What Will BAY Say Today?

The Church With the Coolest Name...

2012-01-30T10:06:00.000-08:00

I've reached the conclusion about myself that most have known about me for some time: I'm not trendy. I'm not hip. I'm not on the cutting edge. Hi, my name is Blair, and I'm stuck in a previous generation. Sign me up for a 12-step program!!

And so the current effort to come up with relevant, cool, enticing, and even provocative names for a new church leaves me scratching my head. Now many of my much cooler friends on Facebook actually work for churches with these names, and so in an effort to not offend my dedicated brethren I'm not going to name some of them here. However... I did a google search of "Trendy Church Names," and came up with a couple of good lists. You can blame them if your cool church name is listed. Scan down through them, you'll see some familiar names here:

http://www.outofur.com/archives/2010/04/a_church_by_any.html

http://churchventure.blogspot.com/2009/03/119-cool-church-names.html

From "Real" to "Celebration" to "Kinetic" to "New Beginnings" some on the list at the churchventure blog start to sound familiar. And to demonstrate that someone had at least 1 Greek lesson in their life I have to note #3 on this list, "Eklesia Church [sic]." Nothing like a little redundancy, but again, it must be cool! I wonder if they offer first time visitors some "Soda CocaCola"? And in both of these lists there are names that are definitely interesting and attention-grabbing. Some evoke thoughts of positive change in a person's life. Some offer a sense of direction in a world that doesn't offer one. And except for some dopey ones like "Scum of the Earth" and "Guts Church" (See the first link above), most are not offensive or completely off the wall.

But are they biblical? Do they emphasize man's condition or God's Kingdom on earth? In one of the lists of trendy names I saw ONLY ONE reference to the Spirit. But I'm still looking for a reference to Jesus who said, "Upon this rock I will build My Church" (Mt. 16:18). Does this strike anyone else as bothersome, or is it only the 50 and above crowd who would notice it?

I try to imagine Jesus saying, "Upon this rock I'll build 'The Flood.'" Or, "Upon this rock I will build my 'Warehouse.'" Would He have said that the gates of Hades will not prevail against Passion City? Do you think we would have got the "NorthPointe, CenterPoint, OceanPoint, MidPoint, LifePoint, MercyPoint? What is the point of all these names that don't mention the founder and central focus of the Church?

Two thousand years after its founding, the Church must still be about Jesus! Why take His name out of the name of the "Church"? The idea that to be relevant and cutting edge we need to "introduce Jesus slowly" or behind the scenes is offensive! Why not state up front what we are about, or who we belong to, if indeed we are really about Christ and belong to Him? The Gospel is still relevant, and it still changes lives. People are still called to make a decision to put Christ first.

Paul mentions the "Churches of Christ" in Rom. 16:16; and the Church of God in 1 Cor. 1:2. I take note of the fact that the term "body" is used often in the New Testament. Yet the emphasis is still being the "body of Christ." Rom. 12:5 says, "so we, who are many, are one body in christ, and individually members one of another" (NASB). 1 Cor. 12:27 says, "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it." Eph. 4:12 notes the biblical leadership that will build up the "body of Christ." One more will suffice. Col. 3:15 says, "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which you were called in one body; and be thankful" (NASB).

There are other excellent examples of Biblical names for a Church. Yet they would in context emphasize the founder (Jesus) and the purpose (worshiping and serving). Because the emphasis in these biblical names for the church points upward to Christ! We are the called out (ok, I remember ekklesia too!), a part of His body, and work to promote and advance His cause here on earth until He comes.

Is this what the trendy names suggest? It seems to me that most of them say, "Hey, your life is screwed up, but we'll make you feel better about it (without offending you, or boring you with a lot of talk about the Bible). Yet the argument is, the old names associated with "church" put people off, and their preconceived ideas about the church will keep them away.

In the first century, being a part of the Church that Christ founded could easily get you killed. At the time of the founding of the Church, talking about that Nazarene named Jesus went against the religious and social understandings of the day. When the body of Christ first came into existence, people made a life changing, and occasionally life ending decision to become a part of it, because Jesus was worth it to them! It was not intellectually or academically acceptable to follow the teachings of Jesus! It was not materialistically profitable to 'leave the boats and become a fisher of men.' But people did it. They were called to repent, and change their life and thinking.

Some rejected Jesus (see Jn. 6:66) and did not follow Him any longer. But Jesus did not change His mission or His message. Paul noted that some fell away, wanting to have their "ears tickled" in 1 Tim. 4:3, 4. Some aren't going to like our message either, no matter how we package it with relevancy, being cool, and avoiding the controversial.

I'm thankful for today's modern pioneers of the Gospel. Indeed these present-day evangelists have gifts from God that can be used in significant, even great ways. I echo Paul's prayer in 2 Thess. 3:1 that the "word of the Lord may spread rapidly..." I heard a long time ago, "Methods are many, principles are few; methods always change, but principles never do." Don't change the principles! The Church is all about Christ. It must remain focused on Him and His Word if it is going to continue to change lives today. Don't be ashamed of the "Church." Spread it! Advance it! It's still about Jesus!

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

Accredited by God! You Can Be Too!

2012-01-04T09:57:00.000-08:00

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NIV).

While the NIV uses the word "accredited," most of the other major translations do not. The ESV, NASB uses "attested," and the ASV and the KJV uses "approved." All three translations (accredited, attested, and approved) besides providing great alliteration are also good translations!

In the academic world "accreditation" is an important term. My last blog discussed how many Restoration Movement schools have run like lemmings off a cliff towards regional accreditation, no matter the implications and consequences. They seek man's endorsement, along with paying a hefty price for it. This blog isn't going to concern itself so much with 'academia' as it does with our own standing before God. How important is accreditation to us on a personal level?

Peter emphasized its importance as he preached that first Gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost. In building his case for the Lordship of Jesus, Peter wants his audience to know that Jesus was attested, or as the New Living Translation puts it, "publicly endorsed" by God. In the political climate we are currently living in, a public endorsement can be an important component of a candidate's success. God accredited, endorsed, or attested to Jesus!

At least three times it was done publicly. God affirmed Jesus at his immersion saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased" (Mt. 3:17). At the Transfiguration God again accredited Jesus saying, "This is my Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him" (Lk. 9:35, emphasis mine). And then one additional time God publicly endorsed Jesus from heaven after Jesus prayed, "Father, glorify Thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again" (Jn. 12:28).

Jesus sought - and found - God's approval. In fact, given a choice between finding favor with men or favor with God, Christ always chose to do those things which would please His heavenly Father. As a boy of just twelve years Jesus affirmed what He thought Mary & Joseph should have also known, that He "had to be in My Father's house," or as the KJV renders it, "about His Father's business" (Lk. 2:49). When Peter sought to change Jesus' thoughts about His death, burial, and resurrection Jesus rebuked Him saying, "you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Mt. 16:23). Jesus subordinated His own wishes for doing the will of God, seen passionately as He prayed in the Garden, "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done" (Lk. 22:42). One has to look no further than Jesus becoming obedient to the point of death on the cross leading to God giving Him "the name which is above every name" as His ultimate accreditation! (cf. Phil. 2:8-11)

But what about us? Can a Christian today be 'accredited' by God even if we don't hear His voice from heaven? Can we claim the same 'endorsement' by God? Can we expect that He might attest to our approval one day? I believe the answer is a resounding "Yes"!

The Holy Spirit provides us with all the 'accreditation' we need. The Spirit "bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God!" (Rom. 8:16). Talk about a top-notch endorsement! One of the promises that accompanies confessing Jesus as Lord today is that He will likewise confess us before His Father in heaven (Mt. 10:32). The Holy Spirit identifies us as being a part of God's family. Jesus even refers to us as His brethren (Heb. 2:11-13). Even as God attested Jesus to be His Son, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit likewise affirms our own status as sons by which "we cry out, Abba! Father!" (Rom. 8:15). This is also positively affirmed in Gal. 6:6, "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!"

Sadly, many minimize the role of the Holy Spirit in this regard. We gladly talk about receiving Him when we are immersed, but after that we're a little bit reluctant to speak of His ministry in our lives. This is, perhaps, due to a fear of being labeled as Pentecostal, Charismatic, etc. But let's follow what God's Word teaches, and not worry so much about the labels! Paul wrote that we were sealed and given the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge (2 Cor. 1:22). To the Ephesians he wrote, "having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:13b-14). Having the Holy Spirit - a downpayment on an eternity in heaven - is a great sign of being approved, or accredited by God!

Paul certainly understood the importance of pleasing God rather than man. He wanted the Lord's approval, not popularity with the masses. He said to the Galatians, "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ" (Gal. 2:10 NASB). The goal Paul pursued was the "prize of the upward call of God" - not man! (cf. Phil. 3:14).

The Pharisees lived for the approval of men. Whether it was their ostentatious public prayers, their "show of piety" as they fasted," or even blowing the trumpets when they gave large sums in tithes and offerings, it was all for their own self-promotion. Jesus said they had their reward in full (cf. Mt. 6:1-18). He warned His disciples not to seek the approval of men. Rather when we give, or pray, or fast, it is to be humbly, seen only by the Father, who will repay.

Perhaps it is human nature to seek approval. Children desire it from their parents, and employees hope to receive it from their bosses. Our heart's desire should be the approval of our heavenly Father. Selling out, just for the temporary approval of man, is extremely short-sighted and eternally devastating. Seek for that same approval that Paul knew was waiting in store for him: "the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing" (2 Tim. 4:8).

Ultimate accreditation from God: Now that's something worth pursuing, and worth any price we may be called upon to pay.

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

What Killed the Preacher Training Schools?

2011-12-06T13:12:00.000-08:00

I love higher Christian education. My Bible College years as a student were some of the best of my life. I had great professors who both challenged me as well as made a personal impact on my life. It was while I was in Bible College that I began to aspire to actually teach in one at some point in my life. Little did I know at that time that such an opportunity was not that far off. And in the intervening years as a Bible College, now University Professor I hope that in some small way I’ve been an encouragement to my students and that things they learned from me they are now entrusting to faithful men who will teach others also (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). But for the past several years I’ve become increasingly concerned that challenging and preparing preachers, while still given a lot of lip-service to donating churches and individuals, is becoming less and less a focus of schools that once began with the stated purpose and goal of preparing a faithful pulpit ministry.

It’s a dangerous thing to dare to challenge the motives of schools that used to produce preachers but no longer produce that many. You might as well look at your friend and tell them their momma is a rotten cook! One has to tread lightly when challenging the grand Alma Mater. Yet when each year’s graduating classes produces fewer men ready to go and preach than the year before, the questions need to be asked. Sadly, very few will ask the questions outside a quiet conversation with a preacher friend. Many lament the scarcity of those who desire to preach full-time, but few would dare to ask the hard questions of the institutions or their trustees who claim to be in existence to produce them. Even fewer would dare suggest that their future financial support depends on the commitment made to producing preachers first and foremost. It is near heresy to challenge a BibleCollege/Christian University administrator in such a way.

So, with no fear of not being asked to preach in their chapels again I am going to share a few of my own thoughts about why schools (be they called Institutes, Bible Colleges, or Universities) are no longer producing preachers as they perhaps could and should. I doubt that those who would be most shocked and personally offended will be reading this blog anyways, so I feel safe!

Most preacher training schools began as a single-focus institution. They came into existence for the sole purpose of preparing preachers. Many of these “Mom & Pop” Bible Colleges began on a prayer, a shoestring and a dime. But their earnest intentions took root and produced the very thing they wanted to produce, namely preachers.

My son went to Culinary School. He didn’t go to the Culinary Institute of America to learn architecture, or auto repair, or accounting. He chose a school that has one purpose: to prepare chefs. I’m thankful and proud that he is now very successful in his chosen career as a chef. My oldest step-daughter went to a Medical College to learn to become a physician. She now serves our nation as a pediatrician in the Navy. Single-focus schools are plentiful and do a very good job of producing the thing they are in business to produce!

Bible Colleges seem to think that expanding majors, career choices, etc. is the natural progression. So more majors are added – each requiring greater resources and placing more demands on the school, i.e. qualified faculty, library, and other infrastructure. They are still training preachers, and make sure those who send the monthly gifts know that, but they are also expanding their offerings and the “preacher training” becomes just one of the many career choices that a school seeks to offer. It no doubt helps young ladies who will never be full-time preachers. And we often hear of the value of a Christian education to those who may not serve in full-time ministry, but want that good solid Christian foundation for whatever careers they do eventually pursue.

