TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

This is very interesting and just a bit scary … but is it scary enough to generate something besides talk before it is too late? The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States and Canada, especially in the minority races.

Allah or The Lord Jesus Christ?

Not long ago Rick Mathes, a well known leader in prison ministry, attended his annual training session that’s required for maintaining state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs.

Rick was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was Rick’s turn, he directed his question to the Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad (Holy war) against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with Rick’s statements and, without hesitation, the Imam replied, “Non-believers!”

Rick responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?”

The expression on the Imam’s face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

The Islamic Imam sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

Rick then stated, “Well sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope Benedict commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Charles Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!”

The Imam was speechless!

Rick continued, “I also have problem with being your ‘friend’ when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?”

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the “Diversification Training Seminar” were not happy with Rick’s way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the true beliefs of Muslims’ that follow the Quran.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with our liberal justice system, liberal media and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. The most puzzling thing to me is once Islam takes over there will no longer be a liberal media, or an ACLU, or a liberal justice system. Islam will take care of that. So in effect, they are slitting their own throats by not publicizing this and other real truths about Islam.

Passing this information along is about all we can do at this point in time … hoping that the truth will be believed before it is too late.

Shame on the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka Kansas picketing the Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg Maryland !

As a born again Christian, a pastor, volunteer firefighter and chaplain, I hope and pray that my brother and sister firefighters understand that this group of people are not your typical Christians. I have seen their venom on their website attacking firefighters, emergency responders, and the military. These misguided people take Scripture out of context to condemn some yet do not consider the Scripture that is written to them and apply it to themselves.

In fact the Bible talks about a tree and its fruit in Matthew 7:15-23. It says in verse 16 and again in verse 20 that “By their fruit you will recognize them.” First of all who is being referenced here? … Christians are – not the unsaved! Secondly, by what standard? … by their fruit! What fruit is that? It is called “the fruit of the Spirit.” The fruit of the spirit is a judgment, measurement or result, of how Christians really live their lives. This “living” is dependent upon the application of biblical standards, biblical living, and obedience to the Holy Spirit. If these three criteria are not being met then the fruit of the Spirit will be lacking, or even totally absent.

What is “the fruit of the Spirit?” References to life by the Spirit are found in Galatians 5:16-26. Verses 22 and 23a says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” It is obvious that what Scripture is expecting here in the lives of Christians is lacking in the lives of these self-proclaimed prophets … who very possibly have crossed the line into the realm of a cult.

The judgment that is talked about in the New Testament tells us not to judge those who do not know Christ. We are not to expect those who don’t know Christ to live according to biblical standards … but we are required to keep those who are followers of Christ accountable. The only way to do that is to hold each other to a biblical standard with accountability. By definition that is judgment … an in-house judgment among believers that calls for a loving biblical process as necessary.

True Christians will exhibit an appreciation for those who serve them, even if those who serve them do not know Christ as their Savior … they just hope and pray that some day they will.

I certainly appreciate you all.

God bless you.

Your brother,

Rev. D.E. Grant

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, as of May 15, 2007, the total population of the world is 6,595,336,785.

Over two billion of them are Christians.

That’s one out of every three persons on the planet.

But according to the latest research from Todd M. Johnson, Research Fellow and Director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, most non-Christians have never met one.

The vast majority of the world’s non-Christians have relatively little contact with Christians. In fact, over 86% of all Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims do not even know a Christian. Globally, over 80% of all non-Christians do not personally know a Christian.

Read that again, slowly: Over 80% of all non-Christians do not personally know a Christian.

This exposes the heart of our cultural crisis. We have confused the command to not be of the world with not being in it. Western Christians in particular are isolated from the very people we say we long to reach. We have retreated into a subculture of our own making. We populate churches that cater exclusively to the already convinced so that we can be “fed” and “ministered to!”

As a result, we live in a gospel ghetto. We have become insular in not only our thinking, but our very lives. There is even a less-than-subtle hostility toward those who are not Christians among many who claim the Great Commission as their marching orders.

This was not the model of Jesus.

He went into the world; He spent time with those who were far apart from God. He reached out relationally, built friendships, went into their homes, attended their parties, broke bread at their tables.

He was called a friend of sinners.

