Is Satan Real?

It always amuses me that the existence of Satan has gone from being a foregone conclusion to an intellectual conversation that typically leans toward the liberalist idea of life without an adversary.  It seems in our age of enlightenment that we no longer fall for the barbaristic, backward idea of a cosmic adversary that is bent on our destruction and defying the LORD most High.

I am quite amazed by the fact that according to a recent survey, over half of evangelical Christians do not believe that Satan exists.  I would think that considering our Lord spoke more on Hell and Satan than any other topic, it would be a forgone conclusion that this should be a concern of ours.  However, for the most part, we brush the possibility of a cosmic adversary under the rug, as if to pretend that it is not an issue.

I think I may have an idea why we like to go in that direction.  I think that by acknowledging the possibility of Hell and Satan, we have to acknowledge that there is a standard of good and evil.  If we acknowledge this, then we are now left with the realization that there will be some who will be judged to be less than the standard for good.  When followed to its logical conclusion, this route takes us to a place where we have absolute standards, accountability, and the potential for judgment.  People try to avoid this both for the sakes of those who are not Christians as well as ourselves.  If all are saved, then there is no need to offend nonchristians, and there is no need for us to fear either.

Christians need to realize that Satan is a real force and can bring our souls down with him.  If we acknowledge that reality, we are one step closer to ultimately winning the war against our adversary.

Study to Show Yourself Approved

I sometimes shudder at the effect the most uneducated of us can have in society.  By this, I mean that, typically, we as Christians are represented by those who are the poorest representatives of Christians.  It is sad to know that many American Christians are biblically illiterate, and the situation does not seem to have any signs of hope on the horizon.

I am not saying that everyone must be a highly educated professor of apologetics and discernment.  I am only wondering if it is too much to ask for Christians to somewhat diligently read their bible to the point that when that same bible is attacked by the world, Christians are more than able to stand proudly and defend their faith and the holy scripture.  Paul commended the Bereans for seeking after truth.  He told Timothy to be diligent to show himself approved as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.  John encouraged his readers to test the spirits.  In Isaiah 1, God says “come let us reason together.”  In Hosea, God laments that His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

The common thread here is this:  God wants us to use our brains.  God wants us to read the scriptures, work through the materials therein, and learn about God and His word.  We can’t truly begin to know God until we have taken the time to figure out what He is saying to us in His word.

What Is Sin?

To begin with, let us establish a definition for sin. The word used to describe sin in the New Testament was the Greek word “hamartia,” which literally means “to miss the mark.” The term was used in the sport of archery to describe an errant shot at a target. Therefore, a layman’s definition of sin that would fit within the context of the bible would be “anything that falls short of the mark (or target) of holiness before God.”

Sin can be committed both by our deeds and our lack thereof. There is a confession in the Methodist Church that reads “forgive us for what we have done, and for what we have left undone.” Sins that we actively commit are things such as lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, idolatry (and yes, it is capable even in today’s modern society of committing idolatry), greed, and the like. Sins that occur because of our inaction are sins like not loving our neighbor as ourselves, failing to honor God, failing to give, and the like.

Our desires and wants are not in and of themselves always sinful, provided we do not desire something that is biblically condemned as sinful, such as theft, lying, slander, greed, etc. However, they may still not be the direction God wants us to go in our lives. Consider David’s desire to build a temple for God, and how God turned David’s offer down. It was not a sinful desire in David’s heart, but a righteous desire. God’s plan, however, was different from David’s. Therefore, while David’s intentions were not sinful, they were not what God wanted. Had David built a temple for the LORD, it then would have been sinful because of the action of willfully disobeying God. When considering one’s desires in light of scripture, consider the following:

• Men are sinful by nature (Romans 3:10-12).
• We can be transformed in our desires (Romans 8:6-9).
• God can direct our lives through our transformed desires (Philippians 2:12-13).

When we are lining our lives up with God’s will, our desires will be transformed, at which point our desires can actually be used by God to accomplish His will through us and our desires.

