Repackaging Biblical Truth

If you're anything like me, then sometimes you question the way things have always been done. Just because we have done something a certain way for “as long as I can remember” doesn't mean we should continue down that road. I haven't always been like this. However, as the Lord has led me in my walk He has convicted me that I must always return to the source. Ad fontes is a Latin expression which means "to the source" (lit. "to the fountain"). The Protestant Reformation called for renewed attention to the Bible as the primary source of Christian faith.¹ Which is why I am very concerned with things I noticed in some local churches that I have been in contact with. One of my many concerns is the way we repackage biblical truth for our children.

Recently, I was visiting the web site of a church of which I was once a member. What I saw made me ask the question, Why? The church was having a “Teen Cola War” Pepsi vs. Coke. This is how they advertised it on the church's facebook page.

Teen Cola War is four exciting nights of teen activity, fellowship, excitement, food, competition, and great preaching from God's Word.

Monday: Big Ball Battle

Tuesday: Tube City War

Wednesday: Ultimate Water War

Thursday: Capture the Can

Notice the way God's Word is tacked at the end of the description. This church also was having a scavenger hunt, and for the little ones, still in AWANA, they get to throw pies in the face of the AWANA leaders. These types of practices are common place in many churches. But why? Why is it necessary to alter or repackage the Bible in order to “reach” the kids or be “relevant”? I for one think we don't need to do these things at all. The Bible never tells us to make the Word of God fun for the little ones. Is there a limit to the lengths in which we will go to reach people. Does the end justify the means? The Word of God is the same Word of God to both children and grown-ups alike. Do the kids all come home and can't stop talking about the biblical truths that they learned? Or, does the church have to come up with a new event or activity for the next week in order to draw them in?

Another church in the area, known for their fundamentalist stand, had this description for teen activities:

"Every four to six weeks the junior and senior high each hold an activity and a singspiration. We hold various types of activities all of which are designed to build edifying relationships among the teens and with the youth staff. Some activities promote these relationships through entertaining events such as a trip to a ball game or a harvest party. Other activities are designed to equip teenagers for spiritual service through providing opportunities for teens to minister to others. Singspirations are held on Sunday nights at the home of a church member and include pizza, pop, and a time for testimonies and singing."

True, there is nothing wrong with building relationships, a ball game, parties, pop or pizza. But it appears that these are being used as hooks.

I think there are possibly several reasons churches have bought into this line of thinking. There maybe other reasons that I have yet to consider. But here is what I have come up with.

First, the churches that I noticed this in are (in name) fundamental. However, I have learned over the years that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean you are that. I believe that maybe the case here. Many fundamentalists have drifted far off course. They may still think of themselves as fundamental but they are comparing themselves to the wrong standard. Sure, they might have a high standard of music. But the way they “do church” isn't much different than the New Evangelicals. Their motives are the same, grow the church, grow the church, grow the church. In order to grow the church (numerically) you must draw the crowd. In order to draw the crowd you must compromise. That is where all of these gimmicks come in. I attended a pastors conference at a Fundamental Baptist camp a few years ago and was surprised by the call to unite under the banner of evangelism. The gimmick they were pushing was called “Phones for you” and was nothing more than another demonstration of how people think that God is so impotent that they must use tricks, hooks, and gimmicks to win people to Him. It was explained as a numbers game. If a certain number of your church members make a certain number of calls then statistics show a certain number of people will come to your church. Well, since you have all that calculated, who needs divine intervention? Pragmatism is king in our, so called, fundamental churches. This is most evident in children's ministries where “Four Big Nights of Fun, Food, Fellowship, and Preaching” is the draw card.

Second, these churches are supposed to be Calvinistic. Yet, their actions speak louder than words. A true believer in the sovereignty of God would mean that you do God's will, God's way, according to God's Word. Leaving the results to Him. Instead, what we get are pastors who never demonstrate to their congregation that they truly believe that God is in control. No. Their mouths are saying, “He is the Almighty God”. But their actions say, “If I don't send the kids of the church off to camp to get pressured into a decision then they are lost.

Here's an idea, preach to the kids the same message in the same way as you do the adults. Do you think the kids in your church are unable to learn unless you make it fun for them? I preach to my kids all the time the same way I preach to adults. I actually have great discussions with my kids about things that many kids their age will not hear about until they are in their mid to late teens. My oldest is only 11 years old. Guess what? They get it! Not only that, but they enjoy hearing from the Word and also contributing their own thoughts. Kids aren't stupid. My kids are not used to all of the kiddy junk that adults use to draw them in. They don't know what their missing. Praise God!

On October 5, 1703, Jonathan Edwards was born. He was the only son of Reverend Timothy and his wife Esther’s eleven children. Growing up in a Puritan home, Jonathan was raised under the influence of education and orderly living; and before going to college, His childhood education immersed him not only in the study of the Bible and Christian theology but also in classics and ancient languages. He had a grasp on Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Jonathan entered Yale College at age thirteen and earned his undergraduate degree and subsequently, his graduate degree.²

Is it safe to say that Edwards, the man that many consider to be America's greatest theologian, didn't need to have game time in order to learn the Word of God? The same Word of God that I use is powerful enough to save and mature me as well as my children.

What kind of lessons are we teaching to the kids? That the Word of God is lame? I don't need to preach in a fancy way to adults. I threw away any type of stylish preaching years ago. So, I surely am not going to preach in any fancy, dramatic, or entertaining way for the children. They need to hear the straight forward Word of God given to them as straight forward as we can. Leaving the results to the Spirit of God.

