Out of Season

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season.” II Timothy 4:1-4.

Why do we always see a beautiful herd of deer running across the road when hunting season is over, but there’s not a buck or doe to be found when it’s legal to take them? Or why do we reel in this fabulous largemouth bass—which we have to release—the day before bass season kicks off, but they all head for the deep water when the season opens? Is somebody sending out Bambi or Nemo alerts? But, we have to be careful. Hunting or fishing out of season exposes outdoorsmen to the penalty of law. The powers that be have determined that certain species of wildlife must be protected; thus no one is permitted to bag or hook these species except during a defined season.

Preaching out of season is not so much regulated by law as it is by opportunity and inclination. In practical terms, preachers do not always feel like preaching. Sometimes we get physically tired and don’t have the stamina to get behind the pulpit and crank out a sermon. Or, we can get so embroiled in a complex church situation or a personal problem that we lose our ability to focus on the Word. The absence of positive results can discourage us and drain us of motivation. But, most of the time, we just can’t get a thought. Mental block. Brain freeze. Nothing. A whole Bible full of sermons and we can’t see any of them. All of us have felt like a dry well, a cloud without water, a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. These are just a few reasons why we preach “out of season.”

Warren Wiersbe says that “be instant in season, out of season;” means “be diligent and alert to use every opportunity to preach the Word, when it is favorable and even when it is not favorable. It is easy to make excuses when we ought to be making opportunities. Paul himself always found an opportunity to share the Word, whether it was in the temple courts, on a stormy sea, or even in prison. “He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap” (Ecc. 11:4). Stop making excuses and get to work!”

He goes on to say that “Preaching must be marked by three elements: conviction, warning, and appeal (“reprove, rebuke, exhort”). To quote an old rule of preachers, “He should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” If there is conviction but no remedy, we add to people’s burdens. And if we encourage those who ought to be rebuked, we are assisting them to sin. Biblical preaching must be balanced. “ True preaching is the explanation and application of Bible doctrine. Anything else is just religious speechmaking.” (The Bible Exposition Commentary.)

How sweet it is when you get a sermon thought several days before you are scheduled to preach! You have time to run the references, research it out, think it through, whip it into shape and maybe even bounce it off of a friend or two. You may even have the luxury of finding just the right illustration that ties it all together at the end. Preaching in season is a beautiful thing.

But the question before us is how do we preach out of season? How do we prime the pump when no water freely flows out of it? What do we say when we don’t have anything to say? Is it okay to listen to CD’s, DVD ’s and messages from the media to get our inspiration? Can we tap into the plethora of material available online and use it, or is that plagiarizing? What about all the books we have in our libraries? Some of the messages by Charles Spurgeon, Clarence McCartney or Charles Finney have been out of print for a hundred years. Can we recycle them for today’s church? Should we insist on our own original thinking for every message or can we draw from many different sources? What about preaching the same message we preached a number of years ago? It is acceptable to pick up the phone and call a preacher friend of ours and ask him for a sermon?

Admittedly, some of these tactics scrape the bottom of the barrel. To one degree or another, however, every preacher wrestles with this challenge every time it falls his lot to mount the pulpit. Nothing is worse than standing before your congregation about to open the Bible and have the sick sensation that you don’t have the right message or that you are about to fall flat on your face. If you’re not excited about your sermon, chances are that the people won’t be too excited either.

I am sorry to disappoint anyone, but this article will not supply all the answers to the dilemma I have just described. All I can do is commiserate with you. I do have a few small suggestions that may help you out in a pinch. In the end, of course, it is your call. I refuse to accept any blame if these tips don’t work for you!

Pray. You know the expression, “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” Trees represent problems, the daily workload, the incessant cell phone and the next person in line for counseling. When you pray, you step back from all of that and take a look at the bigger picture. Remember, you may very well be the only one in the church to see the big picture, and without that perspective, you will not give direction to the church. Make prayer a two-way street, not a boring monologue.

How do you pray for a sermon? You don’t. Get that out of your head. You pray for people. You pray for the church. You pray for souls. You pray for the will of God to be done. You pray for the Word of God to prosper. You pray for wisdom, insight and direction. You pray for a move of God, for revival, for specific areas that are not marching in step with the vision of the church. As you interest yourself in the things that interest God, you will begin to pick up heaven’s signals. It’s called being on the same wavelength. Anytime I have concentrated on proper prayer, God had never failed to give me insight. That insight becomes a kernel of truth for a message.

Read the Bible. I don’t mean to make your load any heavier, but… God has commissioned us to preach the Word. Ideas and stories make for interesting speeches, but the only spiritual power and spiritual authority in your message comes through presenting the Word to your people. Read reflectively. Observe background facts, introductory statements and concluding circumstances as well as central truths. As you read, answer the questions of who, what, when, where, why and how in the passage at hand. You will be amazed at how these simple questions will uncover salient points that casual readers miss, and will even lead you to a unanticipated approach to your message. For example, why did the father of the prodigal fall on his son’s neck? What is significant about “Then Peter said unto them?” Why did Jesus say that Simon Barjona was “blessed?”

Define terms. Find out why certain words are used in the scripture. Compare their usage to other places where they may be found in the Bible or even in contemporary literature. You don’t have to know Hebrew or Greek. Enough language helps are in print to get you to the probable meaning of a word. If you aren’t an expert, of course, don’t act like you are. A powerful truth may emerge from the definition of words that most people perceive as common terms. The definition of the word mystery, for example, will keep a careful scholar occupied for a long time. So will Godhead, propitiation, seek and mortify.

Look at yourself. God didn’t call you to preach yourself, but he did call you to preach. Evidently, you have some unique experiences, some validating credentials, some powerful truths sealed up in your bones. Some of them will come forward without much effort. Other things will stay hidden in your mind until you go on a specific mission to root them out. You can remain modest and yet still tell what happened to you. No one is a better authority on your life than you. Think of your childhood, your friends, your hurts, your successes, your learning opportunities, your jobs, your bosses, your family, and on and on. As you tell about your personal experiences, you will have an authenticity in your tone that you can’t conjure up by telling someone else’s story.

Look at your people. There they sit. Inundated with problems, battered by fears, intimidated by circumstances, beaten down by failures, worried about bills, hurt by abuses, wearied by the struggle, and burdened with family matters, they need to hear from God. They know what the neighbors think. They deal with the opinions of carnal fellow workers every day. Their ears and eyes are constantly bombarded by the humanistic philosophies of the world. They don’t need an Oprah rerun or a Doctor Phil rehash. They need a God-called, anointed preacher to address their situations with eternal truths from the Bible. As you bury your head in your hands trying to think of what you will preach, visualize your people surrounding your study desk. That will get you going. Jesus did not tell Peter to cook up a recipe to please his own palate. He told him to feed the sheep. When you let the needs of your people drive your sermons, you are obeying the command of Christ.

Depend on the Spirit. Sometimes, the best thing you can do is forget your notes and let the Spirit of God lead you. If the timing isn’t right or if the people aren’t ready to eat a full plate of spiritual food, don’t force it. You don’t always need an hour to accomplish the will of God. A great message may be preached in five minutes. If all you have is a brief word from the Lord, deliver it and then open the service up for a response. If you stubbornly insist on laboring through your prepared sermon when God wants the service to go another direction, you may forfeit the special blessing that God has for the people in a given service. I have found that when I follow the leading of the Spirit at such times, God miraculously supplies me with some thoughts and words that prove to be far more powerful than what I planned to say.

Preaching out of season demands a strategy to negotiate the turns. It is a mistake to believe that you need no preparation. The kind of preparation you need may not be from a book. It is more likely to be from your heart. It demands an intuitive, sensitive and heartfelt approach. And, a final word of advice: Don’t wait until you are thrown overboard before you learn to swim.

