I remember hearing a version of someone (Stan Freberg?) singing “The Banana Boat Song” (Daaay-OOO). During the song a member of the beat generation keeps asking the singer to move away because he is too loud. By the end of the song the singer is outside the building doing the Day-O portion of the song. The beatnik then responds to the toned down volume: “Cool!” Another example of cool from a little later period is the “King of Cool,” Steve McQueen.  He was a huge box-office success in the height of 1960s and 1970s counter-culture.   In the 1980s Michael Jackson and Heavy Metal were cool.  In the 1990s the nihilistic lyrics of Nirvana and sitcoms about nothing (“Seinfeld”) were cool.  In this decade cool has its own incarnations:  the green movement, Brad Pitt, Beyoncé, and comic book themed movies are cool.

However, if we examine this concept, we find that it is very transitory.  Hardly any teenager today knows what a beatnik is or who Steve McQueen was for the matter.  While Steve McQueen was cool, so were menthol cigarettes.  Neither one is considered especially cool today.  Men in tight spandex pants screaming loud lyrics to a heavy beat are not considered cool anymore.  To today’s youth Nirvana is practically Oldies.  In another couple of decades the same will be said of Beyoncé.  Considering the elusiveness of our ever-shifting American pop culture, it is ironic that Christianity is still chasing cool.  Not only is American Christianity chasing what is ever-changing; it is often at least half a decade behind.  The evidence of this chasing of cool is the modern church growth dogmas.  The modern dogmas for church growth have hitched the wagons (a very uncool metaphor) to pop culture and its ethos of cool.  The problem is that we have traded eternal, foundational truth for what is cool.  We have traded a 2,000 year history in Christianity for what is cool.  Not only that, but those who want to hang on to what is timeless are blamed for the decline of Christianity in America.

The problem of chasing a changing culture is no more apparent than in our worship.  Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean only our music when I say worship.  I know the common reference to a music leader in a church is a “worship leader,” but that is a misunderstanding of worship.  Biblical worship included music (Col 3:16), biblical preaching and teaching (1 Tim 4:2), Scripture reading (Rev 1:3), Prayer (Acts 2:42), and the ordinances (Acts 2:41–2).  All of those things are worship.  The Modern American twist on Christianity has taken all of those things and changed them to make them cool.  The changes in music (and even greater the disgust with timeless hymns) are directly linked to the attempt to be relevant in an ever-changing culture.  The changes in preaching style and content are a repudiation of the timelessness of the Word of God. Likewise, the disregard for Scripture reading, serious times of prayer, and solemn practices of the ordinances are all evidences of buying the ever changing and untrustworthy shares of pop culture stock, and repudiating the eternal and unchanging.  There are all kinds of causes (both intellectual and populist), but they all end in the same shifting sand of uncertainty: pop culture. I understand the gospel will be expressed enculturated in various ways in various cultures, but in the past this has not rejected the timeless elements of Christianty.  The new attempts at reaching the culture not only embrace the culture wholesale, but unavoidably reject the timeless, either knowingly or unwittingly.

If godly change is to come in the life of an individual or in the life of a church, it will come only through the timeless, eternal truth of the Bible.

I thought some of my readers might be interested to know that Calvary Baptist Church  of Winter Garden, FL is now broadcasting on SermonAudio.  You can find sermons by me and other preachers on our SermonAudio page.  We will be primarily posting Sunday morning sermons to the site.  They will be archived there as well, if you are interested in listening to sermons from prior weeks and months.

Occasionally, I have seen an interview with a celebrity who claims that if he had his life to live over he would do it all over again.  He proclaims he has no regrets.  These kinds of declarations reflect the same Philosophy as the Frank Sinatra song, “I Did It My Way.”  Americans are generally not surprised by celebrities who lead wild lives.  However, I have noticed a more recent and disturbing trend.  More and more of our young people, Christian young people, are plastering “No Regrets” all over their MySpace and Facebook sites.  They are wearing it on their clothing; they are emblazoning it on their belongings.  It is one thing for Old Blue Eyes to live that way, but when a generation runs headlong in that direction, our churches are in trouble.

Really, the no regrets philosophy, is just an expression of human autonomy.  It reflects the heart of depravity.  Eve was tempted with the idea: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5 ESV).  The desire to be like God, to run our own lives, is the core of our rebellion against God.  Second, such a philosophy also implies that no one can bring my actions into question.  It is the “way I live my life,” and it is “none of your business.”  The idea is that each person makes his or her own decisions, and no one else can decide those decisions are right or wrong, even God is excluded from meddling in my affairs.