I continue to see the value of a single-focus institution that exists for the express purpose of training preachers. These schools would exist to produce preachers - not nurses, not public school teachers, not auto mechanics,etc. There are plenty of community colleges, trade schools, or even Christian Liberal Arts colleges that can do a fine job in preparing people for those careers. It is a sad thing that graduates of Bible Colleges end up thousands of dollars in debt because of the high price that schools must charge to fund all of the infrastructure associated with multiplying majors. How can a young preacher afford to pay back his student loans, perhaps support a family, when he starts out in a ministry at a small congregation that can barely pay him enough to meet his monthly obligations? Discouragement and frustration often set in, and another preacher is forced to seek secular employment, and perhaps leave the ministry altogether. The skyrocketing cost of training a preacher is a dilemma that must be urgently addressed.

When a school leaves its single-focus purpose of training preachers and begins adding other majors and career choices, the next step for many of these schools has been Regional Accreditation. The reasons for this are repeated ad nauseum. It helps those who transfer to state schools to have their credits transfer. It gives the school more standing and prestige in the academic world. It may qualify the school for additional grants, federal aid, etc. Most promise their donors that it will greatly increase their enrollmentand allow them to do even more in the future. Oh yeah, and they’ll still be training preachers.

I’ve seen numerous schools go down the road of Regional Accreditation. Thousands of dollars are spent annually on the fees of membership. Tens of thousands of dollars are spent on hiring academically qualified professors {as determined by the agency} to teach the courses that need to be taught. Woe to that faculty member who doesn’t have the right degree as they may find a way to get rid of them to bring that next guy on board. Let me just take an aside for a moment and say that some of the very best, biblically sound, conservative, excellent examples of a preacher/professor that I had did not have very advanced degrees. Now if someone is a great teacher, biblically sound, conservative, excellent preacher/teacher who has an advanced degree, I’m all for it. But just having the right degree in no way guarantees that he is biblically sound, or even a halfway gifted teacher. But they make the regional accrediting team happy, so that becomes the deciding factor. So maybe the quality of professor has something to do with the qualityof the graduate, or even the number of them in any given program.

Each year the Directory of the ministry as well as the Christian Standard publishes a list of the Bible College/Christian Universities in the brotherhood. You will not find one who has exponentially increased their enrollment since they went the route of Regional Accreditation. Some struggleto maintain the same numbers they had before they got it. But you will see schools that have steadily increased their tuition and fees, and whose number of graduates who desire to go in the preaching ministry either remain stagnant or decline. Regional Accreditation may help those who want to go into a career field other than ministry, but I contend it is not necessary for those who would preach Jesus. I once got scolded for daring to preach in a Bible College chapel that our accreditation [approval] should be from God rather than man. Such is life. I was right then. And I’m rightnow! Having secular associations, secular accrediting teams pass judgment on a Christian endeavor such as preparing preachers seems counter-productive at best, and just plain wrong atworst. Yet that is the price that is paid, along with thousands of dollars, for the prestige of being able topublish a logo on your letterhead and website from the accrediting body. I don’t buy the necessity of regional accreditation for the purpose of training preachers.

So whatever did happen to the “Bible College”? Cincinnati Bible College; Minnesota Bible College; Great Lakes Bible College; Johnson Bible College; Roanoke Bible College (among a host of others) have all changed their name. Notice that Johnson is now called Johnson University (without respect to Bible or Christian). This is no isolated incident! There is something going on that speaks to the outcomes these institutions want to achieve, and I contend it has precious little to do with training preachers. My Alma Mater used to have a large banner on the wall in the front of the Chapel which read, “God, Give Us Preachers.” It was later changed to, “God, Give Us Servant Leaders.” Whether they have anything there any more or not, I don’t know. I’ve scratched my head at some of the rationales for the name change to“University” that I’ve heard. The most consistently used one has something to do with the idea that foreign students associate “College” with High School. So the term “university” then assists foreign students in knowing what level of education they will receive at a US school. I’m waiting to see statistics that (a) show a marked increase in the number of foreign students at an institution that was a former “Bible College”; and (b) that these foreign students are coming to learn how to preach when they go back home. I’ve seen great foreign nationals come and learn in a non-accredited Bible College who are doing amazing things back in their home countries. And they did it all without the benefit of a “University”education. I don’t buy the necessity of a name change.

Finally, I put a lot of responsibility at the feet of alumni, Church leaders, and Christians who are unwilling to speak up about these disturbing trends in schools that purport to exist to train preachers. Earlier I said something about the fear of not being invited to speak in a Chapel, or ending up on some supposed “Black List”. Trust me, they actually do have those lists although they may not be in written form! Dare to question these people and you probably will tick them off, but that’s ok. I’ve found you can still sleep at night!

Administrators and fund raisers will give the “right”answers. When they come into a church looking for students and especially for money, they will play to their audience. This sounds calloused of me I know, but I once raised money for a Bible College, and I know what they want to sell. I’ve seen the outside consultants come in to train staff on how to effectively solicit money. You will get the canned, focus-group driven responses about the importance of preacher training, regardless of how many are actually trained. Or if you send more money and students, more will be trained! Ask to see the numbers sometime of graduates in preaching programs. That will tell the story in a very objective way.

At Liberty University, Professor Elmer Towns used to say that the acid test of a leader is “nickels and noses.” You have to be able to raise money and bring in people to be successful. If there’s any truth in the adage that “money talks,” church leaders need to do a lot more talking with their Missions budgets. If we don’t like the food we get at one restaurant we’ll go to another. If one car dealer jerks us around we’ll find another one. Why is it any different to say to a school, “We don’t like the way you’re going”? Kindly inform them that that your future support is not guaranteed! Tell them “We’d like to see some changes made or we will take our support elsewhere!”

One radical idea is to go over the heads of the school’s administration. Go to the trustees. Voice your concerns directly to them. Don’t be so naïve to think that concerns you raise to administrators will be shared with the trustees. Most complaints to administrators get immediately filed in the trash bin, or the recycle bin if you email! Trustees may be more apt to discuss and then act upon the concerns of alumni and supporting churches when they know what is at stake, i.e. their ability to stay in existence. There is no more need to fear these people than the manager of a McDonalds you complain to when your fries are stale.

Ask yourself, “Is the church being effectively served by the new model of Christian Colleges and universities?” Is the staggering cost of tuition justified by what these schools are producing? Obviously, I have my doubts. I believe a new paradigm for training preachers needs to be implemented. Actually, it’s the old paradigm. Perhaps it will be churches that train up their own men to faithfully preach the Gospel. Or maybe it will be the return to the single-focus Bible Institute.

My heart’s desire is to preach and help prepare other preachers. It may be time to think “out of the box” to borrow a cliché, and find new ways to effectively recruit and train a faithful ministry. The current way just isn’t getting it done. The job is too big and urgent, and the needs of the Church, as well as a world lost in sin too great. I’d like to see a dialogue started that will address these concerns. The collective wisdom of those who share a similar goal, by God’s grace and provisions, could achieve amazing things in preparing preachers for the generations to come.

C’mon, Murphy, let’s go outside!

Hundred Dollar Sermons

2011-10-18T10:02:00.000-07:00

A preacher friend asked me to fill in for him in a month or so, which I was very glad to accept. He mentioned the honorarium and asked if it would be acceptable. I told him the amount was fine and I was looking forward to being at the Church to preach.

The email exchange reminded me of when "back in the day" I was filling-in every Sunday at a different church. This went on for a lot of years. And it always seemed that things just had a way of working out. One church would pay very little - sometimes not enough to pay for the gas to get there, let alone actually being enough to help supplement an income. But the following week I'd be somewhere else and they'd hand me a check (or occasionally cash!) which not only was generous for that day, but also made up for what I didn't get the week before.

I've had to learn this lesson the hard way. Back in the mid 80's I had 2 children who were in diapers. I remember one day having to literally count pennies to take to the store to buy the diapers, and I ended up being about 4 cents short due to the taxes on them! The clerk was nice and said not to worry about it, and I left with plenty of Pampers! But I was mad. Steaming actually. All the way home I grumbled about my lousy salary, how I could be making a lot more doing something other than teaching, and how it all wasn't fair. I had a pretty good pity party all the way home. When I pulled into my driveway I was surprised to see two brown sacks on my porch, filled to capacity with fresh corn, cucumbers, tomatoes, etc. There was no note or any indication who left them there, and to this day I don't know who gave them to us. But I knew I felt like the biggest jerk in the world, and about 2 inches tall! All the way home I expressed my doubt in God, and He already had me covered! I did some repenting and confessing that night for sure. And there have probably been some other failures on my part, but through it all God was teaching me that trust in Him is never a waste of time.

People occasionally call and ask, "How much do you charge to do a wedding?" My answer is always the same. I don't charge to do a wedding, but if people want to pay me for services rendered that is fine. Most often they'll ask what others have done, and I'll give them the range and that usually is all that needs to be said. Same thing for funerals, etc.

As I look back at nearly 30 years in ministry I can say I've never been late on my rent or mortgage or missed a car payment. God has always been faithful to me and has met my family's needs without fail. We've been blessed immeasurably more, I believe, because we chose to trust Him to provide. My desire to preach without written stipulations ahead of time has been met with God blessing us far above what I could ever ask.

During my brief stint as a Correctional Chaplain for the State of North Carolina I recall a meeting of all the Chaplains where an event was being planned. The conversation turned to the remuneration for paying the speaker. One Chaplain surprised me a bit when she stated very matter-of-factly, "I don't have no hundred dollar sermons." I bit my tongue and didn't say that I thought that for her that $100 would be over-charging a congregation.

But what it did do was remind me of Paul's views on being paid for ministry. He often talked about his right {and that of other Gospel workers} to be paid for preaching, i.e. 1 Cor. 9:4-11. Yet he often did not exercise his right because of the situation of the church, or their poor attitude about giving in general, i.e. 1 Cor. 9:14, 15. He knew he could have "charged" but chose to volunteer instead. Paul trusted that other churches would make up for the stingy attitude of churches that would not provide monetary support. See 2 Cor. 11:7, 8 where he says, "Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to serve you" (NASB).

Paul knew, like most preachers, some pretty 'lean' days. And yet he also knew of those times when the blessings, including material ones, were just off the charts. And through it all he learned to be content. His comments in Philippians 4:10-19 tell the story of going through some hard times and also being richly blessed. And in all of this Paul learned the lesson of contentment. I'm guessing Paul had his version of "Ramen Noodles" on many occasions, but then there were times when he had an "Outback" kind of night too. And either was fine with him! He said he needed "food and covering" and when he had them then he was content (I Tim. 6:8).

So I'm looking forward to preaching at this church coming up. It may not pay as much as the last one, or it may pay more than the next one! But either way I'm confident that God will meet my needs. And for that I will be thankful.

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

Pretentious Pastors and Pharisees

2011-05-19T09:27:00.000-07:00

"Lead," "Senior," "Executive." Put these adjectives in front of Minister or Pastor and you have a pretty important person! And think just how important a title like this is when the congregation they are called to serve may - on a good Sunday - reach as many as 100 people! Those people will need to be reminded who's really in charge, and a great title like that will do the job!

A previous blog of mine summarizes my thoughts on the rush to appropriate the title of Pastor. No doubt the denominations can be pleased they've impacted the Church of Christ/Christian Churches to such an extent. Perhaps it should be the other way around, but in an effort to fit in and be palatable, the mindset of "you got to go along to get along" seems to be working well for the pastors in today's church. Now when the proper descriptive term that indicates the kind of pastor he's going to be is added, everything is then in place for unfathomable growth to occur.

Or is it? What are we really communicating with those impressive titles of "Lead," "Senior," or "Executive"? Is it really following a Biblical model, or is it yet another example of setting aside the commandment of God in order to follow the tradition of men (see Mk. 7:6-8)?

I searched the word "leader" on www.biblegateway.org. It lists approximately 150 places where the word is used. Obviously, it's a good biblical word. Yet there is a passage that I keyed in on in my thoughts today. It's found in Mt. 23:10:

"And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ" (NASB).

The verse is straight-forward, and in its context makes perfect sense. Let's examine it. The occasion for this teaching is Tuesday of Christ's final week before the crucifixion. Jesus has been challenged by the religious leaders on issues such as His authority to teach; His views on paying taxes; His understanding of the concept of resurrection; and what He considered to be the greatest commandment. In each case the Lord confounded his accusers, and taught great lessons with hard to miss applications. After that, in Mt. 22:46 we read, "And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question" (NASB).

They may have not wanted to ask Jesus anything further, but He was far from done speaking to them, and to the crowds who gathered around to listen to the debate! Matthew 23 is a stinging rebuke of the attitudes and actions of the Scribes and Pharisees. For some 3 1/2 years Jesus had refrained from a lengthy rebuke of their hypocrisy, but on this occasion - really the last possible occasion for it - He launches into a 'no holds barred' assault upon these pretentious, hypocritical leaders.

Leading up to verse 10 where Christ says, "do not be called leaders" here's what He's mentioned so far:

1. The Pharisees like to be in a position of control and power (i.e. the seat of Moses). But they do not do as they instruct others to do - vss. 2-4.

