was one, that Christ died for ungodly idolators like me. So while Nike’s commercial may expose the hopeless idolatries of our age, Christians have the chance to proclaim the only place true hope can be found. As the song says, “Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame” (even if that frame is my own) “but wholly lean on Jesus’ name.”

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (ESV)

False teachers or teachers with false motives?

Christians today must be discerning enough to tell the difference between false teachers, those who are proclaiming a false gospel, and teachers who are teaching the truth but with false motives. Biblically, our response to these two groups should be drastically different.

In Philippians 1:15-18 Paul addressed a group of Christians who were preaching Christ out of selfish ambition or rivalry. These Christians actually meant to cause Paul anxiety in his imprisonment through their preaching. These were people who preached the truth, but they preached the truth with false motives. While Paul does not address exactly how this group was seeking to cause him trouble, Paul does make his response to this group clear. Paul rejoiced that no matter their motives, Christ was being proclaimed.

Paul’s attitude in Philippians stands in stark contrast to his attitude in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul was not dealing with people preaching the truth from false motives, but he was dealing with people preaching a false gospel. So instead of rejoicing, Paul warned the Galatians not to turn to this false gospel no matter who preached it to them. In fact, Paul called for a curse to be on those who proclaimed this false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

We see in these books two drastically different attitudes from Paul, and the difference in these attitudes, from rejoicing to cursing, was the content of what was being proclaimed. When the truth was being proclaimed, Paul rejoiced, even when people preached that truth with false motives, and even when their goal was to cause him trouble. Paul rejoiced because he knew of the power of the gospel to save. But when a false gospel was being proclaimed, far from rejoicing, Paul called believers to reject this false teaching and to stand against those who were teaching it.

Christians today need to be able to tell the difference between false teachers and teachers with false motives so that we can respond to each situation biblically. Is a certain teaching, or a certain church, or a certain pastor, to be called out, shunned, and rejected? Or are we called to rejoice that the gospel is being proclaimed, despite false motives and even though these teachers might even cause us grief or trouble? In essence, we must be prepared to discern the difference between false teaching and true teaching with false motives.

How do we know the difference? I think three questions can help us navigate whether someone is teaching a false gospel or the true gospel: what is the problem they present, what is the solution to the problem, and how do they say that the problem is solved?

What is the problem?

The basic plight of humanity is that we are sinful people before a holy God. God is holy, and we are not. As a result, we are worthy of the judgment and just wrath of God because of our sins.

What is the solution?

The solution to the problem of sinful people before a holy God is Jesus Christ. Christ’s death as the sinless sacrifice for sinners and his resurrection to new life are the only hope for sinful people.

How is the problem solved?

Sinful people are made right with a holy God through repentance from sins and faith in the work of Christ on their behalf.

Much more could be said about each of these questions. What is sin? How is sin defined? What is repentance and faith? How do we know this to be true? What is our source of authority for making these claims?

But even this cursory glance shows how some of these questions can be answered wrongly in a very subtle way. To give just one example, some deny the judgment of a holy God. They still talk about sin, but they claim that the real problem with sin is not that it brings people under the judgment of God, but sin just keeps us from living our best life. Sin messes up life in this earth and leads to trouble in this life. So people need to turn from their sin, not because they face the judgment of God, but because it will help them live a better life.

This so distorts the broader picture of the gospel that it calls people to call to God for selfish reasons. Come to God to get a better life, as opposed to come to God for forgiveness and a new life in Christ. Distorting the problem of sin leads to the proclamation of a false gospel that is powerless to save but simply appeals to people’s sinful, selfish desires.

Christians today need to be as discerning as ever. Many preach the true gospel with false motives. And while we should not hold these people up as examples to be followed, we should rejoice that the powerful gospel message is being proclaimed. But many are distorting the gospel and preaching a false message that has no power to save. As Christians, we must be wise enough to discern the difference.

Capital Punishment and Church Discipline: Lessons from Deuteronomy 13

If church discipline, and ultimately expulsion from the fellowship of the church, is the New Testament parallel to the capital punishment prescribed for certain sins in the Old Testament (as I have argued before), what can Deuteronomy 13 in particular teach us about the discipline of the church? Deuteronomy 13 has three specific stories of idolatry and false teaching, each with its own implications.

