Hot Topic Video: Fire Chief Fired for Writing a Religious Book

Disclaimer: I’ll be honest, I will probably lose friends over this post; I will more than likely end up being called a “Hater.” Well friends, that’s fine. As a Christian, I can no longer sit back and let sin go unaddressed. Besides, there is nothing new under the sun; and there are a great cloud of witnesses that have went on before me—they’ve been where I am; many have felt the same angst I feel over this entire argument—but like them, I shall remain faithful.

Today I posted a video about Kelvin Cochran, the fire chief in Atlanta who was fired over his religious views. Naturally some of my friends who buck everything I say and share decided to tell me “the man wasn’t fired because of his religion, he was fire because he made disparaging remarks about being homosexual.” The truth of the matter is that the gentleman wrote a book on his down time at home as a study on manhood from a Christian perspective. As much as I would like to say “I’m sorry for posting the video.” I’m not.  

For many people homosexuality is a hot topic. The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked. Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as “homophobic.” Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.

For some it has become an equal rights issue to legalize same-sex marriage. For many it is also a religious and moral issue because it is addressed within the Bible. For some this issue of the Biblical perspective on homosexuality has a merely academic attraction. This would perhaps be the person who is neither a Christian, nor a homosexual. The topic might not personally affect them, but since it is a current issue it is of interest. For others this is very personal. This would perhaps be the person identifying as a Christian, as a homosexual, or as a homosexual Christian. Regardless, this article is intended to be a gracious, loving, and truthful resource. In that manner then, we detail the Biblical-Christian view of homosexuality.

Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond’s Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: “The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman.” 

Equally on the other side of the argument we have people such as William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that “the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice.” This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices–they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern “knowledge.” 

The Old Testament/Torah condemns homosexual practice in four verses. The First being prohibition and punishment and the second Sodom/Gomorrah and Gibeah. I will post each verse, but I will not answer all the arguments that can come up. Lev 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. This straightforward law prohibits all homosexual acts. It makes no distinctions as to whether or not they were consensual. It comes in the midst of a section of laws related to sexual relationships. All of the items in this chapter’s list are said to “defile” (Lev. 18:24) and are called “abominations” (Lev. 18:27, 30). In balance, homosexuality here is not singled out from among the rest of the sexual sins (which themselves are being highlighted), but is included with the rest. Likewise, those who break any of these laws are to be “cut off from the midst of their people” (Lev. 18:29). These various sexual activities are ones which brought about the punishment of God upon the previous inhabitants of the land (Lev. 18:24). Thus in the law homosexuality was an offense against God. It, along with the other sexual sins, was not to exist in Israel at all.

Lev 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. This straightforward law gives the consequences for homosexual acts as they were to be carried out under Israel’s theocratic government. It comes in the midst of a section detailing crime and punishment lists. This particular section deals with sexual offenses and their judgments. The punishment for homosexual acts was to be death for both participants. This seems to clarify what was meant by being “cut off from the midst of their people” in the earlier discussion of sexual sins in Leviticus 18. Thus in the law homosexuality was a sin against God that required capital punishment. 

In Genesis 18:20-21 God declared that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the “outcry…is so great and their sin so blatant.” When two angels went to see “if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests,” they were inhospitably treated by all of the inhabitants except Lot. Indeed all the men of the city tried desperately to rape them. Attempts have been made to see the sin here as only inhospitality, or of unnatural relations with angels. However the text nowhere points out that anyone in the city knew they were angels—instead they are called “men” by both the citizens and Lot (Gen. 19:5, and Gen. 19:8 respectively). Similarly, the face value reading that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah included not only inhospitality but also the homosexual activity is the best interpretation. Jude 1:7 corroborates this:

Jude 1:7 So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

The only sexual immorality that we are told of in Sodom and Gomorrah is the attempted homosexual acts against the angels (indeed, they scorned the effort to mollify them through the offer of heterosexual immorality—Gen. 19:9).

Thus, before the giving of the law, God considered this attempt at homosexual rape—which continued even after the men were blinded— to be part of the great wickedness that resulted in the wholesale destruction of these towns. 

In Judges 19 another example of inhospitality and attempted homosexual rape occurs. In this instance it is not all of the men of the city, but rather “some good-for-nothings.” Here, however, they were pacified with the man’s concubine who was sent out to them in his place. She died after their treatment of her.

These actions led to the first civil war in Israel’s history, and the near extinction of the tribe of Benjamin. This war was sanctioned by God’s approval after Gibeah refused to hand over the offending men for judgment (Judges 20:18; 20:23; 20:28; 20:35).

Like many real life issues today, the sin that resulted in all this seems to have been an array of actions. First, these men attempted to do a “wicked thing” and “know” these men sexually (19:22-23a).5 Secondly, to compound that, it was attempted on a person who was under the hospitality of another—a “disgraceful thing” (Judges 19:23b). Thirdly, they raped and abused the traveler’s concubine all night and caused her death (Judges 19:25-30). Fourthly, the rest of the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn these men over to punishment (Judges 20:13). 

The brief re-telling of the story to the tribes (Judges 20:5) does not focus on the sexual side of the intent towards the traveler like the original event does (Judges 19:22-24). In the re-telling it seems that there was more of a focus on the actual offenses rather than on the intended ones. However, the attempt is included in the longer record of the event and distinctly labeled as wrong. Consequently, it is fully appropriate to see it as part of the events being judged. Thus, after the giving of the law, attempted homosexual rape was part of the sin that resulted in a God-sanctioned civil war.

