Search Results

“Happiness” is an over-used, misunderstood term. The word happy literally comes from the root word “happenstance.” “Happiness” is something that happens to you. We say “Happy Birthday” or “Happy New Year.” We talk about happy hour as a place where you can go to buy cheap drinks and appetizers. Then the hour ends. Disneyland advertisers call their theme park the “Happiest Place on Earth.” I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Disneyland. We took our kids to the Magic Kingdom. We had fun, but when we stood in line 95-degree heat on black pavement for and hour and forty minutes we weren’t happy. All of us live our lives in this tension. We want to be happy, but a lot of what happens to us causes us to be unhappy. Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:10: “God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs.” Whoa – wait a minute … again that word “God blesses” is one word in the original language. It could literally be translated as “divine favor” or “blessed” or “happy.” Happy are those who are persecuted for doing right. As you read through this passage in Matthew 5, Jesus assures us twice that the persecuted are blessed. It’s as if he’s saying there are double blessings to you when you are going through a difficult time because you are a follower of Christ. Double blessing. Happy are you because people are persecuting you. We can experience an inner peace and an inner joy that co-exists with tough circumstances. It is possible to have this happiness within us even through persecution, sufferings and setbacks. Focusing on our problems and difficulties is a happiness-killer. We must look beyond those to the hope of Heaven and the love of God, to the peace and the reward that we will ultimately receive as we follow Christ. What you focus on tends to be what you see. You’ll start to see Jesus and experience His strength and power in the midst of your trouble and problems. Christ’s divine blessing can give us the power to say and do miraculous things even when everything and everyone around us is going against us. A perfect example of a man who rose above his problems and challenges was the English statesman William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was elected to parliament at the age of 21. This bold young man of 21 years stood in front of parliament for four and one-half hours and argued to abolish slave trade. His motion was summarily voted down. For the next 23 years, every single year, William Wilberforce did the same thing. He stood up in parliament pleading for the abolishment of the slave trade. He was mocked. He received death threats. People wrote horrible things about him. He was the brunt of jokes and the subject of satirical cartoons in the newspapers. Wilberforce was persecuted for doing what was right. This godly man could have focused on his troubles, but he never did. He continued to keep his eyes on God and passionately pursue the calling God gave him. After twenty-three grueling years, the vote tipped in favor of abolishing the slave trade. History books tell us that the day the English government abolished slavery, everyone rose to their feet. The resounding ovation was one of the longest in the history of the British parliament. Do you know how William Wilberforce responded? He sat in his seat with his face in his hands and he wept. Undaunted by persecution, this godly servant spent twenty-three years of difficulty and struggle to fight for his cause. But God told him he had not finished his mission. Wilberforce, continued to persevere. For the next twenty years, the crusader gave his life to another phase of that campaign-freeing the existing slaves. This great saint fought that battle until the final days before he died. While Wilberforce lay on his deathbed, parliament finally voted to free all of the slaves. His colleagues came and told him that finally it had been done. All existing slaves were freed! This compassionate, visionary Christian man also fought for single mothers and orphans. He defended the poor. He was unstoppable, and I think he represented the heart of Jesus Christ in such a powerful way. Peter writes in I Peter 3:13 “Now who will want to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you suffer for doing what is right God will reward you for it. Don’t worry or be afraid of their threats; instead you must worship Christ as Lord of your life.” You follow Christ; you remember who and whose you are and do what’s right. Jesus exhorts us to rejoice when we suffer great difficulties and obstacles. In Matthew 5:12, Christ encourages us to rejoice: “Be happy about it. Be very glad.” It could be translated as “jump for joy.” What? You want me to jump for joy? He’s saying in the midst of difficulty and hardships you can rejoice. I think what Jesus means is that between what happens to us and how we chose to respond is one of our greatest life-tests. Jump for joy. Keep jumping even when you suffer. Rejoicing is the gasoline that fuels your engine to keep moving forward with God’s passion and power. Wilberforce knew the key to facing impossible obstacles and suffering was rejoicing in God. We have a choice to make. We may be victims, but we don’t have to live as victims. We can choose to live differently. Do you know the saying, pain is inevitable, but misery is optional? We may face pain in our lives from any number of directions, but how we choose to deal with that will determine whether or not we are miserable. Your attitude is the one thing that you can control. Jesus says to learn in the midst of those difficulties–to rejoice. And when you learn the power of rejoicing, God can help you move mountains and change the course of history.

Sermons, talks, and books on discipleship usually give a basic definition of disciple as “learner.” But the New Testament gives us a more thrilling and dynamic definition of a disciple and the cost that follows. Take for example the parable of the soils in Matthew 13. How do we know a disciple from merely a “learner”? Matthew 13:23 says, “He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” A disciple is, by nature—by definition!—a multiplier. Disciples are not merely learners but fruit-bearing disciple-makers; they multiply themselves. Dynamic Definition As you read the New Testament, you see that discipleship is complex and thrilling. Hans Kvalbein wrote in 1988 a Themelios article on the concept of discipleship in the New Testament (see the entire archive of Themelios articles) that gives strength and depth to how local churches should think, talk, and teach about discipleship. He gives 13 theses on discipleship. Here are several of them in summary form: The first word for Christians was not “Christians” but “disciples.” Newcomers to the faith saw themselves in relationship to the risen Lord Jesus in some way similar to the relationship of the first disciples to the earthly rabbi Jesus. A disciple learns by hearing his Master and doing like his Master. This is explicitly commanded by Jesus in John 13: “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set an example that you should do as I have done for you.” The disciples are chosen by Jesus. He says, “You did not choose me, But I chose you to go and bear fruit” (John 15:16). Life as a disciple is “death and resurrection” with Christ, inaugurated in Christian baptism. Baptism is initiation into discipleship, giving admittance to the “school” of Jesus and starting a new life in obedience to him and his commands. To be a disciple is to be called to make new disciples. Throughout the New Testament, the term “disciple” is a dynamic concept. It implies multiplication. All nations have been invited to this mission. “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). You can read the rest of Kvalbein’s helpful article for the entire list and helpful summaries. The Cost As we should expect, whenever the New Testament explains discipleship, it immediately warns us of the cost. Being a follower of Jesus splits up your family, threatens your life, and calls you to radical sacrifice of your job, finances, desires, hopes, and reputation. However, the cost comes after a promise. When Jesus tells his disciples to “sell your possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:32), he does so after a very important assurance: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” In Jesus’ day, they didn’t have banks, savings, or CDs. Their net-worth was found in their possessions. Jesus is saying, if you are my disciple, you should be able to radically give, even if it means dipping into your savings (see Joel Green’s The Gospel of Luke). But notice the order. Jesus doesn’t say, “Sell everything, give to the poor, and God will give you his kingdom.” It’s the exact opposite. Disciples can be radical in their giving because they’ve already been given the kingdom. Christ became poor, so his disciples might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9), and out of infinite riches, disciples become generous. Another example is when Jesus instructs his disciples that he will be sending them out as “sheep in the midst of wolves,” and the wolves will “deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues” (Matthew 10:16-17). That’s not a very encouraging rallying cry for church growth and evangelism! Notice that Jesus isn’t saying that they will be suddenly attacked by wolves; he’s sending them out into them. This is deliberate. They will be mocked, shamed, and possibly even killed. He knows this will happen to them, because that’s what the wolves will do to him. No servant is greater than his Master. Only when disciples are filled with God’s grace can they go into the wolves hoping to see some turn into lambs. Discipleship is as dynamic and costly as the gospel. Disciples can give up anything, go anywhere, and risk everything because the gospel has filled us with good things that can never be taken away. John Starke is an editor for The Gospel Coalition and lead pastor of All Souls Church in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. http://www.gospelcoalition.org. Used by permission of the author.

