EMBARRASSED BY THE GOSPEL

The Western church is embarrassed by the Gospel. How do we know this? Just look at what’s left out of our preaching:

·       CREATIONISM: It is not politically correct to teach creationism as opposed to evolution. This might make us look narrow and anti-science.

·       SEXUAL SIN: The pastor doesn’t want to be accused of “hate speech” and drive potential members and supporters away from the church.

·       THE WORLD’S LOVE OF THE DARKNESS: Instead, the church seems to be preaching friendship with the world.

·       HELL: The church knows that this doctrine is held in contempt.

·       THE EXCLUSIVITY OF CHRIST: It is regarded as judgmental to claim that salvation is only available through Christ.

·       LOVING THE BRETHREN

There are also other doctrines that are an embarrassment. However, I just want to focus on “loving the brethren” even before we love others:

·       So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and ESPECIALLY to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10; ESV)

I have found that this doctrine of preferring-the-brethren is even offensive to the church. I was banned from one conservative church website because I argued that the church should prefer Christian refugees over Muslims.

Why the disdain? Because it has become politically incorrect to favor brethren, our neighbors, or our nation over others! However, favoritism is essential to love. If I am going to optimally love my neighbor, I must start by loving my own wife and children over his. To not do so is to cause conflict. To do so is to mobilize my entire family for the cause of love.

The same principle applies to the church. To optimally love the world is to first love our own brethren. Likewise, Jesus emphasized loving one another:

·       A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)

When the world sees our love for one another, they will know that we serve the truth. This is why Jesus prayed:

·       “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

The best way to love the world is to show them the reality of Jesus. How do we do this? By showing them our love for one another – our unity, our oneness! However, we fail to do this when we are silent about our persecuted brethren. For the most part, the churches remain silent regarding the fact that we are not extending ourselves out for our vulnerable brethren, those who have experienced genocide, kidnappings, and sex slavery.

About this travesty, Robert Spencer has written:

·       Obama admits 12,587 Syrian refugees: 12,486 Muslims, 68 Christians, 24 Yazidis. This is social engineering, not a genuine response to a refugee crisis. Ten percent of Syria was Christian before the war, and the Christians have been particularly brutalized, often by Obama-backed jihad groups. The refugee population should thus be at least 10% Christian. Instead, Christians accounted for less than one percent of the refugees admitted into the U.S. 

Meanwhile, our churches argue that they do not want to take stands that will jeopardize what is most central to our calling – evangelism. However, the church was largely silent as Hitler rose to power. Did this silence advance evangelism? Hardly! Instead, it caused seekers to reject the church, as one publication had written:

·       “European Christianity failed to prevent the mass slaughter between the faithful in the Great War and actually contributed to World War II, insofar as conservative churches supported fascism. The failure of the churches to provide sound moral guidance may help to explain the [European] Continent’s postwar lack of enthusiasm of religion.” (“The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved,” Free Inquiry, Jan. 2009, 29)

The church proved to be irrelevant. Perhaps even worse than proving itself irrelevant to the secularists, it also seems to have proven itself irrelevant to our youth, as Barna.org suggests:

·       Nearly six in ten (59%) of these young people who grow up in Christian churches end up walking away from either their faith or from the institutional church at some point in their first decade of adult life. Second, the unchurched segment among Millennials has increased in the last decade, from 44% to 52%, mirroring a larger cultural trend away from churchgoing among the nation’s population. Third, when asked what has helped their faith grow, “church” does not make even the top 10 factors. Instead, the most common drivers of spiritual growth, as identified by Millennials themselves, are prayer, family and friends, the Bible, having children, and their relationship with Jesus.

Our youth need to be shown that Christ matters, and we must take them by the hand and show them how.

Meanwhile, some have argued that the persecution of our brethren is not central to the Gospel. According to Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” this was how the southern white churches justified their absence from the Civil Rights movement”:

·       “In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, ‘Those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.’”

Were civil rights and the equality of Blacks, especially our Black brethren, not a matter of the Gospel? In contrast to these churches, Jesus had a broader understanding of the Gospel:

·       “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these [“My brothers”; verse 40] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

Perhaps Jesus will also hold us to account for our silence in regards to the oppression of our brethren. How then can we not cry out for our degraded and persecuted brothers? We must! To not do so is to discredit the Gospel and to ammunition to those who claim that the Gospel is irrelevant.

We must not take refuge in ignorance nor close our ears to the cries of our brethren:

·       If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work? (Proverbs 24:12)

BETRAYAL OF THE GOSPEL AND THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE CHURCHES

In his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. lamented the fact that Southern White pastors had failed to join the Civil Rights Movement:

·       “In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have

watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious

irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty

struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard

so many ministers say, ‘Those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.’”

Evidently, these Southern White churches were Seeker-Sensitive Churches

(SSC). They refused to preach an unpopular message, one which might turn

away the seeker and even the attender. They had forgotten the first great commandment to love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, and minds (Matthew 22:37) by abiding in His Word (John 15:7-14; 14:21-24).

