Uncategorized – Page 76

Re-Post: Paul said, “Be Not Ignorant!”

Posted on April 5, 2017April 5, 2017 by elizabethprata

I wrote and posted this 6 years ago, in April 2011. It’s even more true today, as masses of believers are ignorant of eschatology, spiritual gifts, and Israel’s future. What’s worse, they think that’s OK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paul warned his readers in three different Epistles not to be ignorant of something. In all three cases, the word is the same, agnoeó. It means ignorant of facts. In terms of comprehending the bible, there are certain things to be aware of. When imperatives are used, we need to be pay special attention. When a command is used, we should perk up to something we are being told to do, or not do. The Holy Spirit inspired all the bible writers to write these words, and the Holy Spirit is one part of the Triune God. So God is commanding something, and we have to PAY ATTENTION.

Paul said, “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,” (Romans 11:25). Barnes Notes explains the word ‘mystery’ thus:

“Ignorant of this mystery – The word “mystery” means properly what is “concealed, hidden, or unknown.” And it especially refers, in the New Testament, to the truths or doctrines which God had reserved to himself, or had not before communicated. It does not mean, as with us often, that there was anything unintelligible or inscrutable in the nature of the doctrine itself, for it was commonly perfectly plain when it was made known. Thus, the doctrine, that the division between the Jews and the Gentiles was to be broken down, is called a mystery, because it had been, to the times of the apostles, concealed, and was then revealed fully for the first time.”

Paul was explaining to the Jews that though the Gentiles were now coming in, God would not forsake the Jews totally. After all, Paul said Jesus had saved Paul, hadn’t He? It wasn’t over for the Jews, but Paul did remind them that God was now rejecting a large part of the nation because of their past rebellion. His attention and grace would be showered on the Gentiles, who were being grafted in. The Jews would remain hardened of heart – until the full number of Gentiles was met. But just as God had always done in the past, a remnant would be saved.

The Jews would receive their Kingdom as promised, but their entry into it must as always be by faith through His grace, not birthright. As for us today who have claimed salvation through Jesus – Whom we recognize as our Messiah – we will continue in the Church Age until the full number is filled and then we fly. It is why the rapture isn’t a date, it is a number. It will not be May 21, unless that is the day that God has deemed the Church quota filled.

The second thing Paul said not to be ignorant about is spiritual gifts. “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:” (1 Corinthians 12:1-3). Paul was reminding the Church of the importance of the gifts, through which we accomplish the work the Holy Spirit wants us to accomplish to build up the church. (1 Corinthians 14:12) The gifts are important, they are given (which is a grace and a blessing) to build up the church (ditto) and they grow the Christian himself as well (bonus). Bible.org explains, “a spiritual gift is the supernatural ability to carry out the work of Christ through his church.”

And yet the spiritual gifts doctrine is precisely what many people are mixed up over. ‘You must speak in tongues or you’re not a real Christian.” “What’s my spiritual gift, let me take this questionnaire.” People certainly are ignorant of the gifts, sad to say. Satan did a good job of mixing us all up on that. If we are mixed up as to the truth of the spiritual gifts, then we are not as effectively building the church, are we?

Thirdly, Paul warned the church not to be ignorant of the doctrine of Last Days and the Coming of The Lord. “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains:

“The leading topic of Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica having been the coming kingdom (Acts 17:7), some perverted it into a cause for fear in respect to friends lately deceased, as if these would be excluded from the glory which those found alive alone should share. This error Paul here corrects.”

What are the exact three things the Church is ignorant of? What are most arguments over these days? The rapture doctrine and what is forecast for Israel, the spiritual gifts doctrine (speaking in tongues and healing gifts, and the Charismatics, for example) and the doctrine of the Coming of the Lord.

Paul said do not be ignorant three times, and yet in this day and age so many people are three times as ignorant as they ever were.

A solution for ignorance is available. The Spirit. He helps interpret scripture: 1 Cor. 2:1,14; Eph. 1:17. If your house was on fire, you would call the fire department for help, wouldn’t you? If a robber was breaking into your house, you would call the police department wouldn’t you? Both are dire circumstances, signifying events that need an authority of higher power and skill to help you. And yet we so often fail to call the Holy Spirit, our higher authority possessing more skill and knowledge to bring to the situation than we could ever hope to see anywhere! Praise Him. Here is a good page outlining the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Ignorance leads to error. “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29) Call on Him through prayer, and abide in the Spirit’s power:
“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Romans 8:11).

blind to the truth — Do not be blind to satan’s schemes. Life is not a game and it is not to be frivolously wasted. Collage by EPrata

discernment, Uncategorized

Billy Graham Rule: a short, touching follow up by Jared C. Wilson

Posted on April 4, 2017April 4, 2017 by elizabethprata

Yesterday I’d published a piece on the criticism of Vice-President Mike Pence and his statement that he does not eat alone or spend time alone with women other than his wife. Pence’s commitment stems from what’s known as the ‘Billy Graham Rule.’ Early in his career Graham had set out 4 rules by which he and his team would follow.

-Don’t be alone with women
-Don’t criticize the local church
-Be scrupulous with reporting Crusade attendance
-Be transparent with Crusade finances

In my piece yesterday, I’d looked at the issue of one’s motivation for instituting personal rules for behavior. If your motivation is to serve and honor God, personal rules can be an enhancement to one’s sanctification, although caution is needed so one’s rules don’t become a substitute for scripture, nor a hard-and-fast blind tradition. If your motivation for instituting personal rules is external-only and to win man’s approval and applause, and to avoid man’s criticism, then no rule is going to aid your sanctification, ever.

Today’s follow-up piece has one point. Man will always criticize you, especially if you’re a pastor. The flesh in man, sanctified or unsanctified, always finds a negative in which to fill in a gap. Even if you institute ‘Billy Graham Rules’ like Graham did, where he chose even to avoid eating with his adult daughter because of how people might perceive it if they didn’t know she was his daughter, man will still find something with which to criticize you. That’s what the part below clearly shows us.

