ADVENT 2019: NAME 1: IMMANUEL

Advent is probably one of my favorite seasons. It's a time for preparation, and anticipation. This year is no different. I decided though to spend my time writing a short devotion that is dedicated to Jesus and the Names that we have given our Savior in the Bible. The First name I chose goes with the candle that we will be lighting today: the PROPHECY name of IMMANUEL. 

Isaiah told King Ahaz to give him a sign. Yet Ahaz would refuse to request a sign, the prophet said that God would give him one anyway. And He did. Isaiah 7:14 

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

What I love is the fact that this verse starts with the simple word "Therefore." I love it because it signals the fact that even though we can say "I am (or will) not.." God can and often will say "You can't change my mind. Let me show you what I can do." 

The next part of the verse that is significant is "Will give you a sign." "Signs" were of various kinds. They might be actual miracles performed to attest a Divine commission (Exod. 4:3–9); or judgments of God, significative of his power and justice (Exod. 10:2); or memorials of something in the past (Exod. 13:9, 16); or pledges of something still future. Signs of this last-mentioned kind might be miracles (Judg. 6:36–40; 2 Kings 20:8–11), or prophetic announcements (Exod. 3:12; 1 Sam. 2:34; 2 Kings 19:29). These last would only have the effect of signs on those who witnessed their accomplishment. (1)

Without spending too much time, on Mary, because let's be real, Advent is about preparing our hearts for the coming Messiah, I would be amiss not to mention Mary. Strictly speaking the word means a young woman of marriageable age. Logic demands one of two options. The almah must be either (1) an unmarried immoral woman; or (2) a virgin. The birth of a child by an unmarried woman is so common it could not be a “sign.” For this reason the Greek translators, long before the time of Christ, correctly determined that only the word parthenos (virgin) was a suitable translation for almah in this context. (2)

His name is not a mere appellation, which neither Isaiah’s son nor Jesus Christ bore literally; but what describes His manifested attributes; His character (so Is 9:6). The name in its proper destination was not arbitrary, but characteristic of the individual; sin destroyed the faculty of perceiving the internal being; hence the severance now between the name and the character; in the case of Jesus Christ and many in Scripture, the Holy Ghost has supplied this want [Olshausen].(3) 

While the name has come to mean "God with us," it should be better understood as "WITH US is God!" To you this may not be significant, but in understanding the name as this, we are able to capture the awe, and wonder of the incarnation, and the fact that the God of the universe, the creator of all things created, came to become one with us.

How undeserving are we that the king of the universe would leave His place in the heaven to join us in the human experience. So as we prepare our hearts for the coming Messiah, let us remember we are not deserving of such an experience; and that it is only through God's desire to relate to us and to be in relationship with us that we are given this child. 

Bibliography: *Accessed from Logos Bible Software*

(1) H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., Isaiah, vol. 1, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1910), 127.

(2) James E. Smith, The Major Prophets, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992), Is 7:10–16.

(3) Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 437. 

Thanksgiving 2019

November 28, 2019...

I don't typically write a sentimental Thanksgiving post...I normally write from a historic perspective of being happy that my family came to America, that they had interesting lives in Europe and still packed up lives and came here. Today, however, while I am grateful for my ancestors and their lives in Europe and their leaving to come to the colonies to help build a country that we know as the United States, I have decided to write what I am thankful for in 2019.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name! For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations. Psalm 100:4-5

On October 5, 2019, my mom stood in front of my entire family and thanked God for me. She told of how I was born, and all the things that I have learned. My favorite descriptor that my mom used for me was "Rachel is a grabber!" To grab is defined as "to seize something." I guess you could say that since I saw Dead Poet's Society I have decided to live my life by the saying Carpe Diem--a lesson that came at a young age.

2019 saw a lot of change in my life. A decision to wait and see if the UMC split so I could continue with my candidacy; the decision to become a local lay speaker; a change of job, travels to a new country. And while many of these changes aren't life changing to some, they are definitely changing to me.

The first was a hard decisions because he makes people wonder if I am cut out to be a pastor at all. The decision came because I am middle of the road on church politics, I know what I believe, but I can't get deeply into politics. The second decision to train as a local lay speaker was a decision to show just how called I actually am to ministry. These are decisions that I am thankful for because I no longer feel pressure to become and just wait.

