A Compliment

Someone paid me a rare compliment the other day. They said, "You are one of the least creative people I have ever known."

Does that not sound like a compliment to you? Maybe you need the context to understand. The point was that my lessons are not my own, but attempts to faithfully present what the Bible itself says.

The comment took me back to another conversation long ago. I was a teenager at the time; Grady McKnight was an older brother in our congregation that often taught Bible class and sometimes preached. I had given three sermons (and had fainted during the first two). Brother McKnight asked me when I would give another lesson. I replied that I was waiting until I had found something original to say. He shook his head and replied, "If it is original, then it is not Bible and we do not need it."

I hope the compliment about my lack of creativity was true. I wish it were more true. I try to allow not only the content but the structure of my sermons to be determined by the text itself. But, of course, I do not always succeed.

When I fly, I do not get to choose my own pilot. If I did, I would not look for the most creative pilot I could find, but the safest. I do not need anyone looking for a new route to London. I will be much more satisfied with the proven route, carefully followed.

Originality and creativity are great in certain aspects of life -- and deadly in others.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3, ESV)

Why The Emphasis On Baptism?

I am often asked a question that goes something like this, "Why does the Church of Christ put so much emphasis on baptism?"

We put an emphasis on baptism for several reasons.

1. The command to baptize comes from our Lord (Matt 28:19), and we take very seriously what he has commanded. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
2. Baptism focuses us on the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord (Rom 6:3-4). "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
3. Baptism places us in Christ (Gal 3:27). "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
4. Baptism is involved in removing our sins (Acts 2:38 & 22:16). "And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’" "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
5. Baptism saves us (1 Pet 3:21). "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Do not blame me for the Bible’s teaching about baptism. I did not write the Bible. If I had written the Bible it might not say these things about baptism, but I did not write it, and it does say these things. In view of what the Bible says about baptism, the question ought not to be "Why do you emphasize it?" The question ought to be, "Why do so many who claim to be Bible believers delay submitting to the Lord in baptism?"

Extreme Life Makeover

I have never watched Extreme Home Makeover, but I know the concept of the show. A house is remodeled to help a needy family. Or is it?

In most cases, what really happens is not the remodeling of an existing home but the destruction of the existing home and the replacement of that home with a new one. In most cases, the changes that are desired are too extreme for the existing structure to support them. In other cases, it might be possible for the existing structure to bear the weight of the additions, but one would end up with such a strange looking house -- with odd roof angles and two or three styles -- that it is better to rebuild the whole house.

Is there a lesson here?

How many of us are trying to tack a few Christian concepts onto a way of life that is non-Christian? It does not work. The existing structure is unable to bear the weight of the new additions, and the whole thing looks very odd.

Jesus warned us against trying to patch his teachings onto our ways of looking at things. "No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved." (Matthew 9:16-17, ESV)

The Christian life begins with death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). It is not to be a minor remodeling job, but an extreme life makeover.

Not Fully Cured

I welcome the news that "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" has suddenly developed a conscience about the misuse of funds. The folks at Planned Parenthood can whine until they are blue in the face. The plain fact is that it never was right, never will be right, never could be right, for a group that solicits funds to preserve life to turn around and give any portion of those funds to a group that exists to destroy life. In fact, even if the difference were not so marked, it is just plain wrong to request donations for one thing and then give the money to something else.

The move announced this week is a step in the right direction, but I still have a problem with what the Komen people are saying and doing. First, they should not hide behind a statement like, "we will not give any of our money to an organization being investigated by congress." No, they should come right out and admit that what they have been doing was terribly dishonest and immoral. They should also promise that they will never do such a thing again, no matter how the investigation of Planned Parenthood turns out.

Money given in good faith by people who want it used for breast cancer research should never, ever, ever be given to an organization whose primary purpose is anything else. That is especially true when it is clear that many of the people giving would have been horrified if they had known where their funds were really going. Take a clear, forthright, bold stand on this, Susan Komen, or you will never get a dime of my money, and I will use whatever influence I have with others to get them to stop supporting you.

Let’s face it. If I were to solicit funds to drill water wells in Africa, and then turn around and give those funds to an organization that builds chicken coops in Asia, I would be (rightfully) called dishonest. If I were to solicit funds to drill water wells in Africa and then turn around and willfully give those funds to someone who poisons water in Africa, I should be locked up for life, if not executed.

