What will save Anthony Weiner?

With the news that Congressman Anthony Weiner was going to seek treatment for his sexual addiction, Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tweeted, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, founder of This World: The Values Network took exception to Mohler’s comments claiming that Mohler was trying to proselytize the congressman. Rabbi Shmuley responded to Mohler’s comments in an article in The Jewish Journal titled, “An Evangelical Attempts to Proselytize Anthony Weiner.”

In his response, Rabbi Shmuley made three statements that demonstrate just how different evangelical Christianity and Judaism really are. These statements are based on incorrect assumptions that Rabbi Shmuley makes about evangelical Christianity. He assumes that we believe that “salvation through Jesus Christ grants immunity to sexual sin” and that Christianity will prevent sin. No one with a correct understanding of evangelical Christianity would make these claims as they run contrary to Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Our faith does not prevent sin but it does provide a way out. “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor 10:13, ESV) Here, God supplies that which is necessary to overcome sin and temptation to those who have placed their faith in Him.

Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption comes about not through anything we believe but how we behave.” In this statement he makes redemption a matter of self-determination. We can will ourselves to be obedient enough to be redeemed. However, Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham, the father of Judaism, “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (NKJV, emphasis mine). To his credit, Rabbi Shmuley rightly says, “It is not faith that guarantees our morality but rather an ironclad commitment to righteous action, be we atheists or theist.” I believe this is true, but while faith does not guarantee our morality, neither does our morality guarantee the kingdom.

Secondly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption is never a function of belief and always a function of deed.” To support his view, he quotes Jesus in Matt 7:16, “You will know them by their fruits.” The Rabbi makes an excellent point and most evangelical Christians that I know will readily admit that there is a tension and a struggle between faith and obedience. The Rabbi in his statement though creates a rather extreme false choice that distinguishes between two biblically inseparable concepts, faith and works. In order for his statement to be aligned with Scripture (Old and New Testaments), it should read, “Redemption is always a function of belief that results in deeds.” James and the writer of Hebrews affirm the emphasis of obedience that comes from faith, but this obedience is empowered by God, not our will.

Thirdly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Atonement comes not from belief in Jesus Christ but from getting on your knees in front of the wife whose heart you broke, begging her forgiveness, and placing yourself in an environment of change that will help sustain your new moral commitment.” Anthony Weiner should absolutely do these things and in them he and his wife may experience reconciliation. But to ascribe atonement to this act of self-vindication is to limit the concept of atonement to earthly relationships. Rabbi Shmuley grossly misses the point of the atoning sacrifice when he says, “Judaism is emphatic that when it comes to sins that pertain to human relationships, not even G-d can forgive. The injured party must be approached directly.”

The statements made by Rabbi Shmuley stem from the same type of moralistic deism that trapped the Pharisees of Jesus’ day into thinking that self-determination, self-righteousness, and self-vindication was enough to gain entrance to the kingdom. Nicodemus even struggled with the spiritual side to Jesus’ teaching. Rabbi Shmuley makes a similar mistake in limiting concepts such as redemption and atonement to the physical realm and physical relationships. However, he goes one step further. While the Pharisees of Jesus’ day misunderstood faith, Rabbi Shmuley seems to completely dismiss faith as irrelevant. The Bible is very clear when through the writer of Hebrews the Holy Spirit reminds us that, “without faith it is impossible to please [God],” (Heb 11:6, NKJV).

Contentment vs. Complacency

In their newly published book, The Faith of Leap, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch present an awesome challenge to the church to step up and pursue the adventure to which we have been called. The premise of the book is that if we are going to take on the responsibility of being light in a dark world, we will be required to assume a certain level of risk--one that is not dissimilar to that of first century Christians who realized that claiming "Jesus is Lord" was countercultural and counter-political to the driving and safe worldview of the Roman Empire that readily declared "Caesar is lord."