However, these SSCs have now been joined by a wide range of brethren. Their message might be different, but the principle of political correctness remains the same - to not offend the prevailing culture, even if it means ignoring wide swaths of the Gospel.

However, we cannot ignore any of the Gospel, lest we incur the wrath of

God. Paul had been concerned about this very thing. Therefore, he testified

of his faithfulness in this regard:

·       “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of

all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”

(Acts 20:26-27)

This is the very error of the SSCs. Please understand. I am not suggesting

that we should be sensitive to seekers. In fact, we must be (1 Cor. 9).

However, we must not be "sensitive" to the extent that we refuse to preach

the doctrines of the faith. The is not sensitivity but deadening silence

about some of the very things that should be screamed out from rooftops.

What doctrines are being left out? Many! Here is a partial list:

·       Creationism: SSCs avoid this subject because they are afraid of seeming

to be science-rejectors.

·       The children of the light vs. the children of darkness (2 Cor. 6:14-16):

In the eyes of many, this distinction seems overly harsh, culturally

insensitive, and divisive. Professional Christians want to be able to

embrace the cultural, and preaching such a radical distinction between

saved and unsaved makes this difficult. It is also potentially embarrassing.

·       The role of women in the church: In SSCs, you will not find any

discussion about women in the pastorate.

·       Sexual sins: As social sexual standards have changed, SSCs have gradually

ceased mentioning any form of sexual sin. This omission tends to

communicate that sexual sins really don't matter.

·       Eternal Punishment, the Depravity of Man, and Salvation through

Jesus alone: These teachings are so integral to the Gospel that they are

only silenced as the SSCs approach an advanced stage of apostasy.

·       The plight of the Christian refugees: The silence of the SSCs in this

area is perhaps the most disturbing silence, especially since the world is

supposed to know us by the love we have for our brethren (John 13:35;

17:20-23; Galatians 6:10). Yet I have experienced hostility from SSCs when

I have pointed out their dereliction in this area. SSCs claim that we

shouldn't be showing favoritism.

The Gospel was never intended to make us friends of the prevailing culture.

It's message will always offend.

What would Martin Luther King have said about our SSCs? I suspect that he

would have seen them in the light of the Southern White churches of the Jim

Crow days.

RECONSTRUCTION, SEGREGATION, AND THE WHITE CHURCH

Retired Professor of History and Black Church Studies and author of “Black Preaching,” Henry H. Mitchell, had been charged with “teaching Black Church history like it’s your own family album.” Mitchell admitted to the charge, adding that he had also written to raise the esteem of his Black people.

Nevertheless, Mitchell also has some good things to say about the White Church and their role in Reconstruction:

·       After the South was opened up to the missionaries, under protection of military occupation, the Protestant churches of the North launched a veritable crusade to bring literacy to the huge host of the newly freed. (Mitchell, Black Church Beginnings, 142)

Well, how great was this crusade? Mitchell investigated the annual reports of the American Baptist Home Mission Society (ABHMS):

·       I was stunned to see whole pages of names of people who had been sent south to do mission work. There were hundreds of these names, in tiny print, on page after page. (142)

·       Regardless of paternalism and hazards to African American self-esteem, it was this huge crew of volunteer and minimally paid instructors, of not just Baptist but all denominations, who laid the foundation for all the secondary and college work reported in the pages that follow. There may have been only a log cabin church to teach in at first; it may have been by firelight, but these volunteers taught their very hearts out. There simply isn’t room to begin to cover the host of primary reading classes that were begun in churches and elsewhere soon after the Union troops took over. (142-43)

Mitchell later lists a vast multitude of schools started by these White missionaries to train Black teachers, who gradually took their place:

·       There were, of course, some educated African Americans from the North hastening south to lift their sisters and brothers. But this vast number of newly freed African Americans required this white host at the outset… The first Southern generation of locally educated African American instructors was first trained in schools planted by white missionaries. (143)

Why am I writing about this? Well, for one thing, I was thrilled to read about this. I had been so tormented reading about how White Christians had failed their Black brethren during segregation. Reading about Reconstruction was a welcome relief.

This is certainly not because I am White and want to build my own self-esteem. Not at all! I am not White. Instead, I believe in the Church that Christ has purchased with His own blood and I rejoice when I see indications that our Lord still inhabits His people, and that this makes all the difference in the world.

Just the other day, a Black women solemnly informed me, “Whites do not love Blacks.” This perception needs to be countered.

I also do not want White Christians to carry undo guilt and to allow this false guilt to either silence them or to lead them into doing foolish things in a vain attempt to atone for their “sins.”

