Category Archives: Musings

So long, Dude.

Growing up, I was always a dog guy.  Our family had several dogs, but never cats.  I remember being bit on the ear by a cat when we lived in Dallas.  I was maybe 8.  So, I never liked cats.  Mean critters.  Bitey.  Noisy.  Unfriendly.  And they use their claws in ways that dogs simply don’t.  I prefer dogs.

Or, at least I did.  In my early 30’s, I got married.  And with the woman came cats.  It was like a package deal.  And, in my desire to please the woman, I learned to live with felines.  Over time, while I never officially became a “cat person,” I did discover that some cats made good pets.  But, some cats — not many , but some — can be good companions and beloved members of the family.

017_DR

Some 20 years ago, when the kids were in daycare for a couple hours a day, a neighbor was giving away kittens and was down to the runt of the litter.  No one was interested in him.  He was unhealthy, tiny (with huge ears that made him look like a bat), and had no tail.  The kids brought him home and I was, once again, talked into allowing another creature to join the household.  For the next 20 years, that little tailless fellow became a fixture in the McClarty home.

Originally, James named the new kitten Hobbes (after Calvin and Hobbes).  But, we rarely called him by his name.  Early on, he became “Dude.”  As in, “Dude, get down.”  Or, “What, dude?”  The name fit him.  As he grew in size and strength, he strutted around, chest out, scrapping with the other cats, and basically ruling the roost.  You know … dude behavior.

Other cats, dogs, birds, rabbits, a goat, and a chinchilla came and went in the interim.  But, there was always Dude.  In fact, in my darkest days, when the house was empty and I was at my worst, Dude followed me, room by room, checking on me and making sure I knew that he was available if I needed someone to pet.  We became old men together.  I used to tell people that Dude was basically “me in a cat suit.”

DudeThe last few months have been tough for old Dude.  He’s been losing weight.  This morning he was skin and bones.  He weighed less than five pounds and really came closer to three.  He’s been crying a lot, expressing his pain.  Being a manx, his hips have always bothered him.  He stopped eating.  He was withering away.  A few nights ago, after the kids were in bed and the house was still, I sat with him for a while.  I looked him in the eye and waited for some sign that he was ready to go.

Well, this morning I picked him up and put him on the sink counter — his favorite place to drink.  He could no longer jump or climb.  He had taken to sleeping on the floor since he could no longer make it up onto the bed.  He shivered at night because there was no more meat on his bones.  In the mornings I’d find him doing his best to cuddle into any old clothes I’d left lying around.  So anyway, I put him on the counter and showed him the water.  His eyes have been getting cloudy, so he wouldn’t drink unless I swished the water and proved to him that there actually was something there.  He put one paw in the water.  Then he withdrew.  He just stared at me.  He was done.  I cupped his sunken head in my palm and said, “I know.”

Today we said good-bye to Dude.  It was a peaceful, graceful process.  We wrapped him in a towel and took him to the vet.  He was always fidgety when he was held.  But not now.  He settled into Megan’s arms and rested quietly.  The vet said it was standard procedure to give the animal a mild sedative so that they don’t struggle when the needle is introduced into a vein in their hind leg.  She gave Dude the sedative.  I held his head and stared into his eyes.  His organs began shutting down, one by one.  I watched him drift away. When the vet returned to stop his heart, he was already dying.  She commented, “That was such a light sedative.  He was ready to go.  It was time.”

The vet claimed that animals tell you when it’s time.  You can see it in their eyes, she said.  I believe her.  I saw it in Dude’s eyes the other night. He was tired of the pain, the struggle, the cold.  He had run his course.  20 years is a good run for a cat.  But, he was out of steam.

As soon as she began to push the plunger, Dude succumbed.  It was instantaneous.  No struggle.  No fight.  Just quiet.  Just sleep.  Just life ending.

Sleeping DudeSo long, Dude.  Thanks for being a part of the family.  Thanks for making my kids laugh when you ran in circles chasing the laser pointer.  Thanks for keeping me company when I felt the most abandoned.  Thanks for … well, for being a dude.  You can’t do any better than that.

Elder Ward’s Ordination Note

I was in my bedroom clicking away on my MacBook Pro, my back to my daughter, as she perused the various volumes on my bookshelf.  After a moment, I heard her lightly sobbing.  I turned to find her holding a small book that harkened back to my ordination in 2000.

Ordination Book I asked, “What are you reading?”

She sniffled, “Elder Ward.”

“Oh, you found his note in my book?”  She nodded and read the last two sentences out loud.  Then we were both teary eyed.

Elder loved my daughter.  I remember once, as we entered his office, how he rose from his chair and approached me with wide open arms.  At the last moment, he ducked me and hugged my daughter.

He laughed as I said, “I get it.  Given a choice between her and me, I’d pick her every time.”

Megan and Elder Ward

I hadn’t read Elder’s words in years.  I realized that I hadn’t read them since his home-going in 2007.  So that made his private words to me all the more precious.  And now I am sharing them with you.

(The text of his note is written out after the image.)

 

 

Elder Ward Ordination Note

Elder’s note says:

Dear Jim,

Beloved of God and dearly loved by me. I will pray for you all the days of my life. Preach, teach, love — love, teach, preach and when you have done that, do it more. I need not tell you, but contend for “the faith.”

Count “IT” all as joy.  He who is for you is more than all the world against you. Be a Preacher, be assured God will be God.

Buy the truth and sell it not. I pray our paths will cross in this world many time(s). Never forget, you have a brother in Lexington, Ky. If when you hear I have closed my eyes in death, know one left praying for you.  It will be my joy to see you around the throne of God when all the saints get home.