My other decision was to take a different job. This job has provided me income that I would never have seen had I stayed where I was and I would have potentially lost my job, since the department where I worked closed. I am thankful that I left before the closing of the department.

My decision to travel, was as a missionary to Kenya. It was one of the best decisions I have made. I was able to minister to children, Muslims, widows, and many others. I was welcomed into homes, just because I was white, I greeted people who had never seen a white person before. I cried as I walked to a waiting plane in Kenya to fly home.

There was much more to be thankful for and I am sure that you all have things to be thankful for also. Every decision we make, good or bad is a decision that we should be thankful for--and we should certainly seize the day.

Kregel Book Review: Big Greek Ideas Series: John's Letters

In seminary, I had the bright idea to take Greek. I hated it! Even today when I speak to young people who want to take Greek, I tell them, "If Hebrew was the language of the Lord, Greek was the language of Satan!" (Jokingly of course!)

However, the editor's of this book had three groups of people in mind--Preachers, Professors, and students. This is a user friendly book, but definitely not a layman's book. It's technically written, it presents ideas from a textbook prospective, it goes deep into Greek, but isn't user friendly to people who haven't studied the languages of the Bible.

This being said, I think it is an amazing book that presented itself well. It would serve well in a classroom setting for people who are seriously studying the Greek language, have studied and need a refresher.

Over all I think the book was well written, subject matter was well thought out and it brought insight to the letters that John wrote.

**This book was provided to me by the publisher for an unbiased opinion.**

I am Evangelical and Orthodox...but definitely not a fundamentalist

Extreme fundamentalism will eventually kill the church. I know this is a brazen statement coming from a conservative Christian. However, having spent most of my life around fundamentalist Christians I can honestly say that extreme anything will kill a relationship, it can even kill a relationship with the almighty creator of the world, not to mention our own relationships with each other, especially between Christians. 

In my study of fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism, I have decided that I am definitely not a fundamentalist. I am Orthodox, but definitely not fundamentalist. Sometimes it’s [Title of Fundamentalist] used to refer simply to having an orthodox Christian position. So we'll often say, "Well, that person takes the Bible seriously. They must be a fundamentalist," when in fact they may not be a fundamentalist at all. They may be simply a person that takes the Bible seriously, but doesn't have the other attributes of fundamentalists. I am always struck by the people’s usage of the terms "evangelical," "born-again" and "fundamentalist" as if they are one and the same, interchangeable even.

The word "evangelical" comes from the Greek "evangelion," meaning "the good news" or "the gospel." During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther adopted the word to describe his breakaway church; for hundreds of years thereafter, "evangelical" meant, simply, "Protestant."
Today in American society, the term is used in three ways, according to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College:

Theologically, it is an umbrella term for Christians who believe in the need for conversion, the command to spread the gospel, the inerrancy of the Bible and the primacy of Jesus Christ's atoning death on the cross.

Stylistically, "evangelical" also describes a kind of religious practice as much as a set of doctrines. This is where you really see the diversity of evangelicalism: Mennonites, African-American Baptists, Southern Baptists, Catholic charismatics and Dutch Reformed all fall under the "evangelical-as-a-style" umbrella.

Politically, "evangelical" describes a coalition of Protestants who used the term in an attempt to distance themselves from the "Christian fundamentalist" movements of the 1920s and '30s. Fundamentalism's hallmarks were anti-intellectualism, anti-modernity and a belief that the church should not engage with culture. Mainstream evangelicals, by contrast, actively sought to be a part of culture in order to transform it.

"Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are not one and the same. They are in many ways opposites.

Evangelicals have four primary characteristics that serve as the unifying factor regardless of denomination or sect (4) (5):

Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a lifelong process of following Jesus

Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts

Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

The modern evangelical movement is often called a friendlier version of fundamentalism and continues to be vibrant and diverse. However, less emphasis has been placed on Biblicism as evidenced by the various opinions of self-proclaimed evangelicals concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. This has created changing opinions concerning traditional Christian values, practices, and lifestyles.

