Be Not Ashamed - Be Confident

¹⁵ So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. ¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
Romans 1:15–17 (NASB95)

 We've heard "For I am not ashamed of the gospel" quoted from the pulpit and may even have used it ourselves ... but what does it really mean?  What idea was Paul trying to communicate here?

First, what it does not mean.  This is not about a parent telling a child, "I'm so ashamed of what you did (or did not) do."  God is not saying He is ashamed of you for not witnessing.  To use this passage to make that point is a total misuse of scripture.  This is actually an affirming scripture, not one that condemns!

Rather, Paul is expressing his confidence in the Gospel - that it will not let him down.  What is the Gospel?  It's the message about Jesus, perfect Son of God who died for our sins that we may have forgiveness and restoration.  Paul is also saying that the message is universal - Jew to Greek - and consistent in that it takes "faith" and that faith is consistent over time - "faith to faith".  There is only one object of true faith - God - progressively revealed from the Jewish "faithfulness" (there's no word in Hebrew for "faith")  starting with Abraham to completion in Jesus and the Gospel of the New Testament.

So, this is really about the fact that we can and should be Confident that the Gospel message is True.  But, how does this confidence arise and grow?  Stay tuned for my next post.

Standing for Truth

"Thank you for encouraging me to stand up for my faith." This was a young Christian lady's commendation to a national Christian radio network. I'm not sure this Christian radio network explicitly teaches Christians to stand for their faith or this is just the young lady's summarization. Still, I think there is a much more effective way of communicating this idea. Rather than teaching to "stand for our faith", I think we should be explicitly teaching to "stand for Truth". 

Here are several reasons this is a better way to express our Biblical mandate to be salt and light both inside the Church and to the unbelieving culture. Faith, when Biblically understood, is a perfectly good word, but, we (the Church) have allowed the word to be misunderstood and marginalized by our culture. 

The first or "common" definition most people think of is the ability to believe in something that has no proof, or, perhaps, even to cling to a belief in spite of apparent contradictory proof. Blind faith. Is this Biblical faith? Absolutely not! Using the word, faith, just tells the world you are part of a marginalized minority and should be ignored.

 Another common perception of faith is that it's more like flavors of ice cream than insulin. Our relativistic society sees faith as a personal preference, not a truth claim. You can have your faith and I can have my faith ... whatever works for you. To claim to "stand for your faith" is to start off swimming upstream against public perception. 

Truth has been relativized, too, but nowhere near the degree of misperception of faith. Everyone, even the relativist, lives as if there are some moral absolutes - i.e. truths - and it's much easier to tackle this with logic and reason than to set everyone straight on faith. 

Claiming to "stand for truth" has a much greater potential for starting out on more common ground without having to fight the battle first over misunderstanding of the word, faith. 

Ultimately, you have to talk about Truth, anyway, so why not just start there. 

" I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." John 14:6 (NASB)  

I would even go so far as to say there is just as much confusion over faith inside the church as out. Using words like truth and trust can enable us to bring clarity to the murky waters.

Peace on Earth

Our dreams can be no higher than our language. How often we take beautiful God-filled words and make them so banal and so far short of the wonderful pictures God has painted for us.

Even many secularists will exchange Christmas cards carrying the phrase "Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men" - the Christmas angelic proclamation to the shepherds. It should be enough of a clue that if secularists would use the word "peace" then something (the meat) of the depth of meaning God intended is missing. Yet, could there still be a hint or clue there?

Most people first think of the lack of war or an unconflicted state of mind as the meaning of "peace", yet we are confronted with perpetual war and almost constant conflict - unless we find internal escape from the world with the Buddhists or accept the unreality of reality with the Hindus. We are all painfully aware there is a problem, we only differ on where the real problem resides.

The unbelieving world sees the problem as a correctable, superficial human problem (obviously, with other people) that will yield to liberal doses of education, law, and "I'm OK, You're OK" psychotherapy. But God has defined the problem as a hereditary illness and brokenness within called rebellion against God that we all have willfully embraced. We have estranged ourselves from home, and, like the prodigal son in a far country, we all long for home and the missing relationship - even when we don't know where home is, we simply know there ought to be a home.

The external wars and conflicts are just extensions of the sickness and longings from within. For those willing to admit this source of the problem - me - God sent a Son to be born in a manger to make the only way to restore the wholeness between the Father and us, His children.