Waiting Until He Comes,

DJ Ward

_____________________

It’s good to have friends like that.

And I miss him every day.

 

Goodbye 2013

Today, as I type this, it’s December 30, 2013.  The Internet is currently littered with articles and blog posts recounting the highlights and “worst of …” events of the past year.  It’s a time for reflection and looking forward.  Depending on your worldview, the future may look bleak, or so bright you gotta’ wear shades.  But, one theme that seems to ring loudly at the end of each calendar year is the tendency to give voice to our regrets.  Being human, it’s hard to ruminate over our lives without feeling the pangs of our fallen condition and the reverberations of our mistakes.

So, as we stare 2014 in the face, please allow me to offer a bit of Christian perspective.

I don’t know where the quote originated, but I like the phrase, “No one will ever get well until they give up their dream of having a perfect past.”  Folk are often haunted by their past.  We live with the current results of the choices and behaviors of our bygone days and there’s not a person alive who wouldn’t like to go back and fix something they messed up. But it’s unchangeable.  It’s set in stone and remains exactly what it is.  No amount of grieving or regretting can alter what has already occurred.

So, what should we do?  Too often people think that they can atone for their past mistakes by feeling really bad about them.  I’ve had people tell me that they don’t deserve to be happy because of errant decisions they made at some point in the past.  But, is that even effective?  Obviously not.  No amount of feeling lousy on their part can change the reality of what has already been.

The simple reality is that we cannot fix ourselves.  It is our intrinsic inability that got us into this mess in the first place.  Only unmitigated ego assumes that a broken person can fix his own broken condition.  And that realization, despite being a tad frightening, is a very good place to be.  Because this is where Christianity shines most brightly.

Christianity begins with the realization that we are incapable of saving ourselves from ourselves.  After all, if we cannot solve our own problem, then the solution must exist somewhere outside of ourselves.  That’s the very essence of what repentance is.  It is turning from our way of thinking and behaving, taking sides with God against ourselves, and admitting our utter dependence on Him.

But, equally and wonderfully, Christianity also offers the only full and complete cure for our lousy histories: a clean slate.  The salvation that Christ accomplished not only paid our sin debt, it cast our history of rebellion and stupidity “as far as the east is from the west.” (Psalm 103:12)

Or, as Micah put it —

“Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.  He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.” (Mic. 7:18-19)

Or, as the writer of Hebrews states —

“For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Heb. 8:12)

So, here’s my point (and I do have one).  Why are you making yourself sick by hanging onto the things that God has forgotten?  Why are you punishing yourself over things that Christ has already been punished for?  Why are you clinging to your hurtful past when it has been effectively erased, removed, and atoned for?

In Christ, we are new creatures.  We have experienced a new birth, from above. Old things are passed away. (2Cor. 5:17)  So, it’s okay to be happy.  In fact, it’s okay to be joyous.  Celebrate the fact that, despite your efforts to condemn yourself, God’s plan and design kept you from your self-destruction and saved you from His judgment.  And that’s a pretty good reason to be happy and grateful.

You see, the answer to everything that’s wrong with us does not reside within our flesh, our strength, our wills, our intelligence, or our abilities.  The answer is Christ and Him alone.  But, He’s a complete answer, a fully-effective cure, and a sufficient present to erase our past.

So, here comes 2014.  Bring it on.  May the new year be full of blessings and good news.  But, if it’s not, it’s good to know that we are in the hands of a sovereign who does everything for His greatest glory and our greatest good.  And that means, despite whatever circumstances may come, we will end up exactly where He has determined to take us … safe, sound, whole, forgiven, and well.

I’ll see you in the new year.

 

 

Thanksgiving Proclamations

I have just uploaded a new YouTube video about the various proclamations our national forefathers put forward concerning Thanksgiving.  They range from the first Continental Congress to Washington and Lincoln.  In the video I offered a free pdf of the collection of proclamations I assembled a few years ago for GCA.  You can download it here:

Thanksgiving Proclamations

Spurgeon’s Purple Pen

spurgeon_chairLast night I was talking with a pastor friend.  We were discussing the technology we have at our disposal and how the Internet has changed the way we communicate.

Preachers have always looked for ways to disseminate their message: hand-written letters, dictated epistles, printing-press flyers, books, magazines, newspapers, radio, television, cassettes, CD, DVD, and now the worldwide web.  Who knows what’s around the corner?

I asked my friend why his messages — good, solid sovereign grace sermons — weren’t more readily available.  He replied that he does occasionally allow himself to be recorded, but the copies are distributed via CD to local members and friends.  “Why not on the web?” I asked.

“Well,” he replied, “I worry because I don’t speak perfectly — I don’t cite every source, I might misquote a verse, I get something jumbled and have to correct myself.  So, I’m insecure about my messages.”

That’s the concern of every self-aware preacher.  We know we’re handling God’s word and we want to get it right.  But, we are faulty, frail humans and we make very natural, common mistakes.  What’s the solution?  Well, in my case, digital editing.

I reminded my friend that I listen to every message I preach and make sure to remove or fix obvious errors before they become part of the “permanent record” on our website.  I make no secret of that fact.  I consider it part of my job as a teacher of the gospel.  I want to do it to the best of my ability and my responsibility does not end at the point of saying something out loud.  If I can make it better before our listeners hear it, then I do that.

That admission led to a conversation about great preachers of the past and how meticulous they had to be since they only had one shot at their sermons and could not edit their words after the fact …

Except that they did.

