Loving God

Spiritual maturity is so closely associated with loving God, but how do we love God and fulfill this first and most important commandment? There are several possible answers. Perhaps the first response would be obedience. Jesus stressed that loving God was about keeping His commandments:

• “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." (John 14:21)

Obeying His commends even includes loving our neighbors as ourselves:

• I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. (2 John 1:5-6)

In order to “love one another,” love has to begin with loving God and following His truths. Instead, we usually associate love with the magnetism of being drawn to another. While this is an important feeling – and it motivates love – it doesn’t tell us enough about how to love. Instead of promoting the best interests of the other, it therefore might only indulge and enable the object of love to pursue a course of self-destruction, when pursued independently of God’s truth. For instance, instead of inculcating self-control and a sense of responsibility, parents might simply give their children what they want, thinking that this will fulfill their needs.

Loving others has to be grounded in truth, God’s truth. However, this understanding also begs another question: “Why are certain people more diligent than others in keeping His commands?” Sometimes this diligence is attributable to a fear of loosing God’s love or salvation. Martin Luther had been the most diligent monk in his Augustinian monastery. In fact, driven by the fear that he wasn’t good enough for God, he almost died through his zealous practice of the spiritual disciplines on two occasions. In addition to this, he would resort to confession four hours a day with his beloved vicar and mentor, Johann von Staupitz. Finally, Staupitz, being fully cognizant of Luther’s torment, advised him, “You just need to love God.”

Luther thundered back, “Love Him? I hate him!” This was because Luther had no confidence that God loved him, despite all of his acts of obedience. Although a necessary requirement, obedience to God’s commands is not always the same thing as loving God.

Instead, we need to be obedient for the right reasons. Jesus had been loved by a woman who had the right reasons. He had been invited to the home of a religious leader for lunch of elegance. However, while they were reclining at his hosts dinner table, a prostitute entered and threw herself down at Jesus’ feet, washing them with her tears, wiping them with her hair, and then massaged them with costly oil.

Meanwhile, the leader was disgusted by this sight. He reasoned that Jesus couldn’t possibly be a prophet, if he allowed such a woman to even touch him. Knowing what he was thinking, Jesus asked the man if one forgiven a great debt would be more grateful than the one forgiven a minor one. Jesus then explained to the leader:

• "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7:44-47)

The woman loved God much because she had been forgiven much. At last, she was free, eternally. She knew that no price was too much for her to pay in ministering to her Savior. Consequently, driven by gratefulness, she even entered the home of someone who would regard her with absolute contempt.

I therefore thank my Savior for His daily reminders about myself, that I am unworthy of even a “thank you” from Him (Luke 17:7-10). He shows me my moral failures, inadequacies, and inabilities. It hurts, but instead of this revelation sending me into a down-spin of depression, it now produces gratefulness and a sense of intimacy. It also reminds me that those who are forgiven much love much. So my prayer becomes, “Lord, continue to show me how much you forgive me so that I might adore You more.” However, this awareness is not nurtured apart from the daily revelation of my garbage.

Loving God also requires a Scripture-based knowledge of His love. We need to know how much He loves us before we can truly love Him. For Luther, Scripture opened a door to heaven as the Spirit illuminated Romans 1:17: “And the righteous shall live by faith.” Luther suddenly realized that it wasn’t about him attaining to his own righteousness – this was an impossibility – but about God freely giving him the gift of His own righteousness through faith, which He procured on the Cross (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:7-9).

However, many of us want to love the Lord more and recognize that it requires a greater awareness of our Lord’s grace and how much we need it. Yet we lack this critical awareness. Instead, we might perceive that we are critical and self-righteous, and that our relationships have suffered as a result of this. Here are some recommendations to deal with this problem:

1. Everything starts with asking and trusting in Him. Just know that everyone who comes to Him in truth finds Him (John 6:37; Romans 10:13).

2. King David asked the Lord to examine him to reveal those things that David needs to know (Psalm 139:23-24). We must do likewise.

3. Trust that God will reveal to you what you need to know and when you need to know it (Psalm 51:6; Phil. 3:15).

4. Meditate regularly on the Word. The Spirit is able to make it come alive for you as He did with Luther (Hebrews 4:12).

5. Prepare your heart for hardships. We naturally only want to see good things about ourselves. However, Christ will use pain to bring long-denied truths to the surface (2 Cor. 4:7-11).

6. There is wisdom among our spiritual elders (Eph. 4:11-14). Seek out those you respect.

• He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise. He who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever heeds correction gains understanding. The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. (Proverbs 15:31-33)

Just know that when you ask Him to teach you to love Him, you are asking according to His will. Jesus desires an intimate relationship with you based on sincerity and truth (John 4:22-24).

The Religion Called "Naturalism"

My Dear Wormbottom,

Before things begin to escalate and I am surrounded by throngs of adoring reporters, I must explain to you our latest lawsuit. I think the best way to begin is to quote what the press has already reported:

• When two steel girders were found intact, in the shape of a cross, in the middle of the wreckage of the World Trade Center after 9/11, it was hailed by many as a mini “miracle” and a sign of hope for a country beleaguered by a devastating terrorist attack.