And so the angels proclaimed at the birth of Jesus, "Wholeness and restored relationship with the Father is available to all who will acknowledge the Giver and accept the Gift." Now, there can be Peace even when there is no external peace. In fact, without this internal "Peace on Earth", there is no hope of external "peace on earth" at all.

Savor the full beauty and wonder of that night long ago. See the Glorious picture of when our Peace came.

p.s. - Just viewed a video post by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) on this verse from Luke 2:14. He added one additional perspective - horizontal vs vertical. Secular application of "Peace" in this passage is horizontal, man to man, but the Biblical application is vertical, God to man. This is very similar to the common distortion of Mt 22:36-39 - "Love your neighbor as yourself." It appears the vertical relationship always precedes and informs the horizontal.

Faith as Small as a Grain of Mustard Seed

OK. I get it! Another embarrassing, "Duh," moment. 

 Jesus tells his disciples, "And He said to them, 'Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." (Mt 17:20) 

I knew and have been told that faith is not about how much you have but who/what it is in. 

Now, I finally understand how this verse and others - Mt 13:31, Mk 4:31, Lu 13:19, and Lu 17:6 - actually teach that point. 

 Jesus is actually chiding his disciples in Mt 17:20 - something He did several times in the Gospel accounts - for the immaturity ("littleness") of their faith and especially as applying it to external things, in this case failing to cast out a demon. 

On one hand their immaturity was somewhat understandable because they had not yet seen the post-resurrection, risen Christ. Compare this "littleness" and powerlessness of faith as compared with what these same disciples did in Acts. 

Yet, even for not having yet experienced the resurrection, they have still been with Jesus and have seen His power. Perhaps again, their lack of maturity is because their faith was still an external thing that they had not yet experienced internally. 

 The woman with the issue of blood who was healed by merely touching Jesus' garment (Mt 9:22) was told by Jesus, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." She had a personal (internal) experience in the exercise of faith, "Everyone else has failed me. He is my only hope." She reached out for Him in her desperation, and the mountain moved. 

 The thing that finally struck me is that if Jesus wanted to say the quantity of faith was important, He would not have picked the smallest seed, but rather the largest! Another thing significant about the smallest seed is found in Mt 13:31 where the smallest seed becomes a great tree. You can't see the great tree in the small seed; that is the result of working faith. 

I have just finished reading a great book by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. He gives this excellent illustration of the importance of what your faith is placed in: "The faith that changes the life and connects to God is best conveyed by the word "trust.' Imagine you are on a high cliff and you lose your footing and begin to fall. Just beside you as you fall is a branch sticking out of the very edge of the cliff. It is your only hope and it is more than strong enough to support your weight. How can it save you? If your mind is filled with the intellectual certainty that the branch can support you, but you don't actually reach out and grab it, you are lost. If your mind is instead filled with doubts and uncertainties that the branch can hold you, but you reach out and grab it anyway, you will be saved. Why? It is not the strength of your faith but the object of your faith that actually saves you. Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch. (emphasis added)"

What is Truth?

Pilate's response to Christ at His trial, "What is truth?", has been used by many unbelievers as a conversation stopper when talk has turned to eternal things. 

Pilate did not have a problem with understanding what truth was. He knew exactly what he expected when he demanded truthfulness from one of his Legion commanders. 

Pilate's quip really meant "What has truth got to do with this situation, this rabble inciting to riot, and the power I have over you?" 

Pilate knew what the truth of the matter was but he was not going to decide Christ's fate based on the truth. 

Everyone knows what truth is. Just ask them if it would be OK for their banker or accountant to lie to them. They know what truth means when it comes to money. 

What they may be uncomfortable about is how to determine truth when it comes to religious claims, but the answer is the same as when dealing with money - count the evidence. 

Christians should be equipped and prepared to show the truthfulness and reasonableness of our faith.

My Christmas Gifts - Part 2

(Part 1 is here)

Besides hearing the song, A Shepherd's Prayer, on the radio each year, God's other Christmas gift to me is a new perspective on the Christmas story. About six weeks ago, God grabbed me with this year's insight as I was reading my Bible. Have you ever noticed how many times "Fear not!" appears in the Christmas story - it jumped off the page at me.

Over the last six week period, I have probably done devotionals on "Fear not!" four or five times to different groups, but the longer I think on it, the deeper it gets.

There are three words/phrases that frame this - fear not, truth, and great joy.