A few passages of Scripture ought to cause us to reconsider plastering “No Regrets” on our websites and belongings.  I think of godly Job who when he was confronted by God declared: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself,and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5–6 ESV).  That does not sound like a man with no regrets.  Here is a man, whose regret for his questioning of God lead him to repentance.  This raises the question whether a no regrets philosophy is compatible with repentance.  I would contend it is not.  David, a man after God’s own heart, confessed, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Ps 51:3–4b).  David sounds like he had regrets.  He was very aware of the wickedness of his sin with Bathsheba.  He says it was “ever before” him.  That sounds like it was a burden he was bearing.  It is certainly not a no regrets attitude.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul wrote, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” (1 Tim 1:15b ESV).  Paul’s statement reflects an attitude of regret for his past persecution of Christians.  I don’t think he would say that if he had his life to live over again he would do it all the same.  That kind of attitude is opposed to the repentance and faith of salvation.  It is a shaking of the fist, as it were, in the face of God.

As a Christian I have many regrets.  They revolve around sin in my life.  If I were asked if I would make different decisions at points in my life I would certainly hope I would by the grace of God.  I have no desire to repeat sins.  Every sin I have ever committed is a regret.  That does not mean they weigh me down.  They have been forgiven by the work of Christ and I know he is faithful to forgive (1 Jn 1:9).  The guilt and shame of those sins is gone, but I would not like to repeat them.

The ancient Temple of Apollo in Delphi is said to have had an inscription that said: “Know Thyself.” The presumed meaning is to encourage self-examination. In contrast, Post-modern society uses this phrase as an encouragement to be true to self. This ultimately encourages a person to be a self-worshiper. No matter what we replace the One Living and True God with, we end up in idolatry. Statue-worship and self-worship are both equally idolatry. To worship an image or self-image is to take worship from the very one to whom it belongs, God alone.

The world’s infatuation with self is a sign of a lack of knowledge. It is not a lack of knowledge of self as much as a lack of knowledge of God. The Bible teaches that humanity is made in the Image of God (Gen 1:26). It is impossible for a human being to know self apart from a knowledge of God. How can anyone understand a model or picture of something without knowing it is a model or picture, and not the original. Imagine seeing a model of a battleship and not knowing it is a model. One might think it strange that someone would build such a small ship. It would also seem strange that someone would build such a small ship to do battle at sea. It only makes sense in regard to what it models. Likewise, humanity only makes sense in reference to the Living God. There are many things about God that people misunderstand, and thereby misunderstands their own natures.

First, is the holiness of God. Ultimately, God’s holiness is the expression of his nature (Is 40:25). He is unlike his creation; he is the Creator and not the creature.  This means we can never be God.  He alone is always God and will never cease to be God (Deut 33:27; Mal 3:6).  This distinction points right to the heart of sin, the desire to be like God (Gen 3). The desire to be self-ruling is the very proof of sin in our hearts.  It attacks the Creator-creature distinction. That leads to an attack on the goodness of God.  In Eden Satan convinced Eve that she should be like God and that God was not good.  He was withholding good from her because he was afraid she would be like God.  This leads to the other aspect of God’s holiness, moral purity.  God’s moral purity stems from his holy nature.  The infinite purity of God’s nature stands in stark contrast to the image of God that has become perverted and distorted by the fall.  A knowledge of the holiness of God shows us what we have lost.

Second, the goodness of God demonstrates how dependent we are (Lk 18:19).  We like to think of ourselves as good and caring.  However, only God is truly good.  It is by his goodness that we are spared the consequences of our rebellion against him (Is 63:7; Lam 3:22–23).  It is the Lord, in his goodness, that sends his rain on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45) and sustains all things (Col 1:17).  It is directly from the mercy and goodness of God, that he sent his Son to redeem us while we were rebellious sinners (Rom 5:8).  There is no goodness in us; it is all by God’s grace.  A misunderstanding of God’s goodness, sourced in our rebellious hearts, causes us to think highly of ourselves.  We want to put ourselves in the place of God in regard to goodness.  However, in the presence of God even prophets and apostles recognized how unworthy they were (Is 6:5; Rev 1:17).  An understanding of the unfathomable depths of the goodness of God helps us to see ourselves in our rightful place.  We do not really understand who we are unless we contemplate the goodness of God.