In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Moses deals with false prophets, those who claim to speak for God or to have had dreams from God. These are not actually true prophets, but while claiming to speak for God, they were leading people to follow other gods. Moses says not to listen to these false prophets because God is using the false prophets to test His people, to see if they love Him completely (13:3). The people were urged to obey the commands of God completely (13:4) and to put this false prophet or dreamer to death. In so doing, they would purge the evil from among them (13:5).

What is the lesson for the church today? We must root out false teaching from the church. Those claiming to speak for God who are in fact leading people into idolatry must be removed from the church. These people are an evil that must be purged from the church if they refuse to repent of their false teaching. There are several important implications here. First, just because someone claims to speak for God does not mean that they really are speaking for God. We must test the spirits as John says to see what is from God (1 John 4:1). Second, we cannot sit idly by and allow false teaching to go unchecked. We cannot simply hope that it will go away or avoid the issue. False teaching must be dealt with by the church. As Paul says, we must nourished by the words of faith and of good teaching, but we should have nothing to do with irreverent and foolish myths (1 Timothy 4:6-7).

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 deals with a situation involving a close friend or family member. Moses mentions a person’s brother, their son or daughter, their wife, or their close friend. If any of these people tried to lead someone into the worship of other gods, then the person was not to spare or have sympathy on their relative or close friend, but they should cast the first stone in putting them to death for their idolatry (13:9). Their death was to serve as a witness or warning to all of Israel in order to prevent this kind of evil from happening among the people in the future (13:11).

This story is likely rather jarring to many Christians today. How could God command people to put their own family members to death, and what can this law have to do with Christians today? This law teaches us something very similar to what Jesus said in Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (ESV). If we refuse to obey the commands of God related to the discipline of the church because those who have broken God’s commands are our family or close friends, we are placing friends and family above God. This is a form of idolatry.

So the biblical command here is that we should not show partiality in how we obey God’s commands. If one of our friends or family members is causing problems in the church, teaching false doctrine, engaging in unrepentant sinfulness, then we should actually take the lead in expelling that person from the church if he or she refuses to repent. One of the reasons that church discipline is not practiced today is that church leaders are often afraid that if they deal with a certain person’s sins, then their parents or grandparents or children or friends, will be upset and leave the church because the church is “picking on” one of their family members. But here we see that family members or close friends should not oppose the discipline of those close to them, they should not shield them from that discipline, but they should actually take the lead in making sure that the discipline is carried out.

Another important principle from this section is found in Deuteronomy 13:11. The death of this idolator was to serve as a warning to the rest of the people so that they would be afraid and not engage in such evil. So the expulsion of a member from the church is to serve as a warning to the rest of the church. Paul makes the same point in 1 Timothy 5:19-20 in reference to church elders found to be in sin. If church leaders are found to be in sin, they are to be rebuked publicly “so that the rest might be afraid” (5:20). In other words, church leaders found to be in sin should not be fired discreetly, but they should be publicly rebuked before the church as a warning to the rest of the church. Here we see in both the OT and the NT that this act of capital punishment in the OT, now acted out through removing members from the church in the NT, is to be a warning or sign to the rest of the church that will hopefully keep them from similar kinds of evil.

Finally, Deuteronomy 13:12-18 deals with a situation where word has gotten out that an entire town has been given over to idolatry. Here Moses says that a thorough inquiry should be undertaken to make sure that these claims of idolatry are true (13:14). In other words, the people were not to act based on gossip or rumors, but they were to test the claims to determine if in fact that town was full of idolatry. If the claims of idolatry were substantiated, then the entire town was to be destroyed. They were to completely destroy the entire city so that God’s burning anger might be turned away from the land (13:17).