“There are six things the LORD hates – no, seven things he detests . . . a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” ~ Proverbs 6:16, 19 How are seeds of discord sown? One way is to tell others what someone allegedly said about them. The first is rather subtle so it broadsides many Christians when it takes place. One of your friends . . . a Christian, perhaps even a member of your fellowship . . . says the following to you: ”You know, Jimmy doesn’t like you . . . I’m telling you this because I’m your friend.” Or they may say something like: “I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think you should know that Twila said such and such about you.” Immediately, your defenses go up. You feel insulted. Hurt. You suddenly look at Jimmy and Twila, whom you’ve regarded as trusted friends, in a completely different light. Your friend was doing you a favor by telling you these things . . . right? Think again. The problem is that in most cases where I’ve seen this play out, the person reporting on Jimmy’s feelings or Twila’s words isn’t telling you the truth. Re-read that sentence. Sometimes they are spinning. Other times they are flat-out lying. The motive? It’s usually because they don’t like Jimmy or Twila and they want you to dislike them too. Or maybe your friend is buddies with Jimmy or Twila and they are jealous that you are close to them also. So they want to sabotage the relationship. Other times the motives aren’t so dark. Your friend has simply “read into” the words of Twila or Jimmy and thought the worst. And they are passing on to you what they assume Jimmy is feeling and what Twila may have meant. Or . . . they heard someone else pass on to them what Twila or Jimmy allegedly said. So they are engaging in gossip. The person hearing such reports . . . in this case you . . . usually believes it, never thinking to go to Jimmy or Twila privately and directly to ask, “ I was told that you may have an issue or a concern with me. Is this true? Are we okay?” Or even more boldly, “Someone told me that you said such and such . . . please be honest with me and let me know if you said this or something similar or if the person who gave me this report is bearing false witness.” This direct approach will get things out on the table . If Twila or Jimmy did say whatever was reported to you, you can work it out with them. If they didn’t, well . . . your friend is sowing seeds of discord. When this direct approach isn’t taken, however, dissension is sown and rifts occur. Suddenly, there’s a rift between you and Jimmy . . . or you and Twila. . . and they haven’t the foggiest idea why. They can just feel distance from you. All because of lies, spin, or misinterpretation on the part of one person . . . what the Bible calls a “whisperer” or a “troublemaker.” “A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.” (Proverbs 16:28, ESV) “A troublemaker plants seeds of strife; gossip separates the best of friends.” (Proverbs 16:28, NLT) So the next time someone comes to you bearing bad news of what someone allegedly said about you or what they allegedly think of you, there’s an excellent chance that they are sowing seeds of discord. The antidote? Go to the person in question directly. It will reveal a great deal. “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24) If your friend is sowing seeds of discord in your life, there’s a good chance that they are doing the same in the lives of others as well. What is another way to sow seeds of discord? One sure way to destroy a friendship, alienate people, and cause division is to judge another person’s motives. It’s perfectly fine to judge someone’s actions. Lying about someone is wrong. Paying them a sincere compliment is good. Those are value judgments. But to impute motives to their hearts is wrong and Scripture condemns it. When someone says something like, “Tommy told that joke because he was trying to garner attention and is full of pride.” Or . . . “Candy wore that dress because she was trying to impress Rick.” Or . . . “Bill posted that update on his Facebook page because he was trying to make Andrea jealous.” Or . . . “Tim said all of that in order to prove to himself that he’s better than his father.” They are attempting to read someone else’s heart. The irony is that in many cases – if not most – the person who is ascribing a bad motive to another person is simply revealing what’s in their own hearts. This is called “projection.” An individual cannot face their own shortcomings and defects so they unconsciously project them onto other people. They accuse others of the very same dark things that are lurking deep within their own hearts. As I put it in another place, In Matthew 7:1–4, Jesus points out that those with defective eyesight are all too willing to perform eye surgery on others. Yet within this text, the Lord makes this chilling assessment: If you impute an evil motive onto someone else, you’re simply making known what your motives are. To put it another way, the piece of sawdust we see in our brother’s eye is simply a small chip off the two-by-four that lies within our own. And a piece of wood will always distort our vision. When people cannot face the reality of what’s in their own hearts, they project it onto others—particularly those who they find threatening to their egos. (Excerpted from Revise Us Again.) To assume and disparage a person’s intentions is to sow seeds of discord and create division. May we never judge someone’s motives, therefore. Love always thinks the best. It never second-guesses or imputes evil. It always treats others the same way we want to be treated. And no one wants their motives judged. Only God can peer into the human heart. So we are wise to leave such business in His hands.

I am an out-of-the-box parenting problem solver. A clever method of getting little “ankle biters” to obey is less exhausting and more successful than ranting, raving, blaming, pleading, begging or threatening. It’s all about responsibility The first thing to remember about Reality Discipline is that you want your children to learn to think for themselves and learn to become more responsible through guidance and action-oriented techniques. In an article from First Things First , Dr. Leman says, “Action-oriented discipline is based on the reality that there are times when you have to pull the rug out and let the little buzzards tumble. I mean disciplining your children in such a way that he/she accepts responsibility and learns accountability for his actions.” Here’s an example. When my brother was in high school, my mother implemented Reality Discipline without realizing it. My little brother, Gannon, could sleep through a tornado (or a hurricane or tsunami) and my mother was tired of waking him up every morning and saying, “You’d better hurry, or you’re going to miss the bus.” Finally, Mom thought, I’m not waking him up anymore. He can be late. Just as she suspected, Gannon did miss the bus and was forced to walk the mile to school. Much to my mother’s delight, he was never late again. She didn’t have to beg, plead, give him ultimatums or nag Gannon one more time. Instead, she let reality do the discipline. A little bit of ice cream can do the trick One afternoon, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Leman explain on the radio how reality discipline teaches responsibility. He told an engaging story about a mother whose preschool son was driving her bananas because every day when she stopped to pick him up from preschool, he ran from her on the playground. She felt like a fool for being outrun by a preschooler while teachers and parents looked on. Desperate, she asked Dr. Leman for advice. Dr. Leman suggested that if her son ran from her next time, she should ask another adult on the playground if they would be kind enough to keep an eye on her son for a few minutes. Then she should drive away, go to the nearest ice cream shop, purchase a cone for herself and drive back to the school to pick up her son. Then, when her little guy got in the car and asked, “Where’s my ice cream?” he told the woman she should cheerfully say, “Well you could have had some ice cream, but you ran away; so I had to go get some alone.” One point for mom; zero for Junior. That’s Reality Discipline. No ranting. No raving. No warnings. Just cool, collected action with some quick, clever thinking to make your point loud and clear. Sounds great, right? Here are some basic principles of Reality Discipline to help you get (and keep) the upper hand with your kids. Don’t focus on creating a happy child In his book Have a New Kid by Friday , Dr. Leman says that the goal of parenting is not to create happy kids; rather, it’s to create responsible kids. This means Junior will probably be pretty unhappy that he didn’t get an ice cream cone; he may even throw a fit, and rant and rave — but he will become more responsible and respectful. Don’t back down, but do stay cool as a cucumber. Remind yourself that it’s a battle of the wits and the wills, and you will win. Understand your child’s reality According to Dr Leman, if you want to use Reality Discipline effectively, you need to know what’s important to your child — what really moves him in his reality. Your child may value money, sports, a daily cookie break, staying up late or spending time with friends. Parents who know how to use Reality Discipline make creative connections between bad behavior and discipline through action rather than through warnings, nagging or threats. For example, suppose you ask your ten-year-old daughter (who loves saving money) to take out the trash. She ignores you, and thirty minutes later the trash is still sitting by the back door. With a little creativity, you decide to implement some Reality Discipline. Instead of reminding your daughter about the trash, you enlist her younger sister to take it out . Then you take some money out of your ten-year-old daughter’s allowance and give it to her sister for a job well done. Can you imagine the peace and satisfaction that could come from being such a quick-witted parent? Note: If you want to use Reality Discipline, you have to listen to your child. Then you’ll know what will move him to responsibility. The more you understand what’s important to him, the more ammunition you’ll have in your arsenal to “train up” your child in the way he should go. Make sure that Reality Discipline is grounded in love In Have a New Kid by Friday , Dr. Leman writes, “Show me a mean teacher, and I’ll show you a good one.” If you find that you are a permissive parent who is afraid of “pulling the rug out from under your child” as Dr. Leman suggests, remember that Reality Discipline is not unkind. Instead, when it’s motivated by love to help your child mature into a responsible adult, it’s a very good gift. Dr. Kevin Leman: Have a New Kid by Friday.