I was recently given a wonderful gift.  It was a black binder containing a page of hand-written notes from Charles Hadden Spurgeon.  I am a Spurgeon fan.  It’s not for nothing that he’s referred to as “the prince of preachers.”  His way with words was magnificent and his ability to find the perfect turn of a phrase is something to behold.  Add to that the fact that he spoke in an extemporaneous fashion from mere bullet points and his verbal dexterity is nearly miraculous …

Except that it isn’t.

It turns out that Spurgeon edited his sermons before they were sent to the printer for publication in local newspapers and his magazine, “The Sword and Trowel.”  As he was speaking, his secretaries transcribed his spoken words and presented their handwritten copies to him each Sunday evening.  Spurgeon went through these handwritten copies and made corrections with his purple pen.  Spurgeon said that the purple ink commemorated the royalty of Christ.

The copies of Spurgeon’s sermons we have today are the edited, re-worked, cleaned-up versions of what he actually said.  Pauses, stammers, missed points, etc. were fixed in the editing … rather like I do when I run my sermons through my digital audio editor.

The explanation of “Spurgeon’s Sermon Publication Process” from Spurgeon College in London (who also certified and validated the authenticity of the transcript) explains, “This was no mere correction of minor detail, but involved extensive amendment. Thus, not only words are replaced, but sentences, paragraphs, and even pages. His wife characterized it as ‘always a labour of love, yet… a labour.'”

Anyway, I now have in my possession a page of notes, written by one of Spurgeon’s secretaries, hand-corrected by the preacher himself.  It’s a reminder that none of us is perfect.  And we all, as preachers, have a responsibility to do our jobs and communicate God’s truths to the best of our ability.

The page is from the sermon “God’s Thoughts of Peace, and Our Expected End.” It was delivered at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in Newington on May 29, 1887.  It is based on Jeremiah 19:11 – “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.”

I am ever-so-grateful for the gift.  I’m humbled that anyone thought to find, purchase, and present such a thing to me.  And I’ll cherish it not only because it’s a touchstone from a great preacher of God’s sovereign grace 126 years ago, but it’s a reminder that Spurgeon and I treat our sermons the same way.  We just use different tools.

Now, how do I learn to edit in purple?

The Bible according to the History Channel

The Bible is a television mini-series, produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett.  It is based, very loosely, on the Bible. Burnett and Downey say that they consulted “a wide range of pastors and academics” while preparing the series.  Their consultants included people like Joel Osteen, rabbi Joshua Garroway, and Catholic cardinal Geoff Tunnicliffe.  Also included were Focus on the Family President Jim Daly, “40 Days of Purpose” creator Rick Warren, noted modalist T.D. Jakes, and a blend of evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, and even the superintendent of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.  A real mishmash of perspectives, ideas, and traditions.

Given my job, I felt obliged to watch the series.  As of this writing, three episodes have been released — each more troubling and problematic than the previous one.  After watching each week’s entry, I wrote short reviews and posted them on the GCA Facebook page.  At the request of some of our readers, I’ve assembled those comments here (along with some updates).  What you’ll gather rather quickly is that I am not a fan.

Week One

Last night I recorded the History Channel’s first episode of their Bible series. I watched it tonight. Just turned it off, in fact. I’m saddened by it. So much money and production value poured into a completely fictitious account of the Old Testament.

But, here’s what really bothers me —

Biblical ignorance runs rampant in our land. People who don’t know any better are going think that this is how the Bible actually reads and what it actually teaches. The critic of the Bible has all the more reason to discount it since the God of this series is cruel and haphazard. And the biblically ignorant folk who watch this will come away with a completely false concept of God, His word, and His interactions with the children of Israel.

The details count. And the producers of this program turned the details into a mishmash of badly scripted soap opera moments while ignoring the great weight of theology and events that really could have been recounted accurately just as easily. For instance, was it really that tough to put a ram in a thicket caught by his horns? Why make it a lamb standing around by a bush? The type of Christ was completely abolished by their lackadaisical retelling of the story. And, by the way, what was Sarah doing running around in the wilderness by herself looking for her boy after taking a headcount of the local flock? Why insert a fairy tale and ignore the important details?

According to the Bible, Abraham took Isaac and a couple young men with him on a three day journey to Moriah —

“So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance. And Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you.’” (Gen. 22:3-5)

But, the History Channel’s retelling of this story had Abraham and Isaac alone wandering just around the corner from their camp — close enough that Sarah was able to reach them between the time they built the altar and the time that Abraham raised the knife — and they completely omitted Abraham’s instruction, including his confidence that both he and the boy were going to return.  After all, this was the boy through whom God had promised innumerable seed.  Abraham’s act of utter faith was reduced to him arguing with God that he felt he’d been tested enough.

What a repugnant program this is.

The Moses character was utterly inaccurate (and his motivations were way too Mickey Rourke for me). But why? Why create a lie when the truth would work just as well?

And, of course, the DVD is for sale. And the work book.  And the 30 Days of the Bible program (echoes of 40 Days of Purpose, anyone?).  And you know the producers and pitch men (Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, et. al.) are going to claim that this is a great evangelistic tool. They’ll encourage their listeners to buy the DVD and share it with their friends and family. Apparently, Peter’s description of false prophets didn’t sink in — “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.” (2Peter 2:3)

But, if anyone anywhere is moved or convinced by this program, what have they been convinced to believe? Certainly not the truth. Once again the wizards of Hollywood have decided that God’s word needs editing, improving, reworking, and dumbing down. At best the people responsible for this mess are merely ignorant for sake of a payday. At worse, they are the willing accomplices of the father of lies.

I can only imagine what they’re going to do to the gospel account when they get to it.