As he was ministering in the Holy of Holies for the annual sacrifice, Zacharias was visited by an angel. I'm sure his first thought at the angel's appearance was, "Uh, oh! I'm dead! I've done something wrong." The angel's greeting, "Fear not!" addressed his immediate fear, but the angel's promise that Zacharias' barren wife Elizabeth would bear him a son seemed too unbelievable to be true. This was not possible in Zacharias' mind. The angel said this son would be the Elijah to prepare the way for the Messiah. This was too much for poor Zacharias, and, for his unbelief, the angel left him speechless until his son's birth.

I think Zacharias' unbelief was a problem of failing to see God's promise as Truth. Already distracted with the deep disappointment of childlessness, he chose his own understanding over the supernatural promise of God when, with an angel standing before him, the most believable and reasonable thing was to believe the angel. The question is, "What is true?" or, really, "WHO is truth?"

Here, Isaiah 8 12b-14a, comes to the fore: "And you will not fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread. Then He shall become a sanctuary." (NASB)

Today's science says "No" to the supernatural. God says, "I AM." Who is telling the truth? Whom do you trust?

Gabriel appeared to Mary. "Fear not!" Mary believed the angel's words though she did not fully understand. When there was a very real truth growing inside her, she trusted through the whispers and rumors.

As Joseph pondered the unbelievable story of his pregnant betrothed, Mary, an angel appeared with, "Fear not!" Joseph chose to trust the truth of the angel's message in spite of the scornful eyes and wagging tongues of the neighbors.

The angel hosts suddenly appeared in the sky to some shepherds in their Bethlehem fields. The former quiet and silent night became anything but for them. "Fear not! Great news! A Savior is born! Go see! Go tell!" And the angel hosts sang, "Glory to God in the highest!"

The shepherds believed the angel's story. They went to town and found the baby just as the angels had told them. They told everyone the truth of the great glad tidings. "And the shepherds went back glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them."  Luke 2:20 (NASB)

Fear the God who can; fear not the world that cannot.

That's the Truth!

Glory to God!

Joy to the World!

Created Perfect for His Purposes

At the conclusion of the sixth day of creation, God looked at everything He had made and pronounced it was "very good." Genesis 1:31. 

This is intended as a brief thought on the issue of sin in God's creation. I'm not sure how firmly I will stand on all the following, but this is where I currently am in trying to pull together scripture and what I have heard and read recently from people like Greg Koukl, STR, and John Piper, Desiring God. 

It seems most people have a very difficult time reconciling a loving and all-powerful God with sin. In fact, atheists throw it back at us all the time as a disproof of God -- which is no disproof at all but, rather, a very strong case for God's existence. 

I know, I said brief, right? OK. Here's the big thought: God created a perfect world - one perfect for His purpose. And His purpose is to manifest His Glory to the utmost. 

Creation is not for my comfort; it is for God's Glory! God is the point and period of creation. You can waffle around all you want as to whether God created sin/evil, but you have to allow at the very least that God allowed it in His creation. 

God is in control. "And we know God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose ..." Romans 8:28 

We are created moral beings - we make choices between good/evil. It is in the struggle of good/evil and the overcoming of evil that God's Glory is manifested in us. 

Evil/sin plays a role in God's plan. It hurts, and it destroys -- but it cannot destroy those whose faith is in God - those whom He has called to be conformed to the image of His son, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). 

Where sin abounds, there God's Grace (and His Glory - our right response to His Grace) even more abounds (Romans 5:20). 

Yes, even sin plays the leading villain role in God's perfect creation. 

We, the natural man, seek after emotionally satisfying answers. I think the emotionally satisfying answer is there but it is very hard to come to a point of comfort with. In fact, it takes a lot of faith and a willingness to rest our emotional satisfaction in God's sovereignty.

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

This was submitted to local newspapers for publication:

The man thought he was dead. Trying to convince him otherwise, the doctor asked, "Do dead men bleed?" "No," the man thoughtfully responded. The doctor pricked the man’s finger drawing blood. Amazed, the man exclaimed, "Dead men do bleed!" A bad starting thesis, "I am dead", can corrupt evidence and conclusions.

Preeminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin explains science’ devotion to naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation … we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door …"

Real power is in ideas, not weapons. In the twentieth century, ruthless Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots pushed evolution’s practical consequence, "life has no intrinsic value," and men died by the tens of millions. The naturalism of scientific method fed men’s naturalistic ambition, "might makes right." Evolution’s theory, "red in tooth and claw," ran red over the ground.