Before I get to what I believe is right about the opening chapter, I want to to take issue with one paragraph. In order to validate their position, the authors believe that we must impose on God's character the same type of risk that we as humans experience. In doing so they present a theology that closely resembles the theology of "Open Theism." Open theists assume that since our risk stems from a lack of knowledge and control, then our God who takes risks must do so from the same perspective, a lack of knowledge and a lack of control. I agree that God seemingly took risks when he gave Adam a choice, and when He came in the flesh, and when He entrusted His mission to a church. But in God's economy, risk and knowledge and control do not stand in opposition. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. What is risky for us is not so for God. The authors admit that this particular theological debate is beyond the scope of the book, so they correctly keep the ideas of risk and courage centered on the church and it's mission today.

The real motivation for this article is to make sure that we as a church understand the difference between contentment (the topic for many of our Sunday School classes for June 19) and complacency. When we teach about contentment, we are speaking in terms of materialism, calling, and the circumstances of this world or our lot in life. Contentment in this sense battles our natural inclination towards covetousness, envy, and greed. Paul articulates the Christian perspective when he says, "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me," (Phil 4:1-13, ESV).

However, Paul never allowed his contentment to take on the characteristics of complacency. To do what he did in writing sometimes scathing letters to churches showed that he cared and was passionate about his calling. His unwillingness to allow John Mark on the second missionary journey showed that he was passionate about his convictions. He risked friendships at the expense of truth and conviction. He pursued the adventure of being a Christian in ways that many of us would never consider. Paul wrote, "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," (1 Cor 11:24-27, ESV).

Paul was content, but he was never complacent. As believers, contentment with regard to the things of this world should never be misconstrued as complacency with regard to the kingdom. Are we, individually and as a church, willing to let urgency and risk drive our mission and purpose? Here is a question to consider, how often do we operate in the realm of mediocrity (in our individual faith and in the corporate life of the church) because we have mistaken complacency for contentment?

Final Thoughts on May 21

With the hoopla of Harold Camping's May 21 predictions now finally beginning to wane, I want to share some final thoughts--at least until October when Camping predicts the world will end. Just to be clear, according to his written tracts and information on his radio station websites, May 21 was supposed to be the date of the rapture and October 21, the day of destruction. October 21 is not a revised prophecy. It was part of the original all along.

I am not a prophet in the predictive sense, but I did predict what Camping would do on May 22 in light of a failed prophecy. He did what other false prophets have done in the past, spiritualized his vision. Camping, like Charles Russell (Jehovah's Witness) before him, believes now that the judgment has occurred but it did not play out in a physical rapture the way he thought it would.

While Camping continues to err in trying to calculate and set dates that are reserved for the wisdom and sovereignty of God, he does get one thing right. Jesus will return to establish His kingdom. In His first appearance on earth, Jesus came as the Suffering Servant to inaugurate a kingdom that would be offered to those who believe. When all who will believe have believed, Jesus will come again, this time, not as a Suffering Servant but a Conquering King. The Bible says that he will come in all His glory and that everything that is anti-Christ (captured in the term Babylon in Revelation) will be judged. His judgment will be final, physical, and quick.

What I noticed about my own attitude towards Camping is that while I (rather unfortunately) stated several opinions that were not constructive, I realized that I thought differently on May 21. Even in the midst of mocking his theology, he had me thinking about certain actions and attitudes that I would want to avoid should that day or any day for that matter be the last day. In hindsight, I think we too often feel that Christ's return could be immediate, but we file it away in the recesses of our minds so that we are not forced to consider our lives in light of His imminent return.

I hope that between now and October 21 and beyond, should the Lord grant us that much time, that I will learn to live each day thinking intentionally about my actions and attitudes, my pursuit of holiness, and my service to the kingdom through His church. Are there thoughts that I don't want to be thinking when Christ comes? Are there conversations that I don't want to be having when Christ comes? Are there places I don't want to be when Christ comes? The return of Christ should not paralyze us with fear, but should serve to motivate us with the urgency that gospel deserves. In embracing this gospel, we escape the judgment that awaits those who continue to reject the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This gospel is God's plan of salvation and deliverance to all who believe.

The Death of Bin Laden: A Victorious Battle in a Just War

The news of the death of Usama bin Laden spread like a wildfire through news outlets, social media, baseball parks, and New York City streets. National pride gripped Americans’ hearts and souls and the nation seemed to shout a unified and harmonious, “Hallelujah,” reminiscent of the voices of the citizens of Oz upon hearing that the Wicked Witch was dead.

While we rightly consider that some amount of justice has been served, we should exercise caution in our celebration. The Bible says in Ezekiel 33:11, “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’” God’s desire for anyone, no matter how evil, is for faith and repentance to eventually grip their hearts and to turn towards Him for life. We must make sure that our motive or cause for celebration is not vindictiveness towards bin Laden, but gladness towards the families who have suffered because of his work. These families get to experience some semblance of justice and closure.

Before the din of American nationalism could subside, critics were already questioning the justification of such an act, questioning the right of the United States to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, much less the right to use such force in going after one man. The answer to such critics can be found in Scripture and in a theological/philosophical worldview of what has been labeled, “just war.” I know that for many people, there is no such thing as a just war, but the reality of the human condition and inclination towards war necessitates a mediating position between pacifism and imperialism.

The just war theory was formulated by Augustine in the midst of the Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Prior to Christianity becoming the dominant belief system, Christians were in such minority that they were able to ignore any imperial claims made upon them by the Empire. As Christianity spread, it became more difficult for Christians to maintain a pacifist position as increasing pressure was placed on them to serve in the armed forces. Augustine adapted the rules of warfare developed by classical thinkers like Plato and Cicero to Christian thought. He taught that war should be fought in order to secure justice and reestablish peace. He also taught that war must be conducted under the direction of proper ruling authorities and characterized by an attitude of love for the enemy (the opposing forces theoretically serving in the same frame of mind, in loyalty to their ruler.) Any promises made to the opposition should be honored such as a clearly defined mission and the parameters of the mission. (R.G. Clouse, “War,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed. Walter E. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001)

The Bible says in Romans 13:3-4, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will receive praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” The pursuit of Usama bin Laden was not the pursuit of a person who may have been guilty of crimes against humanity. Bin Laden was proud to acknowledge his role in the attacks that killed over three thousand civilians and led to a war that has killed thousands more, civilians and servicemen. As limited as human justice is, it was served in the death of Usama bin Laden.

As glad as I am to hear that there is one less terrorist in the world today, I am saddened by the fact that the news came too late for the American service men and women who have already given their lives for this cause, who were not able to celebrate with us the victory of this particular battle—a victory that comes in the context of the much larger war they have been fighting for a decade. Of course, they have already seen firsthand the true justice that comes to those who reject God and the gospel of His Son, Jesus.

A Sad Day for Freedom of Speech

The headline in an article on USA Today online reads, “Supreme Court rules in favor of church that pickets funerals.” The story behind the headline is that of the activities of Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church led by “fundamentalist” pastor Fred Phelps. Phelps and his followers stage picket protests at the funerals of soldiers who have died in combat presumably to send a message of judgment on the United States for its acceptance of and policies toward homosexual behavior. This particular ruling came in the context of a lawsuit filed against Westboro by a family of a Marine whose funeral was the target of a protest. The reason I believe this is a sad day for freedom of speech is not because the Supreme Court’s decision to protect their speech wasn’t right, but because this kind of speech exists in the first place by a group that claims to be believers in Jesus Christ.

What does a Christian response to this story look like? How should we frame our opinion as to right and wrong in this case? First, we need to be careful in supporting any attempt to restrict Westboro’s right to voice an opinion. As disagreeable as their words might be and as dishonoring to God’s Word as their actions are, we must support their right to voice their views if we have any chance of continuing to voice our own. I hope that the actions of the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) are successful in diminishing the effect of the protests. The VFW has vowed to screen the funeral processions from the protesters using busses and other means so that the families can mourn their losses in private.