Rom 1:20-32 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (24) Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 

(26) For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (27) and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. (29) They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. (32) Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

This text discusses homosexuality more extensively than any other New Testament passage. However, homosexuality is not the overarching theme of this section. Paul wants to clearly explain the gospel. To do that though, it is necessary to show that all people are under God’s judgment and condemnation—and thus in need of the gospel. He starts by declaring that because the testimony of God is visible in nature all are without excuse for their rebellion against Him. The just wrath of God is on all ungodliness (Rom. 1). Then he shows that in condemning the sin of others we actually condemn ourselves (Rom. 2). Likewise even the Jewish people with the law are still fully under God’s condemnation for their sin. Furthermore they are incapable of remedying the situation (Rom. 2-3). Thus it does not matter whether one is apart from the law or under it. All people stand condemned without partiality. This paves the way for explaining God’s grace in Jesus—which is the good news of the gospel. There is indeed one way of deliverance from this predicament.

So this section on homosexuality occurs in the portion showing why God’s wrath is upon humanity, and how humanity is inexcusable before Him. Before moving to the negative, Paul starts with the positive good news that he is intent on sharing. The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel which is received by faith (Rom. 1:17). By contrast the wrath of God is revealed as being upon the ungodliness of mankind (Rom. 1:18). Where is this ungodliness seen? Where is this suppressing of the truth seen? It is seen in the inexcusable idolatry of humanity. All have seen in creation the invisible attributes of God, His eternal power and nature (Rom. 1:19-20). However instead of worshipping the true creator, humanity moved to idolatry and worshipping creation (Rom. 1:23-25). The existence of nature demands that there be a designer. This truth is suppressed and turned to the worship of self or some other created thing. One of God’s judgments for this behavior is the turning over of humanity to their own sinful desires (Rom. 1:24). This giving over to sinfulness and its consequences specifically includes homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-28). It also includes a whole list of other sins more briefly mentioned (Rom. 1:29-32).

An objection has been proposed against this text’s discussion of homosexuality. It states that this passage only refers to heterosexuals committing homosexual acts (or the “abuses” of homosexuality), and that this would not apply if one’s “natural” desire was for the same sex and carried on monogamously (or in some kind of “marriage”). This does not hold up under examination. Paul is not talking about what is or has become “natural” desire. He is talking about function. God has designed men and women with functional capabilities. According to this text these capabilities are rebelled against through homosexual acts.

From this text then, we see that homosexuality is an example of God having delivered people over to the consequences of having rebelled against Him. It is not the only sin listed, but is indeed the highlighted one. It seems that this example is given because homosexuality diametrically opposes the clear design of God. God made people in His image (Gen. 1:27) with a built in complementary design in the marriage of a male to a female (Gen. 2:22-25). To commit actions clearly opposite God’s plan at the nature level distinctly declare the reality of rebellion. It declares that God’s very design and plan were wrong and inadequate. As it is listed here, homosexuality and the rest of the sins listed, are a part of God’s immediate (though not final) judgment. Sin is a judgment upon itself—in that it reaps what it sows. Additionally, the willful exchange of the truth of God for a lie can result in God delivering people over to a depraved mind. One’s ability to reason or view things in an accurate moral way can be seriously impaired (Rom. 1:28).

However, lest any become self-righteous, Paul immediately moves on to showing that all are condemned under sin. Indeed, condemning the sin of others condemns oneself (Rom. 2:1-5). The only reason Paul can share any of this in a worthwhile way is because he is not relying on his own righteousness. He is relying on the righteousness of God. This has been given to him in Christ Jesus by the grace of God. He himself has been forgiven of his sin. The point was not to condemn others in order to justify himself. The point was to make clear the existence of sin for every individual so that the grace of God that had rescued him could be shared with fellow humans who needed deliverance just like he had needed it.

The same purpose and point that Paul had here in the book of Romans remains for Christians to share today. We too are fellow sinners. We too were under God’s full and immense wrath. I too am a sinner condemned by these truths. By God’s grace we may be forgiven. Yet even with that grace, in ourselves we are not any better than anyone else. We have nothing of which to boast. This shows God’s work to be that much more amazing. That He would love and redeem us while we were His enemies in such a deep rebellion against Him is almost incomprehensible. This same grace that has changed and is changing our lives and that will bring us eternity with God in a perfected existence is available to the whole world. No person, gender, race, nationality, ethnic group, class, or any other possible division is excluded from this offer of the gift of grace. This is the grace Christians should be offering, because it is the true grace of God.

1 Cor. 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (11) Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Some have raised questions about the two Greek words for homosexual activity in this verse. They would interpret them as referring only to a moral softness (μαλακος), and to a male prostitute (αρσενοκοιτης). However this kind of translation disagrees with the premier Biblical Greek Lexicon (BDAG). Beyond that it essentially disagrees with most (if not all) the other standard English lexicons and is not a good translation for these words here. Thus these words in context do refer to the two different roles in homosexual relationships.

Look at the church at Corinth; their former behaviors were influencing their lives presently in a completely inappropriate way. Apparently it had gotten so bad that Paul even challenged them in a following letter to examine themselves to see whether they had truly become believers (2 Cor. 13:5).

These sins in and of themselves were nothing that would keep them from truly accepting the grace of God and becoming children of God. However a continuation in them as a manner of life would be an indication that they were not truly believers and not going to inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 John 3). Quite helpfully for us today, this is a clear statement that some of the Corinthians had become believers out of that manner of life. This should lead us to at least two conclusions:

1. Like other sins, homosexual behavior may be forgiven. God’s grace is not limited by this or any other sin. As Romans 5:20 states: Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (KJV)

1. Since Christians have come out of such sins, they should be the ones most desirous to share God’s love with others. As 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 states:  

So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away — look, what is new has come! (18) And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. (19) In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation. (20) Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us. We plead with you on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!” (21) God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God. (NET Bible, emphasis added)

1 Tim. 1:8-15 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, (9) realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers — in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. (11) This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me. (12) I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, (13) even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, (14) and our Lord’s grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus. (15) This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” — and I am the worst of them!

In this list Paul points out the purpose of the law in contrast to the view of others who were misusing it (1 Tim. 1:6-7). The law reveals sinfulness and the need to be “saved.” In the examples that Paul then gives, homosexuality is clearly included as being unrighteous.12 As far as the hypothetical “righteous person” here (v. 9) it should be noted that Jesus was the only righteous person (Heb. 4:15, Rom. 3:10-24).