2. They enjoy being viewed and perceived as scholarly and very pious. They exuded sanctimony from their every pore! Yet what they did was only for show and accolades (vs. 5). Even their manner of dress was to set them apart from the crowds, or laity, or the ignorant, non-spiritual people (vs. 5, 6).

3. They wanted to be acknowledged and rewarded for their position of prominence! They liked their TITLES! (vss. 7-10). So Jesus tells them to lay off titles such as "Rabbi" (teacher); "Father," and "Leader."

What's the problem with titles? They are by definition descriptive, and should be helpful. Yet sometimes titles don't match up too well with function! Sometimes you can have a title without doing the job that it describes. Some of the old preachers used to say, "I have elders who won't eld, and deacons who won't deak!" They had a Biblical title, but didn't do the work that went along with it.

Years ago, in another life, I used to get mail addressed to me as "Director of Academic Computing." Now that is indeed an impressive title. No doubt much prestige, not to mention a much higher salary (!) should have been mine for having that most impressive designation. The only problem was, there was no position at that institution called "Director of Academic Computing." At that time the people I worked for had barely figured out how to use an abacus, let alone know anything about what academic computing would turn out to be! It was a great title, but there was no job, no function to it. It looked good, and would have been impressive on a business card, but meant nothing. To this day I have no idea how my name got put on a list with that title.

But to go on in the text, Jesus very pointedly notes what the mindset of these self-professed important religious leaders should have been. He says "But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Mt. 23:11, 12).

Great titles will never replace servanthood! Jesus - the greatest Leader the world has ever seen - also became a servant of all. Contrast the Pharisees who wanted the titles, the respect, and the power, with Jesus who said, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45 NASB). Jesus cared more for the ministry than the monikers! Think of the titles He earned and deserves, yet remember the Suffering Servant who washed the feet, touched the leper, and ministered to the distressed and downcast. Greatness in the eyes of God is not measured by grandiose titles, rather by serving others.

James and John once sought for prominence and greatness from Jesus (Mk. 10:35-37). Jesus, however, taught them, the other disciples, and us that "whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all" (Mk. 10:43, 44 NASB).

Titles are here to stay. Yet servants of God should be less concerned about grand titles for their business cards and Church Bulletins than they are for the needs of the people they are called to serve. The titles may impress fellow pastors, and perhaps some of the congregation where they do their "Senior Executive Leading." But in the final analysis, impressive titles don't really do much to gain the notice of God. Well, at least not in a good way!

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

When God's Ultimate Justice is Meted Out, How Will We Respond?

2011-05-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

The posts & status updates I'm seeing on Facebook today raise a good discussion. Should Christians rejoice at the death of UBL? Is there reason to praise God that a wicked man is no more, or should we instead pity a poor lost soul (one responsible for the deaths of thousands of people)? I'm not sure I want to join the chorus of the 'hand-wringers' just yet.

Things I've been contemplating today. They may not, in every way, apply to UBL, but I'm seeing some principles to consider as I think through these momentous events.

Pharaoh could have obeyed God's command, but opted not to. And God hardened his heart. Pharaoh met his doom.

Judas acted wickedly and betrayed the Lord. Jesus said, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Think about what that means in terms of Judas' eternity.

Three times in Romans 1 the phrase, "God gave them over" is used. Why? Because they were wicked, evil, and deserving of this punishment.

Paul tells us that there will be those who "perish because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" (2 Thess. 2:10, 11 NASB).

Is God to be reprimanded or criticized for his actions, i.e. judgment on these poor souls who are lost? Was he not at first gracious to them, and his graciousness was rebuffed for that which was evil and false? Do we dare to object to what God deems to be right and just?

And then I looked at Revelation 19:1-3 which pictures not just the death/judgment of 1 wicked individual, but rather that which has caused suffering, bloodshed, and death upon God's people.

"After these things I heard, as it were, a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,

'Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God;

Because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.'

And a second time they said, 'Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever'."

Four times in Rev. 19:1-6 a shout of Hallelujah goes up. God is praised for His justice, and for avenging the blood of His people.

A far bigger day of judgment is coming than what the "Mastermind of 9/11" experienced yesterday. His actions killed thousands of people. How many of them were ready for judgment, who might have been had they been given another day? I feel no more pity for him than I did for Saddam Hussein when he met his justice at the gallows. Their free-will actions led them to their ultimate fate.

If anything, the presence of evil in the world reminds me that I need to be ready should my life be taken, and that I need to help others be ready as well. I'll grieve for the innocent who are taken; work hard to preach and teach that others might be saved; but for those who choose wickedness and evil over what is righteous and good, I will say Hallelujah for God's justice - however He chooses to distribute it.

"How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Rev. 6:10).

Inquiring minds want to know!

C'mon, Murphy! Let's go outside!

Fear God, Honor the King

2010-11-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Not me. I won't just shut up, sit in the back of the bus, and let the Secularists tell me what's best for me, my family, and my country. Actually, I expect to be told that from the progressive, intellectual class. But sadly, that's what some Christians want me to do as well!

Should a Christian dirty himself with the political issues of the day? Shouldn't we be about the Great Commission instead? If I'm actively involved in preaching the Gospel I won't really have much time to worry about who's up or down in the polls, who is winning the day, and what those wicked, sneaky people over at Fox News are doing.

How about a brief survey of the New Testament. It is not silent on the issue of politics, leaders, and the Christian's relationship to them. 1 Peter 2:13-17:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king" (NASB).

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God , an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Rom. 13:1-4 NASB).

"First of all, then I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4 NASB).

Christians are told to respect their leaders. That is a hard one! It's easy to enjoy the jokes that Letterman, Leno, and others tell about them. It's hard not to snicker at references to Monica Lewinsky and a stained blue dress. It's easy to rail against the lies and deception of Watergate, the reaction time to Katrina, and the list goes on. More than once I've fought the urge to buy the "OBAMA" bumper sticker that says, "One Big Ass Mistake, America!"

I've had the opportunity to see two presidents in person. One is my all-time favorite, Ronald Reagan. The other was Bill Clinton. Both times I stood and applauded. They were my Presidents. One I loved, the other ... not so much. But they held the office, as does the current occupant, and whoever comes after him, whether in 2012, or 2016. They are worthy of respect for the office they hold, and submission because that's what God asks us to give, even when they aren't so good, or favorably disposed towards Christians. As an American, I will continue to respect the office holder, and work to elect those whose values are in line with Christian values, whenever they can be found. The same holds true for other elected leaders.

I'm going to pray for them. But this is prayer with a purpose! Yes I want them to be safe from harm, healthy, filled with, and led by God's wisdom. All that is pretty easy to understand. But why am I praying for them? Paul says that I might lead a "tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity..." I want them to do their job, and then get out of my way so I can do mine!! God desires all men to be saved, and when government isn't oppressing me I am going to have an easier time, and perhaps more opportunities to do just that.

Peter's words are very instructive: "Act as free men..." To act is to do something, and he indicates that I'm to do something positive, and not use my freedom to do evil things. Some Christians seem to have forgotten that we have unique freedoms and opportunities here that other Christians who live in other parts of the world do not presently enjoy. It is right that we use our voice as effectively as those who do not espouse Christian values use theirs. Maybe this is why Jesus said, "...for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light" (Lk. 16:8).

The Secularists are not going to be quiet. My impression is that if they lose the election they will become louder, more shrill, more angry, and more determined to seize power at the next opportunity. Are Christians to just roll over and dutifully take it? If we have the God-given opportunity to let our voice be heard, why not let it be heard? If we can stay in submission to our Constitution, government leaders, etc. and use the process that it affords to all citizens, why wouldn't we? If we can find some political leaders who espouse values similar to ours, why wouldn't we support them? Maybe there is a Nehemiah or even an Esther out there yet! I'll support them in that secular work, in hopes that my Christian ministry will be more effective as well.

I don't want to be naive and just stick my head in the sand when so much hangs in the balance. My voice and my vote may not count for much, but it's about all I have to impact the political process. I think I'll continue to use both.

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

Get Off Glenn Beck's Case

2010-09-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

I'm reading a lot of criticism of the rally led by Mr. Beck this past weekend, Aug. 28th. First let it be said that it was a great day to hold it. Not because it was the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, but rather because it was my birthday!!

It seems that people on both sides of the political spectrum are angry at Beck. I'm not surprised that those on the left didn't like it. He stands for morality, principle, the constitution - all the things that liberals typically reject.

It is bothersome to me that many Christians object that a Mormon could lead such a rally, and speak for many evangelicals on issues of the Constitution, and returning to a Judeo-Christian ethic, bringing God back into the public arena, etc. They seemed incensed that a LDS could garner attention, enthusiasm, and support from Christians who agree with him on these issues.

OK, so where was Billy and/or Franklin Graham? Where was Bill Hybels? Where was Jerry Falwell, Jr.? Where was Pat Robertson? Max Lucado? Where was the president of the North American Christian Convention, or any of the leaders of the Restoration Movement colleges and seminaries? Were they busy? Out of town? It seems rather easy and convenient to dismiss Glenn Beck's passion for the Constitution, but where are the other evangelical leaders to step in the gap? I could also wonder why we reject Glenn Beck because he is a Mormon as if we should be more happy and willing to accept the message if it came from a Catholic, a Baptist, or a Presbyterian? Was doctrine the key issue of the day? On this issue I may suggest that we should follow the pattern set down by Jesus who said, "Whoever is not against us is for us" (See Lk. 9:50).

I think the emphasis should not be on the messenger but the message. Surely the Framers of the Constitution did not all come from the same religious background, yet they were in agreement on the place of God in country.

John Quincy Adams said on July 4, 1837, "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?"

Samuel adams wrote on Feb. 12, 1779, "He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous people.

Oct 22, 1774, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts met. John Hancock declared: "We think it is incumbent upon this people to humble themselves before God on account of their sins, for He has been pleased in His righteous judgment to suffer a great calamity to befall us, as the present controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies. {AND} also to implore the Divine Blessing upon us, that by the assistance of His grace, we may be enabled to reform whatever is amiss among us, that so God may be pleased to continue to us the blessings we enjoy, and remove the tokens of His displeasure...."

To the Continental Congress on July 1, 1776 John Adams said, "Before God, I believe the hour has come. My judgement approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it. And I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and Independence for ever."

I'm thankful that the founders were willing to build the foundation of this nation on their faith in God and belief in His word. I don't think they were aiming to be in accord on all points of doctrine, but they understood the big picture as it related to the nation, and the Freedoms we hold dear, including that of religion.

I fear what has happened to this nation in the last 18 months as our freedoms have been taken from us without the consent of the governed. I'm thankful for the groundswell of enthusiasm to return this nation to the principles upon which it was founded. And if it takes a Mormon television personality from Fox News to do it, then I say, "God bless Glenn Beck."

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

Bless the Gift and the Giver

2010-06-10T10:41:00.000-07:00

The topic of giving is one where preachers often step very gingerly! Perhaps this is for fear of offending those who are faithfully giving already, or worries about 'putting off' new people who haven't yet learned the grace and responsibility of stewardship. Maybe it is for fear of being hypocritical telling others to do what they aren't doing themselves! So let me put in the obligatory "I'm not perfect in this either" statement. In fact, there have been times when my giving has been non-existent; other times when it has been very selfish; and yet times when I'm faithfully giving as well.

Have you ever felt like your only purpose and function at a church was to 'write a check'? That's been something I've struggled with in recent years. I've heard people express this before, but only recently could I relate to it. For example, I believe I could teach something far more valuable than whatever monetary amount my check might reflect, but that hasn't been asked for by the leadership. I could participate in some way in the service, which may be a bigger blessing to someone than whatever money my wife and I might give that day. But when those opportunities don't come, I wonder why I'm there, or why I'd want to support that work. Is that selfish? I've struggled to come to grips with that.

Excuses for not giving are many, but none are valid. It is a responsibility, opportunity, and a blessing to support God's work with money. From the Sermon on the Mount; 2 Cor. 8 & 9; Galatians 6, and the list goes on, supporting God's work monetarily is not an option! But we do have options available to us.

For some time we visited a number of congregations trying to find a "fit." And we wrote checks to a lot of different places in that time as well. Whatever became of those funds, and how they were dispersed remains a mystery to me. You hope that principles of wise stewardship were used and that the money was used wisely. But when you aren't plugged in at a local church you never really know for sure (and sometimes even when you are!!)

But I wasn't satisfied with this. We wanted to give to a ministry where we knew there was a need, and one where we trusted in the leadership to do the very best they could with the gift. So we chose a mission organization. There are many great missions out there that are doing fantastic work. But we chose one in particular where we had first-hand knowledge and confidence, and that is where we've been doing the majority of our giving, for the time being.

I expect that as we again find 'our place' of service in a local church that we will again support it with both our talents and abilities as well as with money. But I'm no longer content with just being a 'check writing spectator' at a church somewhere. To be blunt, if they don't want me then I will choose to give somewhere else. There are many fine ministries where I can give with a cheerful heart and will choose to do so, not grudgingly or under compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7).