And the world needs more friends just like Him.

But as a first-century apologist once wrote, “…how can people call for help if they don’t know who to trust? And how can they know who to trust if they haven’t heard of the One who can be trusted? And how can they hear if nobody tells them? And how is anyone going to tell them, unless someone is sent to do it?”

“Until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change, you won’t.” – Devi Titus

“When a church goes too long without seeing conversions, it turns on itself. If a church does not taste the nourishment of seeing souls saved, it will cannibalize itself as people turn on each other, trying to recapture a sense of purpose. People get worked up about their musical preferences, or frustrated by the church’s organizational weaknesses, or irate about financial decisions and personnel problems. These issues often yield disagreement, division, and strife.

Seeing the transformation of a new convert’s life brings unity. When people are converted, the church pulls together. It is not that these other things are unimportant. They do matter; but they are not central. This was the point of Jesus’ parables of the lost sheep, lost coin and lost son. When church members see dissension among themselves, they should always ask, ‘When was the last time we saw the conversion of a lost soul?'”

– From There is No “I” in Church by Keith Drury

Dr. Paul Dean

From the more radical wing of the “Emerging Church” has emerged a phrase and/or concept that is not only fashionable in that camp but has been picked up by liberals and secularists alike. It is now in vogue to refer to the cross of Christ as “cosmic child abuse.” While Brian McClaren and Steve Chalke speak freely in such terms, Adrian Warnock has chronicled other examples including Philip Yancey in The Jesus I Never Knew, Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God (Challenges in Contemporary Theology), Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore in Let the Children Come : Reimagining Childhood from a Christian Perspective (Families and Faith Series), and Haven Kimmel in The Solace of Leaving Early.

Further, Dr. Peter Jones, author of Spirit Wars: Pagan Renewal in Christian America , warns against the pagan agenda of radical feminism that has been embraced by much of the church and connects that agenda with environmental activism propelled by Gaia worship. Numerous so-called Christians in that society refer to the cross of Christ as “cosmic child abuse.”

Moreover, in his article highlighting the comments of the homosexual Anglican Priest, The Very Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Philip Hywel John, Dr. Albert Mohler not only points out the priest’s belief “that the church’s traditional understanding of the cross of Christ is both ‘repulsive and ‘insane,’ but also cites Giles Fraser, who “throws his lot in with Dr. John. In his words, ‘For, once again, what [John] has been saying is nothing other than a truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible. It turns Christianity into ‘cosmic child abuse.’”

In our present context, we are left with two competing visions of the cross of Christ. Either the cross was insane and a form of cosmic child abuse, or, it was not only just, but appropriate for God to send His Son to die such death. Dr. Mohler is right when he notes, “On this question there is no middle ground.”

It is clear that Christ came into the world for a purpose. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9). Now, this raises a massive question (particularly in the Jewish context): is it right or appropriate or even true that the Messiah should suffer and die? Of course, the Old Testament is filled with references to this particular reality. The problem lies in the fact that most Jews did not understand such nor did it comport with their understanding of the Messiah or the law.

It seems that contemporary minds have the same difficulty, though for different reasons. The first-century Jews thought the Messiah would be a military conqueror. Furthermore, the law declared that anyone who hung upon a tree was cursed of God. In the same way they could not stomach such a notion, neither can today’s liberals fathom God crucifying Christ for their salvation. The truth is that Christ was cursed of God for a time. Six reasons are here offered as to why this action had to be and that it was indeed fitting.

First, it was fitting for the Father to send Christ to taste death for His people because of who God is and the purpose He had in bringing many sons to glory. To put it simply, because all things are for and by God Himself, what He does is right. One of the things God determined to do was to adopt a family and then bring that family to glory; something that family could not do for itself.

The propriety of Christ’s death is set forth in Hebrews 2:10 . The writer simply declares, “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” It was fitting, right, and appropriate for God the Father to send Christ to die. The writer supports his assertion in subtle ways.

As noted, whatever God does is appropriate by virtue of who He is. He is God and all things are for Him and by Him. This reality is highlighted elsewhere in Scripture and is attributed equally and interchangeably to the Father and the Son (Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16-17 ). Paul put it this way to the Corinthians: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Now, God’s purpose was to bring many sons to glory. His redemptive purpose is highlighted throughout Scripture and includes the adoption of a people for Himself. The adopted children of God are destined for glory and will be called, justified, sanctified, and glorified (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:29-30).

