56 Sermon Illustrations on Convictions

Liberalism is so open it will accept anything, and therefore stands for nothing.

There is a church in Massachusetts which exemplifies this approach. Although they are Unitarian, they invited a Buddhist priest to conduct a service for them. He was from Harvard, and gave a typical Buddhist ceremony - prayers, chants, bells, etc. Jesus was not mentioned even once.

Afterwards, one man commented that there was a little too much dogma, but otherwise it was O.K. A woman said she'd been a Unitarian all her life, but now she wasn't too sure.

God's pleasure -- not society's measure -- must be the standard by which Christians live their lives, Mark Brister said Feb. 1 at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Brister, pastor of Broadmoor Baptist Church, Shreveport, La., said the world's low standards for ethical living have created a moral abyss that makes truth relative to the whims of public opinion.

And unfortunately, Brister said, in too many cases the church has failed to uphold God's standard for truth.

"We have lost the standard of the truth of the Word of God," Brister said. "We have moved away from virtues to what are called values." He said values shift from day to day as they have no connection to any "moral tether."

In a day when criticism is as popular as talking about the weather, believers now more than ever must be sure to live out their convictions, Brister said on the school's Wake Forest, N.C., campus.

"The integrity of a life surrendered and committed to the Lord Jesus Christ is the best weapon that you have -- consistently, faithfully loving the Lord Jesus Christ," said Brister, who served as chairman of the Program and Structure Study Committee, which recommended the plan for the restructuring of the Southern Baptist Convention approved by messengers to the 1995 convention in Atlanta.

"The life that you live, the gospel that you share in the week, is a message that is also lived out in your home before your wife, before your children, before those who are close to you. It's absolutely essential that who you are in your public ministry is also who you are in your (private) life."

Too often Christians waffle on their beliefs, Brister said, because their churches aren't standing on the Word of God. Too many pastors are leading their churches according to what's popular -- not the Word of God -- for the sake of harmony, he said. "We are continuing to move the standards by what everyone else is doing," he said. "We preach against that socially and morally but we have done the same thing in ministry. God says you better make sure that the standard of your life is the Lord Jesus Christ. Do not let the standard of measure in your life become others' displeasure, or you will wind up spending your ministry lowering levels of dissatisfaction in your churches, putting out grass fires instead of winning people to Jesus and reaching a lost world for Jesus Christ."

Happiness and joy, Brister said, may only be found when Christians are living according to God's standard. "It pleases God when our prayer life lives and we have active, vibrant, communication with our Heavenly Father," he said. "Don't ever fall out of love with Jesus. Maintain that close intimate personal relationship." Brister said the Bible promises believers won't be disappointed when they live according to God's will.

"God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness to the man who pleases him," Brister said. (Eccl 2:26)

Ben-Gurion once stayed in the same hotel in Haifa with another

Zionist leader. All night long they argued whether the windows should

be closed or open.

Ben-Gurion wanted them open, his roommate, closed. So they argued

back and forth all night. In the morning when the sun rose

Ben-Gurion's roommate said, "Look what idiots we have been, fighting

all night whether the windows should be open or closed. They do not

even have window panes anyway."

"I knew it all along," said Ben-Gurion, "but it was just the

principle of the thing."

Eric Liddel, a young Scottish ministerial student, the best sprinter in the British Empire, was favored to win the 100-meter race in the Olympic Games in Paris, July 1924. But a few weeks before the Olympics he learned that the preliminary 100-meter races were scheduled for a Sunday afternoon. He considered Sunday sports wrong. For the few weeks before the Games he excused himself after evening dinner from the usual bull sessions with classmates, returning home hours later exhaused.

A few weeks later the whole world knew his secret. He had spent those evening hours practicing for another event that was scheduled for a weekday and which required a different type of speed and endurance. On the closing day of the Olympics he stood on the winner’s platform and received the Gold Medal as 400-meter champion. Liddel, who became a missionary, died as a prisoner in a concentration camp in the Far East during World War II. His story was told in the film "Chariots of Fire".

The problem in this nation is not with the prosititutes, the punks, the pushers. But it’s with puny, pampered, passive preaching from the pulpits of America ... Nobody it seems, is standing and preaching that the Word of God is the Word of God and hell is hot and heaven is high and sin is wrong and God and marriage are right. It’s time to take a stand.

________

Bobby Boyles, pastor of Eagle Heights Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, speaking at the 1994 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention; quoted by {Baptist Press, }Nashville

I was playing in a controlled scrimmage against the Detroit Lions one hot, muggy summer day in Detroit. I had outmaneuvered a frustrated Detroit rookie for most of the day from my left defensive end position. Then our helmets accidentally locked together on a play.

This guy used foul language that I would not let my dogs hear. I can take losing a game, but I cannot tolerate being cussed out to my face.

I looked him right in the eye and announced, “Jesus is coming back soon, and I hope you’re ready.” But he just tossed more choice words into my face and returned to his huddle. I was angry. Again I shouted to him across the field, “Jesus is coming back soon, and I hope you’re ready.”

My teammates were urging me back to our defensive huddle. But instead I eyeballed this rookie and shouted to my teammates, “Jesus is coming back soon, and I hope he’s ready.”

The next play, I lined up in front of the same rookie and said, “Jesus is coming back soon, and I don’t think you’re ready.”

The ball snapped and I announced, “Here comes Jesus!”

I thrust my entire 285-pound body right into his chest and drove him back about five yards. He plopped to the turf just in time to see me sack his quarterback. My teammates and coach often asked after that if Jesus was coming back on the next play!

I’m still not sure why I said what I did that steamy day in Detroit. Maybe it was the heat. Maybe it was his language. Maybe it was just my desire to live my life glorifying Jesus Christ.

________

Adapted from Minister of Defense, by Reggie White and Terry Hill (Brentwood, TN: Wolgmuth & Hyatt, 1991) 57-59

Albert Camus was a noted French atheist and writer of the first half of the last century. Although he at one time toyed with the idea of becoming a Christian, he ultimately rejected the faith, becoming one of its noted critics. He nevertheless had some wise words for us just before his death when he wrote,

The world expects of Christians that they will ... plant themselves

squarely in front of the bloody face of history. We are in need of

folk who have determined to speak directly and unmistakably and

come what may to stand by what they have said.

Brian Tracy's "Seven C's of Success":

CLARITY - Eighty percent of success comes from being clear on who you are, what you believe in and what you want.

COMPETENCE - You can't climb to the next rung on the ladder until you are excellent at what you do now.

CONSTRAINTS - Eighty percent of all obstacles to success come from within. Find out what is constraining in you or your company and deal with it

CONCENTRATION - The ability to focus on one thing single- mindedly and see it through until it's done takes more character than anything else.

CREATIVITY - Flood your life with ideas from many sources. Creativity needs to be exercised like a muscle, if you don't use it you'll lose it.

COURAGE - Most in demand and least in supply, courage is the willingness to do the things you know are right

CONTINUOUS LEARNING - Read, at the very least, one book a week to keep you miles ahead. And just as you eat and bathe, organize your time so you spend 30 minutes a day exploring e-mail, sending messages, going through web sites, because like exercise, it's the only way you can keep on top. If you get away from it, you'll lose your edge.

Men like Rod Paige and Franklin Graham are not afraid to boldly confirm their Christian beliefs, even when it's unfashionable.

_________________

Should evangelical Christians -- whose Bible-based views often counter the so-called mainstream social, political and religious attitudes -- be restrained from voicing their beliefs in secular settings?

Two recent situations suggest that there is a growing effort to silence Christians who express their perspective on current issues.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige found this out last week when he suggested that America's public schools could stand to adopt better values systems, even those based on religious teachings. Asked if schools should embrace religious values, Mr. Paige answered, “Absolutely.” Asked why there is animosity toward religion and God in schools, Mr. Paige said, “It's a real puzzle to me.”

Leftist groups erupted in anger over the comments.

Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, told the Associated Press, “The answer should be there is no hostility toward God in public schools - there's neutrality. This idea of animosity is right out of the religious right's playbook about how to discredit public education, and he buys into it.”