Perhaps my sentiments are shared by others. As we involve people in ministry I believe they will see giving as a partnership rather than a 'price of admission' each week at the Sunday service. Their financial support will complement other means they have for serving and expanding the work of a local congregation. When members treasure their role in a congregation, and enjoy a sense of involvement in that community of believers, their checkbook will begin to reflect that priority in their lives as well. Where their heart is so will the checkbook follow!

I'm thinking that when a congregation only focuses on young people, or young couples with children, and sends a signal that older people have but one function, namely to financially support what is being done for young people and young couples, there will be problems that develop, and financial issues won't be far behind. Catering to just one demographic will have negative repercussions somewhere along the line. And yet, if only the mature givers are ministered to, there probably won't be many new members to become involved either. This is why it should not be one or the other, but all have something to offer in terms of their service and their stewardship. Leaders must work to assimilate all into the life and program of the church, including both their abilities as well as their finances.

I'm thankful for the opportunity to serve and for the opportunity to give. The treasure we hold in earthen vessels is priceless (2 Cor. 4:7). What we can faithfully give in our finances can be multiplied as well (2 Cor. 9:9-11). I desire to give both!

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

Teaching the Preacher: What Have They Really Learned?

2010-05-03T14:10:00.001-07:00

Recently I had a conversation with a man on a pulpit committee. He is a Deacon at a church that is looking for a preacher. He was telling me about the difficulty he was having finding some 'fill-in' until they hire a new preacher. I asked him about the local Christian University and if they were helping. He said not too much, and the ones they had sent so far usually preached one sermon and the congregation told the committee to not ask them back! I asked what was going on with the crop of preacher boys.

He said, "They don't want to preach about the Bible, or even seem to want to mention the Bible." He went on to say that "they talk about other books they've read, but never say much about the Scripture." Sadly, I had to say I wasn't surprised. I've sat in a lot of pews, well not really pews but folding chairs, and I don't hear much of God's Word either! I learn about whatever latest and greatest book the "preacher" has read in recent weeks; and watch the amusing videos to support whatever point they are trying to make; but I don't hear much about God's Word.

This problem is greater than just one little country church in Northeastern NC. This speaks to the mentality of the preachers coming out of Bible Colleges and/or Christian Universities. These young preachers will most likely parrot what they've seen their peers do, or guys they admire do; or what they've been taught is 'acceptable and relevant' preaching from their preaching professors.

What did Paul do? The Apostle determined to preach Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Here's what I think: You Cannot Preach Him That You Do Not Know!

The problem not only goes beyond a little country church struggling to find a preacher, it also goes beyond whoever teaches preachers how to preach. The issue boils down to this: What are students in institutions that bill themselves as a preacher training facility actually learning about Christ and His Word? Hear me on this: I've been through the whole hand-wringing on why Regional Accreditation is essential, and the whiney apologetic as to why it is necessary to churches and individuals from whom a college seeks to solicit support (that means money!) It goes like this:

A Bible College begins with a singular focus of wanting to prepare preachers. As it grows and accepts more students the issue evolves into what are students who don't want to preach, or females that aren't going to preach going to do? Without Regional Accreditation they cannot transfer very far, and so in order to help them out, and improve the institution's own prestige in academic standing, they pursue Regional Accreditation. (Actually I have a lot more to say on this subject, but these bare bones will do until that time comes.)

Regional Accreditation places a large financial burden on an institution. It requires an infrastructure of its own, and demands faculty have the 'right degrees.' I'm amazed at the measures an institution has taken to make room for those with the "right" degrees. But it also demands certain courses be taught in a program which requires a sacrifice in those truly essential courses that a preacher needs to have. I also cringe when I see the unnecessary debt that students from these schools accumulate in 4 years.

I didn't come along early enough to go to Cincinnati Bible Seminary when Gospels was a three year course. I didn't say three semesters, I said three years! I still hear some great saints talk about the thrill and privilege it was to sit under R.C. Foster (who didn't have a Ph.D.) and walk with Jesus for those three years. Now some schools offer ONE SEMESTER of Gospels and feel they've pretty well covered the subject. Biblical Doctrines now merits one semester, not a year; and the list goes on.

Science is valuable, as is math, as are computer courses. The list of general ed. courses all have some merit and the debate will not be settled soon about where they belong in a curriculum. But they will never replace what a preacher needs to know about the Word of God, and the Son of God revealed in those pages. And the more the Bible is removed from present day Bible College or Christian University curriculum the less-prepared preachers will be to actually preach God's Word. They won't know it, and it will become more and more foreign and irrelevant to them. And if there has to be some 'give and take' in the curriculum it ought not to be in the Bible and Theology areas.

Years ago I used to hear the yearly re-telling of how in Eastern North Carolina there was a "dearth [lack] of preachers," and the ones that were coming from Atlantic Christian College were liberals. A new Bible College was formed to prepare a faithful, i.e. conservative ministry. Far be it from me to say that those who fail to learn the lessons from the mistakes of the past will repeat them." I'm ready, however, to see a singular focus Bible College return to prominence again. I pray that preachers will return to preaching God's Word, and be properly equipped to do so.

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside!

I Came, I Saw, I went Home

2010-03-04T07:28:00.000-08:00

My title doesn't quite measure up to the words attributed to Julius Caesar in 47 BC: "Veni, Vidi, Vici" (I came, I saw, I conquered). But it does sadly describe the "church" experience of many. The formula goes like this: They come, they watch the show, and then they go home. This is to be repeated until they die or the Lord comes. At least that is the impression often given as worship is "done" for them; as they have little opportunity or motivation to be personally involved; or as long as the church is just one more thing in their life, and not "THE" most important thing in their life.

Granted, it is not for a lack of trying on the part of church leaders. I believe they sincerely want involvement, commitment, sacrifice, and growing relationships with Jesus. They just have skipped some important, but essential parts of the process to get people from "spectator" to "disciples," i.e. involved. The "I'm the one who knows what's best for you" mentality exhibited by many church leaders works about as well for the Church as it does for Barack Obama's presentation for a government takeover of health care. The people just don't buy it, and why should they? They want to walk away from it.

I look back at the first Gospel sermon preached on the "Day of Pentecost." Let's step back a bit. None of the people were "regular church members/Christians." The Church had not yet begun. They were Jews from all over the empire (see Acts 2:9-11). They had traveled great distances for the feast of Pentecost. They had no idea they were about to be preached to about a Messiah by the name of Jesus. They happened to be "in the right place at the right time" for that! You couldn't even call them "seekers," because they weren't exactly looking for what they were going to get that day!

I suspect that most of the people who were at the feast had been there many times before, as the Law instructed them to be. Maybe it was as exciting for them as we get about major holidays in our calendar. But even so, there is a predictability about what we will do on Thanksgiving or Christmas. Our holidays are special and exciting, but once you've done it 20, 30, 40 years or more, it does get a little predictable!

And then comes the sermon! Peter preaches a message to them that ties in their experience from the "here and now," i.e. seeing Jewish men speak in the tongue (known language) of these various visitors. Those who didn't quite understand what was happening thought they were drunk! Peter assures them that they weren't drunk, and it was a little early in the day for drinking anyway (Acts 2:15, about 9 am). He took what was new and interesting and applied it quickly and accurately to the Scripture! He reminded them of what Joel said would take place in the last days (2:17ff.)

In other words he took the real life situation of the audience, and shared with them something that was Biblically relevant and timely. It hit them where they lived! But it didn't stop there. The sermon tied the "here and now experience," with the Biblical background, and from there they preached Jesus!

I could stop there and say many times I hear sermons that talk about present issues, problems, challenges, and throw in a verse or two that are often used as a "cure all." But I hear little about Jesus! Peter smartly takes the confusion of the people about the tongues phenomenon that was taking place around them, something they hadn't seen before in their previous visits to Jerusalem for the feasts. He gives them a relevant biblical basis for what they were experiencing, that it was not unexpected! God had promised that one day it would take place, and they were blessed to see it happen before their eyes and ears! And from there Peter preaches about Christ!

Just like Joel had predicted a day when God would pour forth His Spirit, God had also chosen a time when His Son, Jesus would be delivered up and nailed to the cross (Acts 2:23). But the story does not end there. Jesus would rise from the dead, not seeing decay in the tomb. Peter says that he and the apostles were witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:32).

An amazing sermon on an amazing day! Had Peter stopped right there I dare say that the experience by the multitudes gathered on that day for the Pentecost feast would be the same as many church-goers today. We get a good service, with good music, and good preaching, and then we go home. Peter was offering great lessons and great truths. It was worth hearing!

But then Peter goes the next step. And this is the step I see missing from most services and sermons today. It is the step of conviction. Peter didn't just stop at the end of the lesson and say "see you next week." Rather, he put the responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on the shoulders of those who just happened to show up and heard the sermon! Peter said, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36).

How's that for a mood killer! Peter tells his audience that they are to blame for the death of God's Son!

And then something happened! Something amazing and wonderful happened. The words didn't just go in one ear and out the other. They didn't just say, "well let's go home now the show is over." What happened next is recorded for us in Acts 2:37. They were "pierced in the heart." This seldom used Greek word is, "katanussomai." The lexicon defines it as "be pierced, stabbed, figuratively of the feeling of sharp pain connected with anxiety , remorse, etc." (BAG, 415). Other English translations render it, "pricked in the heart" (KJV); "cut to the heart" (NIV); "they were stung (cut) to the heart" (Amplified Bible).

This message of Peter impacted their lives so profoundly that they couldn't just go home the way they came. The regular and mundane had been wiped away and replaced with an incredible sense of "we are in HUGE trouble with God! What, if anything, can be done?" In other words they were convicted by Peter's words that day.

He went on to tell them what they must do in order to find forgiveness, as well as receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. But before he got to baptism, his words got to their heart! It led THEM to ask the questions, seek forgiveness, and then to become active participants, i.e. members in the Lord's Church which began that day.

We're afraid to bring people to conviction! We shun the idea of making them 'feel bad' or uncomfortable for their sins. We tell them God wants to forgive without telling them why they need to be forgiven! We fear if people "feel bad," they won't come back to our church any more. So we give them a steady diet of "I'm ok, you're ok; and God will pick up the slack if we think we need it."

When we get "convicted" we'll do things. We'll start exercising, eat better, and lose some weight when we are convicted we don't look good, or are jeopardizing our health. We may give up smoking or other bad habits. Conviction led 3000 who heard Peter preach that day not just to go home the way they came, but to go home changed, to go home forgiven, and to go home "Christian."

Lead people to repentance! Lead people to conviction! Lead people to Jesus!

C'mon, Murphy! Let's go outside.

Just One Sermon

2009-12-21T07:13:00.001-08:00

Laying in bed the other night I was going over the events & highlights of 2009. Two new grandchildren joined the family. A daughter & son-in-law graduated from college and moved a little closer to home. I thought about a lot of the good things that happened this year.

In the midst of those good things I was blessed to experience, another thought came to mind: I had only preached just one sermon in 2009. Never in my adult life had I been so absent from a pulpit. It was not for a lack of interest or desire. My heart is still there. It was not for a lack of willingness. I had tried to make my availability known. It most definitely is not because "I quit the ministry." It was simply a lack of opportunity to do what I know to be a God-given compulsion to preach, even as Paul noted in I Cor. 9:16.

My mind took me back to the only occasion I had to be in the pulpit in this last year. A friend in ne NC had called me and asked if I'd fill in while their preacher was out of town. I remember being a little surprised at the request because northeast NC is not a place I've been particularly welcome in the last 6 years or so. And some there, to be sure, are happy I'm not preaching these days. But I said I'd come and preach for them. It took me just a moment to recall the text and topic of the day. I preached about "Giant Problems," looking at the episode of David & Goliath in 1 Sam. 17. The day was hot and as I recall the A/C had gone out in the church, and the crowd that did attend seemed restless & uncomfortable, but they sat through the service and the sermon.

Have you ever wondered what you'd preach for your last sermon, or if you thought it might be the only sermon you would get to preach? At the time I didn't know it would be my only sermon of 2009 (and 2010 isn't looking any brighter for opportunities at the moment either). What would you say if you had but one opportunity to share God's Word?

I immediately thought of the cross of Christ. Paul said he preached "Christ and Him crucified," in 1 Cor. 2:1, 2). I thought about the necessity of knowing our need to be saved; God's desire to save us; and how we can be saved. I believe the greatest need of man is knowing these facts. Over the course of previous years I know that I've often strayed into other areas than these, things of great importance such as Church leadership; other areas of Biblical Doctrines; matters of the Second Coming, etc. I pray that I've not strayed from the truth, or lost sight of the issues of primary importance in our relationship to God.