So, life is a cosmic accident; we are products of blind chance. If true, then Stalin is not responsible for his crimes. He was just dancing to his DNA explains the evolutionist. Should you be concerned about the scientific theory of evolution?

Lewontin let the cat out of the bag. Science’ obsession with materialistic answers is not scientifically required at all - it’s a philosophical commitment. The real controversy to be taught is not science vs. faith but science’ faith in naturalism. Remember the "dead man"?

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 3)

Go here for the previous post in this series.

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."

I know exactly what Dawkins is talking about. It's exactly the way I felt as a four year old when my mother - who I thought loved me - and the enemy nurses held me down to give me a shot when I was sick! Absolutely no pity or decent human feelings. Thank God my mother had faith to believe the shot would make me well - not absolutely guaranteed - and that the lesser (my temporary discomfort - certainly not from my point of view) was outweighed by the greater. This is a common principle we all use and should be applied to Dawkins' quote.

The problem obviously is the context and how you judge the reasoning used to evaluate the greater/lesser moral equation. The 9/11 hijackers believed heaven was the goal of life, and the only way by their faith, Islam, to guarantee heaven was as a martyr. Further, they believed their religion mandated the killing of non-believers, infidels. Looks like perfectly good reasoning to me, IF their religious understanding is true.

Everyone falls back to their core beliefs and principles from which to reason and justify their actions. Well, maybe with the exception of those who just act like animals with no need for justifying their actions to any moral standards at all. We can see that the 9/11 hijackers would try to justify their actions based on their religious beliefs. So, where do other mass-murderers find justification for their lesser/greater moral evaluation? Let's take Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - the greatest mass murderers of all time, and all in the progressive 20th century.

Since they were atheists, I would suggest they can only look to their DNA. There is no good or bad - only "what is." They evolved by a process that endows no special moral place to the human animal above any other animals - "Nature, red in tooth and claw," in Tennyson's poem "In Memoriam." After all, this is what Darwin's theory of evolution has proved, hasn't it?

"Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent."

Few atheists are honest enough to admit that without a transcendent moral law, morality simply becomes a matter of individual moral tastes - some love their neighbors, some love to eat them. "Might makes right" becomes the operative principle.


Thank God most atheists live to a much higher moral standard than their beliefs require.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 2)

(go here for part 1)

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."

Sometimes, even an atheist can hit the nail on the head - incompatible faiths! The religions of the world make incompatible claims. Christians claim Jesus rose from the dead; Jews disagree. These are major differences, not minor. While it is theoretically possible that no religions have the truth, it cannot be that all are true. Gathering people together of different religions for prayer to their different gods is just an act of covering all the bases -- "we don't know which god is the true one, so we'll just pray to them all". Somehow, I doubt the true God - especially if He has gone to a lot of trouble to make men aware of Himself - is going to take that very seriously!

The only religions that could get together and pray in unity are Christianity and Judaism for they, at least, share the same God even if (to the Christian) the Jew only knows him partially.

One of the underlying problems of 9/11 was a religion, Islam, that condones, and obviously to some requires, killing of infidels - just look at the recent problem of the convert to Christianity in Afghanistan. Some will say that extremists have hijacked a peaceful religion, then I will say the burden is on the leaders of peaceful Islam to aggressively help put an end to those who have hijacked their religion. Other than some verbiage here and there, I have not really seen any such organized attempt.

Although there were old testament times when the God of the Christian and the Jew instructed the Jews to wipe out entire races, these instances were very specific in their rationale and were only for a very specific time and place. There is no generalized condoning of killing infidels in Christianity/Judaism - in fact, just the opposite is true. The Jews were commissioned by God to be a blessing to the nations. Roman 2:4 (NASB) gives the true definition of tolerance for the unrighteous: "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" Christianity makes converts through persuasion and the opening of hearts - not by sword or suicide bomb.

If you were to gather religions together, then gather them in commitment to the preciousness of human life - committed to action not just words. Unfortunately, abortion-full America, would show up with bloody hands.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins

I'll bet that title got your attention! Obvoiusly, as a Christian, I don't agree with everything infamous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins has said, but there are a few things I believe he got right - unwittingly. It's kind of like Caiaphas saying, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn 11:49-50, NASB), and the crowd crying out for Jesus' death at his trial before Pilate, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25, NASB).