False guilt helps no one. As a panelist at a conference on racism, Professor Shelby Steele was asked what an ideal America would look like. He writes:

·       I said that what I wanted most for America was an end to white guilt... the terror of being seen as racist— [the] terror that has caused whites to act guiltily toward minorities even when they feel no actual guilt. My point was that this terror— and the lust it has inspired in whites to show themselves innocent of racism— has spawned a new white paternalism toward minorities since the 1960s that, among other things, has damaged the black family more profoundly than segregation ever did. I also pleaded especially for an end to the condescension of affirmative action... the benevolent paternalism of white guilt, I said, had injured the self- esteem, if not the souls, of minorities in ways that the malevolent paternalism of white racism never had. Post- 1960s welfare policies, the proliferation of “identity politics” and group preferences, and all the grandiose social interventions of the War on Poverty and the Great Society— all this was meant to redeem the nation from its bigoted past, but paradoxically, it also invited minorities to make an identity and a politics out of grievance and inferiority... their entitlement and that protest politics was the best way to cash in on that entitlement. (Shame: How America's Past Sins have Polarized the Country)

Steele believes that white guilt is now more destructive to the Black community than white racism. He argues that the very programs intended to help Blacks were not simply ineffective but actually damaged the Black community:

·       White guilt was a smothering and distracting kindness that enmeshed minorities more in the struggle for white redemption than in their own struggle to develop as individuals capable of competing with all others.

However, even more than this, I want to see the different races reconciled together as one in the Body of Christ. I want to remind my Black brethren that they are beloved, even though the White Church has often failed to show it in helpful ways that might result in healing and forgiveness.

Oneness in Christ was Jesus’ prayer (John 17:20-23). It should also be ours.

Segregation: Its New Incarnation

Segregation can take many forms. Today, a new party is being prohibited from drinking from the public fountain

• Rev. Louie Giglio, the pro-family pastor picked by President Obama to deliver the benediction at his Jan. 21st inauguration, has backed out after a pressure campaign by homosexual activists. (LifeSiteNews.com, Jan. 10, 2013)

• Obama’s choice of Giglio on Tuesday quickly came under attack by activists who highlighted a sermon the pastor delivered in the 1990s offering a “Christian response to homosexuality.”

• In the sermon, the pastor expressed Christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that it is possible to leave the homosexual lifestyle “through the healing power of Jesus.” He said Christians must “lovingly but firmly respond” to an “aggressive agenda” by some in the homosexual community.

The Presidential Inauguration Committee would not stand behind their choice of Giglio. The Committee could easily have said, “We can’t expect our speakers to agree with us in every way. We can’t demand perfect conformity to our party stance.” However, they claimed ignorance:

• They were unaware of the sermon when they selected Giglio. They said he was chosen for his work in combatting human trafficking.

Bad Giglio! He uttered verboten words and was removed from the public fountain, no longer allowed a seat at the table. Sadly, the administration is fully supportive of this new form of segregation:

• “As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans,” said spokesperson Addie Whisenant.

Segregation is now being justified by “this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.” How ironic! “Inclusion and acceptance” has sent Giglio to the back of the bus! How can Whisenant talk of “inclusion and acceptance” in light of Giglio’s rejection and segregation?

Of course, the Left justifies this hypocrisy by claiming:

• We are intolerant of everyone except the intolerant. We will tolerate everything except intolerance.

However, this justification is barely coherent. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things and people that all of us will not tolerate, and some for good reason. We still do not tolerate pedophiles teaching children. Nor do we tolerate bigamists, necrophiles or bestophiles. Nor will we include unrepentant muggers or domestic violence perpetrators on our political podium.

For each of us, there is a limit to tolerance. However, Giglio drew his line in the wrong place – in a place mandated by the Bible - and now he finds himself in the back of the bus.

Is the administration really serious about their standard of “inclusion and acceptance?” Hardly! There is little doubt that they will include a Muslim Imam on their podium. However, their holy writings are intolerant of Jews and Blacks (including gays). About the Jews, the Koran teaches:

      

•   “Jews are those who were cursed and transformed into apes and swine…” (Sura 2:65, 5:60, 7:166).

•     “Jews are the worst of Allah’s creation…” (Sura 8:55-56, 98:6)

Blacks fare little better. The Hadiths, the saying of Muhammad read:

•   “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” (Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21
•  "Abu Darda reported that the Holy Prophet said: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don't care. He said to those who were on his left shoulder: Towards Hell and I don't care. – Ahmad." (Mishkat, Vol. 3, p. 117
• Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375)

However, the Left remains silent about these teachings and the blatant acts of anti-Semitism that are resulting from them. It seems that the Committee is applying its standard of “inclusion and acceptance” in a discriminatory manner. Some get a “pass,” while others are pushed to the back of the bus.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy understandably asked:

• “Are all orthodox clergy now to be banished from civic life if they openly affirm their faith’s teachings about marriage and sexual ethics? Are only clergy from declining liberal denominations now acceptable according to hyper political correctness?

The answer is clearly “yes!” Tooley then asked:

• Will the same standard also apply to Muslims and members of other faiths who don’t subscribe to the views of western secular elites?”

It seems that for now, they can still drink from the public fountain, as long as the secularists don’t feel threatened by them.