“Blessed is the person who is not offended by me.” ~ Matthew 11:6 To be offended means to stumble or trip. The Scripture tells us that Jesus is a rock of offense . . . or a rock of stumbling . . . to the disobedient (1 Peter 2:8). In His earthly days, the Lord Jesus was constantly offending the religious establishment. But in the above text, Jesus has someone else in mind. He’s speaking to His followers: “Blessed are you, my followers, when you are not offended by me.” The context bears this out. John the Baptist was utterly loyal to Jesus. He walked a life of total self-denial. He gave everything up for his God. And now he finds himself in a cold prison. We have no record that the Lord ever visited him there. So John is questioning and doubting. He’s probably thinking, “Was it really worth it? I lived my whole life to pave the way for the Messiah, and now I’m in prison. The kingdom hasn’t yet come.” John is wondering and wavering; he’s tempted to stumble at his Lord. So he sends word to Jesus asking, “Are you really the one who was to come? Or should we expect another?” Again, Jesus doesn’t visit John. He instead sends this answer to him via his disciples: “Go back and report to John what you’re seeing. The deaf hear; the blind see; the lepers are cleansed; the dead are raised; the good news is being preached to the poor . . . and happy is the person who is not offended in me. Peaceful is the man who doesn’t stumble over me. Blessed is the person who doesn’t fall away on account of what I do or not do.” Over the years, I’ve watched Christians take offense with the Lord. Some of them were passionate followers of Jesus in their youth, but later ended up renouncing Him. Why? Because they chose to be offended by Him. “Blessed is the person who is not offended by me.” This is the forgotten beatitude. In this post, I want to share three reasons why Christians become offended by their Lord. In part two of the series, I want to discuss the issue of Christians being offended by others. The two are distinct, but not separate. Reason 1: He demands too much. In John 16:1, Jesus tells His disciples that He’s sharing “all these things” so they won’t be offended by Him. Some of those “things” were stern warnings that they would be hated by the world and persecuted (John 15:18ff.). Jesus made clear that following Him won’t lead to a bed of roses. Suffering and loss are involved. Unfortunately, some present a gospel that leaves these parts out. The result: Christians get offended when they realize what they’ve gotten into. But Jesus lets us know up front what following Him entails. Even in His own day, some of His followers stopped walking with Him because they regarded the cost too high (John 6:53-59). Reason 2: He doesn’t meet our expectations. The Lord often works in ways that we don’t understand. I’ve heard some Christians say, “My life would have been much better today if I didn’t follow Jesus in my youth. Look where it’s gotten me.” In Finding Organic Church, I talk about the Catch-30 crisis. There comes a point in all our lives where we reassess the major commitments we’ve made in early adulthood. And we either dig in deeper or we abandon ship. Isaiah says that God’s ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:9). The Lord works on levels that we cannot fathom. Paul says that God works all things for our good (Romans 8:28). “Why hasn’t God answered this prayer? Why didn’t He fulfill this promise? Why did He let this happen to me? Why did He let this happen to him/her? Why is God silent when I need to hear Him most?” These are the questions that plague the mind of the serious believer. If you’ve not yet met the God who refuses to meet all your expectations, you will. And how you react in that day will reveal whether you are worshiping Jesus Christ or Santa Clause (see John 6:26). It will show whether or not you love God more than His promises (or really, your interpretation of those promises). Jeanne Guyon once said, “I will still serve Him, even if it sends me to hell.” Job said, “Shall we receive good from the hand of the Lord and not evil?” Recall the three Hebrew children. They had lived a life loyal to their God. And the pagan king said to them, “Worship my golden image or else you’re going to die in my fiery furnace.” Their answer is telling: “We’re not going to worship this image or serve your gods. The Lord is able to deliver us, and He will deliver us from your fiery furnace. But even if He doesn’t, we’re still not going to bow down to your false gods.” What an attitude. What a posture. What faith. “God will deliver us. But even if He doesn’t, we will still follow Him.” Those words contain thunder and lightning for every child of God. If I can use an illustration, we mortals are living on pages 300-400 of a 2,000 page book. Only God can see the whole book. And He’s only given us the ability to see pages 300-400. We have no capacity to understand what’s in pages 1-299 or pages 401 to 2,000. We can only speculate and assume what’s in them (hence we create all sorts of intricate theological systems to explain mysteries we don’t understand). Here’s a lesson to learn: Life always comes down to trusting in the Lord rather than trying to figure out His ways via our finite, limited understanding. Yet together, we can better discover and understand what’s in pages 300-400, and thereby learn to live more effectively within them. (I hope blog posts like this contribute to that goal.) Reason 3: He doesn’t show up on time. He works too slowly. He reacts too late. His deliverance takes too long. God’s clock is a lot slower than ours. We can text or email our prayer to God, and He doesn’t text or email back when we expect. In fact, sometimes we never hear back from Him at all. The screen is blank. Sometimes we’ll pray for an important matter in our own lives . . . . or we’ll pray for someone else . . . for years. And the dial doesn’t move. Waiting on the Lord can become weary. And it can lead to offense. But God always keeps perfect time. To sum up, here’s how NOT to offended by the Lord: Remember that He demands everything, and He has promised suffering and tribulation along with blessing and eternal life. So don’t sell out for a cheap, easy gospel. Such is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. He told us what we were getting into and exhorted us to count the cost ahead of time (Luke 14:26ff.). Remember that His ways are higher than ours, and He doesn’t always show us what He’s doing or why. We may not always understand what He does or allows, but He can still be trusted. This is the nature of walking by faith rather than by sight. Even when His grace isn’t sufficient, it is always sufficient. Remember that God is always on time, but His clock ticks differently from ours. He’s a Lord who sometimes shows up long after the hour of healing has passed and we are dead for four days. Just ask Lazarus. Being offended by God is a choice. You can choose to take offense at the Lord and stumble over that which you don’t understand. Or you can “trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33).

