obedience

Pride and Cowardice in God’s Messengers

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“For the eyes of Yahweh move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is wholly devoted to Him. You have acted foolishly in this. Indeed, from now on you will surely have wars. Then Asa was vexed with the seer and put him in prison, for he was enraged at him for this. And Asa oppressed some of the people at the same time.”  (2 Chronicles 16:9–10, LSB)

Overall, King Asa wasn’t an evil king, at least not in the beginning. When he faced a million-man army from Ethiopia, he cried out to the Lord for help: “Yahweh, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between those of abundant power and those who have no power; so help us, O Yahweh our God, for we lean on You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. O Yahweh, You are our God; let not mortal man prevail against You” (2Chron 14:11, LSB). He grasped how powerless he was without God.

Asa removed idolatry from the land during his reign and experienced success and peace in his time. However, another threat soon arose that would test his faith in God. Baasha, the king of Israel, brought war once again to Asa’s doorstep. When Asa faced the larger Ethiopian army, he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord defeated that massive army for him. But something had changed in Asa.

Perhaps he had become overly confident. Maybe he had learned the politics of ruling by watching other kings. Whatever the reason, Asa didn’t go to God with his problem. Instead, he gathered up all the wealth he could and struck a deal with the King of Aram. Asa would give this wealth to entice the Aramean king to break his covenant with Baasha and go to war. It all seemed to work as he planned. And although Asa didn’t say it, his whole plan acted as if Yahweh didn’t even exist.

Asa didn’t consult a prophet. He didn’t pray as he did when facing the Ethiopian army. He didn’t offer up sacrifices to the Lord. Because King Asa had failed to entrust himself to the Lord, the Lord sent his prophet to speak to him words of condemnation and judgment.

We get a glimpse into Asa’s heart. Once the prophet is finished speaking the word of the Lord to the king, he responds with wrath and puts the prophet into prison. This is a classic case of striking out against the messenger because you don’t like the message. King Asa could have put the prophet to death, but the act wasn’t merciful; it was cowardly. Asa had grown so prideful that he not only didn’t need God to fight his battles for him, he also didn’t need any of his advice or counsel. And since Asa didn’t dare strike out against God (and how could he?), he struck out against God’s man.

My thoughts for this morning could be about Asa’s pride and how he responded, but I’d like to turn my final thoughts to the unnamed man of God who brought the unwanted message. As a preacher, I am often allowed to stand before people and proclaim to them God’s message. Sometimes, especially in mixed groups of believers and unbelievers, it is unwelcome.

How should we, as God’s messengers, behave when we sense people might not like our message? Should we be cowardly and soften the message? Should we add some sugar to the medicine to help it go down, like Mary Poppins would prescribe? Or perhaps, we should avoid giving the message altogether, like Joel Osteen? “Nuance” is another method that many use. Apologizing for the message is yet another method. All of these are ways of soft-selling the biblical message.

It’s easy to identify pride, cowardice, anger, and selfish motives in others, like Asa. But God’s messengers need to be wary of these sins in their own lives as well, because they will impact the way they deliver the message God has given to them.

Am I independent of God’s strength, or at least act like I am? Then my messages will be prayerless. I can study, write a sermon, and preach, all without God’s help. And I will be without God’s power and blessing as well.

Am I prideful, thinking that I’m the next superstar messenger? Have I forgotten that all I have has come from God? Who made your mouth and lips? Who makes your vocal cords work, and gives your eyes sight? Who causes your heart to beat? Who called you, and saved you? Who gave you His Spirit and His Word?

And like Moses, we can become angry when the people will not listen. We can strike the rock instead of speaking as a messenger. They aren’t your sheep, and they’re not mine. Those sheep are Jesus’ and we shouldn’t beat the Lord’s sheep—either figuratively or literally. Anger is often a manifestation of pride.

And cowardice can come, just like it did with Asa. Not like Asa, as the one receiving God’s message, but as a messenger who is afraid of how people will react to what we say. We skip topics or issues because they are “controversial” or people will take offense. We soften words to be more palatable to the “sensitive.” There’s a difference between being intentionally harsh and offensive and letting the message speak for itself, including those things that strike at the heart. If God’s Word offends, so be it. What right do I have to refashion God’s message to my liking?

