Raucous Applause

 Pastor:

I am reticent to raise these issues with you and would not be offended if you elect not to respond to the issues raised in this format. Unfortunately, there is little-to-no opportunity to discuss issues following services.

Once again, I enjoyed your most recent sermon. You did raise the issue of “raucous applause” following adoption of legislation in some states regarding infanticide. Currently, I believe the states of Maryland and Colorado have passed such legislation. I also believe New York either has or is likely to pass such legislation.

You also discussed the need to be led by and yielded to God’s authority. I certainly agree and am thankful to hear such admonitions from pulpits.

I realize that there are myriad views pastors hold regarding the need to engage in the sphere we so often relegate to “politics.” (If you have an interest in my view regarding this topic, you may find my blog post here: 

tinyurl.com/4542u39u)

During a recent brunch with a few Hope members, related topics emerged. Many of those present suggested that it was the pastor’s duty to address such issues publicly. Sadly, in my opinion, there are many serving in pulpits who either remain mute or offer very confusing, if not damning, advice regarding such topics.

During one of the Sunday School classes, we arrived a little early for second-service and I stepped inside and heard an exchange between you and a young lady in the class regarding the LGBTQIA+ movement. I understood your response to be essentially, referring to your sister-in-law, “She knows how I feel about it.”

My concern is that, yes, those in our orbit likely know how we feel. But how many are capable of articulating a biblical response to such issues. If we are to yield to God’s authority in our lives, we must first know what the Bible explicitly and implicitly teaches. (“How can they hear without a preacher?”)

As previously stated, you addressed infanticide. However, the most prevalent harm being done in related matters is abortion. My understanding is that infanticide is only legally permissible in aforementioned states in failed abortive attempts.

I think that it is irresponsible to assume that either most parishioners or pastors possess the facility to readily address such concerns when encountered. It appears to me that many congregations have abdicated their responsibility to lead their flocks. 

I ask your forgiveness if you find this unduly harsh. It is not my intention to offend. It is my earnest desire that God’s Word permeate our pulpits, hearts and minds.

MYRRH/GALL

 Pastor:

I found some interesting discussions regarding the myrrh/gall offered to Jesus. A good summary of this issue was given as, “The gall or myrrh, which was used in perfume and for embalming, was probably a narcotic. It would either help to numb the pain or it was an invitation to commit suicide.” The differences between Matthew’s (gall) and Mark’s (myrrh) references to the substance offered is an interesting study, but may be summarized as follows:

“Many ideas have been given as to what ‘gall’ means exactly in the text; from being bile to a herbal narcotic. The Greek word used in Matthew is χολή which is imprecise and by context it has been identified with a bitter substance that may have served to dull pain, most probably ‘wormwood (Proverbs 5:4; Lamentations 3:15), a plant used to these days as an ‘amphetamine like’ substance that works in the central nervous system and can heighten the endurance to pain among other things.

“Because wormwood can also produce an agreeable odour despite the bitterness of its crude taste, some have theorised that Mark calls it ‘myrrh’, referring to the acceptable smell of the wormwood used in the wine, which Matthew names ‘gall’ due to the bitterness of its taste.” (https://www.christianity.enterprises/2019/07/was-jesus-given-gall-or-myrrh-to-drink.html)

#####

I suspect that the “sac that burst” to which you referred was the pericardium. For future reference, please note the following:

“Pericardial effusion (per-e-KAHR-dee-ul uh-FU-zhun) is the buildup of too much fluid in the double-layered, saclike structure around the heart (pericardium).

“The space between these layers typically contains a thin layer of fluid. But if the pericardium is diseased or injured, the resulting inflammation can lead to excess fluid. Fluid can also build up around the heart without inflammation, such as from bleeding, related to a cancer or after chest trauma.

“Pericardial effusion can put pressure on the heart, affecting how the heart works.” (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pericardial-effusion/symptoms-causes/syc-20353720)

#####

Regarding the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side following the spear having been thrust into his, please note:

“Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be:

1) The heart would race to pump blood that was not there.

2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.

3) The kidneys would shut down to preserve body fluids.

4) The person would experience extreme thirst as the body desired to replenish lost fluids.

“There is evidence from Scripture that Jesus experienced hypovolemic shock as a result of being flogged. As Jesus carried His own cross to Golgotha, He collapsed, and a man named Simon was forced to either carry the cross or help Jesus carry the cross the rest of the way to the hill. This collapse indicates Jesus had low blood pressure. Another indicator that Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock was that He declared He was thirsty as He hung on the cross, indicating His body’s desire to replenish fluids.

“Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side [cf. Zech. 12:10],  piercing both the lungs and the heart, blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel. (https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html)

#####

With all due respect, I would like to suggest that you ask fewer and more comprehensive questions during classes. Although racing through the questions may not be your intention, my experience suggests that many in those classes feel the need to address all questions asked on the sheet provided. This appears to be an impediment to fully exploring the passages under consideration.

For example, per my recollection, you did not ask participants if they had any organic questions (viz., questions arising out of the texts) they would like to address prior to proceeding to the next question.

It would have been appropriate, in my estimation, to have allowed a meaningful discussion of the following:

“When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘It’s your responsibility!’” (Matt. 27:24)

As Christians, we should know very well that it was Pilate’s, as it is ours, responsibility to do more than wash our hands regarding attacks on the Savior. Although Pilate was not a believer, he certainly had a responsibility, irrespective of the consequences, to do more than have an innocent man, per his own ruling, flogged and turned over for crucifixion. As Christians, we have a duty to stand in opposition to those things that are an opprobrium to the cause of Christ. We must be willing to recognize sin as sin.

CHAD BIRD

 Pastor:

I was taken aback by your reference to Chad Bird’s position, as articulated in “Upside-Down Christianity,” asserting “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus.” Had the assertion been that it is not “just” about a personal relationship, that would have been tenable.

Your efforts to grant bona fides to his statement were, in my opinion, anemic and unwarranted. I hesitate to critique pastors’ comments and am fully aware that congregants are frequently critical of virtually all pastors. However, in this instance, I feel as though you committed an error that potentially misled many in the pews.

I commend you for referencing Jeremiah 1:5. However, this was couched in such a way as to lend credibility to both Chad’s comments and patent intent.

Chad states, “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus. The phrase is never found in the Bible. And the whole biblical witness runs contrary to it.” The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept is certainly evident. Chad errs in stating the Biblical witness does “runs contrary to it.” 2 Corinthians 5:10, Galatians 4:9,Matthew 6:6, Daniel 6:10-28, among many other passages militate against this view. Illustrative thereof are the following:

######

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

John 6:37 All the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none of all that he has given me, but raise him up on the last day.

John 6:44  No man can come to me, unless the Father who hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 15:16 you did not choose me

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice . . ..

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29 No one can pluck you out of the Father's hand

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

#######

Chad also states that “Me and Jesus prayers are impossible.” Was Jesus mistaken in Matthew 6:6 when He instructed us, as individuals, “to go into your inner room, close your door and pray . . ..”? (NASB)

Chad goes on to say, “Heaven forbid that I should have a personal relationship with Jesus. For I know what would happen: I would end up, in my mind, reshaping my personal Jesus into a strikingly familiar image: the image of me.” The Bible makes it very clear that if we do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, we are none of His. ( See discussion supra)

This teaching is dangerous and reminds me of Jesus’ warning to those who cry out “Lord, Lord, . . ..” It is not, as I am confident you know, joining a local congregation, that to which we refer as a church, that is salvific. 

I am concerned that your message today comports more with Catholicism than the Bible’s clear teaching on what it takes to enter God’s kingdom. If your intention was to impress upon the hearers that we are saved through administrations of the local church rather than the Spirit’s influence upon us as individuals, replacing our stony hearts with hearts of flesh, I believe that you did a disservice to your congregation

Does the Bible prohibit profanity? (By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor)

 Most Christians take for granted that profanity is sinful, but does the Bible actually address it? Back in 2013, I noted with concern that “it is increasingly common to hear about worship leaders getting drunk after church services and dropping f-bombs while they boast about their ‘liberty’ in the Lord.” Now, my good friend John Cooper, the frontman for the Christian rock band Skillet, has confronted the use of profanity in “Christian” music.

Cooper’s podcast was titled, “The Rot in Christian Music,” which, for him, was reflective of a larger spirit of compromise in the Church that starts with leaders and works its way down through the Body. And he referenced a recent article by Kevin McNeese titled, “What the Bleep Is Happening in Christian Music,” where McNeese “revisits the continuing trend of Christian artists including adult language and themes in their music.”

But are we all overreacting? Perhaps this is simply a matter of us trying to impose our spiritual preferences on others? Worse still, perhaps we are acting as legalistic judges?

Many believers would immediately point to Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

Surely, we would reason, profanity is unwholesome. Case closed. Or is it?

