To all bean curd lovers, my apologies in advance

A few weeks ago I listened to a Christian Q&A session posted online and was disturbed to hear some patently unbiblical teaching regarding confession. I’m not talking about the Roman Catholic practice of holing up in a booth and admitting your wrongdoing to a priest (who has no power to forgive you whatsoever). No this was a little more insidious.

It goes thus: if you’re a true Christian (that is, someone who has repented of sin and is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation) then God has forgiven your trespasses and you never have to ask for forgiveness of sin again.

What a problematic statement.

First of all, it’s half true. Yes, God has forgiven all our sins (Psalm 103:12) and yes justification is a one-time deal wherein God forgives a sinner based on the merit of Christ’s perfect righteousness alone.

But what’s this business of never having to ask forgiveness ever again?

I call it the DAFT view (Don’t Ask for Forgiveness Theology). It’s an old idea often linked to antinomianism or the extreme grace idea that says adherence to the Mosaic Law is unnecessary for the modern Christian.

It’s sneaky, like tofu, pretending to be meat while actually being a poor substitute.

Yet I can see why it’s attractive – who wouldn’t want to just ditch all the negativity that comes with sin and get on with the more positive aspects of the Christian life? If God has forgiven us (which He has) and has blotted out our sins (which He has) then perhaps it makes better sense to focus on living by the Spirit rather than having to contemplate our sin and ask for forgiveness all the time (it’s not).

It’s dangerous theology, to say the least. And that’s because the Bible, contrary to this flawed doctrine, teaches us that:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

You’d think that’s a pretty clear verse huh? Yet many people want to do away with this, as if it were some impediment to the Christian life rather than a critical component. DAFT guys have to reinvent the meaning of this verse and reinterpret certain passages to give their DAFT teaching legs. Yet in so doing they mangle the Bible and destroy the faith of others.

For example, DAFT folks teach that Jesus’ command that we confess our sins doesn’t apply today.

You see the first torpedo that DAFT proponents have to dodge is the issue of Christ’s model of prayer where he teaches us to confess our sins (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4). Note Jesus’ specific words:

“Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4).

As a suggested prayer pattern from our Lord I’d say this is a crucial thing to practice. Yet DAFT people say this verse no longer applies to us because, get this: at the time he said that He hadn’t died on the cross yet.

In other words, atonement wasn’t yet made and therefore justification by grace wasn’t yet possible. Jesus, they say, was telling His disciples they needed to continually ask for forgiveness of sin because, who knows, if they got trampled by a mad cow or crushed underneath an unstable brick tower, they might end up in hell for unconfessed and unforgiven sin.

In a works-righteousness economy where people have to earn their salvation by obeying the Law, this makes perfect sense. Except there never was a works-righteousness economy (not in God’s eyes anyway).

You see this whole new covenant (saved by grace)/old covenant (saved by law) thing is a flawed understanding of God’s plan of redemption. It’s a broken understanding of the gospel. DAFT folks would have us believe that as members of the new covenant, the covenant of grace, we are forgiven by grace – the grace made possible by the death of Jesus Christ – who now freely forgives people and no longer demands them to go through the complicated and perpetual requirements of works-righteousness Judaism to be saved.

But that view is only half true because salvation has ALWAYS been by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus. It’s been this way since the time of Adam and Eve. There was never a time in redemptive history where a person could be saved by doing good and praying for forgiveness on a daily basis.

We know this because the author of the book of Hebrews labors to inform his readers (a Jewish community steeped in Pharisaic, works-oriented doctrine and no doubt struggling with the concept of grace) that salvation by grace through faith has always been the case. He argues for this throughout the beautiful chapter of Hebrews 11, beginning with Abel, making his way through Noah and the Patriarchs, steadily contending that salvation was always a free gift imputed to us rather than earned.

Note the author’s comment in verse 11 that Moses forsook the pleasures of the Egyptian court for the sake of Christ “because he was looking ahead to his reward” (Heb 11:26). Moses was looking to Christ in faith!

Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith and not works (Romans 4). Like Moses, he was looking ahead to the Messiah, and was thereby justified by faith in Jesus Christ through the merciful grace of God.

We on the other hand, look back to the finished work of Jesus the Messiah but are still justified by the same means – faith alone by grace alone.

That’s how salvation has always been. To say that people who lived before Christ had to somehow earn or acquire salvation other than through faith in Christ is unbiblical.

In light of this, what did Jesus mean when he gave his model of prayer? If he wasn’t teaching his disciples to ask for forgiveness daily that they might be consistently assured of salvation, what was he saying?

In John 13 we find a fascinating answer. Jesus and his disciples gather in the upper room for the Passover meal, the Last Supper. They have come in from another long day in the hot and dusty outdoors, their feet grimy and in need of washing before sitting down to eat. Jesus, in a startling act of humility and love, decides to perform this act Himself. He wraps himself in a towel, splashes some water into a bowl, and begins to wash his disciple’s feet.

Peter finds this offensive. The Lord God of the universe is washing them? He quickly objects: “You shall never wash my feet” (v8).

Jesus responds in the same verse: “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

Peter thinks about this and decides he wants to have full part with Jesus (which isn’t surprising, since he was perhaps the most devout and outspoken of the disciples and wanted to be with Jesus in everything). Not wanting to lack in any way when it came to communion with his Lord, he tells Jesus, “Not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” (v9).

Jesus’ reply is significant: “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean… ” (v10).