This text is slightly more difficult to make specific application because we have to ask what the modern parallel of this other town in the land would be. One possible application could be the relationships among churches today. Certainly some groups that call themselves Christian churches have been given over to idolatry. The are not worshipping the God revealed to us in His Word but some god they have created in their own image. I think Deuteronomy 13 would suggest that our churches must take pains to disassociate ourselves from these so-called churches that have become nothing more than houses of false teaching and idolatry. For some, this may mean disassociating from churches with which their church has a long-standing history when the other church begins to move away from God’s Word and obedience to God’s commands. God’s judgment will ultimately come on churches and pastors who are peddling false teaching and encouraging rebellion against God’s commands, and we should want to have nothing to do with alliances with those kinds of “churches.”

Finally, let me close with why I would write on a topic like this. First, I am preaching through the book of Deuteronomy, and much of this information simply comes from my recent sermon on Deuteronomy 13. But second, I think we as Christians need to be reminded of the unchanging nature of God, the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and the continuing ability for God’s law to show us what godliness looks like. We are too prone to ignore much of the OT today, particularly the law, and we do so too our detriment. As I have been preaching through Deuteronomy, I have been reminded of the unchanging nature of God, and I have seen how an emphasis on the OT law can help us see what godly living looks like in the church and in our own lives. If our love for God is demonstrated by our obedience to His commands (John 14:15), then we certainly ought to want to know what His commands are and what obedience to those commands might look like today.

Capital Punishment and Church Discipline: Dealing with a Possible Misunderstanding

Earlier I made the argument that expulsion from the fellowship of the church is a New Testament application of the death penalty prescribed for breaking the Old Testament law in Deuteronomy. Before addressing some applications of this principle from Deuteronomy 13, I would like to address a possible misunderstanding of this claim.

Some Christians might look at this issue on its surface and think that the New Testament downplays the punishment for sin found in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, people were to be put to death for sexual immorality (22:22 for example), but in the New Testament, people are to be removed from the fellowship of the church for sexual immorality. This seems, on its surface, to be a much lighter sentence. Some Christians might even express a sense of gratitude for not living in the days of the Old Testament because they feel they are not subject to these harsh Old Testament punishments.

This misunderstanding demonstrates an error concerning the nature of the church and the nature of church discipline. The author of Hebrews helps us understand this point:

28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31, ESV)

The punishment for lawbreaking in the Old Testament, if confirmed based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, was physical death by stoning. The author of Hebrews shows us that the punishment for those who reject Christ is greater than the punishment for those who died under the law in the Old Testament. Those who reject Christ are subject to a fate worse than physical death, falling under the vengeance and wrath of the living God.

The New Testament does not lessen the penalties prescribed in the Old Testament, but in fact the New Testament demonstrates the true significance of the Old Testament law. Sin leads to death. And while it is true that sin leads to physical death, there is a fate worse than physical death, which is the ultimate consequence of sin, the judgment and wrath of  God.

Those who infer that the New Testament lightens the load of Deuteronomy’s punishments do not fully understand the importance of the church or the seriousness of church discipline. In removing a member from the church, the church is in effect proclaiming that the unrepentant sinner is subject to a fate worse than death. Paul refers to this as handing them over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5). As best the church understands, the unrepentant sinner is trampling underfoot the Son of God, and profaning the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraging the Spirit of grace (adapted from Hebrews 10:29). Therefore this person has demonstrated that he is subject to the righteous vengeance and wrath of God as made visible in his removal from the fellowship of the church.

Church discipline is not an issue to be taken lightly, especially in a day when so many churches will welcome in those under discipline from another church. Church discipline is designed to help destroy the flesh of the unrepentant member (the unrepentant sin in their life). In other words, church discipline is intended to cause pain in the life of the unrepentant member with the hope that he will repent and be restored to God and to the church (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Some will object that the gospel is supposed to be good news, but this doesn’t sound much like good news to them. Where is the good news in all of this talk of church discipline? The good news of the New Testament is not that sin ceased to be a problem. In fact, the New Testament helps us to understand the dire nature of our enslavement to sin. But the good news comes as we see our desperate state of affairs in slavery to sin and death, and we realize that we can be free from the condemnation of sin and sentence of death through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 7:24-8:1).