Transferred Guilt When church leaders serve the living Christ in love, aggressive faith, and prayerful humility, the people who live under their anointing become rich in the presence of God. Conversely, when a leader blatantly sins or is led into deception, the heartache of his downfall is absorbed into the spirits of those following him. This precept, that a leader’s sin carries consequences which affect people negatively is seen in all facets of life. Do you remember what you felt when you heard of past leader’s sins? Former President Clinton’s sins? Or when famous evangelist Jimmy Swaggert fell? Consider the distress that crushes a family when a parent falls in to serious iniquity. Unless it is remedied, the impact of these events is similar to that of a curse upon one’s life. Another example is seen when David ordered Joab, a general, to take a census of Israel. Joab begged the king, “Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?” (1 Chr 21:3 NIV) David’s sin brought “guilt on Israel” and a plague struck killing thousands. The Lord provides a means to deal with both the leader’s sin and its subsequent effect upon people. He says, “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering” (Lev 4:3). Guilt is that terrible mixture of fear, shame, apprehension and anger. It is a state of being that exists outside of the blessedness of a right relationship with God. The “guilt on the people” does not mean that they have sinned, but that the effect of sin has positioned them in an “unblessable state of being.” This “unblessed state,” be it anger or heartache, as legitimate as they seem, is now a “guilt on the people” which must be acknowledged and atoned for. As much as they wish it were otherwise, wounded congregations often carry a discernible cloud of heaviness upon them; for years, the influence of their wounding surfaces in conversations, attitudes of cynicism or in fearful anticipations. Worse, their shared, unremedied pain becomes a bee hive of demonic exploitation, where human attitudes of mistrust, anger and confusion remain vulnerable to demonic manipulation. The Amplified Bible, speaking of the effects, or the dwelling place, of unexpiated sin, gives us an insight into this demonic infestation. It reads, “the shades of the dead are there [specters haunting the scene of past transgressions]” (Prov 9:18). That understanding, that “specters haunt . . . the scene of past transgressions,” tells us that when we pass through the disappointment and heartache caused by another’s sin, if we do not find a way to react as Christ, our human reactions can become a magnet for ongoing warfare. Thus, to move into the blessed future, we must be cleansed of the unredeemed past. What is especially unfortunate is that the unredeemed past can be transferred to individuals who join a church, yet were never partakers of the original wounding. New believers come to churches where mistrust of leadership has residence. Soon, though the osmosis of human relationships, the same fears, mistrust and suspicions that were resident in the old Christians surface in the life of the new Christian. Simply replacing pastors will not bring healing; what needs replacing is the cloud of heaviness that remains in that church. For, not only did the fallen leader need forgiveness, cleansing and renewal in Christ but, as we stated, what was transferred to the people must be cleansed as well. Perhaps we are tempted to think, “So what? Leaders come and go. I walk with God. Their fall doesn’t affect me.” Individually, you may indeed be blessed; but you will never know the descent of the Lord’s corporate blessing on a church until you experience renewal. If we fail to deal with the effect fallen leadership has had on us, it is possible that our future relationships with church leaders will be colored with fear and suspicion. Remember, the Lord’s promise is that He will raise up, ”‘Shepherds over [His people] and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing” (Jer 23:4). Unless we are cleansed of the effect of our negative experience, the filter of our mistrust might disqualify us from seeing godly leaders when the Lord brings us to them. You see, there is a corporate blessing coming to the church which is greater than the individual blessing. The corporate blessing is greater for it carries a unique reward to those who overcome offenses and persevere in faith for each other and their leaders. This is the Pentecost anointing that was in the 120 who were able to overcome the failings of the original twelve. Here is where God touches multitudes, turns cities, and empowers His people with the life of heaven. You may say, “Ours is a new church; our leaders have not fallen in sin.” Locally, your church may be clean, but the tremors caused when national leaders fall have impacted churches also. And, one does not have to be a church historian to recall how many major spiritual leaders have fallen in recent years. Each time one fell, the “mistrust level” toward all church leaders increased. The cumulative effect of moral failure, both on a national and local level, has smothered the fire in many Christian hearts. If you are a pastor and you are wondering why people do not respond to your teaching as you would hope, it might be they are carrying woundedness from a previous leader. Among regular church attenders, this woundedness has been translated into a polite, yet numbing attitude of unbelief and suspicion a filter of mistrust. They may not hear you because of they have distanced themselves from the memory of pain; and distance hinders hearing. The Cleansing River of Forgiveness The antidote for a leader’s sin in the Old Testament was to “offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering.” Of course, we have a Sacrifice for sins greater than the blood of bulls and goats, but until we apply Christ’s sacrifice to this need, it remains, affecting us negatively. Indeed, one of the great graces of the Christian faith is that, as we yield to God, He makes all things new. On a personal level, this renewal work is as effective as our ability to forgive those who hurt us and let go of the past. It is a profound opportunity, but we can be delivered from being old, hardened wineskins and face the future trusting God for new beginnings! Thus, to facilitate this new grace, let me speak for all leaders who have failed you. Forgive us. For every leader who stumbled badly, remember there are a hundred still climbing the mountain of God. Release that man or woman who, in their immaturity, misused spiritual authority or betrayed the solemn responsibilities entrusted to them and fell in sin. Again, I ask you to forgive leaders who have fallen or failed your expectations. Let us also take up our positions to intercede for our leaders. God never intended that congregations would not participate in their leaders protection and inspiration. Your leadership reflects, at least in part, the answer to your prayers. Unprayed for pastors are vulnerable to the battle in unique ways. If you haven’t stood in intercession, perhaps you are, at least in part, a contributor to his stumbling. No one knows how long it shall be before Christ returns and is fully glorified in His saints. Until then, God calls us to an ever renewing work of grace, one which takes us glory to glory. Inevitably, we shall return many times to this process of forgiving, cleansing and renewal. In truth, God shall remove every wrinkle from our past and present to His Son a church without the defects of sin or the reactions of heartache, a bride without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. www.frangipane.org . Used by permission.