Is the method unimportant? Many years ago the church I was attending had a booth at a fair ground. One of the things we did was make up a survey. Yes, a survey. There were several things wrong with this idea. But, the one that bothered me the most was that the survey was bogus. We couldn't care less about nearly all of the questions on the survey except the last one. Which was “If you were to die today do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?” (thanks D. James Kennedy). It was nothing more than a hook. A bait and switch from another, so called fundamentalist pastor with a seminary degree. If that wasn't enough, we also raffled off a new bike. When I expressed my concerns to the pastor he angrily exclaimed “Since when can't we use hooks?”.

I can hear the objection now; “You teach kids that the Word of God is boring, while we teach that God's Word and fun can coexist.” I believe the opposite is quite true. The Bible is full of the Truth of God. That, in and of itself, is exciting, fun, educational, and life changing! Why alter or add to that which is perfect?

“As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.” Psalm 18:30

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”Hebrews 4:12

Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we preached the pure Word of God without any gimmicks or hooks then left the results to God. I was speaking to a seminary graduate and pastor who was overly concerned with money that was needed for programs to draw in people to build his church. Why sweat the small stuff. What's the worst that could happen? You loose people who would rather be entertained? You may have to move to a smaller building? Maybe the church considers you a failure because attendance is down and they vote to dismiss you. If you are in it for the money then this would be a problem. But if you are unwilling to compromise the Word of God as well as the means by which it is communicated then you will have taken a huge step in actually living out the faith in a Sovereign God for which you proclaim. Our focus should be on Christ, not activities.

In all fairness, many fundamental churches don't use entertainment to bring in adults. But when it comes to kids it's a double standard. I for one am done with this kind of so called ministry. There is no biblical precedence for it. You can have it.

"The more purely God's word is preached, the more deeply it pierces and the more kindly it works." William Gouge

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_fontes

2Taking a look at Jonathan Edwards-Becky Stelzer-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/jonathan-edwards

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness
from Sword & Trowel 2009, No. 1 by Dr Peter Masters

When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12.1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.

But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside. A recent book, Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen tells the story of how a so-called Calvinistic resurgence has captured the imaginations of thousands of young people in the USA, and this book has been reviewed with great enthusiasm in well-known magazines in the UK, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Times, and Reformation Today.

This writer, however, was very deeply saddened to read it, because it describes a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.

The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, but the scene is certainly not a happy one.

The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.

We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.

Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion. But firmer evidence of the extensive presence of Calvinism is seen from the fact that very large firms of publishers sent out a stream of reformed literature post-war and through the 1980s. The mighty Eerdmans was solidly reformed in times past, not to mention Baker Book House, and Kregel and others. Where did all these books go – thousands upon thousands of them, including frequently reprinted sets of Calvin’s commentaries and a host of other classic works?

In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.

Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)

In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.

C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.

It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.

One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology [see endnote 1].

This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus teeshirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship.

Most of the well-known preachers who promote and encourage this ‘revival’ of Calvinism have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:

1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.

2. They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].

3. They reject the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration.

4. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.

Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle.

Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.

Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.

Has this form of Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?

Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.

These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. We find it in the challenging, convicting call of Joshua:

‘Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’

Endnotes

1 His resolution of the question of divine sovereignty versus human free will, however, is much nearer to the Arminian view.

2 A recent book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C J Mahaney and others, hopelessly under-equips young believers for separation from the world, especially in the area of music, where, apparently, the Lord loves every genre, and acceptability is reduced to two misleading and subjective questions.

The Calvary Road

By Pastor Tod Brainard

There has been a resurgence of interest in a short book entitled The Calvary Road
written in 1950 (reprinted in 2004) by Roy Hession. Hession borrowed much from
Keswick teachings of the late 19 th and early 20th centuries to write his booklet. In it he
expressed his beliefs in a "deeper experience of the Lord Jesus" or "victorious life". A
little history is in order. With the release of Hession’s book in 1950, copies made their
way to Far Eastern Asia where missionaries began to digest the book. After a few
months, several missionaries were teaching the book to their people and special prayer
meetings were initiated for the purpose of .emptying self of all known sin, a key
principle in Hession’s book. Several missionaries went into bouts of depression
because of failure to receive the .victorious life. That would be the sign of the filling of
their lives with the Holy Spirit. There was confusion and divisions that arose as some
claimed to have received "the second blessing" while others had not yet reached the
plateau. Hession taught that the Christian was capable of eradicating all known sin
through confession and repentance. In other words, it was possible to reach a certain
measure of spiritual perfection, a level very close to the eradication of the sin nature. He
believed that the Christian must constantly empty himself of self and all known sin
before he could be filled with the Spirit to be victorious. Still further, Hession taught that
a Christian could lose his salvation and in order to be saved again, must reapply the
blood of Christ. to once again be restored to faith in Jesus Christ. His theology was not
original for Pelagius, Arminius, John Wesley, the Keswick movement, the Salvation
Army and Pentecostalism have all believed and taught this false doctrine.

