Here I Blog

Ethics: Seminary Student Preaches Someone Else’s Sermons

Mark — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:07:57 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

Today I’m going to ~~pick-on~~ set the situation within the realm of Southern Baptists since I are one. It is also more culturally acceptable to use your own as an example, right? (Don’t worry, non-Southern Baptists may also comment.)

The created situation involves a seminary student who preaches someone else’s sermons. The question will be two-fold by considering the person as a student and then as a pastor. Your pastor.

For this scenario, the seminary student (SS) will be using, let’s see, sermons by – eeny, meeny, miny, moe, choose a preacher and let’s go – Adrian Rogers. There are many popular Southern Baptist preachers from which to choose, but we will go with the excellent orator, Dr. Rogers, who is now home with the Lord.

Once upon a time…

While in seminary one of your fellow students, SS, confides in you that he does not feel as though he has enough time to do the school work and successfully carry out his preaching duties. To save time on sermon preparation, SS listens to an Adrian Rogers’ sermon and transcribes it for his own use.

Stunned, you’re not sure what to say at the moment. A few days later you learn that a few other students found out that SS uses Rogers’ sermons. Although they were sort of making light of his actions and writing SS off as somewhat of a joke, they thought that SS ought to be confronted and rebuked.

What would you do?

Confront and rebuke him?
High-five him for preaching good sermons?

What if you found out this was your pastor in seminary? Would you say anything at all about this issue?

Sunday Considerations: Comparing Lives

Mark — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:58:05 +0000

J.C. Ryle offers some advice to help rightly count the cost of the Christian life. Consider the words below as you prepare for and worship corporately with the body of Christ.

Count up and compare, for another thing, the life that now is and the life to come, if you are a true-hearted and holy Christian. The time present, no doubt, is not a time of ease. It is a time of watching and praying, fighting and struggling, believing and working. But it is only for a few years. The time future is the season of rest and refreshing. Sin shall be cast out. Satan shall be bound. And, best of all, it shall be a rest for ever. It is written,—“Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:17, 18.)¹

______________________

J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London: William Hunt and Company, 1889), 113. ↩

Ethics: the Deacons are Freemasons!

Mark — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:49:23 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

Freemasonry is not as active as it was in the past. It was already on the decline when I left the lodge 13 years ago. Although I imagine the Shriners, of whom all are Masons, are still pretty active.

Freemasonry was once a concern in Southern Baptist life. In fact, the North American Mission Board’s apologetics website has a few resources on Freemasonry under “New Religions and Cults.”¹

A 1993 Southern Baptist study on Freemasonry concluded with a list of items showing where Freemasonry and Christianity were not compatible. However, the report also acknowledged:

That many oustanding Christians and Southern Baptists now are, and in the past have been Masons, including such notable past Southern Baptist leaders as B.H. Carroll, George W. Truett, L.R. Scarborough, W.T. Connor, Louie D. Newton, and J.B. Lawrence.²

What if you discovered that the deacons in your church were Freemasons?

Imagine that you have been attending a local church for a year. In the last few months you began to know a few of the deacons a little better. During that time you also began noticing that most of the deacons wore similar lapel pins.

Finally, you get a chance to privately ask one of the deacons about the pins. This deacon is glad you asked. He explains that they are Freemasonry pins and that all of the deacons are Masons. He was hoping that you would ask since Masons are forbidden from actively recruiting.

“Freemasons have always been part of this church,” the deacon explains. “Years ago we dedicated the Family Life Center in the name of our lodge,” he says as he walks you around to the dedicated stone that is etched with date, church name and Masonic symbols. The deacon encouragingly asks if you have anymore questions about Masonry?

What would you do?

Ask more about Freemasonry including how to join.
Ask about how Freemasonry lines up with Christianity.
Say thanks, but no thanks.
Talk with the pastor about this issue.
Smash the Masonic stone and tell the deacon to repent.
Or…

________________________

Freemasonry. 4truth.net ↩
Southern Baptist Convention 1993 Freemasonry Report ↩

Sunday Considerations: Forsaken by Man

Mark — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:50:51 +0000

Consider Jesus– as Forsaken by Man
“Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled.” –Matt. 26:56
What a sad contrast does this picture present to the one we have just been viewing–”Jesus, our fellow-sufferer.” His time of suffering has now come, but, lo! “all His disciples have forsaken Him, and fled.” Is there nothing, my soul, in this affecting and significant fact from which you may gather much that is instructive and consolatory concerning your own condition? We have been contemplating the sympathy of Jesus with His afflicted saints. And oh, what heart can conceive, or imagery portray, the reality, humanity, and tenderness of that sympathy! In all our afflictions He is afflicted, in all our trials He is tried, in all our persecutions He is persecuted, in all our temptations He is tempted. My soul! there is no sympathy among men, saints, or angels, that can compare with Christ’s. And yet how thankful should you be for the smallest measure of human sympathy given you. It may have been, and doubtless was, but as a drop in comparison of the ocean-fullness of Christ’s; nevertheless, that drop has proved inexpressibly and immeasurably soothing, sweetening many a bitter trial, gilding many a cloud, and lighting the pressure of many a burden. For this uplift your praiseful heart to God.¹

______________________

Octavius Winslow. CONSIDER JESUS: Thoughts for Daily Duty, Service, and Suffering (Kindle Locations 486-496). Monergism Books. ↩

TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

Mark — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:45:44 +0000

First, James White weighs in on his Dividing Line radio show for two hours. There were so many listeners that the servers crashed. Find the link and a description below.

A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

In any case, I addressed the TD Jakes: is he a Trinitarian? issue head on during the first hour, and then took calls on the topic for a full hour after that. The callers were wide ranging, and while none defended the ER or Jakes, they did provide some good insights. Lots of positive feedback on Twitter and FaceBook. Hope it will be helpful! Here’s the program.

Next, a past resource from 9Marks by Greg Gilbert who reviews 11 various books by T.D. Jakes. It seems that Jakes’ theology improved somewhat with the new books on Ephesians. Check the link for more on the titles listed below. (HT: Keith L. Tolbert)

Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works

Woman, Thou art Loosed! Treasure House:1993, reprinted 1999.
Can You Stand to Be Blessed? Treasure House: 1994, reprinted 1999.
Naked and Not Ashamed. Treasure House:1995, reprinted 1999.
So You Call Yourself a Man? Alsbury Publishing: 1997.
Anointing Fall on Me. Pneuma Life Publishing: 1997.
The Lady, Her Lover, and Her Lord. Berkley Books: 1998.
Maximize the Moment. G.P. Putnam’s Sons: 1999.
The Great Investment. G.P. Putnam’s Sons: 2000.
Six Pillars from Ephesians: Loved by God. Albury Publishing: 2000.
Six Pillars from Ephesians: Experiencing Jesus. Albury Publishing: 2000.
Six Pillars from Ephesians: The Spiritual Worship of the Believer. Albury Publishers: 2000.

Gilbert comments.

On the whole, most of T.D. Jakes’s works belong on the psychology shelves at the bookstore. They have little to do with the gospel of the Bible. Stories and truths in the Bible are used as encouragements to think positively and overcome hardship, or to prove that God is waiting to bless us if we’ll only believe more and stop feeling sorry for ourselves. Sin is mostly absent and when it is discussed, it is usually no more insidious than a bad self-esteem. Sometimes Jakes makes it sound as if we are innocent victims of sin, which has evilly placed us in bad circumstances and tries to shackle us to our past. There is no mention of hell or punishment. God’s grace is most often talked about as a way to release us from our past, or heal old wounds, or teach us how to handle difficult relationships.