So, are strict rules worth it especially they cause you to violate other scriptures in the process? No. And if you somehow miraculously achieve being well-spoken of by many, it may be a woe to you! (Luke 6:26). Though we do care about appearances because we do care about holiness, we also know that there will always be someone on the fringes watching and accuse you, (me) either to our faces or behind our backs.

Finally, Jesus behaved perfectly and followed ALL the rules, and He was killed. We can never escape criticism, if that is your reason for instituting personal rules for behavior.

If we are SO concerned with appearances that we alter our behavior to the degree that the rules we institute to guide us overtake our genial and joyful nature in Jesus and trust in Him as our ultimate Advocate, then we have become a Pharisee.

The best thing to do with respect to personal holiness is to follow the Bible’s prescriptive commands. Follow the spirit of the descriptive gray areas. Be scrupulous and transparent in behavior. If you follow the center line of Jesus’ path you will be well-served, because Jesus is your Advocate.

The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold, And each is tested by the praise accorded him. (Proverbs 27:21)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains the Proverbs verse:

Praise tests character. A man to his praise—according to his praise, as he bears it. Thus vain men seek it, weak men are inflated by it, wise men disregard it, &c.

With those thoughts in mind, here is Pastor Wilson’s recounting of his experience with the Pharisaical accusers. The sentences are in short bursts because this was a Twitter blast. In my opinion, the recounting of that experience is a good illustration of Matthew 23:23-24, where people were so concerned with appearances they forgot love, mercy, and kindness.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I [Jared C. Wilson] was once accused of eating a meal with a woman for lustful reasons, even though it was in plain view of our church in fellowship hall.

She was a lady from our town, an unbeliever, and dressed immodestly. I entered the hall late after most everyone was seated at tables.

She was at a table all by herself. Numerous church folks, women included, filed past her to sit at other tables. The image stunned me.

I stood there for a second & watched this lady sitting all alone, ignored and unmet. And my heart was broken for her. I sat down w her.

I was not attracted to her at all. She was dressed immodestly but she wasn’t, to my taste, attractive. (Not sure why I share that.)

I heard her story. Drug addict. Single mom. In and out of hospital for constant surgeries after a car accident.

I listened mostly. Invited her to come to church service. (This was a community fellowship-type thing.) But I mostly listened.

Almost immediately after, 2 ladies approached me, smirking, cracking jokes about pastor sitting with woman w “boobs hanging out”

I said, “If either one of you, or anybody else, had deemed her worthy of your time, I might not have needed to.”

I also told them I didn’t appreciate the accusations, which could do great harm to the reputations of me, my family, and the church.

One of them apologized. The other kind of snooted & walked away.

In that instance, at least, I was willing as a pastor to have my reputation “tarnished” for doing what I think Jesus would have done.

Not sure if that relates to the “Billy Graham rule,” which I mostly hold to personally out of respect for my wife. But, The End.

Jared C. Wilson is‏ Director of Content Strategy, @MBTS. Managing Editor, of For the Church, Gospel-centered resources from Midwestern Seminary, Director, Liberty Baptist Church Pastoral Training Center, @jaredcwilson.

discernment, Uncategorized

Mike Pence, the “Billy Graham Rule” and Pharisees

Posted on April 3, 2017April 3, 2017 by elizabethprata

Of late the secular world has mocked a Christian. It’s not news.

Except that the Christian they mocked was the Vice President of the United States, which tends to be news. Further, the mocking ensued because Pence had said he chooses to honor his wife by not spending time alone with women, including eating in restaurants alone with them.

Gasp. Yawn.

This week Vice President Mike Pence was called everything from crazy to bizarre to employing ‘benevolent sexism’ to being a misogynist. In one of the more tame news articles about the issue was the UK Guardian. I chose The Guardian over CNN, NPR, Time Magazine etc. specifically because the media outlet is not American and hopefully they would have some objectivity. Author of the article, Jessica Valenti, opened it this way:

this week a Washington Post article about Karen Pence revealed that the vice-president will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife. Those on the right are commending Pence’s marital devotion and moral fortitude, claiming that such a rule is a smart defense against sexual temptation.

One conservative blogger questioned where there was ever a good reason for a married person to eat out alone with a member of the opposite sex; the former CEO of the blog RedState chimed in to answer: “Planning your spouse’s surprise party or funeral and that is it.”

pence Left, VP Pence with wife Karen at Pre-Inaugural dance. Source

So far, so good. Valenti ended her article this way:

Pence is a misogynist. We know it from his voting record, we know it from the things that he’s said about women’s rights and now we know it because of his odd personal rule not to dine with women alone. But let’s not let one man’s sexism distract us from his whole party’s sexist agenda.

OK, so maybe the objective perspective I was hoping for isn’t there after all. But are we surprised? No.

Alternately, The Baptist Press wrote:

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin responded that he has made the same commitment to his wife Charlotte … Akin, author of two books about marriage based on the Bible’s Song of Solomon, told Baptist Press, “The day I married Charlotte I made the same pledge to her that Mike Pence has made to his wife. I have never broken it. I promised her I would never be alone with any woman other than she. I did not make this promise because I am afraid of women or think they are of lesser value and worth than men. I made it because I know the sinfulness of my own heart.

“The Bible teaches us that King David was a man after God’s own heart,” Akin said in written comments. “But because he was at the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong person, he lied, committed adultery and murdered. I doubt I love God more than David. If something like that could happen to him, then it could happen to me. My goal is to go to my grave being faithful to Charlotte. I really don’t care what the world thinks when it comes to this issue.”

Akin’s explanation goes to the heart of Godly conduct. There is a difference between loving God and wanting to honor Him through our behavior, and men who want to appear sincere because they seek man’sglory and applause.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, the Rev. Billy Graham became the
‘primary engine of America’s Cold War religious revival.’ Source
Courtesy of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association BY TIM FUNK

Mike Pence’s vow comes from what’s colloquially called “The Billy Graham Rule.”