When forced to choose their top priority in life, Christian women overwhelmingly pick family over faith, according to a new survey from Barna Research. Five times more women chose “being a mother or parent” than chose “being a follower of Christ,” as their most important role in life. These stunning survey results give us a clue as to why Christianity is so rapidly changing into a family-centered faith; why Christian culture is feminizing; and why the gender gap in many denominations continues to grow. The researchers wrote: Though women project a calm, confident exterior when it comes to their faith, the research suggests their spiritual lives are rarely their most important source of identity. That role is taken up by the strong priority Christian women place on family. The preeminence of family was most overt for Christian women when it came to naming the highest priority in their lives. More than half (53%) says their highest priority in life is family. By contrast, only one third as many women (16%) rate faith as their top priority, which is less than the cumulative total of women who say their health (9%), career performance (5%) or comfortable lifestyle (5%) are top on their list of life objectives. Despite the characterization of women as intricately connected to their peers, only 3% of Christian women say their friends are their top priority, equal to those who place finances (2%) and leisure (1%) at the top. Women’s sense of identity very closely follows their priorities, with 62% of women saying their most important role in life is as a mother or parent. Jesus came next: 13% of Christian women believe their most important role in life is as a follower of Christ. In third place is their role as wife (11%). Any other roles women identify with came in at similarly low rankings and far below that of a parent, including that of employee or executive (3%), that of church member (2%) and that of friend or neighbor (2%). American citizen, teacher and caregiver all rank with one percent each. The researchers continue: Perhaps not surprisingly given where they place their identity, Christian women also point to family-related objectives as their most important goal in life. Raising their children well is the highest goal for Christian women (36%). While, roughly one quarter of Christian women identify faith-oriented goals as most important (26%). Though women consider themselves family-driven, their marriages may be suffering from a lack of intentionality: only 2% of Christian women say their most important goal in life is to enhance their relationship with their significant other. Marriage comes in below several other goals, including health (6%), career (5%), lifestyle (4%), personal growth (4%), morality (4%) and financial objectives (3%). Only goals related to personal appearance, relationships outside the home and travel come in lower than marital goals. Why are today’s Christian women so family and relationship focused? In an earlier series of blog posts (part 1 and part 2) I observed how the church’s core product had changed from eternal salvation to interpersonal relationships over the past 50 years. Church is no longer the place to go to save your soul; it’s the place you go to save your messed-up family. Barna’s research confirms what I’ve suspected for a decade: modern Christianity is brazenly marketing itself to its core constituency – married women. Without these women the church machine cannot function. Christian authors, songwriters, preachers and talk show hosts know the importance of married women and they work very hard to satisfy their deepest desire. And what is that desire? Happy relationships, by a landslide. All this attention to relationships within the church may be creating a feedback loop: as Christians absorb more and more church teaching on relationships, they begin to see the Gospel through this lens. A new generation of Christians is emerging that sees church as something that exists to protect and promote healthy relationships. The fact that Christian women overwhelmingly choose family over faith is no surprise – what’s so shocking is that so many now admit it. It’s become acceptable among churchgoing women to publicly state, “I place my family above all else.” David Kinnaman, president of Barna research said, “Others may conclude this study shows too many women have created an ‘idol’ of their family, perhaps at the expense of their devotion to Christ.” While the Bible certainly endorses interpersonal harmony, Scripture is not chock-full of happy relationship advice. Whenever Jesus spoke of relationships he usually predicted their demise (Matt. 10:34-35), or promised rewards for people who abandoned their loved ones (Luke 18:29-30). God takes no delight in dysfunctional relationships, but neither did he send his son so you could have a regular date night. Good relationships are a blessing. They are not the reason Jesus died a horrible death on the cross. The church’s increasing focus on relationships may be leading women to take an unrealistic view of their faith. Parts one and three of the survey reveal women’s very high levels of satisfaction with their churches and their spiritual lives. More than two thirds of women say they are making the most of their gifts and potential at church and doing meaningful ministry. Speaking of their personal lives, more than two-thirds say they are filled with, “joy, spiritual freedom and fulfillment,” while just 3% admit to struggling “a lot” with fear, doubt or confusion. (When I shared this statistic with my wife who ministers to women, she laughed out loud. “They’re in total denial,” she said.) Commenting on the research, Kinnaman asked: Has raising children and doing it well become central to the definition of being a good Christian? If the answer to Kinnaman’s question is, “yes,” then we’ve given men another reason to find their purpose outside the church. As Christianity becomes known as a family-building institution, it will attract more women. Some married men will still come, but young, single childless men will have no reason to get involved. These are precisely the men Jesus attracted as his followers, and precisely the men we’re losing in the church today. We owe Barna Research a big “thank you” for this survey. And I commend these women for being honest about their true priorities, instead of blindly parroting the “God comes first” language they’ve heard in church. However, I’ll close this post with four challenges: To Christian women: honestly, ruthlessly examine your priorities. Everything in this life passes away, even family (except if you’re a Mormon?). As followers of Christ, your identity should be rooted in the eternal. To Christian men: ask your wives the same questions Barna asked the women. Help them see the larger picture of what God is doing in this world. When you pray with your wives, ask for things besides safety, health, and happy relationships. Pray for big things outside your circle, such as the advancement of the kingdom, mercy for the persecuted and food for the hungry. To Pastors: please, dial back those sermon series on relationships. I know it’s a hot topic and it packs the pews, but you need to realize that these series can alienate men and breed narcissism in your congregation. Teach your people to derive their identity from God, not from their relational network. Your men will thank you. And finally, to Barna Research: please survey Christian men with these same questions. I feel another book coming on…

I took a survey asking Christian leaders and laity why they believed churches split. I received more responses to this subject than any previous subject. From my best analysis, about five percent blamed pastors, saying that the pastors were in serious sin, heavy handed, weren’t in “the river” or refused accountability to anyone (sadly, this is true among a minority of ministers). Twenty percent wrote simply to encourage us to write the book. However, amazingly, 75% spoke of being “deeply devastated” by a split, some calling it “hell on earth.” These people usually wrote long and obviously painful emails. They grieved for their pastors, the loss of friends and the “death” of their church. These individuals said the division arose from a subordinate leader or group within the church. Judging from those who wrote, the main problem does not seem to be with the pastors. Clearly, though, there is more to this subject than a couple preview chapters can reveal, including mistakes pastors make. In the book we will discuss a vital insight the Lord revealed about “Satan’s hour,” that time when hell advances into a church. We will also seek to remove the oppression on a church when its pastor sins; we will address healing for wounded churches and the deception surrounding ambition. Finally, we will look at how divisions affect children, as well as how to become unoffendable, and much more. I may even intersperse some of your profound and passionate comments so others may understand this hellish pain and seek to avoid it. I will offer no political solution to divisions. Ultimately, if attaining Christlikeness is not enough for you, I have no other remedy. I am a man in quest of the character of Christ. I write to people who share my passion. If you are reading this, but do not care passionately about becoming Christlike, I truly have nothing to offer you regarding splits. Becoming Christlike is the only way to avoid them or be healed from them. Let the Word Be True The Bible has a great deal to say about unity. However, I have yet to find one New Testament example where the Scriptures encouraged born again Christians to divide from or split a church. I have heard many Scriptures taken out of context and twisted to suit the purpose of division, but in context I do not see the Holy Spirit anywhere telling His people it is right to divide from other imperfect Christians. Therefore, let’s look at some of the Scriptures people have used to justify splitting a church. Frequently quoted is Paul’s admonition, “Come out from their midst and be separate” (2 Cor 6:17). However, the apostle was not speaking of being separated from other Christians. Rather, his purpose was to warn Christians about being “unequally yoked” with pagans or “unbelievers” (see 2 Cor 6:14-15 KJV). Interestingly, the name “Pharisee” literally