The Time of Your Life

Do you know what the following numbers represent?

2,207,520,000  (Seconds in a 70 year old lifetime.)
31,536,000  (Seconds in one year.)
86,400  (Seconds in a day.)
3600  (Seconds in an hour.)
60  (Seconds in a minute.)

The following definition follows U.S. usage in which a billion is a thousand million and a trillion is a 1 followed by 12 zeros.

• A nanosecond (ns or nsec) is one billionth (10^-9) of a second and is a common measurement of read or write access time to random access memory (RAM). Admiral Grace Hopper famously handed out foot-long lengths of wire to students to illustrate how far an electrical signal can travel in a nanosecond.
• For comparison, a millisecond (ms or msec) is one thousandth of a second and is commonly used in measuring the time to read to or write from a hard disk or a CD-ROM player or to measure packet travel time on the Internet.
• A microsecond (us or Greek letter mu plus s) is one millionth (10^-6) of a second.
• A picosecond is one trillionth (10^-12) of a second, or one millionth of a microsecond.
• A femtosecond is one millionth of a nanosecond or 10^-15 of a second and is a measurement sometimes used in laser technology.
• An attosecond is one quintillionth (10^-18) of a second and is a term used in photon research.

Observations and Questions about time: 

• Can you stretch a second or a minute into a longer period of time?
• How much time do you have in comparison to your neighbor?
• Can you recall and relive one single second?
• Why do some people seem to have more time than others?
• What do we mean by “saving time?”
• Why does time sometimes “fly?” and other times drag by?
• Why do some people seem to get more done in their lives than others?
• What is “quality time?”

I Don’t Have Time

Busy, important people never have time. Admit it and be done with it. If you had the time to walk, you’d be out making another million, right? Who wants to be a pedestrian , anyway? (Ordinary, unimaginative, uninspired). Nope, you don’t have time. Speed by Olander and glance sideways at them wasting precious hours drifting in sailboats, or getting hooks wet, or endlessly circling a lake while spewing meaningless drivel to similarly unoccupied drones. Not you. It’s productivity all the way. Make every minute count. Save time. You know, like the slogan, “Get in, get out, get going!” And, all the time you save by not walking, you’re putting into a time bank, right? Good. Just cash it in when you get ready. Precisely what an unnamed friend of mine did…or planned to do. It was really sad, though, because three very short years away from the first withdrawal, his bank closed down. Yeah. I heard the assets were non-transferable, too. Oh well, if the kids can’t have your remaining time, they can probably get that unspent million.

There are four categories of time usage:

Sustenance (No choice)

• Eating
• Sleeping
• Personal maintenance (hygiene, grooming, etc.)

Productivity (Initial choice, then little or no choice)

• Job, Career, Vocation
• Travel
• Personal economy (house, yard, vehicle, shopping)

Social Obligations (Range between no choice and complete choice)

• Relationships (talking, emailing, visiting)
• Duties (funerals, weddings, parties, etc.)

Discretionary (Complete choice)

• Recreation
• Hobbies
• Entertainment
• Management of thoughts, emotions, interaction, etc.

Dysfunctional people do not balance their use of time.

• Addicts, alcoholics, workaholics, fanatics
• Narcissistic, egoistic, paranoid

The more you focus on one area of time, the more dysfunctional you are.

Not all time is equal, that’s why it must be managed. (Preparation, planning, planting, building, developing, learning, growing, etc.)

How sacred do you consider your time to be? Is time as sacred as life?

• What are the most important ways we could and should use our limited time?
• What are the least important ways we could and should use our limited time?
• Why is there a conflict between the two usages?
• What are our greatest time wasters?

Common statements about time:

• When I get time…
• I never have enough time…
• I ran out of time…
• I didn’t do it in time…
• Time flies when you’re having fun.
• There’s no time like the present.
• This will save us time.
• Time waits for no man.

Annie Dillard: How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives.
B. Franklin: Dost thou love life? Do not squander time, for that the stuff life is made of.
Brian Tracy: There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing.
Will Rogers: Half our life is spent trying to find something to do with the time we have rushed through life trying to save.

• Habits, addictions, compulsions, worries…all steal time from us.
• Haste, impatience, brashness, stubbornness…all grant false gifts of time to us.
• Procrastination, fear, indecision, lack of planning…all waste time for us.
• Bitterness, hatred, anger, envy, jealousy…all turn time against us.

What does the Bible say about our use of time?

The most important appointment you have is salvation. 2 Corinthians 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

The most important discretionary time is your walk with God. Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. ¹² The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. ¹³ Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. ¹⁴ But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

The most important concept of time is timing. Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. 1 Cor. 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

The most important attitude toward time is accountability. 1 Peter 4:1-3 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; ² That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. ³ For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

The most important comparison to time is eternity. 2 Cor. 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. ¹⁷ For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; ¹⁸ While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The Stealing of Jesus

With the eyes of Black Liberation Theology professors uncomfortably squinting from their rude exposure to the national news spotlight, many of us find ourselves rummaging through the tenets of this relatively little known faith, trying to understand what it is all about. Rarely, since the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages, except maybe the twisted Christianity of white supremacist groups, has hatred and vengeance been so evident in a religious movement. This theology calls for serious examination, especially if it has been embraced to any degree by the Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, who, at this writing, has convincing odds to be the next president of the United States. It should go without saying that the religion of the occupant of the highest office in the world enjoys a preferred position in attracting new adherents.

Terms and phrases like “blackness”, “critical reflection on the historical praxis”, “lay practitioners” and other strange word combinations employed by Liberation theologians formulate a religion substantially different from orthodox theology. And it’s not just unfamiliar doctrine. The very deity enthroned by Liberation Theology bears little resemblance to the conventional Jehovah-Jesus as understood by most Christians. One example is that BLT theologians openly claim that Jesus was a black man. The insidious nature of this theology, however, is its use of many of the same terms familiar with most Christians, like the cross, righteousness, justification, etc., but with hybrid meanings, code phrases and essential reversals. Black Liberation Theology evolves from several sources, including the historical and religious experience of African American people, the alleged revelation of God at work in the black experience, the interpretation of Scripture, the truth as ascribed to Jesus Christ, and selected church traditions.

Questions abound. Is the Jesus of Black Liberation Theology the true Jesus, or have they distorted him and his message and reformulated him into a perverse caricature of the Jesus of the Bible? Why does hatred comprise the premise of their belief system? Did we miss something in our childhood Sunday school classes? Should those of us in the “oppressors’” community have sung, “Yes, Jesus hates me?” Does Jesus hate more than he loves, or does he demonstrate his love by his hatred? Are there traces of truth in the Liberation Theology Jesus but without delimiters? As we examine this theology, I believe we will see that Black Liberation Theology (BLT) has exploited the Jesus of the Bible, that it has recast historical truth into heresy, that it has imposed a belief system built from bitter, hate-mongering attitudes and that it has subverted Christ’s over-arching message of love and forgiveness. Moreover, the ultimate solution of BLT to black angst consists of violence, vengeance and death, concepts that are antithetical to the broad themes of the Bible. To BLT adherents, all of these objections raised in this article are expected white equivocations to their theology. Nevertheless, they need to be articulated to establish parameters for the necessary dialogue.