Maybe Mr. Lynn should pull his head out of the sand and see the amazing number of legal cases involving discrimination in our schools. Students wishing to start after-school Bible clubs are frequently told they cannot do so, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has said they can. Students face discrimination in scholarship awards because of religious studies. Students are told they cannot hand out Christian candy canes if they bear a religious message or turn in artwork that has a religious connotation.

“Neutrality” is hardly how I'd describe the religious environment in our schools.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network also criticized Mr. Paige.

“The language of religious values -- particularly 'Christian values' -- has often been misused to isolate or denigrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Kevin Jennings, GLSEN's executive director. The group says schools should sponsor diversity - code word for, “keep the Christians silent.”

At our nation's founding and for many years thereafter, our nation's public schools were havens of Christian thought. Only in recent years has it become trendy to denounce those who attempt to bring a Christian influence in the classroom.

“The groups firing at Rod Paige have been working to eradicate the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression from schools and every other corner of the public square,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. “The value of teaching young children charity, peace and kindness is indisputable. Jesus taught us to 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' and we could certainly use more of that lesson in violence ridden schools.”

The fact is, it is only the radical homosexuals and the militant civil libertarians -- those who oppose any religious reference in the public square -- who are so adamantly opposed to a few religious values being utilized in our public schools.

Evangelist Franklin Graham was also targeted for censure this week. He is to speak at a Good Friday event at the Pentagon. This angered a few Muslim employees there. Thankfully, the Defense Department said it would not rescind its invitation to Rev. Graham to speak at the services. As you know, Rev. Graham earlier called Islam an evil religion last year. Nevertheless, he has devoted much of his ministry to helping people in Muslim nations.

Franklin, who is the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, is president of Samaritan's Purse, a relief organization that is currently conducting relief work in Iraq. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has stipulated that the organization should not be allowed to minister there, even though Samaritan's Purse has a long history of helping predominately Muslim nations, including Bosnia, Afghanistan and others.

The love of Christ reaches out to all. That is the beauty of the Gospel. While Christians and Muslims will certainly disagree on many key issues, that does not preclude Christian organizations like Samaritan's Purse from reaching out in Christian love to lend a helping hand at a time of need. Christ is no respecter of persons and neither should be His followers.

Nevertheless, it has become fashionable to rebuke Christians when they don't follow the party line of vague “diversity” and other feel-good concepts of the day. But Christians will not sanction homosexual conduct. Christians will not adopt “inclusive” policies to accept other religious teachings. We will respect the views of all, but will not be brought into the nebulous middle where “diversity” and “inclusion” exists for everyone except us.

I thank God that men like Rod Paige and Franklin Graham are not afraid to boldly confirm their Christian beliefs, even in this time in our nation's history when it has become terribly unfashionable to do so.

*

Former FCC chairman Newton Minow once called TV “a vast wasteland.” Boy, was he right! But an oasis went on the air last week, even as powerful pressure groups were trying to dry it up.

I’ve often lamented the superficial spirituality — the Oprahism, I call it — of daytime TV. But thanks to the courage of Paramount executives in resisting the attacks of homosexuals and other anti-religious groups, Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s no-nonsense alternative debuted last Monday on CBS TV, with a message based on timeless truths.

Who could object to a program that always closes, “Now, go do the right thing”? That’s the benediction Dr. Laura pronounces on the 18 to 20 million listeners to her daily radio program, and on those who caught her television premiere.

She says she “preaches, teaches, and nags” to “teach morals, values, ethics, and principles.” Well, it must be working, because her radio phone lines are jammed with people seeking counsel for solving moral dilemmas the secular world has told them are of no great concern.

Instinctively, however, they know better, and Dr. Laura defines “the right thing” for them. As an Orthodox Jew, she says that means (at the very least) living by the Ten Commandments. In fact, her moral stance made her the first non-Christian ever honored by the National Religious Broadcasters, and she’s been a guest on Jim Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” program.

Not surprisingly, her standards offend some people — most vocally the two or three percent of the population that practice so-called “alternative sexual lifestyles.” In response to listeners’ questions, she once referred to homosexuals as deviants and biological errors. And that’s why they hate her.

When Paramount announced plans to produce the show, the opponents established pressure groups and mobilized protests at TV stations planning to air her program. They also bombarded advertisers so that the big names all dropped their sponsorship.

What irony! When Christians do the same sort of protest, they are called bigots and censors.

So is her telecast as offensive as the critics charge? Hardly! On Monday she discussed drug abuse with a group of parents, teens, and police. And in her closing comment she said, “We are expressly forbidden by God … to harm our bodies, which … are on loan from God to carry our souls through life.”

Future topics include marital fidelity, the stresses on working mothers, the dangers of making sexually explicit materials available to kids in public libraries, and the like.

From my own experience on BreakPoint the past nine years, I know it can be difficult to speak against a morally decadent culture. And Dr. Laura’s challenge will likely not get much easier in the weeks ahead. But she is a woman of conviction, and she has shown that she can stand up to the pressure — obviously something her regular listeners appreciate.

The opposition is loud and strong, but people need to hear her message, and in the end I believe truth and honesty will prevail. Call us here at BreakPoint and we’ll offer some suggestions on how you can help keep Dr. Laura on the air.

Programs like this survive on ratings, so you can certainly watch and get your friends to do the same.

It’s one more way you can “do the right thing!”

Over the years we've lived near the ocean, and we were blessed to have a friend who was a veteran sailor - he'd been sailing the East Coast since he was a boy. And he was generous enough to allow us to go sailing with him sometimes and to watch a master at work. I tried to apply for “first mate,” but he always said, “Don't call us, we'll call you.” Which he never did. But I was a grateful, and I was a curious passenger. He told me some great stories of sailing adventures. He showed us how to do some of what he did, and he related times he had seen one sailboat after another fall over as they were unprepared for a shift in the wind. You don't have to be a seasoned seaman to understand a fundamental law of a successful voyage: It's the set of the sail, not the force of the gale, that determines the way you go.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “The Set of Your Sail.”

That law is never more true, and never more important, than when it comes to making “no regrets” choices when you're under great pressure to make wrong choices. The Old Testament leader, Daniel, gives us a sterling example of setting your sail in our word for today from the Word of God.

He's only a young man when a pagan king demands that he and his Jewish friends eat certain foods that the king has prescribed for guys in his leadership training program. And you don't mess with the king. But Daniel's faith in Jehovah God forbids him to eat those foods, especially in light of the fact that they have been used in idol worship. To do the right thing could cost him an incredible future. It could cost him his life even. But Daniel 1:8 tells us that in spite of the probable price tag, “Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine.” He risks everything. He stands up to massive pressure, and ultimately is blessed by God and rewarded by the king with great position and privilege. Over and over in his life, even into his senior years, Daniel is faced with similar moral choices that could cost him everything. And every time, he does the right thing.

Is that you? The force of the gale on Daniel was powerful. He didn't cave in. Because he had firmly set his sail in God's direction, and no one - not even the most powerful people in the world - could blow him off course. In order for you to be that kind of moral champion, you're going to need more than just a list of rules that your religion gave you. You'll need deep-down inside convictions, based not so much on a list of what's wrong but on the ability to know what makes something wrong for a child of God.

So set your sail by asking these five questions about your life-choices:

1. Will this pollute or damage my body, which is God's temple? (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

2. Will this hurt my reputation? (Proverbs 22:1)

3. Could this control me? (Matthew 6:24) Anything that's controlling your mind or your time or your affections means Jesus isn't.

4. Will this hurt people I influence? (Romans 14:13) And finally:

5. Will this discredit Jesus? (Colossians 3:17)

That Five-Way Test for your life-choices will help you measure every decision by the things that matter to Jesus. It's not rules - it's reasons to do what's right, to do what Jesus wants. He's the only One who loved you enough to die for you!

The heavy winds of pressure to do what others want you to do will continue to blow hard. But that won't decide what you do. No, it will be the set of your sail, pre-set before God, before the choice arises. And remember, it's the set of your sail, not the force of your gale, that will determine the way you go!