The glory of God is the third area we humans badly underestimate.  I have often heard people say things like, “When I get to heaven I am going to have a beer with the Big Man Upstairs and talk a few things over with him.”  We want to think of God like he is one of our buddies, that we can give a piece of our mind while sipping beer at the bar.  But that is a complete misunderstanding of who God is, and thereby a misunderstanding of who we are.  The Scriptures indicate that the Lord is glorious.  Job learned this lesson when he wanted to plead his case before God (Job 40:3–5).  God is not another man to be put in his place.  He is the maker of heaven and earth (Is 51:13).  He is the one who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16).  Before his face one day the earth and sky will flee away (Rev 20:11).  This is not a person to be manipulated.  By forgetting the greatness of God, we inflate our own status in our own minds.  We believe we are great, when only God is great.  Our lack of knowledge of God has caused us to deceive ourselves about our own nature. The more we know about him, the more we would see, by faith, ourselves for what we are, creatures in need of our great and loving Creator.

The problem humanity has always had with knowing self, has always been rooted in a lack of knowledge of God.  Knowing self does not come through enrichment classes or meditation.  It does not come through selfish choices or inflated self-concepts.  It is available only by knowing the God who made us in his image.  The worlds solutions to knowing God always fall short, because they focus on the creature rather than the Creator in whose image we are made.

Please note that WordPress.com, who hosts this blog for free, sometimes generates links or ads that are not Christian or sometimes express unbiblical ideas.  Please do not consider links at the bottom of this blog as endorsements from me.

In his modern classic, Knowing God, J. I. Packer makes a reference to Richard Baxter’s assertion that each human being is either “a Saint–or a Brute.” At first glance, such an assertion seems to be an overstatement at best. However, under closer scrutiny, such a proposal seems to be quite accurate.  Packer elaborates:

God wishes us to think of our souls in a similar way [to the health of our bodies].  As rational persons, we were made to bear God’s moral image–that is, our souls were made to “run” on the practice of worship, law-keeping, truthfulness, honesty, discipline, self-control, and service to God and our fellows.  If we abandon these practices, not only do we incur guilt before God; we also progressively destroy our own souls.  Conscience atrophies, the sense of shame dries up, one’s capacity for truthfulness, loyalty and honesty is eaten away, one’s character disintegrates.  One not only becomes desperately miserable; one is steadily being dehumanized.

When we humans reject the redemption that is offered in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1–3), we embrace the spiritual death that is our native human birthright (Eph 2:1–3).  Such spiritual death brings not only condemnation and evil actions, but it rots the human soul.  Like venom it hollows out its victim, leaving an empty shell.  To reject God’s grace is to embrace death.  Eventually that leads to a person who does not reflect the image of God clearly, but who is no more than a brute (Eph 2:1–3).  So Baxter’s assertion is not really a preaching hyperbole, but a spiritual warning.  We cannot embrace that which is opposed to God and his image and expect to emerge human.  Sin and death are always dehumanizing.  We should take this to heart when we entertain the idea that we can toy with sin.  Its consequences are not always physical and obvious, but they are always spiritual.

Mark 11:12–25 is a really fascinating passage of Scripture. It is a wonderful piece of Mark’s understated literary technique. Unfortunately, many view Mark’s gospel as the abridged version or Cliff Notes for the other gospels. This is a severe misunderstanding of Mark’s Gospel. It is a rich literary and theological book with a message as important as any of the Gospels.  The Second Gospel repeatedly uses a literary mechanism very similar to an inclusio. Mark, in repeated passages, begins a narrative, interrupts the narrative with a second narrative, and then closes the literary section with the conclusion of the first interrupted narrative. He does this in several sections throughout the Gospel.  A great example of this also occurs in Mark 5:21–43.  The narrative begins with the sickness of Jairus’s daughter.  On the way to heal her, the narrative is interrupted by the woman with the flow of blood.  Finally, the narrative returns to the story of Jairus’s daughter and Jesus raising her from the dead.  The focus of the section is on the middle inserted pericope of the woman with the flow of blood.  What does Jesus point out about her?  He points out her remarkable faith.  Faith forms the core of the message of that narrative.  In contrast, what is lacking from the mainstream people around Jairus’s home? Faith is lacking.  On the one hand a woman who has been unclean most of her life is an example of faith.  On the other hand, respectable people, are faithless.  The lesson Mark wants us to learn is that faith is of chief importance.