Second, because God purposed to bring many sons to glory, Christ had to taste death for His people in order to bring them to glory. Why? Because the stark reality is that sinful human beings cannot save themselves. They must have a Savior and the only sufficient Savior is Christ Himself. Thus, it is Christ who is the captain, author, leader, or trailblazer of salvation for His people. Christ is the One who accomplished salvation for His people.

Third, the question as to why Christ had to die in this context warrants further explanation. In order to bring His people to glory, Christ had to blaze a trail to glory. As noted, He is the author of their salvation. He is the One who leads them into salvation. He is their captain or leader. In that sense, He blazed a trail to and into salvation for His people as the Greek word for “captain” indicates.

But, the writer references the sufferings of Christ. The trail that Christ blazed to and into salvation was a trail that went through death. The collective testimony of Scripture is that He had to suffer and die in order to save His people. The wrath of God abided upon them by virtue of their sin. The wages of sin is death. Thus, Christ died as a substitute for His people in that He tasted death and took the wrath of the Father upon Himself for them. He atoned for their sins: something they could never do for themselves.

As the writer notes, Christ was made perfect through sufferings. The word “perfect” in the Greek speaks of perfection to be sure, but also carries the idea of maturity, end, or goal. Christ was certainly not imperfect, flawed, or sinful. He was and is perfect God. He was perfected in His role of Savior through suffering, death, and ultimately the defeat of death by virtue of His sinlessness. Because He had no sin of His own, death could not hold Him. He achieved His goal, the bringing of His people to glory, by suffering and dying for them.

Fourth, in order to blaze a trail to glory, Christ had to suffer and die as a man. It was appropriate for Messiah to die: “For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11). A few points may be gleaned here.

Christ is the One who sanctifies. That is, He sets His people apart by virtue of His atoning work for them. He sanctified His people or set apart His people from the rest of humanity for the Father. He accomplished this reality at the cross.

At the same time, Christ’s people are also being sanctified. This dynamic is progressive and occurs over a lifetime this side of glory. In justification, the work of Christ is applied to the believer. The believer is declared righteous in God’s sight by virtue of the imputed righteousness of Christ to his account. In sanctification, the righteousness of Christ is progressively imparted to the believer by the Spirit.

Finally, Christ, the One who sanctifies, and His people, those who are being sanctified, are all of one nature or family. The issue here is identification. Christ identified with His people in order to save them. But, the issue goes further. He became a partaker of their nature that He might actually save them by dying in their place as an acceptable substitute. Certainly Christ died as God to satisfy God but He also died as man to be a substitute for man. He had to add humanity to Himself to be an acceptable substitute for men.

Fifth, because Christ suffered and died as man, He is not ashamed to call His people brethren. Because Christ added humanity to His deity, identified with His people, and set them apart, He is not ashamed to call them brethren. They now share the same human nature. By virtue of that reality and His sanctifying work, Christ and His people are brothers.

Sixth, because Christ is not ashamed to call His people brethren, He points them to the Father. The writer quotes Psalm 22:22 to support the assertion that Christ is not ashamed to call His chosen ones brethren. Of course the Psalm is Messianic and speaks volumes to the questioning Jews. The simple statement is this: “saying: ‘I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You (Hebrews 2:12).’”

The Messiah will declare the Father’s name to His brethren. Three points may be gleaned here.

Firstly, the concept of Messiah having brethren supports the notion of his incarnation and the realities to which the author to the Hebrews has been pointing (Christ’s incarnation, suffering, and death).

Secondly, declaring the Father’s name to the brethren is more than mere verbal proclamation. It is Christ who reveals the Father to His people by virtue of who He is as God. In salvation, Christ reveals God to His people.

Thirdly, Christ reveals God through the Holy Spirit in a more in depth manner to His brethren. He does not reveal Him to the rest of humanity in the same way.

The Messiah will also sing praise to the Father in the midst of the assembly. The Greek word for assembly is ecclesia and refers to the believer or those called out of the world by the effectual working of the Spirit and is translated “church.” It is in the midst of the church that Christ will sing praise to the Father. Christ reveals the Father to the church and sings praise to Him in the church. He leads his brothers in the way of salvation.