__________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

In late September, I noticed signs popping up in yards throughout my neighborhood. A local election was on the horizon, and judging by the plethora of signs, there were obviously several hotly contested races. Since I haven't lived in this city very long, I am not familiar with local politics, and realized I needed to become informed before the election rolled around.

I thought that I would be able to determine which candidates were running against each other by noticing the signs in the yard. Since there were only two city council seats open, I assumed that if a homeowner put signs for two candidates in their yard, they must not be running in opposition to each other. My assumption was wrong. I quickly became confused at the seeming randomness with which the signs dotted the streets. Some lawns sported signs for all four candidates!

Once I realized I wasn't going to get anywhere by observing the signs, I decided to talk to a friend who has lived in the neighborhood for years. She gave me some background on the candidates and helped me figure out what sort of plans (or lack of plans) they had for our city. When I told her how perplexed I'd been by the political signs, she responded, “I guess some people will put a sign up for anyone who asks them.”

While the desire to support every candidate may be rooted in congeniality, it is woefully ineffective. Since only one candidate can win, it makes sense only to support that candidate who will do the best job. Backing two opposing candidates is basically the same thing as backing none at all.

Regrettably, because of the pluralistic milieu in which we live, many people support conflicting religious systems just as readily as my neighbors support competing candidates. I am deeply grateful that we live in a free society in which we are given religious freedom. Yet somehow our culture has leaped from allowing the free exercise of religion to expecting the full endorsement of all religion. The idea that all religions have a right to be has been transposed to say that all religions have to be right. This pluralistic spirit of optimism ignores the competing truth claims of different religions. Each religious worldview is, in a sense, a candidate competing to coherently explain humanity's place in the universe.

The people of Israel lived in a pluralistic climate not unlike our own. Although as a nation they worshiped one God, they were constantly being tempted to worship the gods of their neighbors. Joshua stands as a good example of faithful leadership in the midst of a plurality of religious options. He exhorts the people, “Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:14-15). Worship of the one true God is not compulsive; those who rejected the God of Israel could join another nation. But attempting to worship the God of Israel AND other gods was not an option.

When November came and I went to cast my vote, I chose just one option under each race. I doubt if those with the conflicting candidates' signs actually voted for more than one candidate per race; those who made it to the polls realized that they had to make a choice. A similar choice lies before us; we must choose whom we will serve.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

The Lord who created you says: “Do not be afraid, for I have ransomed you. I have called you by name; you are mine. When you go through deep waters and great trouble, I will be with you.” (Isaiah 43:1-2, NLT)

Margaret MacLachlan and Margaret Wilson, Covenanters [conservative Presbyterians] in Wigtown, Scotland, were tried for their faith on April 13, 1685, for refusing to take the Oath of Abjuration, which stated that the Church of God is a department of the State. Found guilty of rebellion, attending field meetings, and worshiping in places other than a church, they were ordered to receive their sentences on their knees. When they refused to bow before anyone but God, they were forced down to their knees and then were sentenced to death by drowning.

On May 11, 1685, the two faithful Margarets were tied to posts and staked in the sea as the tide was rising. The older Margaret (MacLachlan) was farther out. They were given many chances to recant their beliefs, but they stood firm and resolute.

Margaret MacLachlan remained silent, her eyes closed throughout the ordeal, communing with Christ until death. As the tide rose eighteen-year-old Margaret Wilson began to sing a Covenanter rendition of Psalm 25:7. Then, she recited from Romans 8: “We are more than conquerors through him that loves us....”

After the waves washed over her head, the soldiers pulled her out, pleading with her one last time to “pray for the king!” She prayed, but her prayer was, “Lord, give him repentance, forgiveness, and salvation, if it be Thy holy will.” The angry soldiers threw her back into the water, and she joined Margaret MacLachlan before the throne.

We may never face the rising tide of the sea, but the deep waters of trouble and loss can be just as overwhelming. How do you react when you feel you are about to drown in the rising tide of your own troubles?

________

Adapted from THE ONE YEAR® BOOK OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY by E. Michael and Sharon Rusten (Tyndale, 2003)

Last week on “BreakPoint,” we talked a lot about William Wilberforce, the English parliamentarian who fought for the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain. The marvelous new film about his life, AMAZING GRACE, beautifully portrays a public servant whose Christian beliefs aligned with his outward actions. His life was the epitome of integrity, an example of an integrated worldview.

Just before the debut of AMAZING GRACE, another film about a public servant appeared in theaters. The film is called BREACH, and it tells the story of Robert Hanssen, the man responsible for what some have called the “greatest security breach in American history.” Hanssen was the FBI agent, you may remember, who sold secrets to the Russians for twenty years until his arrest in February 2001.

BREACH opens with a scene of Hanssen in church praying the rosary; it closes with him asking for prayer. Like Wilberforce, Hanssen seems to be a man of deep religious convictions. He was a Roman Catholic, a member of Opus Dei, a devoted father and husband, and — to all appearances — a true patriot. A WASHINGTON POST review noted: “Hanssen would duck out of work early so he could attend antiabortion rallies.”

But unlike Wilberforce, it appears that Hanssen’s inner convictions had little impact on his outward behavior. Hanssen was a sexual deviant who, without his wife’s knowledge, distributed films of their marital encounters across the Internet. He was a traitor who did not bat an eyelash at betraying three American agents who were killed due to his actions.

Hanssen’s story is a cautionary tale of the dangers of failing to combine orthodoxy (that is, right belief) with orthopraxy (that is, right action). Biographer David A. Vise says about Hanssen, “He was a compartmentalizer. How else could he be married and a father and go to church every day and, at the same time, commit treason?”

So we have in AMAZING GRACE, on the one hand, and BREACH, on the other, a contrast between integrity and compartmentalization. One life shows the fruit of right belief translated into right action, while the other shows how compartmentalized sin does not stay compartmentalized for long; it spreads like gangrene.

God demands our whole hearts. He wants our beliefs and actions in alignment. That’s why Wilberforce was so adamant, warning us against counterfeits of real Christianity.

Wilberforce wrote the following: “If the affections of the soul are not supremely fixed on God, and if our dominant desire and primary goal is not to possess God’s favor and to promote His glory, then we are traitors in revolt against our lawful Sovereign.... Whether we are the slaves of avarice, sensuality, amusement, sloth, or the devotees of ambition, taste, or fashion, we alike estrange ourselves from the dominion of our rightful Sovereign.”

BREACH is rated PG-13 for some mild obscenity and adult situations. If you do choose to see it, however, see AMAZING GRACE soon after. The juxtaposition of Hanssen and Wilberforce will startle you. Unlike Hanssen, Wilberforce knew that real Christianity puts beliefs into action — and that any failure to live our Christian convictions is an intolerable breach of trust with our rightful Sovereign.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Martin Luther, though a Catholic monk, was terrified of God. God’s wrath, God’s justice, God’s consuming fire made Luther tremble in agony. He searched for some kind of solace, but to no avail.(1)

Luther spent hours in confession, hoping to stave off the fury of God. He recounted every sin, believing that in order for every sin to be pardoned, every sin must be confessed. Many times he would walk out from the confession box only to turn right back around and begin again because he recalled more sins in need of repentance.

On his pilgrimage to Rome he ventured through the eternal city hoping to find some spiritual relief but instead found only irreverence and disappointment. He climbed Pilate’s Stairs and recited the Pater Noster (The Lord’s Prayer of Matthew 6:9-1) on each step, hoping to release family members from purgatory. Upon the last step he said in doubt, “Who knows whether it is so?”

Luther returned home still dreading God, and even worse, hating Him. When he was moved to Wittenburg to join the university, Johann von Staupitz, Luther’s supervisor in the Augustinian order, saw to it that the troubled monk would get a doctorate in theology. Luther was to study the Bible. And study the Bible he did.

Luther started in the Psalms, and in Psalm 23 he saw Jesus. As he taught through the book of Romans, still trembling when the word “justice” would surface, he discovered his freedom in Romans 1:17 where it says the just will live by his faith.