In consideration of feelings and emotions, one would do well to consider the fruits of the spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23, which are love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Another passage to consider is 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul describes the characteristics of love. Since we are to live with love toward others, this then should be our response to others. As for anger, the life of Jesus says much about anger. Jesus displayed righteous indignation at the temple moneychangers, not for His own sake, but for the sake of others (the people who were being swindled and the LORD Himself). However, in vindication of Himself, He was often silent, such as at His trials before the Sanhedrin and the Roman government. Therefore, the proper perspective on anger would be this: Anger is not a sin provided it is not aimed at protecting one’s own interest, but is proper from the standpoint of consideration toward the injustice of others.

Provided to www.gotquestions.org

 

Moral Relativism and Absurdity

I have a real problem with the whole “what’s true for you isn’t true for me” gang.  It’s not that I want to impose my ways on anyone, I don’t want to make everyone see things my way, I just want everyone to think logically for a moment.  I want everyone who goes for the whole moral relativism deal to stop for a moment, be intellectual honest with yourselves, and say “Really, I know it makes no sense, I just claim moral relativism because it give me license to do what I want with my life.”

Consider for a moment this succinct little statement: There are no absolute truths.  Now, let’s think that through.  If that statement is true, then there are no absolute truths…EXCEPT THAT THERE ARE NO TRUTHS.  Therefore, there is an absolute truth, which makes that statement false. Therefore, logically, there at least exist absolute truths.  They may be few and far between, but there are absolute truths.

The way people argue for the lack of absolute truths is usually by qualitatively changing the issues.  The qualifications end up becoming feelings, so that rather than talking about what is true, we instead discuss our perceptions.  For example, I could see the sky and think it is blue.  My dad is colorblind, so he may not see the same thing.  If we determine truth solely off of the two of us, we may never reach consensus.  Regardless, however, of our perception, there is an absolute truth behind what color the sky is.  One could use a spectroscope to determine a value that corresponds to a color, and we therefore have an absolute truth regarding the color of the sky, regardless of what me or my colorblind dad say.

Arguing that truth is relative and that truth is what we feel it is is like saying I am sick because I feel like a have a cold.  No, you are sick because of the presence of bacteria or viruses.  Otherwise, you are speaking of perceptions, which are different from truth.

I have a great idea.  I think maybe everyone who feels that they can define their own truth should take  a step back and think for a moment about why they believe such a flawed system.  I think it has more to do with the fact that we are a godless culture that seeks nothing more than independence from our Creator, and moral relativism is just the escape hatch to do so.  Through the wonder of perception, we can then remove truth from the equation, dash accountability to the ground, and live as senseless, primal beasts who just happen to occupy the top of the food chain.  This, then, is the true aim of moral relativism- give me the maximum freedom I can have coupled with the minimum responsibility toward myself and others.

Obedience or Excellence?

Samuel Appearing to King Saul before the Battle of Gilboa

Would you rather be obedient or be excellent?  Which one between the two of obedience and excellence are more highly esteemed in our society?  I have asked friends this question before and it never fails that they respond by saying that excellence is the preferred standard.  Excellence is a 4 out of 5 score on a job review, outdone only by the score of Outstanding.  Excellence is the standard that we see in play in today’s society.  Companies aim for excellence in their products, their delivery method, their marketing.  Employees aim for excellence in their job performance, valuing a performance that ensures themselves a spot in the upper echelon of their respective companies.

Obedience is a far cry from excellence in our eyes.  Obedience is simply following orders.  Obedience means when someone tells you to empty the trash, the trash gets emptied.  Obedience is simply being willful to do the bidding and commands of another.  Obedience does not come with a competition level.  You either are or obedient or you aren’t.  There’s no competition against other people.  Obedience is purely the measure of whether or not you listen to the commands of your superiors.

By the world’s standards, obedience is nothing more than following orders.  Obedience is a 3 out of 5 rating on a job evaluation.  My question, though, is this:  Does God judge our lives by our excellence or by our obedience?  Which pleases God more, to see us excel when compared to other human beings, or does it please God more to see us obedient to His eternal will?  Why not look at a person like Saul to see the difference and discern the will of the LORD?