P.s. Richard Barcellos interviewed former Oneness pastor and friend Jordan Dayoub about Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room. Below is one question and answer to whet your appetite.

ER2 Q&A with a former Oneness pastor

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?
JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: if elected, James MacDonald, James White, Mark Driscoll, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes, Trinity

Angry Apostles and the Trinity

Mark — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:49:30 +0000

On the Trinity

First, Pastor Tom Chantry has provided a actual transcript of T.D. Jakes words on the Trinity from The Elephant Room 2, session 4.¹

Chantry then made a follow-up post in which he shares his thoughts in the following five points.²

1. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.
2. Driscoll and MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes’ massive numeric success to call him on this.
3. James MacDonald is angry.
4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin’ family!
5. If you aren’t defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren’t really defined at all.

I have also asked E. Calvin Beisner³ his thoughts on Jakes’ recent statements on the Trinity at Elephant Room 2. Beisner has written two books covering the Trinity and answered as follows.

Those words are absolutely consistent with the modalist heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism, and they remind me precisely of the kind of intentionally vague, off-topic language used by Arius and his supporters at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Jakes will be believable in saying he believes in “One God – Three Persons” when he renounces Oneness Pentecostalism and separates from the officially modalist, anti-Trinitarian United Pentecostal and other Oneness denominations, and enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity with clarity and precision and a clear repudiation of modalism. Jakes’s language above fits perfectly with Oneness Pentecostals’ belief that the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is the Father manifested in the flesh. The crucial element of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed in Scripture to be utterly independent of anything external to God–i.e., they are internal distinctions. Jakes’s god is not the God revealed in the Bible, and his gospel is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

Angry Apostles

Some will label those who say and agree with the above comments as haters, as angry or maybe both. However, the Apostles had much to say about carefully handling and teaching doctrine as well as false teachers. Below is a sample of such teaching.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.(2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.(Acts 17:11 ESV)

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (2 Timothy 2:16-17 ESV)

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 ESV)

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Timothy 4:14-15 ESV)

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:5 ESV)

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1 Timothy 6:9 ESV)

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound1 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV)

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16 ESV)

____________________________

Tom Chantry. The Elephant Room II, Session 4 Transcript ↩
Tom Chantry. Quick-Hit Thoughts on ER2 ↩
E. Calvin Beisner on Amazon.com ↩

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

Ethics: Church Discipline Contract Issued

Mark — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:22:17 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s situation deals with the uncomfortable issue of church discipline. To make the situation more uncomfortable a church discipline contract will also be involved. The scenario is inspired by real circumstances surrounding a former Mars Hill Church member named Andrew who was issued a church discipline contract to sign.¹

Imagine that you (or a friend if you wish) has just confessed and repented of being sexually involved with a fellow church member who happens to be the child of one of the church elders. The confession took place in the covenant group that you are a part of where it was then taken to one of the pastors/elders.

The pastor then issued a church discipline contract which he expected you to sign and follow. The discipline contract laid out the following steps that would be taken on the road to restoration.

You will attend a covenant group and meet with its leader on a regular basis.
You will not be involved in serving in the church.
You will not pursue or date anyone inside or outside of this church.
You will write out in detail your sexual and emotional attachment history and share it with covenant group leader.
You will write out in detail the chronology of events and sexual/emotional sin and share it with the covenant group leader and a pastor.
You will write out a list of all people you have sinned against during this timeframe, either by sexual/emotional sin, lying or deceiving, share it with the covenant group leader and develop a plan to confess sin and ask for forgiveness.

How would you respond (or advise your friend to respond)?

Follow the contract no questions asked.
Possibly follow the contract after some clarification.
Inquire as to whether or not the elders child was also issued a contract.
Dispute the contract explaining that you have repented.
Leave the church.

__________________________________

Andrew, former Mars Hill Church member. Mark Driscoll’s Church Discipline Contract: Looking For True Repentance at Mars Hill Church? Sign on the Dotted Line ↩

A Response to Jerry Vines on Calvinism and Southern Baptists

Mark — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:36:56 +0000

Friend and fellow Southern Baptist Joshua Breland has responded to Jerry Vines’ recent comments that Calvinism is one of the biggest challenges confronting the Southern Baptist Convention in his article: Maybe the Mayan Calendar Was Marking the End of the Southern Baptist Convention.

One of the claims Joshua addresses is Vines’ charge that a move toward five-point Calvinism would be a move away from the gospel. If this claim is correct, then there are a lot of Southern Baptists serving the Lord who are further away from the gospel than those non-Calvinists with whom they serve. (I suppose that’s what Vines means about moving away from the gospel.) Can those Calvinists who are allegedly further from the gospel than Vines actually be used by God to bring someone to repentance and faith? If one has moved away from the gospel can they still be a Christian? What exactly are Calvinist Southern Baptists calling people to if they have moved away from the gospel? The rhetorical questions could go on since there is not a clear explanation of what it means for Calvinism to move Christians away from the gospel. I digress.

It is odd for a leader in the SBC to claim that the theology that had a strong standing in beginning the SBC for the purpose of spreading the gospel is actually a move away from the gospel.

Anyway, check out Joshua’s article.

God is Doing Amazing Things!

Mark — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:07:19 +0000

God is going to do something awesome.
God is going to do something amazing.
God is doing something incredible.
God is doing something awesome.
God is doing something amazing.
God is doing amazing things.
It’s going to be awesome.
Let’s change the world.
God will prosper you.
Fly with the eagles.
Listen to the Spirit.
It’s all about love.
Lives will change.
God is working.
Look to Jesus.
Praise God.
Amen.

Such sensational words are sometimes used in preaching for dramatic emotional effect. Yet, the words themselves must be attached to something or they stir empty praise and emotion.

What has actually been communicated in the above words?

Sunday Considerations: My Lord and My God

Mark — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:01:36 +0000

Thomas, one of Jesus’ chosen twelve Apostles, initially doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Thomas’ story is recorded in the gospel of John chapter 20. He was not with the other disciples when they saw Jesus. Thomas declared that unless he could see and touch Jesus he would not believe.

Thomas did see and touch Jesus. John records the exchange between Thomas and Jesus that followed.

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:28-29 ESV)

Those of us who are Christians today fall into the category Jesus gives as those who are blessed because we have believed yet not seen as Thomas had. Thomas knew Jesus’ teachings and claims about Himself, but wanted a little more in order to believe. Yet, Christians today know Jesus’ teachings and claims about Himself and believe.

Consider Thomas’ response again the moment after he touched Jesus. He said, “My Lord and my God!” Christian, as you are worshiping together with other Christians this weekend, what are you thinking about Jesus Christ? You say that you believe just as Thomas believed though you have not seen.

As you worship Jesus Christ this weekend, will you be mindful about who He is just as Thomas did and praise Him as ‘My Lord and my God’?

On Public Rebuke

Mark — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:15:46 +0000

As far as I know, being rebuked is not something to which most Christians look forward, especially, being publicly rebuked. However, Scripture says it is good for rebuke (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture even includes the well-known example of one Apostle publicly rebuking another Apostle (Gal. 2:11, 14).