I found the sermon I preached in 2009 and looked at the main points: (1) Giant problems are a fact of life; (2) Don't be intimidated; (3) Trust God to solve Giant Problems; and (4) God's solutions Are Much Better. It was not until the conclusion that I mentioned that "The promise of Scripture is that God is greater than our problems, the biggest of which is sin. Jesus has defeated that giant enemy and offers us the opportunity to share in that victory." I'm thinking my points were on-target; and my applications were Bible-based. But was my conclusion emphasized more than the familiar story of a young man with five smooth stones and a sling going against a giant of a man? What, if anything, did my audience take home with them that day from the 25 or so minutes I had to preach in 2009? It makes me wonder.

I've actually heard many sermons in 2009. Sadly, I couldn't tell you much about what I heard; recall important points; or "borrow" many worthwhile illustrations.

Who knows about 2010? What sermons will make an impact, or which ones will be soon forgotten? What content will be trendy, entertaining, and socially relevant? What content will lead sinners to the throne of grace?

Time will tell if I preach again or not. If that privilege presents itself, I will consider more carefully my topic, my passage, my study, my illustrations, and my applications. To the ones who regularly share the Gospel I'd urge them to consider anew, what would you preach if you could only preach just one sermon?

C'mon, Murphy. Let's go outside.

What I Learned In Prison - Part 2

2009-12-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

Do you remember being called to the Principal's office? That voice which came through the classroom speaker that said, "Please send this student to the office" could make your heart sink with impending doom. Generally it was never a good thing to have your name announced over the loud speaker at school.

The Chaplain's voice over the prison PA system did the same thing. Being summoned to the Chaplain's office often meant there was bad news to be delivered. The Chaplain would be called by an inmate's family to inform him of a death or other news of an emergency nature. I took the information down, called the inmate, and shared that piece of news with them.

I learned quickly that many families of inmates do not accept calls from them because of the high cost of "collect" calls. Families would block their numbers. The only way some inmates communicated, when they did communicate, was through visits or letters. It was not unusual for inmates to go months at a time without hearing from their family.

But when the bad news came I was able to be helpful to them. I'd use my office phone so they could call their families and get the news "first hand." In a minimum custody facility I also had the ability to make it possible for the inmate to attend the funeral of close family members (typically only spouse, parents or children). They would be transported to the funeral, wear "street clothes," sit with their families, and then return at the conclusion of the service. (Although more than once I heard that the transporting officers let them stay for the meal at the church if there was one!) The family paid $50 to the State of NC for this service.

These emergency calls seemed to run hot and cold. I went weeks at a time without getting one, but when they came - they usually came all at once and I was filling out an ABUNDANCE of paperwork for each temporary release. But I could tell it meant a great deal for the inmate to be able to attend these funerals. And when circumstances prevented them from attending they at least had a good long conversation, courtesy of North Carolina, with their loved ones.

It had been one of those busy times of relaying bad news, grief counseling, and seeing if they could be released for the service when the phone rang. The woman on the other end told me her name and that her brother was an inmate, and that she had news for him. He was a new father! Finally some good news to share! I got all the news and pertinent information. I asked the baby's name, how big he was, how he was doing, everything I could think to relay to the inmate.

So I was excited to call the inmate to the office. I didn't know him, and when he came in he had that look of 'impending doom' on his face that I was going to ruin his day. But I said, "This is a good call for you." I told him, "your sister called and wanted to tell you that you're a brand new daddy." I told him everything I learned, the name, weight, good condition, etc. The man just sat there with what could only be described as a 'blank' look on his face. After I was done sharing what I thought was pretty good news, giving him something to look forward to, etc. he looked at me and asked, "Chaplain, did my sister tell you who the baby's mother was?"

I was stunned. I had to process that question for a minute! Then I was irritated. "I thought you would know that!" I said.

Nope, no clue. Big question mark written all over "playa's" face

I was to learn that all of his children (emphasis on ALL of his children) were by different women, and that this was the second child born to him while he had been locked up.

Whether he ever chose to find out who the mother of his child was remains a mystery to me. Whether his son will ever know his dad and have a positive relationship with him seems doubtful at best. Will that son grow up in his father's footprints and one day be locked up himself? It does seem a continuing cycle.

Family values are far more than a campaign slogan, or a talking point for community organizers. I was reminded in that situation what an awesome responsibility - and privilege - it is to be a parent. It is easy to pro-create, but the task of parenting and raising a child is demanding. Churches need to emphasize the qualities and characteristics of a Godly mom and dad. We need to model those qualities to young men and women who will learn much about the mechanics of sex, but little about the responsibilities that come with it.

Who's Afraid of the "B" Word?

2009-10-25T16:08:00.000-07:00

Some words have become so "loaded," so taboo, that they are not even said anymore. A slip of the "N" word can have you branded as a racist for life. One vulgar word is still deemed to be so far across the line that it is referred to simply as the "F" word. Dropping the "F-bomb" on live TV can cost a network hundreds of thousands of dollars. A new word may be added to the list of forbidden words in some churches, and that is the "B" word.

I'll go ahead and spell it out now: B-A-P-T-I-S-M.

There is such a sameness to churches of all denominations today. They all have the greeters and the welcome table. It isn't hard to find a table full of donuts & pastries. Praise bands across the nation rock out the David Crowder worship tunes week after week. And the sermons are full of reminders to love God and do good to your fellow man. Who can argue with the new formula for success? Today's "lead pastors" have the playbook for growing modern, non-offensive churches committed to memory.

But something very unique was found in the preaching of the first-centuy church which is strikingly absent today. The apostles and those who came after them preached the cross of Christ. They preached the fact that man has sinned, deserves hell, but God in His love and grace provided a way of salvation.

Stop right there a moment, and you can almost hear the objections start to rise! They'd say, "That's what I preach." And probably that's what is still preached in many Evangelical churches. But the preaching of the early church, as well as the early decades of the Restoration Movement included how to enter that saved relationship with God; how to have sins forgiven; how to put on Jesus Christ; and how to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The preachers of the book of Acts preached that these great blessings were received when you were baptized into Christ! And this preaching about baptism for the forgiveness of sins is the key to the puzzle that is missing from most sermons today.

Why tell people they're lost if you're not willing to tell them HOW to be saved? Why tease them with the promise of heaven if the terms of pardon, i.e the plan of salvation is not going to be shared with them? It is cruel to keep the folks in the dark while dangling eternal life in front of them and not tell them how to find it.

The reason the "B" word is avoided is simple: It is offensive. People don't like it. There's no small amount of controversy regarding the mode or purpose of it. We could get along easier with visitors if we don't mention it and stick to the non-controversial stuff. It's better to talk to people privately about it than preach it publicly in a sermon on Sunday. Do any of these excuses sound vaguely familiar?

To run through all of the usages of baptism in Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, etc. seems so redundant. Obviously, these verses aren't obscure, or unknown to the Lead Pastors who choose to skirt them. They do so purposefully. They do it to seem more appealing to today's 'seekers.' The stumbling block of the cross has now been replaced by the stumbling block of baptism! How I wish they'd return to the preaching of Peter & Paul who had the strength of character and love of God's Word to dare to preach the whole truth of God. It is still foolishness to some, but to those who are being saved it remains the power of God. And here's my take on it: Preaching about baptism is so distinctive that it may actually attract people to Christ! It may take away the sameness of the run of the mill denominations and the 'cookie cutter' approach to how to 'do' church, and offer an attractive, biblically distinctive truth to our congregations.

Acts 19 is such a key passage. Paul wanted to know if these believers in Ephesus had the Holy Spirit. They didn't know about Him. Upon further examination Paul discovered they had not been baptized into Christ! They were still in need of teaching about baptism which results in the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. No way would Paul let them remain in the dark about one of the greatest blessings that Christians can enjoy! But we are leaving too many church attenders & members without the knowledge and assurance that they have obeyed the Gospel of Christ. Be it a gathering of 10, 100, or 1000 we must present the whole Word of God to them. Some may scoff. Some may reject it. Some may choose to attend a church that they find more palatable. Wrong, but palatable! But some will find eternal life! Remember that people also rejected the call of Christ, the preaching of Peter, and the Gospel presented by Paul. But not everyone rejected it. Those who heard it and accepted it found the promised blessings offered by Christ.

A passion to save the lost rings hollow without the presentation of the soul-saving plan of salvation. The "B" word may be controversial to some, but that makes it no less important or essential to salvation. I'm disappointed when I listen to preachers that choose to pass on the plan of salvation. It reminds me in my own teaching that I have the God-given responsibility and privilege to point people to the truth of God's plan.

Let's stop being afraid of the "B" word, and let's renew our commitment to sharing the fulness of God's Word and God's plan of salvation.

"C'mon, Murphy! Let's go outside"

What I Learned in Prison - Part 1

2009-09-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

Situated outside of Columbia, NC is Tyrrell Prison Work Farm, a minimum custody facility. It houses many offenders. Most of them are young men who have drug offenses, usually selling them. There are also some non-violent offenders there. They committed crimes like check forgery, credit card fraud, and similar offenses. Yet there were also MANY older men who had been locked up a long time who have just worked through the prison levels from maximum, to medium, to minimum security. These have committed serious and violent crimes. Many had life sentences given to them. Through time served and good behavior they worked their way up to minimum custody to finish their sentences.

Prison was indeed the last place in my life I would have imagined finding myself. The chain of events that led me there for 15 months was something I’d never desire to go through again. It was far from the ‘hard time’ of a close-custody facility, but it was still prison. And it was inside the gates and razor wire over the course of many days, weeks, and months that I learned numerous lessons about my faith and what a Christian lifestyle really looked like.

Right now many of you are shocked and thinking, “I didn’t know Yager went to prison! Just what did he really do?” Put your minds at ease! I went to prison for 15 months, but each day I got to go home! I was employed by the NC Department of Correction, put there by God, not by the legal system. Although, I can think of a handful of people that would have liked me to have been permanently incarcerated there!! But I digress. For 15 months I had the unique opportunity to be a Clinical Chaplain, and was blessed to be able to minister to men (and occasionally their families) who had experienced far worse things than I ever have, or ever hope to experience.

My new-found congregation had as many 570 members. The numbers shifted from week to week, but that was the average. They all wore the same green jumpsuit every day, whether it was to church, to work, or to eat. Church services were held each Sunday night for about 90 minutes. An outside group called “Yokefellows” came each week for peer counseling; and I even taught a mid-week Bible study. Once a year we even had what could only be called a Revival with services each night for a week. One of the maintenance crew had built a baptistry for us where I immersed many men into Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We had an inmate choir complete with a praise band. Plenty of stories could be told about that group, sometimes referred to as “the Christian mafia” by the staff!

I always smile to think that I went from upstanding, clean-cut {for the most part!} Bible College students with a bright future to murderers, rapists, child molesters, and more drug dealers than I could count. The first inmate who greeted me each morning as I came to work is serving life for burglary and rape. The second one I usually passed each morning is doing life for 2^nd degree murder. I had a Chaplain’s Clerk, now released, doing 6 years for 2^nd degree rape. Fortunately for me, he was one of the most ‘respected’ inmates there, and one of the biggest. His nickname was “truck.” That pretty much sums up his size!

The first week or two that I passed under the razor wire, and through the various gates were very intimidating. Every prison movie I ever saw came to mind as I passed through the yard filled with many more inmates than Officers. After that I just viewed it as going to work, and hardly noticed the ‘prison’ aspect. Well, that’s mostly true. There was one day I was near-by where a fight broke out and ended up getting in the cross-fire of pepper-spray. This vividly reminded me I wasn’t in the local church building any more. I did have the officers who wrote the report include, “The Chaplain was inadvertently sprayed in the fight, but took it like a man!”

You’ll hear people often scoff that “everyone gets religion in prison.” But such is not the case. Many inmates chose not to attend the various services we offered, or attend the peer counseling groups, etc. It is also true that some may have attended just as a diversion from a very routine schedule. Some, I’m sure, abandoned their faith as soon as they were released. They may be like the inmate who told me he had been locked up ’27 times.’ And that guy was younger than me. But I’d like to believe that some who found Christ in prison took their faith beyond their sentence and incarceration and have experienced new lives outside the prison fence. I’m reminded that I know many people who have never been arrested who once claimed a relationship with Jesus, but for whatever reason do not desire to have one with Him any longer. I’ve seen countless kids at camp or youth groups have conversion experiences who are no longer in the Church. The same thing holds true for both those in and out of prison. Sometimes long-term faithfulness isn’t part of their plans.

One of the first lessons I’ll share from my prison experience is how when the masks, or veneers, or facades are removed, there is both a realness and a realization of who you are, and where you stand in life, and before Almighty God. There is a perception among many that every inmate claims they weren’t guilty. They were set-up. They were “victims” of false identification; police corruption; or for some other reason they didn’t deserve to be locked up. Ask some law enforcement officers some time how many of the people they arrest claim to be innocent.