• Now, however, an atheist group has filed a lawsuit that seeks to tear down that cross, which was moved recently to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City…“What we’re looking for is a remedy that honours everyone equally, with a religion-neutral display, or display of equal size and prominence.” According to the lawsuit, American Atheists’ members “…are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state.”

I know it sounds ridiculous to charge that we “are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not [our] own imposed upon [us] through the power of the state.” And I know that it makes us seem like helpless victims, even though we are the ones who are actually at the helm of the ship. But this is what’s working today! It’s the victimhood strategy, and we have successfully cast ourselves in that role, even though we are anything but victims.

Just think of our victories—how we have already succeeded in marginalizing God in favor of our own religion of “naturalism!” Because of our efforts, we have been able to toss any discussion of God and supernatural causation out of the science classroom. That’s right—we have succeeded at convincing the ignorant public that supernaturalism is a religion, while atheism and naturalism are not.

I can’t help but laugh. Naturalism is no more scientifically provable than supernaturalism. But through our diligence, and of course our unparalleled propaganda machine, naturalism has been accepted as 100 % solid, bedrock science in the minds of 99% of the public. It doesn’t seem to matter that there isn’t a solitary stitch of evidence that the physical laws of nature are indeed natural rather than having been designed and emanating from the mind of God! The public has been gloriously bamboozled and we, my friend, are on a glorious roll!

Once this current “crusade” has succeeded in proving that religious symbols are all unconstitutional, then we can expand our horizons and proceed to remove any and all names with religious connotations from institutions. For example, I believe the day is just around the corner when there will no longer be any “Methodist” or “Presbyterian” hospitals. Likewise, the time is soon coming when there will no longer be any medical centers named Mt. Sinai or Beth Israel.

Just how will we do this?

Well, when it comes to removing any religiously-affiliated names, we will simply argue once again that by entering such a hospital we “are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not [our] own imposed upon [us] through the power of the state.” You have to admit that this argument will work supremely well in this context. Hospitals are about healing, and how can we partake of optimal healing when we are constantly reminded that this is a “Methodist” hospital? Through this strategy, we will erase from public consciousness any appreciation for the fact that religious institutions have made vast contributions to the fields of health and medicine. Don’t forget that we have already been able to obliterate from public consciousness the undeniable truth that our most prestigious bastions of higher education—like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, just to name a few—all had their starts as loathsome, contemptuous Bible schools. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner we can forget that, the better!

Can you see where we are headed with all of this? We have already been able to convince many that it has been because of atheism and our brand of secularism that we are now a progressive, tolerant and freedom-loving society. Along with this, we have been able—through a barrage of constant repetition—to bring about an association in the minds of the public between two entities that in the past would never have been mentioned in the same breath. And just what might these two entities be, you ask? Why, it’s none other than Christian Fundamentalism with Islamic Jihadist Fundamentalism. That’s right. I’m sure you’ve sensed it as you’ve watched TV and listened to the news. The fundamentalist “connection” that we have tried to make between the two began very subtly but now has moved into the realm that some might call over-the-top. But, no matter…the plan has worked. As a consequence, now, whenever the public thinks of Christian Fundamentalists, they also think of Jihadists. Ah, how sweet it is!

But of course, we can’t let any of these victories totally go to our head. Not just yet, anyway. We must remember that the opposition can use the same arguments. They can also claim that they “are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state.” There are so many examples of this. They could justifiably claim that required attendance at school pep-rallies marginalizes them, or that the school play diminishes them because they weren’t selected, or that the textbooks fail to give adequate recognition to their particular ethnic group. However, we have succeeded in keeping attention focused on our grievances. And, perhaps even more important, we have managed to keep the public’s attention away from the real issue—that any policy or institution is going to favor one set of values or people at the expense of others. For the most part, the public is not even entertaining this thought. Once they catch on, we’ll have to find a new strategy. But until then, we will push this part of our agenda as far as ignorance allows us. Lucky for us, there’s a lot of ignorance out there!

Now, please allow me to go back and try to explain the first part of our charge: “What we’re looking for is a remedy that honours everyone equally, with a religion-neutral display…” Of course, we know that “religion-neutrality” is impossibility, and that all displays, rulings and proclamations reflect some sort of a values orientation. Certainly, you and I are both well aware of the correctness of that assertion. There is no values-neutrality in anything that we, the media, or the universities do. However, we have succeeded admirably in promoting this deception for our own advantage. You see, we can promote our own values till the cows come home, but nobody charges us with violating the separation between church and state. Yet whenever the church raises a counter-issue, we invariably invoke the “separation clause!” Who cares if it’s blatantly hypocritical on our part—it’s working!