Today, there is no shortage of Christians rebuking one another online. Though direct, public rebukes in person is not often carried out. Occasionally, one might hear a public rebuke about a particular person, but the more popular route is to address poor teaching in general leaving the teacher unnamed. In the past, I have argued whether or not the practice of general criticism aimed at the unnamed is a good biblical practice.¹

Furthermore, public rebuke as carried out by Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2 is almost unheard of today. However, a recent situation come very close. Matt Chandler offered what appears to be a public rebuke in his recent sermon at Steven Furtick’s Code Orange Revival at Elevation Church. It seems Chandler’s message could be easily set against that of the other speakers at Code Orange. Elevation Church was actually accused of censoring Chandler’s sermon.² Chris Rosebrough has further documentation and insights into the reasons why Chandler’s sermon was not replayed during the Code Orange re-broadcast.³

Chandler was certainly the odd man out at this conference. One may even argue biblically that he should have declined the offer to participate. However, his message and attendance were needed. He preached the gospel, did not boast in himself, and challenged those in attendance that God is about His glory. Chandler explained finding joy over happiness in the Christian life.

Chandler’s most direct rebuke is found in the following words.

I think God is for you, and I think God loves you and He delights in and He’s going to shepherd you, He’s going to lead you. But He’s going to do it all to make much of Himself and to point people towards Himself. So just be careful. Because with a little shift here and a little drift there, God’s name is still on it but you know, ‘That Pastor Steven, it was his vision’ and ‘We have the best worship in the world,’ and before long you can weave these things into your culture and into your ethos that are opposed to the things of God. So when I pray for this church and your pastor, I pray God will protect you.⁴

Chandler’s warning was clear, but the exact target subtle. He provided a good example of warning against a potential unbiblical practice in the church. He could have gone further though some may say that would have been in bad taste since he would have been clearly rebuking the church that invited him.

Would a clearer rebuke have been in bad taste?

I would like to use the example of Paul rebuking Peter to answer this question with a “no”. Before preceding, understand that I am not criticizing Matt Chandler by using his sermon as an example. I am thankful Chandler was courageous enough to say what he did. What I am saying is that Chandler could have gone further and it would have been biblically acceptable to do so.

In Galatians 2 beginning in verse 11, Paul writes about publicly rebuking Peter. A few verses earlier, however, Paul acknowledges that Peter was also entrusted with the gospel (v. 7) and viewed as a pillar of the faith (v. 9). Given Peter’s standing in the Christian community it would seem the Paul would be somewhat sensitive in his public correction of Peter. What Paul writes may lead one to think differently.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11 ESV)

Paul uses strong, direct words. He continued.

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…(Galatians 2:14 ESV)

It is clear that the gospel is more important than the Apostle Peter. It is also clear that Paul is speaking publicly in his rebuke in which he directly corrects Peter’s errors.

Notice what Paul does not say and do. Paul does not excuse Peter because God used Peter’s gospel preaching at Pentecost to convert 5,000 people. Paul does not excuse Peter because of his Apostleship. Paul does not show signs of being judged as a hater as reason enough to cowardly back down and not publicly rebuke Peter while defending the gospel.

Rather, Paul shows what the two greatest commands given by Jesus look like in action. First, he loves God by defending His gospel. Second, flowing from Paul’s love for God, he expresses his love for others in caring for their souls by defending the gospel making sure God’s grace and Christ’s death are not made void (Gal. 2:21).

Finally, there is good reason, i.e. the sake of the gospel, for Christians to follow Paul’s biblical example of public rebuke just as they follow many of his other examples.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. I had other points to consider, but did not want to make the post too long. One of those points was about public rebuke being potentially more helpful if the person being rebuke is clearly stated. The reason may be shown in the example of Matt Chandler’s rebuke noted above. The careful listener, and even the person toward whom the rebuke was aimed, may have picked up on the theological issues Chandler was reproving. However, judging by the audience applause, it was not clear that they got it. Therefore, the way Paul pointedly addressed Peter along with Peter’s theological errors provides a further illustration of how a public rebuke may be carried out. If it is not clear which messenger and message is being reproved this may lead the audience to theological confusion or simply leave them embracing theological error.
__________________________

The Southern Baptist Phantom Menace ↩
Brittany Smith. Elevation Church Accused of Censoring Reformed Pastor’s Sermon. The Christian Post. ↩
Chris Rosebrough. BREAKING NEWS: Elevation Employee Reveals Reason For Chandler Sermon Censorship. Also, check out some of Rosebrough’s recent radio shows where he biblically critiques the teaching at Code Orange Revival. ↩
Thanks to J.S. Park for the transcription. Matt Chandler Rebukes At The Code Orange Revival ↩

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: Code Orange Revival, Matt Chandler, public rebuke, rebuke, Steven Furtick

Ethics: Prominent Pastor Plagiarizes?

Mark — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:56:43 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The question of plagiarized sermons comes up every now and then. Whether or not one should preach someone else’s sermons has been debated in the blogosphere, too. Selling sermons must not be too bad of a business considering the eight sites listed on Sermon Source that continue to sell sermons. There are probably more than just these eight sites selling sermons.

Of course, buying someone else’s sermons does not mean that they will be delivered as original work from the pulpit. However, this does happen to the extent that one pastor recently stepped down over sermon plagiarism.

Today’s scenario is slightly different though it is based on a true situation. The situation is that one relatively prominent pastor has used sermons of another prominent pastor with no citation of who the work belongs to.

The situation is that someone discovered the same sermon on two different church websites from two different pastors with both listing the source of the sermon as that church’s pastor. One pastor has had the sermon on the website dating eight years earlier than the other. It would seem that the pastor with the later dating copied the work of that of the earlier dating.

Consider the following ethical questions concerning this situation keeping in mind that you are not part of either congregation.

Are you obligated to say anything to anyone? Is it best to keep silent? If you don’t keep silent, what biblical principle should be followed? Is Matthew 18 to be followed? How would you start the process and the follow-up?

Is using someone else’s sermons immoral or unethical? Do the churches have a right to know? Should the churches who pay these pastors have a right to original sermons?

Maybe the second pastor has permission from the first pastor to use his material. Maybe neither man cares if anyone is cited as doing the original sermon, then what?

Would you feel responsible if you reach out to the churches and reveal what has happened and a pastor loses his job? What about his family? Does it matter that the sermons are spiritually healthy and the flock is being fed by them?

What would you do?

What would you do if one of the above were your pastor?

Sunday Considerations: Outdo One Another

Mark — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:08:17 +0000

Competition moves, feeds, and entertains the world. Competition can be a positive or a negative in life. I would like to encourage a biblical competition that I fail at often.

Christian, think about your attitude and actions toward those in your own home and in the household of faith. How do you think about those family members? How do you treat them?

Have you followed the Apostle Paul’s admonition to outdo them?

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Romans 12:10 ESV)

Have you considered to then owe them nothing but love?

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10 ESV)

Jimmy Fallon on Tim Tebow: Comedy or Blasphemy?

Mark — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:51:27 +0000

Last night on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Fallon did a parody song by combining Tim Tebow to David Bowie and producing the singer Tebowie (Tim Tebow + David Bowie = Tebowie). Fallon sung as if a dialogue were taking place between Tim Tebow and Jesus Christ to the tune of Bowie’s song “Space Oddity” (lyrics below).

Did Jimmy Fallon go too far?

If you think he went too far: Tweet him that he should apologize.
If you think it was just right: Tweet him that he was funny.

