Know and Believe God's Word

Greg Beale's, A New Testament Biblical Theology, scores big points with his perceptive analysis of the ongoing deceptions afflicting the church today. Besides the errors of Adam and Eve and Israel, where they refused to simply trust the truth of God as He spoke, there is the church's continuing failure to simply do what we know . . . be what we profess . . . act on what we say we believe. In spite of all of our knowledge, we still prefer the lie. We still refuse to change our minds, our hearts, our lives. He concludes chapter seven with application for where we live:

The heart of the matter is this: do Christians know God's word, do they believe it, and do they do it? If not, then the lies of the evil one will slip into our lives and churches ever so subtly. When this happens and the process goes unchecked and uncorrected, then the deceptions begin to pour in like an overflowing river (cf. Rev 12:15) . . . Do Christian families make God's word the center of their homes? Do pastors set aside sufficient time to study God's word in preparation for Sunday sermons in order to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God as workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15)? If not, then the false teaching of those "who have gone astray from the truth" will make inroads into the church (2 Tim 2:18). (223)

Never grow weary of reading your Bible

Let's heed Bishop Ryle and never grow weary of the slow, steady, growth that comes from the daily, disciplined, increasing, love affair with reading the Bible.

Do not think you are getting no good from the Bible, merely because you do not see that good day by day. The greatest effects are by no means those which make the most noise, and are most easily observed. The greatest effects are often silent, quiet, and hard to detect at the time they are being produced.

Think of the influence of the moon upon the earth, and of the air upon the human lungs. Remember how silently the dew falls, and how imperceptibly the grass grows. There may be far more doing than you think in your soul by your Bible-reading. (J. C. Ryle, Practical Religion, 136)

Not by sight, but by faith

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

A group of conservative evangelical leaders met in Texas last weekend and endorsed a Roman Catholic for president. Given the history of evangelical antipathy toward the theological underpinnings of the Roman Catholic Church, that in itself signals a remarkable evolution (pardon the word), along with a considerable amount of political pragmatism.

The blessing of what was once called the “Religious Right” fell on the once-married Rick Santorum and not the thrice married and more recent convert to Catholicism, Newt Gingrich.

The endorsement came on the same weekend when Tebow-mania was at its height, as were the ratings for CBS, which carried the Denver Broncos-New England Patriots football game. Tebow’s Broncos were crushed by the superior and less openly religious Patriots.

Despite evidence that politics (and sports) cannot deliver America from its collective sins, evangelicals repeatedly search for an earthly savior. So desperate are they to find this deliverer that they have glommed onto the Catholic Santorum, a man whose religion many of them vilify and hold in utter contempt, in hopes of trumpeting their conservative values and faith-based initiatives in the coming election. In so doing, they make a mistake their Scriptures warn against.

The Kingdom of God functions best, said the One who ought to know, when it is invisible, or hidden. In his numerous parables, Jesus spoke of it being like a treasure hidden in a field (Matthew 13:44), or as tiny as a mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32). As for prayer, He said to do that privately, not in public “…like the hypocrites...” (Matthew 6:5-6)

Those who spend a lot of time arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture seem to gloss over these instructions when it comes to politics and football.

Why do many evangelicals feel the need to see their faith on public display? Are they that insecure about the One in whom they claim to believe? His Apostle, Paul, said, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7) Was he kidding?

I’m sure Tim Tebow is as fine a man as everyone says he is; everyone except Bill Maher and other “apatheist” detractors. But the Jesus about whom Tebow frequently speaks and to whom he drops to one knee to publicly praise, said to go into your closet and pray in secret and then your prayers will be heard.

The point has been made by several commentators that God also loves players on the losing side of games (and elections), so why don’t losers praise Him and we them? Just asking.

Something else evangelicals gloss over. Scripture says all authority comes from God and He puts people in power who serve His purposes, not ours. There are too many verses to cite here. Look it up.

For those who claim to believe the Bible is “the Word of God,” it means God has a purpose for President Obama being in office. Evangelicals may not like it and many may not vote for him, but they can’t credibly deny this truth. In the ultimate church-state moment, Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” Jesus responded that Pilate would not have that power had God not given it to him. (John 19:11) Case closed.