Evangelicals do not see themselves as rebelling against fundamentalism. Rather, they saw themselves as sincere believers who longed for a "Bible-believing" pastor with an education-one who could approach contemporary issues with intellect and eloquence. Whereas, many fundamentalist refuse to see that christians can have an education; instead they must take the Bible literally, usually the KJV. There is no room for poetry, and metaphor. 

What brought up this conversation was the fact that I was in a chatroom on Paltalk and many in the room are extremely anti-Catholic. As I read about various differences in the church, I began reading Carl Olsen’s article about the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists. “Simply put, I define Fundamentalists as conservative Protestants who believe Catholics are not Christian, while Evangelicals are conservative Protestants who, while having reservations about certain points of doctrine, do believe Catholics are Christian.”

In short, Fundamentalism began primarily as a movement fighting to preserve the historic Christian faith.

But in the 1930s, following the blistering defeat of popular fundamentalism in the court of public appeal at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Fundamentalism gradually shifted in its focus. It took on a more extravagant separationist mentality. Fundamentalists began to be identified with a much more legalistic version of Christianity that was losing its voice in the intellectual world and, just as importantly, losing its heart for the culture. It was no longer just those fundamentals of the faith that were under attack by Liberals that Fundamentalists separated from, but from every doctrine and practice of those that they considered to be in cahoots with the liberals. If the culture believes it—if the culture does it—we don’t. Why? Because the culture is evil. Therefore, movies, smoking, card playing, drinking, and cussing became among the fundamentals of the new Fundamentalists. The doctrinal statement of these Fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear.

For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. “Evangelical” was not a new term: it was used to describe the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation. That is why many called this modern Evangelical movement “neo-Evangelical” (coined by Harold J. Ockenga in 1947). Ockenga argued that Fundamentalism had lost its way, having the wrong attitude about the church’s relationship to culture. He believed that Fundamentalism was doing more harm than good and had not had the desired effect on Liberalism either socially or theologically. Edward J. Carnell argued that Fundamentalism was “orthodoxy gone cultic” because of its convictions that went well beyond historic Christianity as represented in the early creeds. Others argued that Fundamentalism was a new form of anti-intellectual Christianity that could not defend itself and would eventually lose relevance and bring Christianity down in the social market of ideas. Evangelicalism came to regain focus and lighten the load.

From this, one can see that there is a great chasm that exists between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals and Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Of course, within Evangelicalism you find those that are more traditional (such as David Wells, John Piper, and John MacArthur) but you also have those who would be more “progressive” (such as Roger Olson, Stanley Grenz,  and N.T. Wright). 

I love how John Greene describes the difference. The differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism are a bit subtle, and oftentimes difficult to understand from the outside. A lot of it is a style. Fundamentalists tend to be very strict. They tend towards intolerance. Notice, I said, "tend towards intolerance." Many of them are not intolerant. But they tend towards that direction. They tend to be very judgmental. They tend to want to require an awful lot of individuals who would join their communion. And they tend to be very, very critical of other Christians -- even other evangelical Christians -- who don't share their very strict approach to religion.

But there are some other things besides style that differentiate fundamentalists from evangelicals. … Evangelicals and fundamentalists both agree that the Bible is inerrant, but fundamentalists tend to read the Bible literally.

Many evangelicals don't actually read it literally. They're willing to understand that there's metaphor and poetry in the Bible, and it's just that the truth expressed in that metaphor and poetry is without error; whereas fundamentalists would tend to want to read even the metaphor and the poetry literally. That's a particular way to interpret the Bible. Many fundamentalists don't want to associate even with other Christians who don't agree with them. They want to separate themselves from people that have fairly similar values. Oftentimes, fundamentalists will even want to separate themselves from people who refuse to separate themselves from people who they don't agree with. Of course, this can be extended a long way.

Evangelicals are not as separatist. They are perfectly willing to cooperate with people of other religious faiths, with whom they don't agree on all of the particulars, for the greater cause of evangelizing and bringing people to Christ. So evangelicals, for instance, will often talk about making common cause with Roman Catholics or with mainline Protestants. Fundamentalists are very reluctant to do that, because they see it as being wrong to associate in religious terms with people with whom they don't have complete agreement. So those differences are sometimes subtle. But in style, belief, and practice, fundamentalists really are different from evangelicals.