Let me give you some wonderful examples. We have been able to influence students towards sexual permissiveness for years. I won’t bore you with all of our strategies, but let me mention just one: values-clarification exercises. We designed these to demonstrate to students that there is no right answer. Of course, we haven’t explicitly said this, but the message is implicit nonetheless. However, when the religious simpletons start screaming that there are indeed right moral answers, we counter—once again, with phenomenal success—that they are just imposing their religion on the educational process. There’s a marvelous double-standard at work here… our stance that there are no objective values is just as religious as theirs. We say “no,” and they say “yes.” But you see, with this impressive string of victories we are amassing, their side has been virtually silenced, while we have been able to go our merry way, unscathed for the most part.

This strategy has worked in so many areas that I am breathless with excitement to share them with you. But let me end with just this one. We have succeeded in removing the school sanction for a Christian group at Hastings Law School. We argued that their religious requirement for membership and for holding office in the group violated the school’s non-discrimination policy. What the courts conveniently overlooked, for us at least, was the fact that all groups discriminate. The student Women’s Breast Cancer Support Group discriminates in favor of women. The Democratic Society discriminates in favor of democrats. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point.

I can’t wait to hear from you about more of our luscious victories, the triumph of cunning over truth. I’m sure that you are rejoicing along with me as we continue to build a better world.

(With help from my friend, Van Misheff!)

Swapping Rights with our Biological Cousins

Whatever natural history museum you might enter, I will wager that you will be assailed by the “established fact” that we share 98-99% of our genes with chimps. However, this “fact” might not be as well established as the museum might like you to think. Biologist David Tyler writes:

• For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This ‘fact’ of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. “Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.” However, this “given” is about to be discarded. Apparently, it is now OK to openly acknowledge that those who are involved in this research have never been comfortable that the 1% figure was an accurate summary of the scientific information. But more recent studies have made it impossible to sustain the old orthodoxy. They have raised “the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.”

More interesting than the biological facts is the question of why these “facts” had been so thoroughly promoted by the scientific community. Along with this strenuous assertion also comes the “conclusion” that we are kissing cousins to the chimp – along with several other hairy “relatives” – and that they should be accorded rights consistent with their levels of DNA correspondence with us. Regarding this narrow biological equation, Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, writes:

• DNA is beside the point. To concede so much to biology risks taking such privileges away from ourselves. [. . .] Chimps may resemble Homo sapiens in a tedious and literal sense, but in everything that makes us what we are H sapiens is unique indeed. Biology, in its proof of our physical similarity to other primates, underlines its own irrelevance.

What Jones argues is incontestable! It really doesn’t matter how similar we are DNA-wise to the chimp. Profound and obvious differences still remain, however we might explain them. Just ask your chimp to write you a sonnet!

Equally astounding is the suggestion that we should extend our rights to other living things based on our DNA likeness. I think that I had read that we share 50% of our genes with mosquitoes. Should we then criminalize killing them? Should we not use antibiotics against the Giardia parasite, which ravages our intestinal system? And if we do pass such legal prohibitions, would this not bring our legal system crashing down, doing away with the concept of rights entirely? Clearly, by extending to chimps, apes, and mosquitoes similar rights to the ones we enjoy, we endanger our own rights to our own detriment.

So let me ask again, “Why would evolutionists push such notions?” The most direct answer is, “They have vested interests – professional and monetary – for perpetuating their beliefs.” However, this doesn’t explain much. Why have they vested themselves in such questionable and costly ideas to begin with?

To answer such a question, one needs to be a doctor of the human soul. Since I am not that, all I can do is raise questions. “Is it that the shock value and novelty of these ideas is so attractive?” Or perhaps rebellion – the desire to trash traditional, restrictive values – is so irresistible? Perhaps it’s better to hold my tongue at this point.

Honoring God in All Ways, Even Nationally

I was just reading about another UN initiative attempting to overturn traditional sexual values:

• Campaigners at the United Nations are seeking more permissive laws and policies towards homosexuality, drug use, explicit sexual education, contraception, and prostitution on all levels of world government, framed as advocacy for youth’s sexual and reproductive health and “rights”…the UN Population Fund, issued a statement expressing a vision of “a world where Young People’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights are fully realized and where youth can experience and celebrate their sexuality.”

• Another major “sexual rights” proponent is Planned Parenthood. The international abortion and contraceptive juggernaut published a “sexual rights” guide ahead of the conference that denounced “widespread denial of young people’s sexuality”…“It is important for all young people around the world to be able to explore, experience and express their sexualities in healthy, positive, pleasurable and safe ways,” it states, going on to list abortion-on-demand as essential to “youth-friendly” health services.

Again, I found myself struggling with the question, “As a Christian, what must I do?” Interestingly, Christians come up with very different answers. One noted Christian had written:

• [Political engagement] is culturally impotent in dealing with the depraved hearts, minds and souls of a pagan world. Satan is pleased when any discourse designed for Christ and His gospel is turned into a political rally to pacify unsaved people in their sin while at the same time creating a superficial morality that is not based upon the salvific work of Christ alone! The tragic result is unredeemed people are left to feel comfortable and safe in a ‘Christian morality’—yet they are still lost, still dead in their sins.

