You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Second Sight
Contend for the Faith
Part II - Anti-Traditionalism and Ahistoricalism
March 1, 2006
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular are characterized by a wariness of, if not an outright aversion to, tradition. For a great many contemporary Christians, “tradition” smacks of things old, meaningless, or confining. Not all traditions, to be sure—we still cherish many aspects of the Advent and Easter seasons, not to mention certain secular holidays, which our parents and grandparents observed. We hold on to these traditions for their sentimental value. However, in the main, Christians today have adopted the chic contemporary view of all things traditional or historical: What could this possibly have to do with me?
This scorn for tradition—“anti-traditionalism”—and for the past in general—“ahistoricalism”—takes a variety of forms. In Christian worship it can mean abandoning traditional hymns, forms of music and liturgy, and even approaches to communicating God’s Word. It involves a studied lack of interest in anything written in previous generations, especially anything ancient—only what is hot and new is worth reading. It is exhibited by Christians who are woefully ignorant of the vast, rich heritage of Christian cultural achievement but who do not consider themselves to be in the least disadvantaged for it. It is visible in the seemingly unquenchable need that some church leaders demonstrate for always finding new ways to do and say things, all “old” methods and ways—including the precious heritage of doctrine and Christian confession—being regarded as inapt for our contemporaries. The anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism of our day is much more in tune with the spirit of the age than with the spirit of the Church that transcends all ages.
To many it seems altogether smart and hip to scorn tradition, to live history-free, as it were. After all, didn’t Jesus warn against the vanity and snares of human traditions (Matthew 15:1-9)? And haven’t we allowed our fetish for tradition—the language we use, the music we sing, the way we worship—and our allegiance to history to get in the way of reaching a generation of people who are desperately in search of something new? So put away all these vain snares and stumbling blocks! Break free from confining traditions and irrelevant histories and branch out in fresh, new ways! Surely this is the way into the light of life?
Well, no.
THE ROLE OF TRADITION IN SCRIPTURE
As unlikely or even contradictory as it may seem, the Scriptures urge a healthy place for history and tradition in the life of faith, as we see in Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2. The Bible warns against disregarding or departing from the history and traditions of our faithful forebears. Over and over, wayward leaders and forgetful generations are called upon to remember the faith of Abraham and the fathers, to return to the Law of Moses, to sing again the songs and recite the covenantal commitments of previous generations. They are warned not to move the ancient landmarks their forebears observed. Individuals such as Moses, David, and Solomon were led to create beautiful and enduring cultural forms—songs, poems, public works, liturgical spaces and traditions—that served generations of the faithful in celebrating God’s works and remembering who they were and what they were to be about. Further, every generation of Israelites was sternly warned against forsaking the traditions of their ancestors and neglecting their history; for if they did so, they would surely begin to mingle with and assimilate themselves to the more widely practiced traditions of their pagan contemporaries, with disastrous effects.
Jesus frequently commended Himself and His ministry by reference to the teachings of the ancients; and He chided His contemporary detractors whenever they overstepped the bounds of proper tradition or tried to substitute new, man-made traditions for those which had been proven in the past: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did . . .” (John 8:39).
The apostles rooted their teaching and practice in tested tradition, which they had received from the Lord as well as inherited from the faithful of the past. So much of what the first Christians cherished under the leadership of the apostles—their local gatherings, the oversight of trusted elders, their core convictions and beliefs, and the care they exercised for the weak members of their communities—had come to them as traditional ways and means of receiving and distributing the blessings of God. Both Paul and John warned their readers against those who would lead them to forsake such traditions. The apostles saw themselves as stewards of those traditions, called to conserve and advance them into the present and future generations. Any idea about neglecting, denying, abandoning, or re-inventing those traditions would have been unthinkable to them.
THE INESCAPABILITY OF TRADITION
The fact is, try as we may, none of us can avoid living within the framework of some kind of tradition. We may denounce the tradition of the Roman Catholic magisterium, preferring instead our favorite Reformed confession. We may tout our Pentecostal values against the ordered predictability of a “traditional” congregation. We may snort at “high church” practices and traditions as we take up our electric guitars to worship the Lord in the cultural garb of our postmodern age. We may advertise ourselves as free of all historical and denominational ties, thus commending ourselves to the public as independent of all church tradition.
Yet all such anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism is merely the invoking of one tradition over another, the attempt to create a new history in place of a repudiated one, not the escaping of tradition or history altogether. Even if it’s nothing more than the currently fashionable tradition of rejecting all things traditional and “re-emerging” the Church out of the ashes into some new phoenix of faith, it’s still a tradition—not one with much of a pedigree or proven track record, but a tradition nonetheless, complete with its own gurus, gimmicks, gewgaws, and gawking admirers. And it is trying to rewrite the history of the Church for the foreseeable future, but with not much of a historical platform from which to launch, and little in the way of a trajectory of tradition by which to assess it.
Today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists cannot completely escape the tradition and history they seek so eagerly to avoid. They still sing about the cross and the empty tomb, dramatize a morality of love for neighbors, assemble at familiar times for the rituals of the faith, and make use of disciplines and practices handed down from the generations that have preceded them in the Church. For all their attempts to deny their ancient or recent provenance, or to condemn the traditions of other communions, today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists, of whatever stripe, cannot escape immersion in some elements of the longstanding heritage of the life of faith, even as they earnestly work to create new traditions and begin new histories, packaging them for the consumption of curious inquirers and aspiring wannabes.
In the midst of all this tradition-denying and history re-writing we would do well to consider Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us.” We cannot live apart from some traditions, some immersion in history. So we’d better make certain that, whatever course we steer, we are careful to connect our chosen practices with those of the apostles and of the generations who, having received, adapted, and practiced those traditions with the evident blessing of God, have preserved the faith of Christ for our benefit today.
RECOVERING THE PLACE OF TRADITION
We can draw a trajectory of blessing from the faithful remnant of the Old Testament, through the believing communities of the New Testament, the house churches of the early Church, the city and metropolitan churches of the third and fourth century, the monasteries and faith communities of the middle ages, the cathedrals of the renaissance, and the churches of the Reformation period—including the Catholic reformation—all the way to the present.
In every age, faithful preachers and teachers, keeping an eye on the Church’s past and holding fast to the traditions of the apostles, have been used to lead the people of God to realize the blessings promised to His flock. To ignore, deny, denounce, or denigrate the practices of these faithful forebears—to cut ourselves off from their history and traditions—is to declare to the world that we owe no debt of gratitude to those who have suffered that we might believe, and who paid with their tears and blood to ensure that the traditions they cherished and the historical place in which they stood would be available for us in our day. To take up the chant of today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists is to invoke the mantra that Job ascribed to his arrogant and uncaring interlocutors: Surely we are the people, and when we die, wisdom dies with us (Job 12:1).
Let us follow the exhortations of Scripture and root ourselves firmly in the traditions of God’s people as the apostles received, interpreted, and transmitted them to us. Ask your church leaders about the things you do in worship: the songs you sing, the order of the liturgy, the ways the message of the Word is communicated. Inquire about the subject matter in the educational offerings of the church. And why the church has—or does not have—elders or deacons. Listen for ways the two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Church is being preserved, and ask further about things that seem to scorn the ways of our forebears, preferring instead some method or vocabulary or modus operandi designed to appeal in the first instance to the traditions and history of our modern or postmodern generation. Do some reading; learn about the traditions, histories, and practices of other communions; talk with Christians from other churches, looking for ways you can connect with them along the trajectory of the longstanding tradition and history of the Church.
It may be chic to advertise ourselves as free of stodgy old traditions and confining histories. But it is not wise. Or obedient to the Word of God. Anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism have blazed the trail of more than one dangerous heresy in the past; we have every reason to believe that this way might lead to dragons yet again.
FOR REFLECTION
How much do you know about the history, traditions, and practices of your church? Or of how your church attempts to connect with the two-thousand-year tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ worldwide? Would you consider yourself obedient to Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? On what grounds?
True Charity
Introduction: We have defined the poor now we will discuss how we exercise true charity among the oppressed and the sluggards.
I. True Charity.
The only means of moving up and out of poverty, and fulfilling God’s purpose for our lives, is through diligent labor.
A. True Charity knows who will work and those who won’t.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 ESV For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
B. True Charity to the oppressed involves:
1. Loosening the bonds of wickedness Isaiah 58:6
2. Dividing bread with the hungry. Isaiah 58: 7
3. Transforming poverty into productivity.
C. True Charity to the sluggard, involves:
1. The compassionate and loving response to a sluggard is to warn him. admonition and reproof
2 Thessalonians 3:15 ESV Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
Proverbs 13:18 ESV Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honored.
2. They are to, be warned:
a. Of the cost of immorality
Proverbs 5:8-13 ESV Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house, 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless, 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of a foreigner, 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed, 12 and you say, "How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors.
b. Of laziness
Proverbs 6:9-11 ESV How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, 11 and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.
Proverbs 19:15 ESV Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.
c. Of deception and negligence Proverbs 10:3-4 ESV The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked. 4 A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.
d. Of selfishness
Proverbs 11:24 ESV One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.
e Of boastfulness
Proverbs 14:23 ESV In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
f. Of drunkenness
Proverbs 21:17 ESV Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich.
g. Of gluttony
Proverbs 23:21 ESV for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.
2. Charity to the sluggard is not make his life increasingly easier so he can abuse charity programs.
3. Charity to the sluggard must equip and enable him to, move beyond dependence and entitlement.
Subsidizing sluggards is the same as subsidizing evil. It is subsidizing dependence. It is ultimately subsidizing slavery – moral slavery first, and then physical slavery. On the other hand, refusing to care for the oppressed” is the same as endorsing evil. It is endorsing injustice. It is ultimately endorsing slavery – again, moral and physical.
George Grant page 55 "In The Shadow Of Plenty"
II. Implementing Care
According to Scripture, we are to show charity to both the oppressed and the sluggardly, but the charity we show will be different for each: relief to the oppressed, admonition to the sluggardly.
A. Paul’s teaching
2 Thessalonians 3:6-16 ESV Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.
1. Those who were to gather around the Lord, to share of His gifts, to benefit from His compassion and mercy, were required to work if they could. If they refused, then they forfeited access to His charity.
2. It was that simple. It is still that simple.
3. We must not call evil good
and good evil.
Isaiah 5:20 ESV Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
B. The Christian obligation to the oppressed
1. Charity involves removing the bonds that hinder the oppressed, not simply to administer emergency relief.
2. Charity involves leading them on the road to recovery.
This is a "Good Samaritan" task.
Luke 11:33-35
3. Charity involves education, job training, family counseling, youth rehabilitation, and money managements well as soup kitchens, rescue missions, and public shelters.
4. Charity involves legislative advocacy that lifts restrictions in the market place, such as over expensive occupational licensing restrictions, over taxation, and minimum wage laws and “closed shop” union regulations.
5. Charity involves legal advocacy for civil rights and civil liberties.
C. The Christian obligation to the sluggard
1. Charity involves getting them back on their own two feet.
This, again is a "Good Samaritan" task.
Luke 11:33-35
2. Charity involves removing crippling “entitlement programs.”
(What a horrible word: it means that sluggards are legally entitled to the wealth of the thrifty.)
3. Charity involves honest, tough love. Accommodating sin benefits no one.
Conclusion: Let me ask you, whose ideology do we use helping the poor? Is it Biblical to render unceasing aid with no accountability? Have we not seen the rotten fruit of entitlement give away programs that are amoral and focus on materialism and not character?
We must use the Word of God to help us to distinguish our actions in helping those in need. It is not who we will help or not help, but how we will help. Righteousness does not involve doing good actions. Righteousness is about doing the right actions.
So how can we know what are the right actions? Ask our Father. If you believe He is wiser and smarter than us, you must believe that His way is better than our way. Let's follow God's way!
Second Sight
Contend for the Faith
Part I - Time for a Little House Cleaning
February 20, 2006
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)
The struggle between the Biblical worldview and various forms of non-Biblical worldviews has been a feature of Christian experience from the earliest days of the Church. Most of the time, when we think of the task of defending the Biblical worldview, we focus on philosophies and ideologies outside the Church that deny the teaching of Scripture and posit ways of living that would limit God’s involvement or cut Him out entirely. Such is the struggle today between the Biblical worldview and the naturalistic worldviews of rationalism and scientism, and the mystical and relativistic worldviews of postmodernism in its different shapes. Against such intellectual arguments and lofty opinions “raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) believers are called to be ever vigilant and aggressive.
But what often gets overlooked in the conflict of worldviews are those unbelieving arguments and opinions that, assuming the language of faith, weasel their way into the believing community and sap the strength of Biblical thinking and living. Such were the Judaizers and Gnostics of the first and second centuries, the Arians and other proponents of a subordinationist theology of the third and fourth centuries, and a host of other false teachers in every age. It is about just such teachers that the apostle Jude wrote in his brief letter, observing, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (v. 4).
Jude warned his readers against these false teachers. They appealed to “new revelations” beyond the scope and teaching of Scripture (v. 8), mocked the authority of the apostles and those appointed by them for church leadership (v. 8), and promoted their views in the interest of making money (v. 11). They were popular and ubiquitous, made plenty of room for sensual indulgence in their religious schemes (v. 7), and brazenly insinuated themselves into the very midst of established churches by any means they could (v. 12).
But their preaching and teaching, while very appealing, produced no real fruit for the Kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit (v. 12) and left whole congregations confused, divided, contending with one another, and filled with ungodly and complaining people (vv. 15, 16).
The apostles had warned about such people, Jude advised (v. 17), and he called on his readers to resist these false teachers and “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Even early in the history of the faith it was necessary for one of the apostles to call for a little house cleaning.
Jude’s exhortation to his first-century readers is valid for us today. Little has changed from Jude’s day to ours; there are still false teachers rampant in the churches of the land, promoting all manner of false doctrine, creating all kinds of confusion in the ranks, and making a handsome living for themselves in the bargain. They use the language of faith but deny the substance of it; they invoke the Name of Jesus but lead people away from Him to their clever schemes or dazzling personalities; they may achieve huge followings, or they may instruct in small churches, but little in the way of righteousness or boldness for Christ is evident from their ministries. Against all such false teachers Jude’s instruction yet stands: “Contend for the faith!”
In this and the next three installments of this column I want to examine four types of false teachings which have become firmly established in many churches and in the minds of many believers, the effect of which is to “pervert the grace of our God . . . and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” I won’t be naming names; instead, I’ll take an “if the shoe fits, wear it” approach to four of the most dangerous teachings afoot in the Body of Christ today.
I begin with antinomianism.
Antinomianism is the doctrine that denies a central place in the life of faith to the keeping of God’s commandments. The antinomian claims that the Law and the Gospel are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum; Law depends on works for salvation, while Gospel looks to grace. Law lays on a heavy burden that no one can bear; Gospel lifts that burden and allows us to “be free in Jesus.” Law emphasizes sin and condemnation; Gospel emphasizes forgiveness and hope. Law is a taskmaster of duty; Gospel is the liberator of love.
The antinomian boasts, in a perversion of Paul’s teaching (Galatians 3:25), that he is “not under Law, but under grace.” Law cannot save; it can only enslave. Law was for the Old Covenant; Gospel and grace are for the new. Since there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1), there is no need for believers to fuss with obeying “precepts and teachings” that “have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (Colossians 2:22, 23). Why are you so anxious about rules and laws? Just keep your eye on Jesus, and He’ll show you how to live in forgiveness and love. Don’t be so hard on yourself about feelings of sin and guilt. You’re forgiven in Christ—a new creature! He welcomes you as you are and just wants you to accept yourself as He does; when He’s ready to change you, He’ll take care of it in His own special way. Until then, be free of guilt and shame, and revel in the free grace of a God who demands nothing of us but to regard Him as our friend, and to be friendly to others as we have opportunity.
The antinomian acknowledges that the Law has a powerful ability to point out our sins. However, he will insist, once it has accomplished that task, and driven us into the arms of Christ, its work is done, and we need worry about it no more. “For the Christian,” as one antinomian theologian wrote, “the Law is a dead and a useless thing.”
ANTINOMIANISM PERVERTS GRACE
The problem with antinomianism is that rather than promote grace as a way of life, it actually denies grace by cheapening it almost to the point of mere license. The teaching of Scripture is that, while none of us can keep the Law in a way that will result in our salvation, still, if we are ever to be saved—that is, if we are ever to possess a righteousness sufficient to dwell in the house of the Lord forever—someone has to keep the Law and achieve that righteousness for us.
This is what Jesus has done. By fulfilling the Law in exhaustive detail, Jesus achieved a righteousness that God the Father has accepted and is willing to credit to all people who will receive it by faith. This is what Paul argues so forcefully in Romans 3. But once that alien righteousness is received by faith, the Law, which Christ kept to achieve our salvation, is not tossed on the dust heap of religious history. Rather, Paul says, we establish the Law (Romans 3:31) as the means whereby the love of God flows through us, both to Him and to our neighbors, as the Holy Spirit brings grace to fruition in our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Romans 5:5). Obedience to the Law, John tells us, is the very essence of love, of grace (1 John 5:1-3). To deny or ignore or minimize the Law, therefore, is to eradicate grace and replace it with a dangerous form of license, one that has yet to produce much in the way of real evidence of the Kingdom of God in our midst.
The poverty threshold in the U.S. differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four was considered living in poverty last year if annual income was $19,307 or less. For a family of two, it was $12,334.At $10 per hour your annual income is $20,000 per year. You are in the top 11% of wage earners in the world. To see where you stand in world wide wages go to:Defining The Need
Introduction: Before we start there needs to be a clarification on the often misused phrase "Christians are not to judge." It comes the teaching of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount where our Lord says,
"Judge not, that you be not judged.
Matthew 7:1 ESV
Jesus goes on to say;
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:2 ESV
We are to be a compassionate people exercising forgiveness to those who have come against us (Matt 6:12-15; 1:21-35) and giving humble admonishment to those who are breaking the laws of God first giving careful examination of our own lives (Matt. 7:3-5). Correction and admonishment is an exercise of justice toward law breaker and brings restoration to the law breaker (Gal. 6:1ff). It is what we do to protect those who are afflicted (Isa. 58:6-12). All these actions can only be done when one judges in accordance with Jesus' teaching. This is the method of discernment which is to be used when in all things. Did Jesus contradict himself when he said;
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Matthew 7:15-16 ESV
Jesus is telling us to judge and the way to do it.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 ESV
Consider the following:
According to Scripture, we are to show charity to both the oppressed and the sluggardly, but the charity we show will be different for each: relief to the oppressed, admonition to the sluggardly.
Basic to Biblical charity then, is the imperative of the Apostle Paul, “If anyone will not work, he shall not eat.” If we are to do our evangelistic duty to care for the poor, we must not fall into the trap of promiscuous giving. We must make certain that our charity adheres to the Biblical blueprint.
George Grant “In The Shadow Of Plenty The Biblical Blueprint for Welfare”:
If we are to deal with those in need we must be able to judge the need correctly.
The following outline is derived from chapter four of Pastor Grant’s book “In The Shadow Of Plenty: The Biblical Blueprint for Welfare”
I. The Biblical Work Ethic: Work is Good
Genesis 2:15 ESV The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Work is a central theme throughout the Scriptures. It is prominent in Paul’s writings as well as all of the Old Testament because work is at the heart of man’s created purpose. The Biblical work ethic is foundational to everything Scripture has to say about wealth, poverty, dominion, and charity.
A. Paul labored
1. In poverty and prosperity Phil 4:12.
2. In persecution and popularity
Acts 14:8-19
3. At home and abroad Acts 11:25-30
4. In season and out 2 Timothy 4:1-8
5. With friends, helpers and alone
2 Tim 4:9-12
6. Through beatings and stoning,
2 Cor 11:25
7. Facing dangers 2 Cor 11:26.
8. Through hardships: sleepless nights, hunger, thirst, cold, and exposure 2 Cor 11:27
B. God used workmen, common ordinary laborers, to enactment His plan of salvation. God Used:
1. Shepherds like Jacob (Gen 30:31-43) and David (1 Samuel 17:15).
2. Farmers like Amos (Amos 7:14), and Gideon (Judges 6:11).
3. Merchants like Abraham (Genesis 13:2) and Lydia (Acts 16:14).
4. Craftsmen like Aquila (Acts 18:2-3) and Oholiab (Exodus 31:6).
5. Artists like Solomon (1 Kings 4:32) and Bezalel (Exodus 31:2-5).
6. The disciples He chose to convert the nations of the earth in the first century were laborers, men of low esteem: tax collectors and fishermen (Acts 4:13).
II. Who Are the Poor?
The poor can be identified and defined, at least in part, by their attitudes toward work:
A. The Oppressed who are denied the opportunity to work.
1. The oppressed are the objects of God’s special care.
Psalms 146:5-9 ESV Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God, 6 who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever; 7 who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free; 8 the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. 9 The LORD watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
2. John the Baptist’s request for evidence that Jesus was the Christ.
Luke 7:22 ESV And he [Jesus] answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.
B. The Sluggards who refuse the opportunity to work. while the oppressed are the objects of God’s special care, the sluggardly are the objects of His special condemnation. Sluggards:
1. Waste opportunities
Proverbs 6:9-10.
2. Bring poverty upon themselves Proverbs 10:4.
3. Are victims of self-inflicted bondage Proverbs 12:24.
4. Unable to accomplish anything in life Proverbs 15:19.
5. Are prideful
Proverbs 13,:4
6. Boastful
Proverbs 10:26
7. Lustful
Proverbs 13:4
8. Wasteful
Proverbs 12: 27
9. Careless
Proverbs 20:4
10. Lazy
Proverbs 24:30-34
11. Self-deceived
Proverbs 26:16
12. Neglectful
Ecclesiastes 10:18
13. Unproductive
Matthew 25:26
14. Impatient
Hebrews 6:12
15. A sluggard will die for the lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly Proverbs 5:22-23
16. Though he continually makes excuses for himself
Proverbs 22:13,
17. His laziness will consume him
Proverbs 24:30-34,
18 Paralyze him Proverbs 26:14, and leave him hungry
Proverbs 19:15.
C. There is a clear distinction then between the oppressed and the sluggardly.
1. The oppressed would work, if only they could.
2. The sluggardly could work, if only they would.
Conclusion: Basic to Biblical charity then, is the imperative of the Apostle Paul, “If anyone will not work, he shall not eat.” If we are to do our evangelistic duty to care for the poor, we must not fall into the trap of promiscuous giving. We must make certain that our charity adheres to the Biblical blueprint.
“In The Shadow Of Plenty: The Biblical Blueprint for Welfare” by George Grant copyright 1986 published by Dominion Press
I fancy myself a conservative Christian who loves to read. My favorite reading is theology, eschatology, sociology, history, historical fiction, alternative fiction, science fiction, and fantasy. Now I hesitate to share some of my reading interests because I am also a minister of a rural non-denominational church. Some of my constituents have wondered why their pastor would read in the genres of science fiction, alternative fiction and/or fantasy. Well the answer is quite simple, I love to examine world views. That is I am fascinated at the worlds authors create and ethics those worlds operate in. Some authors such as Isaac Asimov, a brilliant man, prolific writer and self avowed humanistic atheist, wrote of futures that dealt with great ethical problems in which many were solved with an ethical system called the Three Laws of Robotics. They are:
I read many of his books in the years that spanned my teens through my twenties. The last of his books I read were the Foundation trilogies. These books though fascinating and (from my point of view at least) well written, left me with the sinking feeling of despair. Was this the best of man's future accomplishments, to leave only a legacy of technology and philosophy behind for future generations. On the surface it sounds heroic, but beneath I asked myself, "is that all there is?"
My thoughts were troubled with the question of who is to say what technologies, ideology, moral-ethical system would be the right one to leave behind for the future generations. Deep stuff for a twenty something. Not only is it deep but depressing too, because if there is no God, and no absolute authority then who's to say who is right and who is wrong? Ultimately it always came back to the nagging thought, "What if am wrong?"
Needless to say I found a higher authority. His name is Jesus. I embraced the teaching of Christ at the age of 27 but was not ready for all the dogma of Christianity or I might better define this as Churchianity. Churchianity is the name I use for the rules, cultural and social conventions of the church that seem to pop up about different cultural issues. They are about such things as smoking, hair styles, television watching, movies, when the rapture will be, can a divorced person remarry, how should you dress in church and so on.
Well being the inquisitive sort that I am when ever Churchianity's proclamations on issues of the day came up I would asked the question why? Why is smoking a sin but eating French fries everyday not? Why are Christians to abstain from alcohol as John the Baptist did but the scripture says Jesus made wine for the people at a wedding to drink? Why was everybody saying the "Great Tribulation" was coming 2,000 years after John the Revelator wrote in Revelations 1:3 "the time is near"and Jesus says in Revelation 22:20 (ESV) "Surely I am coming soon."? Why was reading the King James better than the modern translations? And who says froward any more
I remember a man name Lloyd who was teaching us young believers the doctrines of the faith. I had just bought my first leather cover Bible, a NIV edition Thompson Chain Reference. I was so proud of that Bible and Llloyd was happy to you see he had a Thompson Chain Reference Bible. He picked my Bible up and caressed gently as one would in picking up one of the dead Sea Scrolls. He opened up and I could have sworn that someone popped a slug in his mouth. He looked at me as if I had given him a Jehovah Witness Bible by mistake. He roared, "This is not the King James!!"
I said, " Oh I know it is a NIV," and in trying to redeem the situation I then said, "You know the New Inspired Version."
He didn't buy it and I was still trying to find out what froward means.
Needless to say these were not the kind of questions you asked in our little Baptist church. These were tough questions that really bothered people but they bothered me the most.
This leads me to Harry Potter. When Harry Potter hit the scene I could not believe the firestorm from my side of the aisle, the Evangelical Right. I did not know what Harry Potter was about but from the fuss it seemed the End was near, California was going to fall in the ocean, your milk was going to curdle and Wicca was to have a new coven on every corner. My children wanted to read the books so my wife previewed them (she read them cover to cover) and gave our kids the green light to read them. This was all done in the security of our home under the dome of silence least anyone found out we the pastor's family had partaken in the treaded "Book of Potter"
Now I am not sure of what Joanne Kathleen Rowling was thinking but I am positive it was not how to lead the young minds of the world into witchcraft. I wonder why there was not this firestorm over the:
These films too have a world view that none of us would ascribe to but of us saw the movies and enjoyed them.
I saw the Harry Potter movies and enjoyed though I had stabbing pangs of guilt that I could not agree with the evangelical community's criticism of the movies.
I had one concern Christian grandmother wanting me to come join a planned protest at our local elementary school because her grandson came home saying they were showing the new Potter movie at the school. I quickly called up the principal (I could not believe the school would have the kind of funds to show a new release movie) who at first was very defensive when she heard a pastor was calling about the Harry Potter movie. She had been fielding phone calls all morning from parents demanding why the school was showing Harry Potter. The truth was that the little boy was told by friend that he was going to see Harry Potter. Well that was cleared up but then Christians wanted to protest the school board meeting.
Now I'm telling you this because this kind of action makes us look stupid ( yes I used the S word) and ignorant. What is about Harry Potter we should object to? Witchcraft and magic? Hello!! There is witchcraft and magic in our beloved Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Again where the protests over the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Beauty and the Beast or Sleeping Beauty. If you object to the violence then what do you say about the good wholesome violence of Lord of the Rings (which by the way is my hands down favorite over Harry Potter)?
I believe the body of Christ has missed something in Rowlings' books and it is not witchcraft, What we have missed and fail to discuss is the way her characters, the children and adults, view their world. It is nothing more than the they many other post moderns view the world. Harry is the center and ultimately controls his destiny with the amoral supernatural power given to him. Really it is not any different than Star Trek, Star Wars, Gunsmoke or Bonanza. It is the Humanistic thinking that man is the center. That man has the ability to wield great moral power and fashion it in the way he sees fit. That the end justifies the means. The thing that makes the Ring stories and Narnia tales superior is world view. We use arguments such as the authors of our tales are Christians but I would fancy to say that many evangelicals would not line up in their brand of Christianity. Tolkien was Catholic and Lewis was Episcopalian.
From James Townsend, Bible Editor, from Cook Communications, Elgin, IlI. Wrote in the beginning of his essay "C. S. Lewis's Theology: Somewhere Between Ransom And Reepicheep"
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm
Would you like to pretend that you haven't just read the title above and to try your hand at a trivia quiz? Here goes. Who was the gentleman who:
This composite trivia quiz does not sound like the personality profile of a candidate for the "evangelical of the year." Then again, modern conservatives probably wouldn't have picked three murderers (or accomplices to murder), such as Moses, David, and Paul were, to have authored nineteen books of God's inspired Word! In light of this, it's rather amusing that C. S. Lewis-so much read by evangelicals-would probably be turned away from many of their churches if he were an aspiring pastoral candidate.
So why don't we like Harry Potter? I have meet very few who are opposed to Harry Potter that have seen the movie and very few Christains who are opposed or unopposed for that matter who read the books.
Again in the cover of my home and sometimes in my pickup truck by the beach I read the books to find what the hubbub was about. Now as I said before saw the films (even though truly wanted to wear a disguise as I watched them, for goodness sake I am a pastor after all) but reading the books gave me a very different insight in to Harry Potter. Which I will explain in my next entry.
Isaiah 5:20 ESV Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
