This World Is Not Our Home

 This World Is Not Our Home

 

While Christians sing the old favorite spiritual, “This World Is Not My Home”[1],[2] I think the circumstances of our times demonstrates something much different. I don’t mean to be judgmental. I think I am in the same boat. It’s been so easy to be a Christian and a friend of the world for so very long that most of us can’t imagine any other sort of Christianity. As believers in the United States, we’ve never won every battle, but we’ve won enough of them to believe we would rise up and win again. For the first time in – well – generations, it feels like we may never win again. Government shut down our world. We could easily blame it on leftist leadership but, praise the Lord, we had an election coming up. We would show those corrupt politicians then. But we didn’t. For all practical purposes, we gained nothing at the ballot box.[3] We might even have lost ground. 

And now those “corrupt” leftist leaders, still in power after the elections plan to lock us in again. This time we have no pro-American president to call out to. This time we have no election looming in the not-too-distant future to look forward to. This time we are stuck. We have some glimmer of hope in a more conservative Supreme Court and perhaps in the recount of the ballots, but honestly, we all believe we’re up a creek without a paddle.

And many of us are scared. Maybe all of us are scared. Our livelihoods, our homes, our comforts – our very way of life is now threatened. 

 

It might even become illegal to go to church!

 

This World is Not My Home.

 

But we want it to be. We want our security back. We want our comfort back. We want our success-driven, prosperity thinking, easy living Christianity back.

·       We have become too dependent on credit

·       We have become too attached to our possessions

·       We have become too trusting in government

·       We have become too connected to property

·       We have become too in love with life[4]

 

We have taken our faith too much for granted.

 

What if we lose it all?

 

So what!

 

Most of the world knows nothing of the sweet privileges Christians in America have known. In places like China, North Korea, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, just living is a challenge. Yet there are Christians thriving in their faith.[5]

 

Why?

 

How?

 

It’s because they accepted from their birth that this world is not their home. They’ve never expected a free pass just because they are saved. They did not call out to God to make them prosperous. They called out to Him to forgive them of their sins and to grant them a new citizenship.

Should we expect more?

 

Hebrews 11:8-10 (KJV)

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

 

 

---

[1] This World Is Not My Home

This world is not my home I'm just passing through my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if Heaven's not my home then Lord what will I do? the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore 1.      They're all expecting me and that's one thing I know my savior pardoned me and now I onward go I know He'll take me through though I am weak and poor and I can't feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if Heaven's not my home then Lord what will I do? the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore 2.      Just up in Glory Land we'll live eternally the Saints on every hand are shouting victory their song of sweetest praise drifts back from Heaven's shore and I can't feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if Heaven's not my home then Lord what will I do? the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore

 

[2] Actually, I wonder if more progressive churches do sing this favorite?

[3] That’s just a figure of speech. I know almost none of us actually had a ballot box to go to.

[4] I refer you, dear reader, to Patrick Henry, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

[5] I said, in their faith, not economically.

Liberty of Conscience

I guess we all prayed and perhaps expected that, by Fall, this COVID crisis would be a thing of the past. Not so, is it? Some of us are attempting to get on with our lives, but it has been challenging. It seems like the longer the thing stretches on, the more potential for division and disagreement. 

Now is a good time to practice grace! One of the strong doctrinal positions of Baptist churches in history has been that of “individual soul liberty.” It has applied primarily to the subject of worship. A person has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. The doctrine leans heavily upon another Baptist distinctive, “separation of church and state.” Historically the Catholic, and then the Protestant churches, married with the state to force people to worship according to the dictates of the state-approved church. The doctrine has applications in this current climate. Every one of us must give every other one of us the liberty to find our own path through the fears this virus has stirred. 

Imagine living 500 years ago. Certain denominations were so sure they were right that they turned in people who disagreed or that didn’t comply. Those who were captured were tortured, sometimes to death, just because they owned a Bible, or refused to have their children baptized as babies, or baptized by immersion rather than sprinkling. England went through a period when the Catholics would gain the throne and kill all the Protestants, and then the Protestants would achieve it and try to kill all the Catholics. It was cruel, senseless, and heartless.