The late missionary, Dr. Gerald Johnson, related this account to our founding editor,
Dr. Dayton Hobbs, concerning what took place in Japan and Southeast Asia in the early
1950’s with the arrival of .The Calvary Road. theology or Hessionism. In 1952, Dr. Bob
Jones, Sr. received word of what was happening on the mission fields of Japan and
Southeast Asia with this wave of .second blessing theology and he traveled to East Asia
to meet with the Bob Jones graduates who were serving as missionaries there. As a
former Methodist, Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. understood this second blessing doctrine well and
was greatly opposed to it. When he arrived he told the missionaries that what they were
teaching and practicing from Roy Hession’s book amounted to heresy. He warned
those who had been ordained through Gospel Fellowship Association that any who
continued with the heresy of Hession would be removed from the association. Because
of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.’s great act of courage, the heresy that had spread among
Fundamental missionaries was extinguished. In the preface to the 1973 edition of
The Calvary Road, Hession wrote that through revival, believers are coming to
experience ....the blood of the Lamb... to cleanse us from all sin.... Hession had an
infatuation with the blood of Christ that went beyond the bounds of Scripture.
Hession referred to his understanding as .the disposition in the Blood. (Pages 29,30).
The blood of Christ is indeed the foundational truth of the forgiveness of sin provided
by Christ. However, Ephesians 5:25-27 is very clear that sanctification is carried forth in
the believer’s life through the .washing of the water by the word.. The daily cleansing of
sin in the believer.s life is handled through the washing of the Word of God, thereby
walking in the Light (which is a synonym for the Word of God) and confession of
sin ( I John 1:7-9). His understanding of .the disposition in the Blood implies several
things: 1) it implies that the blood of Christ only covers sin insofar as the believer
confesses all known sin; 2) it implies that any unconfessed sin is not covered by Jesus’
blood sacrifice and therefore must be exposed and identified; 3) it implies that revival
is an experience equal to a second work of grace beyond initial salvation as the believer
comes to experience the power of the blood to reach us in cleansing power
(page 31). In other words, the blood is limited in its efficacious work for it can only reach
us as individuals confess every sin In addition, in his preface to the 1973 edition,
Hession references Psalm 102:13 and Nehemiah 2:13 (very little Scripture is used by
Hession to back his beliefs) in relation to revival and his vision for the Church. These
verses obviously pertain to Israel, yet Hession applies them to the Church.

Brokenness

In Chapter One it is clear that Hession does not understand true conversion. He sees
salvation and sanctification as two separate acts. Furthermore, he does not understand
positional sanctification and practical sanctification. Positionally, the believer is HOLY,
hidden with Christ in God,. (Colossians 3:3). But the Christian still has the old sin
nature including self-will. This sin nature will continue in the body until death. We cannot
empty the old nature. What Hession does not understand is that Christian perfection is
not perfection of conduct. Rather, Christian perfection is a perfect relationship
between man and God, perfection of motive and love (I Cor. 10:31; I John 4:17,18; Matt.
22:37-40; I Cor. 13). Enoch "walked with God". Whether Enoch’s relationship with God
was perfect or not was known only to God. Others saw its fruit in Enoch’s life, but the
fruit did not convince others of his perfection of relationship with God, for man judges
the outward appearance and finds imperfection. Yet Enoch walked with God right into
heaven without dying. Hession seems to believe that one cannot walk in newness of life
unless we are continually confessing and emptying ourselves of self. his definition of
brokenness.. Now, do not misunderstand me, the Christian is to confess sin to God.
God is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness. The problem is that Hession and the Keswick teachers of his day
taught that we maintain brokenness by emptying ourselves of self through
continued confession. While it is true that we are indeed selfish and willful, does the
New Testament teach us to empty ourselves of self? If by self, Hession is referring
to the "flesh" he is not preaching a Biblical concept. The flesh is corrupt. We cannot fix
the flesh nor can we empty ourselves of the flesh. Romans teaches in Chapter 6:6,

"Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of
sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin" (NASV).
We, therefore, are "to reckon ourselves (the flesh, self) to be dead indeed
unto sin and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore do not
let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey the lusts thereof" (Romans 6:11-
12).
There is no teaching of sin eradication, but rather crucifixion of the flesh and sin’s
removal from power (the reign of sin) in our mortal bodies. He breaks the power of
canceled sin, He sets the prisoner free,. as the hymn says. There is indeed a big
difference in that understanding. "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are
not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14). We are no longer slaves to sin, but
slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18). The error of Hession is the same error upon
which Methodism, the Holiness movement, and the Salvation Army was founded in the
19 th century. The promises related to contrition and brokenness are linked to salvation,
not a "second blessing" - "the Lord... saveth such as be of a contrite spirit" (Psalm
34:18). To apply this to some additional work of revival and appearance of a "second
blessing" is to rewrite Scripture to fit a human belief system, not a Biblical system. For
excellent studies on the doctrine of sanctification (holiness) and the false doctrine of
the "second blessing" read Holiness: The False and the True by H.A. Ironside and The
Doctrine of Holiness in These Times by Chester Tulga. 21st Century Hessionism
Hessionism is the profound belief that daily brokenness (emptying of self the flesh and
all known sin in order to obtain or gain something in return) is the secret to revival and
the "victorious life" and that sanctification cannot come unless we live out a daily
emptying of the flesh and all known sin. Yet, we read in Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified
with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which
I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me". As Paul says, we are to "reckon (lit. continually consider)
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but ALIVE unto GOD through Jesus
Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:11). Paul did not say we are to be broken everyday, he
says we are to continually consider1 ourselves to be two things: 1) DEAD indeed to
the reign and rule of sin, but 2) ALIVE UNTO GOD. Hessionism also accepts a new
definition of GRACE; it calls it REVIVAL. How did the early Christians miss this
definition? How did Grace, God’s favor against human merit, become revival, with
no context of revival being given? The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11). The grace of God is the way God saves and
sustains us. There is absolutely no excuse for any Christian to live a life of defeat and
failure for,..."where sin abounded, grace [not revival] did much more abound"
(Romans 5:20). Paul warns the believer in II Corinthians 6:1-10 that the Christian not
receive "the grace of God in vain". In otherwords, God supplies His grace in the day of
your salvation (vs.2) and continues to supply His grace in Christian living (vs. 4-10).