This is one thing that truly surprised me and it blew away that preconceived idea: I only met one person among the hundreds that came in and out of that unit while I was there who said, “I didn’t do it.” The majority readily admitted their guilt to me. It was as if they were seeking someone who would listen. They had been found guilty by the State of NC, and rightly so. They wanted to know, however, if a Higher Authority had anything other than judgment and condemnation for them. It was my opportunity, even privilege, to introduce them to the God of forgiveness and salvation. I couldn’t do anything to shorten their sentence, but since I had them as a ‘captive audience’ {forgive the pun} I did endeavor to share with them the love, mercy, and forgiveness offered by Jesus!

Each week as dozens of men came in and out of my office I heard the confessions of crimes they committed. I could read the chilling reports in their files of what they had done. From gruesome murders that could make even Hollywood squeamish, to unspeakable crimes against small children, these men told me things I wasn’t expecting to hear. My office became a confessional of sorts, and the only absolution I could offer them was the blood of Christ. They still had to do the time, but I wanted them to know there was something better for them, something life-changing. They didn’t deserve it, but then neither did I. Neither do you. That is what God’s grace is all about.

I’ve come to believe that these inmates saw me in a far different light than the Correction Officers who made sure they obeyed the rules, or could write them up, or throw them in the hole (i.e. solitary). They didn’t see me as the police, the prosecutor, or the judge. Most saw the Chaplain as the one person in their world who just might listen to them without more condemnation or judgment. I think they had plenty of that already. They saw the Chaplain as God’s representative, the Lord’s servant, who just might have a kind word, or be able to present some better options for them.

Being a Chaplain in prison taught me that I had previously been too quick to judge and pronounce sentence. I was good at labeling sin, and proclaiming what was right, and what was wrong. Maybe I had even become too good at that. I previously had no use for those who committed these heinous and wicked crimes. Yet I was now reminded that these offenders were also sinners who could be forgiven. These were indeed the very lost that Jesus came to seek and save (see Mk. 10:45). Too many are quick to judge, but slow to reach out to the ones who stand condemned.

So many examples from Scripture come to mind. Perhaps none so compelling as that woman caught in the very act of adultery. The guilt of her sin, specifically condemned in the Ten Commandments, was never in doubt. It was never even debated what she deserved. But what she found from the Savior Jesus was far different than what everyone else was prepared to do to her. She found in Christ a voice of forgiveness not another joining in the shouts of condemnation. His admonition to “sin no more” said all that was needed about her guilt. His offer of pardon to her tells the story of God’s grace and mercy: “Neither do I condemn you” (See Jn. 8:3-11)

People can get accusations, gossip, judgment, and condemnation anywhere. But God’s servant must be a voice of hope carrying a message of forgiveness through the blood of Jesus. This doesn’t mean that we cannot stand opposed to violent behavior and even agree with strong punishments for the convicted criminal. But in the spirit of, “there but for the grace of God go I” we offer God’s plan of forgiveness, reconciliation, and redemption. I want to be a Christian who can see beyond guilt and short-comings. I like so well the words of the hymn, “Seeking the Lost” that say:

“Thus would I go on missions of mercy, following Christ from day unto day; Cheering the faint and raising the fallen, pointing the lost to Jesus the Way” (William A. Ogden, 1886).

Hear again the words of the writer of Hebrews, “Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them….” (Heb. 13:3). Who do you know that has been judged, condemned, and thrown away by the world, and maybe even by Christians? They still need to hear about the love and forgiveness offered by Christ. Become a Chaplain to them!

“C’mon, Murphy. Let’s go outside!”

When Did Worship Become a Spectator Sport?

2009-09-01T09:40:00.001-07:00

For the past couple of months I've been excited about the approach of Sept. 27th. Mary bought us tickets for my birthday present to go to Phoenix so we can watch Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts play the Arizona Cardinals. I'm counting down the days for that trip! I've always enjoyed going to games, whether it was the Reds games I watched when I was in grad. school in Cincinnati, or the local minor league Norfolk Tides. I love to go to the hockey games when the number of fights exceed the number of goals scored in the game!

When it comes to sports I have to confess I'm a spectator! Whatever gifts or talents I received in life did not include much in the area of athletic abilities. And I'm ok with that! If Lebron James won't try to teach Greek I won't try to match up with him on the court! We all have our place, and mine will be happily in the stands with a hotdog in one hand, a coke in the other! Let the games commence.

But I'm concerned that the gathering of the Lord's people in many congregations has also become a spectator event rather than a participatory opportunity. Even the phrases that are frequently used make me think we are but lowly spectators to the worship of others. For example, it is typical to hear that (insert name here) is "doing" worship. What does "doing worship" mean? Is he or she the only one worshiping? Am I worshiping by proxy? Is my worship experience only as good as the person singing or playing up front? If they aren't that good have I not really worshiped?

Years ago preachers used to joke about the revival speakers who had "7 good sermons and a fast car." Perhaps that should be amended to the Worship Leader who has "7 good songs and some great speakers." For some, the quality of "worship" is only as good as the band! If they stink, I guess worship stinks. If they are great, then worship is great. Is it even possible to worship without them doing it for me? Sounds almost like we have "worship priests" who do what we poor peons in the chairs are now sadly unable to do for ourselves. We have strayed far from the practices of the New Testament Church, and this is a glaring example!

All God's people can - and should - worship! When we go to worship it is not to watch someone else show how close they are to God, it is for us to "bend the knee" to Him ourselves. As Jesus approached Jerusalem and the people were crying out Hosanna, the Pharisees told Him to tell them to stop. Jesus said, "... if these become silent, the stones will cry out" (Lk. 19:40). Christ was to be praised by all people, not just the apostles, or the elite of the day. In fact, God is not so impressed with those who offer lofty, eloquent prayers as the one who goes into his prayer closet and pours out his heart to God (Mt. 6:5-7). The "look at how good I am" prayer of the Pharisee earned him nothing, but the humble prayer of the publican brought forgiveness (Lk. 18:10-14).

The Restoration Movement ideal of the "priesthood of all believers" must extend to the worship of all believers. God seeks - He actually looks for - people who will worship Him. Jesus declared that God seeks those people who will worship Him in "spirit and truth," going on to say that the worship God accepts is done just that way, in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:23, 24). Yet in our "seeker sensitive" mentality we have let just one guy pray, and one group sing, and we have watched passively from our seats as good spectators, but have we worshiped? We stand when they tell us, and sit when they tell us, but have we been active in worship?

Our gathering with the Lord's people on the Lord's day around the Lord's table is preparation for eternity. Paul noted that "every knee will bow" and "every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord" (Phil. 2:10, 11). Church leaders must not be content with hiring staff or finding volunteers to do the worship. They must teach God's people to be active participants in the worship experience, not mere spectators at the show.

So look for me in amazing HD on September 27th on the NBC Sunday night game. I'll be in my seat - ROW 8 - on the 30 yard line. For those 3 hours or so I will be one happy spectator. But when God's people gather for worship, don't just sit passively in the stands while others have the joy and responsibility of worship. Be active in worshiping the Lord yourself!

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

Keep That Dog On The Chain!

2009-08-20T08:34:00.000-07:00

What has happened to the great cartoons? I can't find Bugs Bunny anywhere these days, and I have a LOT of channels!! One of my favorite Warner Bros. cartoons was, and is, Foghorn Leghorn - the Southern Gentleman rooster! The plot never varied too much. He would aggravate the dog, the dog would chase him, and then dog would get his neck snapped back when the rope to which he was tied reached the limit. Occasionally he would also get hit upside the head with a 2x4. Oh, they don't write entertainment like that anymore! But before the cartoon would end, invariably Foghorn Leghorn would end up inside the dog's range and he would get tore up. He was safe, until he got too close to trouble.

That "dog on a chain" illustration has been used to describe the "binding of Satan" described in Revelation 20:2. Many understand this binding to be one where Satan is wrapped head-to-toe in a big chain, and tossed into the depths, never to be heard from again - or at least until the 1000 years has ended. While I'm the first to think that this type of 'paradise on earth' would be an awesome experience - after all, who wouldn't like a day, a week, a month, a year, a millennium without violence, crime, temptation, etc.? - I don't think this is what is meant by the binding of Satan. Let's add some context!

Go back to the book of Job. The angels present themselves - and Satan is among them! He challenges God's assertion that Job was faithful. Satan said Job was only faithful because he had it so good. God allowed Satan to take those possessions from him, and we see how Job did indeed remain faithful. Shortly after that, another scene in heaven takes place where Satan again shows up. This time God allows Satan to harm Job physically, but limits him as well. He could not kill Job. Again, Job remained faithful through it all - even when his wife urged him to curse God and die!

Two things stand out from this account: Satan was then allowed in God's presence to accuse people; and there are limitations placed on his power. In other words, Satan is NOT omnipotent.

In the Gospels we read where Jesus sent his disciples out to do some evangelistic work. Luke 10 describes the ability they were given to heal the sick and do miraculous works. The disciples returned with joy saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name" (Lk. 10:17). The Lord's response is very important: "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning" (Lk. 10:18). What was so significant about this event that the devil gets the boot (and forcefully so) from heaven?

Jesus also uses an illustration about the thief and the strong man in Mt. 12. Having just said that it makes no sense for Satan to cast out Satan (Mt. 12:26), Christ goes on to explain how by casting the demon out of the man he in fact rescued him from Satan's authority. Before he could take what was in Satan's possession He had to bind him. In other words, the 'thief' had to be stronger than the strong man! That "thief" is Jesus! By His coming and ministry which He began, He demonstrated His authority over the devil and "took" what was once in his possession.

Eph. 4:7-10 likewise teaches that by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection He has freed the captives - those once under the dominion of the evil one. Col. 1:13 states, "For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (NASB). And Hebrews 2:14, 15 sums it all up perfectly: "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives" (NASB).

I believe the argument can be made that Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ, and victory was won through the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection. But someone will certainly say that the devil can't be bound because of all of the evil, sin, crime, violence, terrorism, etc. that is in the world. After all, the 6:00 news is really just a report of what Satan has been up to in the last 24 hours! He doesn't seem to be bound very tightly!

Revelation 12 helps clarify what is going on in this world. It pictures the woman (I would say representative of the people of God - both Old and New Testament); the male child (very clearly a picture of Christ); and the dragon (specifically identified as Satan in 12:9). There was "war in heaven" and the dragon and his angels "were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven" (vs. 8). He was thrown down to earth (cf. Lk. 10:18). He is described as the "accuser of our brethren" (Rev. 12:10). Heaven can rejoice because the accuser is no longer allowed to enter. The earth, however, must deal with his "great wrath" (12:12). The devil is now hell-bent on taking as many people to destruction with him as possible. He is greatly restricted, but that roaring lion still has teeth!

Earlier I mentioned how God had placed limits on Satan when testing Job. Likewise, Christians have the great blessing of 1 Cor. 10:13. God will not allow Satan to tempt us beyond what we can endure. He will also give us a way of escape when we do face those temptations. The "world" has no such guarantee. They are firmly in the sphere of Satan's destructive power, until they come to Christ, and experience the life and protection He offers!

Christians, too, will often err and decide to dabble with sin, thinking they won't get hurt, or not get 'too deep' in it. They will pay the price as well! The dog may have been on the chain, but when you get too close, you're gonna get bit! Too often Christians, spiritually speaking, seek to wander in the abyss - instead of following Paul's admonition: "If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1 NASB). Christians have been given great assurances such as "greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world (I Jn. 4:4); and "If God be for us who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). We have been afforded great protection, but often choose to ignore it, and go it on our own. We wander right in that area where the dog on a chain can still get us. Whose fault is that?

Satan has been bound and defeated, and now seeks to take as down with him as possible. Christians are called to be faithful as the devil seeks to make war with them (Rev. 12:17). We are also called to preach the Gospel that still saves those who are presently under Satan's authority. We are admonished to keep ourselves "unstained by the world" (James 1:27), rely upon God, and by all means, STAY AWAY FROM THAT DOG ON THE CHAIN!!

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside! (a dog that has never been on a chain in her life!!!)

Come As You Are... But Leave Different!

2009-07-24T11:07:00.001-07:00

I confess I like going to Church without a jacket and tie. I have even wore blue jeans on several occasions. I guess it is as liberating to me to not wear a suit to church as when women were burning their bras back in the 60's. Come as you are to church is a great idea!

Actually, my love for the casual goes way back. I enjoyed restaurants as a kid that said, "Come as you are." That meant I could wear my play clothes and no one was going to tell me to put on the 'good clothes.' I was happy when I went to Bible College that they didn't have any dress code that said I couldn't wear my blue jeans to class.