The Scriptures led him to his freedom, but they also led him to a significant battleground -- the Bible, and not the pope, nor the councils as the sole authority for every sinful person seeking salvation.

Here also is our battleground -- the authority of Scripture.

The Word of God has always been challenged. Even in the earliest days, in the Garden of Eden, Satan dared to contend with God’s Word. In 2 Timothy, the apostle Paul instructs his young disciple to hold fast to the Word of God. In chapter 3, Paul describes a world that looks like our own -- lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers and the like. Still, Timothy was to be different and this difference was brought about by God’s Holy Scriptures. Paul called on Timothy to be a good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3), and we as the church must be good soldiers as well. The church that stands firm on the Word of God is a mighty weapon in the hand of God.

In the spring of 1521, Martin Luther received a summons from Emperor Charles V to account for his numerous writings and teachings at an imperial assembly in Worms, Germany. Luther stood trial and was called on to denounce his works.

This was his reply: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.”

The Lord is looking for a people who will stand firm on His Word; a people who will live by the unpopular belief that it is the truth and demands our total obedience; a people who will not compromise, but instead find themselves complete and equipped to do the work He has prepared for them. We must surrender to God’s Word, not as a book of suggestions or good advice, but as words spoken from the very mouth of God. Those who live by the Bible are mighty weapons in the hand of God against the enemy. We often call ourselves “People of the Book,” but if we abide by this book, we could rightly admit that “We are the people of God.”

We must be like the person in Psalm 1 who meditates on the Word of God day and night. Let it be your breakfast, lunch and dinner. Let it be your joy in your sorrow, your strength in your weakness, your boldness in your fear, and your sword in your conflict. If you want to be used by God, then you must first surrender to His Word. Though it inflicts wounds, it also provides the ointment for healing. Though it brings brokenness and grieving, it provides wisdom for repentance and restoration. While the world deceives and is deceived, we can have full confidence in God’s Word because every Scripture is inspired by Him, and He will never lead us astray.

________

Joshua Crutchfield is pastor of First Baptist Church in Madisonville, Texas.

1. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978) was the source utilized and summarized for this article.

An interview that begins with a statement like, “Well, Piers, to me, faith is all about learning to be happy where you are,” is probably not going to end well. Piers Morgan’s interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen Tuesday night was very revealing about the Osteens — but little Christian truth was revealed. At the same time, the interview deserves closer attention than you might expect.

After introducing the Osteens, Morgan let Joel talk about his latest book, Every Day A Friday, How To Be Happier 7 Days a Week. Like the book itself, Joel’s presentation could be reduced to his own brand of highly therapeutic prosperity theology. For Joel Osteen, it’s not a theology that is reducible to money alone. Instead, his focus is more on individual happiness and self-fulfillment. In his rendering, God might not want everyone to be rich, but he does want his creatures to experience every day as ... a Friday?

Then, the conversation shifted to issues in the news, such as abortion and capital punishment. On both topics, Piers Morgan pressed Joel to speak clearly, which he was clearly reluctant to do. On both topics, Osteen steered clear of disaster by saying as little as possible, in what can only be described as a garble.

On capital punishment: “You know, it’s a complicated issue, Piers. I haven’t thought a whole lot about it but, of course, you know, and I’m for second chances and mercy, yet, the flip side is there’s consequences for what we’ve done and, so, I — I don’t know what my total stance is...”

On a moral link between abortion and capital punishment: “Well, I think there could be when you say may or may not. You know, that’s the troublesome thing, if we don’t know for sure and, you know.”

There, that clears it all up nicely. The saddest thing about Joel Osteen’s incoherence on all this is the fact that he seems to be totally unaware that Christians have been engaging these issues seriously for centuries. When even Piers Morgan chided Osteen for his fuzziness and lack of an answer to questions, saying to Osteen, “you need to be more definitive,” Osteen responded: “Yes. Well, if I could I would but I’d have to — let me study it and I’ll come back with a great answer someday for you.” Not exactly a “here I stand” moment, to say the very least.

But, with all that as prelude, the interview really got interesting when Morgan turned the conversation to the issue of same-sex marriage. Morgan replayed a clip from Osteen’s appearance earlier this year, when Osteen gave Morgan this statement on homosexuality: “Yes, I’ve always believed, Piers, the scriptures shows that it’s a sin, but, you know, I’m not one of those that are out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they’re terrible people and all that.” That statement, as Morgan indicated, made headlines.

When pressed, Osteen affirmed his statement: “You know, Piers, it really never changes because mine was — mine’s based out of the scripture. That’s what I believe that the scripture says that — that homosexuality is a sin. So, it — you know, I believed it before and I still believe it now. Again, I would just reiterate what I said, I’m not after — I’m not mad at anybody. I don’t dislike anybody. But, you know, you know, respecting my faith and believing, you know, in — in what the scripture says, that’s the best way I can interpret it.”

But the host’s real intention was to steer Osteen toward the same-sex marriage issue. Would Osteen perform a same-sex marriage?

His answer: “Well, you know what, I’m going to respect the law and I’m going to respect gay people like I do now, you know, have plenty of people that come to our church and friends, I would call, that are gay so I’m going to respect that. I think where it puts a difficult situation is me being a Christian pastor believing the scripture, you know, it would be against my faith to marry two gay people.” Later, he added: “No, it would be against what I believe the scripture teaches and, so, that’s where I think the rub comes in with people like myself. It’s not that I’m against anybody or, you know, if people want to live together, that’s up to them. But, my faith, when we say marriage, I mean, I think about it, Piers, and all through the Bible there are, you know, hundreds of marriages but none of them are shown as between, you know, the same sex. And, again, I’m not against anything but I just believe that’s what the Bible teaches . . .”

Morgan would not let the topic drop, clearly sensing an opportunity to find a crack in Osteen’s position. The host then asked the Osteens if they would attend a same-sex marriage ceremony. Joel Osteen said that he would, if the individuals were friends.

Morgan pressed further. How does this fit within Osteen’s previous statement: “Well, I haven’t been to many weddings lately to begin with and I’m talking about somebody that was, you know, dear to us. I’m not going to disrespect somebody that’s dear to us and say, you know what, you’re not good enough for us or something like that. That’s the way that I would see it. Now, I’m not going to just run off and go attend, you know, certain marriages just to make a statement because that’s not who I am and that’s not what I stand for and, again, I don’t look down on those people.”

In other words, Joel Osteen sees homosexuality as a sin and same-sex marriage to be contrary to God’s will. He cannot perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or endorse same-sex marriage, because he is bound by Scripture. On the other hand, he can attend a same-sex ceremony, if the participants are friends, and thus endorse by his presence the credibility of the ceremony itself and join in the celebration of what he believes, or says he believes, is sin.

This is beyond mere incoherence. It is moral and theological nonsense. More than that, it is a massive statement of ministerial malpractice. Piers Morgan had the sense to see that much. You cannot celebrate what you say you know to be sin. You cannot honestly say that same-sex marriage defies the law of God, and then join in the celebration of that ceremony.

Joel Osteen should know better, but you can add that to the things that someone like Joel Osteen should know, if indeed he is to present himself as a Christian preacher and leader.

The larger problem is that many evangelical Christians would follow Joel Osteen’s logic without a second thought, or without even what the psychologists would describe as “cognitive dissonance.” They say they believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s will. But they allow personal relationships and social pressure to override their (evidently) lightly-held convictions.

The hypothetical case Piers Morgan invented for his interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen is precisely the reality many American Christians will face — or have already faced — with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Unless convictions are deeply held, they will melt away in the face of cultural pressure.

Oh, one final and very significant statement from the interview demands attention. Piers Morgan looked at Joel Osteen and asked the million-dollar question:

But, I mean, shouldn’t the scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. I mean, we were talking before the break about the issue about eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, not everything in the scriptures, really, is, in my view, conducive to modern life. I mean, like everything else, doesn’t it have to move with the times and isn’t it down again to people like you to interpret it in a way that evolves when you’re known as a very progressive preacher?