The Lyrics

Tim Tebow to Jesus Christ. (x2)
Commencing fourth down, hut, hut, hike.
Tim Tebow to Jesus Christ.
Snap the football and may God’s love be with me.
This is Jesus Christ to Tim Tebow,
Please leave me alone.
Don’t you know my day of rest is Sunday?
And I’m sick of watching all these Broncos’ games.
I hear that you play New England next week.
Dude, you’re on your own.
Brady is too good and I’ve got better things to do.
Though I’ve passed 316 yards there’s still two games to go,
If I want to make it to the Super Bowl.
And show everyone on earth how to Tebow.
Tim Tebow to Jesus Christ, the Broncos won, we’re still alive.
Come on, everyone, Tebow.(x4)

What do you think?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 10 comments | Add to
Post tags: David Bowie, Jimmy Fallon, Tebowie, Tim Tebow

Ethics: Church to Lose Funding Over Homosexual Adoption

Mark — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:02:51 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The New York Times reported that Roman Catholic charities in Illinois must comply with a new requirement to “consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.”¹ Catholic bishops claim that these requirements infringe on freedom of religion. Catholic charities in other cities have closed their adoption services rather than comply with the new requirements. The article also states that five Catholic Charities in Illinois get 60 – 92% of their revenue from the state.

For today’s scenario, let’s move the above situation to your local church.

Your church has been providing adoptive services for the community and surrounding areas for 20 years. State legislation was just passed requiring your church adoption services to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents or foster parents. If this new requirement to consider homosexual couples is not met, state funding will be cut-off.

State funding makes up 60% of the adoption services revenue while the other 40% comes from donations from various outside sources. You have only been on the board of directors for a year. Yet, you must consider all of the options on what’s best for serving the community while not compromising your Christian beliefs.

What would you do?

Comply and take the money because it’s needed and we shouldn’t judge anyway.
Comply and take the money for now, but slowly ween the charity from state funding.
Don’t comply and just shut down the charity.
Don’t comply and trust God to continue providing.
Don’t comply, stand on your beliefs and fight on the basis of freedom of religion.
Move the charity underground and offer black market adoptions.

_________________________

Laurie Goodstein. Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion. The New York Times, December 28, 2011 ↩

What God is This? Osteen on Oprah

Mark — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:36:56 +0000

This clip is riddled with unbiblical conclusions. Toward the beginning, in reference to Osteen’s prosperity preaching, Oprah asks, “What god would want you to be poor and miserable?” Osteen does say that prosperity includes peace of mind and a healthy body rather than just material wealth.

Osteen also says that there is a belief that says, “You’re supposed to suffer more and be poor and to show your humility.” He then mentions that Jesus died to give us an abundant life in order to be a blessing to others. Further, he claims that he cannot be a blessing to others if he is, “poor and broke and depressed and I don’t feel good about myself.”

At last, Osteen does equivocate much. Are Christians supposed to suffer? Whether Christians are supposed to suffer as those who intentionally seek out suffering is not the question, because Scripture explains that we will suffer. (Cf. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. Philippians 1:29-30 ESV)

Christians are not supposed to be poor though we may be and we are not supposed to make wealth an idol either. We are to serve God joyfully in whatever situation we may find ourselves. How is humility tacked onto to suffering and being poor? No doubt, both circumstances are humbling, but Christians are to be humble in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

Osteen implies that to be poor is to be broke and depressed, yet he even said that prosperity is more than material wealth, but includes a healthy mind and body. So which is it? Interestingly enough, secular studies have shown that some of the happiest people in the world are poor. Being poor does not mean one is broke and, for the Christian, it should not mean that one is depressed.

Oprah asks if those who are poor, broke and depressed are in those situations because they are “not praying enough or not in alignment?” Osteen answers no stating that it is a mixture of things and the some people have just not “broken through” in certain areas. He continues that there are “forces” that try to hold us down and that people have not been “trained” or “inspired” that they do not have to stay in such negative circumstances because God has a plan for them.

Osteen is right that people do not have to stay in less desirable circumstances, but Christian happiness should not be tied to such circumstances. The rest of the clip continues with Osteen defending his teachings based on how he feels and tries to act with his ultimate responsibility being that he answers to God.

Osteen does ultimately answer to God. Yet, he claims to be a teacher in Christ’s church where he will be judged greater and has more responsibility (James 3:1). That is, of course, if Osteen is to be counted as a Christian and a teacher in the church. Osteen’s teachings should biblically tested and if found wanting should be avoided and rebuked (Titus 1:9, 1 Tim. 6:3, Rom. 16:17).

Osteen’s subjectivity is just what the doctor ordered, if you accept medicine from an unlicensed doctor. There is really nothing new in this interview clip. However, near the end of this clip Oprah inquires with a very revealing statement, “So you walk the walk, you just don’t talk it?”

Finally, I have suffered enough with this clip.

P.S. Friend and fellow blogger Josh Buice also weighed in: Joel Osteen Does It – Again!

Sunday Considerations: Called to Die

Mark — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:06:01 +0000

Christians are called to come together for corporate worship with one another. As many of us prepare for corporate worship I’d encourage each Christian to ask themselves what else Christ has called you to. Christ has called us to die to self and take up our cross daily.

The cross is laid on every Christian. The first Christ-suffering which every man must experience is the call to abandon the attachments of this world. It is that dying of the old man which is the result of his encounter with Christ. As we embark upon discipleship we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with his death—we give over our lives to death. Thus it begins; the cross is not the terrible end to an otherwise god-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ. When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow him, or it may be a death like Luther’s, who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time—death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man at his call. Jesus’ summons to the rich young man was calling him to die, because only the man who is dead to his own will can follow Christ. In fact every command of Jesus is a call to die, with all our affections and lusts. But we do not want to die, and therefore Jesus Christ and his call are necessarily our death as well as our life.¹

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1st Touchstone ed. (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 89-90. ↩

Real Marriage: Heeding Pragmatism Over Biblical Criticism?

Mark — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:56:02 +0000

Mark and Grace Driscoll’s new book Real Marriage has drawn much attention. The attention comes partly due to its content and partly due to some critical reviews.¹²³ Denny Burk probably offers the most thoroughly biblical critique to date.

Today Burk linked to an article on CNN’s belief blog titled “Pastor’s detailed book on sex divides reviewers, sparks controversy.”⁴ The CNN article provides a few interesting responses by Mark Driscoll to his critics. I would like to briefly consider Driscoll’s responses from the CNN article.

First, I would like to explain why I am responding. My initial reading of Driscoll’s comments did not go down well. Driscoll has a lot influence in certain parts of Christendom and he continues to push and market for more reach. He has access to a secular audience (e.g. CNN religion blog) that many Christians will never have. He is a pastor-teacher which comes with a greater responsibility as noted in Scripture in James chapter 3, for example. The more popular critical reviews are from well-known bloggers who are essentially on Driscoll’s side theologically.

Also, Driscoll was asked less than a year ago in an interview in Tabletalk magazine, “What have you learned from those who have criticized your ministry and has your life or ministry changed in any way as a result?”⁵ Driscoll answered with the following six points offering six categories of criticism.

Theological – I simply have to accept the conflict if we have differing beliefs about an essential issue.
Jealous of Success – I need to lovingly serve them in humility.
Misinformed – I need to try and inform them of the truth.
Personal Dislike (e.g., tone, humor, style) – I need to consider their criticism, seek godly counsel, and either change or ignore them.
Legitimate (e.g., sin) – I need to repent publicly and thank God for using my critics to sanctify me.
Take Up Offense for Another Person – I need to rebuke them for meddling.