Please. Whatever your personal views of how to navigate this pandemic, let’s rise above pointing fingers at others. Let’s love one another, pray for one another, and give one another liberty of conscience.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

(Watch this video of the devastation California's dictates are having on just one of the churches in their state.) Dr Jack Trieber appeals for prayer.

 

COVID-19, Government Overreach, and Compromise

 In 1997 I pastored a small church I had planted in a small town in the state of Oregon. The thirteen years had been good to me. Our church was established, I was full time in the ministry and I enjoyed a good fellowship with a group of pastors from our state and that of Washington. I was scheduled to host a pastor’s meeting at our church. As that meeting grew near, I was contacted by a college in Southern California regarding the possibility of having their Executive Vice President and a group from the college at the meeting as representatives. As the college was associated with this group of pastors, I agreed. But then I did some research. I learned that the college had encouraged students to attend various conferences and events at nearby Grace Community Church, pastored by John MacArthur. At that news, I contacted the college and uninvited them to my church and the meeting. 

It is not that I am a MacArthur hater, I am not. But I do recognize that his ministry and that of Independent Baptists, is not the same. I viewed it as contrary to sound doctrine and to separation to support a movement that would encourage the blending of Independent Baptists with the practices, teachings, and doctrines of Grace Community Church and John MacArthur.

Apparently, I was not the only one who felt as I did. How the word got out, I do not know, but in very short order I began receiving phone calls and notes of congratulations from pastors, especially in Washington State, for my stand. I started getting invitations to preach in their churches and, just a few years later, I was the Executive Vice President of that very same college, since reclaimed by pastors who desired to walk in the old paths.

Let’s fast forward to 2020. The COVID-19 virus has changed our world in ways I am not sure we will ever recover from. The governors of Washington, Oregon, and California in particular have been extremists in their handling of the virus. Churches have been identified as potential “super-spreaders” of the China Virus. California has issued instructions that churches are not to assemble. For some time a number of them, perhaps most of the more well known of them, complied. Grace Community Church included. Of late, John MacArthur has reversed his compliance and in defiance of orders, has returned to the assembly of his congregation. A good number of Christians have applauded him for this stand. I for one pray he is successful.

Here comes the rub. I recently received a twitter message (tweet) with a photo of Paul Chappell and John MacArthur. The tweet, from Paul Chappell, reads, “Thankful to meet and pray with @johnmacarthur this morning. Pray for him as he stands for the biblical call to assemble and worship our God.” That tweet is followed by numerous statements congratulating Chappell for joining up with MacArthur. The only warnings I found were from men who would be considered troublemakers and doctrinally unsound themselves. Here are my problems with Chappell’s newfound fellowship with MacArthur.

The two have pastored in Southern California for more than forty years

Why is the COVID-19 crisis a reason to connect now? I understand that some suggest that this is a matter bigger than doctrine. That neither of the men has to compromise their own doctrines to join forces against this government overreach and that refusal to work together is tantamount to believers refusing to work together when Hitler took over Germany. 

The idea of ignoring our doctrines for a bigger battle is reasonable if there is no God. If the battle is religion versus government, then by all means all religions ought to cooperate to exert influence in the realms of politics. But God is. And God is bigger than the government. Therefore, to cooperate with God is of much greater importance than cooperating with bad doctrine. there is a reason the two men had never met. That reason remains despite the China virus.

It is one step into compromise

I realize it is only one step. It seems like a small step. It also seems like a reasonable step. There never has been a reason Paul Chappell and John MacArthur could not have met, shaken hands, and had a picture together. Human beings ought to be kind to one another. Each man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and, since they each have that right, there is no reason they cannot be kind to one another. This is different. This is a deliberate act of cooperation. This is one step into compromise and, with the first step, further steps become much easier.

The consequences of such a step are inestimable

I don’t know if Chappell will take further steps of compromise with MacArthur. I frankly doubt it. But he led by example and I am certain that less known pastors, many of whom have already taken those steps and congratulated Chappell for this, will see this as motivation to become even closer to MacArthur and his non-Baptist, non-fundamentalist, Protestant, Calvinistic movement. This is a subtle movement into the one-world church system. It is, perhaps a well-cloaked movement, but it heads the direction of one world religion nonetheless.