There is an identical construction in Mark 11 and the cursing of the fig tree.  This passage has been problematic for many interpreters.  In fact, Bertrand Russell used Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree as an example of Jesus’ moral inferiority.  This kind of misunderstanding of the passage completely misses Mark’s literary construction and therefore, his theological point.  Mark interrupts the narrative of the fig tree with the description of Jesus’ cleansing the temple.  We are meant to see the parallels between the two.  The fig tree had leaves and looked healthy.  Fig trees often get fruit buds before they get leaves in the spring.  One would expect a fig tree to have some fruit on it if it has leaves, but the appearance of this fig tree was deceptive.  It looked healthy, but it was not.  Likewise, the temple looked like it was ordered around the Old Testament commandments to worship the Lord, but it was not.  It was a complex system to enrich the Sanhedrin.  The Court of the Gentiles, instead of being a place to worship for Gentiles, was a place of commerce and sometimes financial treachery.  This is what angered Jesus.  The Temple should have been a place for worship, but like the fig tree, its appearance was deceptive.  Like the fig tree it was not healthy.  Jesus did not curse the fig because he was merely hungry, but he did it as a living parable of the fate of the temple.

We need to learn the lesson of the fig tree.  Spiritual Pretense is dangerous.  This is very important for American Christians to learn.  We are tempted to think that because we are prosperous that we are blessed by God.  But our worship, in too many cases, has become hollow.  We have replaced spiritual health with spiritual pretense.  We have exchanged real love for God and the Scriptures with religious activities and pretense.  Worship has been replaced by entertainment.  Congregational singing has been replaced by watching others perform.  Preaching has been replaced by talk-show styled chats.  And Prayer has nearly been banished from our churches.  Pastoral prayers are almost non-existent in our pulpits, and too many sermons are comedy routines rather than expositions of the Word of God.  I fear that if we don’t learn the lesson of the fig tree, we may find that we will die from the roots as it did.  We must never delude ourselves into believing that religious activity and appearance are equivalent to spiritual health and real worship.

In studying for a series I will be preaching on the Doctrine of God, I rediscovered a quote in J. I. Packer’s excellent book, Knowing God. While discussing the majesty of God he states:

But this is knowledge which Christians today largely lack: and that is the reason why our faith is so feeble and our worship so flabby. We are modern people, and modern people, though they cherish great thoughts of themselves, have as a rule small thoughts of God. When the person in the church, let alone the person in the street, uses the word God, the thought is rarely of divine majesty (p. 83).

Modern (or Post-modern or Ultra-modern) society is self-sufficient and self-satisfied.  This spirit is contagious, even for believers.  We are tempted to think human ingenuity and resourcefulness can solve almost any problem.  We think we can fix poverty, the climate, and even human fallen nature, if we only applied the right technology at the right time.  Whether it is political theory, pharmaceuticals, or self-sacrifice for the sake of Mother Earth, we believe we have things firmly in hand.  However, such a worldview banishes God to a little corner where he is a nice piece of cultural interest, but frightfully insignificant.  The Bible on the other hand presents God as majestic.  The Psalms alone refer to God and his works as “great” dozens of times.  The biblical picture of God is of a Great God, not some old man in the sky.  He is not dwarfed by us or our technology.  He is not awed by us in any way.  If we know him, we know that we are the Liliputians who ought to be in awe.  A small grasp of this concept would render our worship richer and our Christian lives bolder.  Oh that our churches would repudiate the wordview of the moderns and align ourselves with the worldview of our Majestic Lord.

I recently read A. W Tozer’s classic little volume, The Pursuit of God. I do not intend this to be a critique of the book, but I do want to highlight a statement that stood out to me:

The doctrine of justification by faith–a Biblical truth, and a blessed relief from sterile legalism and unavailing self-effort–has in our time fallen into evil company and been interpreted by many in such a manner as actually to bar men from the knowledge of God. The whole transaction of religious conversion has been made mechanical and spiritless. Faith may now be exercised without jar to the moral life and without embarrassment to the Adamic ego. Christ may be ‘received’ without creating any special love for Him in the soul of the receiver.