I’m so sad about this. America needs to repent of a whole litany of sins and rebellion. But, this organized effort to misrepresent the Scripture (while making the rounds of television shows talking about how pious they are and how true to the text they attempted to stay) sits heavy on my conscience because the church at large is not correcting and rejecting it. The producers have done a “good” job of creating ecumenical acceptance and promotion of their hackneyed tale. I wish the church were more devoted to the Word and less enamored with the show-biz that permeates modern evangelicalism.

I need to go to bed. It’s late. My throat hurts. My ears and sinuses are burning. But, my heart hurts more. I am sad for the state of modern Christianity.

Even so, Lord, come soon.

Week Two

Despite making us look like gluttons for punishment, last night David Morris and I fired up the DVR so we could watch the second installment of The Bible series from the History Channel. Oh my. We kept pausing the playback to list the multiple errors in each scene. And again, I wonder why the producers continually chose to tell a novel, made-up version of these stories when then actual Biblical account would have been just as easy to tell and much more compelling. The massive amount of political correctness that permeates this series is nauseating. And the whole thing suffers from both leaving out vital details and inserting soap-opera-like stories and motivations that are utterly foreign to the Biblical text. What a mess.

As I said about the first episode, there are plenty of biblically-ignorant folk in the world who are going to believe that what they saw on the screen was actually what the Bible says, thinks, and promotes. This series is just adding to the confusion and background noise that makes it so difficult to accurately teach Biblical history, doctrine, and theology. They have turned the truth of God into a lie.

<<<heavy sigh>>>

Then again, one accomplishment the producers did achieve was that they managed to take some of the most exciting, compelling stories in human history and make them mind-numbingly boring.

So hey, that’s something ….

Week Three

I finally watched the third installment of the Bible series on the History Channel. It’s pretty much everything I expected.  More of the same … same lies, same falsehoods, same heresies, same lack of historic veracity, same utter disrespect for the text of the Bible as written, same dumbing down of the Bible, same insertion of Purpose Drivel, same denial of sin, redemption, the necessity of a Savior … etc, etc, etc.

However, I did notice something significant. I wasn’t surprised at the constant historic revisionism, but when the character playing Daniel told the the character playing Cyrus that there was a prophet living at the time called Isaiah — quote: “There’s a prophet here in Babylon, Isaiah, he says …” — well, that’s just utterly wrong and there’s no reason to get it so wrong. Unless you have an agenda.

Isaiah died a good century before Cyrus was born, but he also predicted Cyrus, by name, as the ruler who would let the people of Israel return to build their temple. [By the way, the Bible series keeps representing the Jewish folk as poor, dusty, downtrodden people, but many Jews did not return to Jerusalem because they had become so prosperous and well-to-do in Babylon.] But, why did the writers of the Bible series insist on placing Isaiah in the Babylonian context?

Late dating.

They did the same sort of dance around the prophecies of Daniel. When Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, Daniel began recounting it. He said, “You are the head of gold …” at which point the king interrupts him and insists, “Tell me about the rock that smashes the other kingdoms,” effectively erasing the prophecy that accurately predicts the succession of kingdoms to follow Babylon — Medo/Persian, Greece, Rome and the ten-toed kingdom that’s on the earth when Christ returns.

I sense a pattern here.

The Bible series insists that the Jews were returned to their land under Cyrus because Daniel was such a brave, vision-casting sort of leader. But, nothing is said of the fact that Jeremiah already prophesied that the captivity in Babylon would last 70 years and that time period was fulfilled. There’s nothing of the angel visiting Daniel and prophesying the 490-year future of the Israelites, leading to the Messiah and time of the end.

It’s obvious that the writers and producers are systematically eliminating or explaining-away all the accurate prophecy in the Old Testament. The TV version of the prophets merely heard from God, but there’s no hint of accurately foretelling future events. (Oh sure, there’s a vague hat-tip to the concept when Herod asks about predictions concerning where the King of the Jews would be born, but the whole episode is brushed away like a fluke. There’s no mention of the nearly 400 OT prophecies that Jesus accurately fulfilled.)

Anyway, here’s what I’ve concluded: The writers and producers of the program eliminated and late-dated OT prophecy on purpose. As I’ve often argued, the consistent accuracy of Biblical prophecy is evidence of the Bible’s divine nature — it is the very word of God, God-breathed. But, if the producers believed the Bible was God’s own word, they would never take the liberties they’ve taken with it. So, they’ve downplayed, underplayed, or ignored the prophetic elements of the very stories they’ve chosen to tell. But, in the end, it’s really a complete denial of the holiness and divinity of the Bible.

And it’s blasphemy. (Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, like the Holy Bible.)

The whole thing — the whole series — is a mishmash of gratuitous scenes of violence, angels who act like hypnotists, occasional insertions from the inter-testamental period (like the eagle on the temple, a story we find in Josephus, but not the Bible … probably inserted to satisfy the Catholic consultants who include the Apocrypha in their Bible), and historic inaccuracies like the wise men seeing the star prior to the birth of Jesus so that they could make their journey early and get to Herod and then the manger on time. This despite the fact that the Bible says they visited the family at their home when Jesus was a young boy, leading Herod to kill all the boys 2 and under … but hey, those are just details, so why bother getting any of it correct?

 And they came into the house and saw the Child (paidion) with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. (Matt. 2:12)
Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi. (Matt. 2:16)

Also, there weren’t three wise men. The Bible doesn’t say how many there were. On TV, Herod called the leader Balthazar, which name is not in the Bible, it’s a medieval Catholic tradition that probably dates back to Bede the Venerable in the 8th Century. In this series we saw no attempt to get Mary a room at the inn. When Jesus was baptized there was no dove, no voice from Heaven.

 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17)

In His dealings with Peter, the show gave us no sense of Jesus’ divine ability to effectively call people to Himself. And, of course, there was the horrid insertion of words into Jesus’ mouth that He simply never said, like, “Change the world.”