In 1948 when the famed traveling evangelist was starting what became his itinerant global program, Graham realized that certain problems had consistently plagued previous traveling preachers. At that time, Graham was also grievously affected after reading the 1927 book by Sinclair Lewis, Elmer Gantry.

Gantry is an incendiary indictment upon huckster preachers. Author Lewis exposed the fictional character’s hypocritical mindset from the inside of the huckster’s conscience and showed the true evil of religious charlatanism. The book infuriated America. Here is Wikipedia with a synopsis of the book’s reception:

The result is a novel that satirically represents the religious activity of America in evangelistic circles and the attitudes of the 1920s toward it. On publication in 1927, Elmer Gantry created a public furor. The book was banned in Boston and other cities and denounced from pulpits across the United States.

Elmer Gantry had a profound effect not just on America, but on the young up and coming traveling evangelist Billy Graham, who urgently and vocally stated he wanted to avoid any perception of similarity to the scurrilous Gantry.

Adding insult to injury, Graham was particularly stung after seeing an Atlanta Journal Constitution photographic array that juxtaposes one photo of a smiling, hearty, waving Graham with another photo of men carrying away two huge bags of money after the Crusade’s love offering in that city. Graham wrote,

The day after the closing meeting on December 10 [1950], the Atlanta Constitution, accompanying its wrap-up story of the Crusade, printed two pictures side by side. In the first, I was grinning broadly and waving good-bye as I stepped into a car for my departure to South Carolina. In the next, two Crusade ushers, with a uniformed police sergeant between them, could barely wrap their arms around four bulging money sacks. “GRAHAM ‘LOVE OFFERING’ COLLECTED AT FINAL SERVICE,” read the caption. I was horrified by the implication. Was I an Elmer Gantry who had successfully fleeced another flock? Many might just decide I was.

Graham wanted at all costs to avoid that perception. Graham’s main concern, as he wrote in his autobiography and stated in interviews and press conferences, was public perception. Obedience to Biblical precepts were not mentioned nearly so often and never as the main reason Graham instituted his Rules, one of which involved the ‘never alone with women’ vow. There are actually 4 “rules” the then-group created for themselves as a boundary of their personal conduct while away from home. One was the aforementioned “never eat alone/be alone with a woman”. Also, never to inflate attendance numbers and always report honestly. Third, be scrupulous and transparent in finances. Last, they would avoid criticism of local churches.

According to Graham’s autobiography Just As I Am,the magazine Christianity Today has a short recounting of how this ‘rule’ began:

“Sinclair Lewis’s fictional character Elmer Gantry had given traveling evangelists a bad name. To our sorrow, we knew that some evangelists were not much better than Lewis’s scornful caricature. One afternoon during the Modesto meetings, I called the team together to discuss the problem. Then I asked them to go to their rooms for an hour and list all the problems they could think of that evangelists and evangelism encountered. When they returned, the lists were remarkably similar, and we soon made a series of resolutions that would guide us in our future work.”

I make the point that it is good that men (and women) want to conform to God’s standards of behavior with respect to personal piety. It’s good. However where the sticky wicket comes in is the motivation for doing so. Is the person doing it to please God, or men? (Galatians 1:10).

Graham says of the issue, “There is always the chance of misunderstanding. I remember walking down the street in New York with my beautiful blond daughter, Bunny. I was holding her hand. I heard somebody behind us say, ‘There goes Billy Graham with one of those blond girls.'”

Graham and his associates also charted a careful, if rather unusual strategy to ensure the evangelist would not be tainted by the suspicion of sexual impropriety. From that point on, Graham would not to travel, meet, or dine alone with any woman other than his wife Ruth — even his very own daughters when they came of age.

~Source, Billy Graham, Elmer Gantry, and the Performance of a New American Revivalism, a dissertation by Kurt A. Edwards

The favorable side of adopting “rules” are that they can be a personal stamp on biblical precepts, applied to life. Following rules is to be done unto the glory of God to the praise of God. Personal piety is an act of worship, it’s not an external performance. The danger with man-made “rules” are more numerous. You have the danger of hypocritical piety. You have the danger of elevating your rule over the Bible. You have the danger of the rule becoming codified into tradition. You have rather than upholding God’s precepts, disobedience of them. In Graham’s case, if Mr Edwards’ quote is correct, Graham chose to sacrifice his relationship with his adult daughters so as to avoid perceptions of impropriety and man’s disapproval.

The Bible says in Ephesians 6:4, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” And in Colossians 3:1 we read, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”

Early Graham Crusade poster

Here at Ligonier, Jerry Bridges discusses:

The most proximate cause of the Pharisees’ antagonism toward Jesus, however, lay in His ignoring of their hundreds of elaborate but petty rules that they had devised for interpreting the law of God. Not only did they devise these hundreds of man-made rules, but they had also elevated them to the level of Scripture, so that to break one of their rules was to violate the law of God itself. And yet these rules not only obscured the true intent of God’s law, but also, in some cases, actually violated it (see Mark 7:9–13).

Are Billy Graham’s four “rules” God-honoring, or Pharisaical? Again, it depends on the reason for creating the rules and it depends a few other things, too. Here, Cameron Buettel’s recent series at John MacArthur’s site helps. He wrote that there were several biblical earmarks of these corrupt [Pharisaical] characters. One of them is:

If You Supplement Scripture with Man-Made Rules, You Might Be a Pharisee

The Pharisees were far more fixated with enforcing their own pharisaical legal code than they were with administering God’s law. They did this by adding mountains of unbiblical fine print to biblical commands as well as inventing their own doctrines apart from Scripture:

Cameron wrote in another part to the Legalism series,

Thankfully, we don’t have to live under the oppressive minutia of pharisaical rules. Nonetheless, many Christians do live their lives in bondage to a similar strain of legalism—one where their Christian identity is largely defined by man-made rules.