So we as Christians rightly ought to celebrate that we live after the coming of Christ. But we do not celebrate because the penalties of the Old Testament have been lessened, leaving us free from the penalty of capital punishment for breaking God’s law. We do not celebrate because we are free from the law in the sense that we can live however we choose, not having to worry about all those “bothersome” commands of God. Instead, we rejoice because we have seen the greatness of the solution to the problem of sin provided in Christ. We see what the Old Testament prophets longed to see (Matthew 13:17), and we see the fulfillment of what they prophesied about (1 Peter 1:10-12), the glory of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18, ESV).

Capital Punishment and Church Discipline

I have been preaching through Deuteronomy for several months now, and one issue that comes up repeatedly is capital punishment, specifically that capital punishment is prescribed by the law for certain sins. Deuteronomy 13 is a particularly drastic example of this. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the people are to put to death a false prophet or dreamer who attempts to lead them into idolatry. In so doing, they would purge the evil from among them (13:5). In Deuteronomy 13:6-11, they are to put to death a brother, a son or daughter, a wife, or a close friend who tried to entice them into idolatry. They were specifically not to shield this relative or close friend from the death penalty, but they were literally to cast the first stone (13:9). In so doing, they would cause the people to be afraid and to avoid this kind of evil and idolatry. And finally, in Deuteronomy 13:12-18, if it was confirmed that a city had been led away into idolatry, then the entire city was to be destroyed, including people and livestock, and the spoils of the city were to be gathered in the city square and burned.

In a sense, many of these passages on capital punishment are fairly easy to understand. But of course modern Christians will have many questions about how to apply these texts today. Some will apply these texts Christologically. In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, parents are commanded to take rebellious sons who refuse to respond to discipline to the elders so that the son might be stoned. Especially based on Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which talks about exposing the body of one executed by capital punishment on a tree, Christians will make application to Jesus, the obedient Son of God hung on a tree for those who had rebelled against God (Galatians 3:10-14).

Some will use these passages to point to the seriousness of sin and how all who have sinned by breaking God’s law are subject to death as punishment for their sin. I do not want to reject either of these views, but I do want to point to a further application of these laws on capital punishment based on Paul’s quotation from Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul is dealing with a situation in Corinth where a man was engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with his step-mother, his father’s wife who was not his mother. And not only did the Corinthian church refuse to do anything about this sexual immorality, but they somehow perversely took pride in it. Instead, the Corinthian church should have removed this person from their midst (5:2). In closing, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy to urge the people to “purge the evil person from among you” (5:13).

While Paul was quoting from Deuteronomy, we cannot highlight a specific verse from which he quoted because a form of this phrase is found 11 times in the book of Deuteronomy. In essence, what Paul did was take a phrase from Deuteronomy used to explain the reason for capital punishment, and he applied this phrase to the removal of a man accused of unrepentant sexual immorality from the church.

By implication here, we see one of the reasons for church discipline through the lens of capital punishment in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, capital punishment was prescribed in order to purge evil from Israel. God was concerned with the purity of His people in the land, and rampant, unrepentant idolatry or immorality was to be purged from the land through death. The people’s continued existence in the land was tied to their obedience to God’s commands (Deuteronomy 28:62-63), and in order to maintain obedience to God’s commands and purity among the people evil had to be dealt with. The New Testament parallel to this punishment is not capital punishment, but expulsion from the church, the last step of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17).

As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament, God is concerned with the purity of His people. If God is concerned with the purity of His church, then we should have that same concern. The reason the church is obligated to remove unrepentant, persistent sinful members from the fellowship of the church is the same reason that the death penalty was prescribed in the Old Testament, to maintain the purity and holiness of the God’s people.

In the modern church, removing someone from the church is often considered unloving and cruel. Consequently, many churches have simply refused to obey the commands of Scripture, and specifically the commands of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17,  regarding the discipline of the church. We need to be reminded that failure to keep God’s commands is not an act of love for God, nor is it an act of love for other people. Our love for God and our love for others is not to be defined by the world, but it is to be defined by obedience to the commands of God. As Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Let us pray that the church will love God and love others by keeping His commandments, and that we will not allow the world to redefine for us what it means to love. Let us pray that the church will imitate the character of God by being concerned with the holiness and purity of the church so that we might serve as a witness of the transforming power of the grace of God.