This is a simple matter of honesty. Susan Komen for the Cure has not been honest with people. Come clean now. Admit the wrong of what you have been doing and solemnly promise to never do it again. Anything short of that and we will not see you as fully cured.


UPDATE: This just in (Friday, 3 February, noon)...
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has given in to the illogical pressure from the mindless but controlling minority and reinstated funding for Planned Parenthood. This organization has shown what it is really made of -- equal parts dishonesty and cowardice. I am only one; I do not have much influence; but I will use what influence I have to see to it that you never receive another dime from anyone who cares about logic, honesty, or justice. This is incredibly shameful, dishonest, cowardly, and immoral. English is a rich language, but there are not enough words to express the disdain thinking people must feel toward your organization.

Born of Adversity

Judges, Jeremiah, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, what do these biblical books have in common? These four, like many of the biblical books, were born of adversity. Had Israel not descended into chaos after the death of Joshua, we would not have the book of Judges. Had Judah not rebelled against the Lord in the days following the death of Josiah, we would not have Jeremiah. Had the church in Corinth been peaceful, united and holy, we would not have either First or Second Corinthians. Had Paul not been imprisoned and unable to visit the church at Colossi, or if they had not been tempted to embrace a dangerous false teaching, we would not have the book of Colossians.

So, what is the moral of the story? Does that make the chaos of the Judges era good? Does that make the sin of Josiah’s sons positive? Does that make the disunity at Corinth or the false teaching at Colossae desirable? No, of course not.

But it does remind us that the troubles and frustrations we face are not new. As God has used troubles in the past in a positive and helpful way, so he can today. The Bible will never contain a book called The Letter to Toledo. But what happens here, even though it be frustrating and often negative, will be used by God for good.

Try to remember that. I will try to remember it too.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. Galatians 6:9

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. James 1:2-3

What Would It Prove?

The claims started long ago. The claims were meaningless, and turned out to be false. Yet, some people let them shake their faith. I was just a youngster, and Lyndon Johnson was President, when a couple of scientists claimed that they had created life. Further investigation proved their claim to be so exaggerated that one might have been tempted to call it an outright lie. They had managed to blast some soup they had mixed up with enough electricity to form a few random amino acids. That was all. But to hear the atheists crow you would have thought that they had produced a human baby without the use of either egg or sperm.

Last week a few papers again carried the claim that life had been created in a laboratory. Reading further, it turns out that a single cell form of life, brewer’s yeast, was coaxed into becoming a multicelled form of life. So, once again, the supposed great proof of the general theory of evolution, turns out to be so exaggerated as to be nearly a bold faced lie.

Suppose that someday they do it, what will it prove? If after a hundred years of trying, with trillions of our tax dollars spent, some scientist really does manage to produce life from non-life, what will it prove? Perhaps all they will have proven, if they ever do it, is that it takes intelligence and effort to do it. They will have proven, in fact their efforts already have proven, that it could not have happened on its own. Left to itself, non-living things do not become living things. We know that. But those who are desperate to disbelieve refuse to face the fact.

If they ever do it, they will have proven nothing we did not already know. But perhaps, as Aaron Dicus, professor of physics at Tennessee Tech, predicted, "Secure is life from mortal mind; God holds the germ within his hand. Though men may search they cannot find, for God alone does understand."

Those Who Give Approval

"Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

When I was a boy it was believed that Christians did not dance. But every election year I find Christians dancing. They are not literally dancing; but they are dancing all kinds of rhetorical jigs trying to justify the unjustifiable. Whether we choose to face the fact or not, the person who gives consent to wrongdoing is as guilty as the person who does the wrong.

The person who knows that murder is wrong is guilty if he gives someone else permission to carry out a murder. Although no blood has literally stained his hand, he may be even more guilty than the person who did the deed. While the one who plunged the knife may have been confused and thought that he was doing right, the one who stands back and says, "I would not do it myself, but I will allow him to do it" knows that murder is wrong and will be held fully guilty. This is the plain teaching of passages like Romans 1:32 and Luke 12:47-48.

Those who vote for pro-abortion candidates are as guilty of sin as any woman who seeks an abortion, any doctor who performs an abortion, or any politician who justifies abortion.

I would not want to stand before God guilty of shedding innocent blood. If I vote for those who justify it, I am as guilty as if I had done it myself. You can dance if you wish. I will stand firm on that plain and rather obvious fact.