I will continue to pray for churches of all stripes all across the United States. Regardless of doctrine, history, or practice, they each have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and government overreach against that right is a terribly dangerous thing. But I will remain separated. And I will urge anyone who will listen to do the same.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields 

The American Experiment on Trial

I wish to tread some dangerous territory for me and dip my pen into the arena of political science for a moment as I give some of my thoughts concerning the 2020 race of Governor of Washington State. The primary being completed we now know this race to be between the incumbent, Governor Jay Inslee, and his opponent Loren Culp.

Mr. Culp rose to the surface over something like thirty challengers to Inslee’s office. His race in the primaries was interesting, to say the least. Culp, I think, first made headlines when as sheriff, he refused to enforce the state’s new gun laws. His campaign for governor has been largely along the same tack. He holds to conservative/Republican ideals, but he is more than that. He separated himself from the rest of the Republican candidates in refusing to play politics as usual. While Joshua Freed, for example, spent most of his campaign efforts winning the favor of the Republican party, Culp spent all of his time winning the people of Washington State. With that in mind, I see the race between Mr. Culp and Governor Inslee as a different kind of horse.

This is not essentially a race between a Democrat and a Republican. 

It is that of course, but that is not what it is in essence. Mr. Culp doesn’t appear to be a Republican team player. He may become that if he wins the office, but he hasn’t particularly played by the Republican playbook. In many ways, he reminds me of President Trump in that area.

This race is not essentially a race between liberal versus conservative ideologies. 

It is that of course. Governor Inslee’s worldview is that of a liberal. In his bid for the presidency, his one platform agenda was to save the planet. His ideology is liberal to the core. His supporters are liberal. If he succeeds in winning this election, he will progress his liberal ideologies. Culp, on the other hand, appears to have a very conservative worldview. We may expect that if he wins the election for governor of Washington State, he will put forward a conservative agenda. Perhaps more conservative than the current Republican party would put forward. 

This race is not even essentially between big government and small government.

It is that too, of course. Governor Inslee is all about government oversight – of just about everything. His is a socialist worldview that sees government as the answer to the needs of the individual. Governor Inslee is, by profession, a lawyer. His career has been that of using governmental heads to manipulate circumstances for the good of his clients. Mr. Culp appears to be the opposite. He has been a businessman, a construction worker, and an elected county sheriff. He sees government as needful but in a limited capacity.

This is essentially a race contesting the American experiment of self-government. 

Governor Inslee wishes, though I am sure he would not say so in these words, to remove the power from the people. He sees government as the protector and provider of the masses. He views us as needy, lacking direction, and requiring the care of a “big brother.” He sees government as that big brother. Mr. Culp has demonstrated his commitment to the people. His entire campaign to this point has been grassroots. Meeting with the people of Washington State from nearly one corner of the state the other. He has conducted rallies with hundreds of people and, in every case, allowed them the liberty to choose whether or not to wear a mask. In this respect, he has demonstrated his faith in the individual to make sound choices for themselves. 

In short, this race puts the American experiment on trial. Will we continue to be self-governed? Will we give the government to the elite few who aspire to be professional politicians? The 2020 race for governor of Washington State will point which direction America is headed.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

The Tale of Two Kingdoms

Matthew 22:15-22

John 19:1-15

 

You will notice that the conflict in each of these texts is between two kingdoms.

 

Several years ago, I listened to a series of lectures on World History by an accomplished professor of history from Columbia University. He told of a student he once had who was from South Korea. This young man said that his goal was to become an accomplished historian and then write the first recognized history, from a pro-Korean bias.

The professor told the story to illustrate that history, all history, is an art.

History is true. But since no one living saw it happen, historians take the clues they find in written documentation, archeological digs and anthropological studies to paint their pictures of history. It is their perception of what happened, not actually what happened.

 

I had not been a Christian very long when I was invited to attend a prayer breakfast where the keynote speaker was a noted Christian anchorman from a Portland News Channel. He made a statement I never forgot but took decades to understand. He said that there is more proof that Jesus rose from the dead than that Alexander the Great ever lived. 

Wow.

Yet the majority of the world would not question the history of Alexander the Great but doubt the resurrection of Christ.

His statement is accurate because, comparatively speaking, there is very little reliable documentation of the life of Alexander the Great and thousands of pieces of documentation on the resurrection. We have written records of Jesus’ resurrection that date back to as close as 100 years after the fact. But all of the documentation concerning Alexander the Great rely on just a hand full of sources

Herodotus

Livy

Thucydides and

Tacitus

There are only a handful of their works surviving, they are all copies of copies hundreds of years after the originals, and even they were not eyewitnesses to the histories they wrote.