It is wise for the church to get rid of those attitudes of "certain types of people are not welcome here." We've seen those with a 'past' given a cold shoulder.' Actually, I've been that "guy with a past" who was given a cold shoulder in noted congregations in Hampton Roads. One girl I know who currently serves in the Navy tells of going to a church and receiving a nice, friendly welcome. When she first visited it was the winter. When spring, and warmer weather rolled around she came to church in a short-sleeve shirt revealing several tattoos. At that point she was told she was no longer welcome. "Come as you are" didn't quite work in that congregation. A certain look was cause for being 'shown the door'!

We salute congregations reaching out to the homeless, the alcoholics, the drug users, and the list goes on. Following Christ's example of ministering to the materialist, the swindler, the adulterers, the sexually immoral, and the down-and-out, we rightly open up our doors to all who will come. May this good example increase.

My concern is a reluctance to tell people they need to change! We get them in the door one way, and we send them out the door at the end of service the same way! Sin is not identified or "called out" for risk of offending someone. Because we want them to keep coming back we walk on egg shells on issues of eternal importance where the Scripture speaks loud and clear. Because we don't want to be labeled as Bible-thumping or Fundamentalist we take a casual approach on doctrine and Christian lifestyle choices. Do what you want, and we'll say nothing is NOT the model we see portrayed in the Scripture.

Jesus called people to repentance. While He said He did not condemn the woman who was caught in the act of adultery, He did tell her to "sin no more" (Jn. 8:11). He called the "Rich Young Ruler" to leave a life of materialism to follow him (which apparently the young man chose not to do) in Mk. 10:21, 22. Zaccheus was so moved by his luncheon with Jesus that he gave half of his possessions to the poor, and pledged to repay those whom he swindled back four times as much (Lk. 19:8).

"Repentance" is still a good, and especially valid word. Jesus said twice in the span of three verses, "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3, 5). This solemn warning is a favor to mankind! It tells us that there is still a chance, that we can be forgiven, and we can be saved! That is, "if" we repent! When the crowds on the Day of Pentecost wanted to know what they could do, as Peter laid the blame for crucifying the Son of God at their feet, he told them that they needed to repent (Acts 2:38).

I've often said that God is more concerned about what we will be today than what we were yesterday! The idea of a "change" is inherent in the concept of "repentance." The word "repentance" is rightly defined as "a change of mind that leads to a change of action." People who walk in the doors of our congregations need to not only hear that God loves them, but that God is calling them to a different, better life. I'd dare say that many people know they need to change, but will not change until called upon to do so. This is what distinguishes the Church from the Moose Club, the Lions Club, etc. We call people to repentance and salvation!

But it sounds so mean! It sounds like we're judgmental. It sounds like we're closed-minded! Who are we, after all, to tell people that what they're doing is wrong? Perhaps we better just talk about the love, mercy, kindness, and grace of God. Whew... that sounds so much nicer. Who could disagree with that? We sing "Just As I Am" and are grateful that God takes us that way. That makes the preacher sound more compassionate, the church seem a little nicer, and Christianity a whole lot easier!

But wait a moment. Is it possible that God's love, kindness, mercy, and grace are actually motivation and reason to repent? It is according to the apostle Paul. He wrote, "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4) God's patience is seen in the timing of the return of Christ. Peter writes that God isn't slow but patient "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9). We advance the purpose of God as we call mankind to repentance. God's great love is greatly seen as we call them to repentance.

This article cannot conclude without emphasizing the importance of repentance. I've barely scratched the surface of the many references to this essential component of salvation. But it must be said that repentance is not a "take it or leave it" proposition! As Paul preached in the Areopagus he said, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30 NASB). The NIV translates the verse that "[God] commands all people everywhere to repent."

I urge preachers to call sin what it is! It is appropriate to talk about God's judgment that will come. It is an urgent message to call people to change while there is still an opportunity. We want them to come in our doors one way, but they need to leave different. They need to repent!

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

Elders: Who Needs Them Anyways?

2009-07-15T14:04:00.000-07:00

Like the old organ covered in dust that sits unused in the auditorium, elders seem to have a diminishing if not non-existent role in the modern Church. I’ve noticed several “new” churches (and by that I mean less than 10 years old) that have neither need nor interest in having a biblical model of leadership, i.e. having elders.

Apparently the current Bible College [or Christian University as seems to be the trend] graduate has acquired such vast insight into church planting, church growth, care of the flock, strategic planning, etc. that having Biblical eldership would only get in his way! And this is, I believe, the reason that eldership is ignored or undermined by many new preachers in new church work. They regard elders as old, uninformed, out of touch, entrenched in the past, and not interested in doing things in new ways. It is just so much easier to “do church” without the burden of a bunch of old guys standing in the way and messing up their perfect plans every chance they get. Yet, as I often see, they still want those old folks to write a check to support the work they are doing! Is this “man with a calling” mentality really conducive to a healthy body which will provide for sustained growth in the future? I think not. Let’s examine some Biblical examples.

Moses was a man with calling. Empowered by God for his mission, he was ready to go, and was working hard day & night. It was his father-in-law, Jethro, who gave him a needed admonition: “The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone” (Ex. 18:17, 18). Moses was not only hurting his ministry by being a ‘one-man show,’ he was also hurting his flock!

Fast Forward to the New Testament Church. Many young congregations had the amazing experience of being started by an apostle. Yet the apostles were wise enough to realize that these local congregations needed sustained, local leadership, and they appointed elders in those congregations (Acts 14:23). The evangelist Titus was instructed to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Peter likewise gave instruction to the elders concerning their task in the local church (1 Peter 5:1-3). Just how important were elders to the fledgling Church? In Acts 11 one reads that a benevolent gift was sent to the “elders” in Judea (Acts 11:30). In doctrinal matters the elders are even listed alongside the apostles! See Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23! To diminish the role of elder in the 21^st century church is to lay aside altogether the essential role they played in the 1^st century church! As an aside, as you read these passages note how the plural is used for “elders.” You can also read my earlier blog about the “pastor.”

Most every preacher has at least one horror story about an unfit elder. They’ll say he was Biblically illiterate; he had a bad attitude; all he cared about was the money and the budget; he had no vision past next week’s Sunday service; he was morally deficient; and the list goes on. Yet these anecdotes must not become an excuse for not having elders in the church. It is, after all, quite possible that some of the bad qualities we point out in elders just might be found on occasion in paid staff as well.

Elders bring a perspective and a vantage point which is needed by the paid staff. An elder is one who possesses the wisdom that comes from life’s experiences and their walk with God. They have perspective and insight which comes from knowing the congregation and the community. Elders are not a roadblock to the success of the church or the plans of the minister. They are facilitators of that mission.

Those who claim for themselves the most recent re-definition of the title ‘pastor’ seem to ignore the role of eldership as it regards authority in the local body. They may not know what the term “monarchical episcopate” means [one ruling elder], but they enjoy the authority/power it gives them, which would otherwise be held in check – and rightly so – by a body of elders. It may burst the bubble of young pastors {can you discern the irony there?} to read 1 Tim. 5:17, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well…” (NIV); or “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor…” (NASB).

An evangelist doing new church work may not immediately have elders to work with, and it may take some time to get these leaders. But it must remain a high priority to get these men challenged, prepared, and in place. I always appreciated a lesson taught by Elmer Towns: “Leadership is not doing the work of 10 men. It is finding 10 men to do the work!” The apostles knew this to be true, and so will the wise Gospel preacher today.

Elders provide leadership and pastoral care, and they safeguard soundness of doctrine. Their wealth of experience and personal example of a walk with God provides a model for the congregation to follow. They can mentor a preacher, protect him from attacks, and correct him when necessary as well. Elders are a blessing to the Lord’s Church.

Who needs elders? The Church does! I think back to the men who served as leaders back in my home congregation. I remember that it was an elder – not the preacher – who immersed me into Christ. I remember many meals in the home of elders, and the time they took with me individually, and others in my family. Perfect men? No, but they were godly. They did their best to lead the congregation as they believed God would have them to do.

The need to correctly understand and implement the Bible’s teaching on eldership remains an essential component of the Restoration Movement. We must hold men accountable to follow the clear teaching of Scripture on leadership in the local church. Too many new Christians remain on milk, or die as newborns in Christ, because there was no functioning leadership to nurture these babes to maturity.

C’mon, Murphy, let’s go outside!

When is the next "Baptism Sunday"?

2009-07-08T06:16:00.000-07:00

In March of this year I had the opportunity to attend a new Church work in Knoxville, Tn. In their announcement time they were excited about the next “baptism Sunday” to be held in early May. That’ right, I said early May, about 6 weeks from the time I visited there. The announcement was packaged as an important part of their faith journey and an act of worship for those who were to be baptized. Interesting.

The next thing they talked about was an offering. This too was presented as an act of worship and part of the faith journey. But the surprising thing was that they weren’t going to wait 6 weeks or more to take up the offering. They wanted to take it that week! And the week after! And I’m guessing the week after that! Could it be that one act of worship was a little higher priority to them than another act of worship? Fortunately for their budget, the faith journey was not as far to the offering box as it was to the water to be immersed into Christ!!

Is there something to be said for making disciples, i.e. teaching them before they are baptized? This does seem to be in line with the great commission of Mt. 28. Preaching did proceed the events of Acts 2:37. But there was no lengthy delay between the preaching and the baptizing. In fact, the Gospel made such an impact into the lives of those who heard that their conviction led them to urgent repentance and their baptism followed right behind it.

This immediacy is also indicated in Acts 8:12, 13. They believed and were baptized. It is demonstrated again with Lydia and her household. Paul found them assembled at the riverside for prayer. He began to preach and “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). And one verse later she and her household were baptized. How do we know it was immediate? Because in the next statement Lydia invites Paul to come and stay at her house (vs. 15). Apparently Paul believed they heard enough, and didn’t need to wait 6 weeks or more to be baptized into Christ.

This urgency is clearly seen later in Acts 16. The familiar account of the Philippian jailer records that he was told to “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your whole household (vs. 31). The next verse shows that teaching took place. Paul “spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.” And in the very next verse – “that very hour of the night… immediately he was baptized, he and all his household “ (vs. 33).

There is an importance to respond to the Gospel that is unmistakable. Dragging your feet for convenience, or emotional impact, or whatever reason is not biblical! In all of these instances I’ve just cited there were sinners who needed to be saved, and time was of the essence! Who was to say that these people would have the opportunity to be immersed a month or two after hearing the Gospel?

I believe this delay for a better day mentality is indicative of the denominational thinking that has crept into the Restoration Movement, especially among new church work. If baptism for the remission of sins is important, and dare I say, essential for salvation, there would be no delay between the preaching, the conviction, and the immersion! But when baptism is relegated to a place of such little importance as to be put off for weeks at a time it clearly indicates that the leaders do not view it as significant or essential. The denominations do this all the time. Are preachers giving reason to think that baptism is only to “join the local church” rather than to be saved? I don’t know of any who have come out and said that, but they certainly indicate that is a part of their thinking in these long delays. Where do we read of “baptism Sunday” in the New Testament? What we read there is not about delays but about the urgency to have sins forgiven and be saved!

Luke may not have recorded all of the conversation between Ananias and Saul. Yet the essential elements are given to us. But what is vividly clear is Ananias’ admonition to this sinner: “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16).

There is no reason to delay! Certainly not days upon days, or even months. Ananias equated immersion with the time that Saul would have his sins forgiven. Peter certainly viewed baptism as the occasion when sins would be forgiven in Acts 2:38. The immediacy and urgency is clear.

What a privilege it is to share the Gospel. It still changes lives. It still brings people to a point of decision. It still demands a response. It is not one that can be put off to a more convenient day, or when we know just a little more!

George Root wrote these words in 1878:

"What do you hope, dear brother,  To gain by a further delay?  There’s no one to save you but Jesus,  There’s no other way but His way.

Why do your wait, dear brother?  The harvest is passing away,  Your Savior is longing to bless you,  There are danger and death in delay.

Why not? Why not?  Why not come to Him now?  Why not? Why not?  Why not come to Him now?"

I urge preachers of the Gospel to restore this sense of urgency in their preaching. The Gospel still works if we will share it like we should. Those who respond to the urgency of the Gospel will find salvation now, rather than 6 weeks from now on "Baptism Sunday."

C’mon, Murphy. Let’s go outside!

"Substitute Preachers"

2009-06-23T10:53:00.001-07:00

I loved having substitute teachers in school. As soon as I walked in the room and the regular teacher wasn't there I knew it was a free day! Whoever the "victim," I mean highly qualified educator was, there was no way they were going to teach anything that day. I almost seem to remember an entire week where the sub. did nothing but show movies (and I'm talking the old 16mm kind for those of you old enough to remember those!)

As qualified as they may have been, they usually opted to do the "keep 'em quiet and entertained" mode of educating. At the end of the day they got paid, and the students were happy because there wasn't any homework! All in all, it was a pretty easy day for everyone concerned. I cannot, however, say that I was taught anything nor did I learn anything. But I went to school, and for that my mom was happy!