I don’t think that there is any solid Biblical basis to argue against the primacy of salvation. However, should our Biblical preoccupation with the promotion of the Gospel preclude all other responsibilities? It seems that the Gospel imposes upon us holistic responsibilities for the welfare of all people:

• Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts… (Amos 5:14-15)

However, Michael Spencer attempts to argue that these responsibilities will detract from our number one emphasis:

• Evangelicals have linked their beliefs with political conservatism and the culture war, which non-Christian leaders perceive as bad for society…We have done so at the detriment of our faith. Christians have been so wrapped up in the political process and especially over the last couple of years…that we have ignored our number one mission, which is to tell the world about a loving and merciful God.

Spencer’s argument is not only with our failure to give enough attention to “our number one mission,” it’s also with the conservative causes we’ve chosen to undertake. However, should we not speak out against the murder of the unborn or against the insipient promotion of destructive sexual permissiveness? Of course, there are many other social justice issues worth championing. There’s poverty. However, we’ve seen how governmental entitlement programs have exacerbated the problem, rather than solving it. Therefore, for the most part, the church has tried to address this problem on the local front with homeless shelters, soup kitchens and pantries. Taking this low-key approach has avoided the social conflict that has arisen over the national debate on abortion.

There’s also the challenge of our failing schools. Once again, the churches haven’t been impressed with the political solutions which generally involve more testing and more money. Christians tend to perceive that this is merely a matter of throwing good money on top of bad. There are deeply entrenched problems in the system – philosophical, disciplinary, and behavioral – that additional money might simply enable. Instead, the church has opted to provide supplemental literacy programs and after-school programs.

Although Christians have also provided abortion-alternative clinics, most Christians realize that this great evil must also be challenged on the national level. There is no doubt that our causes have made us very unpopular with vast segments of our educated elite – so unpopular that we are utterly amazed by the things they say about us. For instance, Robin Meyers, in Why the Religious Right is Wrong, writes,

• Religious fanatics who run the country…are close to realizing their vision of a heaven on earth: an American theocracy.

Mel White, in Religion Gone Bad, writes
,
• We must resist before fundamentalists do what they have promised and turn the world’s oldest democracy into a theocracy ruled entirely by “righteous men.”

Although we realize that these charges are totally unjustified, many Christians have been deeply troubled by them and the obvious contempt that they reflect, even to the point of abandoning the “culture wars.” Understandably, they feel that we are turning the world against us, even at the expense of the penetration of the Gospel. They argue that we have to retreat and strengthen the things that remain, the basics – personal piety, Bible teaching, and love within the body of Christ.

Although I’m in sympathy with this perspective, I think that we can’t ignore the more global out-workings and requirements of the Gospel. Here’s my reasoning:

THE BIBLICAL CASE:

1. GOD REQUIRES OBEDIENT TO HIM ABOVE ALL ELSE: But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)

2. IT IS WRONG TO WITHHOLD DOING GOOD, PERHAPS EVEN ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL: Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

3. WE ARE REQUIRED TO SPEAK UP: Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephes. 5:11; Ezekiel 33:6)

4. THIS INCLUDES DOING JUSTICE: …Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:16-17)

5. WE SHOULD NOT BE DETERRED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL HATE US. THE WORLD WILL HATE US ANYWAY: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 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.” (John 15:18-20)

EVEN THOUGH THE POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT CAN ONLY TAKE US SO FAR, LEGISLATION CAN STILL BE MEANINGFUL:

Martin Luther King had wisely observed,

• It may be true that a law can’t make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.

This observation demonstrates that we can and do legislate morality. I think of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 abolishing much of the slavery within the USA. I think of the 30 year campaign waged by William Wilberforce and his Christian associates against slavery, which finally resulted in legislation to ban all slavery from the British Empire.

WHEN WE FAIL TO UNDERTAKE PRESSING MORAL ISSUES, WE BRING DISREPUTE UPON THE CHURCH:

One atheistic journal wrote,

• 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)

This is an extreme statement. Although many conservative churches lost their Biblical bearing and supported the status quo – the German State – some didn’t. However, this quotation illustrates an important point. Although the world may damn us for our political involvement, they will also damn us for our lack of political involvement, and sometimes for good reason. The southern church failed to challenge the status quo of segregation and often even upheld it. Understandably, this generation accuses them for this failure. But perhaps, the next generation will accuse us for our failure to address the social ills of this day more strenuously!

WE NO LONGER HAVE A CHOICE:

Western Civilization is becoming less tolerant of our freedoms of religion and of speech. They now perceive that our freedoms are interfering with their freedoms. Here are a few examples:

1. A Christian Pharmacist is required to sell the Day-After pill,
2. Pastors required to keep silent regarding homosexuality (Canada)
3. The New Hate Crimes bill also proscribes any speech that might possibly contribute to a hate crime.
4. Christians fired for speaking off the job about their faith.
5. Christians required to allow their facilities to be used for purposes they regard as unethical (Ocean Grove)
6. Discrimination against school pro-life groups and Christian groups (Hastings Law)
7. Suit against Bible publisher because of “homophobic” passages.
8. On-line dating service was required against their faith to also accommodate LGBTs match-ups (E Harmony)

There is now also talk against allowing churches to religiously discriminate in hiring. This also includes who we call as pastors and teachers! It seems that we will not be able to avoid legal conflict, not if we want to preserve our faith and that of our children. Instead, I think that we have to pay careful attention to the words of Jude:

• Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3-4)

This is no reason to restrict this counsel to the local level. Justin Martyr, regarded by some as the first Christian apologist, didn’t. He addressed his defense of Christianity to,

• To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin…present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

We too must “contend earnestly for the faith.” Those who despise us will not desist. They are even in our churches, bringing lawsuits against us, alleging discrimination. I ask myself if there is any way to avoid the conflict and remain faithful to God. I don’t see how.