In one case the historian was a teacher in a school. Nearing his death, and not wishing his predecessor to have the library of his works, he willed them to family, who simply stored them in a basement. Centuries later someone discovered them and. Realizing their value, set out to publish them again. However, being stored in a negligent way for so long they were severely degraded. Rather than allowing them to remain as they were, this person “filled in the blanks” and unfortunately did not leave indications of what was original and what was his work. When historians study this work today they can only guess at what was the original author’s and what was added.

 

Some years ago, I heard a series of lectures of retired history professor from the University of Oklahoma, Rufus Fears. He said in one of his lectures that historians today debate the actual date of the Declaration of Independence, this despite the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the 50^th anniversary of the 4^th of July, and acknowledged it as such. If historians can’t agree on something some near to us, and so well documented as that, I suggest that we ought to accept any written history as simply a work of art.

 

The point

Church history happened. But the histories you read are all just works of art the historian's perception of what actually happened. Most Baptist history extant was written by those who hated them. 

A few months ago I was speaking to a well known Baptist pastor about the Anabaptists. He asked me, “Wouldn’t we disagree with most of what the Anabaptists believed?”  My answer, “They were just men and therefore fallible. But I am confident that they were consistently faithful to

The preservation of the Scriptures

The preservation of the soul and

The preservation of the sanctuary

 

Outside of that, the thing that separated the Anabaptists from the rest, and what got them in trouble the most, was the doctrine of separation of church and state.

 

I. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Was a marriage of church and state. With the Roman state as the head.

Constantine declared that there was but one universal (catholic) church and he was the head of it.

 

II. WHEN ROME FELL

The Roman Catholic Church did not. The Roman Empire fragmented into the many European kingdoms. It was a marriage of church and state with the church as the head.

Consider the history and you will see that this marriage always resulted in the persecution of those who disagreed.

 

III. WHEN THE MARRIAGE OF CHURCH AND STATE BORE CHILDREN

In the form of the Protestant Churches, they naturally followed suit.

Luther married his church to Germany

Calvin married his church to Geneva

Zwingli married his church to Switzerland

The result in every case was the persecution of those who disagreed.

 

Luther was helped out of Catholicism by the Anabaptists in Germany. He would not unite with them because he believed their premise to be untenable. He did not believe people would 

Attend services

Observe the ordinances and

Support the ministry

If the government did not force them to do it.

 

When King Henry VIII defied the Pope, he called his new church, The Church of England. It was a marriage of church and state.

 

IV. THE PILGRIMS AND PURITANS

Came to the new continent to escape the persecution of the Church of England. But they each married their church with their new state. Early continental history is filled with the persecution of Baptists (and others) by the Pilgrims and the Puritans.

 

When the War for Independence was won, the greatest contribution of the Baptists was to press for no state-sponsored church.

 

Protestants are quick to point out that there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Jefferson used the term in a letter to a group of Baptist pastors from Danbury Connecticut.

 

Baptists were the catalyst for the first amendment.

 

The Baptist doctrine that counters universal church is the separation of church and state.

This election season the most Baptist thing we can do is to get on our knees and pray for revival. The answer for America is not the re-election of Donald Trump.[1]

The answer for Washington State is not the election of Loren Culp.[2]

 

The answer for America is revival. And I believe revival is the rebooting of the Baptist doctrine of separation of church and state, “We have no head but Christ.”

 

---

[1] Although he is who I will vote for.

[2] That’s who I voted for.

Key Truths for Christians in Times of Persecution

Key Truths for Christians in Times of Persecution

We ought to obey God rather than men.[1]

Our first priority is to our LORD. Remember, however, this is in all points of the Word and not just our favorite points. We ought to obey God in those areas of Scriptural instruction we personally don’t care for. 

We are to obey every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.[2]

When we disobey laws we dislike but are not in direct violation of the Word of God, we directly violate the Word of God. This spoils our testimony and weakens our argument about obeying God. If we are going to “obey God rather than men” we had better make sure we obey the ordinance of men in every other possible way.