Given those observations on the critics, responsibility and Driscoll’s own answer to dealing with critics, one should find it hard to believe the Driscoll seemingly dismisses the critical book reviews. He also does not seem to be following his own advice and, furthermore, has not even read the critical reviews as will be shown from the CNN article quotes which follow.

CNN quotes Driscoll about his critics.

When asked to respond to his critics, Driscoll said he hadn’t read any of the reviews but that “sometimes reviewers will reveal more of their own struggles than actual problems with the book.”

Driscoll’s allegation about peoples’ struggles may be true. However, when the criticisms are run through a biblical lens it is unhelpful and disrespectful to create a general category of motive and throw everyone into it. How fair would it be to reply that sometimes Christian authors will not read critical reviews because it reveals their own struggles with trying to actually teach the Bible? Also, since he hasn’t even read the reviews, how would he know whether or not the criticisms are valid?

“I am not backing down from it. I am going to stick to my guns on it,” Mark Driscoll said. “This is not just stuff that I have pulled out of my mind. These are issues I have dealt with for 15 years and it is battle tested.”

All Christians have some form of battle tested experience. Having experiences does not automatically translate into using these them as teachable moments for others. Even when particular experiences are used to teach others it may be difficult at times for the one who went through the experience to best biblically discern how to teach from such an experience. Christians are to seek wise counsel from others. (Cf. Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future. Prov. 19:20 ESV)

[Driscoll] went on to say that the negative attention is just part of writing a book like “Real Marriage.” Looking at himself in that light, Driscoll said the controversy is worth it if marriages are helped by the book.
“I will endure as much criticism as necessary to help as many people as I can,” concluded Driscoll.

At this point one can infer that Driscoll is heeding pragmatism over biblical criticism. Driscoll’s book may help some marriages, but what is meant by help? Is some help is better than no help? Is this marital help the best biblically available? When pragmatism becomes the guide for Christians to make and justify decisions just about anything can be excused.

For example, the review of The Shack on this blog alone has hundreds on comments, many of which praise the book for helping them have a closer relationship with God.⁶ However, Driscoll himself has biblically criticized this work of fiction that many have praised for its spiritual help.

In the end, I hope Driscoll will read and consider the biblical criticisms of Real Marriage. I hope he exegetically explains why he disagrees with his critics. On the other hand, if his critics are found biblically justified I pray he repents as he said he would in his Tabletalk interview. I would also remind those who are not part of Driscoll’s congregation that he is not your pastor.⁷

The way Mark Driscoll handles his biblical critics can provide a great example, or a poor example, of how to respond to this battle tested issue of criticism.
_____________________________

Denny Burk. My Review of Mark Driscoll’s “Real Marriage” ↩
Aaron Armstrong. Book Review: Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll ↩
Tim Challies. Book Review – Real Marriage ↩
Dan Merica. Pastor’s detailed book on sex divides reviewers, sparks controversy. CNN belief blog ↩
Mark Driscoll. An Outpost of Jesus’ Kingdom: An Interview with Mark Driscoll ↩
The Shack Review ↩
Should “Celebrity” Pastors Offer Disclaimers? ↩

Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association

Mark — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:51:57 +0000

Elephant Room II is only 20 days away. T.D. Jakes is still on the schedule.¹ Several of us disagreed with Jakes being a participant², including Mark Dever who withdrew³, but I did suggest some questions for Jakes.⁴ Although I am still not very excited about Jakes participation, I am interested in what he will have to say, especially, in his session with Mark Driscoll where the following issues are supposed to be addressed.

What are the ‘majors’ of Christian doctrine that cannot be diluted or denied for a person to be a Christian? How can we help one another move beyond the bare minimum of accepted belief, to a pursuit of robust, soul-satisfying, biblical substance? How should we relate to those who do not yet embrace the benefit and priority of sound biblical doctrine? Is there a difference between a person in error and a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What benefits derive from keeping the majors on a separate list and not letting the ‘minors’ divide us? Is it possible to love the truth without compromise and still work passionately for unity?⁵

In light of the answers I received to recent questions, an additional question of ministry associations would be interesting. T.D. Jakes has long been affiliated with the organization Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA). On their Facebook page I asked (screenshot below), “Is T.D. Jakes still the Vice-Prelate of Higher Ground? Also, is Higher Ground still Oneness in their theology of the Godhead?”⁶

The answer from Timothy Starkey was “Yes and yes.” Yet who is Mr. Starkey? The West Virginia & East Tennessee Council of Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. lists Mr. Starkey as “Minister Timothy Starkey” of the “United Apostolic Faith Church.”⁷ This Council is a Oneness organization as evidenced by their statement of faith which states, “There is but one GOD in essence and in person” who is the triune manifestation, the divine three-fold manifestation and relationship.”⁸

Little did I know that all I had to do was check out the flyer for the “2012 Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, Inc. National Convention.” The flyer has Jakes’ picture with his title of “Vice Prelate” under it.⁹

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that even if T.D. Jakes proclaims a clear, unequivocal belief in the Trinity¹⁰, the question remains of why Jakes continues to serve in ministry with Oneness folks. (Other doctrinal concerns remain as well.¹¹)

Would an alleged former Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness get a pass in the same situation? If Jakes’ claimed to be raised in a Mormon or JW congregation, later alleged that he has moved beyond those communities, yet was still a officer serving with a Mormon or JW organization, would the Elephant Room organizers ignore the obvious? I hope the answer is that the ER folks would address such affiliations, but if they were consistent, it seems that the invitation would still have been issued.

Will the question of associations go unasked and unanswered? I have no idea though I hope both with be asked and answered. Let’s hope there is truth in advertisement since the ad on the ER website states:

“You know the rules…No wavering. No sidestepping. No Excuses.”

___________________________

Elephant Room. Speakers & Conversations. ↩
TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment? ↩
Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2? ↩
What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2? ↩
Elephant Room. Speakers & Conversations. ↩
Facebook page. Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies Inc. ↩
West Virginia & East Tennessee Council of Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. District 23 ↩
Ibid. Our Faith. ↩
2012 Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, Inc National Convention. June 19-22, 2012 ↩
Theopedia. Trinity. ↩
David W. Jones, Russell S. Woodbridge. Health, Wealth & Happiness:Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? Kregel. December 2010. ↩

Sunday Considerations: This Year Also

Mark — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:14:02 +0000

In preparation for the new year, Charles Spurgeon wrote the following sermon excerpts from his bed while he was sick. The sermon is based on three words from Luke 13:8, “this year also.” Spurgeon’s words put new year’s resolutions and goals into a Kingdom perspective.

However, there should be no dispute that a kingdom is in view with new year’s resolutions, but whose kingdom, yours or God’s?