Angry ripostes of the “privileged class” will not suffice here. For those of us who reject BLT to call for equality of the races, to insist on the “color-blindness of God”, to affirm a belief in individual responsibility and self-determination and to believe that God wants us to love everybody—all of the usual arguments against racism and bigotry—are positions basically laughed off by Black Liberation theologians. They say that such arguments show a profound lack of understanding of the real plight of the oppressed and that the burden of history cannot be explained away so sweetly and innocently. This is why talk show hosts who ask simplistic questions of BLT proponents never get straight answers. The questions are considered to be stupid, based in ignorance and BLT professors will not play along. In order to make our case against BLT, we must go beyond the superficial and look at the very premises of this system. When we do, we will discover that those who subscribe to BLT continue to do so for reasons other than sound Biblical exegesis.

Origins and Core Beliefs of Black Liberation Theology

Although Dr. Jeremiah Wright has become the most famous representative of Liberation Theology due to his widely publicized sermon excerpts, Dr. James Cone is actually considered to be the standard bearer for the movement. A passionate, expressive and persuasive speaker, Cone exudes a zealot’s confidence in his theology. There is almost no aspect of the Christian religion that he cannot and does not relate to his perspective of blackness. He has articulated Liberation views in his books, Black Theology and Black Power, A Black Theology of Liberation, God of the Oppressed and Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation. We get some of the flavor of his theology in these quotes:

“As we examine what contemporary theologians are saying, we find that they are silent about the enslaved condition of black people. Evidently they see no relationship between black slavery and the Christian gospel. Consequently there has been no sharp confrontation of the gospel with white racism. There is, then, a desperate need for a black theology, a theology whose sole purpose is to apply the freeing power of the gospel to black people under white oppression.” Black Power and Black Theology.

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. ( A Black Theology of Liberation , pp. 63-64)

These excerpts from Cone’s books purport to elevate Liberation theology to a scripturally defensible and historically justifiable position. Further study, however, reveals the heavy influence of Afro-centrism, Marxism and Christian socialism as initiated by the Catholic Church in Latin America pre-1980. Specifically, Cone combines the tenets of the Black Power movement led by Malcolm X with the Christianity of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in crafting his Black Liberation Theology. BLT professors do not hold these positions as mere intellectual preferences or theories. They want radical, sweeping, effective change. They openly support varying degrees of social unrest, social disorder and guerilla warfare—in short, any strategy that overthrows the current power establishment and flips the control from the oppressors to the oppressed. Such blatant advocacy of aggression to advance their agenda forces their theology out of the seminary and into the streets. What appears to the uninformed to be interesting differences in theology actually becomes fodder for raw emotion, hatred and class warfare. The following quotes, attributed to James Cone, aptly illustrate this point:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

“In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors. Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.” [Cone].

Indeed, Liberation theologians filter the entire message of the Bible and God through the lens of liberation. In so doing, they filter out any other perspective. Accordingly, they brand as illegitimate any interpretation of God that does not identify him as primarily an advocate or savior of the oppressed. Whatever havoc this wreaks upon the white establishment, whatever carnage it leaves in its wake, what ever suffering it causes for their enemies, is, in their view, still an inadequate payback for the centuries of injustice and cruelty sustained by black or oppressed races from their tormentors. Rather than the theology of liberation, it may more aptly be called the theology of grievance, for this is what constitutes the sum and substance of the belief system. Aggrieved and oppressed people must no longer accommodate “white” supremacy, whether it be in politics, economics or religion. Justice calls for the long, torturous history of oppression to be over and reparations made.

What prompted the birth of Black Liberation Theology? Why do we need a “black Jesus”, to use the terminology of James Cone? Why must a subjective theology for blacks exist instead of an objective theology for people of all races? Black Liberationists respond that they cannot identify with a God who has been shaped in the image of white Europeans. Anthony B. Bradley, an assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary offers this explanation:

“For Black theologians White Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, Blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-Black—Blackness stands for all victims of White oppression. “White theology,” when formed in isolation from the Black experience, becomes a theology of White oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against Blacks. Cone argues that even those White theologians who try to connect theology to Black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the Black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of Black theology: an unqualified commitment to the Black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God’s liberating work in the world.” (www.FreeRepublic.com, 3-26-2008.)

In light of this, one must wonder whether we need an oriental theology to relate to the Asian experience; or a Native American theology, or a South Pacific theology, or an Eskimo theology, or an Amazon basin theology, etc., This is not mockery, but taking the argument out to its logical conclusion. Since each of these groups or ethnicities process the world through their own unique praxis or experience, then, according to the premise of Black Liberation Theology, they need to create a belief system best suited to them. Actually, this has already happened thousands of years ago. It’s called paganism and it is predicated upon the belief in many gods and many religions. If the monotheistic theology of the Bible is flawed though imperfect human interpretation, the best course would seem to be to fix the interpretation instead of developing a parallel theology for any particular group of people.

Heresy of Black Liberation Theology

When we examine some of the particulars of Black Liberation Theology we discover why they must be rejected by those of us who believe the Bible. Keep in mind that, as a subject, racism and social injustice has inspired a huge body of work that cannot be addressed in this short piece, therefore much of the controversy lies outside the scope of this article. The following points do address the points I consider to be the most salient to Bible believers of the Apostolic faith.

The Jesus of Black Liberation Theology does not exist. BLT reconfigures Jesus into a universal symbol of the oppressed. It interprets the incarnation as the first step in God identifying with the aggrieved masses; it defines the focus of his ministry as consistently centered upon the underdog; it holds that his constant conflict with the Jewish hierarchy reveals Jesus as the perpetual symbolic victim of governmental power; and it views his execution upon the cross as the ancient counterpart to the lynching tree faced by exploited blacks in America. Their extreme makeover of Jesus transforms him from a magnanimous figure of love and forgiveness into an angry, embittered vigilante who is out to even the score. From the position of the aggrieved, this makes a world of sense. They have created a Jesus with a composite persona of Robin Hood, Mahatma Gandhi, Fidel Castro and César Chávez, with a lot of Karl Marx thrown in. Driven by a largely carnal, humanistic vindictiveness, they lash out against any symbol of oppression, whether it be white skin, financial wealth or centers of governmental power. This is why the Liberation Theology believers, especially in Latin America, were sympathizers with and supporters of communistic takeovers. Communism is the political counterpart to the more religious Black Liberation Theology. BLT sanctifies violence, justifies rebellion and blesses raw hatred. Because they will not remove their eyeglasses of grievance, they cannot see any other purpose, any other mission, or any other victory for Christ than his representation of the oppressed.

The social gospel of BLT strips the supernatural and eternal truths away from Jesus and makes him just another player in a long line of freedom fighters. The Jesus of the Bible was neither a flaming vigilante nor an advocate of violence. He did withstand all attacks against the disadvantaged, but he preached an inviolate message of love, forgiveness and submission. He was the Son of God come to earth to prove the ascendancy of the Spirit over the rule of the flesh. His divine attributes brought healing to the diseased; his compassion lifted up the hurting; his intrinsic power as God incarnate rolled the stone away from his tomb and he walked out a living witness to his power over death. His death on the cross was not just a symbol for the suffering of the oppressed. It was a sinless sacrifice offered as the atonement for all of our sins. The resurrection was not a motivational act for those who fight for social justice. It was the gift of tangible hope that believers can live again. Jesus came to show that, regardless of the human condition, through him we can all be overcomers.

Black Liberation Theology has subverted Christ’s over-arching message of love and forgiveness. No one disputes the fact that Jesus was a friend of the poor. Black Liberationists, however, place such disproportionate emphasis on this role of Christ that they make it the sole purpose for the ministry of Jesus. Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School points to Luke 4 as the guide for Christian purpose and mission.

“And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, ¹⁸ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, ¹⁹ To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Luke 4:17-19.