American Christianity is unique and the antithesis of what the faith looks like in much of the world. Elsewhere, Christians pay a high price for their faith. Some are denied their freedom, some are denied jobs and still others are denied their lives. Christian missionaries labor for low pay, receive little recognition and are often persecuted. Jesus said those who are greatest on Earth will be least in Heaven and vice versa. (Matthew 19:30)

Righteousness doesn’t come from the top, but from the bottom. A nation that focuses on money and pleasure will get political leadership that reflects that idolatry. The list of great nations that have collapsed throughout history is a long one. Self-indulgence toppled most of them. Invading armies merely finished the process.

Instead of intensely focusing on football and the next election, perhaps evangelicals ought to pray more; in private, of course, and with the right motives.

(C) 2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Heartbeat

I do not count my life . . . as precious to myself,

if only I may finish my course and . . . testify to the gospel of the grace of God. — Acts 20:24

Quoting someone: “The world cannot be reached in absentia. Sooner or later somebody has to go.” But now it's time to add, “. . . and sooner or later somebody has to stay there!”

Going means little unless missionaries stay where they go. That should be obvious, but herein lies a possible danger. It is the idea that short-term—that is short-stay missions is some sort of magical, new-found key for reaching the world for Christ. It is the idea that individuals and churches have somehow discharged their Great Commission responsibility with their short-term people and programs. There are now those churches who have almost completely stopped sending or supporting career missionaries opting instead for short-termers.

In reality, short-term missions is not even the key for evangelizing Jamaica! And Jamaica is reached a lot more easily than most. Consider that short-term missionaries are not even an option for many of the unreached three billion people in almost 7,000 people groups. And with many hidden away in approximately 60 “closed” countries, we know that these will remain in darkness without something more—a lot more.

That “something more” is people who finish the course . . . people who begin at the starting line and go all out until they complete the race. They will go by every available means and will stay there, all for the main purpose of testifying to the gospel.

TEAMS in Jamaica is primarily about full-time, lifelong, missionary presence. This describes each of our missionaries. By God’s grace these and those who join them will indeed give their lives for the cause of the gospel. May some who read these lines be among them.

---------------

by Ray Shive. Taken from the current Fall 2011 TEAMS for Medical Missions Vital Signs newsletter. TEAMS missionaries serve in Jamaica, West Indies to strengthen the church through . . . 

Teaching  ~ Evangelism ~ Aid and ~ Medical Services.

Read the entire issue at http://www.t4mm.org/Newsletters.lsp. 

I ARISE TODAY - A Declaration of Saint Patrick

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness.
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ’s birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim
In obedience of angels
In the service of archangels
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward
In prayers of patriarchs
In predictions of prophets
In preaching of apostles
In faith of confessors
In innocence of holy virgins
In deeds of righteous men

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven
Light of sun
Radiance of moon
Splendor of fire
Speed of lightning
Swiftness of wind
Depth of sea
Stability of earth
Firmness of rock

I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me
God’s might to uphold me
God’s wisdom to guide me
God’s eye to look before me
God’s ear to hear me
God’s word to speak to me
God’s hand to guard me
God’s way to lie before me
God’s shield to protect me
God’s host to save me
From snares of devils
From temptations of vices
From everyone who shall wish me ill
Afar and anear
Alone and in multitude

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul
Against incantations of false prophets
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics
Against craft of idolatry
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning
Against drowning, against wounding
So that there may come to be abundance of reward
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me
Christ on my right, Christ on my left
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me
Christ in every eye that sees me
Christ in every ear that hears me

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity
Through belief in the threeness
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation

From, “How The Irish Saved Civilization - The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe”. This prayer was possibly originally penned by Patricius of Britain. He later becomes Patrick, Bishop of Ard Macha and today is referred to as St Patrick.

No Offense

by Dr. Dean Curry. Evangelicals have grown not only more tolerant, but also more tolerable. Is it possible, however, to be too inoffensive? One can possibly anticipate the conclusion to be reached, but the way Dr. Curry gets there certainly increases it's force. Read more challenging stuff like this at the evangelical portal of www.patheos.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recent controversies surrounding Jim Wallis's "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign, as well as Rob Bell's new book Love Wins, are more evidence that today's evangelicalism is notably different than yesterday's evangelicalism. The markers of contemporary evangelicalism are harder to generalize about than they were thirty or forty years ago. Whether the issues involve theology, politics, or personal morality, today's evangelicals are more diverse in their viewpoints and less likely than their predecessors to draw non-negotiable lines in the sands of culture.