The interceding vinedresser pleaded for the fruitless fig tree, “let it alone this year also,” dating, as it were, a year from the time wherein he spoke. Trees and fruit-bearing plants have a natural measurement for their lives—evidently a year came to its close when it was time to seek fruit on the fig tree and another year commenced when the vinedresser began, again, his digging and pruning work. Men are such barren things that their fruitage marks no certain periods and it becomes necessary to make artificial divisions of time for them. There seems to be no set period for man’s spiritual harvest or vintage, or if there is, the sheaves and the clusters come not in their season and hence we have to say, one to another—“This shall be the beginning of a new year.”
Be it so, then. Let us congratulate each other upon seeing the dawn of “this year also,” and let us unitedly pray that we may enter upon it, continue in it and come to its close under the unfailing blessing of the Lord to whom all years belong.
I. The beginning of a new year SUGGESTS A RETROSPECT. Let us take it deliberately and honestly. “This year also”—then there had been former years. The dresser of the vineyard was not, for the first time, aware of the fig tree’s failure and neither had the owner come, for the first time, seeking figs in vain. God, who gives us “this year also,” has given us others before it—His sparing mercy is no novelty! His patience has already been taxed by our provocations. First came our youthful years when even a little fruit unto God is peculiarly sweet to Him. How did we spend them? Did our strength run all into wild wood and wanton branch? If so, we may well bewail that wasted vigor, that life misspent, that sin exceedingly multiplied.
He who saw us misuse those golden months of youth, nevertheless affords us “this year also,” and we should enter upon it with a holy jealousy lest what of strength and ardor may be left to us should be allowed to run away into the same wasteful courses as before. Upon the heels of our youthful years came those of early manhood when we began to muster a household and to become as a tree fixed in its place. Then, also, fruit would have been precious. Did we bear any? Did we present unto the Lord a basket of summer fruit? Did we offer Him the first-fruits of our strength? If we did so, we may well adore the Divine Grace which so early saved us! But if not, the past chides us and, lifting an admonitory finger, it warns us not to let “this year also” follow the way of the rest of our lives!
————————-
The new year also reminds us of opportunities for usefulness which have come and gone—and of unfulfilled resolutions which have blossomed only to fade. Shall “this year also” be as those which have gone before? May we not hope for Grace to advance upon Grace already gained and should we not seek for power to turn our poor sickly promises into robust action? Looking back on the past we lament the follies by which we would not willingly be held captive “this year also,” and we adore the forgiving mercy, the preserving Providence, the boundless liberality, the Divine love of which we hope to be partakers “this year also.”
————————-
So many have gone before us and are going every hour, that no man should need any other memento and yet man is so eager to forget his own mortality and, thereby, to forfeit his hopes of bliss, that we cannot too often bring it before the mind’s eyes. O mortal Man, what do you think? Prepare to meet your God, for you must meet Him! Seek the Savior, yes, seek Him before another sun sinks to its rest!
Once more, “this year also,” and it may be for this year, only, the Cross is uplifted as the lighthouse of the world— the one Light to which no eye can look in vain! Oh that millions would look that way and live! Soon the Lord Jesus will come a second time and then the blaze of His Throne will supplant the mild radiance of His Cross! The Judge will be seen rather than the Redeemer! Now He saves, but then He will destroy! Let us hear His voice at this moment! He has given us another day, let us be eager to avail ourselves of the gracious season! Let us believe in Jesus this day, seeing it may be our last!
These are the pleas of one who now falls back on his pillow in very weakness. Hear them for your souls’ sakes and live! Amen.¹

_________________________

Spurgeon, Charles. This Year Also. 1879, for the new year from the sick chamber. ↩

Friday Photos: Civil War Reenactment

Mark — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:12:31 +0000

It has been said that, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” though I have also read somewhere that,”Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.” Whichever you are, I hope you enjoy a few pictures from my wife’s photo shoot at the Civil War reenactment that took place in Richmond Hill, GA at Fort McAllister. The cannon fire photo is my favorite.

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to
Post tags: Civil War reenactment, photographs, photography

Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple

Mark — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:12:19 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The Michael Medved Show recently covered the topic of the discrimination lawsuit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast by a lesbian couple. The B&B owner, Phyllis Young, allegedly denied the couple a room due to her Christian views on homosexuality. The lesbian couple is suing claiming a violation of Hawaiian law by discrimination based on sexual orientation. Young is being legally represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization which defends religious freedom.

This should be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

As a Christian, would you do the same as Young? As I understand it, Young actually lives in the Bed & Breakfast which is common among B&B owners. At least one Medved Christian caller said that he would have a problem renting a room inside his home to a homosexual couple, but would not be troubled renting a house or apartment.

What would you do?

Follow Young’s actions and not rent to them.
Rent a room to them.
Rent a room to them, but share the gospel first and explain how their lifestyle is sinful.
Tell them you’ll rent them the shed.
Or…

Also, would your decision be different if you were renting a house or apartment rather than a room in your B&B home?

What Will You Do with the Christmas Gift?

Mark — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:57:29 +0000

Another Christmas has come and gone and a new year is around the corner. A year lies ahead both to use this year’s Christmas gifts and think about next year’s. However, some gifts are all ready used up although some are advertised as gifts that keep on giving. There is only one gift that keeps on giving. This gift was given to all, but did you receive Him or reject Him?

What will you do with the Christmas gift?

The Christmas gift given, but not received by all is Jesus Christ. Yet, His birth is celebrated by millions on Christmas day. He is the gift that was given one time for all time.

To those who rejected Him.

You’ve probably heard it all before, “Jesus loves you, blah, blah blah,” right? “Jesus is the reason for the season?” Well, truly He is the reason.¹ However, phrases that become cliches, even if true, get old. The main reason that “Jesus loves you” gets old is probably because you do not love Jesus. Saying and receiving an “I love you” from a loved one will probably never become cliche. Although Christians telling you about Jesus’ love probably feels like a person with a high school crush who won’t leave you alone while you pursue someone else.

The problem is that, unlike a passing crush, you can’t run from your own conscience. The knowledge of right and wrong, that is, sin, will bear down on you. One thing that can be done is to cover current sin with new sin. This method of dealing with sin is like cheering for the anti-hero that wins the day. The anti-hero is not as bad as the really bad guys so it’s easy to cheer for him when he takes them out. The anti-here becomes the hero because he’s not as bad as the next guy, but there is always that tension of his past and of what he might do next.

It is the same with sins covering other sins. You give yourself a pass because you did something better this time. You did a good deed for someone which covers the negative treatment you gave someone else. However you cut this pie of good deeds and bad deeds, it is still about you getting the most out of the pie. How do you know if you have ever done enough to cover the bad that you’ve done to someone else?

In my estimation, you won’t ever really know if you’ve done enough from a human perspective to cover sinning against another person. People will tell you they forgive you and some will mean it, yet think about how you have personally held on to those words and actions when other have hurt you.

I’ve got a cliche for you: Jesus loves you! However, I will have to take at least one cliche back and tell you that Jesus may not have a wonderful plan for your live as you and I might define wonderful. Jesus does, however, have a wonderful plan for your afterlife if you would believe His good news.

The thing about Jesus’ good news is that it can be, and is, received year round. Upon receiving Jesus Christ the real question becomes – what will Jesus do with you? A few things Jesus will do with you is take away your sin, give you new life now and forever, and give meaning, purpose, and focus to your life.

Got 60 seconds to consider the good news?

To Christians, or those who received Jesus.

My question to you, and to myself, is simple. Don’t wait until Christmas!

Concerning the Christmas gift, will you live as one who believes the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Will you live as the Apostle Paul describes in one of several places in Scripture?

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:12-17 ESV)

Don’t wait until Christmas!
______________________

Happy Holidays? ↩

Sunday Considerations: What is Christmas? A Spoken Word

Mark — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:44:49 +0000

[Note: I wrote the poem below in the spirit of spoken word poetry.]