Some people may try to appear as if they were righteous. However this should not be confused with truly being righteous. They will receive the judgment of God, because it is His holy standard that is the measuring line. The only thing that they will accomplish with this attempt is that they will have in their own minds mentally removed themselves from the offer of God’s grace. How could it apply to them if they will not acknowledge their need? This list of sinful activity includes homosexuality and many sins that might be considered by people to be the “worse” ones: killing parents, sexual immorality, kidnapping, profanity, and lawlessness. It is highly interesting that at the end of this list Paul says the bottom line is that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners and that salvation renders us blameless in front of the righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6).

When God says No

Today, I was recognized as a former employee of Cloverleaf Elementary School, and also as a former member of The Cove. When asked why I wasn’t at The Cove any longer, I explained my situation. But I followed it up with, “I didn’t like the ‘no, you can’t go back to The Cove.’ then I realized that while God has closed that door, He had opened a door that no one could close and I was living a better reality than I was living previously.” According to MaryLynn Johnson at Desiring God “When God takes something away, he creates space in our lives for more of him.”

 I have learned something over the past 3 years; I have learned that sometimes God does answer “no” to our prayers. While, maybe, the no isn’t a “no” in the sense that it’s no not ever; it’s definitely a “No, not now…” or “No, just wait, I have something greater for you.” But that doesn’t mean the “no” doesn’t sting. 

The Jewish people have a prayer called Mi Shebeirach—it’s a prayer for healing; and while many think that it’s solely for physical healing, I believe that it can be prayed for those who need any kind of healing—mental, physical, spiritual. The prayer says: “May the one who blessed our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, bless and heal those who are ill [names]. May the Blessed Holy One be filled with compassion for their health to be restored and their strength to be revived. May God swiftly send them a complete renewal of body and spirit, and let us say, Amen.”

“I forgive all those who may have hurt or aggravated me either physically, monetarily, or emotionally, whether unknowingly or willfully, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether in speech or in action, whether in this incarnation or another, and may no person be punished on account of me…”

These are two of the prayers that I pray for those who are on my prayer list; but I also kept asking God to give us the restoration of friendship, and God keeps saying “No.” 

One of my favorite Bible stories is the story of Hannah. Hannah, a woman we read about in the Old Testament, knew that discouragement, too. She longed to have a baby. Yet we find twice in the first few lines of her story that the reason for Hannah's infertility was "because the Lord had closed her womb" (1 Samuel 1:5-6). Now, I would feel so much better if that sentence about Hannah read "because she was unable to bear children." But that verse specifically tells us that the Lord was the One withholding from Hannah the one thing she wanted most in life.

I’d like to think God is behind only the blessings we receive in life and therefore have a hard time wrapping our minds around the possibility that God would allow - or even arrange - certain difficulties to come our way. Yet that is one of the primary ways he awakens our need for him, grows our dependence on him, shapes our character, and draws us closer to himself.

In Hannah's case she became so desperate to have a son that she poured out her heart to God in prayer, promising to give her son back to God if he were to finally give her one. It was then, after Hannah came to that place of complete surrender, that we read God's gracious, yet timely response: "And the Lord remembered her. So in the course of time Hannah conceived and gave birth to a son..." (1 Samuel 1:19-20). 

God's "gifts" sometimes take the form of difficulties, losses, frustrations and outright pain. We don't originally see them as gifts, but more like disappointments, aggravations, or even rejection. But they are gifts, nonetheless, that are given to us to grow us to a new level in our spiritual life or to prepare us for something better that God has in store for us, or perhaps to even help us see something extraordinary about God that we couldn't see before.

Tonight I have had to give myself permission to grieve. I was afraid that God couldn’t handle my grief, but it turns out that I am pretty sure He can. It’s not wrong to experience disappointment when life does not unfold the way we hope. If we do not give ourselves permission to grieve, we inadvertently believe that God is more concerned with us immediately feeling better, rather than working through the hurt to bring real transformation to our heart. We lose sight of the invitation he has given us to place our struggles at his feet. 

The purpose of lament is not merely to vent our distress (which leaves us in despair), but to bring our attention back to God’s promises and the hope we have in Christ. He promises that he hears us when we call (Matthew 7:7). He promises to be near to us (Psalm 34:18). He promises to be faithful (Deuteronomy 31:6). He promises that this hurt will end (Revelation 21:4). He promises that when we seek him, he will transform our hearts to desire more of him (Psalm 37:4). He will not leave us in the misery of our disappointment, because he has not finished the work he started in us (Philippians 1:6). He will assure us of his love as we invite him into the struggle we feel.

C.S. Lewis once wrote, “We are not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.” 

Charles R. Swindoll tells a story of David, to help drive home how we are to react when God says “no.” 

After four decades of service to Israel, King David, old and perhaps stooped by the years, looked for the last time into the faces of his trusted followers. Many of them represented distinct memories in the old man's mind. Those who would carry on his legacy surrounded him, waiting to receive his last words of wisdom and instruction. What would the seventy-year-old king say?

He began with the passion of his heart, pulling back the curtain to reveal his deepest desire—the dreams and plans for building a temple to the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:2). It was a dream that went unfulfilled in his lifetime. "God said to me," David told his people, "'You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood'" (28:3). Dreams die hard. But in his parting words, David chose to focus on what God had allowed him to do—to reign as king over Israel, to establish his son Solomon over the kingdom, and to pass the dream on to him (28:4-8). Then, in a beautiful prayer, an extemporaneous expression of worship to the Lord God, David praised the greatness of God, thanking Him for His many blessings, and then interceded for the people of Israel and for their new king, Solomon. Take some extra time to read David's prayer slowly and thoughtfully. It's found in 1 Chronicles 29:10-19.