translated means “the separate.” Among them we see the perfect example of when pride and self-righteousness cause us to think of ourselves as more spiritual than other people. Another historic misinterpretation comes from 1 Cor 11, where Paul seems to concede that splits and divisions were almost necessary. He wrote: “. . . I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you” (1 Cor 11:18b-19). Certainly, isolated by itself, the idea that there “must also be factions . . . that those who are approved may have become evident” adds legitimacy to the idea of splits and divisions. Of course, those who split from others always identify themselves with “those who are approved.” However, the actual context of the verse reveals the apostle’s true perception. Here’s the complete eighteenth verse: “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it.” Listen carefully to Paul’s overriding, prevailing context: “When you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist. “Don’t rush past his opening address. They hadn’t split from each other. They were still united. Paul wasn’t justifying the divisions among them; he wrote specifically to correct their divisions. But even though one identified with Paul and another with Apollos or Cephas, they still came “together as a church.” Every week all the Christians in Corinth met together in worship. At this meeting they also had a love feast and shared weekly communion. It was here, in the administration of food, that they had broken into cliques and factions. Some, indeed, tried to keep their focus on the significance of the Lord’s supper while others were eating as much as they could during the community meal (see 1 Cor 11:20-22, 33-34). Paul wasn’t sanctioning their divisions; he was acknowledging that the more gluttonous Christians had become a separate group within the church as they rushed to eat before others. In contrast, the Christians who reverently waited became a group as well – but they were all still united, meeting together as Christ’s church. Throughout this entire letter, Paul’s focus has been unbending toward eliminating divisions and disunity. It is utterly inconceivable that he would sanction division among them. In the very next chapter, Paul communicates again his theme of unity, using the analogy of a body interdependently united. Everything he has written to this point is captured in his summary-thought in verse 25. Listen again to his heart: “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor 12:25 KJV). Beloved, this word translated ‘schism’ in the King James (rendered ‘division’ in the NAS), means ‘split’ in the Greek language. Translated literally, Paul is saying “there should be no split in the body.” What part of “no” don’t we understand? Unity is the central theme of First Corinthians. How could one honestly ignore entire chapters about unity and take one half verse out of context to justify a split? This is willful deception. The Goal is Unity In all that the New Testament declares for Christians – in all of the epistles and pastoral letters of Paul and the other apostles – the call is clearly, unmistakably toward unity, not division. There is a hurricane of spiritual wind blowing and bending the church in the direction of oneness with Christ and, because of Christ, oneness with each other. The repeated rebuke comes because of disunity and sectarianism. What about Jesus’ admonition, that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword of division? Jesus does indeed divide us from the world (Lk 12:51). However, He eternally unites us to Himself and one another. As I searched through the New Testament on the subject of Christian unity, there were literally hundreds of verses pointing toward oneness in the born again church. After years of study on this subject, I have yet to read one verse that instructed a group of Christians to slander, divide and split from another group of Christians in a city, just because that other group was imperfect. If the truth of God calls us to unity throughout an entire city, how much more does the call to unity apply in relationships in a local fellowship? Part of unity means we can accept that people in our church may desire to function differently than the rest of the church. This diversity needs to be defended, yet it must find its expression without contention or strife. The test is to find a creative ways to facilitate diversity while remaining united. If unity of purpose cannot be maintained, a church plant born of love and done with wisdom is a possibility. Several years ago I approached one of our associate pastors at River of Life, Marty Boller, and asked if he was praying about moving out of state. He said yes. Marty had been a Vineyard pastor who merged with us and now, seven years later, he wanted to return to the Vineyard. Yet Marty did not want to sow division in our community, so he planned on moving to Canada to start his church! Because he was an honorable man and very committed to unity, I suggested he take a few months and explain his vision in a weekly class with those interested from our church. When Marty started a new work in our city he did so with a dozen or so ROL families, and others. Today, we remain great friends and serve together in many citywide projects. We are closer because he was patient, wise and nondivisive. There are many ways to multiply a church as long as we stay Christlike. It’s when pride or ambition enter that division soon follows. A Purer First Century Church? The argument arises that the church was much purer in its early years than it is now; so today we need to separate from others because of sin in the camp. The church in Jerusalem, in its inception, certainly set a standard for us all. However, as the church expanded to other cities and cultures there were many problems; in some cases, their failures were worse than our own. Yet, the apostles who served Christ’s church still called for unity in spite of the churches’ imperfections. Even in Jesus’ address to the seven churches in the Revelation of John, though sin existed in the churches in five cites, Christ never instructed the innocent to break from the sinners. Rather, He commended those who walked in purity and left them in the midst of the sinful as an example of His righteousness. Doctrine Another argument used to justify splits has to do with doctrinal interpretation. Let me make it clear that our doctrines are very important; they define our belief systems and open the door to spiritual realities and levels of blessedness of which we would be otherwise ignorant. Having clear biblically based doctrines also provide boundaries to keep us from deception and half truths. However, there are both core truths and peripheral truths to our faith. There are precepts that we must be willing to die for, yet there are other instructions that good Christians interpret differently. Because we are all learning, we must be willing to yield and stay humble. In practical terms, we cannot be united with those who do not hold the deity of Christ. Yet, we certainly can maintain the unity of the spirit, for instance, with someone who has a different view about the timing of the rapture. We cannot dilute God’s truth concerning the new covenant, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the centrality of Jesus Christ; the atonement of His cross, His bodily resurrection; His physical return; salvation by grace through faith; the Trinity and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. But we are still learning about spiritual gifts, effective church government, signs and wonders, styles of praise, and various programs that train youth and make disciples of adults. When Jesus defined the requirements for unity in John 17, He refined unity to three core realities. These fundamental truths, if adhered to, He said would unite His people. He said spiritual oneness would come as we believed in His name, His word and glory (Jn 17:11, 20-21,22). Unity is pretty simple if we sincerely desire it. However, to split a church because of a disagreement concerning peripheral doctrines is a smoke screen. It is a deception. There are those who argue they are taking their stand in defense of God’s word. Yet, how can they divide a church in defiance of God’s word? A person who will split a church over a nonfundamental doctrine or over a spiritual gift or style of worship is deceived and seeking to deceive others. Lord, forgive us for accepting divisions. Heal Your church, O God! Bring us into Christ-centered unity, that the world would believe in Your power. Amen. For more sermons and articles, go to www.frangipane.org. Used by permission.

“Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.” ~ Isaiah 45:15 The question of God’s existence has plagued philosophers and theologians for thousands of years. For that reason, I don’t have any canned answers on the question and I’m not about to solve the problem. But I do have some thoughts that may cause you to rethink your position and help you reach your own conclusions. I have met many people that have struggled with believing in the reality of God. This is especially true for very intellectual people. They feel that there is zero proof for God’s existence. How can a person put faith in a God who cannot be seen, felt, heard, touched, or smelled with his or her physical senses? Some people deny God’s existence because they love their lifestyle. They surmise that if there were a God, they would have to be accountable to Him and change their behavior. As a result, they simply reject the notion that God exists so they would not have to feel accountable to anyone for their actions. For them, to believe that there is no God helps to appease their conscience in some way. Others have experienced deep pain, sorrow and heartbreak in their lives. And many of them cannot understand why a good God would allow such things. Even for the most devoted Christians, when tragedy strikes, faith is put into the salt-shaker. No one can prove that God exists. Only evidences can be offered. I learned that early on. When I first started down the path of being a Christian, I took a big interest in trying to convince my friends that God was real. Sometimes we would evaporate hours discussing the subject. Enduring their antagonistic bombasts caused me to generate my own