Grace is certainly exhibited in revival but the two words are not synonymous. One
Fundamentalist evangelist recently wrote in an article on Brokenness 2, that James
4:6 and I Peter 5:5 mean the following: God resisteth the proud [the unbroken], but
giveth grace [revival] unto the humble [the broken]. This translation of Grace is
saying something that is not in the text. Grace is nowhere in the Scriptures the very
same as revival. Grace, God’s favor against man’s merit, is manifested every
moment of every day to the child of God. Revival may or may not be manifested for it is
the sovereign work of God. In addition, God does not give revival to unregenerate
sinners; He gives ETERNAL LIFE on the basis of His righteousness (Romans 5:15-17).
Revival assumes ETERNAL LIFE, not DEATH. You cannot revive that which is dead.
You can only give resurrection life to that which is dead. Hession admits this in the
preface to his 1950 edition 3 , however, he ironically presents a differing conclusion in his
explanation of revival when he says, Revival is just the life of the Lord Jesus poured out
into human hearts.4 Is that not what happens at the moment of salvation (John 3:16-18;
36)? Hession continues, "Jesus is pictured as bearing the golden water pot with the
Water of Life. As He passes by, He looks into our cup and if it is clean, He fills to
overflowing with the Water of Life".5 Have we not eternal life at the moment of salvation?
How can we have more water of life one day and less water of life the next based
on whether we are clean or not? Hession is confused doctrinally. What we need is
Christ’s daily bestowing of His Grace to live the Christian life. Eternal life is not
something we run out of over time that has to be filled up. We either have it or we do
not!

Truth Versus Error

Salvation is brought about by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (one event), the new birth.
You get as much of the Holy Spirit of God in the new birth as you will ever receive.
He does not come in pieces and in parts. Being filled with the Holy Spirit simply means
submitting to the Spirit of God given at the new birth and His coming to have greater
control of you in every part of your being (Ephesians 5:18). Hessionism, as in its
original release in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, leads to unprofitable fleshly
introspection, externalism (perfection of conduct – changed exterior with a corrupt
interior), and false claims of reaching a higher plane of spiritual life. The folks, especially
young people, who get wrapped up in this line of thinking usually conform outwardly
for a period of time only to break away to proceed into the depths of iniquity and sin.
Spiritual, as well as physical, depression has often followed this doctrine when it has
reared its sanctimonious head. This is not what God would have for us. May God help
us to follow the Bible and not men’s fleshly ideas about the Bible.


Footnotes
1 Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament; Zondervan
Publishing House; (Grand Rapids, MI: 1980); p. 361 . 362; logizesthe - present middle
indicative of reckon, to consider, to figure, to count. The present imperative could mean
.do this continually, .or .continue doing this. 2 John Van Gelderen, Revival Magazine,
2008 Issue II, p. 15. 3 Roy and Revel Hession, The Calvary Road, Christian Literature
Crusade, (Fort Washington, PA: 1950), pgs. 4-5. 4 Hession, see Chapter 1 on
Brokenness, particularly pg 5 and 6. 5 Hession, pg. 7. Ω (Continued from page 9 - The Calvary Road)
am too busy serving Jesus to spend my time and energy engaging in contemporary dialogue.
I think I know what .contemporary dialogue. means. It means that all of those intellectual preachers
are busy reading the news magazines so they will be able to comment on the world situation from
their pulpits on Sunday mornings. But that is not what God called me to do. He called me to preach
the gl o r i e s of Ch r i s t . He commissioned me to tell my people there is a kingdom of God and a
throne in the heavens. And that we have One of our own representing us there. That is what the early
church was excited about. And I think our Lord may have reason to ask why we are no longer very
excited about it. The Christian church in the first century was ablaze with this concept of the risen and
victorious Christ exalted at the right hand of the Father. Although it worshiped no other man, it urged
the worship of this glorified and exalted Man as God, because He had always been the eternal
Son, the second Person of the Godhead. -Excerpt from Jesus, Our Man in Glory by A.W. Tozer;
compiled and edited by Gerald B. Smith, Christian Publications, 1987, pp.4-6. Ω

A Bad Investment

Have you ever found yourself investing in a bad deal? In the financial arena this happens to people all the time. In recent news we have seen many wise investors get duped by swindlers. However, this happens in other areas of life as well. For example, people may invest in a specific type of education just to find out, after all the time, money, and effort, that its really not the right path after all.

The question is, when do you give up on an investment? When do you cut your losses and run? Or are you the kind of person who never admits they have made a bad choice, or invested in a lie?

The point being, many people invest in a lie. They are told something that they bought into. But later find that the truth will not be silenced. Do they abandon the lie and embrace the truth, or do they count the cost of abandoning the lie? What is meant by counting the cost?

• I've championed this cause for too long.
• I've defended this ideology to many people.
• I've convinced others that this cause is true.
• I would be humiliated if I abandoned that which I once embraced.

The difficulty with this line of thinking is that it is next to impossible to convince someone else that they are thinking wrong. It is kind of a truth that you have to come to yourself. This is evident everyday in the political realm. I have discussions with friends and family who are just as convinced that my political views are wrong as I am of theirs. I seriously doubt that I will have much if any influence on their views. But changing the minds of people is not a burden that I choose to carry.

What I would like to focus on is what do you do when you come to the realization that what you once thought was true, isn't. What do you do with that knowledge? Do you embrace it and rejoice in that new found truth?

I once heard a middle aged pastor say that he believes the exact same way now as he did in college. Does he mean that after 20 or so years of studying God's Word, since college, he hasn't been enlightened to any new truth? He hasn't found himself disagreeing with any view that he was taught as a student? Could this be true? I believe it is more likely that he bought what he was taught and committed himself to it.

As a younger Christian I believed almost whatever I was told. However, as we dig into the Word of God, and truth is revealed to us, we are obligated to forsake our previous ideas and embrace that which is true.

As Jesus famously said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”. Truth is liberating. The ultimate truth of the gospel of Christ is the most freeing truth of all. However, simply knowing the truth holds no value to us. One must embrace it.