Shouldn’t the Bible be “dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age”? There you have the modernist worldview reduced to a single question. The Bible will simply have to give way to modern moral authorities, and have to be interpreted “in a way that evolves.”

To his credit, Joel Osteen tried to stand his ground. To his discredit, he didn’t stand very well, and he seemed to lack all of the vital faculties for holding theological traction. We can only hope that other pastors — and other Christians — will do better. Sadly, without developing deeper biblical commitments and without drawing from the full wealth of Christian conviction, that is not going to happen.

Sadly, without a deep, humble, and faithful commitment to Christ, the Gospel, the Bible, and the structures of Christian thought, both the church and the Bible will be, to use Piers Morgan’s unforgettable phrase, “dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age” — and we know exactly what that means.

________

Transcript, Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN, Tuesday, October 4, 2011.

During my first year of pastoral ministry I experienced a crisis of faith. I had entered theological college four years previously with the confidence of both youth – I was only twenty years old – and fundamentalism. I knew what I believed and knew it with utter certainty to be true. Theological college put paid to that. I discovered students, theologians and philosophers who saw things very differently to me, and that chipped away at the absolute certainty on which I had constructed my faith.

It all came to a head the year after I finished college. It seemed there was nothing I could be certain about. Not the Bible, not the story of Jesus, not the resurrection of Jesus, not the existence of an afterlife. Yes, there were strong arguments in favour of these, but there were also reasonable arguments to the contrary. Instead of absolute logical certainty I found myself dealing with probabilities. I had always thought that the arguments for faith were irrefutable, that it was rebellion and not reason that led to unbelief. But I discovered that those who believed differently often had very cogent arguments, that the ‘evidence’ could be read in dramatically opposite ways. For someone whose faith had been built on the bedrock of certainty this was a very uncomfortable place to be. It took its toll. I soon found myself wondering if I really believed in God anymore. Doubt filled my mind.

I used to take long, late night walks. These afforded an opportunity to think through the doubts running through my mind. It was on one of these walks that I had an encounter with God the like of which I have never had before or after. I didn’t hear voices or see angels. I was simply filled with an overwhelming sense of God’s presence. That was the beginning of the reconstructing of my faith.

This reconstruction required me to let go of the idea that I could have absolute logical certainty about my beliefs, that it could be proven like a mathematical formula or scientific theory. What I could have were reasonable convictions. I could show that it was reasonable to believe that God exists, that Jesus lived, died and rose again, that the Bible gives us a trustworthy story about God and Jesus. But I could not show that it was unreasonable to believe the opposite. In the realm of belief about God there were not logical absolutes, but a continuum of probabilities.

Why then did I believe? Most likely because I was raised in a Christian household, had experiences that I interpreted as reinforcing the faith in which I was reared, found my faith to be coherent and reasonable, and in my faith found a clear sense of purpose and values to live by. Experience, reason, and utility combined to create a foundation for my belief.

My philosophy lecturer at college once made the point that this is how knowledge of people works. How does my wife know I am faithful to her? She doesn’t follow my every move nor have a detective follow me. Her sense that I am faithful is built on trust, which in turn is built on experience (she has found me to be trustworthy) and reason (she has no evidence to suggest I am unfaithful, but plenty of good reasons to think I am faithful). She chooses to trust me, and her experience and reason reinforce her trust.

So it is with my faith in God. I heard the message and chose to believe it, and my trust is reinforced by my experience (I have had moments in my life where I have had a strong sense of God’s presence and work), reason (for example, I find the fact the universe exists points to its being created) and utility (life lived in accord with God’s word just seems to make sense to me).

Once I learned to be comfortable with this my faith was quickly rebuilt, but without the arrogance and pride that marked my earlier believing. I abandoned a faith built on certainty and discovered instead that a deliciously rewarding, life-transforming faith can be built on conviction.

Dead people know. Billions of people know, they just can’t get the answer back to us.

In the dedication of her book “Spook” Mary Roach writes, “To my parents, wherever they are, or aren’t.” An interviewer asked her, are you willing to say they are somewhere, or they aren’t? She answered, “If I had to put my money on it, and I had to decide one way or the other, I would put my money on, they aren’t anywhere. But that’s really depressing. My mother believed. My mother absolutely had faith that when she died that she was going to heaven. And even if she’s wrong, she doesn’t know she’s wrong. So, she went through her whole life with a calmness and a peace of mind that I’ll never have. The people who believe, win. The skeptics lose."

“Hope has 2 beautiful daughters: Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are. Courage to ensure they don’t stay that way.” - St. Augustine

“Where there is no vision, there is no hope.” - George Washington Carver

Christians need to take unity seriously. But how to do that?

To a large degree, Jesus has already provided the vision for unity and civility. Shortly before his passion, Jesus prays that his followers, present and future, would “all be one.” In the same discourse, Christian unity provides the strength for believers to be in the world, but not of the world. It is in our loving unity that Jesus says “the world will know that you are my disciples.”[1] Such a clear and compelling vision set forth by Jesus himself would surely provide enough to get the church started toward the realization of a civility-conscious vision. However, it is often hard for people, even Christians, to imagine civility as a beneficial endeavor. Perspectives can be skewed by false and fuzzy perceptions of what such a reality would and would not look like. The following article addresses a couple of misconceptions regarding civility by examining what civility is not.

What Civility Is Not

Civility is not the absence of conflict.

While preaching through a sermon series on marriage, I prepared an entire sermon on the reality of conflict in marriage and principles for couples to approach their disagreements with civility. A couple approached me after the service. The husband was most upset that I would “endorse” conflict in a marriage.

For him, an ideal Christian marriage should be one that resembled his own: a relationship free of conflict. He went on to claim that they had enjoyed more than 15 years of marriage without a single argument. Of course, the husband did all of the talking. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I have ever heard his wife speak.

The interaction raises a common misperception about unity and civility. Does a vision of Christian civility demand the absence of any conflict? Is it somehow uncivil to disagree at all, to hold convictions, and to passionately articulate and defend to convictions?

Blogger, author, and Bible teacher Frank Viola writes, “Civil disagreement and even debate, when done in the spirit of Christ, are healthy and helpful.”[2] The two terms healthy and conflict may sound like an oxymoron. Wouldn’t healthy relationships be characterized by avoidance of conflict? The answer depends on what you think of when hearing the word, conflict. Communication scholars report most people share words like war, hate, battle, failure, anger, lose, and argue, when associated with the term conflict.

From a semiotic standpoint, the word “conflict” conjures negative images and experiences. Therefore, it is naturally avoided.[3] However, the Christian community can imagine a better way regarding conflict, seeing it as redemptive, productive, and instructional.

It is often the very resistance brought on by healthy conflicts that cause relationships to deepen in trust. Conflict among fully engaged individuals is a catalyst to growth. Pastor and church consultant Mel Lawrenz imagines civility through the idea of engagement. In his vision, Christ followers remain consistently engaged with God, one another, their community, and their world. As such they are in a consistent position to establish and maintain healthy relational connections.[4] However, Lawrenz recognizes that such relational connections are not free from conflict, for the connections are between human beings. “Conflict is inevitable as long as we are human. The questions become how to lessen the frequency of conflict and how to deal constructively with conflict when it does arise.”[5] Communication professors Tim Muehlhoff and Todd Lewis remind Christ-followers, “Conflict is common, and in a sense inevitable to all relationships.”[6] The tension present within relationships of inevitable conflict helps us keep in mind that civility is in the best sense of the word, “practiced.”[7]

Practicing conflict is hardly a new concept for the followers of Jesus. The early church was not a sanitized, conflict-free environment. Jesus was in constant conflict with the religious leaders of his day and led a band of constantly squabbling disciples.[8] Paul confronts Peter publicly over his uncivil table manners toward Gentile believers.[9] The Jewish church was deeply and passionately divided over whether or not to recognize Gentile converts to the Way.[10] Paul played referee to warring factions in Corinth, and pled with two women in Philippi who could agree on nothing else, to “agree in the Lord.”[11]

The community of the Prince of Peace has been a laboratory of civil conflict since the beginning. Yet as much as they zealously debated their differences, their practiced goals were to pursue Shalom between one another for the sake of Christ’s gospel of peace. Civility calls believers to the gymnasium of grace to wrestle vigorously with their differences. Civility also calls us to the laboratory of love wherein our diversity is contended, tested, and our conflicts seek to be resolved. The Christ-follower can emerge with greater strength, depth of character, and a clear perception of what it means to choose civility.