That was certainly the case in my earliest experiences as a new Christian. The church I attended had roots in the holiness movement, and the pastor was certainly old school. He believed that salvation was solely by God’s grace, but maintaining that salvation was another story altogether.

My early Christian education primarily revolved around what not to do. Drinking, gambling, dancing, and close proximity to the opposite sex were all strictly taboo. Maintaining that code of conduct made me a member in good standing at my local congregation. Admittedly, I believe following those rules spared me from a lot of personal grief as a young man. But trying to live out those prohibitions was detrimental to my theology—I developed an inverted view of sanctification, believing that good works were the requirement rather than the natural fruit of spiritual regeneration. Source

Establishing our own rules bounding our personal godly conduct can be good. However, they can easily morph into external appearances for man’s approval. As I read numerous and voluminous primary and secondary sources in Graham’s case, Graham had primarily instituted the rules known as the Modesto Manifesto due to his intent to avoid public perception as an Elmer Gantry huckster-type character. And that’s not a good enough reason. (Matthew 23:5).

If one plans to institute rules for one’s life along biblical lines, I believe President Akin’s intent proves the more eternal one. It is an intent grounded in the question, ‘Do I love God more than I love the applause and regard of men?’ It is, ‘Am I being faithful to His precepts and carrying them out in life, to His glory?’ Only the individual man or woman knows their most secret temptations, and appeals to the Spirit might have resulted in their decision to establish personal rules. Others deal with temptations a different way. Ultimately, don’t let the rules become all.

As Buettel stated, we need to be wary of ‘adding mountains of unbiblical fine print to biblical commands as well as inventing our own doctrines apart from Scripture’ in order to pursue holiness. Though personal rules might help. It’s the Holy Spirit who conforms us to Jesus, through our resistance to temptation and mortification f sin, not how well we appear to others.

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery that returns you to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15).

encouragement, Uncategorized

Powers’ work in visual exegesis & Challies’ book “Visual Theology” come with study guides

Posted on April 2, 2017April 2, 2017 by elizabethprata

Even at the beginning, when God ordered the Israelite craftsmen to build the tabernacle, He instructed the men to create objects that were not merely functional, but beautiful. Some of the items were not functional at all, but solely for beauty’s sake. Most people enjoy things that are more beautiful rather than less beautiful. Since then, people created beautiful things dedicated to God through paintings, drawings, or sculptures intended to honor Him by beautifying their church. The beautiful theological visual is not an oxymoron, nor it is unorthodox. Here is RC Sproul on beauty as one of the legs of the stool we include as foundational to faith, in his essay For Glory and Beauty–

The Christian faith is like a stool with three legs, but we have a tendency to make our stools with only one or two legs. The three legs that properly belong to the Christian faith, the three elements of the faith, are the good, the true, and the beautiful. It is obvious that God is concerned about goodness, for He is the fountainhead of everything that is good (Gen. 1:31; James 1:17). As His people, we are called to mirror and reflect who He is, which means we are called to reflect the good. Likewise, God is deeply concerned about truth, for He is Himself the essence of truth (Isa. 65:16; John 14:6). Therefore, we are to be people who love and practice truth. Finally, as we have seen, God is highly concerned about that which is beautiful. As we read and study the Scriptures, we have to come to the conclusion that there is an ultimate source of beauty — the character of God. Just as the normative standard for goodness and truth is God, so the ultimate standard of beauty is God, and He is very interested in beauty in His creation.

John Bunyan is credited with making the first visual theological chart, his Ordo Salutis. In today’s time, there have recently been two books published which explore visual theology.

Chris Powers’ book Visual Exegesis, Vol. 1; and Tim Challies’/Josh Byers’ Visual Theology. As Justin Taylor said in his review of the Byers/Challies’ book,

Most theology books merely convey what we are to believe, but this one uses creative and beautiful design to capture and portray these crucial truths.

By themselves, both these books are worth your time. However what I wanted to point out also is that the Challies book comes with an 80-page study guide. And many of Powers’ animations as well as all his still pieces also come with written guides and explanations from scripture, which you can find at his site fullofeyes.com. The pictures plus the study guides, make these books valuable group teaching tools as well insightful as for individual learning.

As Chris Powers explains,

Imagery will always be secondary when it comes to declaring the glory of God in Christ, and so I want to make an explicit link between the imagery I am sharing and the words of scripture from which they spring

Westminster Books is offering until April 7, 2017, a free printed study guide with each purchased book Visual Theology ($11). If you miss the deal, or already own the book, you can download the Visual Theology Study Guide for free, here.

Uncategorized, visual exegesis

Chris Powers: Shall I Not Drink the Cup?

Posted on April 2, 2017April 2, 2017 by elizabethprata

Chris Powers is creating visual resources for the global church. These include artistic renderings of scripture, animations, and his first book, Visual Exegesis, Vol. 1, available on Amazon. These resources also include study guides for use in small groups.

His work is biblical, moving, and expertly rendered. Please take a look at his work at FullOfEyes.com, or on https://www.patreon.com/fullofeyes/posts

Shall I Not Drink the Cup…

Matthew 26:39, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me…”
Mark 14:36, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me…”
Luke 22:42, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me…”
John 18:11, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

While reading in John18 this morning I decided to do a quick word search on the Greek work behind “cup” (using biblearc, which is a wonderful study tool).