“Jesus says my mission is to eradicate poverty and to bring about freedom and liberation for the oppressed,” Hopkins says. “And most Christian pastors in America skip over that part of the book.” (Ben Calhoun, NPR, 3-18-2008). But, did Jesus intend for the church to focus on the poor, the brokenhearted and the captive to the exclusion and outright denial of the very essence and spirit of Christianity? Black Liberation Theology takes the methodology of Christ out of the realm of spirituality and makes it into a political and social movement. From Luke 4:18, they make a non-sequitur leap to condemning all persons of means, hating all heartbreakers and cursing all captors. If we are to love one class of people, they believe we have to hate another class. Thus, in their efforts to tip the balance of power, they have overreached and have fallen in the ditch on the other side of the road. BLT adherents also skip over parts of the book.

²⁷ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, ²⁸ Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. ²⁹ And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. ³⁰  Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. ³¹ And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. ³² For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. ³³ And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. ³⁴ And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. ³⁵ But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. ³⁶ Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Luke 6:27-36.

Black Liberation Theology has recast historical truth into heresy. One of the most egregious facets of Black Liberation Theology is not necessarily what it is for, but what it is against. It affirms the poor and oppressed, it espouses the plight of the disadvantaged and it provides a positive identity to those who have been deprived in life. No fair-minded person would deny that these are righteous causes. At the same time, however, BLT savages anything and everything that represents power and the establishment. Cone writes,

“Jesus had little toleration for the middle or upper-class religious snob whose attitude attempted to usurp the sovereignty of God and destroy the dignity of the poor… The Kingdom is not for the poor and not the rich because the former has nothing to expect from the world while the latter’s entire existence is grounded in his commitment to worldly things. The poor man may expect everything from God, while the rich man may expect nothing because he refuses to free himself from his own pride. It is not that poverty is a pre-condition for entrance into the Kingdom. But those who recognize their utter dependence on God, and wait on him despite the miserable absurdity of life are typically the poor, according to Jesus.” (www.wfu.edu.)

BLT sells its soul to the idea of divine bias. God is a respecter of persons, despite well rehearsed scriptures to the contrary. No one who has accumulated wealth or has consolidated a power base enjoys the favor of God. If this view were true, Jesus should have reacted very differently to Nicodemus, an aristocratic Jew who sought out the Master under cover of darkness. Instead of engaging him in spiritual concepts like the new birth, Jesus should have castigated him for his elitism and power-mongering. But, Jesus made a point to talk to Nicodemus about heavenly things, not earthly. In addition, we must not miss the point that eternal salvation is intrinsically tied to belief in Jesus, not to social justice.

“ That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. ¹⁸ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:15-18.

BLT unashamedly traces its roots to the here-and-now of African tradition as opposed to the Christian teaching of the afterlife. BLT disparages the idea of rugged individualism, although the scriptures plainly teach that anyone who does not work should not eat, that each of us should bear our own burden and that we will be judged by the works done in the flesh. BLT practitioners openly denounce the rich and the white, fomenting and encouraging hatred against them, despite Christ’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. Although they sometimes deny it, BLT advocates violence against the white establishment. When violence does occur against government or white institutions, they passively shrug their shoulders and comment that it was deserved. They adopt this position that runs counter to Paul’s teaching that we are to honor the powers that be.

Black Liberation Theology has imposed a bitter, hate-mongering approach upon the essence of Christianity. Although much has been said about BLT and hatred, let’s examine it one layer deeper. It seems inconceivable that the “critical praxis” claimed by the black race could so pervert the noble ideals of Christianity as to turn it into a rabid, malignant Black Liberation Theology. This assessment does not invalidate the inherent reasons for the hatred of blacks for whites. It is indisputable that inhumanity and injustice has been reticulated into the black experience over the centuries, beginning with slavery and then progressing into segregation, discrimination and violence. Yet, no individual, group, race or nation has ever been positively affected by such wholesale embracing of institutional hatred. From a purely scriptural standpoint, hatred is to be resisted as a work of the flesh, not embraced and internalized as an identifying mark of oppression. As Paul wrote to Titus,

“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” Titus 3:3.

Who among us, even among the most fanatical Black Liberationist, could credibly deny the scriptural teaching about love? Who could possibly cancel out the application of love in every area of life, whether personally, politically, economically, religiously or racially? And who would be so arrogant and prejudiced as to pit the codified teachings of hatred against the demands of Bible for love as the basic requirement for Christianity? There is nothing more integral to discipleship than the attitude of love. This is not a play on words. This is not “white” theology. This constitutes incontrovertible Bible doctrine.

“We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. ¹⁵ Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. ¹⁶ Hereby perceive we the love of God , because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. ¹⁷ But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? ¹⁸ My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. ¹⁹ And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.” 1 John 3:14-19.

BLT professors would charge that this scripture condemns the white establishment. It may indeed condemn individuals in the white establishment, but we will not be judged as a group. Each of us will be judged as an individual, those with black skin as well as white, those of the elite class as well as those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder. No color, race or ethnicity finds refuge for hatred here or any other place in the scripture. Their total oneness with hatred makes Black Liberation Theology neither theological nor Christian.

Black Liberation Theology leads nowhere. The ultimate solution of BLT to black angst consists of violence, vengeance and death, concepts that are antithetical to the broad themes of the Bible. BLT purists cannot be trusted to work on racial peace, community or shared wealth and resources if their true intent is the domination and destruction of the white race. At some point, their push will provoke a push back. The continual drumbeat of Black Liberation Theology proponents may eventually lead to a civil war on a grander scale than this nation has ever imagined. Some of BLT’s own adherents have already predicted as much, although they have intended it to serve as leverage for the public to take Black Liberation Theology seriously.

If Jesus had indeed been primarily a champion of the oppressed, why did he not lead an insurrection against the Roman government or the Jewish hierarchy? Moreover, if he indeed had the power to do anything, in accord with his claims of divinity, his refusal to do so makes him guiltier than anyone in history. With one fell swoop, he could have brought about justice, revenge and reparations for all oppressed everywhere and for all time. Instead, he allowed them to put him to death on the cross as a symbol. There can be only one answer to the advent, ministry and bodily sacrifice of Jesus. That answer has to be that he came to satisfy the demands of a righteous God who wanted the sins of the world to be covered. When Black Liberation Theology characterizes the cross as anything less than the spiritual act that it was, it guts true Christianity of all of its meaning.

Conclusion

To call the views of Cone, Wright and other Liberation theologians radical cannot adequately describe their cosmic threat. Their defined differences they have with the world are not merely denominational, sectarian or cultural variations of the similar Christian theme believed by most Western nations. They characterize the struggle of the races and the politically and economically oppressed people of the world as systemic and espouse ideas that rip the conventionally accepted paradigm of Christianity to shreds. If they were to carry out Liberation theological beliefs to their logical conclusions, it would lead to the extinction or at least the total subordination of the white race.

Black Liberation Theology cannot be seated among the valid Christian dogmas of the world. It must give up that seat and go over and sit with the social activists, the anarchists and the architects of civil unrest. BLT is a political movement with Christian overtones. Its articles of faith are so blatantly anti-Christian, anti-Bible and anti-Jesus that they cannot be classified as Christian. If they can, then Christianity means nothing.

Ultimately, no single white person can be held responsible for the actions of the white race. No single black person can be held responsible for his or her race. We cannot re-enter the annals of history and change the past. We cannot undo the long litanies of grievances and wrongs of our forefathers. Love and forgiveness remains the only avenue to peace. As a movement, a church or a denomination, we can do our best to bring our beliefs and convictions into truer alignment with the Word of God. We can hold our brothers and sisters accountable for violating the spirit of Christianity. We can preach, teach and practice truth to a much greater degree than ever before. In the end, we have no loftier goal than to practice Christianity just as Jesus established it and as the primitive church practiced it. We don’t need a white Jesus, a black Jesus or a multicolored Jesus. We need the real Jesus of the Bible. He will be enough for us all.