Historic fundamentalists and evangelicals are those who identify with the original tenants of Biblical truth and holiness. Fundamentalists directed their efforts more at defending historic doctrines and activities against anti-Biblical teachings that had crept into churches, schools, and institutions. Evangelicals directed their efforts at promoting the preaching of the Gospel and living holy lives regardless of theological differences.

Many fundamentalists today have taken a more militant stand on the truth of Scripture at the expense of love. They demonstrate this by their attitudes and actions toward those who are less conservative. Many evangelicals today have taken a more militant stand on the love of Scripture at the expense of truth. They demonstrate this by their attitudes and actions toward those who are less liberal.

True fundamentalists and evangelicals hold to the Spirit and truth of the faith out of a desire to be like Christ not like what some politician or religious leader tells them they should be (Psalms 11:3; Luke 6:47-49; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 3:9-15).

The Biblical If

I would dare say that "if" is an extremely important word in the scriptures. The word "if" is so important because it speaks directly to our responsibility to God. When the Bible mentions God's blessings and promises, it is often proceeded by the word "if." Yet, people, myself included in this, want to forget the "if" part of God's blessings and just accept them.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA) writer Patricia Holbrook says in her article Fulfilling God's promises requires faith and action: "Many of God's promises are conditional, requiring initiation from our part. Abraham would not have received his promises, had he refused to leave Chaldea. Later on in the Gospels, 10 lepers would not have been healed, had they not obeyed Jesus' instructions to show themselves to the priest. They left the master's presence with bodies still covered in wounds. As they obeyed and trusted Jesus' command, healing took place. There is a time to pray, a time to plan, and a time for action."

Throughout the scriptures, God gives us, His children, certain conditional promises. And if we keep these promises, God will surely act on our behalf.

The first, and most important promise is that of regeneration. You see, from the very beginning, mankind has been under the curse of sin due to our first parents falling to Satan's tempting persuasion in the Garden of Eden. ( Genesis 3:1-7 ) And ever since the fall, all mankind has been born in a state of unregenerate sin. However, God has given mankind a conditional promise, which was first promised at the time of the garden fall ( Genesis 3:15 ) and has continued through to the age of grace.

God promised SALVATION to all those who, by faith in God's free grace, ( Ephesians 2:8-9 ) confessing with their mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and Savior. ( Romans 6:23 ) ( Romans 10:10 ) ( 1 John 1:9 ) ( John 3:16 ) ( John 8:36 )( Isaiah 1:18-19 ) ( 1 Cor 15:2 )

There are many other conditional promises in scripture. Here's just a few:

God will promise to be with us forever ( Hebrews 13:5)
God will give us perfect rest (Matthew 11:28)
God will work all things to our good (Romans 8:28)
God will establish a kingdom throne ( 1 Kings 9:1-6 )
God will give you strength ( Isaiah 41:10 )
God will except you if you do what's right ( Genesis 4:7 )
God will except you if you obey Him ( Exodus 19:5 )
God will help you if you are not corrupt (Deuteronomy 4:25-26)
God will except you if you obey His laws ( Deuteronomy 7:12 )
God will except you if you don't follow other gods ( Deuteronomy 8:19 ( Deuteronomy 11:13-15, 22,23 )
God will bless you if you obey Him ( Deuteronomy 11:26-28 )
God will bless you if you don't listen to false prophets ( Deuteronomy 13:1-3 )
God will forgive you ( Matthew 6:14-15 )
God will help you in your faith ( Matthew 17:20 )( Luke 17:6 ) ( Matthew 21:22)
God will give us eternal life if we keep His word ( John 8:51 ) ( John 11:40 )
God's strict warning (Revelation 22:18-19 )

Then, in ( 2 Chronicles 7: 14 ) we see one of the most well-known conditional promises of god. One which is quoted frequently. Especially, in the age we are living. God gives His people a Biblical paradox. Here, God gives a big "if" followed by a big " I will". And these paradoxes are simply stated.

Conversely, God's word tells us that in the last days, a sinful life style will emerge. ( 2 Timothy 3:1-9, 13 ) However, here we have another Biblical paradox. For in ( 2 Timothy 3:14-15 ) the scriptures tell us that we, as Christians, have a contrasting option, in that we have known and believed the scared writing of the scripture from our very childhood.