To Judge is to Love

We want our Christian faith to be attractive. We’ve heard the many voices of our culture clamoring against it, so we modify our faith to make it amenable to our culture. This happens in many ways. After science had assured us that the universe always existed – the steady-state theory – the church jumped onto this bandwagon to show the scientific community that the church was amenable to science. After the scientific community abandoned the steady-state theory in favor of the big-bang, the church jumped-ship to the big-bang theory to demonstrate that it was progressive and in step with the latest “findings.”

Now, according to sociologist and preacher Tony Campolo, “we have no right to judge other religions.” Why not? For one thing, this kind of judging is not in line with the educated sentiments of our culture. According to multiculturalism, we don’t have any right to judge other cultures or religions. To do so just shows our prejudices. We thereby become Islamophobic or Hinduphobic. According to multiculturalism, all belief systems are basically the same! Perhaps there are differences, but they are only superficial. Eckhart Tolle puts it like this:

• If you go deep enough in your religion, then you all get to the same place It’s a question of going deeper, so there’s no conflict here. The important thing is that religion doesn’t become an ideology…the moment you say 'only my belief' or 'our belief' is true, and you deny other people’s beliefs, then you’ve adopted an ideology. And then religion becomes a closed door.

Tolle represents the prevailing spirit of the day. Truth is a matter of finding those universal principles that unite all humankind and all religions. Unity is in, and distinctions separate and are out. Ironically, Tolle has made his own distinctions, his own statement of faith. While he blames others for claiming to have the truth, he too is claiming to have the truth. His truth is that everyone is the same, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and is a “closed door.” However, there’s no way around making truth-claims.

Campolo falls into this same trap. When he claims that we have no right to judge other religions, he himself is judging other religions. Those religions that judge are wrong; those who don’t judge are right. Those who judge are walking in darkness; those don’t judge are walking in the light. Sadly, he fails to see that he too is judging.

Besides, a religion that doesn’t judge has no boundaries or substance. To not judge other beliefs, is also to not affirm one’s own beliefs. A Christian believes that Jesus died for the sins of the world. However, all other religions reject this belief. If it is illegitimate to judge that these other religions are wrong about Jesus, then it is also impossible to believe that I am right about Jesus. Present-day Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah. If I can’t make a judgment about this claim, then I also can’t affirm that He is the Messiah.

Judgment is a natural and necessary part of life. It may sound harsh, but there is no way around it. Nor does judgment preclude love. My wife judges me about the way I clean and where I through my clothes. She even judges some of my beliefs! Fortunately, our love doesn’t require that we throw all judgment out the window. We can love despite our disagreements about running the household. There can be unity even in the midst of diversity and our differing opinions. That’s life!

It’s also life to judge other religions and value systems. We judge the suicidal cult of Jim Jones. We dismiss the truth claims of Heaven’s Gate, whose members committed suicide in order to board a passing comet. We justifiably deride Nazism. We warn against the impact of certain religions. Understandably, the Bible is full of such warnings and judgments against other religions.

How then can Campolo make the judgment that we “have no right to judge other religions?” He asserted something to this effect:

• Jesus even claimed that He didn’t come to judge the world but to save it. What right then have we to judge the world?”

Although Jesus didn’t come to bring judgment upon the world, He clearly said many things of judgment. Here’s just a few:

• Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are…Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (Matthew 23:13-25)

Although His strongest denunciations were against the religious leadership, Jesus also said many things in judgment against His own disciples:

• Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23).

This points to something often ignored by our permissive society. Judging can be loving! We correct our children and their beliefs because we love them. We also judge the beliefs of others because we care about them. We might sternly advise a friend to not proceed with his plan to have an adulterous affair. We might alert him to its impact upon his entire family. We also have a responsibility towards those of others religions, although there are legitimate and difficult questions about how to proceed with this.

In contrast, Campolo warns us against making any assessment regarding who’s in and who’s out. Although such judgments can be difficult and dangerous, even Jesus gives us license to make such judgments. According to Him, repentance was a necessary requirement or sign of salvation:

• Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. (Luke 10:13-15)

• Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13:1-5)

Following Jesus’ lead, we have a duty to warn the unrepentant that if they refuse to repent, the Bible offers little hope. Love requires such a warning. However, instead of issuing such warnings, Campolo insists that those who refuse to repent have a post-mortem hope. To support his claim, he cited a verse whose interpretation remains very uncertain:

• He [Christ] was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

However, this verse says nothing about any second chances after death. Instead, it talks specifically about Noah’s contemporaries. By citing this verse, Campolo is extending a temporary palliative, a false hope.