What was especially moving about doing this was to see that, while it is used a number of times in the Synoptics, the climactic use of “cup” in Matthew, Mark and Luke is always the prayer in Gethsemane. And then the only use in John is the one above. It’s as if in doing the word search I heard the threefold prayer of Christ to the Father: Father, let this cup pass, yet not as I will, but as you will…Abba, let this cup pass, but not my will, yours be done….Father, if it is possible let this cup pass, but your will be done……….and then, the next time we see the word, Jesus is saying, “put away your sword, Peter, shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

The Lord’s hope was not granted to Him….His genuine desire and–I think we must say–genuine hope that, perhaps the cup would pass from Him….this was shattered before His eyes as He saw Judas and the others approaching……the cup would not pass, He would have to drink it to its dregs. And see the love and grace and humility with which He receives the cup! “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

This is the love of the Savior….it is His love for the Father (14:31), and it is His love for His Church (15:9, 13). Love–the enjoyment and communication of God–Love takes the cup of wrath from the Father and drinks it to the final damning drop. Yes, it is love that does this, love that bears this most horrific of sufferings…..what is stronger than love? As the Song of Songs reminds us, it is strong(er) than death and fierce(er) than the grave, the very fire of YHWH.

Indeed, it is the Fire of YHWH, His love IS the fire of His wrath that would consume all that opposes the communion of His Trinitarian life, and His love IS the fire of Christ’s heart that swallows up and extinguishes the flames of wrath in itself. Love has wrought the greatest work of reality, it has borne the greatest burden, faced the greatest test, endured the deepest hardships……what can steel the soul for war and strengthen the mind to endure and drive the body into torments? Love alone. Love alone….only God known and enjoyed. This is what moved our Lord–after pouring out His soul in pleading that it might pass from Him–to reach up and take the cup of wrath that we deserved and to bear it fully in Himself.

encouragement, Uncategorized

Behold the Works!

Posted on April 1, 2017April 1, 2017 by elizabethprata

On Sunday, our pastor was preaching through Galatians 5. Paul is reminding the Galatians about the grace that saved them, and how they have fallen away from it by adding works (of the Law-circumcision). Our pastor spent some time dwelling on this.

Galatians 5:2-6:

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

At one point he was talking of how we must remember how utterly depraved we are in the sight of Jesus. Our sins are dirty, polluted, corrupted and our sins dirty, pollute and corrupt everything and anything we try to do for Jesus, unless we are saved by Grace. Even if we try to preach that salvation is grace PLUS works, it is still a dirty doing. People think they can be saved by works, or add works to grace, because they forget just how holy Jesus is, and how filthy we are. The Galatians certainly did.

Our pastor said it’s like a master artist, who had painted a glorious masterpiece, and someone came along and added to it. Someone thinks, “Let me just add to this…” and wrongly believes that Jesus will accept or even needs our help. How could we even possibly believe that even one atom of our help could be added to a work of Jesus and not immediately pollute it?

When he said that, it reminded me of the very real event that had occurred a few years ago in Spain. What happens when you have an old church, an elderly woman, and a fresco that needs restoring?

An elderly woman has unintentionally destroyed a valuable piece of artwork after she decided to ‘restore’ the painting herself. The painting was a 19th century Spanish fresco titled “Ecce Homo” by painter Elias Garcia Martinez. It was donated to the Centro de Estudios Borjanos in Borja, Spain, by the painter’s granddaughter, according to the Telegraph. The centro reportedly holds an extensive archive of regional religious paintings. The woman, a neighbor of the church reportedly in her 80s, thought she would save the church both time and money by restoring the painting herself. The Telegraph described the restoration as, “a botched repair where the intricate brush strokes of Martinez were replaced with a haphazard splattering of the octogenarian’s paint. Years of carefully calculated depth of expression simply washed out by copious amounts of red and brown.” (source)

Cecilia Ginenez, the octogenarian aforementioned, truly was sincere in her attempts to “help” the painting. She was not out to ruin it. But she thought more highly of her ability and works than she ought. And so, her results made the painting worse for the wear.

Three versions of Ecce Homo: left, the original version;
center, the deteriorated fresco; right, the attempted restoration by Cecilia Giménez

Wikipedia describes the event:

The Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) in the Sanctuary of Mercy church in Borja, Spain, is a fresco painted circa 1930 by the Spanish painter Elías García Martínez depicting Jesus crowned with thorns. …[I]ts fame derives from a good faith attempt to restore the fresco by Cecilia Giménez, an untrained elderly amateur, in 2012. The intervention reinterpreted the painting and made it look similar to a monkey, and for this reason it is sometimes known as Ecce Mono (Behold the Monkey).

No…we are saved by glorious grace alone. We do not add works to our salvation as part of the initial justification event. Afterward, of course, while we are being sanctified, we work for Jesus because we obey Him, we love Him, and we are grateful to Him. But before justification, our works are nothing but filthy rags, rubbish, dung, and counts for nothing toward righteousness. What a relief that Jesus does it ALL. Otherwise, take heed, or you will Behold the Monkey!

—————————————–
Further Reading:

What Role do Works have in Salvation?

Is Salvation by Faith Alone, or faith plus works?

Are we saved by faith alone, or do we need works, too?

poetry, Uncategorized

Kay Cude poetry: Satan’s Chimera

Posted on March 31, 2017 by elizabethprata

Poetry by Kay Cude. Click to enlarge. Used with permission.

POSTMODERN-REWRITTEN "WRIT"

discernment, Uncategorized

How to Contend for the Faith Part 3- Putting it all together

Posted on March 30, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

The End Time: How to Contend for the Faith Part 1
The End Time: How to Contend for the Faith Part 2

————————————————

In Part 1 I outlined the fact that we’re all called to contend for the faith. This includes witnessing, protecting the message from corruption, and correcting ourselves and others when the message is corrupted, which inevitably tends to happen. I also addressed what I call ‘drive-by commenters’.

Though we all read the same Bible, Christians disagree. What is the root of disagreement? In part 2 I outlined three reasons why disagreements arise.

In this part, I offer some biblical ideas about how to positively engage in civil discourse that becomes contentious.

Mixed messages?

And there’s the rub. The Bible offers lots of verses on how to speak civilly, but also offers contrasting examples of people delivering their message both civilly and in seemingly uncivil ways.