Rather than wallowing in self-pity or bitterness regarding his unfulfilled dream, David praised God with a grateful heart. Praise leaves humanity out of the picture and focuses fully on the exaltation of the living God. The magnifying glass of praise always looks up.

Syncretism: A Subtle Sin

Nothing drives me crazy like seeing those "Coexist" bumper stickers that "enlightened" people always seem to have on their cars.

This week I learned the proper term for what I have always called “mixing religions.” That term is Syncretism. Webster’s dictionary defines it as the combination of different forms of belief or practice. The better definition and the one I am going to use for this post is the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. In other words it’s the mixing of different religions, cultures and schools of thought; which as you may not know, can’t be done—especially as it pertains to the Bible (Judeo-Christian) beliefs and other religions.

Syncretism is subtle. It doesn't happen overnight. Changes usually occur slowly and insidiously. Little by little the culture drifts away from God and His standards. This is exactly what happened in the 8th century B.C. when the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians. The sinful syncretism that resulted is a lesson from history for growing Christians today.

Syncretism demands that worship of God be shared with competing deities. This occurred constantly in the Old Testament, as the values of the Canaanites, Babylonians, Assyrians and others permeated ancient Israel. On one occasion, the Prophet Elijah challenged the nation to stop dithering between two opinions and decide whether Jehovah or Baal was the deity worth following (1 Kings 18:21). That should have been a no-brainer, but Baal and other gods of the Canaanites had great influence. I have visited ancient Canaanite settlements in Lebanon and seen the influence of the deities that sought to displace Jehovah in the life of his people.

Church history is filled with the struggle against syncretism from political, social, religious and economic sources. In New Testament times, Greek, Roman and so-called “mystery religions” sought to undermine the Christian community through syncretism. In subsequent centuries (particularly after Christianity became the official religion of the state following the conversion of Constantine in 312 AD) it was easier to undermine Christian faith by mandating “toleration” rather than persecuting Christians, which only led to martyrs.

One crisis that faced the early church was acceptance of non-Jewish Christian converts. Many Jewish believers acted as though their faith was an extension of their national history and identity. When God began to save Gentiles many of them were horrified. Only a major conference in Jerusalem, under the leadership of wise men of God, was able to deal with the issue (Acts 15, Galatians 2). Now we know the people of God are not identified by ethnicity, gender or social status, but their relationship to God and to one another through Christ (Galatians 3:28).
Haitian Voodoo is an example of syncretism that mixes African animistic religious practice with Christianity. The Raelian Movement, Bahai'i, and various neopagan religions also draw from Judeo-Christian belief and mix it into various belief systems and theological structures. Each of these examples is obviously not Biblical Christianity., we look at the opposite problem, syncretism.

Those are obvious. Yet, they tend to be far from the mainstream of evangelicals who might be reading this article. There are, however, far less obvious examples of syncretistic belief that can impact the gospel we preach and display. For example, many Boomer/seeker-sensitive churches, in an effort to reach very practical, pragmatic Boomers have become largely devoid of the gospel, exchanging it for practical positive thinking without gospel transformation. That's syncretism.

To be clear, I am not saying all Boomer or seeker churches are this way, and I am not trying to paint the movement with a broad brush. But there is a contingency of churches that have emphasized trying harder and being a better person over the gospel of grace. "Living a good life as a good person," particularly under your own power, is not the gospel Jesus announced. It is actually quite the opposite, and it has created a gospel that dilutes dependency on Christ and denies His lordship. It is syncretistic.

Earlier this week, I read a story that perfectly exemplifies what syncretism: The mass over, the priest’s words were echoing around the niches and chapels built into the sides of San Francisco Cathedral in La Paz as the Aymara family next to me stood up and prepared to leave. Pulling his “chullo” down over his ears, to keep the cold off his head, Don Juan (not his real name) told me he was going home. I asked what the mass meant to him. He told me he had been coming to the church every week since he was a boy. Did he believe in prayer, I asked. He told me that he did, but that he didn’t understand some of the things that happened in the service. He was mainly concerned about keeping his family going. Religion was helpful, but he confided that it did not always meet his needs. When prayer failed the shaman in his village would say incantations over him, maybe sacrifice a chicken, so that the spirits would heed the sight of blood and give him the favor he needed. I asked him how he managed to balance two competing faiths. He told me they were one and the same, in his opinion. “They are all about God.” In his mind, shamanism and Christianity functioned as one paradigm. He saw no conflict, because that is how he had been brought up. He told me the spirit world of his village predated the arrival of the Spaniards and their gilt images five hundred years previously. It had kept his ancestors together and given them hope and power in times of need.

Pressures exist on all sides today, as secular humanism strives to be the common ground for solving problems. Pluralism is proclaimed as the ground for melting all religions into a porridge of new religious ideas. The values of this world view strive for a place in the church's response to both the demands for conformity and the cries for liberation confronting it.

Some people argue (or act on the basis that) that the best way to reach people is to live in their space and be like them. This involves “contextualising” the Gospel. I once listened in horror as a visiting speaker in a church I attended told the congregation it was OK to break the law if imprisonment could be used by God to reach non-Christian prisoners. Where do we draw the line? When God is just like everyone else, the whole reason for being a Christian is up for grabs.

Syncretism of the Christian gospel occurs when basic elements of the Bible are replaced by religious elements from other faiths. In many societies, including in the West, standing up for the absolutes of Christian revelation is a criminal offense. It is safer to look for common ground and inter-faith dialogue than run the risk of being labeled a “crank”.

The Bible teaches that truth comes by revelation, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. There are times when elements of traditional religion foreshadow aspects of the Gospel and can be a way of opening up communities to evangelism. This was the case in Athens (read Acts Chapter 17) and many Asian societies where missionaries eventually made inroads when they learned enough about local religions to show the people that Christ was the One they were looking for and encouraged them to abandon half-truths for the real thing.