What is Christmas?

“What Child is This?” we sing,
He is the One who is to be King.

It’s the time of year to celebrate His birth,
Which began His life of eternal worth.

This baby Jesus was born to die,
And we sinners might ask, “Why?”

Why would God send His Son to save us,
From the sin in which we ourselves enslaved us?

A gift so great that the world can’t fathom,
Compared to Santa’s gifts, you can have them!

The true meaning of Christmas is not about gift earning,
But bringing the Savior to rescue us from eternal burning.

Do you think of your sin and feel robbed of joy?
Then repent and believe in this baby boy.

But that baby boy is a grown Man,
He died and rose from the dead and has the world in His hand.

To truly enjoy Christmas just embrace the Savior,
Jesus Christ the Lord who gives unmerited favor.

Sing “Joy to the World” through all your spiritual strife,
If you have believed in the Lord who gives new life.

Wishing you all a very, merry Christmas Day,
For it’s about the birth of Jesus Christ, who is the only way!

Happy Holidays?

Mark — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:39:46 +0000

During Christmas time it is not uncommon to hear phrase Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Of course, many people still say Merry Christmas. I prefer Merry Christmas and will even reply as such when people say Happy Holidays to me. Depending on the worldview there are people who not only prefer one phrase to the other, but are offended when his or her particular holiday greeting is not used.

In recent years, some large department stores moved away from using the term Christmas to using Holiday instead. This move upset many Christians who complained to those stores. Many of those stores decided to go back to using Christmas in their advertising. However, no matter what description a store uses for the Christmas holiday season, it does not move that store any closer to being a Christian organization.

Department stores that use verbiage to avoid negative press and make the majority of their customers happy may find themselves in a tough spot. Depending on one’s perception of a store’s advertisements said store may be charged with using Christmas to sell products. Of course, the goal of advertising is to sell products regardless of the time of year. Stores will not be able to please everyone with their ads.

Yet the official American holiday is Christmas.

In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a law officially declaring Christmas a U.S. Federal holiday. One might ask just what was meant by Christmas in 1870. The 1828 dictionary definition was as follows.

The festival of the Christian church observed annually on the 25th day of December, in memory of the birth of Christ, and celebrated by a particular church service. The festival includes twelve days.¹

Years later, in 1913, Christmas was defined as:

An annual church festival (December 25) and in some States a legal holiday, in memory of the birth of Christ, often celebrated by a particular church service, and also by special gifts, greetings, and hospitality.²

The legal U.S. holiday is Christmas which is the celebration of the birth of Christ just a Christians say. Christmas is still in the U.S. Code along with the Federal holidays – Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day and Thanksgiving Day.³ I am unaware of any other holiday besides Christmas where people try to change the name to something more general in opposition to the actual name of the holiday. Imagine if people tried to change the name of MLK day, Memorial Day, Independence Day or Veterans Day. Considering that Christmas is the official U.S. holiday, etc. one might argue that Merry Christmas is the most acceptable phrase since that is the actual holiday which is observed.

Does this mean Christians should only accept Merry Christmas and reject and protest all other holiday expressions?

There is no doubt that Jesus is the reason for the season for Christians. Is He the reason for non-Christians as well? Observing Christmas as an official Federal holiday in some fashion is not the same as celebrating the birth of Jesus. There are people who do not think much of MLK day or Columbus day, but will take the day off of work. So it should not be surprising that people will take a day off of work, give and receive presents, put up a tree or say Merry Christmas; none of which have anything to do with celebrating the birth of Jesus. A Christian doing those things to the glory of God in memory of Jesus’ death is another story, however.

Yet Christmas is still about Jesus!

Yes, Christmas is still about Jesus for the Christian. A nonbiblical Jesus without the gospel is no Jesus at all. Christians may continue to say Merry Christmas during this season regardless of what others say in response. Christians should expect that non-Christians are offended by Jesus and His gospel (1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8). If the situation allows, use your Merry Christmas as an opportunity to joyfully, not angrily, share the gospel. The unbeliever’s mind is not going to be changed without the gospel because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18).

So don’t have a gospel-less Christmas, but have a merry one by displaying effect of the gospel provided by the fruit of the Spirit which is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23 ESV).

Merry Christmas!

_______________________

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christianity, Christmas, happy holidays, Holiday

Ethics: Don’t Quote Me, Bro!

Mark — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:53:32 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s scenario is an interesting one involving blogging, although it could be applied to any online writing. The online exchange of words and ideas is amazingly fast.

If a blogger has any kind of audience and he posts something that challenges that audience there is probably going to be a response. The large technology and political blogs certainly get responses, but a blog need have a huge following to get feedback. Even in the small world of Christian blogging one can get into some pretty heated discussion.

So what if one Christian blogger asks another not to quote any of his words without permission?

This recently happened on another Christian blog. The following was requested.

Jared,
On a personal note, I would request that you NOT use my comments on other blogs or websites in your blog articles … without …my permission. My written comments are personalized to that blog article and its context. I would appreciate you honoring my request for the future. Blessings! – Ron Hale¹*

Interesting request. For readers who are unaware, the U.S. Copyright office has a doctrine of “fair use” which states that quoting others may be considered fair in areas “such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”² The commenter above responded again admitting that permission to quote him is not required, but that he is asking that his request be honored nonetheless.

What would you do?

Honor the request no questions asked.
Honor the request, but ask questions.
Not honor the request in general.
Not honor the request as long as he continues writing online.
Write extra blog posts quoting him as much as you can.

*Note: The example used above is just an example of a situation that has occurred on this topic and it is not the topic of this thread. The topic is to answer the question of what you, the reader, would do in this situation.

______________________

Comment from Ron Hale to Jared Moore. ↩
U.S. Copyright Office. Fair Use ↩

Sunday Considerations: Prepared for the Lord

Mark — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:10:38 +0000

In the excerpt below, Spurgeon is preaching on the past phrase of Luke 1:17 (ESV) “To make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” During this Christmas season as non-Christians are invited to and attend various Christmas services, these words are a great reminder that sinners bring nothing to Christ for salvation. Just as the birth of Jesus was a work of God so is the re-birth of the lost soul.

The fact is, dear friends, that to get men to come to Jesus just as they are, is not an easy thing. To get them to give up the idea of preparing, to get them prepared to come without preparing, to get them ready to come just as they are, this is the hardest part of our work, this is our greatest difficulty. If we came and preached to men the necessity of preparation through so many weeks of fasting during a long Lent, or through so many days of scourging and penitence, they would attend to us at once, for they would be willing enough to make any preparation of that kind; but, when we say to them, “Come just as you are now, with nothing in your hand to buy the mercy of God, with nothing wherewith to demand or to deserve it,” men want a great deal of preparing before they will come to that point. Only the grace of God, working mightily through the Word, by the Spirit, will prepare men to come to Christ thus, prepared by being unprepared so far as any fitness of their own is concerned. The only fit state in which they can come is that of sinking themselves, abandoning all idea of helping Christ, and coming in all their natural impotence and guilt, and taking Christ to be their all in all.¹

____________________

Spurgeon, Charles. A People Prepared for the Lord. March 17th, 1895. ↩

Is Tim Tebow a Religious Hypocrite?