With that said, we need to distance our belief system from that of Westboro Baptist Church. Ed Stetzer rightly said on a twitter post, “The only correct part in the name of “Westboro Baptist Church” is that it is in Westboro.” Its actions demonstrate that it is not Baptist and it is not a Church. I am saddened that the idea of fundamentalism is now vastly different from what the term meant in the early 1900s. In the midst of theological liberalism, fundamentalism embraced the inerrancy of God’s Word and the theology of orthodox Christianity. Now, the word is used to describe fringe, radicals in all kinds of religious systems. So we must distance ourselves from the labels that have changed meanings over the years.

We must also remain on mission, knowing the true church proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ, not Moral Deism (a belief that defines God according to a certain set of moral standards). It is obvious that Westboro has no regard for the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20). While God raised up prophets in the Old Testament to call His people back into obedient fellowship, Jesus has commissioned His church in the New Testament to “make disciples of all nations.” The centrality of our preaching is Christ crucified and risen, neither of which are present on the signs being held at these various protests. To substitute this message for the priority of any other message is to be disobedient to the commands of Christ at multiple levels. Westboro’s message truly is one of hate rather than love and they somehow think that unspiritual people can be manipulated and guilted into thinking spiritually without being born again (1 Cor. 2:14).

Personally, I hope this is the last story about Westboro Baptist Church to ever make the news. I hope that media outlets will not give them the attention they seek. In the meantime, we must love Lake City in such a way, that they will see the good in our name Parkview Baptist Church and understand truly that we are really both, “Baptist” and “Church.”

Is May 21 really the end?

The pamphlets are being distributed and the busses are rolling through Lake City, FL. and many other cities around our nation announcing May 21, 2011 as the Judgment Day. Some receive the pamphlets out of curiosity. Some receive them out of politeness. My fear is that some will receive them looking for answers and in the end will be deceived and view all Christianity as just another religious scam. If anything good can come from the message of this group, it is that believers must be fully informed and passionate about pursuing the truth of God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The source of the pamphlets being distributed and the organizers of the various caravans that are moving from city to city is Family Radio. Family Radio was founded by Harold Camping in 1988 with the acquisition of a radio station in San Francisco. It began as an open-forum talk radio station that allowed callers to ask Camping questions about various verses in Scripture and he would in turn give an interpretation.

In 1988, Camping separated himself from any denominational affiliation claiming that the church age had ended. He began leading followers to leave their churches. He believes that churches do not employ the Bible as their sole means of authority and that church doctrine and hermeneutic dictate how the Bible is understood in the context of that church. Of course the assumption made by Camping in such a statement is that his doctrine and hermeneutic are correct. He ignores the fact that every interpretation of Scripture (including his) is driven by some methodology. The key to biblical interpretation is consistency. The hermeneutic that the Reformers employed (and that we employ) is based on the historical, theological, and grammatical context of each verse. Camping denies that this is the best way to understand Scripture opting instead to switch between literal and allegorical readings of Scripture. Again consistency is the key and a brief survey of his interpretations show that he is not consistent in his exegesis (technical understanding of a text) or his hermeneutic (interpretation of a text.)

In the pamphlet, The End of the World Is almost Here!, Camping attempts to prove biblically that the Rapture will take place on May 21, 2011. For Camping, the Rapture is the time when Jesus will save His followers from His wrath, a series of plagues that will bring about the ultimate destruction of the universe by October of 2011. He claims to be able to calculate the date based upon two verses in the Bible: 2 Peter 3:8 and Genesis 7:4. In Genesis 7:4 the Bible says:
For after seven more days, I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. (NKJV)
In 2 Peter 3:8 the Bible says: But beloved do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (NKJV)

Camping’s math tells him that May 21, 2011, is exactly seven thousand years from the date of the flood. Two assumptions based on biblical interpretation drive this calculation. One assumption is that 4990 B.C. is the exact year of the flood. The second assumption ignores the simile (a poetic device used for comparison) of 2 Pt. 3:8 and says that the day of Gen. 7:4 is a literal and an allegorical period of time. “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years to escape the wrath of God …” There is no possible reading, casual or technical that could possibly tie these two verses together this way. Furthermore, Camping misses the point of the 2 Pt. 3:8 passage.

The point of 2 Pt. 3:8 is to disclose the patience of an infinitely merciful God even when His people are being persecuted. In other words, God is patiently waiting for all who will be saved to be saved even though His people must suffer in the meantime. I do not believe that God contradicts himself. When Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only,” he would not later in the power of the Holy Spirit reveal this information to Peter in some code that only a few would be able to understand. The Bible was not written in order to hide the mysteries of God but to reveal them and to do so plainly.

Camping’s call for repentance and reliance on the mercy of God is admirable. He is accurate when he says that only the Bible should be considered the Word of God. He says to, “Turn away from your sins and humbly beg, beseech, and implore God for forgiveness.” Unfortunately, his presentation is void of any true gospel presentation. Instead, he implies that the mercy of God is not bestowed based on faith in Jesus Christ but on the fact that one has embraced the warning of May 21, 2011 as the Day of Judgment. He says, “And thank God that in His great mercy He has given you this warning of destruction that is almost here, and the great hope that you, too, might be one whom God will bring to heaven to be with God…” It is the great mercy of God displayed in the gospel of Jesus that we must embrace. A proper understanding of the gospel is what saves us, not an accurate prediction of the end of the world. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in that belief we have life in His name (John 20:31).

Camping’s message in his book 1994 was that the end of the world would come in 1994. This 2011 message by Camping and his followers is equally wrong and deceitful. Any attempt to set a date for the return of Christ is futile and only compounds and empowers the fulfillment of 2 Pt. 3:3, “That scoffers will come in the last days…saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” In other words, Camping promotes a “Christianity” that will be subject to scrutiny on May 22, 2011, and those of us who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and are called to proclaim it until he returns will simply continue to proclaim that gospel in light of heretics such Harold Camping.

Thanks Ida--for the message we didn't hear

I find it amazing the number of emotions one can experience in such a short period of time during a denominational convention. I have experienced the joy of worship, the anxiety of business, the disappointment of apathy, and the amazement at the number of opinions that are out there—one of which will expressed here.

We do not often think in terms of that which did not happen. Tropical Storm Ida changed the convention program for us. Ed Young, Jr. was scheduled to bring a message, but because of the weather, had to cancel. I was disappointed because I love the creativity that Ed Young brings to the pulpit. I subscribe to his newsletter. However, I was curious as to why he would have been invited to speak at our convention in the first place for two reasons.

First, I find it interesting that Ed Young would be scheduled in a time slot labeled “Biblical Message.” I tend to think of expository preaching when I hear these terms--not something Ed Young is known to practice on a regular basis.

Second, I think it is interesting that the Florida Baptist Convention would schedule a keynote speaker who does not believe in the concept of the cooperative program. Several years ago I heard Ed Young make a statement about not being willing to use his resources to cross oceans to share the gospel when people in his own backyard need the gospel. I understand his concern and agree that our churches need to be missional agencies in their cities. Not long after that statement, Fellowship Church crossed the gulf and established a pastor-by-DVD church when it took over the ailing First Baptist Church of South Miami.

I have appreciated the messages that we have heard thus far. The Pastor’s Conference speakers have been extremely encouraging and John Cross’s message left us with a challenge that we must all seriously consider and set up perfectly the ideas that will be considered today. This morning, I want to do the unusual and thank God for the message we didn’t hear.