For example … Jesus and John the Baptist called the Pharisees vipers. Paul suggested the Judaizers emasculate themselves. He called the false apostles ‘deceitful workmen’, he affirmed the well-known idiom that the Cretans were ‘always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ Peter said of the false ones that ‘they were brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.’ Jude said that false ones were ‘dreamers [who] pollute their own bodies,’ and are ‘grumblers and fault finders; they follow their own evil desires.’

Name calling? Rough language? There sure are some mixed messages. For example, on the one hand, James 3:10 says let not praise of Jesus and cursing of men come from your lips. Yet Paul praised Jesus in Galatians 1:5, and in verse 8 he pronounced a curse on the false Christian men leading his flock astray! He let praise and cursing come from his lips, and in rapid fire succession, too! Though skilled in every kind of discourse, Paul also employed holy sarcasm. Can we be sarcastic too? Maybe. Maybe not?

I am not suggesting that the Bible is in error in any way. The examples of the Bible writers were not prescriptive, merely descriptive. The Holy Spirit inspired all the men to write what they did. Jesus speaking to the Pharisees, well, He’s Jesus! But I am saying that we should be discerning as to when to use which rhetorical device. Proper discourse takes tact and maturity, caution and patience. Sometimes in the heat of the moment, I lack all four! Gah. Erring on the side of gentleness is best in all cases. I say this from sad experience.

In searching for articles related to civil discourse and theological discourse, I found this one from the magazine published for Methodist Seminarians by Stephen Rankin titled Christian Ethics: Christian Witness in Trying Times. I don’t know about the author in general nor the publication itself, but I liked the article. In it, the author sorts through the various verses that speak to “a Christian engaging a whole range of contentious matters and doing so with both charity and bold truth-telling.” It’s a difficult line to maintain, for me it is, anyway.

One caveat: I do not intend to say that civil discourse means agreeing with others in different faiths. Being civil does not imply agreement. If you Google “fostering civil discourse” combined with the word “Christian” you’ll receive lots of pages teaching that civil discourse means agreeing foundationally at some level “with the LGBT community”, or that persons in “an Abrahamic faith such as Christians and Jews and Muslims all have the same spark of God-knowledge in them”, and so on. Being civil in discourse does not necessarily mean agreement. It is a kind of discourse that acknowledges that we have disagreements – even within and among Christians – but maintains a kindly relationship even as we seek to persuade all men anyway. (2 Corinthians 5:11). This is increasingly difficult to do in these do not judge, angry, flash-point times.

Here is a pertinent excerpt from Mr Rankin’s article. In it, he had given several personal or cultural examples of discourse, then said let’s go to our sources, the Bible.

What does the Bible say?

Going to Our Sources

As we practice thinking about civil discourse, what biblical and theological resources come to mind? The temptation to ask, “What would Jesus do?” I cannot resist, so let us see what we can find by looking at the Gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, we hear of the blessedness of meekness, of mercy, of being peacemakers. Later, in Matt 5, we read Jesus’ injunctions about how we express anger and to reconcile quickly with our opponents (5:21-26). Yet this same Jesus in the same Gospel refers to those religious leaders who opposed him as hypocrites, white-washed tombs, and snakes (ch. 23). It is not so easy to get a clear and unambiguous picture from scripture as to how to engage in conflict with opponents.

By today’s standards, would the Apostle Paul be guilty of “uncivil” discourse? Consider his recounting his confrontation with Peter in Gal 2:11, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face” (NRSV), and he goes on to explain what he saw wrong with Peter’s action around Gentile Christians. The whole letter to the Galatians shows Paul’s alarm and he uses, at times, very colorful words to issue his warning. Paul could be one tough customer!

We do not find, therefore, a simple rubric for engaging in civil discourse, yet we need scriptural guidance.

No simple rubric indeed. I’ve often been confused as to the correct approach to take at any given time. However, the author does offer two important verses to help us navigate the thorny issue of proper boldness buttressed with love; or if you prefer, love buttressed by boldness…

Romans 12:14-21 is full of gentle wisdom, especially v. 18: “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (NRSV). “If it is possible….” Sometimes it isn’t possible. You cannot control the other side of the debate. All you can do is be responsible for you. But this is where the other injunctions found in this passage come into play: Don’t repay evil for evil (as in railing for railing). Leave vengeance to God. Overcome evil with good. And, to go back to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44, NRSV). If I can manage to follow these points, I’ll do well in conflict.

And:

The second passage that consistently comes to mind as I contemplate the goal of civil discourse is Eph 4, especially v. 15: “But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (NRSV). As with Rom 12, this passage addresses a community of Jesus’s followers, and a particularly relevant one for our consideration. Ephesians 2 shows that this congregation is made up of Jew and Gentile, culturally distinct and often suspicious of each other’s backgrounds – a breeding ground for hostility. The immediate context of ch. 4 speaks to the link between sound doctrine and growing to maturity – to the full measure of the stature of Christ.

It’s good to remember the point of theological discourse – growth. Whether it’s the doctrinal edification of a brother, or my own growing fruit as I exhibit patience and gentleness, good discourse should be profitable for all involved.

In truth, we disagree on a significant range of theological and ethical questions, no matter what our denomination’s official stances may be. We, likewise, must with courage and gentleness engage the core issues of the faith, around which we commit to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This desired aim takes work, persistence, courage, and epistemic humility. The Ephesian Christians – made up of Jew and Gentile alike – had to do the same kind of work.

Those precepts make sense to me. Whether it’s Methodist against Methodist as in Mr Rankin’s example, Jew v. Gentile, Christian v. lost person, Arminian v, Calvinist, no matter what the level of polarization seems to be, it’s difficult to maintain the “civil” in civil discourse. Yet we must. I believe it’s incumbent upon Christians to provide the example for right speech in the world. If we can’t or won’t do it, who will? We have the Spirit.