Heresy.

(Oh, and when Jesus was in the desert, did that snake come out of him, out from under him, or just emanate from nowhere?)

I don’t know why every modern depiction of Jesus makes him look like a white surfer dude.  He was a middle Eastern Jew.  Here’s how Isaiah described Him —

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (Isa. 53:2 NASB)
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (Isa. 53:2 KJV)

Likewise, they always portray Satan as nasty looking.  He slithers and hisses.  He broods and exudes ugliness.  Yet, Ezekiel says of him —

Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (Ezek. 28:17)

Granted, the fall from Heaven may have had some negative impact on his appearance, but I have always thought that a vital part of Satan’s subtlety was his ability to make himself and his ways appear attractive.  Or, as the apostle Paul put it —

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Cor. 11:13-14)

Medieval art has influenced our thinking.  Now we think of Jesus as glowing constantly, with a halo around His head, while Satan is a split-hoofed beast with horns, a pitchfork, and a pointy tail.  That might help sell some Underwood ham, but it’s not what the Bible describes.

And here’s the worst part: There are so many people who are functionally illiterate where the Bible is concerned and they are going to think that what they’re seeing is an accurate portrayal of Jesus’ words, actions, and intentions. But, the Jesus of this series is NOT the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of this series is the invention of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, TD Jakes, and their friends in Hollywood.

Read your Bible, people.

“Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar…” (Rom. 3:4)

This series is as damaging as anything Rome, the Mormons, or Islam have done in their denial of the historicity, perspicuity, and trustworthiness of the text of the Bible. And the sub-biblical church in America is all excited about it. Confessing evangelical apologists for this series are making the same error they always make (just as they did with Mel Gibon’s movie, The Passion of the Christ), they are embracing this series, despite its multiple errors, with the assumption that “something is better than nothing.” They like the fact that something called “The Bible” is on TV and getting big ratings, despite the fact that it actually undermines the very Bible they claim to embrace. The Church should be universally outraged at this travesty and they should reject it wholesale in order to send the message to Hollywood that we will not allow our sacred texts to be maligned and manipulated just to sell DVD’s.

But no. The church at large will be silent. And the errors will be compounded. And Christianity will suffer as more people embrace the mis-truths and lies that make up this series.

There’s an agenda at work here, folks. And it’s not good. Despite claiming to present “The Bible,” the producers are systematically undermining the Word of God and inserting the words of men — words that are more acceptable, more palatable, more pleasing to the easily-tickled ears of worldly people.

But, they won’t tell anyone that they’re sinful, depraved, spiritually dead, incapable, and desperately wicked. They won’t explain that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man comes to the Father but by Him. And they won’t tell anyone that the Bible is the very word of God and, as such, humans have no authority to mess with it, alter it, change it, adapt it, or deny it.

They won’t tell the truth.

But, then again, that’s no surprise.

The Bible (the real Bible) said it would be that way —

 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2Tim. 4:1-4)

In other words, the Bible is true even when it predicts that people will not tell the truth about it.

Addendum

Let me add that Chris Rosebrough  over at fightingforthefaith.com has been doing a series of programs exposing the various errors of this series, as well.  Drop by and give him a listen.

Sovereignty, Puppetry, and Freewill

Hello Pastor Jim,

Recently I have been watching your videos on YouTube of your messages and sermons about the Sovereignty of God, Calvinism, predestination, and Reformed Theology.

I am greatly encouraged by the messages but still confused because of how I was raised. People in the church I attended said Calvinists do not evangelize and they [Calvinists] think people are robots with no free will to love God.

So here are my questions:

  1. Are all events on earth already preordained by God?
  2. Do we have a “free will?”
  3. Are we robots already programmed?
  4. How does the aspect of love play into this if we are just puppets?
Reply:

I understand your perplexity.  It takes time to sort through the things you’ve been taught and separate traditions from valid doctrines. One of the most difficult aspects of learning and embracing what the Bible actually says is un-learning our traditions, assumptions, and presuppositions.

The things that you’ve written here are typical responses to Calvinism.  For instance, people who do not know their church history will often claim that Calvinism inhibits evangelism.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is, some of the greatest revivals in history were led by Calvinists.  The first universities planted on U.S. soil were established by Calvinists.  Some of the most enduring missionary societies were established by Calvinists.  So, the claim that Calvinists do not evangelize is mere folly.

The following bit of history is from my book By Grace Alone (which is available as a free pdf download on the GCA website), including a pericope from David Steinmetz’s book Calvin in Context.

Calvinism, as it is commonly called, has a rich European history, but it finds its most striking influence during the foundation of these United States. Owing to Martin Luther’s commitment to reform, the church that bears his name was founded on the teaching of God’s election and determinate predestination. John Knox, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, held these doctrines. Early American history reveals that the vast majority of the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were Calvinistic Presbyterians. The Congregationalist Churches of early America were once bound by these doctrines. And the original Baptists were avid predestinarians, which is why their modern counterparts advertise themselves as “Free-Will Baptists” to distinguish themselves from their ancestors.

This English Calvinist strain was strengthened by the Dutch Calvinists of New York and New Jersey, the German Reformed of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the Scots-Irish Presbyterians who settled in the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies.While not all settlers in the New World were Protestant and not all Protestants were Calvinist, nevertheless there was from the very beginning a strongly Calvinist influence on American thought and institutions. Calvinists founded universities, pioneered the New England town meeting, insisted on the separation of powers in the federal government, played a prominent role in the movement for the abolition of slavery, and even promoted such characteristic institutions of frontier revivalism as ‘the anxious bench’ and the ‘camp-meeting’… In short, although Calvinism is not the only ingredient in American intellectual and religious history, it is such an important ingredient that no one can claim to understand American history and culture without some appreciation of its Calvinist heritage.