How Deeply Should Apostolics Get Involved in Politics?

The phone call was somewhat surprising, but congenial enough. We exchanged greetings, caught up on the news of relatives and friends we had in common, and talked about the weather. Then, he asked me to consider supporting a particular candidate whose primary was coming up soon in my state. The gist of the conversation from that point is irrelevant, but the call itself prompted me to think about politics and the Apostolic believer. Some of us, like the gentleman on the phone, jumped in with both feet long ago. Most of us are casual observers, content to talk about politics based on what we read in the newspapers and the internet, but nothing much beyond that. Our Apostolic tradition, however, leans away from direct involvement in politics. Those founders and leaders who have led the church in past decades turned a deaf ear to contemporary news and they anathematized participation in politics, except to cast a vote at the ballot box.

Every presidential election cycle captures the attention of the nation in a political tsunami, churning with issues that touch at least one nerve of every person or group in the country. Obviously, many of these issues impinge upon the values of Bible-believing Christians, like same-sex marriage, partial birth abortion, fetal stem research and other similar topics. Other issues in the areas of free speech, freedom of religion and taxation as it involves religious institutions land squarely in the province of believers as well. Actually, nearly every issue that makes up the national dialogue has tentacles that burrow into church affairs at some level. Given this context, do Apostolic people have warrant and cause to enter the political fray and fight for their values? If so, should their involvement be limited to participating in the conversation from the sidelines? Should they articulate their views on certain issues by speaking, writing or contributing to issue-oriented movements in order to raise consciousness about them? Or, should they actively become involved in campaigns and throw their support behind particular candidates? Are they right to even run for office?

Some Apostolic believers do participate in the politics of our day. From state representatives to judges, from partisan supporters to political action committee members, you will find a number of believers who feel it is their duty to get involved. Yet, I’ve never heard any specific encouragement coming from us, at least institutionally, to become political. We are much more likely to urge our constituents to stay out of politics. Politics is a corrupt, dirty business, according to the long-standing template, and if we lay down with the dogs, we’ll get up with the fleas. We have been told to pray, fast and focus our energy on building up the kingdom of God.

This sentiment is not without biblical basis. The statement of Jesus, “My kingdom is not of this world” has become the first resort for those who disdain political involvement. Jesus had no inclination to influence the politics of Rome or even of the Jews in the province of Judea. He encouraged more of a passive acceptance of the system, and submission to however the authorities treated their subjects. The most memorable incident of protest involved the moneychangers in the temple at Jerusalem. “And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Mark 11:15-17. This protest should not be characterized as political, but an indignant reaction to the sacrilegious activities in the temple. The moneychangers’ traffic was sanctioned by the Jewish authorities, very possibly because they kicked back a portion of their profits to the priests. But when Jesus came before the magistrates, he either answered respectfully or he refused to open his mouth.

Paul takes a similar posture. He deals extensively with the Christian’s attitude toward the government in the book of Romans. “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Romans 13:1-7. (New International Version. 1996, c1984 Grand Rapids: Zondervan.) To Timothy, the Apostle writes, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” 1 Timothy 2:1-3. Paul seemed to be oblivious to the entire realm of governmental power, except when he thought it advantageous, as a Roman citizen, to appeal his indictments to Caesar.

Without exegeting this entire passage, we may summarize the views of both Jesus and Paul as accommodating the powers that be. They did not use their influence to incite riots, make political speeches, challenge the proper administration of authority, start insurrections or become involved in social causes. They focused their energy on spiritual causes and advocated prayer, fasting, study of scripture, proclaiming the Gospel and spreading the Word of God to the farthest points possible. It is clear that they believed the most powerful force they could wield was prayer and the establishment of churches around the known world. James wrote, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” James 5:16b.

The question arises, however, whether or not the differing forms of government that contrast the ancient world with the status quo make a subsequent difference in the participation of the citizenry. In Bible times, no one had a chance to become a Caesar unless he was born into a certain family. The political process did not extend out to the grassroots level. Westerners are accustomed to the American form of democracy as the way to do political business, which, although it is modeled after the city-states of ancient Greece, still remains an anomaly in the historical setting. Today, anyone who has the giftedness and gumption to work at it can literally go from being a nobody to occupy the highest office in the land. Many of our presidents started out as peasants, some raised in impoverished circumstances by families that had no name recognition at all. Many political movements have been initiated by unknowns who pounded the pavement, gave speeches, wrote articles and garnered support for their causes with increasing fervor until the fires blazed across the nation. One must wonder whether the Apostle Paul or the other leaders of the primitive church would have taken a different tack had the same political channels been accessible to them as they are to us.

The value of this question is to help us examine the propriety of political involvement. Are there some considerations that transcend the circumstances of history? Are there aspects of politics that have less to do with the obvious opportunities available than with the nature of the beast itself? Can we become so focused on persuading people to join a particular cause or promoting a certain issue that we diminish our higher calling of spiritual involvement? Can we intermingle with the practitioners of politics without soiling ourselves? Can we become so enamored with political processes that we fall in love with them rather than maintain our love for God and the church? These arguments certainly have been made over and over, and they do have a definite legitimacy to them.

The flip side of the argument, however, is equally compelling. Can we ignore the opportunities to make a difference in our world through the political opportunities that lie within our grasp? Are we remiss in failing to take advantage of these powers that accrue to every citizen of a democratic government, and thus permit injustices and inequities to exist around us? Is it right for us to see others avail themselves of these opportunities for selfish or purely carnal causes while we disdain such activities for ourselves in the name of separation or holiness? If we can hold our spirits and attitudes in check, can we use the mechanisms of the political process to do much good for many people? Moreover, can we advance the cause of Christ and the church by influencing our world through political measures? It is naïve to believe that politics has no bearing on the church. One only need consider zoning laws, tax laws, freedom of speech and religion, religious schools and the paramount moral issues of the day like same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia to underscore the fact that the law of the land affects the church. If that is true, then who makes the laws which govern the citizenry? The citizens do, of course. If we can create law, or at least influence law, is it not our right and privilege to do so? Indeed, will God hold us responsible for deferring to others that power that we could take for ourselves?

In the end, I think the best way to view our involvement in politics is similar to the way the Bible instructs us to handle money. For all the invectives found against money in the scriptures, the fact is that we must still have it and use it. We may call it a necessary evil, filthy lucre, mammon, and the root of all evil (a misnomer), but we still accede to its necessity. We have to be careful how we make it, how we use it and how we feel about it, but we cannot deny its proper place in human affairs. So it must be with politics. We can never sell ourselves out to it totally, because it can consume us with a vengeance. If money is power, then politics is power to a much greater degree. And, if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we cannot afford to think of it as our power to use as we desire. Even as money must be considered as a God-given blessing, any political power which falls into our hands must also be seen as a God-given blessing. If God will hold us accountable for how we handle our money, then he will also hold us accountable for how we use our political power. If we use it to stroke our egos, pad our personal wealth, increase our power or exert control over our personal enemies, then we are mishandling the gifts of God. If we allow it to corrupt our thinking, gain fame or fortune, advance our personal agenda, then we are abusing the power. On the other hand, if we hold ourselves in check and use political power to advance righteous causes, then we may indeed be doing a service for the King.

No powers that be exist outside the permissive will of God. The greatest power the church will ever exert is the power to pray and the power to use faith in God to bring about change. Our ultimate answer for problems and challenges on earth must never lie in the political or financial realm. God is the answer. Even in a democracy in which we can affect many changes to improve the human condition, the church must not permit any other power than God to occupy the throne of our individual lives or the corporate body of the church. The scriptures are clear: it is God who sets up kings and takes them down. It is God who allows empires to be established and who dismantles them. We may control the politics of a nation, but God controls the nations. He will always deserve and demand our greatest allegiance.