Second Chronicles 16:9 says, “For the eyes of Yahweh move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is wholly devoted to Him.” May this not just be the desire of those who hear the Word of God, but also of those who deliver the message of God as well.

The Heart of Teaching: Aligning with God’s Truth

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” (John 8:43–45, LSB)

In the back-and-forth between Jesus and the religious leaders, Jesus made a telling comment regarding the reason behind their resistance to His teaching. These devout Jewish leaders were not representing or speaking on behalf of God as they purported. They were not God’s men, even though almost anyone within Israel would have believed that they were. They had been well-trained in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, and they knew the traditions of the rabbis that dated back many years. And yet, Jesus doesn’t align their teaching with God, but rather with Satan.

The root of their teaching wasn’t so much the words they said as the heart from which it emerged. The doctrine they espoused may have found its source in the Old Testament, but it never had penetrated much deeper than their minds. Their hearts were filled with murder and malice. Even though they knew what the Old Testament said and taught, their hearts twisted and ignored God’s teaching so that they were planning murder even in the face of the most unmistakable evidence of Jesus’ divinity.

Just as in the 1st Century, there are a lot of competing ideas about religion. Some incorporate truth with a mixture of folly. Others are more satanic. But even those that are closest to the teaching of Scripture, if not aligned with a changed heart given by the Spirit of God, can lead to cultic, even satanic behavior. In other words, our teaching and doctrine might be orthodox, and yet our hearts might be spewing the infectious poison of hell.

How can we know? Jesus made it clear that knowing the truth is not enough. We must believe the Word of God and not lies. When we read the Scripture and yet our lives demonstrate rebellion against the God of heaven, we ought to pause. “Do I believe, or do I merely say the right things and live in rebellion to the God I say I love?” I can’t answer that question for you, but Jesus’ words are a good reminder for all of us that it is not words versus deeds, but deeds that emerge from beliefs (however imperfect) that give evidence of what is truly in our hearts.

Plugging Your Ears Doesn’t Do Anything

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

Remembering back to your childhood days, you probably remember a common practice by kids that don’t want to listen to other children–they stick their fingers in their ears, and sometimes shout, “I’m not listening…I’M NOT LISTENING! LA LA LA LA LA.” But here is the thing, the child with his or her fingers in her ear may not be listening, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t being spoken to by someone else. The fingers in the ear trick works for the stubborn child, but it doesn’t negate the message.

The prophet Jeremiah had repeatedly spoken out words of warning and calls for repentance, all of which went unheeded. He had suffered abuse and ridicule, and yet he continued to faithfully declare everything that the Lord God told him, even at great personal cost.

In chapter 36, Jeremiah received words from God that he dictated to his faithful assistant. The words were threatening the wrath of God, and Jeremiah’s hope was that the warning might affect the hearts of the people and that they might turn from their sins and return to the Lord in humble submission and obedience. Jeremiah, who was imprisoned and unable to go himself, took the completed scroll with the Words of God written in them, and he handed them to his assistant Baruch with these instructions:

““So you shall go and read from the scroll, which you have written at my dictation, the words of Yahweh in the hearing of the people in the house of Yahweh on a fast day. And also you shall read them in the hearing of all the people of Judah who come from their cities. “Perhaps their supplication will come before Yahweh, and everyone will turn from his evil way, for great is the anger and the wrath that Yahweh has spoken against this people.”” (Jeremiah 36:6–7, LSB)

Baruch took the scroll first to the elders of Judah, and when they heard the words written from the mouth of God through Jeremiah, they were struck with terror at what the scroll said. Clearly, God was angry and they needed to have these words read before the king. As the leader of God’s people in Judah, surely he would do what is best and right. But instead of an open heart that was willing to listen, King Jehoiakim figuratively did what a 1st-grade child might do on the playground–he plugged up his ears and refused to listen. Except, the king was no child, and his actions went far beyond those of a child in his offense against the King of Heaven:

“Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi read it in the hearing of the king as well as in the hearing of all the officials who stood beside the king. Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. And it happened that when Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. Yet the king and all his servants who heard all these words were not in dread, nor did they tear their garments.” (Jeremiah 36:21–24, LSB)

No wonder wickedness ruled in the land with such a wicked king upon the throne! Instead of listening with a broken and contrite heart, Jehoiakim literally cut the scroll that contained the Word of God and tossed it into the fire, piece by piece. He refused to listen and made sure that nobody else was bothered by the message from God either.

Today, rulers all over the world, politicians, people of wealth, power, and influence sit in places where they have a great responsibility. God’s Word is not hidden from our world. He has given us His complete revelation in the written Word of God, the Bible, and in His Son Jesus Christ. Our institutions of Higher Learning treat the Bible as classical literature, our judges and officials swear upon a copy of the Word of God, and in many of our halls of government the Words of God are inscribed in the stone and marble upon the walls. We have no excuse.

And the common man has no excuse either. Ministries like Gideons International according to their own accounts, “have taken more than 2 billion Scriptures in more than 95 languages to 200 countries, territories, and possessions across the globe.” You can find a Gideons Bible in many hotel rooms to this day.

But are they listening? Is the world listening to the warnings clearly written in the Word of God? Some politicians and leaders, including religious leaders, are doing what Jehoiakim did–they are cutting out the parts of the Bible they don’t like. They don’t like hearing about sin (especially those sins they indulge in themselves), and they don’t like feeling the conviction that comes when God’s Word and Spirit press upon their hearts and tells them that they have committed these sins not only against men but worse, against the holy Creator God!

You cannot muzzle God. People have tried throughout history. Communism and other godless regimes have sought to confiscate and destroy Bibles, but they cannot. They have tried to silence God’s servants, imposing sanctions, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering them. But they have found out that they cannot silence God! They plug their ears, but the Words are still spoken and they are still true. The rebellious heart may not want to hear them, and they may stifle the sound for their own conscience, but it will be to their own detriment. God cannot and will not be silenced.

The question is not whether they (the rulers, leaders, celebrities, politicians, and the “power brokers” of this world) have refused to hear God. The question is whether YOU have done this. Have you plugged your ears to the warnings that God has sent in the Bible? Have you ignored the reality that if you would simply listen, these warnings are filled with the mercy and grace of God offered to you? If God didn’t care, why would He warn? If He did want you to turn from your sin, why would He mobilize an army of His servants to take His message all over the world? God cares, the question is, are you listening?

Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Dangerous Middle (part 3)

/ Richard Bargas / 4 Comments

In my last two posts (read them here and here), I laid out the danger of those that seek a middle ground between biblical fidelity (biblical fundamentalism) while also chasing acceptance by the liberal/modernist/progressive church and academy. Those that have sought acceptance in this way often find that they have made a deal with the devil that brings about either a theological slide, or forces them to abandon the hope of ecumenical cooperation because the stakes are too high.

These historical examples are worthless if we don’t stop and take some time to consider what this means for the situation in the church today. Certainly some of those that tried the middle ground and failed would warn us if they were still living (You can read about some of Billy Graham’s regrets here). So, how can history help and warn us?

Considerations for Today

I wish I could teach this subject as an odd historical lesson that we have learned from we should now move one, but we have not. Today the same faulty logic is being promoted among many conservative Christians, churches, and denominations. 

Consider how many Christians today do not think that doctrine is important, but only what one feels about Christ? How many evangelicals see Roman Catholicism as basically compatible with Protestant Christianity, and say things like, “We believe the same things and worship the same God.” This same false idea is spoken of by some regarding Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and other aberrations of historic Christianity. The whole Charismatic Movement is driven by emotions over doctrine.

Fearing that they would be seen as judgmental, many Christians are content to accept all that come in the name of Christianity without question. The results have been disastrous. London pastor Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke in 1966 about the dangerous middle-ground that Christians in the 20th century were mired in regarding the idea that doctrine divides and we mustn’t judge people’s faith by what they believe:

I argue that people who do not believe the essentials of the faith, the things that are essential to salvation, cannot be guilty of schism. They are not in the church. If you do not believe a certain irreducible minimum, you cannot be a Christian, and you are not in the church. Have we reached a time when one must not say a thing like that? Have evangelicals so changed that we no longer make an assertion like that?[1]

–D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Seeing what was on the horizon of the theological compromise in America, J. Gresham Machen said in 1924:

Paganism has made many efforts to disrupt the Christian faith, but never a more insistent or insidious effort than it is making today. There are three possible attitudes which you may take in the present conflict. In the first place, you may stand for Christ. That is the best. In the second place, you may stand for anti-Christian Modernism. That is next best. In the third place, you may be neutral. That is perhaps worst of all. The worst sin today is to say that you agree with the Christian faith and believe in the Bible, but then make common cause with those who deny the basic facts of Christianity. Never was it more obviously true that he that is not with Christ is against Him.[2]

–J. Gresham Machen

I certainly agree that the Bible speaks against a brawling, pugnacious spirit (1Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7). This is good and true, but the Bible also calls us to fight for some things, including doctrine (1Tim 1:18-20; 6:12; 1Cor 10:4-6). This is the basis or our spiritual war.

Like the modernists who followed Friedrich Schleiermacher, many in conservative Christian churches affirm his idea that Christianity is less about what you believe and more about what you feel in your heart. This dangerous idea sets the stage for the outright rejection of all orthodox doctrines of our faith. We are seeing the ravages of this idea among our young people leaving the faith because they have no doctrinal anchors for their souls. They are adrift upon a sea of subjectivity and the church has aided that.

Today, the church and denominations often function like big money corporations that are very slow to change and reluctant to put at risk the surface sense of unity for fear of putting at jeopardy the large amount of financial giving that benefits it. Because of this, “statesman” leaders arise within the church and denomination that seek to walk the middle ground and keep peace among all parties. This is a long cry from Jesus words:

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. (Matthew 5:10–13 (ESV) 

Many have lost their saltiness because they refuse to suffer hardship, persecution, and being reviled for their faith. The middle ground has proven to be not only ineffective, but deadly. May the Lord raise up more courageous Christians who are not afraid to speak up for truth, even if it may cost them friends and influence in this life.

[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal,” in Knowing the Times, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), 254.

[2] Quoted in Beale, 159.

Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Dangerous Middle (part 2)

/ Richard Bargas / 1 Comment

In my last post, I laid out an abbreviated history of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and a working definition of what I mean by fundamentalism. You can read my first part here. In part 2, I will give two historical examples of why this middle ground is a dangerous compromise for those that desire to stay true to the biblical doctrines. My final post will address some considerations for what this means in the Church today.

Seeking the Middle with New Evangelicalism

Around the time of the establishment of the World Council of Churches, the inauguration of a new movement was underway. Seeking to leave the separatistic fundamentalism that seemed to be more insulated from the world, conservative evangelical men such as Charles Fuller, Carl F. H. Henry, E.J. Carnell, Harold Lindsell, Harold J. Ockenga, and Billy Graham sought to influence the liberal denominations and scholars while still maintaining conservative evangelical doctrine through what they called “new evangelicalism.” All these men held to fundamental doctrine but felt that more needed to be done to reunite the churches, win back the denominations, and engage the liberal church.

The New Evangelical movement established (among other things) Fuller Theological Seminary (1947), the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (1950), and Christianity Today magazine (1956). Graham sought a kinder, gentler evangelicalism as evidenced in his vision for Christianity Today, a magazine begun by Graham and his father-in-law Nathan Bell. Of CT, Graham said, “It was my vision that the magazine be pro-church and pro-denomination and that it become the rallying point of evangelicalism within and without the large denominations.”[1] Over time, and under the influence of Dr. Bell, Graham had moved from separating from apostate denominations to seeking their approval and cooperation in hopes of winning them back to conservative theology.

This also proved true for Graham’s crusades as well. In 1957, the year after CT was launched, Graham held his famous New York crusade in Manhattan where he fully broke with his fundamentalist roots and connections by cooperating with “a group that was predominantly non-evangelical and even included out-and-out modernists. It also meant sending converts back to their local churches, no matter how liberal those churches might be.”[2] Iain Murray notes that newspapers at the time of the crusade reported Graham saying, “We’ll send them to their own churches—Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish…The rest is up to God.”[3]

The mindset of new evangelicalism was such that if evangelical Christians could shed their embarrassing fundamentalism and its unwillingness to bend, then liberalism would be willing to let them sit at the table as equals. As someone has said this “deal with the devil” was such that if conservatives would call liberals “Christians,” then liberals would call conservatives “scholars.” 

Church historian George Marsden observes, “ Such successes in culturally influential religious circles were leading Graham toward the conviction that he could make marvelous inroads into America’s major denominations if he could jettison the disastrous fundamentalist image of separatism, anti-intellectualism, and contentiousness.”[4] That Graham was in fact moving in this direction is made abundantly clear in a letter written by Graham to Harold Lindsell, then a professor as Fuller Seminary, regarding Graham’s vision for Christianity Today, to “plant the evangelical flag in the middle of the road, taking a conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems. [Christianity Today] would combine the best in liberalism and the best in fundamentalism without compromising theologically.”[5]

Fuller Seminary, BGEA, and Christianity Today stand as the most obvious examples of this failed philosophy, and today each of them stand as a testimony to the bankruptcy of the idea that one can seek a middle ground without compromising, and the eventual theological slide is clearly seen not only upon these institutions, but upon evangelicalism today.

Seeking the Middle within Presbyterianism

This challenge to historic Christianity happened across denominational lines. Another important example of this was in the Presbyterian Church U.S. denomination (not to be confused with the later PCUSA denomination that emerged from it). The flagship school of the PCUS for many years was Princeton Seminary, and as other schools, it was deeply affected by the incursion of theological liberalism in its faculty. Among the few remaining conservative professors stood J. Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament. Seeing the influx of liberalism into Christianity as a whole, Machen wrote in his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923) that “it may appear that what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.” In other words, liberalism is not Christianity at all, but another religion altogether.

This stand for orthodox Christian doctrine at Princeton came to a head with the denomination and faculty in 1924-1925, when the Auburn Affirmation was signed by 1,274 ministers in the PCUS. The Affirmation made it clear that the fundamentals of the faith (particular the first five listed from page 1 of my notes) did not need to be affirmed by PCUS candidates for ordination. This allowed for new ministers to deny these core doctrines privately while being ordained for ministry, so long as they subscribed to the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith.

Conservative in theology but seeking a middle road for the sake of unity, Charles R. Erdman, professor of theology at Princeton, sided with the so-called moderates in the PCUS General Assembly and created a peace commission to “study” the issue. The commission was to be made up of liberals and conservatives, but only conservatives that sought peace above all else.[6] Erdman himself was Premillennial, a Bible conference speaker, and a contributor to The Fundamentals. But all of these didn’t matter when it came to his alliances. Seeking the middle ground, Erdman held the door for liberals to walk in and overtake the denomination and seminary without question. As fundamentalist Ernest Pickering wrote, “This new evangelicalism approaches the liberal bear with a bit of honey instead of a gun.”[7]

Realizing that the PCUS was apostate and lost to modernism, Machen and the remaining conservative faculty members left and began Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA in 1929. In 1936 he began the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) denomination after being suspended by the PCUS regarding his establishment of an independent mission board that only supported conservative missionaries. The establishment of a new denomination and separation from the PCUS came at great personal cost to Machen who lost many friends for his abandonment of the PCUS. Was Machen overreacting? He didn’t think so. He wrote, “It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.”[8] Machen saw his actions as contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

[1] Billy Graham, Just as I Am, (London: Harper Collins, 1997), 291.

[2] George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 162.

[3] Murray, 29, fn. 2.

[4] Marsden, 159.

[5] Ibid., 158.

[6] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 158.

[7] Murray, 31.

[8] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1923), 67.