Today's blog is all about those preachers who know better, but choose to act like substitute preachers. They have been taught how to teach and preach. They know the tools that would help them understand a passage, communicate it, and make it applicable to today's audience in a meaningful way. But they choose not to do that. Rather, their goal is entertainment and multi-media is the approved method.

Have I seen videos that were appropriate to the topic, moving, and compelling? Absolutely! No more recently than this past Lord's day the church where I was a visiting preacher showed a video of the suffering of Christ on the way to the cross. It made partaking of the Lord's Supper a very real experience having just seen the broken body and shed blood as it was portrayed in that 3 minute video. A video that supports and illustrates the well-prepared message is a very valuable tool.

But to let cute videos, parodies, and stuff that is just plain silly - with no relevance, spiritual value, or illustrative value to a sermon/lesson is the mark of a lazy or stupid preacher/teacher. Entertainment was never the goal of a spokesman of God! I think of Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. I think of Paul who was run out of one town after another. Should they have replaced God's message with a monologue fit for Conan, Dave, or Jay? Would they have been noted entertainers of their world? Would they have been invited to speak at the big conventions of their day? Maybe so... But they would not have shared the life-changing message of the eternal God of the universe.

Do we wonder why the average church member is so biblically illiterate? They can watch youtube at home! The entertainment portion of "church" is squeezing out much of the Scripture they desperately need to hear, learn, and apply. Bible Colleges that have squeezed out much of the Biblical/Theological component of a preacher's education may share the blame in this as well (but that's another blog for another time).

We often point the finger at the younger preachers who are substituting amusing multi-media for the Word of God. But what about those seasoned, "been in the pulpit for years," successful preachers? I listen to them on occasion and end up thinking things like this:

They tell me about Barna, but they don't tell me about Bartimaeus, Bartholomew, or Simon Bar Jonah!

They tell me about the latest poll by Zogby, but they probably couldn't find Zechariah or Zephaniah to save their life.

They repeat moving stories told by Lucado, but ignore Luke, the beloved physician.

They glory in the leadership principles told by John Maxwell, but look stunned and bewildered when someone asks them who John Mark was!

Do we get the point people? Great videos or great illustrations are fine - to support a great sermon or lesson! But to replace the word of God with the word of man is a grave mistake. It is also one teachers will answer for one day as well (see James 3:1). We owe it to our congregation to constantly strive to give them meat rather than milk (or the sweetened soda pop junk food that is so often spewed out today).

C'mon, Murphy! Let's go outside.

Grace & Telling the Truth Go Hand in Hand!

2009-05-27T07:58:00.000-07:00

Years ago, in another life, I listened to many men and women give their Bible College "Chapel Talks." Occasionally someone would veer over into doctrinal areas and share the truth about the New Testament's teaching on immersion for the forgiveness of sin, and its place in the plan of salvation. Usually I would later hear a particular administrator commenting on it. She would often say, "that wasn't very gracious." This became her code for "immersion is controversial, perhaps we should say nothing about it as it may offend some people."

There is seemingly a great fear of putting people off by telling them the truth. Of course, no one likes to be told they're not telling people the truth. And now it is often defended by the catch word of "grace." The Bible College administrator didn't think it was "gracious" to say immersion was essential to salvation. People who speak the truth are often labeled as teaching and practicing a "graceless theology." Is this "new speak" for saying "whatever you want to do or believe is ok, just join my group and I won't offend you by sharing the truth with you"?

If advocating preaching & teaching sound doctrine is "graceless" then we need to return to the Scriptures. Paul warned against "tickling ears" (i.e. telling people what they want to hear, that they're ok just the way they are, etc.) in 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. The apostle who presents most of the New Testament's teaching on the subject of grace also forcefully demonstrated that not speaking the truth was a dangerous and unloving thing to do!

Paul risked preaching the truth even though he knew it would put him at odds - both with believers and non-believers. Paul did not avoid the hard or controversial topics just because it might offend people. When one reads 1 Corinthians they find forceful teaching on issues that are controversial, but necessary to know. He teaches on morality & salvation in chs. 5 & 6. He writes of the role of the Holy Spirit in chs. 12-14. He defends the truth of the resurrection in ch. 15. All of these topics - and more - show Paul defending the truth of God's Word even though it might be offensive to some. He noted this in 2 Cor. 2:14-16 saying that his message was to some an aroma of life and an aroma of death. He put the truth out there, the responsibility was then on those who heard to accept his message for what it was: the truth.

Paul lamented the fact that some would turn away, and even reject him personally, all for telling the truth. In Gal. 4:16 he writes, "Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Galatians is all about the topic of being saved by grace not by works. Paul maintains that to be in a grace relationship with Christ you must know the truth and you must follow it - God's way, not man's way.

A relationship with God, or starting/growing a church, is not ala carte, taking a little of this teaching, some of that one, or rejecting this one altogether and making your faith what *you* want it to be! We do our world a dangerous disservice by telling them God is really ok with you just the way you are. Jesus told the "rich young ruler" that he lacked something in Mk. 10:21. When the young man turned and walked away Jesus didn't run up and say, "wait a minute, don't worry about that, it's no big deal." Jesus told him the truth, and the young man rejected it to his own peril.

How sad it is that we think we need to avoid the Bible's teaching {doctrine} because it might put someone off. Actually, it will save them from hell if we will be bold & courageous enough to teach it. Paul told Timothy that as he pointed these things out to the brethren he would be a good servant of Christ (1 Tim. 4:6). He later told him to "Prescribe and teach these things" (1 Tim. 4: 11). When the doctor gives a prescription it is for the benefit of the patient. When we teach and maintain sound doctrine it is for the eternal benefit of those who will listen. A physician who doesn't prescribe life-saving medicine is not fulfilling his obligation to his patients. A teacher/preacher who will not prescribe sound doctrine does so to the danger of those unfortunate enough to hear him and think he is doing a good work.

No one denies that salvation is by grace (Eph. 2:8). But it is a misuse of the term grace to twist it to mean that whatever we teach (or don't teach) is fine as long as we love God. This is a gross error! Sound doctrine matters. Preaching the truth in love matters. Grace and truth were realized in Jesus' incarnation (Jn. 1:14, 17). Paul wrote to the Colossians that, "All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth (1:6). John wrote, Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love (2 John 1:3).

So to the faithful communicators of God's Word out there: Keep preaching the truth of the Scriptures. It is the gracious & loving thing to do. Don't fall into the devil's trap of tickling ears just to grow your congregation.

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

What's Wrong WIth "Church"?

2009-04-29T09:57:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one noticing that many new upstart groups are avoiding the word "church" like the plague in their names? "Church" has now been replaced by such nebulous and non-threatening titles such as "community," "family," etc. Most recently the cast of "Dancing With the Stars" also assured their viewers that they too were a tight-knit 'family.' That sure makes me feel better about watching them! Or groups will often choose names that evoke thoughts of positive life choices, belonging, transitions in life, etc. without needing to bother with the term "church." These have become replacements for the word "church." One of my favorite seminary professors would have called them "weasel words"! I recently went on a website of a "Christian Community" and looked in vain for any mention of the word "church." When I visited that "group" twice they appeared to be working very hard to avoid the use of the word "church" in their service as well. Have we become ashamed of the "Church" and too much like the world already filled with one group or organization after another?

My question is this: Is the word "church" a bad word? Have the modern church growth experts determined for us that in the 21st century the word "church" is so loaded with baggage that it must be replaced in order for people to desire to become a part of it. Is "church" too old, out-dated, and moldy where it must be relegated to a place of non-importance, just like that dust-covered old organ that hasn't been played in the last 5 years?

Is "church" just a replaceable synonym for any community, or a civic club, or gathering of people? I think not. The very word which we translate "church" is ekklesia which means to be "called out," from the world, and other social, political, civic entanglements, priorities, and loyalties. People can (and often are) devoted to the Moose Club, the Lions Club, the Elks, Eagles, Knights of Columbus, and the list goes on, but these are not replacements for the Church regardless of any good civic work they may do. The "church" is not just a group of like-minded individuals such as a civic club or political party. It is much more than that! It is the "church" which is identified as the body of Christ, not the Improved Order of Aardvarks!

Perhaps if Churches actually were less like the world they would be more attractive to people who are already entangled in the mindset and sin of the world. Too many cutting edge, visionary church planters have "dumbed down" (to borrow a phrase) what being a part of the Church is all about. They've forgotten "Who" the Church really belongs to as well. This also raises the question, "Why do today's church planters still call themselves "church planters" when they avoid the use of the word "church" in the groups they establish? Answer: To get money from established churches! Or to ask another question, why do Christian Universities still give lip-service to training a faithful ministry when it's obvious they no longer have that as their first priority? Answer: To get money from the churches! (But that's an upcoming blog!)

The "Church" is precious because it was established by Jesus. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, "upon this rock I will build My church..." (Mt. 16:18). The Church belongs to Jesus! He didn't come to establish a civic-club no matter how well intentioned. He didn't come to start another non-profit organization. He did come to call people out of the world and to be made a part of His body, the Church! This is not something to avoid or minimize. This is something worth shouting about! The "Church" is precious to God because it cost Him something very valuable. Paul said that the "church" was purchased with "His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Show me one place where the local Kiwani's club or Rotary club was purchased with the very blood of the Son of God! The Church is no doubt precious to God, and should be to us as well! It is a name not to be forgotten or re-defined to be more culturally palatable to the masses. By definition it seeks those who will leave the world's way and be identified with Jesus who founded the church. We should take note that Paul also had a high regard for the concept contained in "church" when he said, "All the churches of Christ greet you" (Rom. 16:16).

Being all things to all people to win some is a great idea (see 1 Cor. 9:19-22). Yet it does us well to remember the lines of a great little poem: "Methods are many, principles are few. Methods always change, principles never do." Selling out the "church" is selling out the body for which Jesus died, and the lifestyle He calls us to join. I believe it's time to be excited about the possibilities of the "church," not throw it out! We are told that the Church still has a mission. Look at Ephesians 3:10-12 and then tell me we can do without the church! Paul writes in verse 10, "in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places."

Be excited for the church! Be involved in the church. Don't cast the church aside!

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside!

Who's My Pastor?

2009-04-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

Don't be so quick to call yourself a "pastor"! I smile and shake my head at the number of guys out there who have {mis}appropriated the title of pastor, or when they think they are really important "lead pastors." It sounds so relevant, so cutting edge, so dynamic. But what it doesn't sound is biblical! It shows a complete disregard for correct usage of a fine biblical term in order to conform to what they think is more attractive to the masses. It shows a near contempt for the biblical model of leadership in a local congregation. Perhaps in their mind the end justifies the means, but it is a dangerous concession to make, because it circumvents the Lord's plan for the care of the flock. God's plan doesn't need to be amended! This applies to the plan of salvation as well as to the leadership in His Church.

The term pastor is a great word. It denotes a shepherd of the flock, one who knows his flock, cares for them, and protects them. Jesus used this term in John 10 as He described His care for the people, and noted that He would lay down His life for the sheep! Paul uses the term alongside teachers in Eph. 4. Peter calls upon elders to shepherd the flock, and refers to Jesus as the Chief Shepherd in 1 Peter 5. There is nothing wrong with the term at all when understood and applied biblically.

In the New Testament church "pastor" becomes a term for a shepherd-leader of the flock, used interchangeably with the word "elder." Yet I don't recall seeing anyone use the term "lead elder," or "Elder of the flock." I guess if more denominations used it then our guys would be falling all over themselves to claim that title too.

What's the problem then? Pastors are neither distinct nor independent from elders! They are the same body of leaders in the local church. Pastors are definitely not the executive branch and elders the legislative branch. They were never designed to be independent and definitely not antagonistic towards one another.

At one time the elder's role may be in teaching or preaching (1 Tim. 5:17). At other times their work may be in the pastoral area (Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11). Some elders may be more gifted in administrative roles, others in shepherding roles, and others in teaching or preaching. But they remain elders just the same!

Many years ago, J.W. McGarvey wrote, "To apply {the title pastor} to a preacher who is not a regularly appointed elder of the church is a misnomer; as much as to call the Lord's Day Sabbath, or to call sprinkling baptism. It is a violation of the law that we must speak as the oracles of God; it is letting go of the form of sound words which we have heard from the apostles. Again; to style a a preacher "the pastor" is still more unscriptural, for it robs the eldership entirely of this title and makes it appear that there is but one pastor to the congregation, whereas the apostolic churches all had a plurality of them..."

I doubt that there's a youtube video of McGarvey saying these words, or else it could be shown in the middle of a sermon somewhere. But to all those cutting edge, modern, maverick, not bound by the tired traditions of the past "lead pastors" out there, why not call Bible things by Bible names? And if you're really searching hard for a good title, maybe we could talk about 'evangelist' some time??

C'mon, Murphy, let's go outside