Or, let’s look at it this way:  Calvinistic theology is drawn directly from biblical, Pauline doctrine.  Of all the New Testament writers, Paul wrote the most complete arguments in favor of God’s absolute predestination and electing grace.  Yet, Paul devoted his life, his wealth, his health, and everything in him to the work of evangelism.  Calvinists follow Paul’s example.  We teach everything that the Bible says and we do everything that the Bible instructs.  We evangelize vigorously because we do not know who God’s elect are.  And in reality, Calvinism inspires evangelism because we know that God’s word will not return to Him void; it will accomplish what God intends for it to accomplish.

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:11)

So we preach the good news full of hope and expectation.  By contrast, a person who believes in man’s autonomous free will has to fight the uphill battle of trying to convince someone to make a decision that is completely contrary to their nature and self-interest.  The Calvinist is convinced that only the power of God changing a person from the inside will result in salvation.  Therefore, the only tool we need is the truth of God’s word.  And we know His word will be successful; His people are out there and they will respond.  That takes a tremendous weight of pressure off of our shoulders and places responsibility for salvation exactly where it belongs — in God’s hands.

As for the robot argument, this YouTube sermon may help: http://youtu.be/ZJTjBg-QJ78

Basically, when someone poses the “robot” argument (also known as the “that would make us puppets” argument), it’s evidence that they have a sub-biblical anthropology.  They think human beings are essentially good, capable, and willing to follow God if you just give them sufficient inducement.  But, the Bible says just the opposite.  Psalm 53 and Romans 3 come to mind.

God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God.  Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalm 53:2-3)As it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,     THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE. THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING, THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS; WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS; THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN. THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.” (Romans 3:10-18)

In the YouTube video, I reviewed the various New Testament passages that describe the human condition from God’s point of view.  You mentioned previously that you have been taught that Calvinism eliminates man’s “free will to love God.”  The truth is, the Bible eliminates man’s free will to love God. Nowhere in the Bible are human beings spoken of as being willing and capable of loving God unless God Himself awakens and quickens them.  Calvinism simply places the emphasis where it belongs — on God’s will instead of man’s.

Now, with that bit of introduction out of the way, let’s address each of your questions individually.

Are all events on earth already preordained by God?

The short answer is: Yes.

All Christians agree, in essence, that God is in charge of the really large events.  But the Bible also declares that God feeds the animals, hangs the stars, determines the days of every man’s life, and settles “the whole disposing” of things as minute as casting lots.  In other words, anyone who says that God is not in charge of everything in His universe must be able to tell us exactly where the line of demarcation is. What things is God in charge of and what things are beyond His scope?  Based on clear Scripture, I would inquire, what part of God’s creation does He restrict Himself from?  And where is He absent?

The Bible declares that He is everywhere, has all knowledge, and even gives Himself the proper name “God Almighty.”  So, if He has all the power, knows everything, and is everywhere, then there is nothing in His universe that escapes His grasp, is hidden from Him, or which He does not empower.  Otherwise, we would have to argue that He is limited in His knowledge and presence, or that there is another power in His creation that is separate and distinct from Him.  And that, biblically-speaking, is an impossible argument to win.

 Do we have a “free will?”

The term “freewill” has been utilized in Christian circles for so long that the concept is simply assumed to be true, despite the lack of clear biblical evidence. For instance, the only place in the entire Bible where the actual terminology “freewill” exists is as a type of Old Testament offering. But importantly, that word never shows up in the New Testament. Now that fact, in and of itself, does not automatically undermine the concept of free will. The word “Trinity” is also not in the New Testament, but the concept is plainly and repeatedly displayed. So, what we really have to determine is whether the concept of “free will choice,” as a part of the salvation process, is ever mentioned, implied, or stated in the New Testament.

Here are the facts: wherever the will of man is referred to in the Bible it is always in the negative. In other words, because human beings are sinful, their will is equally depraved and is therefore limited. To say it more simply, human beings cannot act outside of the confines of their nature.

My YouTube teaching video “Thinking About Free Will” may prove helpful in this regard. http://youtu.be/j3oSqbLDGxc

According to the Bible, our wills are limited by our inability —

Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.  (Jeremiah 13:23)
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  (Matthew 7:17)
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.  (John 8:43)
…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?  (Luke 12:25-26)
There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. (Romans 3:11)

Given our inability to do good, choose God, or enable our will against its nature, salvation must be the result of grace on God’s part and never the result of the “free will” decisions of any human. And the Bible states that repeatedly and emphatically.

For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:15-16)
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:12-13)

But, here’s the really essential point — if free will (as the modern church defines it) were indeed an essential element in salvation, then the passages that deal with salvation should actually mention it. But, they don’t. You can read through every portion of Scripture that deals with eternal salvation and you will find words like: predestination, election, and “according to His will.”

But never — never once, not a single time — will you read the word “freewill.”

That really ought to tell us something. The language and concept of freewill in salvation is glaring in its absence.  So, why is it so popular among confessing evangelicals?  Despite the textual evidence, human beings love the idea that they contribute something to their salvation. It just seems more “fair” that way.  And, our egos being what they are, we want to insert ourselves into the process in some significant way so that we can assure ourselves on the basis of our own actions and behavior.  It is, for lack of a better term, human nature.  Corrupt, fallen, prideful, arrogant, rebellious human nature.