University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter alerted us to these significant changes way back in 1987 in his book, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. While Hunter's most recent book, To Change the World, has received considerable attention among Christians, revisiting his earlier work with nearly a quarter-century of hindsight is an especially enlightening experience, and not just because the author was so spot on in plotting the trajectory of American evangelicalism. Drawing upon an early 1980s survey project that targeted "the coming generation" of evangelical leaders—i.e., students at evangelical colleges and seminaries—Hunter anticipated, among other things, that a social agenda would slowly supplant traditional evangelical spiritual concerns. Regarding this shift, Hunter concluded in 1987 that "the significance of this trend is highlighted by the precedent set by liberal Protestant theology in the twentieth century, where the Social Gospel achieved proportions unintended by its original advocates."

Apart from his prescience in this area, Hunter's analysis is perhaps most useful in helping us understand the reasons for change within evangelicalism. Of particular note is Hunter's insightful parsing of the dimensions of "civility," one of modernity's unassailable innovations. The essence of civility is tolerance, arguably the primordial concept of our post-modern age, and a habit now widely embraced by evangelicals. But there is another dimension to civility that Hunter identifies as the inversion of tolerance, namely tolerability, and it is this side of civility that Hunter argues is key to understanding the dynamics of transformation that have taken place within American evangelicalism.

The ethic of civility requires not only that individuals be tolerant of others; it also requires that they must be tolerable to others. The implications of this ethic of "studied moderation" are clear: "Convictions are to be tempered by 'good taste' and sensibility. It is an ethic which pleads 'no offense.' The greatest breach of these norms is belligerence and divisiveness; the greatest atrocity is to be offensive and thus intolerable." The appropriation of both dimensions of civility—tolerance and tolerability—is a major reason why the boundaries of evangelical beliefs have become increasingly fuzzy and uncertain. Besides being tolerant of others, "the critical dogma is not to offend but to be genteel . . . in social relations," with the consequence that the contents of traditional evangelical theology and ethics that are offensive in the prevailing cultural zeitgeist are deemphasized. "Anything," writes Hunter, "that hints of moral or religious absolutism and intolerance is underplayed." Indeed, having appropriated civility as a central component of Christian theology, evangelicals face "tremendous social constraints to be less strict, less fanatical, more open-minded, and so on."

It is difficult, of course, to generalize about a sub-culture as large and diverse as American evangelicalism. But anyone familiar with the landscape of contemporary evangelicalism has to be struck by the precision and accuracy of Hunter's 1987 analysis. In fact, when reading Hunter's 1987 book, one has to remind oneself that he was writing a piece of academic sociology, not a prophetic tome. Hunter's 1980s "coming generation" of evangelicals is American evangelicalism today: From the evangelical families in the pews, to the evangelical bloggers, para-church leaders, college professors, and pastors. And true to Hunter's map, among a growing number of these evangelicals, especially their leaders, old, time-worn themes such as hell, homosexuality, abortion, and cultural line-drawing are only faintly heard, while less offensive, genteel themes that often reflect a soft universalism, attention to an agenda of social justice concerns, and an aversion to "offensive" line-drawing are privileged.

It is, to be sure, more complicated than that. And yet, those who care about maintaining the historic boundaries of orthodoxy would be wise not to ignore Hunter's conclusion that although "the evangelical life-world . . . has not gone as far as the modernists in Protestantism, the process is identical."

=====
Dean C. Curry is director of the College Honors Program and professor of politics at Messiah College.

10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women

Being male, if I wrote this I'd probably be in big trouble. Maybe I will be anyway, especially in openly saying that I agree with Mrs. Kassian; agreeing that is except where she says, "Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions," but I will refrain from weakening her good article by any further curmudgeonry. Please do read her analysis. 

By Mary Kassian - The new gender-inclusive NIV was published earlier this year. It contains thousands upon thousands of changes to the Bible's male-gendered language. Having a gender-inclusive Bible appears to be the latest trend amongst cutting-edge, cappuccino-slurping Christian hipsters. Don't get me wrong. I like to be hip. And I enjoy cappuccino as much as the next person. But my biggest beef with gender-inclusive Bibles is that they lack doctrinal precision. If you mess with the words, you mess with the meaning. Respected Bible scholars have explained why inclusive translations such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and Common English Bible (CEB) are deeply flawed. If you haven't yet considered their arguments, you might want to check out these Gender Neutral Bible Articles. 