Without a doubt, there are those who go to their graves embracing what they know to be a lie. Sometimes they have invested too much to turn back, or they know the truth, but hate it. You are familiar with the old saying, ”the truth hurts”? They hate the truth because the truth is life changing. Not everyone wants to change. Change might just mean a change in lifestyle. A change in the way you worship. A change in life's purpose.

There are many Christians today who have embraced false doctrines and teachings and refuse to embrace the truth. Few Christians will break from the traditions of their church or denomination. Some Christians are so taken in by their leaders that they would never forsake their teaching.

All of us have been duped at one time or another. However, what do you do when you realize you have been duped?

Jeremiah 20:6 “...There you will die and be buried, you and all your friends to whom you have prophesied lies.”

This passage is interesting because it shows that not only was Pashhur going to be judged for falsely prophesying, but those who believed his lies would also be judged for it.

Sure, people can have the wool pulled over their eyes and innocently believe a lie. However, why do you believe what you believe? Is it because your pastor told you? It fits your lifestyle? Or is it because you have plunged yourself in to the Word of God with prayer? There is no excuse for believing a lie when the truth is at your finger tips.

Even the Apostle Paul expected his words to be examined in the light of Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

Question everything! If anyone claims to be a seeker of truth then this must be their motto. Never be afraid to question everything from every source. Truth always holds up to scrutiny. Don't be afraid of finding out something you thought to be true isn't. Or, something you knew couldn't be true is true.

The problem here is that our sinful nature blinds us from the truth that is right before our very eyes. It is almost like there are special glasses needed to see it. In a sense this is the case.

2 Corinthians 4:4 “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

The god of this world has blinded the unbelievers. As a blind man is unable to see an object before him, they are unable to see the truth, even if it is right before their very eyes. Only God can remove the blinders from their eyes. As believers, who were once just as blind, we must share the truth in love and pray that their eyes be opened to the Truth.

But what about those who already believe? Those who have trusted in the Lord and yet don't question the doctrines they learned in Sunday School, from the traveling Evangelist, or even from the pulpit each week?

Over the past several years the Lord has led me into some life changing truths. Truths that radically changed the way I look at the church. I am extremely thankful to God for opening my eyes to these truths. However, it would have been much easier for me, in someways, if He would never have revealed them to me at all. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. One, the Truth is life changing. Although, these changes are good, they often require one to leave their comfort zone. For us, this meant we had to leave much of what was familiar to us. Much of what I held to be true for so many years I was forced to forsake. This means that we are no longer “in the loop”.

Second, the truth is alienating. If you think the embracing the truth is going to win you friends and make you popular then you are sadly mistaken. Our friends are either gone or we simply don't share the same common beliefs and convictions that once bound us together. This in some ways is very painful. We miss our friends, their families, and the fellowship we once shared. Yet, I would not trade the Truth in order to have companionship here on Earth. The road of a true disciple of Christ is a lonely one. Praise God that we do have like minded friends. But, they are few. Very few! However, the common bond that we share with these few is a stronger one than I have ever known.

The point that I am trying to convey is a simple one. If you are a true follower of Christ you will never stop growing. Search the Scriptures and pray that God will lead you into Truth. Don't search the Scriptures for ways to defend your current position. Don't follow the cult of personality that so many professing believers do. There is never any reason to exalt another man's teachings over the Word of God. In seminary I was taught a certain theological grid. Everything either fits into that grid or it is rejected. This is not a bad thing so as long as you factor in one thing, your grid might be wrong. You are not infallible and neither is your pastor or seminary professor. Question why you do what you do. Does what you call church bare any resemblance to the biblical one? Do the ones you call leaders bare any resemblance to the biblical description of a leader? It is never wrong to challenge your current beliefs.

I've heard it said that “An open mind is like an open window. If you don't have a screen up you will let all the bugs in.” This statement is one to live by. But what is your screen? If your screen for Truth is your pastor or your denominational line, then you have the wrong screen. If your screen is one of the popular radio preachers or conference speakers, then you have the wrong screen. As christians we are responsible before God for what we believe. We can never blame our false beliefs on someone else. We are bound to the study of God's Holy Word. This, and only this, must be our screen and measure of Truth. Truth is freeing!

Taxing the Church

     Recently I was listening to a local talk radio station when the host mentioned what he called talk of a “prayer tax”. He went on to say that there has been much talk in the political world about taking away church's tax exempt status for there property. I have had trouble finding any details on the subject. But to the best of my understanding the argument goes something like this: “The biggest buildings in most towns are government buildings, banks, and churches”. Most businesses would love to not have to pay property taxes. So, why do churches get off scott free?

     One reason is because of there non-profit status. But this is rather confusing because churches do make profits. Each week the offering plate goes around and the people faithfully put their money in. The money goes to pay the over head costs of running the church as well as the salaries of the Pastor and staff. Some of the money goes to missions, and some to the building fund, and some for that new baby grand piano. The point is, churches make money and grow. Just like a business.

     Why then should they receive tax exempt status? I for one, think they shouldn't. Since when, should we as Christians, demand any sort of special privileges from the government or anyone?

“Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.” And they were amazed at him.” Mark 12:17

     Years ago I was a member of a local church that was holding game night for the youth group. I asked the leaders of the group if I could help. The leaders asked me if I could pick up some pizzas for the kids. When I asked how much it was going to cost they said not to worry about it, it was all taken care of. So, I picked up the pizzas and brought them back. But I kept wondering, when they paid for these pizzas. So, I asked the leaders this question and they said they called the Pizza shop and asked them to donate pizzas to the church. I was outraged! Since when do Christians turn to the world to help with our mission for Christ?