An Apology for the Apostolic Pentecostal Movement

Apologies usually mean saying you’re sorry, that you regret something that happened. In the classic sense, however, an apology is a formal defense of a position or a belief to which one strongly adheres. Colleges and seminaries use the term apologetics to define a group of academic subjects that often come under attack, like theology, church polity or other basic tenets of faith. Over the nearly one hundred years of the modern Apostolic movement, many apologies have been written to defend the oneness of God, baptism in Jesus’ name, the new birth experience, speaking in tongues and the holiness lifestyle. Frank Ewart, David Gray, Oliver Fauss, Oscar Vouga, Ralph Reynolds and other early leaders wrote articles, pamphlets, tracks and a few books to address detractors of their faith. In recent years, J. L. Hall, David Bernard, Dan Segraves and others have addressed doctrinal issues in their writings. Talmadge French’s analysis of oneness organizations approaches the subject from an application view. David Bernard has contributed more to the field of Apostolic apologetics than any other writer, for which we should all be very grateful.

Despite these excellent writings, I believe that the Apostolic Pentecostal movement needs an exhaustive apology of the entire range of doctrines that make us different from the balance of Christianity. Far too many people, especially young people who attend secular colleges and universities, have been swept up into the ubiquitous, conventional Christianity that has essentially reduced the belief system of the New Testament down to a simplistic statement about Jesus, or, even simpler, about loving everyone. With distinctives erased and unity across doctrinal divides universally emphasized, many people today don’t know or don’t care about the signature Apostolic truths that gave rise to our movement. We need to put something into their hands to counter the pervasive ecumenism afflicting twenty-first century Apostolics.

Most of our vociferous preaching and teaching targets palpable enemies that we collectively abhor. We preach about the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. We sound the alarm against placing a chip under our skin that reminds us of the mark of the beast. We weigh in against Hollywood, drugs and alcohol, illegitimacy and bizarre fads. We preach against refusal to worship, against failure to pay tithes and give in offerings, against newer versions of the Bible and chronic church problems like cliques, lack of commitment and lukewarmness. We also spend much quality in-service time combating the whole range of human emotions gone awry, like anger, jealousy, lust, greed, dishonesty, pride and other failings of the flesh. These areas are extremely important to discuss, and we need to continue to address them, but all of them may be aired in a cross-section of churches, regardless of denomination on any given Sunday. Judge for yourself how comfortable we feel browsing the bookshelves in the religion section of Borders or Barnes and Noble. If a subject attracts our interest, we rarely give the affiliation of the author a second thought. A homogeneous brand of Christianity seems to be widening its circle, gradually pulling Apostolics into its influence. Commonalities are increasingly becoming accepted; distinctives are gradually being abandoned.

This drift away from Apostolic distinctives may be attributed to several causes, most likely a combination of them all. It is possible to define these forces with some accuracy, although, admittedly, I have not done the necessary research to document my contentions. Having issued that standard disclaimer, I am convinced that we can at least trace any tergiversation among us to the following movements: church growth, charismatic beliefs, the emerging church and relevancy doctrine, contemporary worship styles, the metamorphosis of preaching and writing content and mega churches. Parallel patterns in the political realm may be seen as well, making the old saw, “politics make strange bedfellows” a prevailing reality. Indeed, in the church world, to see Catholics, Baptists and Pentecostals holding hands and worshipping together makes for a strange sight, given the wide divergence in their doctrinal backgrounds. All of this simply points out the trends that observers of the scene can readily witness.

Let me enlarge on these contentions. Basically, the church growth movement has placed a larger emphasis on the path to numeric growth than on any aspect of doctrinal truth. Growth is the main doctrine. Whatever changes need to be made to facilitate growth must be seen as necessary. Charismatic beliefs have permeated the church world, placing such great emphasis on supernatural manifestations that doctrine or denominational differences have been downplayed, or even ridiculed. Some congregations even advertise themselves as “non-denominational charismatic” to show that anyone of any belief system will be welcomed and accepted into their fellowship. The emerging church and relevancy doctrines have specifically targeted conventional practices or beliefs that seem condemnational or exclusive. They use terms like inclusiveness, deconstruction and narrative to affect fundamental changes in church doctrine.

In addition, contemporary worship styles, ironically originating from the freedom of Pentecostal worship, have swept the entire church world in almost every denomination. Featuring new songs, expressive and individualized worship practices and vanishing restraints of rigid liturgy, contemporary worship has elevated worship above any other aspect of the Christian experience. Preaching content has become refocused away from Bible exposition and doctrine to social, psychological and even political topics. Modern pulpiteers and a Christian genre of writers seek relevancy of their subjects and the accommodation of current human problems rather than proclaiming scriptural truths. Finally, the rise of the mega-church has made the church the message instead of Christ, in that people their social status needs met, their ability to command community attention and their individual anonymity in the practice of Christianity.

Undoubtedly, more sources exist that I have not identified that have contributed to the doctrinal and practical vagueness presently encountered in the Apostolic movement, but these are among the most dominant. They are subtle, yet powerful forces, and if we do not proactively engage them on a number of levels, they may succeed in hollowing out the Apostolic church in the next few years or decades. We need a plan on a grand scale, one that will galvanize the church into effective action. First, and I think most importantly, we must counter these ideas from an official standpoint. Church leadership, both organizationally and locally, must purposely and deliberately campaign against false or misleading philosophies. We must spell out what we believe and preach and teach Bible doctrine in an unequivocating style. We must also address these movements academically. It is not enough to resort to irritating harangues and preachy condemnations of these new trends. That will seem self-serving, fear-based, and, frankly, stupid. Failing in the academic aspects will leave the door wide open for falsehood to succeed. It is imperative that scholars among us speak and write authoritatively about these topics with a thorough grasp of their ideas and with sufficient documentation.

Spiritually, we must also launch an expeditionary prayer force to specifically combat false doctrines that threaten the church. I am not talking about a defensive prayer for protection and safety. I am talking about aggressive, invasive prayer. Apostolic people everywhere need to be informed about the nature of our new enemies and encouraged—even commissioned—to pray against them in every way they possible can. If we cannot find it within ourselves to do at least this much, then we might as well admit that we do not believe in prayer! Besides, none of our other initiatives will work without the power of prayer behind them anyway. We must also find creative ways to weave Apostolic truth back into our worship. The soft platitudes of much contemporary worship we now practice say little of the nature of doctrinal truth. If there is no discernible difference between the worship of Apostolic people and the rest of Christendom, then something is fundamentally wrong.

Recently, I happened to find myself sitting around a banquet table with several outstanding Apostolic leaders. We engaged in some scintillating discussion about Bible topics and contemporary ideas. We challenged each other, bantered with each other and enlightened each other in a number of areas. Afterwards, all of us remarked about how much we enjoyed our time together. We also confessed that there is not nearly enough of this going on among us. I believe that there is genuine interest in acquiring Bible knowledge in Apostolic people, but we need to tap into it to a much greater degree and with a much greater conviction that ever before. We have permitted the church world around us that has little or no knowledge about Apostolic truth to drive our agenda and define our purpose. Church growth for numbers’ sake alone is not healthy growth. Seeking after the supernatural for the novelty of it violates the scripture that tells us not to seek after signs and wonders. Abandoning vital Bible truths in order to achieve relevancy among non-church goers leads to apostasy. It is based on a false premise that pure Bible teaching is irrelevant. The scripture is timeless and continually renews its own relevancy in every generation.