In verse 13, the writer continues in the same vein as verse 12 by quoting from Isaiah 8:17-18: “And again: ‘I will put My trust in Him.’ And again: ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given me.’” Isaiah, in the midst of Israel (and here the faithful remnant), the Old Testament people of God, who typify the spiritual people of God, declares that he will trust God. Christ is in the midst of God’s true people, the children the Father has given Him, and declares to them that He will trust in God. In this way, Christ unites the church to the Father not only by virtue of His work, but also by constantly pointing to Him and declaring the way of faith.

Christ trusted the Father in the mission given to Him: the work of redemption. Christ is the elder brother who trusts the Father with the church and unites the Father to the church. It was appropriate that Christ taste death for His people that He might constantly point them to the Father.

Far from being cosmic child abuse, the cross is the only action a loving God could have taken to maintain His holy character and be lovingly gracious to guilty sinners at the same time. He is God and what He does is right. He graciously determined to save a people out of lost humanity. Therefore, Christ had to taste death in order to bring His people to glory. Because His people could not get to glory on their own, Christ had to blaze a trail for them to glory. That trail led through death, thus, Christ had to die. He had to die as a man in order to identify with man and become an acceptable substitute for man by virtue of His sinless humanity. As He identifies with man, His people, He is not ashamed to call them brethren and therefore constantly points them to the Father. How fitting…and how loving.

How about a “paradoxical” approach to church? While some ministries strive to help people feel welcome (including watering down the message to accommodate people), other ministries barely consider newcomers or non-believers. What about striving for a paradox – where people will feel both COMFORT and CONFRONTATION.

An environment can hopefully be disarming so as to prepare people to hear God’s message. But often the message must be confrontational because if people are not aware of their sin, they won’t see their need for a Savior.

Just a thought …

Another area of disregard and sacrifice of biblical truth in the name of the god of relevance. Yes, we need to reach others but within actual biblical parameters – not through a self-determined, self generated interpretation of the Bible that would contradict biblical truth.

John MacArthur has written an accurate and discerning commentary on this area of assault and acceptance of this biblically defined worldliness.

We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture.

You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christianity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.

Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.

That way of thinking has been around at least since modernism began its aggressive assault on biblical Christianity in the Victorian era. For half a century or more, most evangelicals resisted the pragmatic thrust of the modernist argument, believing it was a fundamentally worldly philosophy. They had enough biblical understanding to realize that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

But the mainstream evangelical movement gave up the battle against worldliness half a century ago, and then completely capitulated to pragmatism just a couple of decades ago. After all, most of the best-known megachurches that rose to prominence after 1985 were built on a pragmatic philosophy of giving “unchurched” people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable. Why would anyone criticize what “works”?

Whole churches have thus deliberately immersed themselves in “the culture”???by which they actually mean “whatever the world loves at the moment.” We now have a new breed of trendy churches whose preachers can rattle off references to every popular icon, every trifling meme, every tasteless fashion, and every vapid trend that captures the fickle fancy of the postmodern secular mind.

Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display???even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world???including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator???a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language???even in his sermons???is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words???nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.

Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts. Besides, the issue has already been discussed and dissected at several blogs. Earlier this year, Tim Challies cited one typical example of Driscoll’s vulgar flippancy from Confessions of a Reformission Rev. The sermons I listened to also included several from Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” series, including the one Phil Johnson critiqued in October.

The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se , but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to “engage the culture.” It’s possible to be overexposed to our culture’s dark side. I don’t think anyone can survive full immersion in today’s entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.

Let’s face it: Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descends further in its spiritual death-spiral. It’s like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.

We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”

When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Even Jesus’ high priestly prayer included a thorough description of the Christian’s proper relationship with and attitude toward the world: “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14-16).

Whenever Jesus spoke of believers’ being in the world, He stated that if we are faithful, the world will be a place of hostility and persecution, not a zone of comfort. He also invariably followed that theme with a plea for our sanctification (cf. John 17:17-19).

The problem with the “grunge” approach to religion is that it works against the sanctifying process. In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models???especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world’s filthy fads???practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.

I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?