     What message is this sending to the lost world? Are we privileged citizens? What message did it send to the owner of the pizza shop? Did he think that if he donated pizzas he would earn some merit with God?

     I have heard of Christians demanding Sundays and Wednesday nights off so that they could attend church. I have no problem with asking for time off to attend worship service or prayer meetings. But, to demand the time off of work because you're a Christian is ridiculous and unbiblical. I am often left wondering where is their faith? 

     Do we have such little faith in God that we must turn to the world for solutions?

     I once met a person who claimed to be a Christian but had the attitude of : “If you want something you have to take it”. This person fell in lock step with this notion of demanding special privileges. Even taking it so far as to think that was some sort of a biblical mandate.

“[Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Philippians 2:3

     We are to be the light of the world, not the leaches of it. Did our Savior demand special treatment when He was here? Did He demand the finest accommodations, and special treatment. Did He even demand justice when He was falsely accused? He was God in flesh, worthy of these things and more.

     I am amazed at the contradictory thinking on this matter. When I went to college the Christian school I attended refused to allow me to use the G.I. Bill to help pay for my education. I payed into it when I was in the military. It was my money. Their reasoning was that if they except government money then the government could tell them what to teach and what not to teach. Yet, this same Christian school has no problem making full use of their government tax exemptions.

     I think that removing the tax exemptions from churches would be a blessing to the universal church. Let me explain. If churches didn't get tax exemption they may have to depend on the Lord more. They may not be so focused on building a huge church building and instead focus on glorifying God.  Second, young men would not be drawn to the ministry for what it has to offer them, but out of pure dedication to Christ. I believe that if churches lost their tax exemption today, many men would leave the ministry immediately and churches would close their doors. I say good riddance!

     We live in a country where there are churches on every corner. Yet, if you were honest, most of them aren't worth a plumb nickel. The true gospel has been forsaken in this land. More churches haven't helped anything. In fact they have hindered more than helped.

     What if we as Christians actually had to trust in God for our provisions? What if we had to give up our big churches and meet in homes? What would happen if, or when, our country becomes so hostile to Christianity that we must meet in hiding? This will separate the wheat from the tares. People will only stand for something as long as it is comfortable to stand. As long as it doesn't demand too much of them. As long as it doesn't interfere with their way of life.

     The privileges of being a Christian are not the comforts of this wicked and dying world. It is a privilege to stand with the Savior. To suffer for His name sake.

“To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2:21

     Undoubtedly, many pastors and church goers will cry foul. But, we must ask ourselves what truly matters. Our tax breaks or our unwillingness to compromise truth. Remember, the early church grew because it was under persecution. Under fear of death Christians would share the gospel of Christ. Only true Christians will die for the truth. The rest will give in to the world to spare themselves discomfort and pain. Where will you stand?

“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.” Hebrews 11:24-26

Faithful to the Church

     Over the years, like most of us, I have learned some very important lessons in life. In fact I would go so far as to say I have had life changing lessons. Many years ago, while I was in the first church that I regularly attended, I started to develop convictions that were contrary to the teachings and directions of that church. With much prayer my wife and I, who were both young in the faith, realized that it wasn't pleasing to God to stay in a church that we believed was compromising truth. So, we left that church (we'll call this church #1). There were some who disagreed with our decision and told us so. This is were we heard the now famous line, ”There is no such thing as a perfect church”. I must admit as a young believer I saw the merit in such a statement.

     Not too much later my wife and I found another church to call home (we'll call this church #2) . We were very pleased with it and learned a great many foundational truths there. We were there for a few years. It was at this time I felt “the call” to preach. So, I enrolled in Bible College. I also decided to temporarily leave church # 2, where we were so happy, in order to do a summer internship at another church in our neighborhood (church #3). However, after the summer was over, we decided to stay on to help the struggling pastor of church #3. The church we left (church #2) was supportive of the decision. Are you confused yet?

     After being in church #3 for a few years we started noticing some things that really bothered us. I was a deacon now and I saw more than ever what went on behind the scenes. I was very bothered by some ungodly behavior and compromise. At this point in my walk with Christ I had gained even more convictions and God was leading me down this road by teaching me through experience. Not experience alone mind you. But experiences that lead to dependence on God, which leads to deeper study of His Word. I knew we had to leave church #3. Only, with this church we were attacked. The pastor of the church was afraid that my leaving might send the wrong message to the congregation. But we were also confronted by another “faithful church member” who asked me a very telling question. This man asked me if I could show him from the Scripture why I am leaving the church. A scriptural reason to leave or else I shouldn't leave. He was being very hostile toward me. Needless to say, I felt I owed him no explanation at all.

     After leaving church # 3 we were very sad. Yet, we were always taught how important it was to be in church, so we started looking again. After visiting several churches we found a small church that caught our eye. The young pastor and his wife seemed to be sweet people who had a heart for God and strong biblical convictions. We waited six months or so then decided to join church # 4.

     We enjoyed church # 4 for quite some time. I taught Sunday School and preached fairly regularly. As time went on (time reveals many things) we began to notice the pride and hot temper of the pastor. I made the mistake of confronting the young pastor about these issues. He didn't take it well. I was attacked by the pastor and my name was slandered throughout the church, and to five local churches, as well as to the seminary which I was attending at the time.

     We were crushed. This young, and arrogant pastor was doing everything in his power to make my name mud. Needless to say we left church #4.

     This was one of the most difficult times of our lives. We were devastated and didn't know what to do. Very few people stood with us. There were few who understood our plight. Except, of course, for those whom God had chosen to take a similar road. Yes, we were shunned by some. But it was at this point in our lives that God transformed our thinking about church. He opened up our eyes and freed us from the unbiblical practices and teachings of most modern churches in America.

     Now, without opening a big can of worms, for there are many things that I have learned during this time. I only choose to discuss one issue in this article. Faithfulness to the church.