You see, God will always do what he has promised, if we will do the same. This, however, requires our full commitment, obedience and cooperation. To receive these conditional blessings, we must adhere to the stipulations He has given.

As you find promises in the Word of God, stop and consider the condition that may be attached. God’s promises and blessings are not ours to enjoy regardless of how we live the Christian life; but it’s as we die to self and learn the character of Christ that we begin to see the rewards of God’s blessing upon our lives.

Biblical Illiteracy and the Solution

Earlier in the week I was asked "Rai, is John the Baptist and John the Revelator the same person?" If you are a theologist you can imagine my surprise at such a question. Especially since it came from someone who is always reading the Bible and seeking understanding of the Scriptures. 

However, it shows a real problem in the church today--Christians are biblically illiterate and it's not just Christians, it's people in general. While we are worried about a secular world view creeping in to our homes, we are neglecting the solution of Biblical Illiteracy.

Researchers George Gallup and Jim Castelli put the problem squarely: "Americans revere the Bible--but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates." Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. "No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don't know what they are," said George Barna, president of the firm.

Christine Emba writing in the Washington Post, 

According to a survey last year by LifeWay Research, more than half of Americans have read little or none of the Bible. Theologian Albert Mohler has noted, aghast, that more than 10 percent of Americans think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. In 2010, the Pew Research Center revealed that only half of self-identified Christians could identify the four Gospels. (In case you’re wondering this Easter eve, they’re Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.) And as the number of religious “nones” in the United States continues to rise, the amount of even cursory religious knowledge we share seems sure to fall. She went on to say "In response to the Journal’s gaffe, a few wags noted (tongues only partially in cheek, one must presume) that most Americans would be more likely to recognize a Harry Potter reference than a biblical one."

According to Albert Mohler, "Christians who lack biblical knowledge are the products of churches that marginalize biblical knowledge. Even the pulpit has been sidelined in many congregations. Preaching has taken a back seat to other concerns in corporate worship." 

Here is another issue, because we have began to marginalize biblical knowledge, and the pulpit has began to sideline sound teaching, our spiritual selves have began to starve. We are not getting the nutrients we need to sustain spiritual health.

Kenneth Berding tells the story of Stacey Irvine. Stacey Irvine ate almost nothing but chicken nuggets for 15 years. She never tasted fruits or vegetables. She occasionally supplemented her diet with French fries. One day her tongue started to swell and she couldn’t catch her breath. She was rushed to the hospital, her airway was forced open, and they stuck an IV in her arm to start pumping in the nutrients she needed. After saving her life, the medical staff sent her home, but not before they warned her that she needed to change her diet or prepare herself for an early death.

The Old Testament book of Psalms leads off with these words:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. (Ps. 1:1–3)

The good news is this problem is not new or surprising to God. In fact, God has continued to use and grow His Church for millennia. So how do we solve this problem? I propose three remedies. 

First, we need biblical preaching. Biblical preaching teaches people week in and week out to rely on the text for their spiritual journey. As they see their pastor doing this, they will look to the Scriptures for answers to life and godliness. And when people open the Bible weekly, they will become encouraged to open it daily. When congregations see the Bible treated faithfully and in a way that is hermeneutically responsible, they see a model of how they can and should live that way too. 

Second, we need dependence on the Scriptures and the Spirit. We must not separate reliance on the Scriptures from a dependence on the Spirit, who informs and deepens our knowledge. We must read the Bible, but we must also allow the Bible to read us. We must grow in knowledge so that we may grow in faith. 

Third, we need an experience that is informed by the Word. Experience is essential and normal in the Christian life. God designed and created our emotions and perceptions to contribute to our understanding of who He is. Yet human experiences alone are unreliable. 

As Isaiah says, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8, ESV). People and their philosophies come and go, but the Word of our God remains — true and unchanging — throughout eternity. Verse 9 calls us to announce the good news that lifts up the true God in all His glory. 

Experiences rooted in the special Word of God point us to the special Person of God revealed in Jesus Christ. When congregations see their leaders living this way, they will cling closely to the Scriptures as their guide for sound theology and powerful experience.

Let’s point people to the true God through expositional preaching, dependence on the Scriptures and the Spirit, and experiences informed by His Word. Then they will fall in love with the true Savior.