Notwithstanding the doctrinal imprecision and blatantly politically-correct translating agenda, there are additional reasons why I dislike gender inclusive Bibles. Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions, and genuinely wanted to help women, but in my mind, a gender-inclusive Bible is BAD for women. Really, really bad for women! I react to people reading from the new, gender-inclusive NIV the way I react to nails scratching down a black board.  

Here are ten reasons why:

1.  It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

Gender has a profound, cosmic meaning. God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex to put the love story of Christ and the Church on display. When we mess with the Bible's gender language, we obscure gender's symbolism. We make truths about God and the gospel more difficult to understand. 

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points: 

Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately not about male and female—it's about Jesus, the Son of Man and Son of God. The Bible does not use predominantly male gendered language to exalt men; it uses it to exalt THE man who paid the ultimate price to redeem His Bride. 

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

Blurring the Bible's gender language contributes to the blurring of gender distinctions. It diminishes and devalues the unique role and beauty of womanhood. 

4. It is less inclusive of women:

Gender inclusive Bibles cast women as "other" rather than part of the collective whole. God collectively named male and female "man" (Hebrew: ‘adam. See Gen. 5:2) to indicate that male and female would share a common condition for which He would provide a common answer. Because both male and female are ‘adam, both are equally represented by the first man, Adam. Both are fallen and in need of a Savior. The good news of the gospel is that both are also equally represented by the Second Man—the Last Adam—Jesus Christ. When God named male and female ‘adam, he had the Last Adam in mind. So when, in order to appease modern sensibilities, we change "man" to something we think is more inclusive," we diminish the theological meaning and exclude woman. If woman is not specifically identified as "man" then how can she be represented by the first man, Adam? What's more, how can she be represented by the Second Man, the Last Adam, Jesus Christ? Gender inclusive Bibles are supposed to be more inclusive of women, but pardoxically, the language theologically does the exact opposite. It excludes women from the collective whole. 

5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words "man" and "brothers" are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we're not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman's intelligence. 

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended.  Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing. 

7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:

Making changes to gender language is based on the premise that God ought to have given gals and guys equal air time. Trying to minimize the discrepancy suggests that God didn't care enough about women to take our feelings into account. The natural conclusion is that He obviously loves his boys more than He loves his girls. The conclusion is wrong. And the premise is wrong. 

8. It calls God's wisdom into question:

Poor God. His bad. He needs our help. He wasn't smart enough to get the words right. He obviously isn't as enlightened as people living in the new millennium. We have to step in and update His image, to make the Bible more palatable to woman's modern sensibilities. 

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book. And since we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for humans, it won't be long till we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for God. Translators will undoubtedly feel the need to update God's names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive. Terms like "Mother-Father God," "Jesus, child of woman and man," "Great Source of Being in the Sky" and our "God-Goddess" communicate the concept of a gender-inclusive deity much better than the male-gendered language of the Bible. Don't be naive. I've studied feminist theology long enough to know that naming self leads to naming the world leads to naming god.  It's audacious indeed! 

10. It leads women away from truth:

I care about women. Deeply. I long to see them experience healing and wholeness in Christ Jesus. I do them a disservice when I apologize for the Bible, fail to embrace its unvarnished beauty and power, and shrink back from sharing the Words that are perceived by some as foolishness and a stumbling block, yet are actually the power and wisdom of God for righteousness and sanctification and redemption. I fail women when I try to make God or His Word more palatable. I empty the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17-30).   

Gender and gender language is important. It touches on the essence of a woman's identity, the essence of the character of God, and on the essence of the gospel. We get things so very wrong when we think we can improve on the Bible's teaching on gender or the gender language it uses. The big picture informs us that from the very beginning, God's plan for gender has very little to do with us and very much to do with Him. And we need to trust that even if we don't fully understand them, the words, images and means He has chosen to display His glory are not only right, they are also good. Very good!  And also very good for women!

A Battle Worth Fighting

I understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God's Holy Book with inclusive language. I don't think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

So ladies, please don't jump on the gender-inclusive Bible bandwagon. Be hip. Be courageous. Be politically incorrect. Insist on a Bible that acurately translates gender language- like the ESV, Holman Christian Standard, or  New America Standard.  Because in the end, inclusive language, and inclusive language Bibles, are very, very bad for women. 

Mary Kassian is an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared on her website, GirlsGoneWISE.com. Born and raised in Canada, she lives with her husband in Edmonton, Alberta.