Did you catch that? Jesus was painting a spiritual analogy, telling Peter that someone who is justified (whose sins are completely forgiven) is like someone who has taken a bath and is totally clean. That person need not be justified again; it’s a done deal (“You are clean”). All he needs is the occasional washing of feet to get rid of the build up of dirt that comes with walking in this tainted world.

In other words, confessing your sins as a believer is not a matter of justification (coz that’s already been sorted); it’s a matter of sanctification or holy living (which is an ongoing process). We confess our sins as believers because we need day-to-day purification, that washing of the feet, so we can consistently enjoy the harmony of fellowship with our holy and perfect Lord.

We don’t ask for forgiveness out of some spiritual obligation to maintain good credit with a vengeful God, we ask forgiveness because we know God is holy and we want no part in anything that offends Him.

In more practical terms, we confess sin because to harbor it or ignore it would be like stepping in a patch of dung and entering a restaurant pretending nothing happened. Eventually the stench becomes so overwhelming all the guests leave or you’re booted out the door. Disharmony happens. And the only way to set things right is to wash off the dung (not buy a new pair of shoes).

Sanctification is a lifelong course that begins at our justification and carries through until our glorification, when the Lord calls us home to be with Him. It is our A-Z journey to Christ-likeness, a necessary path and natural consequence of being born again. We are all at different stages of sanctification and we all bear fruit to various degrees (Matthew 13:8). But make no mistake, all true believers are on the road and all true believers step in dung on the way.

That’s because we are still prone to sin (1 John 1:8). Yes we’ve been transformed and made into new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17) but we are still stuck in the flesh – our bodies, the earthly casings tainted and corrupted by sin (Romans 7).

This is why we are urged to confess our sins and forgive others; we need to be honest with our condition and bring before the Lord the stuff that bogs us down – our constant blunders, unbroken habits and secret sins. We need to confess and lay them before the Lord because the opposite would be to deny them and say that sin is of no consequence.

John had this to say of the man who felt no need to acknowledge his sin:

“If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1 John 1:10).

I don’t know about you but I would not want to call God a liar.

Speaking of lies, you know what’s worse than a lie? Truth mingled with untruth. I find it very distressing to hear people who claim to be Christians preach the Word mixed with unbiblical teaching. At best it causes confusion in the body of Christ; at worst, it can damn people to a Christless eternity.

Don’t deny your sins or think that God finds them trivial. We ought to cultivate an attitude of submission to Christ that includes bringing our daily sin to him and asking Him to forgive and cleanse us. Remember, it’s not our eternal standing before God that is at stake; He settled that once and for all when you repented of sin and gave your life to Him as Lord and Savior. You ARE clean. Rather it is our fellowship with Him that is at stake, that daily communion where we enjoy His presence and power in our lives.

If we refuse to acknowledge our sins, like David after the Bathsheba debacle our fellowship with God will be marred and we risk experiencing a less fruitful walk. Indeed, it can get painful, as God makes it clear that he will always discipline His erring children (Hebrews 12:4-11).

The comforting thing is God is in the cleansing and restoration business (1 John 1:9) and disciplines us because He loves us.

Be on guard against false doctrine that tickles the ears and seduces the heart. Test all novel teaching to see if it matches the pure meat of the Word which is able to truly satisfy and nourish our souls.

Don’t settle for tofu.

I remember singing it in church while growing up, mastering the tune but barely understanding its message. Then one day, after repenting of sin and embracing Christ as Lord and Savior, I sang it during Sunday worship and could not believe the clarity with which I read the words. The Spirit was working in me, helping me fathom and appreciate the hymn as never before.

The following verse sprung out at me with particular vigor:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

It was an unforgettable moment; the verse crystallized exactly what I was going through. Like Wesley, I was once incarcerated in a dungeon of doom, shackled by sin and blinded by the darkness. I had no hope of clawing my way out; I was a prisoner of nature’s night, unable to reverse the inexorable hold of sin on my life. People told me to choose God but I chose the devil, each and every time.

Then the Lord pierced the darkness with His living light – flaming, glorious and resplendent. I awoke to the truth of His love; my chains crumbled, my heart was set free. I was now able to choose God because He had resuscitated my heart. I was now free to follow Him because He chose to set me free.

I’m so glad Charles Wesley articulated what I, and no doubt thousands of others, feel but can barely put into words regarding so great a salvation. It’s a magnificent hymn and a wonderful way to honor God and His mighty redeeming work. The thunderous sound of several hundred vivacious believers singing this at the top of their lungs is surely a taste of heaven.

Anyway, enough. Sing along with me, in your heart, wherever you may be.

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

Unless you’re a religious jihadist, sex trafficker, or something worse, this is generally good advice. Stand for something (good) or you’ll be swept away by whatever is fashionable to believe in, regardless of whether it’s good or not, like some hapless invertebrate in the turbulent open sea.

Of course, for Christians, that “something good” should be the gospel of Jesus Christ, the “power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom 1:21). It’s the one thing that can save a person’s soul and transform him forever into the likeness of Christ to the eternal glory of God.

It should be, therefore, the supreme cause around which all Christians must rally.

Unfortunately many of us would rather give ourselves to anything but our Savior. Instead of standing for Jesus we fall for shiny and seductive alternatives – modern idols that glow with invisible power but are impotent to save and sanctify our souls.

Environmentalism, political issues, social activism – there’s a cause and movement for everything. We’re all lured by their seeming worthiness to end global crises, alleviate human strife, and make the world a better place. But do they measure up to the peace and power that come through knowing and being reconciled to a holy, infinite God?