Now let me be clear. I am not denying that human beings have a will or that they make decisions. What I am saying is that the human will is not truly free in any libertarian sense. The human will is limited by our incapabilities, resulting from our sinfulness. The fact that we make choices does not prove that we can choose anything we would like. As Romans 3:11 says, we cannot simply choose to understand, nor can we choose to seek God. And that is a very serious limitation.

Also, whenever man’s “will” is referenced in the Bible, it is always in the negative.  “You were not willing…”   “You do always resist the Holy Spirit…”  “You will not come…” etc.   That is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches concerning man’s natural state.  Sinful humans are free to sin.  But no sinful human is free to do what is righteous, what is just, or what is holy.  In fact, there is no man who does anything that is good.  And there is no one who ever sought God.

And that leads us right back to the topic of Biblical Anthropology.  The first tenet of Reformed Theology (the “T” in the tulip acrostic) is Total Depravity.  If you start there, then the entire rest of the five points fall perfectly in line.  But if you deny that humans are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), then you will end up advocating for human capability and wind up in direct opposition to the clear declarations of Scripture.  It’s really just that simple.

Are we robots already programmed?

I offered a brief reply to this statement earlier, but let me also offer a bit of audio wherein I addressed this very question:

Puppet Argument

 How does the aspect of love play into this if we are just puppets?

The question of love is used as a “red herring” by those who oppose Calvinism.  They assume that human beings are free to love God or not love God according to their own “free will.”  But, as I wrote above, if the biblical description of mankind is accurate then no natural human being has the capacity to love God.  In fact, they hate Him with a vengeance.  They are referred to as His enemies:

 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

The biblical reality is that only after God quickens and enlightens a person can they truly love God.  I get weary of hearing preachers say, “Only love that is freely given his genuine love!  Calvinism says that God forces His love on us.  Forced love is not real love.”  Norman Geisler went so far as to say that Calvinism posits a form of “divine rape.”

“Irresistible force used by God on his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!” (Norman Geisler, “God knows all Things,” Predestination and Free Will, (ed.) David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986), p. 69 ).

What sad rhetoric such men have to stoop to in order to avoid what the Bible says.  Again, the fact is that humans will never “freely” love God until God removes their hatred and enmity and puts His divine spirit within them.  And, as I have argued openly and often, God is indeed irresistible in every aspect of His character and dealings with mankind. http://youtu.be/e9SiY4HAgNg

So, how does the aspect of love play into this?  It is God’s divine and eternal love that resulted in the grace that saved fallen sinners like you and me. In response to that reality, and as a result of His quickening power, we loved Him.  But, as in all things, God is the “first cause.”  He does not love us in response to our love.  We love Him because He first loved us.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1John 4:7-11)

Don’t allow people to mischaracterize Calvinism and tell you that it limits evangelism, does damage to man’s free will, makes us robots and puppets, or reduces divine love to forced rape.  I think you can see that those are all emotion-based arguments, not Biblical arguments.  People are naturally suspicious and afraid of things they do not understand.  I wish more of Calvinism’s critics would take the time to understand it before they begin criticizing it.

Grace and peace,

Jim Mc.

By Grace Alone is available via this link: http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/docs/bygracealone.pdf

Featured photo: “Delusions of Grandeur” by Megan McClarty

A Few Words About A Mighty Good Dog

Wallace was 18.  In dogs years that’s … well, really old.  And today he breathed his last.

He and his sister were dropped on us when they were very little pups.  The original idea was that we’d keep them long enough to find them a good home.  Turns out, my home was the good home they needed.Wallace

For the last 24 years there’s been at least one dog in my backyard.  Some were good, some were trouble.  But, Wallace was the best of them.  He had a sort of noble bearing about him.  Definitely the alpha dog.  And any other dogs knew it.  He was a loyal companion, a careful protector, and a friend to my children.  All in all, a mighty fine dog.

His decline started last year when his sister died.  By this morning he was stone deaf, his eyes were fading, he was riddled with cancer, he had a large, bulbous tumor under his tail and another growing on his neck.  Despite being Autumn, his poor circulation hampered his ability to begin growing his winter coat.  And he was miserable.  So today, Megan and I mustered the courage necessary to do the right thing.  We took him to PAWS and had him put to sleep.

And we cried.

Wallace last photo

This is the photo I took of Wallace, standing in the back of my CR-V today as we readied him for his final trip to the vet.  He looks gaunt, weak, bedraggled, not anything like the vibrant, energetic dog he once was.  But his eyes were steady as he looked out one last time on his yard.  Then he laid down.  And he didn’t get up again.

My quarter-century of dog ownership has come to an end. I think my dog days are finished. These days, I’m simplifying and cutting back.  But the yard sure looks empty.  In fact, for the first time in 24 years, this afternoon I opened the gate and left it open. It was like a memorial to the dogs who had come and gone.

I know everything that is born eventually dies.  And I know that 18 years is a good, long life for canines.  But, I’m sure going to miss him.

Goodbye, my old friend.  I’m paying you the highest compliment a dog can earn —

“You’re a good boy.”

 

 

Entertaining the Church

Hello Pastor Jim,

I pray that this email finds you and your ministry well.  I was recently asked if I would allow MIME ministry in the church. My sense is that this activity does nothing for the body of Christ and opens the door for all sort of other forms of entertainment. Would you explain your position on this ‘ministry’? Maybe I’m wrong in my assessment, but I just want to be right in what I expose to the people of the living God.  Thanks in advance.

Response:

Hello Pastor,

Thanks for taking the time to write.  It’s always a great pleasure to hear from my preaching brethren.

Let me start by assuring you that you are not wrong in your assessment of entertainment-based activity in church. I contend that the encroachment of plays, mimes, clowns, jugglers, dance troops, etc. into church services has weakened our collective understanding of why we gather as a body in the first place.