I found this to be a very interesting quote.  He begins with the doctrine of justification and ties it to knowing God.  So often in Evangelicalism men slice up the doctrine of salvation into tiny bits.  Many separate justifiication from regeneration.  Many see conversion as unrelated to sanctification and discipleship.  However, the New Testament views salvation as one act of God with many facets.  Justification is a part of salvation as is sanctification and glorification.  No man will be sanctified who was not first justified.  Conversely, no man is justified in whom God is not working sanctification.  In our society of commerce we have made salvation nothing more than an exchange.  As Tozer stated: “Conversion has been made mechanical and spiritless.”  Examples of this kind of evangelism abound.  I once read a flyer that said people would be able to pray “the prayer of salvation” at the end of an evangelistic outreach.  There is nothing about this kind of decision for Christ that offends the “Adamic ego.”  It leaves a depraved sinner untouched by grace.  A man who claims to have faith in Christ, yet is unchanged, is unchanged in his destiny as well.  A man who does not have a love for Christ in his soul, a love that changes his life, is worse than the demons. He believes the right facts, but his soul is left unchanged (Jas 2:18–19).  A yearning to know God is an evidence of this change.  Too many in our day name Christ as their Lord, but deny him with their life and love.

I have been studying the biblical teachings about marriage and I would like to emphasize one truth that is often neglected or even ignored by most preaching and Christian literature about marriage. The truth is that marriage is about the gospel. Many books and sermons about marriage emphasize how to be happy in marriage or how to implement practical steps to having a harmonious marriage. However, the Bible’s emphasis is on what marriage represents. It is to be a model of God’s grace in Christ’s love for the church. A happy or harmonious marriage that does not model Christ’s love for his church is not a properly functioning marriage.

Consider a few portions of the New Testament in this regard.  Ephesians 5:25, 32 (ESV) states: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”  1 Peter 3:17 (ESV) states, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”  In a more succinct way Colossians 3:19 says the same.  Notice that the theology behind a man loving his wife is Christ’s love for the church.  Peter approaches it from a slightly different angle, but nonetheless it is still about the gospel.  Peter reminds us that we are fellow heirs with our spouses of God’s saving grace.  Whether Paul or Peter wrote it, the New Testament emphais remains the same, marriage is about the gospel.  It is about love, forgiveness, and grace just like the gospel.  I believe that we have sometimes inadvertantly harmed Christian marriages by emphasizing individual happiness above the gospel.  What happens when one person is not happy?  Often one spouse, because he or she believes marriage is about personal happiness, will abandon the marriage.  However, if it is about the gospel, then personal happiness is not the primary factor grace is.  Even in difficult marriages we can graciously love and glorify God. However, this does not mean we are torn between gospel evidencing marriages and happy marriages.  Happiness in marriage is most often a result of Christians striving to display God’s grace and illustrate Christ’s love for his church.  However, happiness is the result and not the goal.  As in many things, it is unwise and sometimes dangerous to make a result an ultimate goal.  Our marriages are meant to glorify God by exemplifying his Grace, that is what true Christian marriages are made of.

An important part of being a faithful Christian is fighting for the truth.  By fighting I don’t mean literal pugilism, but rather metaphorically defending the truth through words and putting one’s reputation on the line.  Jude reminds us of this in his epistle, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 3–4, ESV).  There are those false teachers who will introduce dangerous and damnable teachings into the church.  They are around today in modern Christendom as they were in the first century.  They are not a mere nuisance nor are they well-meaning brothers or sisters with whom we have  a misunderstanding.  They are a threat to the spiritual health of Christians and local churches.  Therefore, it is necessary to oppose them.

Having stated that I believe it is important to take a stand for truth, I also believe it is important to stand for truth in a way that is truthful.  I recently talked to a couple of Christians who heard from an evangelist, that a certain school or Bible teacher now believes (you see where this is going) that it is acceptable for Christians to participate in social drinking.  I found this surprising, but as I dug into the situation I learned the man was misrepresented.  This kind of situation has been multiplied in regard to all kinds of issues.  Theological opponents are often labeled as heretics and unbelievers because they disagree with a finer point of theology.  Ministry rivals are sometimes said to be on a slippery slope because they do not take a stand on an application of Scripture (pants on women, reading novels, watching television, etc.).  I am all for taking a stand and protecting believers from false teaching, but sometimes we attempt to defend the truth with mendacity and half-truths.  How unbecoming this is of the Gospel.  As believers in the Lord, who is by nature true, we ought to be committed to the truth–even when it seems less convenient for us.  It is the great irony of modern Christianity that so many are unconcerned with the truth in regard to defending the Bible and the Faith.  Our character and actions ought to adorn the truth, not vandalize it.  We do the truth no defense when we come to its aid with lies or misrepresentations.