How to apply all this?

As an application, I’ll share what I do. I don’t have it all figured out. I still struggle with all these issues and I know I fail sometimes. I have found it helpful to:

1. Wait. Knee-jerk reactions to an abrupt comment doesn’t advance the conversation. And that is always the goal. Advance the conversation- not my agenda.

2. Pray. Pray for the Spirit to create a right attitude in you. Before you answer and during the waiting, whether it’s a few minutes or a day, pray for your heart and the other person’s heart to be opened to biblical truths, spoken boldly in love. Or, if you prefer, spoken in love with boldness.

3. Use more scripture, not less. Use the Lord’s words. Those are the ones that penetrate. Not our persuasiveness nor our opinion.

Also, I don’t engage with straw men. That’s when someone asserts I’ve said something in my essay that I hadn’t, and then argues from that incorrect position. I don’t waste time correcting them. I simply say that I hadn’t said that, and if they’d like to continue conversing, which I would love them to do, please copy-&-paste the pertinent part from my essay from which they would like to launch a discussion. Straw men are a passive-aggressive way to derail your thread and get the commenter’s agenda out there. Guard your comment stream.

I also do not allow drive-by commenters. I addressed this in part 1.

I do not allow someone to post links to places where bad doctrine abounds. I rarely allow a link at all, unless it’s to a really credible ministry I don’t have to take a lot of time to investigate links. I need to stay focused on the ministry at hand, not follow someone else’s rabbit trail, as sincerely as they may have offered it.

I don’t allow people to post bad doctrine. I’m responsible for what happens under my name, and I’m careful and ruthless in this regard. Sometimes I am charged with ‘limiting free speech.’ This is a ridiculous assertion and do not let it guilt you. No one has a “right” to post undoctrinal things under the banner of my name. You would not allow it in your home and you shouldn’t allow it under your social media.

I view my Facebook, Twitter, email, and blogs as part of my home. They are an extension of me and a reflection of me. Which is to say, they are a reflection of Christ in me. Guard the deposit.

Conclusion

Mr Rankin concludes:

Although most of us likely feel caught in the middle (the left, right, and center/middle construal is not helpful, but that’s another matter), we are effectively being forced to have an opinion about serious matters. We all have Facebook friends who post unguarded and sometimes cruel comments. How do we manage?

Always Representing the Lord
Inevitably, as followers of Jesus we will either cast him in a good light or a bad one. Our goal must always be to represent Christ faithfully, especially in the heat of the moment: to love our enemies and pray for those who might spitefully use us, even while we speak the truth to them.

If you adopt one or more of the scriptures listed here or in part 2 as your foundation for theological discourse, then the application will happen in an organically spiritual way.

Maranatha!

—————————————

How to Contend for the Faith, part 2. Why Christians Disagree

Posted on March 29, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

Part 1 here

Part 3 here

In today’s ‘tolerant’ and ‘don’t judge’ atmosphere, when discussing biblical things, if the other person blows up it’s often seen as a failure of communication on our part. But in many cases it’s not.

Though we can’t account for how other people respond, there are many Bible verses given over to what kind of speech we are to employ. Here are just a FEW!

Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips (Ecclesiastes 10:12).
The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools (Ecclesiastes 9:17).
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. (Proverbs 15:1-2)
A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit. (Proverbs 15:4)
Anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell (Matthew 5:22).
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen (Ephesians 4:29).
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6).
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Colossians 3:8).
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be (James 3:9-10).
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry (James 1:19).
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5:11).
Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15).
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification (Romans 14:19).
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1).
He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:25).

Before we get to solutions in the next part, let’s look at-

1. What civil biblical discourse is
2. Why Christians disagree

Here, James A. Herrick, Professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the Christian institution Hope College, partner with the Reformed Church in America, states from his article What Do We Mean By “Civil Discourse”: A Biblical Model of Managing Disagreement that civil discourse is:

… talk—including conversation, dialogue, speech making and writing— on questions of moral significance. By ‘moral significance’ I mean questions that affect the choices we make, individually and in groups. Discourse, then, is talk or communication about (1) our choices and (2) about the principles we embrace that influence those choices. Ultimately, discourse is talk about the way we are going to live our lives as individuals and in communities. … So, understanding how discourse can be improved is important.

I’ll insert here that as we discuss ideas and interpretations from the Bible, there’s no higher ‘moral significance’ to be had on earth. The highest basis for any conversation is when we speak of Jesus from His Word. Therefore, the principles to be understood from these conversations are or should be highly prized.

I’d also add that these conversations are of moral significance but are also of theological significance. And lest a person think that ‘theological conversation’ or is only for seminarian eggheads, if you say “God is love” you have just uttered a statement of theological significance. Theological discourse just means talking about Jesus or conversing about things from the Bible.

Professor Herrick resumes his definition of discourse, now explaining when disagreement enters into it:

One more nuance should be added to our definition of ‘discourse,’ for the term also tends to simply staking out and defending a position on an issue, and in this way entering into the larger arena of public discussion of that issue. That is, inherent in the very concept of discourse are both the presence of disagreement and the goal of persuasion. I take these two components to be a facts about our efforts to talk through important issues—(1) we usually run into disagreement, and (2) we typically seek to persuade those with whom we disagree. It is precisely these elements which make it so vitally important that our discourse be civil discourse, that is, that our efforts to persuade those with whom we disagree be hemmed in by some sort of ethic of advocacy that keeps the discourse constructive and respectful.

Of disagreement, I’m frequently asked, ‘If two people are Christians and read the same Bible, why do they disagree on what it says?’ It’s a good and valid question. Here, Professor Herrick outlines three reasons why in his view, Christians disagree.

1. Sin
2. Ignorance
3. Clash of worldviews

1. Sin is always the root of disagreement. Herrick gives the example of the church members at Corinth. Their failure to address sin caused a disagreement between themselves and their overseer, Paul.