The purpose of the church is twofold:

  1. The worship of God
  2. The edification of the saints.

So, what we have to ask ourselves is how something like mime can accomplish either task.  I conclude that it cannot.

As for point number 1:

I realize that most of these so-called “ministries” claim that they create or present a “worship experience.”  But, that’s logically impossible, since the attention of the congregation is focused on the performers, not on God   In order to truly worship God, you must be able to concentrate your thoughts on Him.  These days, the concept of worship has been replaced by the idea of “having an experience.”  But, any exciting circumstance can create an experience.  When a congregation is excited by a presentation of lights, music, smoke machines, special effects, etc. they leave thinking that they’ve “experienced” worship.  What they’ve actually had was an emotional reaction to sensory stimuli.  Their emotions were over-loaded (much like what happens to all of us when we watch television).

But, worship is active.  Worship engages our hearts, our minds, our intellect, and our emotions.  Worship is dependent on knowing whom we are worshiping and why we worship Him.  Watching someone perform is the exact opposite of engaging in worship.  Therefore, it is impossible for a performer to claim that his stage-act is a form of worship.

As for point number 2:

Entertaining the congregation is not the same as edifying the saints. Despite the fact that amusement has replaced education in most of our society, the church should be a place of edification where the saints are challenged to think, to consider the propositions of Scripture, and to consider the depth and breadth of God’s Word. And, as I like to point out, our English word “amuse” is simply the word for “think” — muse, with the alpha-negative before it — a-muse.  It literally means “without thinking.”  And there’s plenty of stuff happening in the modern evangelical church that fits that description.

I think what has happened historically within the church is that their ever-increasing budgets and huge overhead derailed their sense of purpose.  Raising money is now more important than teaching/preaching or worship.  Many, many churches live under the burden of keeping themselves afloat financially month-to-month, so they are forced to bring in every dollar they can lay claim to.  And now they are fighting for the disposable income that families spend on entertainment.  As a consequence, newer church buildings look more like Las Vegas theaters than they do places of worship.  The platform doubles as a stage for Broadway-style productions.  And that, sadly, is what people have come to expect.  So, the bar is raised ever-higher as churches compete to attract new attendees who will pay premium prices to belong to the hippest church in town.

Of course, all that is diametrically opposite to the purpose of the church.  While we are in the world, we are not to be of the world.  And nowhere in Scripture do any of the authors endorse or engage in entertainment as a form of spreading the good news.  To them, preaching the truth was of utmost importance.  And, there is simply no way to contend that the gospel can be preached by people in white face make-up saying absolutely nothing.  Plus, because no words are used in mime, the message is open to the interpretation of the individual audience member.  So, there is no way to assure that the congregation received any consistent telling of any gospel truth.

I recall a few years ago, one of the big entertainment churches here in Nashville advertised that they would be having a mime troupe appearing at their Easter Sunday service to mime the Easter story.  This event was the banner headline in the Tennessean newspaper.  “Two Rivers Baptist Church Welcomes Mime For Easter Sunday!”  That was when I knew the church had completely lost its focus.  After all, the Bible tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17).  So, on Easter Sunday, the most popular church-going Sunday of the year, the one day when the most visitors were likely to attend, one of Nashville’s largest churches had a guy on the platform who said nothing at all.  It was unbelievable.

Consequent to all this, we have huge church buildings in every city that are filled with Biblically-ignorant folk who actually think Christianity is about feeling good and being entertained.  The message of redemption from sin has all-but-disappeared and the need of a Savior has become secondary to simply feeling positively about yourself.

So, I’ve taken a firm stand against “showbiz church.”  There is no room for performing in church.  The focus and center of attention must remain on God and His Christ.  Everywhere else in the world we have people vying to be celebrities.  The church is the last place where that sort of activity ought to go on.  I don’t even like it when the man in the pulpit starts performing.  And most of these traveling entertainment troupes want to sell their CD’s or DVD’s in the foyer of the church after the performance in order to raise more money.  I can only imagine what Jesus would say.  He chased out the money changers and the church invited them back in.  According to 2 Peter 2, one of the evidences that a man is a false prophet is that he will “make merchandise” of the church.  That practice now runs rampant and the biblically-ignorant congregations gladly throw their money at the very people who are leading them astray.  It’s a mess.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I sometimes wonder what goes on in the minds and hearts of pastors who chase after every new trend in the modern church.  At what point did they decide that the gospel of Jesus Christ was not sufficient to attract and maintain a congregation of believers?  What made them think that plays, dancers, puppets, surround-sound, mimes, clowns, stick-ministry, and all that other silly stuff would improve the simple and profound message of the gospel?  And, to my way of thinking, people who will not attend church unless they get worldly entertainment are not truly seeking Christ.  They’re seeking those things that satisfy their flesh.

It comes down to this:

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!”  (Rom. 10:14-15)

If people are not being told about Christ and the necessity of His work then they will never call on Him.  No matter how professionally a mime does his work, he can never replace the necessity of preaching.  And if a mime cannot adequately and clearly convey the message of the gospel (which he can’t), then what is he doing in front of a church congregation?  Let him sell his wares out in the marketplace of entertainment.  Let the church preach the Word.

And I agree with you that opening the door a little can let in all sorts of diverse programs that are very hard to extricate once the congregation has become accustomed to them.  A little leaven, as we know, leavens the whole lump.  I would rather fight the unpopular fight of maintaining Christian integrity.

My words to you would be the same as Paul’s to Timothy:

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.  (2Tim. 4:1-5)

Yours for His sake,

Jim Mc.