Jesus also taught about another necessary criterion for salvation. He insisted that even the people of the Promise, the Jews, had to believe in Him:

• I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins. (John 8:24).

Christ Himself has given us authority to warn people that if they refuse to believe in Jesus, they are without hope. Therefore, the Christian to proclaim the necessity of faith in Christ. This truth is taught throughout the New Testament. John the Baptist proclaimed.

• Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

The Apostles likewise judged the ruling Sanhedrin:

• “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

This might sound judgmental and exclusivistic, but it’s also Christianity. A watered-down and compromised “Christianity” might win friends in the world but not Christ, who stated:

• I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (Rev. 3:15-16)

Repentance isn’t a suggestion; it’s a requirement. It seems that everything that Jesus said was in judgment of some attitudes or beliefs. When He sent out His disciples into all the world, He instructed them to teach the very things that He had taught them (Matthew 28:18-20), instead of telling them, “Well, just teach those things that accord with the beliefs of other peoples. Don’t offend by making judgmental statements.”

We are taught that the two greatest commandments are both centered upon love – loving God and then our neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). But what does love require? Accommodation to social norms or adherence to the truths of God?

I had sent Dr. Campolo a copy of the above to which he and his assistant replied, asking me to remove it from my blog. I told them I would if I had misrepresented him. However, I would first need to re-hear the sermon. Upon listening to it again twice, I wrote them a second response attached below reaffirming what I had initially written along with highlighting some additional charges:

Dear Tony and James,

Thanks for the info about Ocean Grove carrying the sermon. Actually, I appreciate Dr. Campolo’s strong affirmations of Jesus and Scripture, his compassion for the poor, and also his humility. I would not hesitate to call him a “brother.” However, upon re-listening twice, I find that there are also many troubling elements, the very ones that I had responded to at the first.

After Campolo states that we can’t judge other religions, he justifies this by saying, “It does us well to not judge others [religions] lest we be judged.” This is a mis-appropriation of Matthew 7. Jesus wasn’t saying that we can’t judge the truth claims or means of salvation of other religions. He was talking about judging individuals. Nor was He saying that we absolutely can’t judge other people, but first we have to remove the blindness from our own eyes so that we can see clearly enough to remove the splinter from another’s eye.

He then tried to justify his position that we absolutely can’t judge by citing the fact that Jews, Muslims and Christians have all done evil things. The Jews committed genocide when they entered the Promised Land. This however is a misuse of Scripture, to equate jihad with what God had ordered the Israelites to do to the Canaanites, when they were carrying out the righteous command of God.

Besides, a Christian does not primarily judge other religions based upon their performance but upon their faith in Jesus – this is central – apart from works of the law.

Campolo next turned to judging the salvation of gays. Firstly, he misrepresented the texts of Leviticus against homosexuality, equating this practice with “touching the skin of a dead pig,” which he erroneously claims is part of the context where God calls homosexuality an abomination. He then wrongly invokes Romans 8:38-39 in hope of proving that homosexuals can’t be separated from God because of their sinful lifestyle.

Although I too believe that none can be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus, the real question is whether or not those who refuse to repent have actually come to Christ in saving faith. However, the Bible extends no more hope to the unrepentant than it does to those without faith.

Campolo then erroneously conflates two separate issues:

• Whether there is salvation through other religions – the issue at hand – and
• Whether God has spoken to those in other religions. (and whether He is at work in the hearts of the unsaved.)

Orthodox Christianity has never questioned #2. However, it has insisted that there is salvation through Christ alone. Although Campolo affirms the necessity of Christ, he seems to dismiss the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.

Campolo then suggests that we shouldn’t judge (be too quick to condemn others to hell) because Jesus didn’t judge. Although Campolo seems to identify himself as an Evangelical, he is also very quick to judge Evangelicals, presenting them in an overly negative light. He does the very thing (judging) that he accuses others of doing. However, Jesus did do a lot of judging, even to assert that those who didn’t believe in Him were still in their sins.

Also against judging, Campolo suggests that 1 Peter 3 and 4 gives us hope of post-mortem salvation:

• 1 Peter 3:19-20 through whom also he [Jesus] went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.

These verses are very controversial. But even if we take them literally that Jesus did actually descend into hell to preach, it says nothing about salvation. Nor does it suggest that He is still doing the same thing today. I certainly don’t want to limit God’s grace – and I even suspect that His grace will be more expansive than is explicitly promised in Scripture – it is also wrong to presumptuously assert that this proves post-mortem salvation. To speak for God where He hasn’t spoken is offensive to Him.

These are all significant issues. Campolo’s positions will have the effect of discouraging evangelism if salvation is to be found through other religions. They will also discourage Christians from making the critical distinctions that Scripture mandates that they make.

The Bible has consistently denounced the other religions – the Baalim, the Ashteroth – as sinful inventions, as attempts to rebelliously produce God-substitutes. We must also, in love, of course! They are all without excuse (Romans 1:20.)