Civility is not the absence of conviction.

In April of 1862, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay for The Atlantic magazine. In it, he praised President Lincoln for his resolve in seeking to emancipate slaves; an action perceived by many in the south as a threat to their established civilization. Emerson observed that America was attempting “to hold together two states of civilization: a higher state, where labor and the tenure of land and the right of suffrage are democratic; and a lower state, in which the old military tenure of prisoners or slaves, and of power and land in a few hands, makes an oligarchy: we have attempted to hold these two states of society under one law. But the rude and early state of society does not work well with the later, nay, works badly, and has poisoned politics, public morals, and social intercourse in the Republic, now for many years.”[12]

Emerson continued, asking, “should not the best civilization be extended over the whole country, since the disorder of the less civilized portion menaces the existence of the country?”[13] Emerson’s polished yet passionate plea is grounded in his belief that true civility is connected to firm convictions. “There can be no high civility without a deep morality.”[14]

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist J. Anthony Lukas stated his belief that the moral decline in his city is realized because “we have let our standards of civility and truth waste dangerously away.”[15] Emerson and Lukas each in their own way convey an approach to civility that is essentially connected to conviction. It is the reversal of what W.B. Yeats describes in his poem, “Second Coming,”: “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”[16]

Such a reversal is needed, for the concern of some is that along with civility comes passionless indifference, or even a posture of compromise. Lutheran pastor and scholar Martin Marty framed the concern as follows; “people who are good at being civil often lack strong convictions, and people with strong convictions often lack civility.”[17] If we desire to be more civil, however, it need not be at the expense of our convictions. Richard Mouw calls this “convicted civility.”[18]

Expressing civility and pursuing unity does not mean we’re prohibited from prophetic criticism of the thinking, beliefs, behaviors, and other systemic realities of the times. While it may be true that civility calls for us to affirm the right of another to express their beliefs, civility does not demand that we accept, affirm, or approve of those beliefs and their resulting actions. Saying one has the right to express their convictions is one thing; saying they are right in how they express them is something different. Civil conviction calls us to the former, not the latter.

The next post will address how civility and unity navigate questions of relational chemistry – Does being civil mean I have to like everyone? [HolwickID #64885]

________

[1] John 13:35

[2] Frank Viola, “Warning: The World Is Watching How We Christians Treat One Another,” Beyond Evangelical (web log), January 14, 2013, http://frankviola.org/2013/01/14/warning/.

[3] Muehlhoff and Lewis, Authentic Communication, 104.

[4] Mel Lawrenz, Whole Church: Leading from Fragmentation to Engagement (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 12.

[5] Ibid., 21.

[6] Muehlhoff and Lewis, Authentic Communication, 104.

[7] In this sense, practice does not make perfect, but it allows for improvement and reveals the space for further improvement. It is an effort of repetition where the end is not completion, but continued execution much like attorneys “practice” law or doctors “practice” medicine. “Practicing” Christians “practice” their faith.

[8] A concise exploration of Jesus’ conflict with and between his disciples as well as the religious leaders of his day is offered in Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford [England: Oxford University Press, 1989), 44-47.

[9] Galatians 2:8-15

[10] Acts 15:1-35

[11] 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Philippians 4:1-3

[12] Ralph W. Emerson, “American Civilization,” The Atlantic, April 1, 1862, 2, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1862/04/american-civilization/306548/?single_page=true.

[13] Emerson, “American Civilization.”

[14] Ibid.

[15] J. Anthony Lukas, “Something’s Gone Terribly Wrong in New York,” review of The Closest of Strangers, The New York Times, September 9, 1990, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/09/books/something-s-gone-terribly-wrong-in-new-york.html.

[16] Richard J. Finneran, ed., The Collected Works of W.B. Yeats, 2nd ed., vol. 1, The Poems (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 182.

[17] Martin E. Marty, By Way of Response (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), 81.

[18] Mouw, Uncommon Decency, 14.

Martin Luther, though a Catholic monk, was terrified of God. God’s wrath, God’s justice, God’s consuming fire made Luther tremble in agony. He searched for some kind of solace, but to no avail.(1)

Luther spent hours in confession, hoping to stave off the fury of God. He recounted every sin, believing that in order for every sin to be pardoned, every sin must be confessed. Many times he would walk out from the confession box only to turn right back around and begin again because he recalled more sins in need of repentance.

On his pilgrimage to Rome he ventured through the eternal city hoping to find some spiritual relief but instead found only irreverence and disappointment. He climbed Pilate’s Stairs and recited the Pater Noster (The Lord’s Prayer of Matthew 6:9-1) on each step, hoping to release family members from purgatory. Upon the last step he said in doubt, “Who knows whether it is so?”

Luther returned home still dreading God, and even worse, hating Him. When he was moved to Wittenburg to join the university, Johann von Staupitz, Luther’s supervisor in the Augustinian order, saw to it that the troubled monk would get a doctorate in theology. Luther was to study the Bible. And study the Bible he did.

Luther started in the Psalms, and in Psalm 23 he saw Jesus. As he taught through the book of Romans, still trembling when the word “justice” would surface, he discovered his freedom in Romans 1:17 where it says the just will live by his faith.

The Scriptures led him to his freedom, but they also led him to a significant battleground -- the Bible, and not the pope, nor the councils as the sole authority for every sinful person seeking salvation.

Here also is our battleground -- the authority of Scripture.

The Word of God has always been challenged. Even in the earliest days, in the Garden of Eden, Satan dared to contend with God’s Word. In 2 Timothy, the apostle Paul instructs his young disciple to hold fast to the Word of God. In chapter 3, Paul describes a world that looks like our own -- lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers and the like. Still, Timothy was to be different and this difference was brought about by God’s Holy Scriptures. Paul called on Timothy to be a good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3), and we as the church must be good soldiers as well. The church that stands firm on the Word of God is a mighty weapon in the hand of God.

In the spring of 1521, Martin Luther received a summons from Emperor Charles V to account for his numerous writings and teachings at an imperial assembly in Worms, Germany. Luther stood trial and was called on to denounce his works.

This was his reply: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.”

The Lord is looking for a people who will stand firm on His Word; a people who will live by the unpopular belief that it is the truth and demands our total obedience; a people who will not compromise, but instead find themselves complete and equipped to do the work He has prepared for them. We must surrender to God’s Word, not as a book of suggestions or good advice, but as words spoken from the very mouth of God. Those who live by the Bible are mighty weapons in the hand of God against the enemy. We often call ourselves “People of the Book,” but if we abide by this book, we could rightly admit that “We are the people of God.”

We must be like the person in Psalm 1 who meditates on the Word of God day and night. Let it be your breakfast, lunch and dinner. Let it be your joy in your sorrow, your strength in your weakness, your boldness in your fear, and your sword in your conflict. If you want to be used by God, then you must first surrender to His Word. Though it inflicts wounds, it also provides the ointment for healing. Though it brings brokenness and grieving, it provides wisdom for repentance and restoration. While the world deceives and is deceived, we can have full confidence in God’s Word because every Scripture is inspired by Him, and He will never lead us astray.

________

Joshua Crutchfield is pastor of First Baptist Church in Madisonville, Texas.

1. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978) was the source utilized and summarized for this article.

OBSERVATION

You see it all the time. People achieve success, and then their personal lives seem to fall apart. As someone once said, success has made failures of many men. But does that have to happen?

STANDING FIRM

The September 1996 issue of “Standing Firm” magazine contains a great story about Bobby Bowden. Bowden is head football coach for Florida State University. His team's winning record places him near the top in wins among active coaches at the Division I level. Bowden's record of successes in bowl games is the highest winning percentage in NCAA history. So he is successful in his chosen career.