Mark — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:38:43 +0000

In his article, “Tim Tebow Trivializes Religion” Bill Press uses Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:5 to call Tim Tebow a hypocrite. ¹ In light of Press labeling Tebow a hypocrite he also wishes that Tebow would “STFU”.² Press, a Roman Catholic, attended a Catholic university and earned a degree in theology.³ The 71 year old Press, then, would be considered an older more learned man than Tebow who, it seems, should have some wisdom to share.

Did someone say hypocrisy?

In Matthew 5, Jesus did say:

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6 ESV)

Press’ rhetoric is simply proof-texting. Several chapters later Jesus’ public prayer of thanks is recorded.

[Jesus] took the seven loaves and the fish, and chaving given thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. (Matthew 15:36 ESV)

Press may want to reconsider his use of Scripture against Tebow. He may want to read Ephesians 5:4 for himself which is about foolish and filthy talk.

Press continues.

Broncos quarterback Tebow’s not only a Christian. He wants everybody to know he’s a Christian. He brags about it, constantly. He wears Bible verses on his face. He kneels in prayer after every touchdown. And he thanks his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for every win.

Is it wrong for Christians to want people to know they are Christians? Did the memo get misplaced? If anything, too many Christians may unintentionally (or intentionally) hide that they are Christians. Is Tebow really bragging about being a Christian or is he just truly thankful and unashamed?

Tebow wearing Bible verses on one’s face is too much for some. How about kneeling in prayer? Maybe that is too much too, but the type of actions Tebow is doing already existed within the NFL culture. Players do all kinds of things after a touchdown or a good play. Here in Atlanta the “Dirty Bird” dance started several years ago, but much is not made of these kinds of celebrations. Should Tebow not thank the Lord for victory? He also thanks his team. What will really be telling is Tebow’s public response after losing.

There’s only one thing wrong with that. By dragging God into every football game, Tebow makes a mockery of Christianity – and trivializes religion. The truth is, God doesn’t care who wins an election, a bingo game, or a football game. Sorry, Tebow, Jesus is not a Broncos fan.

Are there a parts of life into which Christians shouldn’t drag God? Are there parts of life from which Christians should exclude God? Scripture does tell us to do all things for God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31) and to hold every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). By my estimation, Tebow is not trivializing religion or making a mockery out of Christianity, but upholding Christianity as the true religion that it is. God may not care who the particular winner of a game or an election is, but God does sovereignly work all things together for good for the believer (Rom. 8:28). We do not know God’s divine purposes in who ultimately wins or losses.

Now, if you’re one of the silly millions of Americans who loves Tebow’s in-your-face kind of Christianity, consider this. What if he were a devout Muslim, who bowed to Mecca after every touchdown and shouted “Allahu Akbar?”
Somehow, I don’t think we’d be celebrating him as a national hero.

How exactly is Tebow’s expression of Christianity anymore “in-your-face” than everything else that is celebrated about American celebrities? Ironically enough, Press is paid to talk, write and think (?) about various aspect of American culture yet does not realize that what Tebow is doing is very much a part of said culture. Americans have a plethora of celebrity gossip and other garbage with which to pollute their minds, so a few moments of Tebow’s display of faith isn’t going to hurt anything. His display of faith may be refreshing for some and may even have some positive effects.

And Mr. Press, if a devout Muslim shouted “Allahu Akbar” after every touchdown maybe that would allow us to have honest dialogue about Islam in this country. While such a celebration may not be to my liking I would not deny him the right to do so. My question to you is -

If a devout Muslim did shout “Allahu Akbar” after every touchdown would you write a similar article criticizing him?

I am not sure who is celebrating Tebow as a national hero since he gets plenty of criticism both about his faith and playing ability. There is something refreshing about Tebow’s public display of faith even if I, and others, don’t agree with all of his methods. ⁴

I’m not sure that Tebow’s talk about Jesus is the real problem for people like Press. Press’ own hypocrisy is not what clouds his view. The real problem may be just as Jesus Himself stated.

“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”(Matthew 10:22 ESV)

_______________________

Press, Bill. Tim Tebow Trivializes Religion ↩
Liberal Talker Bill Press To Tim Tebow: “S.T.F.U.”, That is “Shut the F-explictive Up” ↩
Wikipedia. Bill Press: Religion ↩
Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching ↩

Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching

Mark — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:16:15 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

NFL quarterback Tim Tebow gets a lot of news coverage because of the way he and the Broncos are winning football games and, more specifically, for his outspoken faith in Jesus Christ. It could be argued that his Christianity has become more of a story than the last minute wins.

Today’s hypothetical scenario might bring Tim Tebow to your church.

In an upcoming Sunday, your church is holding a youth outreach event that will be held after the morning service. The church youth have been encouraged to invite friends and neighbors.The whole church was asked to think of how they might contribute to this event.

Well, one of your fellow church members just happened to get connected with Tim Tebow through the friend of a friend. He was very excited about inviting Tebow, but he knew he would have to run it by church leadership. Tebow is willing to help with the youth event and would like to share his story and give an invitation at the end of the sermon to close the service.

In his excitement, this church member told a few people and the news spread like a wildfire throughout the congregation. Before he could contact the pastor about inviting Tebow, the pastor had already received a dozen calls.

Your pastor tells you that he will get back with you in a week with his decision about inviting Tebow. A week goes by taking with it dozens of phone calls to the pastor about his decision. Based on the phone calls the congregation does not seem to be of one mind about having Tebow speak.

The pastor decides to bring this decision to a congregational meeting since this is a congregational church and everyone is not on the same page. (I know, but stay with me here!)

At the meeting the pastor explains that as a congregation everyone does not agree that inviting Tebow is the best thing for their local body. He then states his personal reasons why he does not think Tebow is the best idea. After some research, your pastor explains that he does not agree with Tebow’s methods which include the following.

Inviting everyone to ask Jesus into their heart, decisional regeneration, an altar call, leading a sinners prayer and then proclaiming the salvation of those who recited the prayer welcoming them to the family of God.¹

It is time for the congregation to vote.

What would you do and why?

Trust the spiritual leadership of your pastor and vote no.
Vote no for other reasons.
Vote yes.
Try to get Tebow to your house for dinner.

____________________

Edwards, Justin. Tim Tebow’s Christian Evangelism offers one example of such biblical criticism. ↩

Here I Blog

Ethics: Seminary Student Preaches Someone Else’s Sermons

Sunday Considerations: Comparing Lives

Ethics: the Deacons are Freemasons!

Sunday Considerations: Forsaken by Man

TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

Angry Apostles and the Trinity

Ethics: Church Discipline Contract Issued

A Response to Jerry Vines on Calvinism and Southern Baptists

God is Doing Amazing Things!

Sunday Considerations: My Lord and My God

On Public Rebuke

Ethics: Prominent Pastor Plagiarizes?

Sunday Considerations: Outdo One Another

Jimmy Fallon on Tim Tebow: Comedy or Blasphemy?

Ethics: Church to Lose Funding Over Homosexual Adoption

What God is This? Osteen on Oprah

Sunday Considerations: Called to Die

Real Marriage: Heeding Pragmatism Over Biblical Criticism?

Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association

Sunday Considerations: This Year Also

Top 10 Posts for the Second Half of 2011

Friday Photos: Civil War Reenactment

Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple

What Will You Do with the Christmas Gift?

Sunday Considerations: What is Christmas? A Spoken Word

Happy Holidays?

Ethics: Don’t Quote Me, Bro!

Sunday Considerations: Prepared for the Lord

Is Tim Tebow a Religious Hypocrite?

Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching