Will You Pray for Unity Among Believers Online?

1 Corinthians 11:19
There must be heresies among you...

I am afraid I am going to disappoint Toni Birdsong at www.stickyjesus.com.

Citing Mother Teresa as an inspiration of unity she begs us to pray for unity among believers online. I want to challenge the concept that the type of unity she has in mind is really "Jesus' idea of unity." I challenge the idea that we ought to be unified online. I challenge the idea that as diverse as the Christian world is in any community, it ought to be unified in the sense I think Toni thinks, certainly in the sense Mother Teresa thought. I challenge the idea that this sort of unity would be healthy even within the community of believers called Baptists.

I am afraid the type of unity Toni seeks is built upon the principle not of agreement, but of indifference, this sort of unity ignores doctrine for the sake of peace.

And here is the problem with that, without grappling with doctrine, truth begins to slip. The fact that we contend for our faith provides for an environment where truth may rise to the surface rather than settling in the bottom of the unstirred jar. I am not advocating for physical battle. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Neither do I believe there is any room for hatred of among the contestants. If God loved man so much that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" then there is reason for the child of God to love even those we have the most heated contest with.

But we must have the contest. We must prove out truth and expose the heresies among us. Only then will truth be manifest.

The online forum is the most liberating form of worldwide communication history has ever known. It has great potential for the spread of the gospel. But it has an equally great potential for the decimation of truth.

No, Toni, I won't pray my guts out for unity among online believers.
But I will pray that the gospel has free course and that the truth of God will rise to the top amidst all the biblical heresy that is disseminated online.


Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Deception?

Recently I read the blog post of the conversation between Fundamental Baptist Evangelist Arv Edgeworth and the self professed ex fundamental Baptist church member Steve. The site is www.baptistdeception.com/arv-edgeworth-deception.

Apparently Steve has made it his mission to blog about his traumatic experiences in church and thus, to encourage others in their exodus from church. In an attempt to befriend and perhaps turn Steve, Arv reached out through e-mail correspondence, believing those e-mails to be private. Steve published what he claims is the raw and unabridged and unedited trade of correspondence. Steve warns his readers that it is brutal and urges those who suffer from post traumatic stress resulting from their life in an independent fundamental Baptist Church not to read. He claims at the beginning that Arv verbal fists were swinging so wildly that he eventually had to cut the correspondence off.

I read the thing in its entirety.

First, I saw nothing near what could have been called verbal fists. Arv did, near the end, suggest seeking legal recourse if his correspondence was published on the site. Steve countered that with a refusal to be threatened and some pretty good verbal jabbing of his own. His closest actual argument against Arv is that Arv would write a post and then write another before Steve had time to respond to the first. This, Steve wanted to clearly point out, and it is obvious that it really bothered Steve.

I know neither man.

The correspondence reads pretty much like I would think two men who are locked in disagreement might communicate. Both become frustrated that the other has not accepted his views.

The thing that does become blatantly clear is that Steve does not accept any passage that Arv refers to as a valid authority in the communication. He constantly asks Arv to support the Scriptures he cites with other references and he wants to know who taught Arv to accept Arv's understanding of the passage. Steve also likes throwing out term used in debate, argument and philosophy. Steve wants Arv to know that Arv doesn't have an education and Steve implies he does.

Bottom line, I came away from the blog with the sense that Steve has swallowed Satan's bate to catch Eve in the garden "hook, line and sinker." Whether he in fact grew up in an abusive church I do not know. I do know that there are some. But Steve just doesn't like authority. He has bought into the idea that he can be, as god, knowing good and evil. And he has elevated the man made education above the Word of God. Steve claims to be a follower of Christ, but it is after the order of Cain, it's on his terms and not the Lord's. Though he titles his blog about the deception of Arv, the deceived is Steve.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Vacation Deprivation

I have the solution for our countries woes! I heard it on the radio just this morning. According to a survey put out by Expedia.com America suffers from Vacation deprivation. Unlike our European counterparts, who get on average at least 30 days vacation per year and then both use all of their days a relish in the memories and tales of those vacation days, Americans only get on average, 14 days of vacation per year, generally only take half of them and seldom speak about their vacation once they are home. And, again according to the Expedia.com report, the reason we suffer from this deprivation is because we also suffer from a "Protestant work ethic." There it is. Our problem is that we work like Christians and not like Europeans.

I have a number of issues with this radio report:
First, who wants to be like Europe?
There is a reason our forefathers hazarded their lives to begin again in this new land. There is a reason our forefather's children once again hazarded their lives to forge out a brand new system of government separated and completely different from their European monarchies. The European economy is in the dumps. With the exception, I think, of Germany, the whole place is about to collapse financially. Who wants to imitate that? Oh, wait! We already have. Our economy is also in the trash. Could it be the result of too much European imitation already?

And then there is the whole idea of the term "vacation deprivation."
Sounds like a disease doesn't it? That's it. Let's diagnose a person's lack of vacation as a disease. That will give them an entitlement. Then our already near bankrupt government will have an excuse to tax our already overtaxed population to pay for the prescription. Better yet, let's have our government step up to the aide our afflicted by requiring those businesses, who are already taxed to the gills, to pay more taxes for exposing their helpless workers to this dread disease. And once we have punished them sufficiently for their negligence, let's have our government force them to pay for the poor souls whose sorry hap in life has been to work for these companies to have sufficient vacation time to reverse the symptoms of their obviously now incurable disease.

And how about that other American disease, the "Protestant Work Ethic"?
I do not believe that true Christians are Protestants, but let's leave that alone for today. There we go, blame every problem the world has on the Christian mentality. The world was, after all, so much better off before Jesus Christ came from heaven and dwelt among us. I can see it now; Christ's real trouble was vacation deprivation. He could have lived to a ripe old age if He had only taken more time off. He did, after all, only get to work for three and a half years before He died. And then there are the apostles. The Apostle Paul's real problem was vacation deprivation. Can you imagine how badly he must have suffered from this horrible illness after planting churches all over the Middle East and into the regions of the west, writing half of the New Testament and turning the world upside down with his doctrine? He probably thought being beheaded was a break!



Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Religion versus Theology

The issue of same sex marriage is heating up again in Washington state. A group is pushing Washington to become the seventh state in the country to legalize same sex marriages. Proponents claim the this is not a religious issue. They said yesterday, on the Ken Schram radio show, that they freely respect the rights of those who are opposed upon religious grounds to abstain from practicing same sex marriages. The example I heard on the radio show was from Schram's guest who said that he was Roman Catholic and completely understood that his priest would be unwilling to perform his wedding. Speaking of Ken Schram, (himself a professing Catholic) he chided his audience not to send him emails claiming that "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve," calling that "trite."
So I began to think about the difference between a religious argument against homosexual marriage and a theological one. It is obvious that religious arguments are powerless in our day. Very few people these days care what any church thinks about any thing. Here were two Catholics aggressively opposed to the message of their own religion. They weren't even bothered that their religion comes out on the opposite side of a position they are passionate about. The position of their religion, though still their religion, just does not matter to them. Therefore a religious argument is a hopeless argument. But what about a theological one? What if we argued that God Himself is opposed to homosexuality?
I realize most people would not see the difference. For most people religion has replaced God. They do not know God, they only know their religion and they have come to see their religion as fallible. Their own opions are as good as any opinion of their church. So, in order for my proposal to have any effect, two things would have to happen:
First, religions would have to get out of the way of God. We would need some honest to goodness real believers who meet with the Lord and hear from Him day by day. We would have to find some Christians who worship the Lord when they assemble rather than merely practicing their church form.
Second we would need a message from God so we know His views on issues such as homosexuality and etc..
Oh yea, I have heard about some Christians like that. These were those that refused to join up with Constantine when first he proposed to put religion above God. These have been a hated and persecuted people since the crucifixion of Christ. But they have also been a tenacious people, persisting through flame and flood.
• They have worshiped God in barns and meat-houses.
• They have preached in cathedrals not built by human hands.
• They have met in secret places and heard their preacher in hushed tones.
• They would not enter into the established churches knowing that those places only smothered out the heart for God.
They are the Baptists.
Not those who like to use the Baptist name but are really just Protestants who immerse; I am speaking of those Baptists who have, through the ages, lived and died by this one rule; their faith was in a resurrected Saviour and not a system of religion.
Hey, and that same people did have a message from God. Their Bibles gave us a family of Biblical manuscripts that were untainted by the perversions of Romanism. They saw the Bible as more than an instrument to control the masses for their purposes, but as indeed the very word of God. That message has been faithfully preserved and passed down to in the King James Version of the Bible.
The Baptist people have the message Washington State needs to hear. It is not that our church that opposes homosexual marriages; it is that God Himself is offended when His creation defiles the order He created. He has clearly said so, not in a religious document that has been written and re-written by men, but in the breath of God, recorded and supernaturally preserved.
The state of Washington may very well legalize homosexual marriages. But they will do so in defiance, not of a church, but of the very God of heaven.
And God have mercy if they do.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Toward a Humble Orthodoxy

A recent blog entitled Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Toward a Humble Orthodoxy struck a chord with me, especially in consideration of my blog posted October 2. In the more recent blog the author, Bob Gonzales, a self professed Reformed Baptist, claims that those of his persuasion, "sometimes give the impression that we view ourselves as closer to historical Christian faith and practice than others in every respect." He goes on to state that, "Revising our Confession is a good opportunity to show our evangelical brothers that we don’t believe the illumination of the Holy Spirit ended with our Particular Baptist forefathers in the 17th century." And that, "…borrowing language or insights from their creeds where appropriate demonstrates a teachable and humble spirit on our part."
For my part I suggest that those who claim the Reformed position just admit that they are evangelicals rather than Baptist at all. To remind you of my previous blog, I quoted a missionary:
“… our English Baptist forefathers left their original position of "local church" proclaimed in their declaration of 1644 to embrace the reformation idea of the universal church to be "politically correct" in the second London Confession of 1689. They felt the need to be accepted as orthodox in their doctrine in order to be included in the Act of Toleration of 1689. From that time on we find Baptists struggling with this issue. On one hand we have the clear Bible teaching of the "ekklesia" and on the other hand the insatiable desire to be accepted by the protestant/evangelical community. May God help us to be faithful to Him and not to men.”
The last thing a Baptist needs to be as deemed "orthodox" by the Protestant powers that be. Just as Amos disavowed identification with the prophets of his day, the Baptist identification is one that is separate and distinct from those accepted orthodoxies of any age. We follow the Lord as He is revealed in the Word of God, not the orthodox standards of whichever age a Baptist may find himself. If a Baptist has a reason to exist it is as salt and light against the culture of our world, including those forms of Christianity that have morphed with the world.
Humility yes; but not before Protestant hierarchies. Our doctrine stands or falls in "the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Is Teaching Obedience Bad?

I just finished reading Darin Hufford's blog condemning the last church his family attended. He said that the service was fine - nothing new, but nothing wrong. Until he and his wife picked up the kids from the children's church area. They were wired on sugar, excited about the services and toting a coloring page encouraging obedience. He and his wife shook their heads in disappointment. After all, Christians shouldn't have to be obedient, he intimates, they should just be.

The only real test whether this is simply Mr. Hufford's opinion or a truth churches ought to get hold of is the Bible. I doubt that Mr. Hufford would accept any of the myriad of Old Testament passages concerning obedience so I will stick with the New Testament and just one passage there; Hebrews 5:8. Jesus the Son of God, learned obedience.

There you have it. Unless Mr. Hufford and his family are something more than is our Savior, I would suggest that if Christ learned obedience it would behoove the Hufford's and it would behoove the rest of us?

It isn't difficult to understand why that simple Sunday school coloring sheet would offend the Hufford's. After all obedience smacks of submission. Obedience implies that there is someone over us. Obedience insists that we are not gods. To be sure there are some who force obedience upon us who are no better than us. And I will readily admit it happens too often in church. But this in no way negates the Christian's submission to the Lord or our responsibility to obey.

Mr. Hufford; you write about God's love. Love is to be a two way street and Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Your children would do well to learn obedience.

Couldn't hurt you either.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Why Young Baptists are in Love with Modern Reformed Theology

A trend which seems to be increasingly popular among young independent Baptist preachers is to embrace, or at least flirt with the modern reformed theology of the likes of Mark Driscoll. I see at least three reasons why this may be the case:

1. It is popular and growing large congregations; that appeals to the flesh


2. It emphasizes precise theology; that appeals to the intellect, or the flesh


3. It is without standards of worldly separation; that appeals to the flesh.

I received a recent post from a missionary which read,
“… our English Baptist forefathers left their original position of "local church" proclaimed in their declaration of 1644 to embrace the reformation idea of the universal church to be "politically correct" in the second London Confession of 1689. They felt the need to be accepted as orthodox in their doctrine in order to be included in the Act of Toleration of 1689. From that time on we find Baptists struggling with this issue. On one hand we have the clear Bible teaching of the "ekklesia" and on the other hand the insatiable desire to be accepted by the protestant/evangelical community. May God help us to be faithful to Him and not to men.”

Amen...

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

The "Weaning" Process of American Faith

I have been weaning my mother goat from her kids. It is a process that is emotionally painful for both mother and kids. It is at least for them what they instinctively feel is unnatural. The kids want the milk and the mother wants to give it to them. Goats are heard animals and carry in their genes a high level of (emotional) dependence upon the whole.

It has set me to thinking about the separation of a parent from his or her children. The child sees it as natural and normal to wean from the care of their parents. But I don't think a parent ever gets fully weaned from their children. I am not even sure it is really God's will for them to be "weaned" in the sense that American culture insists upon. The American family, and especially the Christian family in America, would be much better off if family members not only loved each other but stayed physically together through generations. The American model of moving families around the continent has served to disband the fabric of family and effectively kill the faith of their fathers within one or two generations.

In much the same way American Christianity accepts a sort of weaning of its offspring that is unhealthy to the cause of Christ. I have, for instance, several men who have been trained under me in the ministry but believe they have outgrown me and my doctrine. Though they seem perfectly comfortable with the separation that is the result of their adventures into doctrines and practices I preach and taught them against, I still pine for them in a fashion similar to my emptiness for my children. My sons in the faith have forgotten me, but I cannot forget them.

And this laissez-faire attitude towards making their own way at the abandon of that which I preached contributes to the downhill slide of true faith. They think they have found something I (and preachers like me) were not aware of. In fact what they have found is the error we stood opposed to. And rather than humbling themselves and submitting to their fathers in the faith, they have let slip those things we hold so dear.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Bible Wines

Dr. Rick Shrader has written a piece in response to John Macarthur's article, written to the Young, Restless and Reformed crowd warning them against encouraging the drinking of alcoholic wine.  Dr. Shrader's piece is researched, balanced and scholarly. I would recommend you read it here.

Bible Wines

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Spirit Filled?

The new group in the spiritual scene is now classified as the young, restless and reformed. This group of new preachers seem to be building the fastest growing churches now in America on the concept of being "socially liberal but theologically conservative."
Now enter John MacArthur. He would be the last one to be considered young and restless. But his theology, it seems to me, has been applauded by this new group. Until now.

In an effort to perhaps mentor this young, restless and reformed group MacArthur has written a series of blogs warning of some of their weaknesses. MacArthur is not so socially liberal as the new young group. Recently he wrote to warn them concerning their fondness of alcoholic beverages. I first heard of this through a friend who had attended a Driscoll conference in Seattle. During a break, my friend said Driscoll encouraged the attendees to have lunch at a nearby bar and to be sure to buy someone in the bar a beer.

Back to MacArthur. In response to his blog, numerous of the "YRR" crowd has blogged back. And not in repentance. One, who has just finished a book entitled, Spirit Filled, which suggests to be about the biblical reasons drinking is not sinful, wrote back in scathing words. He said that MacArthur's audience is "mostly graying, mostly fundamentalists and mostly Baptists." This YRR preacher was apparently in diapers when MacArthur made his statements about the blood of Christ and it's efficacy in atonement. Fundamental Baptists wrote MacArthur off way back then. His following is certainly not Fundamentalists and most certainly not fundamental Baptists.

However, when Baptist preachers did react to MacArthur's statements on the blood, though sone reacted without having all the facts, and I am sure many reacted aggressively in their own forums, to my recollection, none wrote with the flippant and rebellious attitude of the author of "Spirit Filled." There is an arrogance and pride in this young crowd that is as destructive and dangerous as anything I have seen in my years of the ministry. Little to nothing is sacred to this group. They have rebelled against their mentors. They have rejected the faith of their fathers. They have spurned the counsel of their elders.

May God open their eyes to repent and return.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Terrifying Fundamentalism

I was with a young pastor a week or so ago. His church is meeting in a building that has had three different church denominations in it previous to him. Although his is the fourth church to use the building, he has been there three years, and the Nazarenes who built the building have been was more than 30 years ago, to this day he says people will say "Oh, you are the Nazarene Church."

It just reminds me that people are not particular about their labels. To most people, a church is a church is a church.

The same goes with distinctions, the distinction of fundamentalism for instance. I realize that there is a multiplicity of fundamentalist organizations.
• Fundamentalist Jews
• Fundamentalist Islam and
• Fundamentalist Christianity
In fact, within Fundamentalist Christianity there is a multiplicity of divisions.

Marc Adler's article in Splice Today entitled, The Terrifying Christian Right, is written from the perspective on one who lumps all that anyone has ever labeled fundamentalist into the same inaccurate heap. Adler's article lumps Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Baptists in the very same camp as being dominionists.
• Dominionists are not Fundamentalists
• Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists for that matter
• True Baptists are not Fundamentalists

That there is a theological perspective called dominion theology is a fact. That dominion theology is dangerous, I will agree. That Baptists, along with evangelicals and fundamentalists have been misled into embracing dominion theology is an unfortunate truth. But to categorize everyone who believes the Bible to be the Bible to advocate dominion theology is inaccurate.

Fundamentalism has its problems to be sure. But let's be careful of our terminology. Bible believing Baptist people are not trying to take over the world. We do not want the media to proclaim the Good News, we are not asking women to stay and home and we certainly do not want to silence all voices but the Christian one.

We just want to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.
We want the freedom to use the spoken and written word to persuade others toward our position and
We expect the Lord of Heaven to be glorified shortly


Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

It's Not Doing or Even Being, but Believing

I met with a young pastor last week who related the following account to me. He said that when they first began the church he now pastors, he held a series of lessons exposing the doctrinal positions of various religious groups and Christian denominations. As a part of this series of lessons, he had gathered literature from each of those denominations he was teaching about so people cold see what these groups themselves circulated, and not just what he said about them.

It happened that a visitor came to the services the night he was addressing this visitors own denominational background. Having a packet of material in his hands from his own denomination he told the pastor, "I have gone to that church all my life and never knew this is what we believe."

It is not impossible for a person to attend almost any sort of church for a lifetime without knowing what the church actually believes. It is because many churches focus all attention on what they are doing, not on what they believe. Most independent Baptists are every bit as guilty of this as some other group. Too often the focus of our efforts to get people into our church has to do with highlighting our various ministries;
• What we can do for your children
• How we minister to the family
• The type of music program we feature
• The activites the teens are part of
• Etc.

Often times the pulpit is no more specific concerning what the church actually professes to believe. The pastor careful crafts his messages in such a way that he feels he is helpful to the congregation without hitting on points of doctrine that might come into conflict with a person's core beliefs.

Frankly, most churches today conduct themselves in such a way that a lost person could attend faithfully and never come into conflict with the message of the church.

That brings me to my consideration today. So far as a spiritual things are concerned, it is not nearly as imprtant what we do or even what we are as it is what we believe.

There are plenty of do gooder societies in our world.
And they do good things. I will not contest that. I will just say that the church of Jesus Christ has been given a different commission that good deeds.

There are plenty of people who are very good men
Benjamin Franklin, I have no doubt was a good man. Though in his early years, it sounds like he might have been a scoundrel, as he matured he developed a passion for the good and moral. His efforts to benefit his country, his community and even his world are legendary. Franklin, for instance, refused to be compensated for his design of the Franklin Fireplace, believing that something with som much potential for good belonged to the people and it would be improper for him to be paid for making it available.
But Franklin was also obviously unsaved. Though the evangelist George Whitefield had stayed in his home and Franklin had heard his sermons and printed his papers, Franklin rejected the message of the preacher. As good of a man as Franklin was, he is in hell today (unless he believed later in life and it was never reported.)

The one work that God has given the local church is the work of faith.
It is our duty to reach out to all mankind, not merely to get them to attend our congregations and convert them to our way of life. We are disseminators of faith, of doctrine. So far as the church of Jesus Christ is concerned, it is
• Not what we do
• Nor even what we are
• It is what we believe
that matters.

Sunday

I had a conversation with my oldest son this week. Bohannan is a pastor of a smaller sized church and must work a full time job to care for his family as well as for the ministry in which the Lord has placed him. This week an extended family member made an expectation of Bohannan and expected that Bohannan would meet that expectation, as Bo said to me, "On Sunday."

For Bohannan, as well as for me, Sunday is a different sort of day than the rest of the week. We hold it as sacred and hallowed. Things that would be perfectly acceptable any other day of the week are just not; come Sunday. It is a day for God. Sure, we eat meals, care for our pets, enjoy family time and many other things like that on Sundays. But Sunday is not a day for traveling - unless that travel is ministry related. Camping or fishing and hunting and other forms of entertainment take on a different hue. It is Sunday.

Centuries ago, when Baptist churches first found the freedom to worship without fear of persecution, Sundays were given to worship and ministry. After morning worship the members of the congregation were encouraged to devote the afternoon to ministering to the needs of orphans, evangelization of their neighbors, and even educating children in reading, writing and arithmetic. The day was treated wholly different than other days.

Sunday is not the New Testament Sabbath. We are not bound to observe it under the same laws as the Old Testament Jews did the seventh day of the week. But this does not mean we treat the day as profane. It is not.

It is Sunday.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Man of God

"Our people need a God-besotted man. Even if they criticize the fact that you are not available at the dinner on Saturday night because you must be with God, they need at least one man in their life who is radically and totally focused on God and the pursuit of the knowledge of God, and the ministry of the word of God.
How many people in your churches do you know that are laboring to know God, who are striving earnestly in study and prayer to enlarge their vision of God. Precious few.…")*

1 Timothy 6:11 KJV
But thou, O man of God ….

Over the years, as my relationship to the Lord has (I trust) grown, that which I would like to be known by has changed. Yea, even the concept of being known has changed for me because today I have no real desire to be known at all, but rather be completely unknown in Christ.

Early on I preferred the title, Pastor
I remember struggling in my early pastorate attempting to get people to call me by this name. While it is still the most common name my congregation address me by, I seldom introduce myself with that moniker any more.

Pastor is a title of office. I am convinced that the members of a church ought to respect this office. I just do not believe I must be identified with the title so much any more. I do, after all, still have the office.

My tastes fairly rapidly added to that title that of Preacher
This is can be considered a term of affection. When a church member calls me preacher they generally do so because I have progressed in their mind from one holding the official roll over them to one that has the emotional ministry to them.

The term preacher might also mark a degree of achievement in the ministry. If a pastor has developed skills in the pulpit so that his preaching is easier to listen to, e might be called preacher. If he has attained some level of skill in expositing the Bible and it is recognized by a congregation, the term preacher might be a reflection of that skill.

The term, Reverend, has never been a coveted title to me
However, under certain circumstances I have come to appreciate that title and even an occasional "Padre." I served as volunteer chaplain for the Astoria Police Department for several years. In that position, various officers referred to me addressed me as "Rev" or "Padre." I accepted those designations as gestures of warmth and was pleased to be addressed by them in those terms.

At one time I thought I liked to be addressed as Doctor.

When serving at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and then Heartland Baptist Bible College, it seemed important that students and staff address me with that title as a reminder of the educational atmosphere we were in.

While I have earned degrees, they are not accredited by the world's standards and mean very little other than that I did benefit from those studies necessary to attain said degrees.

I am no longer interested in titles.

Mom and Dad named me Marvin. I am happy with that. I don't even really have to have the Christian "Brother" before it.  

But I do have a goal to pursue yet, not for a name, but for a quality. I long to be a man of God. Not merely a man of the book, or a man of the church. I recognize that I must be each of those to be a man of God. But I want to be a man of God. I want to be one who is wholly and completely devoted to God. I want to come to the place where my congregation recognizes me, not only as faithful to my responsibilities as a pastor, and not merely as skillful in my duties as a preacher; I want my congregation to see in me a man "who is radically and totally focused on God and the pursuit of the knowledge of God."

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields


*Excerpted from The Pastor as Theologian, by John Piper

Choosing

Joshua 24:15 KJV
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

John 15:16 KJV
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Though these passages seem to oppose the other, they are both true.

At least one explanation arises from the fact that the one is in the Old Testament and the other in the New Testament. Though salvation is always by grace through faith in both the Old Testament and in the New, God's dealings with people were different in the Old Testament than they are in the New Testament.

Another difference is in God's dealings with the nation of Israel and with individuals. Though Jesus is speaking directly to His disciples, who were Jewish, in John fifteen, He was addressing them as individuals and not as a part of the corporate Jewish nation.

There is also the fact that, once Joshua had admonished them to choose, and they responded apparently positively in choosing to serve the Lord, his next words indicate that their reaction was not the correct one and that they (and we) probably mistinterpret Joshua's intent. We cannot make this choice on our own. Joshua urged them to choose the Lord, but they chose to serve the Lord in their own power and not in the wooing of the Lord.

The reconciliation of the two passages is this; God chooses us. He makes that choosing apparent to us through some form of witness.
• It might be a gospel tract
• It might be an invitation to a church service
• It might be through the witness of a friend or neighbor
• It might be through a chance hearing of a TV or Radio message
• It might be through a Scripture billboard along the road
and when that choosing happens in our hearts, we have a choice to make: will we be obedient to the voice of the Lord, or will we ignore and disobey it?

Have you obeyed God's choosing of you?

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Fifty-Three

My 53rd birthday:

• The body is older
• The emotions are more worn
• The energy I once had is beginning to wane

but the blessing of salvation is better now than maybe even when I first got saved.

The world has not been easy but I doubt that it would have been without salvation. Satan not only hates the Christian, he hates all mankind as the object of God's love and grace. It's just that the lost don't realize it. The destruction in society is not merely a destruction of Christian principles, but of morality.

• Marriage
• The family
• Children, even
• Governments and other
• Social influences
are under the attack of the devil and the lost world doesn't know where to point the blame, if they even know something is wrong and must be blamed. No, the world would have been unkind these many years even if I had never trusted Christ or followed Him into ministry.

But what has happened in the last several years is that I have come to look more deeply into myself and the heart and soul of my own motivations. I cannot say I have arrived at anything. Only that I recognize something that is grander than even Christianity has offered me to this date. I am sure that, despite the mess sin has made of everything, even Christianity, Jesus Christ has a glorious resolution. I want to see Him. And until that day I stand before Him I trust that all things, even the more terrible things that happen in this realm of life, will work together to bring about that glorious resolution.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Can the Gospel Go to the Wrong Door?

When I was in Bible College a preacher came through encouraging missions and soul winning.

One of the statements he made was, "The Gospel Cannot Go to the Wrong Door."

I want ask the question, "Can We Go To the Wrong House?" Is the phrase "The Gospel Cannot Go to the Wrong Door" a biblical concept? What about the home of someone who gets upset? What about if no one is home? What if the people at the home are from a different religion?

I. God would have all saved
1 Timothy 2:1-4 KJV
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

II. God commissions to us is to go to all the world
Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

III. Salvation requires both the planting and cultivating of the seed
1 Corinthians 3:5-9 KJV
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Matthew 13:3-9 KJV
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

God may use means we can't understand in the planting and watering

IV. Therefore to go to a home, even if that home is unresponsive can never be wrong

Eudaimonia

Aristotle believed that a man lived his life to achieve something he called eudaimonia, (pronounced "you die moan ee a") which is translated "happiness" in its simplest form. And happiness seems to be a key goal in many of the philosophers. But for Aristotle, happiness is not the mental state that we often think of as defining the word "happiness." For Aristotle, eudaimonia, happiness, meant to successfully achieve one's purpose for living.

Therefore, for Aristotle, a man could not be truly happy until he died. He could not know that he had successfully completed his purpose in life until then. For Aristotle (and I wonder if this is what Jefferson meant as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness) the reason to live for moral and intellectual virtue was so that in the end of one's life, we might have eudaimonia.

Now there are some immediate theological objections that come to mind for me.
• The Bible tells me I may "rejoice evermore."
• The Bible tells me I may know I have eternal life (which is man's ultimate purpose)
• The Bible tells me I do not have to wonder if, when I die, I will be happy. I can know today that I will be in the presence of the Lord and experiencing eternal joys

But I also see some incredible significance here for men seeking their unalienable right to pursue happiness.
• Happiness is not a momentary, fleeting thing; it a goal
• Happiness is not something we obtain immediately, it is a prize we gain in heaven

A person may live a lifetime seeking a temporary mental state of happiness only to come to the end of life and discover they have missed the real prize. On the other hand
A person might suffer some degree of hardship in this life in their pursuit of happiness find that in the next life they have gotten from God something far greater; eudaimonia.

Romans 8:18 KJV
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Has Christ's Church Failed?

I am responding to a book review I saw at, Patheos.com. The book is called I Knew Jesus Before He Was a Christian... And I Like Him Better Then. First off, I have got to hand it to the author, Ruby Shelly. That title grabs the attention, even if it is irreverent. I have not read the book so I offer no response to it. However the two blogs at Patheos do elicit certain observations I would now like to make.

In post number one the blogger quotes the book and holds the quote up as an ideal. He urges us to, "Print that out, paste it on your desk or shelf or mirror and let us all remind ourselves. We have a challenge." The quote?
“People who read the Gospel stories from the life of Jesus are attracted to him. People who know Christ only through his followers often can’t stand him”

I have a challenge. Prove to me that people who read the Gospel stories are attracted to Jesus. I take my thoughts from the Gospels themselves and the fact that Jesus was far from "attractive" in His own time. Sure, He did have a period of popularity as people began to follow Him. But they quickly learned that they followed for the wrong reasons. They thought Jesus would feed them and heal them and do all sorts of miracles that would help them. At the very least they thought He would take over the kingdom of Israel and deliver them from Roman oppression. When Christ confronted their wrong thinking, His attractiveness wore off and the multitude was gone, perhaps joining in the final crowd that surrounded Jesus, calling for His crucifixion. It is an assumption to believe that Christianity is naturally attractive if practiced as Christ would do it. That there are crowds that gather in Jesus' name means little. A Christianity that does not confront the culture, a Christianity that does not draw men and women away from the world is nothing more than a means to exploit the religious nature of man for personal gain.

In post number two the blogger writes, "All of which leads Shelly to the preposterous — and he knows it — claim that for 1700 years (since Constantine) the church has failed miserably." And again I say, "Prove it."
• Prove to me that Christ's church has failed.
• Prove to me that the church that Jesus said He would build and the gates of hell would not prevail against has somehow been prevailed against.
• Prove to me that Christ's own prophecy concerning His church is in error.
I do not see any such failure; only the fulfillment of exactly what Christ said would happen; evil men have waxed worse and worse and faith is waining in the last days.

Besides that, who said the church had to succeed?

I like something my son told me this weekend, "Our problem is not that we have wrongly defined success, but that we define success at all." Ours is not to evualate the success or merit of the work Christ is doing. Ours is only to do the work Christ sets us to do.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Happiness

Luke 15:7 KJV
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 15:10 KJV
Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Mankind is always looking for that which makes man happy.

The Utilitarian's Creed is "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
It is significant that he says happiness rather than good.

The philosopher, John Locke, proposed that each man possesses the unalienable right to life, liberty and property.
Significantly, when writing the declaration of independence Jefferson rephrased it; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Here the Bible tells us then that heaven is the end of that pursuit. The Bible tells us what it is that brings joy into heaven: just one sinner that repenteth. The question has to be raised, "why not over the ninety and nine?" The biblical answer is because there is no such ninety and nine. There is no such person as a just person that needs no repentance.

If in fact, as Jefferson wrote, we all possess the unalienable right to pursue happiness, I urge then that every man pursue repentance in Jesus Christ.

The Faith of Our Faith

I have elected to repost a few of my recent Daily Visits with God at this site. They seemed appropriate for here too.

Luke 16:19 KJV
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

I am thinking today of the place of faith in our faith.

Faith sees the evidence that is unseen to the eye of practicality and perhaps even sees, through the evidence that the eye of practicality presents, the evidence the eye of practicality is unable to see.

For the faithless, the practical, they must act on what they know to be true based upon evidence. But because they don't know if they ever have all of the evidence they never know if they hold the whole truth. Bertrand Russell expresses this in his book on Problems of Philosophy. The problem with philosophy, as I can see it, is that it only has problems. It has not, indeed can never have any real answers.

Faith takes us beyond the problem and points out what is the answer in Jesus Christ. Man is truly a spiritual being, created to know Christ. Without Christ the wisest we can ever be is only to see the question.

Stand Still

Stand still.
A soldier has fallen to the ground today
The battlefield has had its way
He will not fight another day
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still.
Stand still and pray for those at home
And for soldiers while they roam
On foreign soil’s combat zone
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still.
That soul has now gone to beyond
To heaven’s glories or to hell’s real horrors
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still.
Stand still and thank God for His grace
You did not die in his place
That image could have born your face
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still.
Stand still and look this once more
To a far off hill on a distant shore
One there did His Father’s will
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still
Stand still and see Him on the cross
Giving all there was to give
That you and I might get to live
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still
Stand still and view that empty tomb
In it He found there was not room
So up He rose from that space
And left our sins in His place
Stand still. Stand still.

Stand still.
Stand still if you would have Him win
For you a victory from sin
You cannot earn a home on high
By grace through faith is the Father’s cry
Stand still

Stand still
Stand still come this solemn Day
You owe him that much won’t you say?
A soldier’s fallen to the ground today
Stand still. Stand still.

Marvin McKenzie
For Memorial Day Weekend
5-25-2007

The Patriotic Principle

In view of the upcoming Memorial Day it seemed appropriate to place this larger piece in the blog today. I am in complete agreement that country, patriotism and memorializing men should not cloud out the worship of Christ on Sunday. To have respect for those who have given their lives for our nation, that must be once again instilled in us.

This is the first chapter of a small book I wrote entitled, The Patriotic Principle

1 Peter 2:13-15
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (KJV)

Would patriotism be right if you lived in - RUSSIA? Or, is it right to be patriotic only if you live in the United States? It all depends on what you mean by patriotism. The word itself means allegiance, and loyalty.

We could define patriotism as GOOD CITIZENSHIP and in that light it does not matter what country you are from, good citizenship ought to be the norm for the Christian.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PATRIOTISM
A. Pray for those in Authority
1 Timothy 2:1-3
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; (KJV)

Our first and most important responsibility is to pray for those in authority. We Christians should know the names of as many in authority as possible, and earnestly, genuinely pray for them. Not just the
• President
• Senate and Legislators
• The mayor
• The police officers
• The firemen
• Judges

The more of these people we can pray for by name, the better.
B. Submit to their leadership
1 Peter 2:13-15
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (KJV)
We are to obey the laws our government establishes.

C. Pay your taxes
Romans 13:6-7
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (KJV)

Along with paying the taxes that are due we are to give honor to those in authority; treat them with respect.

D. In our country, vote.
This is not the privilege of every country. However, here in the United States, we have the right to influence our country through the vote, and it should be considered the responsibility of every Christian to exercise their vote for moral good.

PATRIOTISM IS "BOUNDARYLESS"
A. It is unbounded by time.

Patriotism was first seen in the Jewish community during Moses' day. And, in fact, patriotism was instilled in them because of their religion. Their nation was so tied to their faith that they almost could not help but be patriotic.
• Their first and second national leaders were both divinely called.
• Their land was divinely given
• Their government was divinely ordered

So, the principle of patriotism reaches far earlier than just in our own country's 235 year history.

B. It is unbounded by nationality.
Patriotism is not just an American thing, it is a Christian thing. We have just said that the Jewish race is a patriotic people. But, the principle of patriotism holds true for all other nations as well.
• Russia
• Germany
• Japan
• England
• France

The responsibilities of good citizenship hold true no matter what country you are from. The United States has a unique type of patriotism though. It is more than good citizenship. It springs from the belief that our country was founded for something special.

Just as the Jews saw themselves as a unique nation, called out by God for His own purpose
• America has a heritage that is unique.
• America has been uniquely blessed. And
• America has been uniquely used to influence this world for right.

I would remind you, however that just as God removed His blessings from Israel because she fell away from God, God can, and may already have, remove His hand of blessing from America.

THE LIMITS OF PATRIOTISM
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (KJV)

A. Our responsibility to obey stops when the government wants us to disobey God.
• Daniel prayed to God even when there was a law against it.
• The three Hebrews wouldn't pray to the statue even when there was a law to do it.
• The Apostles witnessed for Christ even when ordered not to

B. Our responsibility stops ONLY at that point.
In every one of these cases, these men were still obedient to all other responsibilities of good citizenship.

C. Our responsibility to give honor does not stop even at that point.
In each one of the above cases you will find that they still paid honor and respect to these men for the positions they held.

Christianity is More than Philosophy

One of my interests in reading Benjamin Franklin's autobiography has been to learn from Franklin himself what his view of Christianity was. So many things are said about him, in his case we can hear from him personally. I find in interesting, for instance, that Franklin covered his acquaintance with George Whitefield. It was not necessary to his biography, even when considering that Whitefield stayed in Franklin's home. No doubt many stayed whose names are not mentioned. Franklin was impressed it seems to me, with Whitefield's skills, but he does not appear to be overly impressed with the influence he had in America in general. His mentioning him at all indicates some degree of heart tug toward the faith. Franklin also speaks of a meeting house he helped finance for itinerant preachers and specifically mentions that it would have been available to Muslims, should they have requested the use of it. His position was obviously not opposed to non - Christian faiths.

Reading his autobiography has caused me to ponder the relationship between religion and philosophy, and especially between Christianity and philosophy. Franklin was unquestionably a philosopher. He devoted much of himself to improving his own and society in general's morality. It appears to me that Franklin's only real connection with Christianity was in its value toward improving morality.

Associated with my interest in Franklin, I have been doing a little research of philosophy in general. No wonder religion and philosophy are so identified in the academic world; philosophy is an attempt to answer the same questions religion addresses;
• How did we get here?
• Why are we here?
• What will happen to us when we are no longer here?

Philosophy is an attempt to define and bring in to focus our worldview. Religion is the same.

But true Christianity is different, I think. Philosophy (and religion) aim to identify and then mold our beliefs. Philosophy would view all worldviews as equal and then debate the merits of one over against the other so far as the particular world view's ability enhance a man's morality and thereby improve society and the life of mankind in general. True Christianity, however, cannot be debated.

• Philosophy begins and ends with man.
• True Christianity begins and ends with God.

• Philosophy sees the improvement of this world as the aim
• True Christianity sees the kingdom of God as the aim

• Philosophy is a study
• True Christianity is relationship with a Person

•  Philosophy is an opinion
• True Christianity is settled in the indisputable fact of God's Word

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Pre-Tribulation Rapture

Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
The Pre-Tribulation rapture: at one time, the mainstay of Fundamentalists; today, men who used to be strong supporters attack this doctrine openly. Why would this doctrine be so difficult to grasp, and why would there be such a stand against it?

The rapture refers to a time when the Lord will return in the clouds and call all Christians to heaven, Although the word is not found in the Bible, the doctrine definitely is.
Paul spoke about this event in,
I Thessalonians 4:13-18
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

There are four basic views that are taught about when the rapture will occur

There is the view that no rapture will occur
There are those that believe that things will continue on as they are forever, and that the only way a person gets to heaven is by death. This seems to be so blatantly contrary to literal Bible interpretation, that only the most liberal religionists believe it.

It does seem to be gaining a foothold even among some who claim to be Bible believers. Events like last week's foolish rapture prediction give credence to those claiming that there is

• no rapture
• no tribulation and
• no literal kingdom of Christ on this earth

The kingdom of God is, they would have us to believe, within you. When you die, if you are a Christian, then you will go to heaven.

There is the view we call the Pre-Tribulation Rapture  

This view holds that the rapture will occur just before the tribulation period that the Bible says will one day try all the earth with sufferings such as this world has never before seen.

The third view might be called the Mid-Tribulation Rapture
This view holds that the rapture of the church does not happen until half way through the Tribulation. The Tribulation, according to the Bible, is seven years long. The first three and one-half years are of comparative peace; the second three and one-half years are the ones with terrible trials. This view places the rapture after the three and one-half years of peace, but before the three and one-half years of trial.

There is the view commonly called the Post-Tribulation Rapture

This is the "bouncing ball" theory. The view teaches that those Christians that have survived the Tribulation alive will be raptured out of this earth at the end of the Tribulation, and then immediately return to the earth as Jesus establishes His kingdom here.

A brief history of the development of these views.
The earliest Christians believed in the pre-tribulation rapture. In I Thessalonians 4:17 Paul said,
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds...

Paul believed that the rapture would happen in his own lifetime. He did not believe that he would die before Jesus would take him to Heaven. In fact, it sounds as if there was a church that believed they were in the Tribulation, and Paul wrote to them to let them know that they would not have to go through that.

The church of Thessalonica was severely persecuted. The lost people of Thessalonica ran Paul out of town in just four weeks, and then followed him to the next town and tried to run him out there too. II Thessalonians was written by Paul to encourage these persecuted believers that they were not going through the great Tribulation. Look at
II Thessalonians 1:6-8
Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

II Thessalonians 2:1-8
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

One of the arguments used by those opposed to the Pre-Tribulation rapture view, is that there is no evidence of churches that taught this view prior to the 1800's. This is not necessarily a concrete argument against the view since those persecuting them destroyed much of their writings before the 1700’s. The Protestant views have been essentially restructured Catholic views and would predictably not be reliable.

As the Catholic Church grew and took root, it began to teach that the Bible was not to be taken literally, but spiritually. They ignored the literal teaching of the Bible and replaced it with a spiritual teaching. Catholicism eventually began to teach that there would be no Tribulation, or even a literal kingdom when Christ returned to earth.

Since most of today's Christendom traces its roots back to Catholicism, they also take their doctrines from some form of the Catholic teachings. The Reformers tried to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible with their Catholic teachings by coming up with such things as Post-Tribulationalism and the like.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's two men, both Protestants, began to popularize the “Pre-Tribulational Rapture” position. They were C. I. Scofield, and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Scofield wrote the notes in the still popular Scofield Reference Bible. Chafer founded the Dallas Theological

Seminary. Both promoted the Pre-Tribulation rapture very successfully. I should say they did not dream up the doctrine. The Pre-Tribulation rapture had been taught and preached by many throughout the centuries, they were just the ones to make them popular.

Back in the 70's and 80's, when I first began to live for the Lord, there was no question concerning the subject of the Pre-Tribulation rapture among Fundamentalists. The Charismatics however, had written several books on what they called the Mid-Tribulation rapture.

Three reasons why the rapture takes place before the Tribulation

Because our judgment has already been dealt with on the cross.
The Tribulation serves two purposes: First, to bring the Jews to a place where they will trust Christ as Saviour. Second, to judge the Gentiles for their idolatry and rejection of God.
For the Christian, both issues are dealt with. We have already trusted Christ as Saviour, so we would not need this Tribulation. Our sins have been judged in Jesus; He has already taken the judgment for them and God does not remember them any more. There is, therefore, no reason for us to be in the Tribulation.

What purpose is there for the rapture if not to rescue the Christian from Tribulation suffering?
There is none. The rapture's entire purpose is to take the believer out of this world while the world is judged. The idea of the "bouncing ball" is out of character for God! He would not rapture us to heaven only to return moments later with Jesus.

The word “church” is not found anywhere in the book of Revelation after the Tribulation begins.
In Revelation 2-3, there are the letters to the seven churches. In Revelation 4:1, John is told to "...Come up hither..." and be shown the things that will happen in the future (the Tribulation). The church is not found again on earth! That is because the church has been removed, or raptured to heaven.

There would be no hope in the return of the Lord, no real reason for looking forward to His return if you believed that you would have to face suffering and even death at the hands of anti-Christ before Jesus arrived.

The rapture is pre-tribulational. God will remove us from this earth before the hour of trial that is to try this earth. This is the blessed hope of the believer.

Sound Thinking in the Last Days

2 Peter 3:2-10 KJV
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

If Harold Camping's math is right, this will be my last blog post. Tomorrow I will be raptured to heaven and this world will begin the Great Tribulation. Of course the worldly and the lost have misinterpreted Camping as saying that tomorrow will be the end of the world (in some cases they have said it will be the beginning of the end of the world) they do not understand some of the finer points of dispensational eschatology.

Camping has made the fundamental error he was guilty of many years ago and that so many others have also been guilty of, that of assigning a date for the rapture. The Word of God is so clear that no man will know the day or hour it boggles the mind that there are people who continue to set dates and there are people who continue to believe them.

What concerns me most, however, is that some who style themselves as Bible students, believers in Christ and theologians dismiss the concept of the rapture (at least the pre-tribulational rapture) as a non issue. Some have made it sound as if the doctrine of the literal return of Christ into the clouds to remove his saints is a doctrine Christianity has evolved away from. This makes sense when you realize that Reformation preachers, even reformed Baptists, are in fact Protestants. Their whole view of church history is one of evolving and progressive doctrine. Dispensationalism, they seem to claim, is a doctrinal position whose way has gone the same as witch hunts, or other superstitious beliefs that attached themselves to fanatical believers.

I am here to say that I still believe in the literal and imminent rapture of the children of God prior to the literal seven years of tribulation which will try this earth. I do not know when it will happen. I doubt that that it will be tomorrow.

But to be honest; I am in many ways hopeful it will be.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

How Much Schooling is Enough Schooling for Those Who Tend to Souls?

I was thinking about college courses the other day - training men for the ministry and how it just doesn't seem like they can be prepared in three or four years.

There is too much to learn.
I was taught that college was not supposed to teach you what to know but to teach you how to learn.

And I don't think that is working very well.
We are sending men out who change their doctrine five years into the ministry.

They don't even know what they believe yet.

And then I thought- "Yes but the reason we use the three year program is it is the model Jesus gave us. He trained His Apostles three years."
And that is true, but He did it differently than we do in a college where a student gets at the most twenty hours of study a week.

His students followed Him 24/7.
With the exception of those times He sent them on ministry excursions, or those times He separated for prayer, (and even those times can be considered a part of the educational process) they were with Him everywhere.

365 days x3 years x 16 hours (allowing 8 hours sleep)= 17520 hours

If a student were going to school two semesters per year, 20 hours per week, that would be the equivalent of 27 1/2 years of education.

There was a time in history when a man was not considered mature enough to be a pastor until he was approaching 70 years old. Certainly we would be better off if those who believed they were called into the ministry spent tons more time preparing today. Younger men in the pastorate ought to be placed under the care of a much older man of God and be held accountable to him. Not just as an advisor, but as an authority over him. I suggest a minimum of ten years, perhaps even fifteen.

Feed My Sheep

I read an article today at bloggingtheologically.com having to do with the responsibility of the pastor. The article takes us to John 21:15-17 (and I wished the author used the KJV, unfortunately he does not) and emphasizes the work of the pastor to feed God's sheep. It is not the responsibility, he suggests, for the sheep to feed themselves; it is the pastor's duty.

I had a conversation with a pastor friend of mine just last week. He shared a portion of his own testimony and said that when he got saved it was almost immediate for him that he began reading the Bible regularly and studying it on his own. Upon entering the ministry, he was frustrated for some time because others would get saved but would not be so faithful and diligent. But then it struck him; he was led to study the Word of God because God had gifted him to become a pastor. Others are not so gifted. Pastors must study the Word of God so they are able to feed the sheep God places in his care. The sheep are not as moved to care for themselves. He said he learned from that to make it his responsibility to tell his congregation weekly what portions of Scripture they should read. He began to give them a reading plan, and then he gave the a plan for prayer.

Rather than chiding them or being frustrated with them for not doing what he now believes they are not called to do, he took the responsibility for their study of the Scripture and their personal time in prayer. He helps them feed by taking them to the pastures he wants them to feed upon that week.

Not bad!

Culture and Christianity

Today's edition of Kevin Bauder's, In the Nick of Time is entitled, Christians and High Culture, Again. I have pasted here a large number of quotes from that article and, while I have not intentionally misrepresented his article, neither is it my point in this blog to repeat the point of his article. I refer my readers to his original piece linked above.

First, the selected quotes and then a short commentary.

"As Matthew Arnold envisioned it, high culture is the effort to “know the best that has been thought and said in the world” (Culture and Anarchy). It consists of those products of civilization that are deliberately meant to preserve, shape, and propagate human ideals and mores.


"Typically, high cultures have centered upon worship—not surprisingly, since every culture is the incarnation of a religion.


"They also explore answers to the perennial questions such as the nature of existence, truth, freedom, justice, duty, goodness, and beauty.
The utterly unlettered or completely bumptious have only rarely made much of a contribution to Christian thought or sensibility.


"Christianity depends upon cultural mastery for its own wellbeing. The understanding and preservation of correct doctrine requires theologians who have spent sufficient time in the academy to master intellectual discipline. …. When such persons are lacking, Christianity enters periods of base and unfruitful expression (such as the present hour).


"Our Christianity is not supposed to be confined to church. It is supposed to affect all of life. Consequently, Christians should look at all of life—including common or mundane things—from a unique perspective…


"Christians make a serious mistake when they think that their use of culture applies only to church. It also applies to eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. It is about all of the mundane activities of life, each of which has its own place in the purpose of God and its own luster when it occupies that place. These activities are common to all humans, and so are the enduring questions that arise from the consideration of those things.


"Not every Christian needs to be a philosopher, a poet, a composer, or an artist. Some, however, will find that their callings involve exactly these disciplines. They will be called to involve themselves with high culture. Far from opposing high culture, the remainder of Christians should celebrate such callings. Without them, Christian faith and life would be crippled."

Here is my point; Christians must see themselves as the shapers of culture. If every culture is indeed, "the incarnation of religion" Then Christians must not allow themselves to be merely a part of their culture but must aggressively work to influence shape and mold that culture into the image of pure religion.

Jailhouse Christianity

Our church has a reader sign in front of the very busy road we are located on. Having appropriate and insightful and very concise (less the 140 character) messages on the sign can sometimes be challenging.

• Generally we get positive feedback
• From time to time it has been quite negative
• Sometimes we what we displayed didn't mean to passers by what we thought it meant to us

So I am sensitive concerning others and the messages they display. This then is not meant to be a criticism but a matter of thought.

The message I on another church's sign today reads, "Children brought up in church are seldom caught in jail."

First, there is some question as to the accuracy of the statement
The word seldom may be the saving statement of the message. Perhaps it is true that per capita church kids end up in jail less than kids who have not grown up in church. But I have met plenty of adults who grew up in church, some in fundamental Baptist churches, who have done time; hard time. My friends involved prison ministry have testified that lots of church kids and even preachers kids are locked up right now. So the message is cute and hopeful but might not be true.

More seriously though, I question the point of the statement
And would go so far as to say it is dangerous. It is the wrong message. It makes the church out to be the hope of the family, the hope of our children and the rescuer of the potential inmate. The church is not the hope; Christ is.

This is tantamount to being a false gospel. It is probably what most people who attend church think is the gospel and it is damning families to heartbreak when their kids go bad, bitterness at the church, and eternity in hell. They placed their hope in church, not in Jesus Christ.

Church is terribly important. I would suggest that the professing Christian who sees no need for church membership, worship and service has never met Christ as Saviour. But church is not the Saviour. Sometimes a person glosses over the Saviour, to get into the church where they have been led to believe their help lies. They assume salvation and then commence into church life expecting to have all their problems resolved there. That's backwards. We must become in love and engrossed in the things of God. That is the most likely way our kids will come to be saved and learn to love the Lord themselves.

Subculture or Counter Culture

Back in April of this year Elizabeth Vargas gave her expose' of what they called this "dangerous subculture" known as Independent Fundamental Baptists. The term subculture struck me as I meditate considerably on the issues of Christianity and culture. It does not seem to me that Christianity ought to fit into the realm of the culture in which it finds itself but it ought to create its own culture. Missionaries are quick to tell me that what I believe to be Christian culture is not but merely American Christian culture.

But the term subculture sounded shocking to me. Almost underground. Include independent Baptists in with the subcultures of
• Marijuana smoking free sexers
• Underground poet societies
• Goth
• Punk, etc.

But even more unnerving to me is the connotation that our "subculture" is somehow beneath what is the true culture of America.

This week I heard a man refer to the Ana Baptists not as a subculture but as a counter culture in their day. That speaks volumes to me. That is Biblical Christianity.
• It is not blended into the culture it finds itself
• It is not under and somehow subservient to the surrounding culture

Christianity is supposed to run counter to the culture in which it is found. It is to oppose, to check and to resist the cultures of this world.

Matthew 5:13-16 KJV
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Christian faith is not supposed to be a sub culture it is supposed to be another culture, a different culture. And that is perhaps our biggest problem today. We appear to be too much like a light under a bushel, we are there, we have light, but it is muffled under the basket of cultural worldliness.

Only when we become counter to the culture will we truly be a light on a hill.