Syncretism, on the other hand, involves adding other beliefs to Christian doctrine, with the intention of supplementing the salvation provided by Jesus - as if it were somehow incomplete. Syncretism springs from lack of faith in Christ's saving power. Syncretism is a tool of Satan to water down revelation and separate God from his people by the accretion of symbols, liturgies, art forms and theologies that do not “offend”. It involves a loss of moral and spiritual authority.

The Apostle Paul encouraged Christians in the first church at Corinth not to lose sight of their pure and simple devotion to Christ, not to add anything to it, but hold firm to the simplicity of the Christian message (2 Corinthians 11:3). We can add nothing to what Jesus has already done for us, but need to know what we believe and be committed to it, holding to the absolutes of Biblical revelation, living by our faith. God doesn’t have to be so different as to be ‘weird”.

How can we be people of influence, relevant, dynamic, attractive, persuasive and still be able to proclaim the message, with integrity to the truth. How do we avoid syncretism in our church, family and personal lives?
None of us is free from the innate desire to be accepted by others and to be like the world around us. The human heart reaches out to gods in all forms. Dealing effectively with the temptation to compromise on many levels is an essential part of Christian growth and maturity. We cannot long mask the subtle attachments we feel to “our” world, and the hunger to be part of what is going on.

God calls us to be different, to escape the downward drag and be re-made in the image of His Son. The Bible says that true liberty comes from the Lordship of the Holy Spirit, as He makes us less like others and more like Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Only He can give us power to be different. Regardless of culture or personal background, believers don’t have to live by the standards and patterns of everyone else, because they are “born of God” and their praxis is predicated on the person and presence of His Son. Let’s allow Him to bring this about in a transforming way.

A Brief Discussion on Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

Since Monday's Supreme Court decision, my friends on the left and the right have been either cheering the decision or crying "separation of Church and State." For me, as a small business owner, the decision is landmark, because it set the precedent that as a small business owner, I can say no, and my rights to not provide you with services, should be respected; especially if they violate my Christian beliefs.

So what just happened? On June 4, 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a landmark decision that has many people upset. The decision was paramount to Christians who are seeing their rights taken away in other countries, though not fully taken away here, definitely infringed upon. 

So what just happened, according to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court was asked to decide whether the First Amendment is violated when a state punishes a citizen for refusing, for reasons of religious conscience, to create a cake that celebrates a same-sex wedding. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because he believes it would be sinful to participate in celebrating a same-sex wedding. Despite the fact that another bakery readily created the cake the couple wanted, they brought a sexual-orientation-discrimination claim against Phillips. A state civil rights commission found Jack Phillips had violated Colorado law and prohibited him from creating cakes for any wedding unless he also created cakes for same-sex weddings. 

Phillips appealed to Colorado’s appellate court, which upheld the commission’s ruling, and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted review of his free speech and free exercise claims and heard oral arguments on December 5.

In the majority decision, the Court noted that the “laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

In the eyes of the Supreme Court, the Colorado Commission did not treat Jack Phillips impartially, but in fact engaged in a reverse sort of discrimination against him. In an important line of the Court’s reasoning authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court wrote that “laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” 

This is not an insignificant line to dwell on. The Court did not lay animus or prejudice at the feet of Jack Phillips. The Court did not equate the views of Bible-believing Christians who share a long-held conviction of marriage with rank bigotry. The Court ruled against government hostility to religion.

Why does this matter? Because there are voices coming from mainstream segments of society that want to equate goodwill convictions on marriage held by Bible-believing Christians as the same types of views held by hood-wearing Klansmen of the KKK. That is one of the main reasons that progressives are upset about today’s ruling. It is less about a denial of goods (because the vast majority of businesses have no problem making custom cakes for a same-sex wedding) and more about progressivism’s insistence and expectation that the Supreme Court adopt the posture of treating any disagreement with the Sexual Revolution as an irrational form of prejudice held for no other reason than hate.

A LGBT donor, Tim Gill, said he wanted to fund LGBT political initiatives in conservative states to “punish the wicked.”

Mark Tushnet, a Harvard law professor, wrote that cultural progressives should treat Christians like the Allies treated defeated Nazi Germany. In other words, brook no compromise.

Jack Phillips was accused of being a bigot, and of holding views equated with Nazism.

Justice Kennedy stated “[T]he religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.  As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, ‘[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”’

He went on to say “To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere.” 

And for those who are worried about the ruling, just understand that the Supreme Court’s decision was certainly not a complete win for those seeking religious exemptions to celebrating same-sex marriages. There is no clearly delineated protection for future bakers, florists or photographers who feel that providing cakes, flowers and photography for same-sex weddings would violate their religious principles. By focusing on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s failure to provide the “neutral and respectful” adjudication of Phillips’ religious claims that the free exercise clause requires, the court left open broader questions of compelled speech and free exercise.

What is Forgiveness?

Recently several of my friends have shared a message of “forgiveness” by Nadia Bolz-Weber. When they started sharing this video, I immediately started warning them of the dangers of this woman’s teachings. I never even watched the video before letting my friends know that this woman is a danger to Christianity and their Christian beliefs. Yet, each person spouted off ever reason they loved this message by Nadia. So burdened I became that I spent Sunday evening in tears praying that their eyes would be opened to the teaching of this woman. Monday morning I awoke to another friend sharing this video and another singing the praises of Nadia Bolz-Weber. Later Monday night while I was laying in bed nearly asleep my Pastor sent me a text stating he had just seen the video and that it was shared by one of our own UM pastors. 

Friends, please STOP! CRACK OPEN your bibles. Realize that what Nadia is teaching isn’t forgiveness. It’s just not. Go, read everything you can about forgiveness in the Bible—which means you’ll read every verse from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21—show me where God cuts us off, where our sin is so great that God just forgives and forgets us? Friends, her teaching isn’t Biblical and if it is, well we definitely are not reading the same scriptures. And before you decry that I am one of those Christians who think my Bible is the only Bible and what it says is the only truth—well yeah I do, because there is only one Bible—there are  many translations of the Bible, but there is only ONE and most of the ones I own, all 47+ versions that I own, don’t tell me I have to accept sin, none of them tell me to forgive and forget a person. 