A note to those in “shrinking” churches

Is your church growing? We all know what this question usually means. Are more people coming now than last year? And for many churches, the answer is no. According to this standard, these churches are not growing. In fact, they are declining or even dying.

But we need to be reminded that not all growth is good, and not all decline is bad. Imagine the doctor who says to a patient, “I have good news. Your tumor is shrinking!” Growth in size must be put in context. And in order to find that context, we need to answer the question about church growth using some different standards.

For example, is your church growing in its love for God and for one another? Or is your church growing in its concern for the holiness and purity of Christ’s church? Is your church growing in its knowledge of and love for God’s Word? Is your church growing in its conformity to God’s commands? Is your church growing in its evangelistic boldness and fervor?

When measured by these standards, we see that not all numerical growth is gain, and not all decline is decay. Sometimes unrepentant members must be pruned for the sake of the health of the church. Sometimes evangelistic fervor and boldness are not followed by large numbers of conversions. Sometimes people flock to have their ears scratched by false teaching.

And when we focus on growth solely in terms of numbers we are often focusing on the things we can’t control. We can boldly proclaim the gospel, but we can’t save anyone. We can invite people, but we can’t make them come. We can call people to repentance through church discipline, but we can’t make them repent. Sometimes when people don’t come, they don’t come even though we were faithful to proclaim the truth. And sometimes when people leave, they leave because we faithfully followed God’s commands.

As our church studies Deuteronomy on Sunday mornings, we have seen how God is intensely concerned with the righteousness and purity of His people. God does not call His people to pursue prosperity, but He calls them to pursue justice, holiness, and godliness and to entrust Him to bless them.

“Shrinking” churches can learn a lesson from God’s commands in Deuteronomy. Pursue holiness and godliness. Diligently keep God’s commands. Guard the purity of Christ’s church. Boldly proclaim the gospel. And entrust the rest to God.

If your church is growing in all of these areas, praise God. Continue in faithfulness to Him and be encouraged. If your church is not growing in these areas, repent of any sinfulness and begin to pursue godliness. Don’t pursue prosperity and numerical growth, but pursue God and obedience to His commands. And entrust the rest to Him.

 

Worship and the Word

As we walk through Jeremiah as a church on Wednesday nights, I have been struck by how similar the problems Jeremiah faced in his day are to the problems that we face in ours. Two verses in particular stand out in Jeremiah 6.

Jeremiah 6:19 “Listen, earth! I am about to bring disaster on these people, the fruit of their own plotting, for they have paid no attention to My word. They have rejected My instruction. 20 What use to Me is frankincense from Sheba or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please Me.” (HCSB)

In these verses we see a close connection between the Word of God and the worship of God. In essence, the people’s sacrifices and offerings of worship were not pleasing to God because of their rejection of His Word. They would reap the fruit of their own actions because they had rejected God’s commands, even though they had continued to offer sacrifices to God. They were claiming to worship God while rejecting His Word, and God tells them that He would bring disaster on them for having done so.

Today, we can still fall into the trap of performing acts or rituals of worship while ignoring or downplaying the Word of God. We find this in messages that downplay, minimize, or redefine the commands of God or in sermons that question the importance of and reliability of the Bible or in churches where the sermon is essentially a few out of context Bible verses used to deliver a message of self-help and the power of positive thinking.

But surely we would never fall into this trap. At this point, we need to be reminded that this trap is often more subtle than we think. To take an easy example, Joel Osteen begins his messages by having his audience hold up their Bibles and recite a statement about the importance of the Bible, claiming that what they are about to hear is a message from God’s Word. Then what follows from Osteen in the above example is a half-hour word of faith message about the power of our words with a few Bible verses attached. But the entire content of the message runs counter to the message of the Bible. Osteen’s message is about us and our power, not about God and His power.

But again, surely this is just the Osteen’s of the world and not us. But the point is that just because we say we believe that Bible, and just because we use the Bible in our worship services, does not necessarily mean that we are honoring God’s Word and keeping His commands.