After Tony’s sermon, we spoke to some of the youth involved in his ministry. Unsurprisingly, they reflected his “non-judgmental” stances. One asserted that the ideal was to “preach the Gospel and only if absolutely necessary, use words.” In fact, they were unable to even begin to use words intelligently, and became very uncomfortable and defensive in response to our questioning. They erroneously believed that it would be enough to just love others. This however isn’t the Gospel, and such an expectation will lead to shipwreck. Instead, Paul asserted:

• I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Romans 1:16)

Thanks for listening!

Your Brother, Daniel

Rejection of the Church and Gospel: Why?

Why are people walking away from the church? The latest Barna.org survey indicates that people have been making their exodus en masse:

• In 1991, just one-quarter of adults (24%) were unchurched. That figure has ballooned by more than 50%, to 37% today.

Although there are undoubtedly many reasons for this, I think that the failure to truly grasp the Gospel is one of them. It took me many years to appreciate the Gospel. Although I had believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah who died for my sins, I just didn’t see that I was all that sinful. Consequently, I regarded myself as a fairly deserving guy, who was saved because, in some sense, I was worthy of it. I was more spiritual than the next guy. In fact, I had convinced myself that I was a pretty darn good catch.

As a result of this self-delusion, I never felt that I fit in. Worship was a meaningless bore; prayer was an arduous duty; and Christian fellowship was alienating and failed to affirm me. This is because I hadn’t truly known the Jesus who infuses these activities with richness. Worship was meaningless because my mind was fixed on the wrong thing – myself! Although I knew that I had problems, I didn’t fully grasp my real problem – sin. Prayer was empty because I failed to see how utterly hopeless and helpless I was without Christ. Not seeing my need, I failed to see the One who could more than compensate for it.

Of course, Christian fellowship was meaningless and alienating because I was either associating with people like me, all subtly competing to promote themselves rather than Christ, or people unlike me who were all about Christ. With these, I couldn’t connect. Neither group made me feel better about myself.

However, this changed, and it came about slowly through painful ordeals that revealed my true status – a hopeless sinner – before God. As God became more to me, the things of God also became more to me. But first, I had to decrease in my own estimation, and He had to increase.

John the Baptist’s disciples came to him. They were very troubled. There’s had been the top show in town. However, their ratings were taking a serious hit, and they felt that something had to be done about it:

• They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan--the one you testified about--well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." (John 3:26)

John explained that this downturn was inevitable now that the Messiah Himself had arrived. Without any self-pity or disappointment, John informed his disciples, “He must increase, and I must decrease” (John 3:30). Instead of lamenting his loss in prestige, John was rejoicing. He not only understood that this change must take place but also that it was for the glory of all of us.

Normally, we don’t like to decrease. Anyone knows it’s painful to decrease and it’s joyous to increase in money, attainments, recognition, power, and popularity. We have engineered our lives to increase in our own estimation and also in the estimation of the world. However, John rejoiced in the opposite. This is because he understood the far surpassing value of having the Christ:

• For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. (John 3:34-36)

There is no life without the Son. Neither is there any enduring peace or joy without the Son. Our increasing carries many hidden costs. It requires us to continually try to prove and establish ourselves. We become self-obsessed and obsessed with comparing ourselves to others. When we decrease in favor of our Messiah, His increasing becomes our increasing; His glory becomes our glory and also freedom from our self-obsessions. If I am named as the US Ambassador to the UN, I participate in the power and glory of the body that I now represent. This is even more true when we become the ambassador of the Master.

I gladly exult in my Christ’s increase. It means my increase. The Apostle Paul had also been painfully aware of those things that he relied on to increase his sense of self-importance. He wrote about his pedigree, his education, and his stellar performance of the law. In these things he had placed his trust. However, understanding the surpassing value of having Christ, he would now gladly decrease:

• But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philip. 3:7-9)

Paul’s education and good deeds were not worthless rubbish, but placing his trust in them was! They also had blinded him to the source of real righteousness and peace. I can now thank God for the painful trials, which have revealed to me that I have no “righteousness of my own.” Instead, He has given me something more valuable.

I will therefore gladly decrease and regard all of my self-esteem and self-trust as “rubbish that I may gain Christ.” I now perceived that in every area of my inadequacy – my doubts, worries, failures, and fears -- He was more than adequate for me. I longer need to justify myself, because He justifies me. He became for me my righteousness, sanctification, wisdom and strength (1 Cor. 1:30). Let Him increase, and me decrease!”

The Fear of God: A Sermon

We should never think it an unusual thing or a strange experience when life turns nasty and smacks us down. King David, a man after God’s own heart, often experienced this. On one such occasion, while he was evading the pursuit of King Saul, while sojourning in Philistia, he and his 600 men returned to their camp in Ziklag to find that it had been totally destroyed by ravaging Amalekites. But that wasn’t the worst of it. Their entire families—including their wives and children—had been taken captive by the Amalekites, along with David’s two wives.