So today I want to tell you what forgiveness is and what it’s not.

• Forgiveness is not letting the offender off the hook. We can and should still hold others accountable for their actions or lack of actions.
• Forgiveness is returning to God the right to take care of justice. By refusing to transfer the right to exact punishment or revenge, we are telling God we don't trust him to take care of matters.
• Forgiveness is not letting the offense recur again and again. We don't have to tolerate, nor should we keep ourselves open to, lack of respect or any form of abuse.
• Forgiveness does not mean we have to revert to being the victim. Forgiving is not saying, "What you did was okay, so go ahead and walk all over me." Nor is it playing the martyr, enjoying the performance of forgiving people because it perpetuates our victim role.
• Forgiveness is not the same as reconciling. We can forgive someone even if we never can get along with him again.
• Forgiveness is a process, not an event. It might take some time to work through our emotional problems before we can truly forgive. As soon as we can, we should decide to forgive, but it probably is not going to happen right after a tragic event. That’s okay.
• We have to forgive every time. If we find ourselves constantly forgiving, though, we might need to take a look at the dance we are doing with the other person that sets us up to be continually hurt, attacked, or abused.
• Forgetting does not mean denying reality or ignoring repeated offenses. Some people are obnoxious, mean-spirited, apathetic, or unreliable. They never will change. We need to change the way we respond to them and quit expecting them to be different.
• Forgiveness is not based on others' actions but on our attitude. People will continue to hurt us through life. We either can look outward at them or stay stuck and angry, or we can begin to keep our minds on our loving relationship with God, knowing and trusting in what is good.
• If they don't repent, we still have to forgive. Even if they never ask, we need to forgive. We should memorize and repeat over and over: Forgiveness is about our attitude, not their action.
• We don't always have to tell them we have forgiven them. Self-righteously announcing our gracious forgiveness to someone who has not asked to be forgiven may be a manipulation to make them feel guilty. It also is a form of pride.
• Withholding forgiveness is a refusal to let go of perceived power. We can feel powerful when the offender is in need of forgiveness and only we can give it. We may fear going back to being powerless if we forgive.
• We might forgive too quickly to avoid pain or to manipulate the situation. Forgiveness releases pain and frees us from focusing on the other person. Some want to "hurry up" and forgive so the pain will end. We have to be careful not to simply cover our wounds and retard the healing process.
• We might be pressured into false forgiveness before we are ready. When we feel obligated or we forgive just so others will still like us, accept us, or not think badly of us, it's not true forgiveness — it's a performance to avoid rejection. Give yourself permission to do it right. Maybe all you can offer today is, "I want to forgive you, but right now I'm struggling emotionally. I promise I will work on it."
• Forgiveness does not mean forgetting. It's normal for memories to be triggered in the future. When thoughts of past hurts occur, it's what we do with them that counts. When we find ourselves focusing on a past offense, we can learn to say, "Thank you, God, for this reminder of how important forgiveness is."
• Forgiveness starts with a mental decision. The emotional part of forgiveness is finally being able to let go of the resentment. Emotional healing may or may not follow quickly after we forgive.

Most of us assume that if we forgive our offenders, they are let off the hook — scot-free — and get to go about their merry ways while we unfairly suffer from their actions. We also may think that we have to be friendly with them again, or go back to the old relationship. While God commands us to forgive others, he never told us to keep trusting those who violated our trust or even to like being around those who hurt us. When we've been deeply wronged something inside yearns for justice. If we don't forgive, our desire for justice becomes revenge, subjecting us to the bondage of bitterness and self-righteousness. When we choose to forgive, the justice we seek is for the other person to feel our pain. God’s grace, invades our sense of justice. True forgiveness takes place when we release our hurt and let go of it, acknowledging that the others is also a fallen human being, who is perhaps doing the best he or she can with the limited resources in their emotional, relational, and spiritual arsenal. When we anchor our hearts on the rock of God's love, the forgiveness of others enables us to release our pain into God's healing hands. As grace shatters the threat of growing bitterness, it plants the seeds of a more intimate relationship. 

Colossians 3:13 tells us that Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. I don’t see bolt cutters in this scenario; matter of fact, I see that God is commanding us to hold on to one another, to work with one another for His Kingdom. 

Even on the cross, while those who crucified and mocked Him, Jesus asked that God forgive his tormentors. (Luke 23:34). No where did He say “I want to be cut from them.” And you gotta admit, the people killing Jesus were some pretty big jerks. Yet, no where did Jesus state that He needed some bolt cutters to cut himself loose from them, no, instead He hung there headlong into the wind and forgave them. 

Forgiveness isn’t just a Christian teaching; modern Judaism and even the sages of Judaism have some pretty hard teachings on forgiveness. So why forgive? Basically, because it is a mitzvah, a divine command. The Torah explicitly forbids us to take revenge or to bear grudges (Leviticus 19:18). It also commands us, “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (ibid. 19:17). According to Chabad Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov , the difference between vengefulness, nekamah, and bearing a grudge, netirah is in the Talmud (Yoma 23a) we find the following definitions: An example of revenge is when I ask my friend to lend me something and he doesn’t, and I repay him in kind when he asks to borrow something of mine. An example of bearing a grudge is when I ask my friend to lend me something and he declines, and then, when he asks me to lend him something that he needs, I say, “When I asked to borrow your lawnmower, you didn’t agree. I, however, am not like you; I will accede to your request.” Either one of these attitudes is expressly prohibited by the Torah. True strength is expressed by overcoming the instinct of revenge and being able to forgive. 

Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb reminds us that the prophet Micah (7:18) asked: “Who is God like You, tolerating iniquity and forgiving transgression ... ?” Upon which, the Talmud commented (Rosh Hashanah 17a): “Whose iniquities does God tolerate? A person who forgives the transgressions of another.”