     While visiting a church I went up to the information desk to ask for a doctrinal statement and other information about the church. At the desk sat a dear little old woman to whom I made my request. She told me that they were out of doctrinal statements, but wanted to assure me that this church was a good church. She continued, “I have been here for 35 years”. I thanked her and walked away with but one thought, “So what?”. So what if she had been in that church for 35 years? That tells me nothing. If I have learned one thing over the many years, it is that many people are “faithful to the church”. Many exalt this as some great virtue. My argument in this article is that this is no virtue at all.

     I know plenty of people who have been Christians for as long as me or longer and have always been members of the same church. Is there anything wrong with this? No, not at all. As long as you aren't there for the wrong reason. Here are what I consider wrong reasons to stay:

• I was a charter member of this church. I'm not leaving for anything.

• All of my friends are here.

• My kids would be devastated if we had to leave.

• I will not be known as a “church hopper”.

• I can't do this to the pastor.

• What would that young Christian think if I left? He would be confused.

• What will my non-christian friends and family think?

• This is MY church! I'm not leaving.

• I'm waiting for this ungodly pastor to leave some day.

• My kid's go to school here.

• This church has the best programs for kids.

     Friends, God doesn't want you to be faithful to the church. He wants you to be faithful to Him. Sometimes these two things are in conflict with each other. I believe there are many people who spend their whole lives being faithful to the church, and have never been faithful to the Lord Himself. It's easier to do that. Commitment to the Lord is full of hard decisions.

     No doubt, for many of you, the verse that you have been bludgeoned with is popping in your head.

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25

     We should assemble but never at the cost of truth. This verse today has come to mean much more than it ever could have been intended to mean. This is not a command to be at the church every time the doors are open. As is taught in many churches. But to encourage believers to assemble and encourage each other in the Lord. You are not in violation of this verse if you stop going to a church that compromises truth. God is never pleased with compromise. It is true, “there is no such thing as a perfect church”. Oh, how many sins, and compromises are made with such reasoning. You can justify anything that goes on in a church with that line of thinking. If you are faithful to God, then none of the reasons given above will stop you from doing what is right.

     I recently read a biography of Aurthur W. Pink. Pink would be in many people's minds a church hopper. He spent much of his life going from church to church because he was a man of conviction. He would join a church until it made changes in the wrong direction. Or until the organizations for which it was affiliated with went wrong. Pink had many admirers but few close friends. His faithfulness was not in an organization, in a building, or in a pastor. Pink was faithful to the Lord.

     We must examine whether or not we are true to Christ or true to the wrong thing. I am certain that there is many a church member and many a pastor who will say, Lord, Lord, did we not bring doughnuts in your name, and in your name drove kids to Awana and gave lots of money to the building program? 

What do you think will be the Lord's answer?

     I conclude with this thought. There may come a time when you are faced with that tough decision on whether or not to leave the church you are in. Don't make any decision without much prayer. But when the time comes don't hesitate to do what is right. There are enough people who are stuck in churchianity. It's not always easy to do right. Some day you may even find yourself unable to find a good church. If that day comes will you settle or will you stand for Christ?

A lonely walk

     We live in a day and age where peace and unity are on everyone's minds. You hear it in the political rhetoric of the day as well as in the churches all across the U.S.A.  In a perfect world peace and unity would be ideal. Of course, if it were a perfect world then we wouldn't have to talk about peace and unity. But the ugly truth is that we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a fallen world. A world that has been cursed by sin. None of us have escaped its effects. As the Bible teaches “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” All of us have tainted minds. We can't think right. This means that we need divine guidance to correct our wicked minds. You may object at this point. You may think that you're not wicked, and not a sinner. If this is the case then you're the only one. But it's not the case.

     The interesting and even disturbing thing is that this cry for peace and unity has permeated most of the churches in this nation. Why would a message of peace and unity be disturbing? The answer is simple. When ever people cry for unity it always means someone must leave their convictions at the door. And it is rarely the ones who are doing all the talking of peace who leave anything behind. That is called peace at any cost. Some find this a virtuous cause. Some believe this is the goal of the Christian walk. Many even believe that peace and unity at any cost is what the Bible teaches. But it may surprise some to know Jesus said:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.” Matthew 10:34-36

      This is far from peace and unity at any cost. This may shock some people to hear this, but the gospel divides. The gospel that we cling to is hated by the world. Sometimes that means that our family despises the truths of God and therefore they despise us. That's what Jesus was referring to in the previous text. Will you stand for truth when the truth is unpopular? When your family members hate the truths you hold to so dearly. When the masses hate you and mock you as they did our Savior will you join in His suffering or will you deny Him. Remember the Apostle Paul said:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

     This inclusive message of peace and unity is spread in churches all across our Country. It is true that few people in churches would outwardly deny the Lord. But there are other ways of denying Christ. One way is to deny His Word. A common way they do this by changing the meaning of the text. The Bible is not confusing, but often people who want to justify their sin will come up with interesting ways of interpreting Scriptures. I like what Dr. Bob Jones Sr. once said “The acid test of our love for God is obedience to His Word”. Let's not forget that Jesus Himself said, “He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me”. John 14:24

     I think part of the problem is that we see these mega-churches with their thousands of members and we hear the pollsters tell us that 80% (or so) of Americans claim to be Christians and we think that there are endless numbers of Christians in the world. How misguided one would be to believe such a thing. The main problem with this is, the Bible never claims that many will be saved. It actually claims the opposite.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it”. Matthew 7:13,14

     The message of the Bible is a message of peace and unity. But only peace with God and unity with believers who share the common thread of devotion to Christ and His revealed Word. It is a message of separation from sin and from worldliness. From beginning to end, the people of God were called to be separated from the ungodly. Never to be joined with unbelievers and always separate from disobedience within.