We are to pray for, respect, and (I believe) love[3] those in authority.[4]

Daniel certainly loved Nebuchadnezzar. He had respect for Darius. John Bunyan demonstrated great respect for Judge Wingate.[5]

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] Acts 5:29 (KJV)

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

[2] 1 Peter 2:13 (KJV)

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

[3] Romans 13:8 (KJV)

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

[4] 1 Timothy 2:1-3 (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;

[5] This is, of course, not an argument from Scripture, but Bunyon’s trial does represent an important document in Baptist history and sets an example for Baptists in times of persecution.

The SCOTUS Decision of May 29, 2020

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States May 29, 2020[1] reveals I believe, just how complex the issue of the right to assemble is under the duress of a pandemic. The justices, for the most part, split along ideological lines. The liberal-leaning justices voted in favor of the authority of the governor of California. The conservative-leaning ones voted in favor of the church’s first amendment right to assemble and worship. The swing vote was John Roberts, a moderate leaning conservative. 

In Justice Roberts’ opinion he said, “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” 

“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”

He recognized that severe[2] restrictions have been placed upon all sorts of secular gatherings. The point, whether well-founded or not, is that these sorts of gatherings are easy places for the Chinese virus to spread. The more liberal opinion in our country views this virus as dangerous. The more conservative in our land see it as dangerous but no more so than the typical flu. I disagree with the governor of California just as I do with our own. I do not necessarily see an aggressive posture against churches unless it is that these governors view churches as of lesser importance than movie theaters, concerts and etc.

In the opposing opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the state cannot, “‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.’”

I maintain that: 

·      This virus is not as dangerous as people were led to believe, that 

·      Liberal governors have chosen to use the fear that has spread to advance an agenda of their own and unrelated to the virus and therefore

·      We cannot win this thing merely by legal means, but we must use sound persuasion to convince people to not fear

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields for our Lord

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/supreme-court-churches-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR2cu83Om0V6i4FuzWeSSmis4PwdiPiRkplLMy-yenBf1juZ8JkZObwc1s8

[2] In my opinion too severe.

Perception vs Perspective

“Perception is what you interpret - it is your understanding of a given situation, person, or object. It is the meaning you assign to any given stimulus. Perspective is your point of view - it's the lens you see the world through and determines how you view yourself, others, and everything else around you.”[1]

I’ve been thinking a lot about perceptions d perspective lately. So many of our actions and attitudes derive from one or the other. Perception is most often the result of perspective. We interpret a thing the way we see the thing. 

Pastors today are forced to make decisions whether to open their services illegally, remain totally compliant to government mandates, or attempt some sort of combination. I find that the decisions they make have a great deal to do with perspective and that with perception. 

Recently I spoke with a pastor who says he’s had it with government orders and he’s opening his church to services. He explained to me that “we expect our missionaries to go to foreign fields and break the law for the sake of the gospel. Why should we do less?” Frankly, I didn’t respond. But I did begin to think. In my experience, from my perspective, the last thing anyone has ever expected of our missionaries is that they would break the law. From my perspective missionaries take great pains to obey the laws of the lands they seek to minister. They go to open countries. They get their support from the U.S. so as not to be a drain on the mission field’s economy. They often dress like the culture of the mission field. I have heard of a few missionaries who have been shady in the dealings with governments[2] but, from my perspective, those missionaries are always marginalized by the majority of missionaries. 

I spoke with a pastor just the other day about our Anabaptist forebears, as I consider what I know of them to aide me in my own decisions. His response was, “I don’t mean to be argumentative, but wouldn’t we dismiss the Anabaptists as not good Baptists?” From his perspective, complying with governments as the Protestants and most Baptists in the U.S. do has worked out well. Why would we want to consider the Anabaptist doctrine of separation of church and state? He would like to return to Pre-COVID19 practice because, in his perspective, it’s worked well. My perspective is slightly different. I tend to agree with old B.R. Lakin who, in the 1950’s I think said that churches in America could be successful doing what they are doing without God. Whether he actually said it, I am not sure. I’m taking the word of a preacher from his day. What I am sure of is that nothing in church has improved since then. 

My perspective gives me the perception that this would be a grand time for God to bring revival.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields (praying)

---

[1] A Google search yielded this from onboardonline.com.

[2] Bribing to grease the wheels they want turned.