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Nadia Bolz-Weber

Caution: This post contains quotes by an ELCA Pastor who uses profanity to express herself; any quotes by her have been left intact so you can see her words for yourself. 

Tonight I was sitting inside one of my favorite restaurants waiting for my take out and this man came up to the register, purchased his dinner and walked out, when he did he turned around and stared at me for a moment. Thinking nothing of it, I went about my business. As I was walking out of the restaurant, I heard "Yeah, she's in there..." when he looked towards the door, I was coming out and he got quiet. After I passed the group, and he thought I was out of earshot he said "the one warning everyone about that Pastor." He then said "She writes a blog too."

If you think that he’s talking about the recent conversation/argument about Nadia Bolz-Weber where I warned my friends about the anti-biblical teachings this woman has presented in the name of “faith” then you are one hundred percent correct. Many of you want to love her; and that’s fine. I get it. I really do! I get you may want to like this woman. She seems to encompass love for all people, she’s got some pretty awesome tattoos; she’s a hipster pastor who rips the sleeves off her clerical shirts so that you can admire her tattoos; she believes she is seeing God in those who are undesirable, junkies, drag queens, members of the LGBTQA+ community. I get it! Really, I do! I get that this is the kind of Christian we all want to be—however, as I grew more curious about this woman and her ministry, I started seeing and hearing things that I couldn’t agree with and that I definitely couldn’t live with in my Christian walk. 

So let me give you some background information on Nadia Bolz-Weber. “Reverand” Nadia Bolz-Weber is a troubled Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor who has grown in popularity within the ELCA ranks. A former drug user and alcoholic turned Lutheran minister, she’s gotten attention for her eye-catching appearance—colorful tattoos, cropped hair, hipster glasses—and her reputation for dropping the F-bomb. She is highly sought after by ELCA leadership to speak at conferences and gatherings, and to preach to their leaders, members and youth. But there are problems with Rev. Bolz-Weber, big problems. The problems I'm referring to rest in two areas, her teaching/theology, which is non-Biblical in many important areas, and moral issues that she seems to take pride in and actively flaunts. 

God tells us what an appointed church leader should look like; He says the leader “must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Instead my “Christian” friends seem to think there is nothing wrong with an ECLA pastor who happens to be a foul-mouthed, proponent of premarital sex, supporter of Planned Parenthood, who has many theological beliefs that run contrary to Scripture. She is a universalist who has presided over a transgender re-naming ceremony and has had a drag queen emcee her church's children's program. 

In an interview you can see the disparaging remarks that she has made over time. Tell me, does this really sound like a woman of God, called by God? 

• Host Krista Tippett: “Nadia Bolz-Weber is the founder and pastor for the downtown Denver 'House for all Sinners and Saints.' Is it 'House for all Sinners and Saints?'”

• Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber: “House for all Sinners and Saints. Or you know, we call it Half Ass.” (HFASS)

• Talking about the Apostles' Creed, Rev. Bolz-Weber, who is revered by denominational leadership states, “oh my god, nobody believes every line of the creed.” (By the way the Creed she is talking about is the Apostles’ Creed and is 100% scripturally based.)

• Talking about her belief in God she stated “I had never stopped believing in God, not really. But I did have to go hang out with His aunt for awhile. She is called the goddess. My first experience with Wicca . . .” from her book Pastrix

• "I confess that I am a Christo-centric universalist. What that means to me is that, whatever God was accomplishing, especially on the cross, that Christological event, was for the restoration and redemption and reconciliation of all things and all people and all Creation – everyone. Whatever God was getting done there, that is for everyone. How God manages to play that out through other religions, other symbol systems, I will never understand. I have to allow for the idea that God is actually nimble enough and powerful enough and creative enough to do that.” See here - http://religionandpolitics.org/2015/07/28/for-all-the-sinners-and-saints-an-interview-with-nadia-bolz-weber/ (By the way if you don’t know what a universalist is, well its someone who believes everyone goes to Heaven, even without the acceptance of the atoning death of Christ.)

• “The goddess we spoke of never felt to me like a substitute for God but simply another aspect of the divine, like God's aunt or something. When I tell other Christians of my time with the goddess I think they expect me to characterize it as a period in my life when I was misguided and that now thankfully I have come back to both Jesus and my senses. But it's not like that. I can't imagine that the God of the universe is limited to our ideas of God. I can't image that God doesn't reveal Godself in countless ways outside of the simple system of Christianity. And in a way I need a god who is bigger and more nimble and more mysterious than what I could understand or contrive.” from her book Pastrix

• "And just to be clear: The cross is not about God as divine child abuser sadly sending his little boy off to be killed because we were bad and well, somebody had to pay." from http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/948520-sermon-on-the-cross-christ-the-king-sunday

• We all come back from the grocery store to the sight of Jesus just chatting it up at the well with Steve Bannon. Jesus is the worst. 9:19 AM - Mar 17, 2017 · Denver, CO (Nadia’s Twitter Feed). 

Seriously Christian friends, this isn’t right. None of it! If it was merely tattoos, cropped hair, or ripped off sleeves of her clericals, I think I could rise above it. However, it’s not; not even remotely. I get that Christians want to like Nadia; some even want to be like her, to buy into the false authenticity of loving others even to the point of holding open the doors of hell. I know, that was a bit brash, but seriously, you can’t read or listen to what this woman says and believe that it remotely comes out of the Bible nor that it’s authentic, orthodox Christianity. 

Maybe this is the first time you’ve heard of her—be warned; maybe you are sharing her videos, because they resonate with you—be warned. Friends, I am begging you to stop listening to everyone that sounds good to you. Be like the Bereans, make sure what you are hearing is from the Bible; study it for yourself—research who is saying it. 