As Jeremiah went on to say about the destruction of the land:

Jeremiah 9:13 “The Lord said, ‘It is because they abandoned My instruction that I set in front of them and did not obey My voice or walk according to it. 14 Instead, they followed the stubbornness of their hearts and followed after the Baals as their fathers taught them.’” (HCSB)

So the question is, are we trying to worship God while ignoring His Word? Do we think that our religious acts of apparent devotion to God can counteract a disregard for His instructions and His commands? Any attempt to worship God while ignoring His Word and His commands will produce no better results today than it did in Jeremiah’s day. As Jesus himself said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

What we do and why we do it

When my wife and I bought our minivan about 6 years ago, I discovered that with just the touch of a button, the rear passenger doors would come sliding open. Early on, I loved walking up to the van, hitting the button, and watching the doors slide open so the kids could jump in. Such luxury!

Fast forward to this week, and our family is cruising around town in a brand-new, 2017 minivan. It’s not our van, but we are driving a rental while our van is in the shop. This van’s doors also open with just the touch of a button, but the newer model has seat warmers, a backup camera, and now the van itself starts with just the touch of a button. Suddenly our old van doesn’t seem so impressive. Soon I was wondering how much the payment on a vehicle like this would be.

Our passage for study last Sunday night included 1 Timothy 6:6-8, “But godliness with contentment is a great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these” (HCSB). As we talked about these verses, I was struck by how much we focus on the what instead of the why when it comes to material goods.

If we only focus on the what, like the new car, we will be prone to assess people based on the material goods they own. We will find the person who has a newer car than ours, and we will wonder why they don’t love Jesus like we do. After all, they are not suffering for Jesus like we are in our late model vehicles. Clearly they have succumbed to the love of worldly things. However, we will rarely turn this assessment on its head and think about those who have older cars than ours. There has to be some limit to this kind of analysis, some year at which all cars become spiritually neutral. And that limit, as it turns out, is probably about the year our car was made.

So to answer the what question rightly, should we buy a new car, we can’t just ask what, but we must also ask why. Why are we buying the car? If our family had gone out immediately and bought a new van, we would have done so because we were discontent with what we had. It was not that our van stopped working or became insufficient for our needs, but we would have made the purchase because we were lacking in godly contentment. Upon seeing what we didn’t have, we would have grown discontent with what we did have. And so the what, the buying of the car, would have been a sin because of the why, discontentment. This is not to say that the act of purchasing a new car is sinful. After all, our van will not work forever. The day will come when we will move on from it and purchase another vehicle. The problem with the what would have been found in the why.

But I think there is one more confusion that might plague us when making these kinds of decisions. We might now think that it is always the why that matters and not the what, as though it doesn’t really matter what we do, only why we do it. But we must be reminded that it is not really the what or the why that inherently matters. What matters is obedience to God. What matters is what God has said. And sometimes God’s Word addresses the what, and sometimes it addresses the why. If you get drunk, you have sinned (Ephesians 5:19). There is no reason you can come up with to make the act anything but sinful. You are not getting drunk to better minister to drunks. You are breaking God’s command.

But when it comes to purchasing a new car, taking a better paying job, or many other decisions that we must make from time to time, God has not given us commands concerning the what in many of these instances. So we must ask if God has addressed the why. Why are we buying the car? Why are we taking the job? Often we think that the Bible does not address so many of the questions that we might ask, like what job to take. But this is because we are looking only for commands related to the what of our lives, not the why.

I see this clearly demonstrated in our kids. Sometimes they get the what right while missing horribly on the why. Pouting and muttering while they clean their rooms might check the what box, clean your room, but it misses the why by a mile, obey your parents as you would the Lord and honor your father and mother (Ephesians 6:1-2). So even in cleaning their rooms, they might sin in how they do it. And on the other hand, sometimes they think they can negate the what because of their creative whys. I know you told me not to do this, but let me explain.…

As children of our heavenly Father, we are also called to obedience, both in what He has called us to do, and how He has called us to do it. So as we consider all the decisions that we have to make, let us consider first what God has said, both in what we do and in why we do it. Let us remember that both the what and the why matter, but they matter because God has spoken.

Which candidate is best for the church?