Furthermore, our worship must lead us to the true God, not to just a sense of spirituality. Every religion in the world promotes some sort of spirituality; our commission is to direct people to truth. Spirituality without truth is the cruelest form of religion. Our choice of content in preaching and writing must not be void of the staple truths of God’s Word. Narratives, drama, testimonials and other formats that place “connecting” with people above proclaiming doctrinal truth will ultimately fail to achieve the purpose of the church. We are not called to entertain or to run churches to the exclusion of conveying saving truth. To be a mega-church must not form our most sought after ideal of a successful church. This is not because it is wrong to be big, but rather it is wrong to anoint any purpose other than the proclamation of truth to be all-encompassing. If being big becomes our priority, then being truthful gets bumped to a lesser role. Once that happens, mans purpose subverts God’s purpose and the anointing leaves.

Will we respond to the challenges of this generation? If we do not, we will be left with a very different church in the years to come. I believe that we must come to a vital realization: the only arena in which we have no competition is the arena of this Apostolic message. If we decline to shoulder it because it makes us too different, then we are doomed to be like everyone else. I contend that if we have no distinctive message, we have no reason to exist. We will be outclassed, out-spent and out-performed in all the areas that we may envy the church world at large. If we are Apostolic, then we need to be the best Apostolics we can be, but we cannot abandon the Apostolic truth because it hinders us in being whatever else we want to be. These are the issues we face today. Our convictions must answer them in the affirmative.

Reverend Wright’s Jesus

During the Jeremiah Wright flap, something strange happened. Now, if you don’t go to church much, you may not have noticed but talk show hosts, news analysts and bloggers who replayed the taped transcripts of the black activist’s sermons cut off one of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s hate-America harangues just when he was starting to preach about Jesus. But I did. I noticed because I am familiar with the words of an old anthem of the church that Wright began to quote.

“There is a name I love to hear; I love to sing it’s worth,
It sounds like music in my ear; the sweetest name on earth.”

The chorus to this evangelical hymn heaps lavish love and praise on Jesus, crooning in a building crescendo “Oh, how I love Jesus, Oh how I love Jesus, Oh, how I love Jesus; because he first loved me.” It struck me as rather odd that a man could assume such a radical anti-Semitic stance, lambasting Israel and vehemently giving support to the Palestinians, and then sing love songs to Jesus as though he didn’t know the ethnicity of the Christ.

Reverend Wright, JESUS WAS A JEW!  There.  I said it.  You heard right…Jesus was a Jew!

Jesus was the JEWISH MESSIAH!  He came “to his OWN.”  All twelve disciples were Jews. Peter, John and Jude were Jews. The Apostle Paul who wrote over half the New Testament was a Jew. In fact, Paul stated that he could wish himself accursed if it would help to save his Jewish brethren.

Jesus said, “Salvation is of the Jews.” The “Jewishness” of Jesus figures into the redemption story as a major factor. His advent at Bethlehem fulfilled over three hundred prophecies of the Jewish scriptures.  His very act of crucifixion on the cross grew out of the sacrificial offering that was the custom of the Jews in the Old Testament. The role of bloodshed to atone for sins was of Jewish origin. “And, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.” 

There are no Islamic traditions woven into the saving gospel. Islam is not a Christian religion. Islam is an anti-Christian religion. One of Islam’s stated goals is to force everyone to convert to Islam and effectively destroy Christianity. Jesus was not Islamic. And yet, Reverend Wright has a degree in Islamic Studies and speaks on their behalf with decided regularity.

The Jews are God’s chosen people, an appellation that continued to be ascribed to them even while the church became the focus of God’s attention in the New Testament. Jesus quoted Jewish writings extensively. It has been pointed out by another blogger in the past day or so that most of the stories that Reverend Wright employs while preaching his sermons were about Jewish people, many of them heros of the Old Testament. While Barach Obama declares that he cannot disavow Reverend Wright any more than he could disavow the black community, Reverend Wright had no problem disavowing the Jewish community even while he purportedly preaches Jesus.

The bible Reverend Wright preaches from contains the verse, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” It is impossible to contemplate the Bible as being anything other than a Jewish book about Jewish people.

Reverend Wright’s Jesus is a left-leaning, Islamic sympathizer who hates America and wants to curse it. Reverend Wright’s Jesus is an “enlightened Jew” who hates his own people. Reverend Wright’s Jesus is a stereotypical Jew who espouses victimhood and who has no greater message to preach than a hate-mongering, resentment filled storyline that never made it out of the fifties and sixties. Jeremiah Wright’s Jesus sees all the gospel through the lens of racial politics, has revenge and extreme detestation of anything white, and will never allow his message to be corrupted by forgiveness.

Jeremiah Wright’s Jesus exists in only one place: in Jeremiah Wright’s head.

I’ll stick with the Jesus of the Bible.

Managing the Microphones

Objectively unobjective, neutrally biased and innocently guilty, the American media lurks at the bottom of almost all of today’s left-leaning political issues. Their technique is fairly simple. With straight faces and pious dignity, they slyly place the microphone of public access in front of the mouths of their choosing. Few new participants of our political and social kerfuffles would achieve any notoriety whatsoever, or, they would at least sink back into the undefined masses after a brief uprising without media assistance.

An outrageous act, a tragic event, a highly unusual accomplishment or a person with an extraordinary story may all be worthy of news coverage. When this event or story resonates with the microphone-managing media, however, they rush to them with all the air time and print space in the world to amplify the news. The savvy media know that it takes full saturation of a story for several days to really impact the collective American mind. They will keep something on the front pages or television screens for the flimsiest of excuses, for as long as they need to, if it appears useful to their agenda.

On the pure success of the technique, a case in point involves the Toledo Blade’s coverage of a scandal involving a local coin dealer in 2005. For a solid year, it was a rare day that the Blade did not run a story on Tom Noe and the coin scandal. Rumor had it that, since Noe was connected to the Republican Party, the newspaper entertained the possibility of taking the fight all the way to the White House. That didn’t happen, but they did implicate the GOP governor of Ohio, Bob Taft. I have no argument with bringing the corrupt coin dealer to justice. I do think, however, that it aptly illustrates that the crusader technique works. Chances are more than compelling that without the relentless media coverage, the small fry Toledo numismatist would have gotten off lightly, or perhaps escaped without a scratch.

(http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/SRRARECOINS/311190002/1/SRRARECOINS2)

One wonders if Cindy Sheehan, the somewhat unhinged mother of an Iraq war Marine casualty, would have ever become a household name without the huge focus of the media on her campaign against George Bush. I think not because after she became a little too kooky for the press, she mysteriously disappeared from the front pages. Other media darlings include Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney, Professor Nikki Giovanni and Elijah Muhammad. The rantings and ravings of some of these demagogues peg the needle on extremism, but the media continues to give them access to the microphones.

Now, what about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? How did he get into the media spotlight? Here’s the catch. If this media vehicle runs great in the drive gear, it works just as well in reverse. The national media can also choose to ignore a person or an event that sabotages their agenda or that proves too great an embarrassment to them. It was a newsworthy event when Barach Obama cancelled Wright from giving the invocation at the launching of his presidential run on the steps of the old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.,in February of 2007, but the media decided not to make a big deal out of it. It was a newsworthy event when the Obama campaign forced Wright out of official involvement, but the media left it largely alone. Only when conservative talk show hosts and bloggers on the internet started running inflammatory excerpts of Wright’s sermons did the media finally start covering the—shall we say, controversial?—Reverend. Now, much attention has been given to the Obama response to his long association with Wright, in which the presidential hopeful disavowed the incendiary aspects of Wright’s positions, but not the man himself.