nagging doubts. It had gotten so bad that my path grew almost too dim to follow. But after processing the whole subject to near exhaustion, I discovered that I couldn’t deny that God exists, even if I tried. Faith was present. And I couldn’t shake it. Here are a few things to consider before you adopt the idea that no evidence exists for God’s existence: 1. The complexity, order, sophistication, and intricate design of the universe and all biological and botanical life give strong evidence for God’s existence. There are only three alternatives to explain the origin of the universe: 1) It always existed, 2) It was created by chance, or 3) It was created by God. The universe could not have always existed, for it is expanding and contracting. This suggests that it came into existence at a certain point in time. The universe could not have been created by chance because it is too orderly and complex. It is a basic principle that the things which chance creates are always unorganized, irregular, inconsistent, and partially integrated. And whatever chance creates, it almost instantaneously destroys. For example, if I continue to throw a chair into the air, by chance the chair will eventually fall to the ground on its four legs. However, the next time I throw it up, it will land on its back or side. Suppose that we put a monkey in front of a computer keyboard. If the monkey stays at that keyboard long enough, he may eventually produce a coherent sentence (maybe after a few hundred years of typing!). The sentence may be: “Monkeys rule.” However, with the next few strokes, the monkey will make that coherent sentence incoherent through his arbitrary typing: “Monkeys rule lsldksldfsdoaf.” So whatever chance creates, it almost instantaneously destroys. Therefore, it is inconceivable to believe that chance could create anything complex and sophisticated, whether it be a watch, a car, a computer, or a human being. All of these things require a superior designer. Therefore, the consistency, organization, symmetry, form, and purposefulness of the universe and all life forms testify compellingly to God’s existence. Would you not agree? I mean, can you conceive of something as complex as the human brain simply coming into existence randomly by the forces of chance? That would be like believing that the computer I’m presently typing on just appeared without a designer. Can you conceive that something as complex as human life emerged spontaneously out of nothing but random chance and long periods of time? By my lights, it requires much more faith to believe that the universe always existed or that it was created by chance than to believe that God created it. Incidentally, the “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve much. For it doesn’t answer the probing question: “Who or what started the Bang in the first place?” 2. A natural and inborn desire for God in the heart of humans supports God’s existence. Virtually every religion in the world believes in a Creator. And there is no culture on the planet that does not have a religion as a part of its tradition. So the belief in a Divine Person is universal. It can be found in all cultures, nations, and tribes. Desire implies and indicates the existence of a real object. In other words, if a person desires something, it shows that the desired object exists in some form. If, for example, I desire a car, a house, or a particular job, then my desire for these objects demonstrates their existence. Moreover, orphans desire parental love, even though they may have never seen their real parents or had a foster parent. Someone may object, “Yes, but what about Santa Claus? Children desire him and he’s not real.” Yes, but the Santa Claus myth is that of a human being who gives gifts to people. And the myth was spawned from historical origins. So every desire of the heart arises out of an existing object, even if that desire is tailored or reframed. Seeing that people in all cultures have a capacity and a desire to believe in, to know, and to fellowship with God, God must exist. The explanation for this, of course, is that God created humankind with a capacity to know Him and to fellowship with Him. 3. The multitude of answered prayers that cannot be explained by natural means affirms God’s existence. What I have set forth thus far rests on the modern belief that everything can be answered by science or reason. But that belief is becoming old and tiresome. There is something within all of us that cries out for that which is unseen and spiritual. Resting in the human heart is an authentic desire to experience God. My next two points relate to that intangible element which transcends reason, empirical proofs, and scientific models. All who have known God throughout the span of time know that He is real by His response to their prayers and the specific guidance that He affords them in life. Neither coincidence nor chance could account for the thousands upon thousands of answers to specific prayers that Christians in the past and present have received. Many of these answered prayers were miraculous in nature and cannot be explained by empirical means. I have met a lot of people who have tried to dismiss this fact. But none of them could prove that such reports were not genuine. Time and space would not permit me to describe the countless answers to prayer that I myself have received in my life, not to mention the countless number of others who have had the same experience. Although this evidence is subjective, it is still an evidence for God’s existence. I would also add that the belief in God has changed multitudes of lives. Those who meet God change. Sometimes in profound ways. By contrast, I have never seen the philosophy of atheism sober an alcoholic, reform a criminal, deliver a drug addict, or transform a prostitute. But God’s transforming power and love has done all of these things in the lives of multitudes. 4. The sense that God is our Father within those who have met God. Although this is a subjective evidence, it nevertheless remains a reality for those who have met the Lord. When we do not know God, He seems distant — like a stranger who lives in some unseen planet millions of miles away. But upon meeting Him, something dramatic happens. We have the sense that He is near and that He is our Father. This being so, we instantly have an affinity for others who also know God. We have the sense that they are our relatives . . . our brothers and sisters. A kinship beyond words is discerned. I have met Christians in other parts of the world. We had nothing in common except the Lord. Instantly, there was a common bond. We did not shake hands; we hugged. The sense of family was immediately present. And yet, we may not have said five words to one another beforehand. The connection I am describing here goes beyond the natural affinities that people who hold common interests share. I cannot quite put my finger on how it is richer except to say that it is the result of God’s indwelling life, which is a very real thing. And it creates an invisible bond between those who possess it. One of the major objections that some of my friends have had to my belief in God is the problem of human evil. The argument goes like this: “If God is good and all-powerful, how can He allow evil in the world? Since evil exists, it proves that God cannot be good and all-powerful.” Modern philosophers have perfected this argument. But here’s a question I’d like to ask you in response. If you were God, how would you remove evil from the world at this minute? Most people answer saying, “I would just remove it with the snap of my fingers.” My reply: You have just annihilated every breathing soul from planet earth . . . including you and me! The reason? Because every person on the planet is either presently committing evil or they are capable of committing evil. So you just terminated us all. It seems to me that God had two choices when He created humankind. He could have created humans without a free will. If He had, we would all be robots forced to follow His will at all times. The result would be no evil in the world. But God would get no pleasure out of it. Because we would be loving Him out of sheer force rather than free choice. The other choice God had was to create beings with a free will who possessed the ability to choose to love Him or reject Him. The net result is that evil would be born in the world, for some would reject Him and live selfishly. Not to mention the insidious consequences that often follow those selfish actions. But the amazing thing about God is that He is so wise as to take the evil that is inevitable and use it for good. To put it in a metaphor, God is masterful at drawing straight with crooked lines. I know in my own life there have been many horrible experiences I endured because of the evil of others. I have also suffered as a consequence of my own foolish choices. But those experiences have always culminated in making me a stronger and better person. (Sometimes it takes years to make that discovery.) As one philosopher put it, “What does not kill you makes you stronger.” These are just some things to consider. Augustine said, “Do not seek to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” Faith is simply trust. It is rooted in humility and is the tool of a child. It knows with the heart, not the mind. Though it doesn’t contradict reason. Surprisingly, the Bible never sets out to prove God’s existence. The Lord has chosen to remain invisible. He is a God who hides Himself (Isaiah 45:15). He has chosen to remain unprovable. One reason for this is because salvation is a work that is utterly His own. It is exclusively His doing. No person could ever boast about being saved because they were bright enough to figure out that God exists. Knowing Him is a matter of child-like faith that springs from humility, and it will always be so. “The Lord resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” and “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” we are told in the Bible. God reveals Himself to those with believing, child-like hearts. While on earth, Jesus said, “I have hid these things from the wise and prudent, but revealed them unto babes.” So be a child. Be a babe. For the kingdom of God is given to such. Taken from www.frankviola.org. Used by permission.