2. As for the second reason disagreements arise, ignorance, Paul mentioned those often. He said ‘don’t be ignorant’ over spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:1). Paul said don’t be ignorant about eschatology. (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Paul also said not to be ignorant of satan’s schemes. (2 Corinthians 2:11). And what are some of the most vociferous theological arguments about? Eschatology, spiritual gifts, and satan’s schemes. Ignorance of the Bible’s contents itself also factors into this reason why Christian disagree.

3. Worldviews. Any worldview that excludes God will be wrong about the source of truth, morals, righteousness, etc. Any Christian where Jesus is not at the center of their worldview, will also be incorrect in a number of ways.

Knowing what theological discourse is, and why disagreements occur within such discourse is helpful to know as a basis. Tomorrow, Lord willing, part 3 will look at on what to do about differences when they arise in theological discourse. Solutions, we need solutions! 🙂

How to Contend for the Faith, it can be confusing part 1

How to Contend for the Faith: Putting it all together part 3

discernment, Uncategorized

How to contend for the faith, it can be confusing, Part 1

Posted on March 28, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

How to Contend for the Faith Part 2: Why do Christians Disagree?

How to Contend for the Faith Part 3- Putting it all together

Introduction

The practicalities of how to contend for the faith is a big subject. We’re told to contend, of course, many times and in many ways. For example, Jude wanted to write a nice, little encouraging letter, but found that because of false brothers teaching false doctrine, he had to do his duty first.

Beloved, although I made every effort to write you about the salvation we share, I felt it necessary to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints. (Jude 1:2)

Paul was sure that in his absence the Philippians will be “contending side by side for the faith of the gospel,” (Philippians 1:27).

Paul urged Timothy to “fight the good fight“. (1 Timothy 6:12).

Stand firm, do not turn, speak truth, and so on.

It’s important to consider, especially in this day and age of social media platforms with widespread audiences watching us, reading our words, and listening to our debates. Even in Solomon’s Portico or at the Areopagus or on the hillside at the Sermon on the Mount, with tens of thousands in attendance, today’s audiences who either lurk or engage with us online are an order of magnitude larger than those audiences.

But how? How do we contend appropriately? Sometimes we’re called to be gentle, other times to be direct. Righteous anger is allowed, but not unrighteous anger, and don’t let the sun set on any anger. Paul used holy sarcasm, but are we allowed to? Maybe? Maybe not.

I’ll do my best to answer the above but first, there is one part of online life in civil discourse I’d like to address as I fold it into the larger issue of appropriate theological discourse. I call these the “Drive By Debaters”.

Drive-By Commenters

It’s when someone takes the time to read the post. They take the time to comment on the post. But when they reply they state their position and end it by saying “I don’t want to debate.”

This kind of comment is opposed to true theological discourse, and even undermines it. It shuts down the point of any biblical discussion, which is to work together to arrive at a common understanding, mutual edification, and brotherly love with Christ as a center point. That kind of comment says ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, and I don’t care if you accept it or not, I just wanted to use your platform to say so. Buh-bye.’

The purpose of discussing biblical principles, interpretations, or concepts in person or online is to arrive at a common understanding. It’s to teach and be taught. The drive-by debate-denier displays they have an unteachable spirit.

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5).

What I do if someone says “I don’t want to debate” on one of my platforms (Facebook, Twitter, blog, or email) is to engage once more by gently asking a question about what they’d said. Sometimes they’ll come back and we can begin discussion. If they don’t, I delete their original comment. I figure, if they don’t want to discuss, then we won’t discuss. At all.

I won’t allow my platforms to be used by drive by commenters, because from the outset they display that they are not interested in the rules of honest civil engagement. We should all seek wisdom, then understanding. This should be true from the top-most sage teacher to the newest babe.

Wisdom is to be highly prized. Proverbs 4:7-9 says,

The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever you get, get insight.
8 Prize her highly, and she will exalt you;
she will honor you if you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head a graceful garland;
she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.”

How Should We Contend?

As for my main point, how to contend. I contend a lot. I share with friendly people and unfriendly people. Some of the most unfriendly people I deal with are those who claim they are Christians but are not. When addressing their sin, they explode in myriad ways. When pointing out their favorite teacher is false, they go off like a rocket. If you really want to poke a bear, either discuss their sin with a false professing Christian, or identify their favorite teacher as false. Both discussions go to the same root: sin. Satan is protective of his peoples’ sin and it does not like to be exposed to the light of day. (John 3:19). That’s why the person explodes on you.

Some Bible verses call for gentleness on the part of the deliverer of the message, other Bible verses call for firmness, harshness even. In today’s ‘tolerant’ and ‘don’t judge’ atmosphere, when discussing biblical things, if the other person blows up it’s often seen as a failure of communication on our part. But in many cases it’s not, and don’t be afraid of it if it happens to you. I’ll share this verse again and again in the other upcoming parts:

The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ 5And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions.b Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. 7And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house.(Ezekiel 2:4-7).

Not that we are Prophets like Ezekiel was, but in New Testament times we are God’s witnesses, His ambassadors, people with a sent message. We are one of the ways Jesus uses to either draw people to Himself through the Gospel message, or we are one of the ways He will condemn them on the last day, if they refuse the message. In our case we say ‘Thus says the LORD’ via His written word.

In addition to sharing the Gospel, we are called to warn, encourage, rebuke, teach and exhort and so on. We are constantly called upon to employ a humble attitude and to contend in myriad ways. Though our proclamations sometimes will not be received well either, we still speak them. The LORD assured Ezekiel and He gives us the same assurance in Luke 12:4 and Revelation 2:10.

In the next part I’ll sift through the various verses that discuss our speaking up in warnings and rebukes and exhortations, and being a witness through appropriate theological discourse in difficult times. There’s a lot to it, but mainly it boils down to two ingredients; speaking the truth, in love. I’ll share my perspective on this tomorrow.