(If I may digress for a moment, the gist of Obama’s explanation centered around the need to understand the background of Jeremiah Wright and cut him some slack for his militant separatist views. I will do that. I will acknowledge the fact that the African-American community strongly identifies with the Reverend. My problem is this: Obama wants to be MY president. He wants to be president of ALL the people, not just the African-American segment of the population.He wants to be president of the very people against whom his mentor spews out hatred and malice.  I need Obama to do more than denounce some statements or views of Wright. I need him to tell me that Wright is a sad representative of a flawed, failed and preposterous political position. I need him to denounce Black Separatism. I need him to say that hate-mongering from any source, for any reason, from any background and for any purpose is unequivocally and innately wrong. I need him to apologize for rhetorically throwing his grandmother under the bus. I need him to laud the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I need him to acknowledge the huge strides forward made by the black population in the last generation. I need him to confess that he is a product of this progress and not a victim of the now-defunct institutional oppression of the first half of the last century. I need him to say that, although there is much work to be done, MUCH work has already been done. Unless he does these minimal things, he really doesn’t want to be MY president.)

But the larger problem remains the irresponsible media who have empowered themselves with an agenda-driven raison d’etre. They have failed the public. They have failed to be purveyors of facts and instead have become purveyors of propaganda. They are no longer the loyal opposition, in the British tradition. In their initial devil’s advocate role to the powers that be, they have become the devil himself. They rarely play devil’s advocate to politicians and public figures with whom they agree. They effectively manage the public’s microphones to assist those who have no other way of getting their views out there, contingent, of course, on that person or group’s alignment with the views of the media. “You say what we want you to say and we will make sure the world knows about it. You go against us and we will bury you.” That’s the message. That’s the method.

And it works. May God help us.

Fighting Resignation

Fidel Castro resigns. The headlines shook the world, at least the western hemisphere. It’s not that the move came as a total surprise. Cuba watchers have long anticipated the final demise of this increasingly weakened dictator. But, it still seems unbelievable to people of my age who vaguely remember his rise to power. On the surface, he was irreverent, uncouth and brash; in the covert confines of his country, he ran a totalitarian regime with killing squads and governmental fiat. As for me, I’m as happy to see him go as anyone. But I am far more curious about the psychological underpinnings that prompted this brutal dictator to step down of his own accord, than the political ramifications of Cuba’s future. I could see this swashbuckling rebel going down in a blaze of glory; I never pictured him fading into old age, with trembling hands turning all of his accumulated power over to a kid brother.

The question is, then, why do people give up? What prompted a grizzly old despot like Castro to call it quits? What guts the will of any formerly feisty and aggressive person to the point that he or she no longer retains a desire to acquire, to govern or to protect life-long achievements? It is unthinkable. I have been stunned by the unlikely metamorphosis of people who have been known as icons of resolve into pathetic weaklings who couldn’t care less about what happens. It’s not a pretty thing to see people resign themselves to basic irrelevancy and neutered non-factors, even while they look on from the sidelines as their very purpose for living goes up in smoke.

Advancing age, fatigue, prolonged sickness, diminishing resources and deepening disappointments in life deliver a profound effect upon the human will to fight on. Always before, it seems that a reserve of inner power exists from which a person can draw to continually replenish his or her supply of forcefulness and vitality. Everybody gets tired. After a few days of R&R, it’s back to the battle lines with renewed vigor and vision. At some point, however, the human body and mind can no longer recoup the lost strength. Diversions and vacations fail to revive that old never-say-die attitude. Diminished capacity to handle the rigors of the fight renders a person helpless and vulnerable. Eventually, resignation remains the only sensible option left.

It is against this background that the Apostle Paul’s words to Timothy take on a potency that defies human logic. “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim 4:6-7. I am struck with these poetic words. Clearly, Paul knows he is on a death watch. His admonition to his son in the gospel, however, reflects his passion for the fight. He did not permit the decline of his personal welfare to cast a shadow over the righteousness of his convictions nor the urgency of his cause. Even as he awaited the somber footfalls of his executioner plodding down the hallway, the fire of his calling consumed him. He was engaged in a heaven and hell struggle and the stakes were eternal; if he could not carry the fight to the enemy, he would tirelessly recruit others who could and would. What a way to go.

Today’s Apostolics find themselves embattled against an enemy who has no more power than he ever had, but who commandeers a progressively wider range of weapons than ever before. The insidious nature of these evil forces keeps watchmen on the alert. Never before has there been so many ways for Satan to infiltrate the hearts and minds of people. Interestingly enough, the scriptures speak of two natural elements that represent the adversities we face: wind and water. The wind sweeps across the countryside with withering strength, knocking down walls, uprooting trees and carrying houses to distant destinations. It is possible, however, to build a house so strong that it can resist the gales of wind that threatened it. The aftermath of a violent windstorm leaves wreckage and destruction in its wake, but usually it can be repaired and it doesn’t last that long.

Water, on the other hand, causes far more damage than wind ever could. Flood waters rise around dwelling places. Water may not knock down walls or violently carry deadly pieces of roofs or branches of trees through the air, but it surrounds its target, seeking to make inroads into the most secure places through every possible nook and cranny. Water warps wood, stains walls, ruins carpets, wipes out mementoes, destroys interiors, undermines foundations and can completely destroy a house. And much of this damage can occur while the occupants sleep in the upper levels, unaware of the devastation going on below. Even so, the spiritual enemy we face today does not just come roaring down the road, announcing his invasion. He silently slips around us, seeping into our lives through a thousand different unobserved cracks and openings. I’m sure this is why the scripture says, “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.” Isaiah 59:19.

When the damage seems so complete and when the defenses against it appears to be so ineffective, great discouragement can set in. This may be the reason many seasoned veterans of the gospel tire of the incessant fighting that it takes to keep on top of things. Each time they launch an initiative against creeping worldliness, each time they identify a harmful weapon, each time they sound a clarion call to rally the troops, they garner less and less support. Self doubt and self recriminations rattle their resolve. Eventually, they turn a blind eye to the encroachment of the enemy and either rationalize their changes or begin living in the glories of the past.

But nothing could be more frustrating or more shameful than to spend one’s life advancing the kingdom of God and building strong lives for the glory of God, only to capitulate in the end. Paul said it was a good fight. We need to hold tightly to his advice. The fight is not good in one’s youth, but bad in retirement years. The fight is not good when the strength is up, but bad when it is gone. The fight is not good when you are winning, but bad when you are losing. No. The fight is good in its essence, not just in its longevity. If the fight was good in the beginning of one’s ministry, it is good at the close as well.

The alternative to resignation is delegation, and ultimately, transference. None of us will live forever. We all experience a rise to power, a reign of power and a decline of power. The baton we received from our elders at the beginning when we rose to power was ours to carry until we finished our course. When the end of the course comes into view, we must not suddenly consider our mission as a personal failure and toss the baton of truth and righteousness aside. We must not feel that since we can’t do it ourselves, nobody can do it. We have a stable of fresh runners ahead of us who are willing and eager to grasp the same truths that were given to us and run like the wind. Who knows whether or not they will succeed? For that matter, who knew whether or not WE would succeed? Those who ran before us believed as much in us as they believed in the message. Just because they couldn’t carry it any longer did not mean that they gave up.

Resign if you must. None of us can run forever, at least in this life. Resign, but finish! You haven’t finished until you have delivered your goods intact into the hands of the succeeding generation. Fight on. Fight resignation. Fight fatigue. Fight discouragement. When your strength wanes, your resolve weakens and physical declension tests your commitment, you have an obligation to continue on until you reach the transfer zone. When you feel the hand of the young runner curl around the precious cargo that you have carried down the stretch, only then can you slow your stride and get your rest.