Of course not. Yet our lives betray us. We pay lip service to the power and importance of the gospel and then center our existence around some lesser crusade, whether it be saving Mother Nature, electing government officials, or simply trying to convert people to a new brand of coffee coz it’s just too awesome and you haven’t lived until you’ve tried it blah blah blah.

Not that there’s anything wrong with a good cause, political reform, or better coffee. In fact, there are many good things in this world to be involved in and passionate about. But if we call ourselves Christians and our fervent desire to save the whales, change the government, or wax lyrical about overpriced consumer beverages overshadows our gospel message, then maybe we ought to reexamine what we believe in.

You see the gospel of Jesus is more important than any human cause or movement no matter how significant or high-impact they may be. That’s because the gospel is the only thing that can reconcile a person to God, ensure his sanctification, and bring him to everlasting glory (Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Peter 1:3-5).

It’s also the most significant display of God’s grace, mercy, and power (Romans 5:8). God’s plan and execution of redemption puts His matchless person and character on vivid and unparalleled display; He is magnified in His love for us, glorified beyond measure when He redeems sinful, rebellious people.

We’d do well to remember that the next time our earthly causes eclipse God’s ultimate calling on our lives. We change the world by sharing, preaching, and living the gospel to lost people. The power of God works through the gospel to transform and redeem sinful lives. God is glorified through the execution of His gospel, not our Rainbow ships, government officials, or our all-flaming Orange Mocha Frappuccinos.

Standing for the gospel should be our supreme cause. We can certainly count on its effect (Isaiah 55:11).

What we need are fewer revolutionaries and a few more plodding visionaries. That’s my dream for the church — a multitude of faithful, risktaking plodders. The best churches are full of gospel-saturated people holding tenaciously to a vision of godly obedience and God’s glory, and pursuing that godliness and glory with relentless, often unnoticed, plodding consistency.

It’s a good word for those of us infatuated with the idea of revolutionizing the church by cultivating a big, modern yet somewhat invisible Christianity.

Also contributing to the idea that church is more about being a consistent visionary more than a mega-church revolutionary is Dr. Larry Mininger’s thoughts on small churches titled Measuring Success. He says:

Fascination with bigness obscures the truth that Jesus, the builder (Matt. 16:18) and head (Eph. 1:22) of the church, has built many more small congregations than large ones. Small churches, not large ones, are the norm.

Good stuff with which to start the week.

A year ago I was singing a different tune.

A year ago I was a learning driver, a very reluctant motorist thrust into the pilot’s seat by the sheer will of my wife who, tired of being the family leadfoot, insisted I learn how to drive or have something akin to invasive surgery without anesthetic. My response, after acknowledging it’d be a lot easier for her if I relieved her of driving duties and took to the anarchic streets of Manila instead, was to mope around every day for the next few months hoping she’d have amnesia and forget the idea altogether.

She didn’t. Not after she endured a pregnancy that had her driving herself to her OB-GYN on a regular basis, halfway across treacherous and heat-drenched Manila, even as she entered her eight month of conception and battled contractions with every step on the gas.

So I finally learned how to drive.

Or, to be more precise, I learned how to dodge maniac drivers, avoid lunging jaywalkers, evade corrupt traffic enforcers, and prevent myself from slashing my wrists every time I got mired in traffic, which is pretty much run of the mill here in the Philippines and far more common that I care to admit.

Anyway, to celebrate my newfound ability after 32 years of being a non-driver I’m eager to get my own car (instead of borrowing the mom-in-law’s wheels every time we go to church or do the groceries).

I can’t help but think of 2 Timothy 4:7-8. We run the race to win the prize, right? We sprint with all our might, darting our spiritual course, hurdling obstacles, shirking opposition. We twist, we turn, we ache, we burn, we live out our salvation in Jesus. And the reward? A crown of righteousness and eternal company with the good Lord Himself.

Nothing could be better than to endure the race of faith, make it across the finish line, and collapse in the arms of the Savior who embraces us with joy and pride.

The car I’m aiming for, it’s not a brand new, top of the line, gas-guzzling, wallet-busting vehicle with 20 cup holders and a television screen in the back of each seat. It’s a simple deal with good air-conditioning, a reliable engine, and comfortable seating for a family of four. Lord-willing it’ll be easy on the budget and will last a good many years.

But what I’m really excited about is being able to avoid the daily mixture of tropical heat and intense urban pollution that so plagues my city. I’m also excited to give a lift to my friends every now and again and not be the one always in need of a ride.

I endured my training (which, in the Philippines, means braving the mean streets until you’ve mastered the skill and haven’t killed anyone, yourself included, in the process) and now I eagerly await my prize.

The race of faith is a lot more complex than having extended driving lessons and is fraught with greater challenges and temptations. Heaven will be much, much sweeter than buying a second hand car (Psalm 16:11).

But life has its teaching moments and today, as I ponder a possible car purchase, I’m reminded just how lovely heaven will be for those who endure in Christ to the end.

It seems that atheism is undergoing something of a renaissance these days.

Not that it has ever gone out of style; there always has and always will be an abundance of people who don’t believe in God. In recent years, however, atheism (or the New Atheism as it is popularly known) is making a marked comeback, vehemently opposing anything and everything in its humanistic path, Christianity being its chief opponent.

Leading the fray is the multi-awarded Richard Dawkins, New Atheism’s poster child and perhaps the movement’s most outspoken evangelist. Dawkins is a biological theorist who used to teach at Oxford University until his retirement in 2008. He is the author of the best-selling book “The GOD Delusion” and a notorious critic of religion.