As a result, “David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep” (1 Samuel 30:4). He had already forfeited his first wife, Michal, in his flight from her father and king, Saul. Now it was happening again! To make matters worse, David’s loyal men were now ready to stone him to death for his bad decision to leave the camp unprotected.

The easiest solution would have been to rally his men together for a mad dash after the Amalekites. This strategy would have deflected his men’s plans to stone him and, at the same time, would have provided some hope for the restoration of their families. However, this wasn’t David’s decision. Instead, “David encouraged himself in the LORD his God” (1 Samuel 30:6; KJV).

What form had this encouragement taken? Earlier, when Saul was pursuing David to take his life, Saul’s son Jonathan risked his own life to meet secretly with David:

• And Jonathan, Saul's son, arose and went to David at Horesh, and encouraged him in God (1 Samuel 23:16; NASB).

Jonathan encouraged David in the Lord! He didn’t say, “Well David, you’ve been through worse situations. Remember, you are a great warrior and have many successes under your belt, and you’re respected by all the people. Therefore, I’m sure you’ll overcome this challenge.” Instead, Jonathan wisely counseled David in accord with the previously-revealed promise of God:

• "Do not be afraid, because the hand of Saul my father shall not find you, and you will be king over Israel…" (1 Samuel 23:17).

This was something that David already knew. He had been anointed years earlier by the prophet Samuel to be the next king of Israel, but he also needed to hear those encouraging words again. David also knew that it wasn’t about him—his strength and righteousness—but about His faithful God. When, years earlier, he went out against the fearsome Goliath, David warned the giant:

• "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down …” (1 Samuel 17:45-46).

David’s greatness rested in one fact alone. He knew that he wasn’t great, but instead, he served a GREAT God, who could do all things! Instead of directly pursuing the Amalekites, David called for his priest, Abiathar, to bring the ephod in order to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord answered him: "Pursue, for you shall surely overtake them, and you shall surely rescue all" (1 Samuel 30:8). And this is exactly what happened.

I think that the biggest problem that confronts today’s church is self-confidence. We’ve convinced ourselves that we can handle our problems, and that our judgment is sound. Instead of recognizing that our challenges are primarily God’s challenges and that our victories are His victories, we confidently pursue the “Amalekites” in our lives without hesitating to pray. David had warned Goliath that it would be THE LORD who would deliver him into David’s hand. He knew that it wasn’t about him, but the Lord.

Self-confidence is an esteemed commodity these days, eagerly grasped without any thought of reading the small print. We fail to understand the costs of buying into its intoxicating power. One of these costs is denial. When we trust in ourselves alone, it becomes necessary to deny anything that might cause us to doubt. There might be a shortcoming in our personality or a lack of knowledge or experience that might serve to warn us of our inadequacy. But these are denied outright or are not given a second thought. We can become so blindingly confident that we end up denying reality as we forge ahead.

Another cost is arrogance. When we place our trust in our performance, our assessment is inevitably based upon a comparison with others. Our confidence, then, becomes a measure of whether or not we regard ourselves as superior to others—a mind-set guaranteed to destroy Christian fellowship, or any kind of fellowship or relationship, for that matter!

Today we think that the battle is ours and not the Lord’s. I too am guilty of this. Often, when I write responses against the ideas of atheists and heretics, I forget to ask the Lord to direct my pen. I race off after the Amalekites without first enquiring of the Lord, as if my wisdom and judgment were sufficient.

The Apostle Paul had it right when he confessed…

• Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God (2 Cor. 3:5).

If we really understood this lesson, we wouldn’t tackle any problem without first praying and inviting God to take charge. I’m not saying that we are always going to get a clear answer like the one David received. However, by bringing God into our decision-making process immediately, we acknowledge that we are trusting in Him and that we will give Him all the credit for anything good that happens. When we humble ourselves in this manner, we are trusting Him fully. Then we can rest assured that He will exalt us (Luke 18:14).

In stark contrast to the humility that God prescribes and encourages, an I-can-do-it attitude represents a rejection of God’s help:

• Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD. For he will be like a bush in the desert and will not see when prosperity comes, but will live in stony wastes in the wilderness, a land of salt without inhabitant. Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD and whose trust is the LORD. (Jeremiah 17:5-7)

Trusting in ourselves is diametrically opposed to trusting in God. If we trust in ourselves, we are not trusting in God. But if we do trust in God, how blessed we will be. After overcoming the Amalekites, David returned with such abundant spoils of war that he was able to share it with all of his men. The great evil had been turned into a great good!

There is something else we need to glean from this account. David was more concerned about God’s opinions than man’s. Ironically, the more we stop being people-pleasers and forsake the fear of man in favor of the fear of God, the more we will grow in favor with people. When David fled from his son Absalom and his traitorous insurrection against him, he was joined by the very men who had wanted to stone him years earlier at Ziklag (2 Samuel 15:18).

Life is not without its meltdowns. Let us learn from David to be God-centered, not man-centered. David’s confidence was in God, not in himself. Our temptation today is to place our trust in ourselves and others before God, and race off after the Amalekites. However, our Lord assures us that “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD and whose trust is the LORD.”