Saul was, by all standards, excellent.  Physically, he was excellent.  He was used by God in a variety of ways.  He had all the marks of excellence.  By our earthly standards, Saul was by far an excellent person.  Let us read what Samuel says about Saul:

“There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth. And he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.” (1 Samuel 9:1-2)

However, Saul tempered that excellence with utter disobedience.  Here are two examples of Saul’s disobedience:

1)  Saul offered a sacrifice at Gilgal after Samuel had told him to wait seven days for Samuel to come and do it.

This may seem like  a ridiculous affront, but consider this:  Samuel was  a prophet of God, who was a mouthpiece of the Lord to Israel at this time.  Therefore, while Saul held civil authority, in the manners of religion and worship, the priest/prophet was the one in authority.  Also, consider that Saul’s disobedience then was not just disobedience to Samuel, but to God as well.

2) Saul didn’t kill all the Amalekites as God asked, but left King Agag and all the livestock.

Saul had been told to kill all of the Amalekites because they were evil and were a stench in the nostrils of the LORD.  Rather than follow orders, Saul kept King Agag as a prisoner of war, did not eliminate the entire population, and even went so far as to keep the livestock for himself and his army.  This was the final disobedience for the LORD.  The kingdom was taken from Saul and given to David.

Saul was excellent.  But he failed in the area of obedience.  Therefore, he did not stay king for very long, and when he did in shame in the Battle of Gilboa, his kingdom passed into the hands

David Playing for King Saul

of David.  Many of us feel that our excellence is pleasing to God.  We feel that we are doing well in some areas, not so much in others, and therefore, as long as we balance our bad with our good and are better than most people, we will be safe.  We compare other people to ourselves and allow our standards to be fixed by earthly standards.  The standard we need to aim for is the standard of 100% obedience to God.  God’s only standard by which to measure us is whether or not we obey Him.  Jesus said  “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). He also said “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). To reemphasize, He said “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21).  It should be obvious where God’s standard is.  God’s standard is obedience, precisely because it does

not measure itself against other people.  You either are obedient, or you are not.  There are no varying standards of obedience.  It’s not a curve.  It’s either there or it’s not.

Is there somewhere in your life where you are trading the obedience to the LORD for excellence in comparison to others?  Do you ever catch yourself saying “Well, at least I’m better than that guy!”  If you do, you are trading obedience for excellence.    I won’t print it here, but Psalm 119 is a praise of all that is holy in God’s law.  It is a great way to get yourself in touch with the love of God’s laws and to realize that obedience to His statutes is where it is at.

Can We Lose Our Salvation?

Can We Lose Our Salvation?

My father, a staunch Methodist, is purely convinced in the belief that Christians can lose their salvation.  His friend is an Independent Baptist who believes that our salvation is immutable.  Which one is right?

Well, the witness of scripture has this to say:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.   I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.   My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. ” (John 10:28-29)

“For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:39-39)

” And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)

Through these verses, I think the groundwork is laid in scripture that once we have been saved unto eternal life, we are then given that eternal life forever.  One of the texts that are offered as proof that it is in fact possible to believe and then fall away is Hebrews 6:4:

“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,  and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. ” (Hebrews 6:4-6)

The problems with using this verse to prove that salvation can be lost are numerous.  First, consider the audience:  Hebrew Christians who may have experienced somewhat the power of God through the ministry of the early apostles.  They may have experienced some of the goodness of God, may even have taken part in some ministry of the early church, but then fell back into Jewish laws and regulations as a saving grace.  Therefore, they never really accepted the free gift of salvation, but merely had the appearance of those who did.  For those who would then fall away after only experiencing a taste and failing to fully give themselves to Christ, the return to life under the law was, in fact, a mockery of the atoning death of Christ, and are then holding Him in contempt and basically requiring Him to crucify Himself anew since they have decided to return to the old laws.  Therefore, this is not proof that Christians can fall away, but that there are those who profess belief in Christ, trust in Christ, then fall away.  They therefore never trusted Christ for their salvation to begin with.

I don’t believe that Christians can lose their salvation.  I believe that Christians who fall away from the faith and do not return were never really Christians in the first place.  Otherwise, Jesus would have been proven a liar when He said that no one could snatch His own from His hand.

More on Professor Ehrman

A Byzantine Era Mosaic of Christ

I feel that I should further elaborate my position on Professor Ehrman and his very wooden interpretation of the Bible.  I think by providing a shotgun blast of criticism rather than really explaining my position against Professor Ehrman, I really didn’t provide any real reason to disagree with the Professor.

Let me further explain.  Professor Ehrman in particular likes to exploit a verse in Mark to show that Jesus, the Savior of mankind, the Son of God Himself, doesn’t even remember His history.

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.  And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”   And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:   how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”  And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.   So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:23-28

As usual, Jesus manages to give a scriptural beatdown to a group of Pharisees who are trying to prove that Jesus is a sinful man and not, in fact, the Messiah.  However, Professor Ehrman’s problem with this passage is that, when David ate the Showbread, Ahimelech was High Priest, Abiathar’s father.  Abiathar was not yet High Priest.  Therefore, asserts Professor Ehrman, Jesus was incorrect.  Further proof that either Jesus was wrong, and therefore mortal, or the Bible is not accurate and inerrant.  Professor Ehrman’s position is based off of the fact that though current translations read “In the days of Abiathar”, but the original Greek actually says “When Abiathar was High Priest.”  Therefore, Professor Ehrman feels that the Bible is wrong, or Jesus is wrong.

Let me first begin by saying that I would expect someone who is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC would actually spend more time learning and studying than Professor Ehrman has.  Perhaps if he spent more time involved in genuine scholarship, he would not be a part of this attack against Christianity.  You see, Professor Ehrman obviously does not know a lot about the holy scriptures prior to the compilation of the entire canon of OT and NT, otherwise he would know that the books of the OT were not arranged exactly the way they are now.  The books were not divided into their current format until the Septuagint, which then placed the books in the order in which they are now and separated the material as it is now.  The important point to that is this:  Jesus didn’t always quote from the Septuagint.  Therefore, when talking to the Pharisees, who would have most likely referenced the Hebrew scripture, which was NOT divided the same as the Septuagint, He would have pointed them to the portion of scripture dealing with this instance, which since Ahimelech is nothing more than a footnote in biblical history, would reasonably be the portion of scripture talking about Abiathar.  So, it is entirely within reason that Jesus would say “When Abiathar was High Priest” as  a reference to the portion of scripture regarding Abiathar, especially since this particular story is the first mention of the famous High Priest of King David.

Another, simpler thing to consider is this:  Jesus was addressing a group of Pharisees that were already hostile to them.  If the guy proclaiming Himself to be the Son of God (And yes, there were claims to deity early in Jesus’ ministry) slips up on something that little and stupid, I think the Pharisees would have been all over that one, and then there wouldn’t be a debate at all.

In determining the meaning of passages in scripture, it is always best to consider the context and to study to show oneself approved.  Professor Ehrman should probably do less wrecking of other people’s faith and study so that he can rebuild his before it is too late.

On Bart Ehrman and Silly Professor Tricks

Jesus, Interrupted, Bart Ehrman's latest shot at Orthodox Christianity

I can’t tell you how exciting it is to me to know that I live in the same state as Bart Ehrman, a distinguished member of the staff at the University of North Carolina.  Professor Ehrman has recently released a new book entitled Jesus, Interrupted. Now, to be perfectly fair, I haven’t sat down and read Mr. Ehrman’s “masterpiece of NT textual criticism.”  But that’s not my fault.  It’s not my fault, because Mr. Ehrman really isn’t much of a masterpiece maker.  In fact, my position, after viewing the evidence, is that Mr. Ehrman is basically puffed up on himself and is heavy on style, but utterly devoid of substance.

Because I haven’t read Mr. Ehrman’s work, I have included a video from his appearance with Steven Colbert on The Colbert Report.  I won’t go into the gory details, and I admittedly don’t even know much about Mr. Colbert, but after watching the video, I am much more impressed by his acumen than Mr. Ehrman’s.

One thing that amazes me is Mr. Ehrman’s incredibly wooden reading of the gospels.  For example, he compares the record of the gospels in Mark and Luke and concludes that they conflict because in Mark, Jesus seems to not understand why He was dying, while in Luke He was calm and concerned about all around Him.

Is Bart serious?  Is this really what passes for New Testament ship these days?  COME ON!  First of all, Jesus was quoting Psalm 22.  He knew what was going on.  He had just told the disciples a few days previously that He was going to die.  Would He now be mystified as to why He was being crucified?  NO, HE WOULDN’T.  Even beyond that, let’s think for a moment.  Jesus was comforting the women who were standing beside His path to Golgotha.  He wasn’t on the cross yet.  Also, consider this.  Jesus was on the cross for six hours.  SIX HOURS!  Do you really think a chapter out of each of the 4 gospels REALLY covered everything that happened?  I’m sure that a lot more went on, but the gospel writers recorded what they recorded for a specific purpose.  The combination of the 3 synoptics with the Gospel of John provides an incredibly full account of Christ’s death.  The sad thing is that surely, if all four gospels recorded the same thing, then Professor Ehrman would accuse the gospel writers of overcorroboration.

Also, it’s not the Jews of early Palestine that were confused on what the “Son of God” meant.  It’s Ehrman who doesn’t get it.  The “Son of Man,” as Jesus was apt to describe Himself, was a divine being, as evidenced in Daniel.  Also, there was enough prophecy surrounding the birth of Jesus that it should leave little doubt as to whether or not Jesus was divine.  The prophecy of Isaiah even went so far as to say that He would be called “Mighty God.”  Consider for a moment the implications if this was not what was meant by that prophecy.  You have a God who has previously stated there are no other gods but Him, stating through Isaiah, His chosen mouthpiece, that someone else would be called God.  How would that not be terribly wonky unless the being who would be called God was God, and shared in the divinity of the One who was God?  And you can’t argue from lack of authenticity of Isaiah, because we have scrolls from Qumran that predate the birth of Christ by 100 years.  Give me a break.

One more note to consider.  Ehrman claims that the divinity of Christ was a late addition to Christianity.  If that’s the case, explain why Corinthians, written assuredly before 68 AD (Paul had his head removed from his neck in 68), contains a creed that was expressed by early Christians that basically amounts to an expression of Christ’s resurrection, which should surely prove that He was divinity.  Why did Paul offer 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, unless the witnesses were there to be asked?  It makes no sense.

People like Bart Ehrman are only as dangerous as we allow them to be.  With careful study and workmanship, we can refute the pitifully shallow arguments of men like him, Richard Dawkins, and Chris Hitchens.  My wish is that Christians would take the time to build their faith through a sound defense of said faith.

bart-ehrman

All Who Are Weary

Come to Me, all who are weary, and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

This, if any, is the invitation of a lifetime.  The freedom from striving to be good enough for God, the freedom from a lifetime of bondage to sin and suffering that threatens to overwhelm us and take us down to the depths of Sheol.  This is not just any invitation.

Jesus offers us, in this tiny passage, freedom from our struggles with our own sinful natures.  You see, His offer is this:  “Cease your striving, come to Me, and I will give you rest from trying to save yourself by the law.  My burden, believing in Me, and trusting in Me for your salvation, is light compared to the burden of trying to save yourselves.”

It is easy for us to see the strivings of the Pharisees when we read Matthew, but harder still for us to see our own strivings.  Often, we as Christians pride ourselves on our abilities to avoid trouble, avert temptation, or our own moral fortitude.  We forget that, while moral uprightness IS a virtue, it is a virtue not of ourselves, but bestowed by the LORD to us, that we would not continue to live in bondage to sin and suffering, but would instead be transformed by His great love for us and find rest for our souls in the sacrifice of Jesus.

Take a moment.  Are you striving?  Do you feel that your own holiness is important to your salvation?  Do you feel that your own spectacularly high standard is the standard by which God will judge others?  If so, take time to really take stock and realize a few things. First, to not see your own inherent sinfulness means that you are not being honest with yourself.  Second, since you are sinful, you have two options:  One is to try to save yourself with whatever good works you can achieve.  The other is to trust Jesus with your burden, and take His offer for rest.  If you do that, the final step is to realize that the freedom given to you by Christ is a gift that you can’t earn.  By doing so, you realize that the rest He gives you from the law is the same rest He gives everyone.  Therefore let no man boast of His sinlessness and blamelessness, for the rest of Christ Jesus is not to be bought by works, but rather, to be celebrated and praised in songs of thanksgiving.  Then, go out and do your good works empowered by the One who has brought true rest to your soul, knowing that your work is an outgrowing of the wonderful, matchless gift of grace from Christ, our Savior.

Christianity Lite?

What is it about mankind that makes them squeamish about the truth?  What causes people to run and hide when they feel that a finger may be  pointed at them, when they feel that truth may cause them to move out of their comfort zone and into the world of black and white, where things are either good or evil?  One of the disturbing characteristics of postmodern thought is that it has even invaded the church.  Before the postmodern era, church doctrine was fairly straightforward.  Christians held fast to certain doctrines, such as the virgin birth, the Triune God, Hell, Salvation, Sanctification, Justification, and any other “ication” you can think of.  Good was good, evil was evil, and there was no real middle ground.

Unfortunately, with the advent of postmodernism, the reality of absolute truth has given way to a muddled pool of “maybe,” where “there is no absolute truth.”  The implications for society as a whole are clear:  No absolutes means no accountability, because morality is relative.  Unfortunately, it also has implications for the church.  How?  Glad you asked.

A coworker and I were talking about churches today when he informed me that his congregation of over 2,000 members typically dwindles when hard truth (tithing, hell, church discipline) are the topics of discussion.  If it was only my friend’s church that had this problem, that would be okay.  Instead, the problem is rampant throughout Christendom.  Many believers partake of “Christianity Lite,”  a veritable smorgasboard of beliefs and doctrines, where you simply pull together whatever doctrines please you, wrap them all together, then smack a church bumper sticker in your back window of your car.  Garnish with whatever great books that offer no truth, just fluff (I’m thinking Brian McLaren here) then go about your daily affairs with no concerns for the LORD whatsoever.

Many believers tend to rationalize and toss out whatever beliefs hit them as too difficult.  Hell?  NO, Hell is for the unenlightened who believe in a God who is mean and petty and dishes out eternal judgment.  Morality?  NO, morality is relative.  What’s true for you is not true for me!  Have you heard this before?  Chances are, you have, and if you haven’t then you will.  The effect this has on church is staggering-  Believers that leave their bibles at home, Christians who dress for church as though they were attending a nightclub, empty tithe plates that pass by young, wealthy individuals who are at church to see and be seen.  Would that they came to see God and be seen by the Eternal One!

How does the church cope with this staggering problem?  Many times, the church compromises, offering a watered-down version of Christianity to bring in seekers as well as keep the masses unoffended.  Sermons become 30 minutes of feeling good, preceeded by some worship songs that dote on the singer almost as much as they glorify the unchanging LORD of the universe.  Holiness is then second to coolness and inoffensiveness, as the church moves to ingratiate itself more with the world, to the point where the world looks scarcely different from the church.  This is not just a problem for a few churches.  This is a problem rampant in Christianity.  How do we find that sweet spot of offering the Grace of the Gospel and the Truth of the Word all 100% at the same time?

For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,  until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:34-41, ESV)

I don’t think Peter knew much about the whole “Seeker-Sensitive” movement.  I also don’t think he was concerned about looking stupid in front of “Postmodern” listeners.  The amazing thing is the last line of that passage.  Three THOUSAND souls were saved.  It wasn’t by giving people what they wanted.  Peter gave them what they needed:  the utter, naked truth.  They were sinners.  They participated in the death of the glorious Son of Man.

The church needs some straight talk to add to the great worship music and the fabulous comfy auditoriums.  The church needs grit, truth, and spine as well as grace.  The dividing line has been pushed further back by postmodern society.  It is time for the church to push back and find the balance between grace and truth.