His disdain for Christianity is legendary. Says Dawkins in an interview with the Independent:

“…insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. “

Dawkins enjoys pillorying Christianity. The very notion that the God of the Bible could exist is patently absurd to him. Ironically Dawkins is something of a god himself for being as outspoken, accomplished, and articulate about atheism as he is. His major scientific cred and Old Testament zeal have impressed thousands of junior atheists the world over; his teachings have been all but canonized by the Dawkins faithful.

Dawkins is one in a long line of internationally famous atheists with sparkling academic credentials and snarling arguments against God. They all raise their fingers against the Almighty, denying His existence, insisting that THEY have the right answer and that all begins and ends with science and science alone.

They pen bestsellers, engage in international debates, and draw multitudes into their web forums; they laud their own ideas while ridiculing all opposition, even if their dissenters offer thoroughly academic counterarguments to their Godless positions.

There’s nothing we can do or say to repudiate their claims, we are told; our arguments are weak and emotional, our evidences flawed, fabricated, pitiful. Darwinism is the true gospel; the New Atheists its chief promulgators. We Christians are urged to move out of their way or be steamrolled by the unrelenting “truth” of the humanist perspective.

Of course, a whole slew of rabid followers eat this up. And the result is an intense movement that’s rapidly gaining momentum across the world, spreading a particularly aggressive form of atheism that’s aimed squarely at toppling Christianity and instituting Darwinism and humanism as the only true explanations for life and living.

What are we to do in the face of this fierce opposition to the truth of God’s Word and our Christian faith?

Well for one, don’t run. While it’s easy to be intimidated by intellectuals hostile to Christianity, don’t hide, don’t cower, and don’t feel sorry for yourself if you can’t answer their every objective. We have nothing to fear (2 Timothy 1:7); New Atheism is simply an old lie screamed with renewed conviction. But like dogs without fangs, atheists are limited to barking.

Next we need to realize that while atheism is in direct opposition to what we believe and its adherents often use arguments and speech that is painful to hear and tolerate, atheists are still lost people in need of a Savior. They are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13) and are blinded by the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). The fact that they are so anti-God should make us realize how much danger they are in and how desperately they need Jesus.

And how are they to come to faith in Christ?

Through the gospel according to Jesus of course.

The gospel is what convicts people, exposes their sin, and smashes their sense of self-righteousness to pieces. When God sees fit, the gospel breaks men in the light of His law which they realize they cannot possibly keep. And ultimately it ushers them to Jesus Christ, the sinless God-man who lived a perfect life and offered it on the cross as a pleasing blood sacrifice to the Father.

The gospel is the story of the atonement of Christ for our sins, His dying in our place that we might never have to endure the punishment for all our wrongdoing. It is the story of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, His victory over death that completes the redemption saga and makes possible full restitution between sinful man and an infinitely holy God.

It’s the news atheists need to hear, more than Biblical apologetics and arguments for Intelligent Design. For it is “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16) – the key to setting them free from sin and spiritual blindness.

Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe in refuting error with truth and sound apologetics, in being ready with an answer for anyone who asks why we believe in God (1 Peter 3:15). I agree that atheism needs to be debunked and that believers should arm themselves with Biblical knowledge (as well as knowledge of what they’re fighting against) to do so.

And I totally support and dig people who have devoted much of their lives to countering the shrill cry of atheism.

The works of great apologists like Ravi Zacharias and Josh McDowell are thought-provoking and indispensable; similarly, the distinguished Oxford mathematician John Lennox (who has refuted Richard Dawkins in many an insightful debate) has much good to say on the subjects of science, philosophy, and God. His life, teaching, and example are great sources of strength and encouragement for anyone grappling and squaring off with atheist ideas.

CS Lewis made a powerful case for the faith with his classic book Mere Christianity (as well as many other esteemed works); Lee Strobel, the investigative journalist turned Christian apologist, has written several compelling works that effectively destroy common “intellectual” objections against Jesus, the Bible, and the Christian faith.

And more recently, chief Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer has released a cutting-edge book on the case of Intelligent Design which has rocked the scientific community, both Christian and secular, with its arguments for a Creator God based on the unfathomable and magnificent complexities of our DNA code.

But as I said, while providing reasonable support for our faith through apologetics and thoroughly researched and well-written scientific books in favor of God is good, the arguments themselves won’t save people from their sins.

Only the gospel can do that.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of engaging an atheist via email and exchanging a few ideas regarding God, science, the Bible, and what it means to be a Christian. I was told by a mutual friend that he was open to the idea of God if only someone could produce incontrovertible proof of His existence. I sat for a while, pondering how I should phrase my first email.

Although I wanted to start with an emphatic statement, a contention that was almost as incontrovertible than the God I was trying to prove, I ended up abandoning an “opening argument” as it were and proceeded instead to narrate my statement of faith – why I am a Christian and what I believe to be true of God, Jesus Christ, and the gospel. I didn’t want to get bogged down by complex apologetical/scientific arguments (there’d be plenty of time for that later) – I simply wanted to be like Paul who declared to the Corinthians, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

He replied right away, rejecting outright the existence of God (claiming, among other things, that since he doesn’t believe in God and sin, that he is actually sinless!) We went into a short exchange, a quick 24-hour flurry of activity which ended in 16 emails, lots of strong words, and a fascinating look into the mind of an atheist.

His comments were irritating and insulting; perhaps mine were too (to his ears anyway).

And while no one was soon “converted”, I like to think that I had sowed the seeds of the gospel in his heart. If he one day responds and turns to Christ then I will rejoice with the angels in heaven. If he doesn’t, I’ll be sad but not surprised.