Gruesome reports of forced abortions continue to emerge from China, where a one-child policy has resulted in untold death, chiefly targeting girls. So far, few American media have circulated Monday’s news of a U.S. State Department inquiry into the case of Cao Ruyi, who anti-abortion activists say will be required to abort her child this weekend if she fails to pay a substantial ”social burden fee.” Tragically, we have no shortage of incidents that remind us of abortion’s horrors, intended and unintended. For example, last fall a hospital in Australia mistakingly killed the wrong twin in a selective abortion. Steven Ertelt, founder and editor of LifeNews.com, reports, “The mother of the two babies had wanted to abort the baby who doctors said had little chance to live. But now, both babies are dead.” The doctors told the mother that one of the unborn babies had a heart defect that would require years of surgeries, if the child survived long enough. The mother asked doctors to abort the one child while allowing the other to live. “However,” Ertelt writes, “the abortion . . . went awry and the wrong baby was injected with drugs meant to end his or her life.” The Implications: Peter Saunders, CEO of Christian Medical Medical Fellowship in the UK, responds, “The story graphically illustrates the grim reality of the ‘search and destroy’ approach to unborn babies with special needs. Such procedures are now very common although very few involve twins.” His remarks deserve further reflection: It is interesting that the killing of an “unwanted” child with special needs in the womb is regarded as “normal” whilst the killing of a “wanted” normal child is seen as a tragedy and worthy of international news coverage. By contrast the Christian view is that the life of every human individual, regardless of its intelligence, beauty, state of health, or degree of disability is infinitely precious. A just and caring society is one where the strong make sacrifices for the weak, or in the words of the apostle Paul, “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). Earlier this week, Ross Douthat’s column “Eugenics, Past and Future” notes the eerie relation of today’s selective abortions to “the American elite’s pre-World War II commitment to breeding out the “unfit.”‘ He concludes: “…This progressive fascination with eugenics largely ended with World War II and the horrors wrought by National Socialism. But while the West has discarded the theory of the eugenics era, the practice urged by Fisher and others — the elimination or pre-emption, through careful reproductive planning, of the weaker members of the human species — has become a more realistic possibility than it ever was in the 1920s and ’30s. The eugenicists had very general ideas about genetics and heredity, very crude ideas about intelligence, and deeply poisonous ideas about racial hierarchies. They did not have, as we do, access to the genetic blueprints of individuals — including, most important, human beings still developing in utero, whose development can be legally interrupted by the intervention of an abortionist. That access, until recently, has required invasive procedures like amniocentesis. But last week brought a remarkable breakthrough: a team of scientists mapped nearly an entire fetal genome using blood from the mother and saliva from the father. The procedure costs tens of thousands of dollars today, but the price will surely fall. And it promises access to a wealth of information about the fetus’s biology and future prospects — information that carries obvious blessings, but also obvious temptations. Thanks to examples like Irving Fisher, we know what the elites of a bygone era would have done with that kind of information: they would have empowered the state (and the medical establishment) to determine which fetal lives should be carried to term, and which should be culled for the good of the population as a whole. That scenario is all but unimaginable in today’s political climate. But given our society’s track record with prenatal testing for Down syndrome, we also have a pretty good idea of what individuals and couples will do with comprehensive information about their unborn child’s potential prospects. In 90 percent of cases, a positive test for Down syndrome leads to an abortion. It is hard to imagine that more expansive knowledge won’t lead to similar forms of prenatal selection on an ever-more-significant scale. Is this sort of “liberal eugenics,” in which the agents of reproductive selection are parents rather than the state, entirely different from the eugenics of Fisher’s era, which forced sterilization on unwilling men and women? Like so many of our debates about reproductive ethics, that question hinges on what one thinks about the moral status of the fetus.” From a rigorously pro-choice perspective, the in utero phase is a space in human development where disease and disability can be eradicated, and our impulse toward perfection given ever-freer rein, without necessarily doing any violence to human dignity and human rights. But this is a convenient perspective for our civilization to take. Having left behind pseudoscientific racial theories, it’s easy for us to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we have in common with them. But this is a convenient perspective for our civilization to take. Having left behind pseudoscientific racial theories, it’s easy for us to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we have in common with them. First, a relentless desire for mastery and control, not only over our own lives but over the very marrow and sinew of generations yet unborn. And second, a belief in our own fundamental goodness, no matter to what ends our mastery is turned. (Originally titled “Profiles of Death.”) John Starke is an editor for The Gospel Coalition and lead pastor of All Souls Church in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. You can follow him on Twitter.

I’m a member of Alaska’s largest church. It’s a lot like every other megachurch. We meet in a cavernous, windowless room with stage lighting and two huge projection screens. We’re led by a rock band and a casually dressed pastor. The service lasts exactly 75 minutes. Our church draws a large crowd who attends sporadically. There’s a relatively small, highly committed core of members that keeps the machine going. I like my church. But it’s in Anchorage, 26 miles from my house. It’s summertime and I’m lazy. So my wife and I have been worshipping at a small traditional church in our little town of Chugiak. (Let’s call it First Church of Chugiak) We’ve been enjoying our Sundays at First Church. The richness and rigor of the liturgy is refreshing after years of seeker-sensitive services. It’s an eight-course meal, carefully measured out for us by church fathers – confession, forgiveness, praise, instruction, communion, giving, fellowship and benediction. It’s like a spiritual multivitamin in an easy-to-swallow, hour-long pill. First Church has a lot going for it. The people are friendly, but not pushy. There is a healthy number of kids and young adults. The facility is well kept. The sermons are insightful. We love the depth of the hymns – and the people sing robustly (as opposed to most megachurches where very few people sing). It takes my wife back to the 100-member churches of her youth. But last Sunday was different. Once a month, this little church does a contemporary service. Gina and I were surprised – unpleasantly so. We arrived to find the pastor without his clerical robe. A projection screen had been lowered in front of the organ pipes. We sang praise choruses instead of hymns, led by a solo guitarist who had trouble keeping the beat. The congregation did not seem to know the songs, so they sang tentatively. On a positive note, the sermon was good as usual, and the pastor skillfully used PowerPoint slides to reinforce his message. But on balance, the overall quality of the service was not up to par. Had this been our first Sunday at First Church, it’s unlikely that we would have returned. So what went wrong? This little church was trying to be something it’s not. First Church is a traditional church. And it’s very good at being a traditional church. But it’s a lousy contemporary church. Here’s the advice I give every congregation – be who you are. Do what you do well – and do it over and over. If you’re going to innovate, do so within the bounds of your culture. It’s an article of faith these days that contemporary worship is the way to go if you want your church to grow. Thousands of churches will be planted this year – and every one will offer contemporary worship. Hymns are out – love songs to Jesus are in. Traditional churches have seen young believers flocking to megachurches, so naturally they want to get in on the growth. But this is foolish. Smaller traditional churches lack the musical depth, computer controlled lighting or special effects that are needed to generate the “worship high” that young believers associate with God. Rock music seems out of place in a brightly lit chapel festooned with felt banners and stained glass. People come to church to encounter God. A good worship service is transcendent; it helps people detach from this present world to connect with the divine. But when traditional churches try to be contemporary it usually comes across as forced, stilted or artificial. This dissonance jerks people back into the mundane world. Worshippers focus on the distraction instead of the Lord. So once again here’s my advice to every church: be who you are . Do what you do well – and do it over and over. Don’t worry about what some other church is doing. Radio stations understand this principle. You won’t find the local pop music station playing the occasional Beethoven concerto. Nor will the country music station spin Lil Wayne’s latest rap record. Our local “Mix” radio station plays a variety of songs – but they’re all within the same genre – familiar pop/rock hits of the past 30 years. If your church is big enough to offer two services, it might make sense to designate one a “traditional service” and the other a “contemporary one.” But if you offer just one service, stick with what you do best. About a year ago I was filming a documentary at a traditional United Methodist Church that is growing by focusing on men. They sing hymns accompanied by piano and organ. They already attract a fairly young crowd (median age 42) and their nursery is packed with babies. They’re obviously doing a lot of things right. During filming I interviewed the woman in charge of the worship committee. After the camera stopped rolling, she happened to mention that the church was preparing to recruit a rock band for the occasional contemporary worship service. I strongly encouraged her NOT to do this. Our conversation went something like this: Me: Why? You’re already the fastest growing Methodist church in your conference. Woman: We’ve had a couple of people ask for it. We think the young people will like it more. Me: Have you asked the young people if it matters to them? Woman: No. Me: Have you talked to any other traditional churches that have tried to add contemporary worship to see how it went? Woman: No. Me: I’d do that first. I think you’ll stick with what you’re doing. As of now, Grace UMC is sticking with the piano and organ. They sing a mix of hymns and praise songs. They do not have a band. They are doing what they do well. And they’re still growing. Oh, and one more thing: they have more active men than women. In my estimation, that’s one sign of a healthy church.