Examples:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." This one is rather tame. Who wouldn't agree - you would be surprised! Many people think minds are meant to always be open. I disagree. Minds are meant to close on facts guided by the light of truth. Openness is just a mind-phase enroute to closing.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I agree because Dawkins obviously does not include Christianity in his definition of religion (remember, religion is man seeking after God/Godlessness - Christianity is God seeking man) since the early pioneers of modern science were Christians. These men/women were propelled by their belief in a God of order who revealed Himself in the complexity and order of His creation. For them, uncovering the mysteries of the universe was akin to touching the mind of God. Unfortunately, ignorance (much willfull) on matters of religion is epidemic in our culture and most do not see this distinction nor know their science history. True science goes where the evidence leads ... but, wait a minute, isn't Dawkins an evolutionist?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Once again, as above, it is obvious that Dawkins excludes Christians from those of faith and for the same reasons. I'm sure there is a word that describes ghost words. In our culture today, the word faith has an unseen, but clearly understood, preceeding ghost word - blind. Of course, from the context of his quote, it is clear this is what Dawkins is referring to. Anyone who has actually studied the Christian Bible knows that the Biblical concept of faith is more a reasonable faith or trust - definitely not blind. Unfortunately for Dawkins, though, this kind of leaves him hanging on the horns of his own quote. What kind of faith does it take to believe that Darwin's theory of macro evolution is true -- in spite of the lack of evidence in support of it and the growing body of contradictory evidence?

I may continue this later ...

You may want to go here and check out more of Dawkin's quotes.

Future Topics

Here are some of the topics coming in the future. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

My testimony. I wasn't born a Christian even if I was born in America and had Christian parents and grandparents. Thank God there is a God because only He could have gotten through my thick skull at the age of 22. Mine is one of those brick wall experiences.

Treating symptoms, not the disease. Every now and then some social problem rises up and gets Christians motivated to action. After the beast is slain, we go back to our comfortable pews content in what we have accomplished for the kingdom. In fact, we have done little or nothing for the kingdom at all. We just put a little ointment on the rash and totally ignored the underlying disease. The rash is guaranteed to come back.

Loss of Virtue. Harold's definition of virtue: man's reflection of God's holiness. Today's culture hates virtue. Culture should be a virtue pump -- particularly in our schools. Attempting to build virtue on any other foundation than God is building on shifting sands. The culture is the soil we scatter our seeds into. "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." Luke 8:15.

Second things First. In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus summarizes all the law and the prophets: "And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "

Have you ever noticed how many people run right to the second commandment paying only lip service, if any attention at all, to the first? It's like trying to stretch a single into a double in baseball by running from home plate straight across the pitchers mound to second base. It doesn't work that way. We don't know how to love #2 until we know love #1.

Universal Truth exists and is knowable. Many will debate that there is only relative truth - true for you but not for me. If it's only true for you then why should I care one whit for it? Others deny any truth exists or that truth is knowable. My question for them - "Is that true?" They keep trying to show it's true there's no truth.

People live what they really believe, and they live as if truth exits. Do you care whether your doctor is lying or telling the truth? How about your accountant or banker?

Relationship, not religion. I'm not into religion. Religion is man trying to get to God. The God I know gave a lot to re-establish a lost relationship. He actually takes joy in His creation.

Not about Winning. It's about obedience and love. Many people are frustrated with the decline in our culture. They'll say something like, "But what can one person do?" People don't have the right motivation about engaging the culture. How could David think he could defeat Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:47 says, "... for the battle is the Lord's ..." Each can do what one person can do and count on God to do what God can do. That's part of the message of Jesus' feeding of the multitudes.

A Reasonable Faith. Everyone has faith. Faith is common. It takes faith to fly on an airliner - faith that a big hunk of metal will really fly and faith in the crew that they know how to safely fly the airplane. There is no absolute guarantee against crashing, but you weigh the odds and find that faith in flying is resonable. The best synonym for the Biblical idea of faith is trust. Some people put their trust in unreasonable things. Some peole have blind faith - often in spite of the evidence. True Bilical faith is a faith butressed with reason. It cannot be completely reasoned to, but sufficient evidence exists to point you in the right direction and carry you a long way. "Come let us reason together." Jesus explained things to his disciples.


OK. Enough for one reading. More topics to follow.