“The gospel is foolishness to the natural man; his mind cannot understand it” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Ultimately, atheists will reject the gospel and the God from whom it comes simply because they do not understand it. They want no part in God’s truth; their only wish is to believe worldly ideas which, although they may have the appearance of wisdom, are as valuable as goat droppings.

Yet for every thousand or hundred thousand people who mock the gospel, who spit on the Savior, who laugh ferociously at the truth of the Atonement, there will be a handful of people who’ll be genuinely saved (John 6:37). These will be penetrated by the Word, quickened by the Spirit into believing God’s truth, and they’ll abandon all hope in their faulty and humanistic concepts to embrace Jesus as Lord.

The gospel is the means by which men are saved. Apologetics and sound scientific arguments in favor of a Creator God are extremely useful tools in opening minds to Christ. But the opening of hearts is the Spirit’s work. When the Word of God is taught with clarity and conviction the Spirit moves men to repentance.

Share the gospel. Don’t be afraid of the New Atheism.

I have no idea what that means. Growth in Christ comes by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2). And that entails learning spiritual things.

Once we learn new things, we can put them into practice. Correct theology begets correct living.

The idea that a Christian can grow and live spiritually without loading up on Biblical truth is a strange one. But it’s a popular view often presented as a humble way to approach the Christian life. After all, doesn’t knowledge “puff up”? Isn’t living like Christ more important than mastering sound theology?

Not really. The Bible puts equal emphasis on both practical Christianity like praying, loving, and serving (1 Thessalonians 5:17; Galatians 5:14; 1 Peter 4:10) and loving the truth, which involves holding to it, preaching it, and guarding it (Titus 1:9, 2:1; Jude 3). You can’t have one without the other.

But these days many Christians can’t be bothered with the workings of sound doctrine. I suppose a dark history of burning each other at the stake over theology put a damper on the call for learning systemized truth.”Doctrine divides; love unites!” is as prevalent a cry as it ever has been.

Yet consider what the author of Hebrews had to say:

“…though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (5:12-14)

Apparently, he was expecting his audience to have matured enough in their faith to be teachers of spiritual truth.  Instead he finds them still as spiritual babes, unable to discern good from evil, let alone teach the faith. They needed “the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” – the equivalent to baby milk, which is all their undeveloped minds could take.

Why is it so important to move onto “solid food”?

I can think of three reasons.

A Strong Foundation

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25)

When you make Jesus’ teaching the bedrock of your faith, you’re invincible. Notice how Jesus says, “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” won’t be shaken? It’s about understanding (hearing) and doing (practice). You can’t practice what you don’t understand.

It’s also important to actually live out the things you believe in, to let your knowledge of the truth shape your behavior. Knowledge that isn’t acted upon leads to destruction; it’s like building a house on the sand (v 6). When the storms of life and the attacks on your faith begin to pummel you like a relentless tsunami, you can bet your house will be swept away in the chaos.

If we’re grounded and growing in the truth and power of Scripture, we can rise above any situation and help others do so too. Which leads us to:

Effective Outreach

We are all called to proclaim the gospel and the beauty of Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). But how can we do so if our knowledge of the Lord is thin? How can we win others to Jesus if we ourselves have little comprehension of man’s depravity, the nature of salvation, and God’s sovereignty over the entire process?

How can we mutually build each other up if we can never progress from the elementary truths of Scripture? How can our messages of hope to one another be anything more than fluff if we’ve never feasted on the meatier aspects of our faith?

It’s hard to win people to Christ; it’s even harder to raise a flock of healthy believers. The work is all the more cofounded by people who harbor weak doctrine and an unwillingness to learn the deep truths of God.

We need to continuously steep ourselves in the Word and fortify our doctrinal foundations in order to make more effective presentations of Christ and His truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Defending the Truth

The Bible makes it clear we are to be ready with an answer for people who might ask why we believe what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). We must also be ready to teach the truth and refute those who stand in error (Titus 1:9).

Failure to defend the faith will allow others to steamroll over the truth with their heresies. This can be disastrous for people who have yet to hear and respond to the gospel.

A case in point? Roman Catholicism. If we can’t even present a correct gospel to people trapped inside this insidious and apostate system, if we can’t refute the numerous heresies perpetuated by the Roman church, then how can we expect Catholics to come to a true saving knowledge of Jesus?

We must be able to take a stand and effectively defend the truth when called for.

Now does this mean we should all enroll in Bible school and become masters of theological wizardry? Do we need to commit to unfailing memory every jot and tittle of Calvin’s Institutes or Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology?

While that might be very cool, not everyone has the mental capacity to be an RC Sproul or Augustine. But that doesn’t mean we should shy away from the deeper mysteries of the Bible. Rather, we must be compelled to learn continuously about Christ, to embrace His revealed truth, to cherish it, uphold it, and let it transform our minds and daily living.

We fail to do so at our own peril (Hosea 4:6).

Which, of course, begs the question:

The book of Numbers???

I’ll admit, it’s the last place in the Bible I thought I’d find something funny. All those people being swallowed by the earth, blowtorched by God at the Tent of Meeting, or mauled by poisonous snakes – surely there couldn’t be a more serious book in Scripture?

And yet Numbers has some fascinating accounts which amount to some interesting black comedy.

For instance, in chapter 11 the children of Israel are complaining to Moses about their seemingly boring food supply. The effect of Manna (that mysterious yet tasty material rained down from heaven everyday) has worn off on them and now they’re moaning about how much they miss meat:

“…If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!” (Numbers 11:4b-6)

Pretty grateful bunch, eh? God thought so too. Consider his response to Moses:

“Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The LORD heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the LORD, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?” ‘ ” (18-20, emphasis added)

God peeved = holy sarcasm = funny.