Millions of Americans are presently trying to decide which presidential candidate would be best for our country. Who would do the most good for America? There is, however, a more important question that Christians need to ask.

As Christians in America, we know that we are first citizens of God’s kingdom before we are citizens of America. We are Christians before we are Americans. This means that our primary allegiance is to God’s kingdom, manifested on this earth in the church. So I would argue that our first order question is not how this election will impact the country, but how it will impact the church. Asking how our vote will affect the country is not bad, it is just not a first order question.

The answer to this first order question of which presidential candidate would be best for the church is not as easy it as might seem. Many evangelicals would immediately claim that Trump would be better for the church. Trump himself is certainly trying to make that argument. Some might see this as one candidate, Clinton, who is overtly opposed to many fundamental, biblical principles. Then they would argue that Trump is at least less opposed to historic, biblical Christianity. Further, Trump would claim that he stands for the church. Therefore, they might say, Trump would be a better for the church.

But I don’t think the choice is between a candidate for the evangelical church and a candidate against the evangelical church. I do believe that if Clinton is elected, she will stand directly against a number of principles clearly taught in Scripture. Consequently I will not vote for her. But the choice is not between a candidate for the church and a candidate against the church. I think the choice is between opposition to evangelical Christianity and the promotion of cultural or carnal Christianity, neither of which is genuinely Christian. Consequently, unless I am convinced that I am wrong in that assessment, I will not vote for either candidate.

As I listen to Trump, it is clear to me that he is more interested in restoring a facade of Christianity than returning to a genuine, biblical Christianity. When trying to court the vote of pastors and church leaders, he has talked about how the government has taken away the power of these pastors, and he has promised to restore their power to them (by among other things repealing the Johnson amendment). He has clearly demonstrated that he does not understand the power or nature of the church and its leadership. He does not have a firm grasp on biblical teaching, and has shown in many ways that he stands against biblical teaching (think prohibitions of the love of money for example). When I listen to him talk to church leaders, I do not get the impression that his concern is for biblical Christianity. His concern clearly seems to be for an Americanized, politicized form of Christianity that has little to do with the Bible, and more to do with the American dream, individual rights, security, and power.

Am I saying that Trump is not a Christian. No, that’s not the point. I am not in a position to know the answer to that question. I also am not calling into question the Christianity of those who might vote for Trump. I am simply asking whether a Trump presidency would really be better for the church than a Clinton presidency. Is the promotion of carnal or cultural Christianity really better than outright opposition to Christianity?  Or to put the question another way, which is better, outright opposition to biblical truth or paying lip service to biblical truth?

Here’s what I do know. I know for a fact, because the Bible tells me so, that the church can withstand outright opposition. We also have plenty of historical data to support this claim. I also know that many Americans are enticed by a facade of Christianity that is not Christianity at all. I know the damage that cultural or carnal Christianity has caused by luring in many in our country. Cultural Christianity has been widespread in America for decades now, and we are in many ways reaping the fruits of a cultural or carnal Christianity that ought not be given the name Christian.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want either of the candidates from the two major parties to be President. But I do fully believe that the church can withstand and flourish during times of direct opposition, and even outright persecution. But is the church likely to thrive and prosper in the midst of a cultural Christianity that does little to reflect the truth of God’s Word, but instead is more concerned with security, prosperity, power, and influence? Perhaps the important point to remember here is that for the church to flourish, she must stand against government leaders both who oppose the church and who promote a cultural, carnal, so-called Christianity. So if either major party candidate is elected, it seems to me that the church will be forced to stand against him or her on a number of key issues, whether standing firm against outright opposition or hypocritical flattery.

So what does all this mean? It means that the two major party candidates both stand in many ways in opposition to biblical Christianity. So perhaps we need to be reminded that, whether in standing against outright opposition or in standing against cultural Christianity and empty religious ritual, we must place our faith and trust in King Jesus rather than in a political candidate. If we endure persecution, we must be reminded that God is faithful and we can trust in Him. And if we find ourselves surrounded by false teachers and false churches who are using the name of Christ for their own material gain, we must be reminded that God is faithful and we can trust in Him. You can find many, many people claiming that the fate of or country hangs in the balance, pending the outcome of this election. We can rejoice and be glad that the fate of the church is not dependent on the election of a worldly leader. And we can celebrate that the fate of the church is not dependent on the fate of our country, since the church is lead by an eternal King and she will outlast all the kingdoms of this world.