As C.S. Lewis said: 

“I have some definite views about the de-Christianizing of the church. I believe that there are many accommodating preachers, and too many practitioners in the church who are not believers. Jesus Christ did not say “Go into all the world and tell the world that it is quite right.” The Gospel is something completely different. In fact, it is directly opposed to the world!” 

Don't be afraid to speak out!

Recently a friend posted a video by Nadia Bolz-Weber about “Being the bigger Asshole and forgiving the assholes who hurt you.” This belief is based on “heaping burning coals on the heads of others.” However, you can get that message across without the profanity, and without teaching other heresies. Evidently I am the bad person because I posted one of Bolz-Weber's teachings on human sexuality and immediately I was told that I was judging this woman. I don't deny that I was justing this woman, why? Because I love people and I don't want people to fall for the lies that Bolz-Weber teaches.

Bolz-Weber came on the scene a few years ago with her so-called radical teaching of preaching “love” to junkies and the LGBT+ community. However, with that radical teaching, comes great responsibility—namely to call people to repentance! Christians, whether ordained or not have a often times have a fear of offending people. I've encountered MANY, MANY, individuals who claim they've been Christians for years--but they can't stand to hear about the things of God. Many go to church and think that it is a social club never preaching the gospel to a single soul. They are concerned with soup kitchens and hospitals and special music and newsletters which is would be okay if it were based on truth--but these people do not share the gospel with the lost! A man can go to hell on a full stomach. Then you've got the ones that go to church once a week and as soon as they leave out of the doors they get to cursing and doing whatever they please. All of these categories have something in common--NO REPENTANCE.

Bible believers have our little formulas for leading people to Jesus, but we are leaving out a most necessary part of sharing the gospel--the preaching of REPENTANCE. As a result, there are a lot of heathens walking around thinking that they are saved. We spend almost no time on this vital aspect of the gospel and then we spend a good deal of time on assurance verses when the person has not even repented! REPENTANCE is foundational--

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the FOUNDATION OF REPENTANCE FROM DEAD WORKS, and of faith toward God,

The Lord Jesus had plenty to say about REPENTANCE--

Luke 5:32 "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to REPENTANCE."

Luke 24:47 ...[Jesus said to them] that REPENTANCE and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 1:15 ..."The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: REPENT ye, AND BELIEVE the gospel.”

Bible-believers have been doing the unsaved a disservice as we share the gospel with them. We say, 'just believe'. But does not James say that even 'the devils believe and tremble'? When soulwinning, we often tell people to just admit that they are a sinner and believe in Jesus. Then we go on to stress MANY assurance verses. This is terribly wrong. What we need to be stressing is REPENTANCE from dead works.

"We don't need to spend half of our time on assurance. It's okay for somebody to be scared when they are doing wrong. That's called the fear of the Lord. That's called working out your salvation with fear and trembling! They need to stop doing evil and be holy like the Lord. Yet we say, 'Don't worry, you can do any old thing and still get in. You can sin as much as you want to, don't worry about God's commandments.' This flies in the face of many scriptures like--

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

2 Peter 1:10-11 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

"You see, many people pray, 'the sinner's prayer' because they are scared of hell, but they still want to live like Satan. In other words, they are CONVICTED of their sins, but they certainly have not REPENTED of their sins. That's why they don't show up at your fellowship after you 'lead them to Christ'. That's why they don't get baptized. That's why they are still at the club on Ladies' Night.
"Some of Jesus' first words as he entered into his earthly ministry were, 'REPENT ye and BELIEVE the gospel.' He also said, 'Unless ye REPENT ye shall likewise perish.' When looking at the word repent, we find it, and the concept of it, throughout the ENTIRE Bible. Repentance is not simply a mental ascent to the fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to save your hide. It is about a change of AUTHORITY in your life. Before I got saved, I ran my own wicked life while Satan kicked my hind parts all up and down the street. When I got saved, I saw myself as a dirty rotten sinner who had transgressed the commandments of God. I knew that I needed to start listening to HIS AUTHORITY and to give up my evil ways. I was no longer in control, I was no longer the authority--JESUS BECAME MY LORD, MY AUTHORITY. Now many softie Bible college students (including one that wrote here) will call that 'Lordship salvation' and say that it is wrong, even heretical. To that, I say that my King James Bible CLEARLY shows me that anything less than making Jesus your Lord is UNACCEPTABLE to God. Many scriptures confirm this. 1 John is a good book to look at to see the differences between the true believer and the fake.

Jesus didn't save us to live like Satan's world. He gives us plenty of scriptures to use as a mirror to examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith (as Paul saith). Jesus also said that our outer life will MOST CERTAINLY show if we belong to him or not. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Yea, we have different levels of growth, but the growth WILL come. Our God is exceeding fruitful--remember how Jesus is the groom and we are the bride? In a man-woman relationship, children result from the union. In a relationship with Jesus, good works result--FRUIT!Repentance is not lip service. Anybody can say "Lord, I repent." True repentance is marked by some ACTION because you mean it.

John the Baptist said, "Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance."

Jesus gave a parable in Matthew 21 where a man had two sons. He went to the first son and said, "Son, go work today in my vineyard." The son responded, "I will not." But then afterward he repented, and went to work in the vineyard. The man also went to his second son and said the same thing. The second son said, "I'm going." But he didn't go. Which one did the will of his father? The repentance of the first son was in his heart and as a result it showed in his actions--HE WENT. Repentance is not simply a state of mind. It is understanding your wickedness and saying, "I am a vile thing who has ignored the Lord of glory. I am resolved to live under the Lord's commands and His authority--whatever it takes!" THAT is the kind of Christian that the world wants to see. Bold, serious, sold-out, and sanctified.

What are some actions that we should expect in new converts? Baptism, Bible study, a pronounced change in life, etc. We need to handle the new convert tenderly, soberly, gravely. We don't need to bombard them with a bunch of jokes and dinners. We need to teach them sound doctrine thereby equipping them to go out and fulfill the will of the Lord in their life. And by example, we need to show them how to live the Christian life.