Many Christians wrongly refer to John 17 as a mandate for Christian unity.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” John 17:20, 21

“I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:23

     There are, as I see it, two major problems with using these verses as a mandate to all Christians to have unity. The first is that Jesus is asking God to give unity to believers and to those who will become one. He is not asking you to jump in and do something that He is asking the Father to do. God is not impotent. He doesn't need our help. He is omnipotent (He can do anything). Secondly, the request for unity is not at the expense of holiness. This is not a plea for unity at any cost. No, this is a prayer from God the Son, to God the Father asking for unity centered around the holiness of God.

     I will conclude with this thought. Those who call themselves Christians are a dime a dozen. We see them on the television, in the political arena, in our families, and in our churches. They talk the talk but when push comes to shove they never really surrendered their lives to the Savior. They aren't people of the Word. But those who are truly born of the Spirit of God are people of the Word. For we know that the Word of God is all we have. We don't rely on the news media, or Hollywood, or general consensus to tell us what is truth. We rely on the Word of God.

     This means that there are few of us. That we will be alone in our views. Despised and rejected by men. One day, when our Savior returns we will have true peace and unity. Until then, the true believer in Christ will find himself standing alone.

Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. John 15:20, 21

     

Race is Always the Issue

     Being a conservative like I am I know that I have bias. We all do. If you don't think you do then your probably one of the people I'm addressing in this article. But what amazes me is that so many liberals (political, not theological) can't see they are often more guilty of what they accuse conservatives of than we are. For example, while it is so fresh in my mind, I was accused by a liberal of being hateful for my article called “Why I don't support Barack Obama”. The main thrust of the article is because I'm a Christian and because Obama supports abortion, I can't support him. I will admit to using some harsh language in describing those who support abortion. I was accused being hateful and judgmental. This amazes me in light of the fact that they blame President George W. Bush for everything. During the inauguration of President Obama, the extremely disrespectful crowd, with no respect for the office, booed Bush and Cheney when they entered the stage. No hate there.

     But the issue that gets me most and the thrust of this artical is that of race. One might think, if you watch the main stream media, that conservatives are racists and liberals are lovers of all man kind. Not only do I think that this is more accurately judged on an individual basis. But also, I think if anything it is the opposite. Let me take a shot at explaining my point.

     Joseph Hayne Rainey (June 21, 1832 – August 1, 1887) was the first African American person to serve in the United States House of Representatives and the second black person to serve in the United States Congress (U.S. Senator Hiram Revels was the first) and the first African American to be directly elected to Congress (Revels was appointed). He was elected to fill a vacancy in the Forty-first Congress of the United States as a Republican. He was reelected four times. As a Congressman, Rainey was dedicated to passing civil-rights legislation.^a

     Hiram Rhodes Revels (September 27, 1822 – January 16, 1901) was the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. Since he preceded any African American in the House, he was the first African American in the U.S. Congress as well. He represented Mississippi in 1870 and 1871 during Reconstruction. In 2002, scholar Molefi Kate Asante listed Hiram Rhodes Revels on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans. Republican.^b

     Brooke, Edward William, 1919–, U.S. senator (1967–79), Admitted to the bar in 1948, he served (1963–66) as attorney general of Massachusetts, where he gained a reputation as a vigorous prosecutor of organized crime. Elected (1966) as a Republican to the U.S. Senate, he became the first African-American senator since Reconstruction.^c

       BRUCE, Blanche Kelso, a Senator from Mississippi; born in slavery near Farmville, Prince Edward County, Va., March 1, 1841; was tutored by his master’s son; left his master at the beginning of the Civil War; taught school in Hannibal, Mo.; after the war became a planter in Mississippi; member of the Mississippi Levee Board; sheriff and tax collector of Bolivar County 1872-1875; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 3, 1881; was the first African American to serve a full term in the United States Senate.^d

     There have only been five African Americans in the U.S. Senate. If you've lost count, three of the five were Republicans. I can hear the objections already. That was then, and this is now, and the Republicans have changed a lot since then. Well, the Democrats haven't. They are still oppressing minorities today. Keeping them poor and dependent on the government with all of their social programs. Teaching them a poor work ethic by giving them affirmative action. Of course, today if a black person is successful in the Republican party he is labeled an “Uncle Tom”.^e After all I don't remember the same tears of joy when Clarence Thomas was nominated to fill the seat of Thrugood Marshall. I don't recall Oprah or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dancing in the streets when President Bush nominated Collin Powell as the nations first black U.S. Secretary of State. And we mustn't forget the amazing Condoleezza Rice, first black female U.S. Secretary of State.

     Yes, there have been democrats in there as well. But the Republican record is pretty impressive. Let's not forget the very first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. The great emancipator himself.

     So the problem I have is that I believe that this election for many democrats is, it's all about race. Obama was the junior Senator from Illinois. Why all of this confidence that he can run the country? I believe the answer is in what happened on election night. People were crying and repeating over, and over; “What an historic moment”. What? The only thing that makes it historic is that Obama is the first U.S. President who is half white. I mean half black. I mean African American. Sounds like some pretty shallow people. Wasn't it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Only words.

     I will end with a few questions from a typical white person, like Obama's grandmother. Is Obama torn between hating his white half, while loving his black half. Is it wrong for me to be proud of being white? If this election is historical just wait until we get someone who is all black. 

I wouldn't be rejoicing if a white liberal got elected as President. So why should I put aside all of my views and convictions just because his skin is a different color?

      No matter which way I look at it, it seems that to the liberals, this election is all about race.

a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Rainey

b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Revels

c http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0809073.html

d http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000968

e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom