Finishing Well & DNF

4th of July. Ideal weather for a 10 K race. 800+ runners milling around mentally reviewing their strategy for the race. Nerves on edge. At this point you are ready or you are not. That simple.

A good friend says of running and winning - - it is not the will to win but the will to prepare to win that matters. Real wisdom.

The runners come to the starting line. Running protocol says that the participants line up according to ability. Those that run a 4:30 mile pace at the front, the plodders, who just hope to finish regardless of the mile time at the ‘back of the pack’.

A young stud, buffed and well tanned, positions himself at the very front of this collection of pulsating testosterone. He does multiple ‘sprint outs’, hoping that the crowd is observing and appreciating his self-affirmed athletic superiority.

BANG! The starter’s gun signals the start of the race. The front-liners seek to establish themselves at or near the lead. This stud is soon hundreds of yards in the lead. As he rounds the first corner he is all alone – for now.

At the 4 mile mark (a 10K is 6.2 miles) I notice the "meat wagon”, runners jargon for the EMT’s with their ambulance on the side of the road, lights flashing. They have a patient on a stretcher loading him up for a ride to the finish in anything less than glory. It is the ‘Stud’. He will receive a DNF = Did Not Finish.

(This runner was a Marine home on leave. He assumed that Marine Corps Training was adequate to succeed in a 10K race. Make sure you prepare for the rigors of your task)

I recorded the best 10 K time of my running career in this race. My time corresponded with my ability and training.

Only 3 in 10 OT Leaders finished well. Go to www.bobbyclinton.com and read his helpful articles on this subject. Many begin with great fan-fare. Few finish strong. The obstacles are many. The parable of the tortise and the hare applies. Serve and lead having prepared well. Stay the course. Measure the rhythms and challenges wisely. Be accountable. Surrender to the LORD of LORDS and King of Kings daily (Luke 9:23).

Watch this video. Make finishing well a top priority .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJolVkw5cOc

Random Arrows & Leadership Selection

Like an archer who wounds everyone,

is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard (Prov. 26:10).

Sin in haste and repent at leisure. That simple statement applies to scores of churches. They call Pastors and Staff with little or no wisdom applied in the screening and selection process. Then, in short order, there is much weeping and wailing because the recently transacted "marriage" was not made in heaven.

In selecting Leaders, whether they function as a Teaching/Preaching Pastor or in the various responsibilities of an Elder, the Scripture provides specific and essential guidelines.

The first and primary consideration is Character. The most frequently applied criteria in selecting a Pastor is verbal skill. While this is certainly important, because a man is a credible speaker is no assurance that he also possesses a godly character.

This is the final post in this BLOG for 2011. I appeal to those who shoulder the responsibility of selecting Leaders to be "wise archers". Avoid random and careless 'shooting'. Do the research. Check multiple reference levels. Speak to a 360 circle of people who know the man. The most accurate indicator of what a man will do in the future is what he has done in the past. Know his history. Honor the facts. Pray much.

Then, celebrate the archery lessons that God has given as you serve with a man that is well suited to lead in the position you have placed him.

God's best in 2012.

Evangelism - Discipleship

This is a challenge to my readers. Find the word evangelism in the Bible. When you locate the number of times and places in which it is used, please send me an e-mail noting the references in which that word was found.

The church for the past two centuries has invested immense human and financial resources pursuing what is known as evangelism. The text of Scripture speaks of making disciples.

I challenge my readers to do a similar search on the concept of disciple making. When both word studies have been completed, compare the references to evangelism and disciple making. Why have I offered this challenge?

My observation as to the reasons for this are as follows:

1. It is much easier to make converts than it is to make disciples.

2. The metric required for evangelism is simply “numbers”.

3. The metric required for disciple making is genuine transformation into the image of Christ.

4. The cost of disciple making. Compared to evangelism is dramatically different. Disciple making requires a costly investment of building relationships with the one being discipled.

5. The culture in the Western world has affirmed evangelism rather than disciple making.

The theological foundation of this in the Western world goes back to Charles Grandeson Finney. This phenomenon was perpetuated the in 20th century by the emergence and operation of the Billy Graham evangelistic Association. This philosophy of “church” has accelerated with the emergence of the mega-church and the emergent church per se.

Each of these entities proclaims a gospel that is man centered and synergistic rather than God centered and monergistic. The metric in this system is numbers pure and simple rather than transformation. More is always better. Larger is superior to smaller. Methods matter more than sound theological postulates.

Please notice that the emergence and operation of this phenomenon covered several centuries. Correcting this anomaly will not be quick, easy or painless.

I offer this challenge in closing. Will the current and future pastors in the United States of America embrace sound theology and disciple making with a gracious but unrelenting pursuit of integrity in the church in America?

You can be one of these shepherd leaders. The question-will you?

Wounded Chaldeans & a Loaf of Bread

I read a chapter in the Book of Jeremiah each morning when I come to my Study. This morning, Chapter 37. This is the account of Jeremiah telling King Zedekiah that the Chaldeans would “burn this city with fire”, Jerusalem.

The King is less than pleased with this report as is always the case when those rebelling against Truth hear it proclaimed with penetrating unflinching audacity and clarity. In the vernacular this is an “in your face” delivery from an incredibly faithfulProphet.

Egypt believed the Prophet – they retreated back south to their own territory. My point – there was not only the word of the Prophet to validate the veracity of his message but the retreat of a dominant power in that region. Rather convincing to anyone except a rebellious presumptuous King.

Jeremiah tells the King that even if the entire army of the Chaldeans were defeated and only wounded men remained, they would “rise up and burn the city (Jerusalem) with fire.” (Jer.37:10) His reward is incarceration and a loaf of bread daily (until “the bread of the city was gone.”) Jer. 37:21).

The Evangelical Church in America is in need of an army of Jeremiahs willing to tell the TRUTH and be content with a loaf of bread and prison as their reward. Want to join this “School of The Prophets”?

Give me a call. We are seeking godly courageous capable and humble Pastors to engage the church in just such a challenge. I personally like Asiago Cheese!!

The Pathology of Theology

Pathology - The science of the causes and effects of diseases, especially the branch of medicine that deals with the laboratory examination of samples of body tissue for diagnostic or forensic purposes.

This is the definition I received when I ‘Googled’ Pathology. For our purposes in this brief article I use this term as the systematic examination of a Theological Premise that exhibits abnormality or departure from historic evangelical orthodoxy and will inevitably lead to heresy or worse. What people believe, especially in the realm of Theology, is subject to a pathological examination. This applies to all. We must be precise and accountable or we will find ourselves on the short side of Truth.

I am currently privileged to have two Pastoral Interns, both Seminarians. One of them recently said to me, ‘Pastor, you are so precise in your theological statements.’ I take that as a compliment and an accurate assessment of my penchant for precision. Our culture is post-modern and deconstructionist. Vigilance is a small price to pay for precision and accuracy as we give expression to the Word of God. We must say what God has said, nothing more, but most certainly nothing less.

Ten years ago I was working with a pastor who was enamored with the ministry of Rob Bell. I cautioned that Pastor to listen carefully and thoughtfully to what Bell was saying. I was not able to identify with precision the abnormalities in Bell’s theology at that time, but his recent publication of Love Wins validated my appeal for caution.

The following quote serves as an example of this issue. T.D. Jakes has at best a questionable position on the Trinity. James McDonald’s statement that “God has existed eternally in three manifestations” is a classic example of failing to address the issue. Jakes has been characterized on this issue as a ‘modalist’ and I believe that characterization is accurate. This position is ipso facto a denial of the Trinity and simply sees God as manifesting Himself sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son etc. This is not in harmony with either the text of Scripture or historic evangelical orthodoxy. Equivocation is not precision.

Posted: 27 Sep 2011 05:25 PM PDT Reformation21 BLOG by Carl Trueman

There is an interesting statement about the Trinity by Gospel Coalition council member and regular contributor, James Macdonald, with reference to his invitation to T D Jakes to speak at a conference. I quote the relevant section:

I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Some things are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to creedal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes'] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.

When people such as myself question such ambiguity, we are labeled ‘heresy hunters’ (by Paul Crouch) or ‘haters’ (by Stephen Furtick). My appeal is and always has been exegesis. The defense of heresy is almost always Polemic not Exegetical. I have an article I wrote on this subject titled Speaking Truth in Love. I will be happy to send this to any of my readers who make that request (info@igniteus.net).

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:21) spoke to those ‘telling or hearing something new’. The culture in which we serve is very similar. I appeal to my readers to be “Exegetical Pathologist”. Focus on issues and exegesis. We must identify personalities when they articulate ‘strange fire’ (Titus 1:9 – rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine) but we need not malign or denigrate people. Doing so diminishes our authority in speaking the Truth. Polemics are important. Accurate and compassionate Exegesis is essential and will always be the final arbiter of Truth. When my declarations harmonize accurately with Special Revelation it matters little or not at all what some proponent of a ‘new thing’ may call me. On my tomb stone will be the words "What Does The Text Say?" Sufficient!

Rise Up O Men of God!!

Every Evangelical Pastor needs to read this post on their knees. Wake up and understand the depths to which we have fallen. May God grant a mighty awakening in the church in America.

In once very Christian Holland, a “new” kind of Christianity has appeared, called “Something-ism.” A theologian in Amsterdam, says: “There must be ‘something’ between heaven and earth, but to call it ‘God’, for the majority of Dutch is a bridge too far.” A pastor of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, states that “God does not exist at all as a supernatural thing. God is…a word for human experience.” A better expression of pagan One-ism you could not find!

This pastor goes on to explain that Jesus is a man, “living out of the spirit of God he found inside himself.” This “new” Christianity “takes God out of the box” of doctrine and redefines the Faith as inner feelings and outer social action.

Though theological liberals present their latest view as “new,” it is the same old option of the worship of creation rather than the Creator. The priceless Gospel of Two-ism is under attack, just as it always has been.

Harvey Cox, a Harvard liberal theologian, in his book The Future of Faith (2009), contains a scandalously false reconstruction of “Christian” theology, to demonstrate “new” theological development. He divides church history into three parts: the Age of Faith (Jesus and his immediate disciples, with no doctrine or creeds); the Age of Belief (4th century till now, with creeds about Jesus); and the Age of the Spirit (the present). Conveniently, this third age is very similar to the first! He affirms: “Just as creeds did not exist in the first Age of Faith, so they are [fortunately] fading in importance now.” According to Cox, it is “important to eliminate the spurious use of ‘belief’ to define Christianity,” because “the spirit is moving in other religions too,” and we must learn to “appreciate the dazzling array of myths, rituals and stories in other religions.” He anticipates a future where “a religion based on subscribing to mandatory beliefs is no longer viable, [which is] a perversion you do not see in Buddhism or Hinduism, where there is no equivalent of the Nicene creed.”

The superficial character of this analysis is mind-boggling. Clearly there are creeds in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:3-11; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:13-20; 1 Timothy 1:15; 2:5-6; 3:16). The Gospel is a “credo” because it is the account of God’s saving action “for us.” Of course there is no Nicene Creed in Buddhism and Hinduism because there is no transcendent God and no unique act of God, from the outside, to save us.

Buddhists and Hindus—and Cox—find “god” within, in a purely One-ist occultic experience. Here is the proof: In describing the present age as “an inexorable movement of the human spirit whose hour has come,” Cox plays his hand. The spirit of which he speaks is faith in “the human spirit.” “God” is merely the event of faith in human action.

Cox is fooling many. Of this book Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, says: “Insightful, provocative, and inspiring—I even found myself uttering a hearty evangelical ‘Amen!’” Little wonder other, less sophisticated evangelicals are saying amen, preferring “deeds to creeds.” Many Millennial Christians, taught to embrace multicultural diversity, believe that being a follower of Jesus Christ is “not about defending some statement from a church creed or theology; it is about testifying to our relationship with Christ through a life of sacrificial love for all people.” Faith in experience and social action becomes the “new” Christianity.

Lest we think that Cox is one lone voice, here are others in the multitude, teaching this One-ist theology:

• Rachel Held Evans, a successful evangelical author, declares that to reduce God’s revelation to some creed or systematic theology to which everyone is required to give assent in order to be a Christian, is to “underestimate the scope and power of God’s activity in the world.”
• Sally Morganthaler, an Emergent cohort who has lectured on leadership at many evangelical schools such as Fuller, explores “the convergence of a developmental (evolutionary) view of life and spirituality…towards holism (the both/and).” No room for creeds here, as she searches for One-ist, mystical spirituality.
• Pastor Danielle Shroyer at Journey Church (Dallas, TX), states: “I cannot say exactly what we believe except that experience is a higher authority than Scripture. I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God…”

This “spiritual” refusal of creeds and Scripture—our own form of Dutch “Something-ism”—is yet another attempt by the enemy to smash the church like a Japanese tsunami. While these One-ist lies will prove catastrophic to some forms of Millennial Evangelicalism, they can never snuff out the power of the Gospel. We rejoice because the power of God the Creator that raised Jesus from the dead has redeemed us from sin in order that we might live to His praise and glory. “So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Is. 59:11

Christians in the Marketplace

This post exhibits the unrelenting and ignorant posture the main stream media takes regarding anyone who dares to embrace Christian Theism. Their ignorance is both malicious and intentional.

Michele Bachmann and Dominionism Paranoia

Once again the popular media demonstrate how woefully poor is their understanding of American evangelicals.
By Douglas Groothuis, August 25, 2011

Attacks on presidential hopefuls will increase in volume, frequency, and audacity as the primary season draws near. Time is short, the stakes are high, and the pundits will pounce on their prey. One recent barrage against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann not only impugns her integrity as a political leader, but also questions something fundamentally and luminously American: the right of religious individuals to participate according to their deepest principles at every level of political life.

There is a buzz in the political beehive about the dark dangers of Bachmann's association with "dominionism"—a fundamentalist movement heaven-bent on imposing a hellish theocracy on America. In the August 15 issue of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza asserts that Bachmann has been ideologically shaped by "exotic" thinkers of the dominionist stripe who pose a threat to our secular political institutions. The piece—and much of the subsequent media reaction—is a calamity of confusion, conflation, and obfuscation.

Lizza notes that Bachmann was influenced by the writings of Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84), an evangelical minister, theologian, and philosopher. Schaeffer, along with the contemporary writer Nancy Pearcey and others, are "dominionists." That is, they believe that "Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy secular institutions until Christ returns." Worse yet, Schaeffer, in A Christian Manifesto (1981), supposedly "argued for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe vs. Wade isn't reversed." Lizza also writes of the influence of the prolific author Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001), who advocated "a pure Christian theocracy in which Old Testament law...would be instituted." Bachman is allegedly thick as thieves with all these "exotic" subversives—and should be exposed as such.

Having read reams of books from all these authors (and every book by Schaeffer) over the last thirty-five years, as well as having taught many of these books at the graduate level, I assign Mr. Lizza the grade of "F." Consider four reasons.

First, Rushdoony argued for a position he called reconstructionism (not theocracy), which would have made biblical law the civil law of the land. However, neither Rushdoony nor his followers desired to impose this system through violence or illegal activity, but rather see it come to fruition through a long-term change of minds and institutions.

Second, Rushdoony's devotees make up but an infinitesimal fraction of Christian conservatives. The vast majority of those who have been influenced by certain aspects of Rushdoony's writings emphatically reject his understanding of biblical law, as do I.

Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."

Fourth, Nancy Pearcey has extended and further applied Schaeffer's thought. Like him, she does not endorse theocracy, but rather the participation by Christians as good citizens in all areas of life.

Those who tar and feather "dominionists" are confusing their readers by conflating Rushdoony's reconstructionism with the thinking of Schaeffer and Pearcey. Worse yet, Lizza and company may believe that any Christian influence in politics is dangerous and un-American. If so, they should reread and ponder the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom and the freedom of speech. Christians are free to be active members in the public square—along with those of other religions or none. Erecting "dominionist" straw men does nothing to advance this noble cause of freedom.

Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of Christian Apologetics.

**PLEASE NOTE** I circulate this to educate people about the wretched (and I might add intentional) ignorance and unrelenting bias of the main stream media against Christians. This is not an endorsement of any political candidate. This is an excellent treatment of a very fundamental and important issue for all Christian to understand. John Neuhaus wrote The Naked Public Square 20 years+ ago to alert Christians that there is a deliberate and concerted effort to deny access to Christians in the political processes of America. tcf