Whether you are a fan of F.S.U. or not, you have to admit that Bowden is a successful coach. But there is more to Bowden than the statistics you read in the sports pages. He is a man of faith, and makes no apologies for that. During his team's Friday evening meetings before their Saturday games, Bowden uses valuable time for team devotionals, which he leads.

As for his ongoing leadership of the team's staff, each day he meets with his staff for devotions and prayer prior to their regular staff meetings. Each year, Bowden takes his entire team to a predominantly black church for worship. The following Sunday, he takes the team to a predominantly white church. There is no deception involved -- he writes a letter to each athlete's parents or guardian to tell them about the church visits and obtain their approval.

“I'm trying to show these kids that they are accepted in church whether they are white or black,” Bowden said. So what is the point of this and the many other ways Bowden walks his walk of faith? Bowden says, “I want to show these kids that you can be a Christian, you can be a God-fearing man, you can abide by the rules, and you can still be successful.”

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO OUR LIVES?

A number of social commentators have asked the questions, “Where are our heroes?” and “Where are the role models for today's youth?” That is because we constantly read about people who were considered heroes, but turned out to be villains who compromised their values, and broke the rules. Is it necessary to compromise your values to make it in life? Bowden's story shows that it isn't.

No, Bowden is not perfect. But there is a core to his life. Bowden stands firm in his beliefs -- and is successful. What is the difference between the Bobby Bowden's of the world, and others? Simply put, some people are like onions. They have no core, just layers. And when you peel away all the layers, nothing is left.

Don't glorify the “onions” of the world. Instead, lift up people like Bowden- -men and women with a core to their lives, who exhibit integrity and faith. Help them touch others. Encourage them. Pray for them. Finally, build and strengthen your own core. Start by placing your trust and confidence totally in God.

Trusting in God does not guarantee you worldly success or great riches, but the Bible teaches that something far more important will result, blessings from God. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him.” (Job 17:9}

*

Have you ever asked a young atheist why he or she doesn’t believe? Well, one researcher did. And the answers may surprise you.

It’s something most Christian parents worry about: You send your kids off to college and when they come back, you find they’ve lost their faith. The prospect of this happening is why many parents nudge their kids towards Christian colleges, or at least schools with a strong Christian presence on campus.

But in many ways, the damage has been done long before our children set foot on campus.

That’s the message from a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly.

My friend Larry Taunton of the Fixed Point Foundation set out to find out why so many young Christians lose their faith in college. He did this by employing a method I don’t recall being used before: He asked them.

The Fixed Point Foundation asked members of the Secular Students Associations on campuses around the nation to tell them about their “journey to unbelief.” Taunton was not only surprised by the level of response but, more importantly, about the stories he and his colleagues heard.

Instead of would-be Richard Dawkins’, the typical respondent was more like Phil, a student Taunton interviewed. Phil had grown up in church; he had even been the president of his youth group. What drove Phil away wasn’t the lure of secular materialism or even Christian moral teaching. And he was specifically upset when his church changed youth pastors.

Whereas his old youth pastor “knew the Bible” and made Phil “feel smart” about his faith even when he didn’t have all the answers, the new youth pastor taught less and played more.

Phil’s loss of faith coincided with his church’s attempt to ingratiate itself to him instead of challenging him. According to Taunton, Phil’s story “was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country.”

These kids had attended church but “the mission and message of their churches was vague,” and manifested itself in offering “superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.” The ministers they respected were those “who took the Bible seriously,” not those who sought to entertain them or be their “buddy.”

Taunton also learned that, for many kids, their journey to unbelief was an emotional, not just an intellectual one.

Taunton’s findings are counter-intuitive. Much of what passes for youth ministry these days is driven by a morbid fear of boring our young charges. As a result, a lot of time is spent trying to devise ways to entertain them.

The rest of the time is spent worrying about whether the Christian message will turn kids off. But as Taunton found, young people, like the not-so-young, respect people with conviction — provided they know what they’re talking about.

Taunton talks about his experiences with the late Christopher Hitchens, who, in their debates, refrained from attacking him. When asked why, Hitchens replied, “Because you believe it.”

I don’t know what that says about Hitchens’ other Christian debate partners, but it is a potent reminder that playing down the truth claims of the Christian faith doesn’t work. People don’t believe those they don’t respect.

Here’s something that one of the students told Larry Taunton; he said, “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.”

Folks, that’s pretty sobering. This puts the ball in our court. Are we living lives that show our children that we actually believe what we say we believe? And here’s another question — do we actually believe it?

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

===============================

Article from Baptist Press, August 7, 2013

"What Young Atheists Can Teach Us" by Rob Phillips

Larry Alex Taunton directs the Fixed Point Foundation, which seeks innovative ways to defend and proclaim the Gospel.

Recently, his organization reached out to college-age atheists nationwide in a unique campaign. As Taunton contacted leaders of Secular Student Alliances and Freethought Societies, he had one simple request: Tell us your journey to unbelief.

Taunton did not dispute their stories or debate the merits of their views. He just listened. Many stepped forward -- some reluctantly -- but ultimately Taunton found patterns emerging from the young atheists’ stories, and he summarized them in a recent article in The Atlantic.

Their stories have common threads:

• The young atheists had attended church. Most participants didn’t begin with a naturalistic worldview but chose atheism as a reaction to Christianity, which they found lifeless, hypocritical or uncompelling for a variety of reasons.

• Their churches promoted vague missions and messages. The students heard plenty of messages on social justice, community involvement and good deeds, but they failed to see a connection between these messages, Jesus and the Bible. They knew intuitively that the church exists for more than social campaigns; it exists to proclaim the teachings of Jesus and His relevance to a sinful and fallen world.

• Their churches fumbled the big questions. When asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, the students mentioned a lack of satisfying answers to such issues as evolution vs. creation, sexuality, Jesus as the only way, and the reliability of the Bible. Not only was the church often ill-equipped to delve into these issues; it lacked the stomach to tackle them at all.

• They respect ministers who take the Bible seriously. The young atheists expressed grudging admiration for pastors and other Christians who embrace biblical teaching and are not ashamed to say so.

As atheist illusionist and comedian Penn Jillette famously remarked, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize.... If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell ... and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward ... how much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

• Ages 14-17 are key. While some participants said they adopted atheism as early as eight years of age or as late as college, most admitted embracing unbelief in high school.

• Emotions run deep. Most students said they lost their Christianity for purely rational reasons. However, the more they talked, the more they described a deeply emotional journey from belief to atheism. One young woman said she became an atheist after her father died -- not because she blamed God for his death but because he was abusive and she did not want to think her father was still alive somewhere.

• Online is everything. When asked about the key influences in their conversion to atheism, not a single participant mentioned the “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens, or their books or seminars. Rather, they mentioned YouTube or website forums.

Getting real

There’s much we can do to engage our young atheist friends by listening to them, helping them wrestle with tough questions and providing a connection between Christ and a broken world. But we also must address the doubts and fears of young people in our own churches.

If Christianity is not objectively true, rationally compelling and personally engaging, then why should anyone -- young or old -- want to embrace it?

Scottish philosopher and skeptic David Hume once was spotted in a crowd listening to the preaching of George Whitefield, the noted evangelist of the First Great Awakening.

Someone said to Hume, “I thought you didn’t believe in the Gospel.”

“I do not,” Hume replied. Then, nodding toward Whitefield, he added, “But he does.”

OBSERVATION

You see it all the time. People achieve success, and then their personal lives seem to fall apart. As someone once said, success has made failures of many men. But does that have to happen?

STANDING FIRM

The September 1996 issue of “Standing Firm” magazine contains a great story about Bobby Bowden. Bowden is head football coach for Florida State University. His team's winning record places him near the top in wins among active coaches at the Division I level. Bowden's record of successes in bowl games is the highest winning percentage in NCAA history. So he is successful in his chosen career.