According to one Christian podcaster (and former pastor), this is a misinterpretation of the word “unwholesome,” which, he claims simply referred to things like gossip, which would grieve the Spirit. As for profanity, while this leader was convicted by the Lord to stop using it publicly, since it offends many of his Christian followers (and thereby violates the second half of Ephesians 4:29), he felt no conviction from the Lord to stop using “strong language” privately if he felt strongly about something.

Plus, he argued, the very words we refer to today as “profanity” didn’t exist in Paul’s day.

Was he right?

As to his second point, it is patently absurd.

The English language didn’t exist in Paul’s day, so of course, Paul was not referring to words that are considered profane in English. That is beyond obvious. That would be like saying, “Paul was not against internet porn, since the internet didn’t even exist yet.” Seriously!

As with all scripture, Paul was laying out a principle, which is then worked out and interpreted in every age and cultural context.

In our day and in every culture, everyone knows what profanity is.

Here in America, certain words cannot be used on regular TV networks or in G-rated movies. Those same words will be “bleeped” out by censors.

This is not in dispute. The question is whether Ephesians 4:29 explicitly addresses the issue.

The Greek word translated “unwholesome” in the NIV is sarpos, which is normally used in the New Testament in the sense of “pertaining to being of poor or bad quality and hence of little or no value (particularly in reference to plants, either in the sense of seriously diseased or of seedling stock, that is, not budded or grafted) ...” (Louw-Nida Lexicon).

In Ephesians 4:29, where it is speaking of words rather than of the fruit of a tree, the Louw-Nida Lexicon explains that this pertains “to that which is harmful in view of its being unwholesome and corrupting ... In Eph 4:29 sarpos is in contrast with that which is agathos ‘good’ for building up what is necessary. In such a context agathos may be interpreted as that which is helpful, and by contrast sarpos may be understood to mean ‘harmful.’”

But what, exactly, does this mean?

New Testament scholar Andrew T. Lincoln, author of one of the leading commentaries on Ephesians, noted that the word “is employed elsewhere in the NT in its literal sense of ‘rotten’ or ‘decaying’— of a tree and in contrast to agathos [good] in Matt 7:17, 18.”

As for here in Ephesians, “What is prohibited under the category of evil talk (cf. Col 3:8; Eph 5:4) includes obscenity, abusive language, and spreading malicious gossip. The focus is on the destructive power of words and the harm they can produce in communal life” (my emphasis).

Ironically, the Christian podcaster I just mentioned rebuked those who sent him Ephesians 4:29 regarding his use of profanity, urging them to do their studies properly before sending him a verse. It was actually he who failed to exegete the verse properly and understand the semantic domain of sarpos.

So, in the opinion of Prof. Lincoln, a top New Testament scholar, “unwholesome” words would include “obscenity” (such as using the f- word, for example). He also referenced Colossians 3:8, which reads, “But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips” (my emphasis).

Would anyone argue that profanity is not included under the category of “filthy language”? Greek scholar Robert Mounce defines the word aischrologia, which is translated as “filthy,” to mean “vile or obscene language, foul talk.” Without a doubt, aischrologia includes profanity.

Not only so, but just a few verses after Ephesians 4:29, Paul wrote this (also cited by Lincoln): “Nor should there be [among you] obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:4, my emphasis).

The Greek word translated “obscenity” is aischrotēs, defined by the authoritative BDAG New Testament Greek Dictionary as “behavior that flouts social and moral standards, shamefulness, obscenity” (their emphasis).

Just think of a politician dropping an f-bomb, getting a raucous response from the crowd, precisely because it flouts social and moral standards. That is the very thing Paul is forbidding. This should not be found among you as followers of Jesus!

So, in just three verses, Paul urges believers to get rid of any speech that is unwholesome, that is filthy, or that is obscene. Case closed indeed! He also writes, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Colossians 4:6). This cannot possibly apply to profane speech.

Whether a Christian feels “convicted” about this or not is immaterial. (A cheating husband might say, “I don’t feel convicted by the Spirit about my affair,” but that would be meaningless.)

The Word of God, reflecting the heart and mind of God, clearly prohibits profanity. Let us, then, be raised up to His pure standards, starting with the purification of our hearts and minds, rather than trying to bring Him down to ours.

There are far worse sins than the use of profanity, and a Christian who slips up should not feel condemned. But under no circumstances should we try to justify our fleshly behavior by twisting the Word of God.

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Why So Many Christians Have Left the Faith. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

CLIMATE CHANGE: FACT OR FICTION?

 If you are like me, you are desirous of getting to the bottom of the “truth” regarding the issue of “climate change.” Pardon my skepticism when it comes to various proclamations of doom from the same entities that have lied to us on occasions too numerous to count. From those for whom massive fortunes have been made by stoking the flames of climate alarmism.

As a child, I recall reading forecasts of catastrophic changes due to a coming ice age. Growing up in the Midwest and experiencing harsh winters firsthand, I truly hoped that these forecasts were wrong.

I vividly recall the summer of 1980, when temperatures in the particular region of Kansas in which I resided at the time exceeded 112 degrees for weeks at a time. I recall seeing scorched lawns and swarms of grasshoppers along my route as I walked to the courthouse at which I was working at the time. I also recall driving to-and-from a college that was 20 plus miles away in a vehicle with no air conditioning to purse some prerequisites for a graduate degree during that same summer.

It is safe to say that when it comes to climate alarmism, I am skeptical. I confess that I quickly lose respect for those who foster a cause by corrupting applicable language, such as those who equivocally assert that climate change (formerly referred to as “global warming”) equals climate catastrophism. I know of no adult who denies climate change. However, I know many individuals who have serious doubts about climate catastrophism. 

Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy, unwilling to accept claims of climate catastrophism, published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:”

They state that doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They also assert that the predictions continue. In that post, they state, “[N]one of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.” They offer, as proof, a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. Forty-one of which are as follows:

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989

3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000

4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070

7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

8. 1974: Another Ice Age?

9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’

10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs 

15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles says we Have 96 Months to Save World

24. 2009: UK Prime Minister says 50 Days to “Save The Planet From Catastrophe”

25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 

27. 2014: Only 500 Days before “Climate Chaos”

28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years

32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s

33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000

34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020

35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010

36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!

37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish

41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

 Nine additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) are included below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years:

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production

43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century

44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum

45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980

46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018

47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming

50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Once again, forgive my skepticism. So-called “Liberals” fear the free exchange of ideas. The once respectable Liberalism has been hi-jacked by an ideology that is certainly not liberal when it comes to contrary views. Those holding views contrary to mainstream orthodoxy are demonized, doxed and, if possible, destroyed for simply disagreeing with that which is asserted.

There are those who say that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez et al. to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable. Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-50 record?

John Locke, deemed the “Father of Liberalism,” is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the “Two Treatises of Government”, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God made all people naturally subject to a monarch.  He denied that coercion should be used to force people to believe what those in authority believe. His “Social Contract” intended to provide for life, liberty, and freedom to possess property. Some of these freedoms were to be attenuated in exchange for governmental protections (e.g., provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility).

John Gresham Machen opined: “Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of ‘experts’ appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.”

Those sounding the alarm for climate catastrophism must frame their arguments around a fear of a future doomed by extreme weather. It has been surmised that these views are rooted in human nature. Ironically, an ideology that is virtually devoid of a belief in God’s providence serves as the predicate for those beliefs in ancient accounts of giant floods, famines and plagues – all of which they attribute to man’s sins. In reality, climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, concluding that extreme weather and floods are a result of mankind’s carbon sins.

Climate catastrophism is reminiscent of the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” Irrespective of no evidence of either climate catastrophism or a rise in sea level, they dismiss their observations because a putative 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global catastrophism. Only a select few individuals are quoted by the press and politicians over and over again. These oft-stated propositions are claimed to represent the opinion of 97% of the world’s millions of scientists. (Cf. CO2Coaltion.Org)

Would you change your view of this topic if you learned that there has never been a survey done remotely resembling such a consensus. This claim was made in 2013. However, a survey of professional members of the American Meteorological Society (2013), revealed that only 52% of their members believed that global warming is primarily man-made. Those same 52% also concluded that the change was less dangerous. 

A serious question may be raised regarding the existence of any broad survey of scientists in which they were asked to opine on the danger of a one part per ten thousand increase in CO2 over the past century. Among professionals knowledgeable in meteorology, less than half believed global warming is primarily man-made.

We don’t realize that climate alarmism impacts virtually every aspect of our society. Trillions of dollars either have or are intended to be drained from Americans’ coffers in an effort to address claims that have been clearly shown to be, at best, dubious. The health and safety of millions of people around the world are jeopardized by the diminution of energy resources. 

The madness of climate catastrophism is difficult to fathom. Will we correct this careless course of action before irreparable harm is done? I suspect that we are too far gone. However, God is still on His throne. Hebrews 4:16 tells us, “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”