 

Drunkenness as sinfulness

With the removal of Perry Noble as pastor of New Springs Church, a lot has been said in the last few days about alcohol and drunkenness. Many people are urging complete abstinence from alcohol, something that I practice. But in the midst of the conversation, I wanted to add a note on the issue that I know I need to remember. As one prone to legalism, I need a frequent remember that dealing with this issue cannot just be about rules.

I recently read an article by John Piper addressing the issue of modesty. His main point, as I understand it, is that addressing modesty cannot be about rules only. He argues that addressing modesty starts with “God and the gospel and the Bible and the Spirit and faith and joy.” In other words, even if a church were to enact a dress code to ensure that all members were dressing modestly, this rule in itself would not be able to deal with the deeper heart issues involved. These rules would not be able to destroy the sinful desires that lead to immodest dress. This same argument could be made concerning alcohol and drunkenness.

I am not opposed to rules concerning alcohol. I do not drink, and I will discourage my kids from doing so. And while they are underage, I will surely emphasize the law that tells them not to drink. But at its core, drunkenness is a sin issue (Ephesians 5:18). As such, it cannot be dealt with through rules alone; it must be handled through repentance and faith in God. As 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 indicates, drunkards are demonstrating their alienation from God’s kingdom. They are sinning against the commands of a holy God. Paul says such people will have no part in God’s kingdom. Of course alcoholics can be forgiven and cleansed, and Paul is not saying that a Christian will never get drunk in the same way that there is no guarantee that a Christian will never lie or be greedy. But this does mean that drunkenness is a sin that places us in need of the cleansing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Many families today have been affected by alcoholism, drunkenness, or drug abuse, so we will likely all face these issues at some point. And we must deal with them as sin issues. When alcoholism or drug abuse hits our family, we are prone to want to blame the drugs and alcohol. We want to paint our family members as essentially good people that were derailed by an evil or dangerous substance. Perhaps if better rules were in place, these problems never would have arisen. But James teaches that our sin comes from our own evil desires. These desires give birth to sin, which leads to death (1:14-15). And though Jesus does not specifically mention drunkenness in Mark 7, he does speak of all the evil desires that come from within our own hearts that then defile us (7:21-23). So if drunkenness is a sin, it comes from within, from a heart that needs to be replaced (Ezekiel 36:26), just like so many other evil and wicked desires. We sin because we want to sin, not simply because we have been tricked into sin or stumbled into sin or failed to have the right rules in place.

Ultimately all sin destroys. The destruction brought about by the sin of greed might not be as obvious to some as the destruction caused by drunkenness, but Paul is clear that the love of money is terribly destructive (1 Timothy 6:9-10). In the same way that rules will never defeat the sin of greed, rules will never defeat the sin of drunkenness. Rules have their place. Putting solid guidelines in place can be of benefit in our walk before the Lord. But ultimately they will never solve the problem of hearts turned away from God. We must deal with sin issues as just that, sins against a holy God. The ultimate power to defeat the sin of drunkenness comes neither from the principle of moderation or the rule of total abstinence, but from faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So why do I say any of this? A sinful tendency of mine over the years has been to glory in my own rule keeping. When I have had this attitude I am nothing more than the Pharisee of Luke 18, thanking God that I am not like those other people who commit those other sins. And when I have done this, my own rule keeping has done nothing more than alleviate the sin of drunkenness while I have plunged headlong into the destructive sin of pride. So while I believe in the wisdom of keeping certain rules that prevent certain behaviors, I know I need the constant reminder that the true power to defeat sin in my life comes not from following these rules, but from repentance and faith in the gospel of Jesus. So when I deal with my kids and alcohol, I need to be reminded not just to teach them rules (whether commands from God or rules that I believe are good, solid principles to follow), but I must proclaim to them the gospel of Jesus, which is the only power to set them free from their sin, whether that sin be drunkenness or pride over never having been drunk.