And sobering.

We all had to chuckle again, a short while later, in chapter 25. Here, Israel really lets it loose:

While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them. (Numbers 25:1-3)

These guys were the recipients of God’s 10 commandments. They knew the standard to which they were called to live. They also knew how severely God dealt with sin: from the supernatural plagues in Egypt to the splitting of the Red Sea, to the quelling of Korah’s rebellion with fire – they had a pretty good idea of what it was like to push God over the edge.

And yet they “played the harlot” (NASB) with foreign women and started worshipping non-existent gods, something they were expressly forbidden to do.

God’s reaction?

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” (4)

Standard operating procedure, really. God is holy, man is sinful, and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). God demands the violators be put to death in no uncertain terms – and the better people in Israel mourn because judgment has come upon them.

But what happens next?

Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. (6, emphasis added)

Some dude with a Midianite chick on his arm walks right past Moses and everyone else gathered at the Tent as they mourn their grave situation. The nerve!

I can imagine God has just made his fiery pronouncement and the people are stunned into silence, broken only by repentant sobbing. Suddenly this guy comes strolling through the compound, girl in tow, and he weaves his way through the people, oblivious.

“…excuse me, thanks… excuse me, guy coming through…cheers…”

I can imagine a thousand jaws dropping and Moses almost having a seizure.

What happens next, however, is far from funny:

When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. (7-8)

The couple is in their tent, seemingly getting their groove on, when in walks the priest’s son with a spear and bam! He impales the couple permanently to their bed.

So much for having a bit of fun.

The lesson in all this?

One, God hates sin and will punish it one way or another.

And two, while some sin may seem like fun to us at the time, we won’t be having the last laugh.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

The emergent church has finally made it to Philippine shores.

I guess it was just a matter of time.

What is the emergent church? There’s no way to sum it up in a pithy one-liner. If you’re dying to know what all the fuss is about I suggest you go over and read what David Kowalski has to say about all things emergent/ing over at Apologetics Index. His definitions and summations are spot on.

But for those of you who don’t have time to read through several pages of material and want something in a nutshell, let me have a stab at it:

The emergent church is a movement in evangelical Christianity that seeks to do things differently, usually in ways that challenge evangelical church traditions.

I’d say that’s a very basic definition of what it is to be emergent. Mark Driscoll, himself an “emerging” pastor, sums it up this way:

The emerging church is a growing, loosely connected movement of primarily young pastors who are glad to see the end of modernity and are seeking to function as missionaries who bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to emerging and postmodern cultures. The emerging church welcomes the tension of holding in one closed hand the unchanging truth of evangelical Christian theology (Jude 3) and holding in one open hand the many cultural ways of showing and speaking Christian truth as a missionary to America (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Since the movement, if it can be called that, is young and is still defining its theological center, I do not want to portray the movement as ideologically unified because I myself swim in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church.

So far, so nice. I myself gravitate towards conservative emergent thought, especially the idea that we should be missionaries that truly speak the truth in a culture that mostly despises it, in a way that is clear and not hindered by “old fashioned” sensibilities (i.e. I have long hair, wear an earring, but can and will make a coherent presentation of the gospel of Jesus whenever possible). It’s probably this part of the emergent movement that young people mostly gravitate to – the promise that there are new and exciting ways to express one’s faith and not just be a product of a legalistic and boring system.

But I reject emergent values mainly because of the liberalism and heresy that typifies most of the movement. Driscoll, a theologically conservative pastor himself, explains why he had to distance himself from his peers:

I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church Movement in its early days and spent a few years traveling the country to speak to emerging leaders in an effort to help build a missional movement in the United States. The wonderful upside of the emerging church is that it elevates mission in American culture to a high priority, which is a need so urgent that its importance can hardly be overstated.

I had to distance myself, however, from one of many streams in the emerging church because of theological differences. Since the late 1990s, this stream has become known as Emergent. The emergent church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only differences is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.

The liberal stream that Driscoll refers to is the real cause for alarm. And at this point in its development, it is a dangerous mix of post-modernism and heresy that is systematically attacking Biblical truth and undermining the Body of Christ.

I suppose that’s a pretty harsh summary for a movement that seems so bent on recapturing what it means to “live like Jesus” in a needy, dying world. As Driscoll mentions, US emergents have elevated mission work in their country and others across the world are following suit. It’s a good thing, for sure, to authentically reach one’s community for Christ by loving and serving people while proactively and unashamedly sharing the gospel (Galatians 5:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

The problem is, many emergents don’t believe in the Biblical gospel; many don’t even believe in a Biblical hell. And that’s not all; most of the emergent church’s key leaders have embraced relativism and liberalism in exchange for orthodoxy and the reliability of Scripture.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, says of the movement:

“Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this [emerging church] movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind.”

And this is the heart of the emergent/ing brand: truth is unknowable, so let’s all stop making creedal propositions and start a conversation.

Emergent pastors and leaders have a real disdain for the idea of absolute truth. They teach that the Bible is ultimately a big mystery. That we should be “humble” in approaching the Word and not make big, definitive pronouncements.

Consider what Brian McLaren, the emergent movement’s principle spokesperson, has to say about the gospel:

“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be ’saved’?…. I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”

Compare that to Jesus’ declaration: “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18). The Lord sounded pretty sure that his gospel would have its desired effect. For McLaren to assert we’ve somehow missed the point after two thousand years of Christianity seems to undermine Scripture and all that the Lord has accomplished in history so far.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who attends an emergent church in The Fort. I asked him what they’re all about. He gave me the run down: they’re about reaching people in their contexts.

In this case, they’re reaching young people who have “short attention spans and communicate through music”. Which explains why they do church inside a bar with alternative rock bands holding down the stage. You can also sit and drink beer while worship is in motion; he once drank whiskey during a service.

Anyone can attend; the preaching is “inspiring and unthreatening”. The atmosphere is “non-judgmental,” my friend told me. The overarching idea is that his church is hip and cool, the preaching short and peppy, and you can be yourself, whatever you may be.

Which suits people of many persuasions, of course. Another friend of mine, a gay non-believer, informed me she attends this same church. I asked her how this came to be.

She basically finds it a really cool place to hang out (it is held in a bar after all) and besides the fact that she can drink alcohol while the worship service is in motion, she likes what she hears.

“Did you know that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality?” she asked me.

I was astounded. “What else do you like about that church?” I asked.

“It’s just really nice to know that God loves me.”

Indeed. This seems to be the trend. And it’s easy to see why people buy it. A fun, modern “church” where you can sip beer and listen to perky, non-confrontational messages and funky music sounds like a good deal.

Except it’s not anything like a New Testament church.

Yet emergent churches embrace this “anything to everyone” approach because it fits their pragmatic ideals. It’s rooted in the seeker sensitive philosophy that if you’re cool enough, if you rock like the world, look just like the heroes of the young, and preach (or dialog, as is the emergent buzzword) in non-threatening sound bites, then you can win people over.

Forget teaching about sin, the atonement of Christ, the holiness of God, and what it means to obey Jesus as unequivocal Lord; what do you want to do, scare people away?

Says McLaren,

“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are, to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord.”

He adds,

“The problem with the critics [conservative Evangelicals] here is that they think they have a superior, timeless gospel that floats above any culture…”

McLaren can say things like this because according to him, truth is ultimately inscrutable. Yet is that accurate? If so, the gospel is truly unknowable and we conservatives really can’t believe in a “superior, timeless gospel”.

But what does the Bible have to say about itself?

“For the word of the LORD holds true, and everything he does is worthy of our trust.”

Psalm 33:4

“The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

Psalm 119:160

“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

1Timothy 2:3-4

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 8:32

It would seem the Word of God is clear on how truthful it actually is. And it’s not some kind of unreachable truth that’s shrouded in mystery. Jesus promises that we’ll know and truly understand the truth – and it will set us free.

McLaren, of course, is not the only one who espouses such ideas. He and many others have jettisoned orthodox Christianity for a post-modern approach. And in their abandonment of sound theology they have opened the floodgates to gross error; error that can lead to damning results.

How much of the emergent movement has infiltrated the Philippines? I honestly don’t know. I see strains of it here and there; there are a couple of churches that seem to be leaning in the emergent direction.

I heard one local pastor preach and infer that theology and knowledge are not really that important to the Christian life; simple faith is what has the most potent and lasting impact. This may sound wise and appealing on the surface (especially to those who are tired of dead orthodoxy and “divisive” theology) but in reality it’s just another way of saying, “It’s OK to not pay attention to sound doctrine as long as your heart is in the right place.”

Which of course is nonsense.

Faith and knowledge go hand in hand; the greatness of your faith is informed by how much you know about God, his Word, and His character as revealed in Scripture. There’s no big mystery to it: the more you know about Him, the more faith you have. The less you know about God, the less your faith.

But things like knowing God, Biblical truth, and orthodox theology have little place in emergent churches. These things come across as outmoded, heavy handed, and too certain (not enough mystery).

Says Kristen Bell, wife of emergent superstar pastor Rob Bell:

“I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again — like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”

Tony Jones, another prominent emergent leader adds that we should,

“…stop looking for some objective Truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible.”

In abandoning the truth and clarity of the Word of God, many emergents have fallen headlong into serious error. We’ve already seen how far off the theological deep end Brian McLaren is. Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, flatly denies the reality of eternal punishment for sinners in hell. And read what Rob Bell has to say about the virgin birth:

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

“But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?”

Riiiight.

I’m watching how the movement evolves here in the Philippines. I pray the extremes of emergent thought never take root. To now deny absolute truth and weave in its place a concoction of half-truths masquerading as Biblical wisdom is even more perilous than just being seeker sensitive. (A marriage of the two, which seems to be the happening thing, is probably our worst nightmare).

John MacArthur helps put things in perspective:

I believe the church has one function, and that is to guard the truth, to proclaim the truth and to live the truth. So you take the Word of God, you teach it, you proclaim it, you protect it, you defend it, and you live it, and that’s a church. The Word of God rightly divided, rightly understood.

That’s not the idea in a seeker church; that’s not the idea certainly in an emerging church.  Everything becomes style and contextualization and everything is built around the manipulation of people’s hot buttons as if we were selling a product like any other product in our culture. This fails to understand that the only real power in the spiritual realm is Divine and that God works His power through His truth, and that’s all that matters.

Stand for the truth people. God bless.

My mum, who is the church treasurer and head of the Budget Committee, received a letter that took issue with her proposal to raise the pastor’s salary.

She didn’t take it too well. Not only did she find the complaint offensive but she couldn’t understand why someone (a church leader no less) would want to limit a pastor’s income when the church was quite capable of providing good compensation.

This led to a lively discussion as we analyzed all the angles. The proposed raise was by no means exorbitant but admittedly, it would mean the pastor would be earning a better salary than many of the church members. Yet it seemed acceptable and I thought it was a wonderful idea. The congregation certainly had no qualms about the proposed raise, save for this one voice of dissent.

Anyway, it got me thinking: just how do you calculate a pastor’s salary? And if you settle on a salary that is good (not excessive but better than some secular salaries), how do you justify it?

Should a pastor’s pay be based upon the total average income of each church member? Or should he be paid according to certain criteria that include academic accomplishment, field experience, and man-hours?

My mum wanted to write a rebuttal and I offered to help her out. I did some research and thought long and hard about what I believe are valid reasons to pay a pastor a decent salary. In getting my thoughts on paper and hashing out my convictions on the matter, I reaffirmed my commitment to honoring the pastorate and would like to now explain how we can all do that.

Of course, there is no singular formula that works across the board for all churches. Each institution is unique. The pastors too: some are more experienced than others; some are better educated; others are more committed to certain types of ministry than the rest.

There are so many variations and expressions of the local church and so many different kinds of pastors it would be difficult and impractical to impose one particular rule of compensation on everyone.

Yet I believe there are a few sensible ideas to consider when figuring out how much to reward a minister.

THE PASTOR’S COMMITMENT TO THE WORD AND SOUND PREACHING

The job of the pastorate is considerably harder and more demanding than many, if not all public service jobs.

You see a pastor’s primary responsibility, the one thing that consumes most of his time, is to study and preach the Word of God, a responsibility that not just anyone can assume. It is a calling of the highest order, a job that God will judge with the utmost severity (Jas.3:1) precisely because it is such a monumental task.

We are talking about “rightly dividing” the Word of Truth. There is no other job in this world that comes close to the utmost seriousness of this task. If the pastor mishandles the Word, it is not only a personal affront to our Lord, the source of all Truth, but the results could be disastrous – broken spiritual lives and lost souls condemned to hell.

Hence the stern warning and strict requirements of pastor-teachers.

How a pastor handles the Word, in both study and delivery, has great bearing on how he should be monetarily compensated. Put another way, if he performs his studying and preaching duties worthily, we should reward him accordingly (1 Timothy 5:18).

Sermon preparation is an intense process that requires much concentration, energy, and skill. Pastors must be versed in ancient history, culture, systematic theology, maybe some Greek and Hebrew (the more knowledge, the better), and even current events, to name a few. It is highly consuming work that knows no standard hours and requires a dedication of the mind and spirit – as well as a heart that is radically in tune with God. For it is God that illuminates and grants wisdom.

The interpretation and preaching of the Bible is not something anyone can do; it is not a job that should be taken lightly; it is not a task that gets easier with time. Just look at the hundreds of cults that rise out of the slipshod handling of the Word – anyone can assign meaning to Scripture and twist it to support their convoluted theology.

It is a dedicated and fearful man who rightly divides the Word of truth. The pastor who approaches the Scriptures with fear, reverence, academic intensity, and Christ-centered devotion must be rewarded by the church out of respect and love, as commanded by Christ.

I believe pastors who spend most of their week steeped in the Word, drawing deep from the well of God’s truth so that we might understand it more fully, are worthy of reward.

If this means paying the pastor a salary that allows him to eat, clothe himself, and enjoy some of life’s luxuries, as well as provide for his family, send his children to good schools, save for his future, and have money left over to bless other people (of which there is an endless abundance) I fully support giving a pastor a salary above the average pay of a public servant, complete with as many fringe benefits as possible.

THE PASTOR’S COMMITMENT TO SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Pastors are called to serve – and that often means sacrificing one’s own time and comfort to respond to crises or situations no one else is equipped (or willing) to handle.

On a purely secular level, the work hours some pastors put in are above and beyond that of, say, a traditional nurse or schoolteacher. Many pastors are practically on call 24/7. Their job, in terms of man-hours, is comparable to that of a doctor in that he is available all the time to respond to the needs of his flock.

The tremendous amount of work a pastor is often faced with is enough to make lesser men balk and run for cover. The minister who continuously makes himself available in a self-sacrificial manner is worthy of reward.

THE CONGREGATION’S COMMITMENT TO LOVE

I think the biggest factor in determining how much a pastor should be compensated lies in how much a church is willing to love back her God-given shepherd.

Let’s say a pastor has labored in your church for 20 years. For two decades you have known him, seen him and his family grow, saddled with him through various trials, afflictions, temptations, and storms; seen and heard firsthand the incredible amount of personal attack, demonic persecution, and emotional testing over many years of service; you’ve listened and been privileged to hear him preach the Bible, day in, day out, with a dedication to academic excellence, theological purity, and devotion to the glory of Jesus; you’ve watched him shepherd you and the rest of his flock through many ups and downs, changes and growth, over many years; you’ve witnessed him stand with integrity as many others have fled or compromised their faith;

How deep are you willing to dig into your heart to give back and ensure that he and his family live comfortably as they continue to serve with joy and gladness in your church?

Is it too much to reward a pastor, someone who leads in spiritual matters that have eternal ramifications, beyond what people in the secular world earn?

Is it too much to provide a pastor with all that he needs and beyond, especially when so many pastors around us are underpaid, mistreated, and vilified by their own congregations?

Now I don’t want to be misunderstood: I DON’T advocate compensation packages that allow for lavish and ridiculously excessive lifestyles like those of many televangelists out there. I simply believe that dedicated ministers should be well taken care of, whether it’s through a reasonable salary or helpful fringe benefits (or both).

If you are blessed with a shepherd who has been in the trenches longer than you would probably care to consider, who has demonstrated an undeniable devotion to the Word, the church, and the Lord Jesus, and your church can afford to pay him well, I say do so.

Your thoughts?