Whether you are a fan of F.S.U. or not, you have to admit that Bowden is a successful coach. But there is more to Bowden than the statistics you read in the sports pages. He is a man of faith, and makes no apologies for that. During his team's Friday evening meetings before their Saturday games, Bowden uses valuable time for team devotionals, which he leads.

As for his ongoing leadership of the team's staff, each day he meets with his staff for devotions and prayer prior to their regular staff meetings. Each year, Bowden takes his entire team to a predominantly black church for worship. The following Sunday, he takes the team to a predominantly white church. There is no deception involved -- he writes a letter to each athlete's parents or guardian to tell them about the church visits and obtain their approval.

“I'm trying to show these kids that they are accepted in church whether they are white or black,” Bowden said. So what is the point of this and the many other ways Bowden walks his walk of faith? Bowden says, “I want to show these kids that you can be a Christian, you can be a God-fearing man, you can abide by the rules, and you can still be successful.”

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO OUR LIVES?

A number of social commentators have asked the questions, “Where are our heroes?” and “Where are the role models for today's youth?” That is because we constantly read about people who were considered heroes, but turned out to be villains who compromised their values, and broke the rules. Is it necessary to compromise your values to make it in life? Bowden's story shows that it isn't.

No, Bowden is not perfect. But there is a core to his life. Bowden stands firm in his beliefs -- and is successful. What is the difference between the Bobby Bowden's of the world, and others? Simply put, some people are like onions. They have no core, just layers. And when you peel away all the layers, nothing is left.

Don't glorify the “onions” of the world. Instead, lift up people like Bowden- -men and women with a core to their lives, who exhibit integrity and faith. Help them touch others. Encourage them. Pray for them. Finally, build and strengthen your own core. Start by placing your trust and confidence totally in God.

Trusting in God does not guarantee you worldly success or great riches, but the Bible teaches that something far more important will result, blessings from God. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him.” (Job 17:9}

*

Adam Gopnik is a gifted essayist and writer whose contributions, often published in The New Yorker, are almost always thoughtful and interesting. Nevertheless, one of his most recent writings is deeply disturbing, and at the deepest level.

Reflecting on the debate between Vice President Joseph Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan, Gopnik registered alarm at “something genuinely disturbing and scary” that had been said by Paul Ryan. Gopnik first complained that Biden and Ryan should not have even been asked about the role their Roman Catholic faith plays in their thinking, specifically on the issue of abortion.

Gopnik then wrote:

“Paul Ryan did not say, as John Kennedy had said before him, that faith was faith and public service, public service, each to be honored and kept separate from the other. No, he said instead ‘I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do.’ That’s a shocking answer — a mullah’s answer, what those scary Iranian “Ayatollahs” he kept referring to when talking about Iran would say as well. Ryan was rejecting secularism itself, casually insisting, as the Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan put it, that ‘the usual necessary distinction between politics and religion, between state and church, cannot and should not exist.’”

Gopnik accuses Paul Ryan of reasoning like a mullah and rejecting any distinction between church and state. Ryan did no such thing, of course. Instead, Ryan stated the obvious — “Our faith informs us in everything we do.” Any faith of substance will inform every dimension of our lives. It is hard to imagine that Adam Gopnik would have complained or even taken offense if a similar statement had been made, for example, by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., concerning his advocacy for civil rights.

Our total worldview inevitably “informs us in everything we do.” Paul Ryan was simply responding with honesty, and he did not call for a theocracy. Interestingly, Joseph Biden, though a champion of a woman’s right to choose, has repeatedly claimed the influence of his Roman Catholic faith in other arenas of public policy, especially economics. This has not elicited similar cries from liberals, accusing Biden of attempting to forge a theocracy.

Gopnik attempted to make his position clear, arguing that religious beliefs “should not inform us in everything we do, or there would be no end to the religious warfare that our tolerant founders feared.” Mr. Gopnik would no doubt be surprised to discover that many of the founders were not so tolerant, in his sense, as he believes. A good many argued for the absolute necessity of theism as a foundation for morality and civil society. In any event, does he really believe that a candidate’s most deeply held convictions should have no influence in his or her thinking on the most serious of issues? That is not only impossible; it is absurd.

As off-base as his complaint on this issue is, however, it pales in contrast to the argument Gopnik then turned to make. He referred to the fact that Ryan defended the right to life of the unborn, and that Ryan and his wife had named their unborn first child “Bean” as an affectionate reference to the shape on the ultrasound image. Gopnik asserted that “a bean is exactly what the photograph shows — a seed, a potential, a thing that might yet grow into something greater, just as a seed has the potential to become a tree. A bean is not a baby.”

There is no mistaking Gopnik’s claim — that the image of the unborn Ryan child revealed only a bean, and not a baby.

Gopnik then wrote:

“The fundamental condition of life is that it develops, making it tricky sometimes to say when it’s fully grown and when it isn’t, but always easy to say that there is a difference and that that difference is, well, human life itself. It is this double knowledge that impacts any grownup thinking about abortion: that it isn’t life that’s sacred — the world is full of life, much of which Paul Ryan wants to cut down and exploit and eat done medium rare. It is conscious, thinking life that counts, and where and exactly how it begins (and ends) is so complex a judgment that wise men and women, including some on the Supreme Court, have decided that it is best left, at least at its moments of maximum ambiguity, to the individual conscience (and the individual conscience’s doctor).”

Chillingly, Gopnik limits human dignity to “conscious, thinking life.” This is the life “that counts,” he claimed.

Clearly, Gopnik agrees with those who restrict human dignity to persons who achieve “conscious, thinking life,” and apparently only for so long as they maintain that state of consciousness and thinking ability. This is the horrifying logic of the German doctors of the Weimar Republic who argued that certain human beings were not fully deserving of life — deemed “life unworthy of life.” They argued that certain abilities or characteristics must be acquired and maintained in order for life to be “worthy of life.”

I am quite certain that Adam Gopnik, who writes so movingly of his love of fatherhood, did not mean to associate with the full impact of such an argument, but his own assertions lead to the very same conclusion. We must note that Gopnik goes so far as to cast doubt, not only on when “conscious, thinking life” begins, but where it ends. Did the readers of The New Yorker even notice?

This is the logic of the Culture of Death, and it is an assault upon the dignity and worth of every human being. There was indeed “something genuinely disturbing and scary” said with reference to the Vice Presidential Debate, but it wasn’t said by Paul Ryan. It was written by Adam Gopnik.

________

Adam Gopnik, “Of Babies and Beans: Paul Ryan on Abortion,” The New Yorker, Friday, October 12, 2012. [Warning: The article includes a vulgarism.] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/of-babies-and-beans-paul-ryan-on-abortion.html

In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle about voters in North Carolina, Alexandria Pitts, a 19-year-old elementary education major at a major university offered her opinion. She said, “My religion is Christian, but I’m still going to vote for Obama. My politics and religious beliefs are separate.”

As a Christian, Ms. Pitts is certainly free to vote for either candidate -- Republican or Democrat. But it’s troubling to hear her state that her “politics and religious beliefs are separate.”

Too many Christians today live compartmentalized lives. They have religious beliefs -- but those beliefs are kept separate from what we decide about money, moral choices, relationships and ethical decisions. Too many Christians believe religious beliefs are private, with little impact on public behavior.

A few years ago, a friend of mine refused to participate in an activity in his workplace. When asked by his boss for a reason, he replied, “It violates my Christian convictions.” His boss told him, “That’s your problem. You are letting your religion affect your life.” Wow! Somehow I thought it was supposed to work that way.

Today, if you base your political decisions (or any other aspect of your life) on your religious convictions, you are stigmatized. You are called a legalist or a fundamentalist. You are out of touch with reality. You are inflexible, or worse, intolerant. There is little respect, if any, for the person who tries to base life on principles drawn from religious convictions.

My hope is you will draw a different conclusion than Ms. Pitts. My hope is you will take seriously your responsibility to understand Christian convictions and base your decisions -- political or personal -- on them. We live in an unprecedented time when politicians and political parties are staking out positions with clear moral dimension. It is our responsibility to understand the choices we face and base our decisions on convictional Christian thinking.