The Need for Urgency

Mark 13:33 (NKJV)

We often have a sense of urgency when it comes to various aspects of this physical life; we urgently warn of the dangers of political figures running for office, poor political policies, poor economic decisions, and we are even urgent in ensuring that our bills are paid on time.  Did I get that school assignment completed? Did I respond to all my emails? While each of these things may be important to this life, are they all that important in the next life? Are we as urgent in our service of God as we are in the physical, mundane things of this life? When we identify a command of God, do we feel a sense of urgency to complete that task? When we look at individuals in the Bible, do we see urgency and immediacy in their actions?

Our society does not place any importance on matters of spirituality; school comes first, work comes first, and even vacations and entertainment comes first.  As Christians, obeying and pleasing God needs to be first not only in word, but in actions as well.  We need to instill the importance of pleasing God in ourselves, in our families, and in our friendships.  When do we seek to please God? When do we seek to obey His commands? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? 

The commands of God are not always easy, nor do we always fully understand the reasons of God.  Does it have to be easy? Do we have to fully understand? God, testing the faith of Abraham, commanded the following: "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (Genesis 22:2).  Did Abraham understand fully what God intended to do? Did he understand that God would stop his hand at the last minute and spare Isaac? Did Abraham delay in his obedience of this difficult command? In Genesis 22:3, we are told that "Abraham rose early in the morning" and set about completing the task God had given him to do; he didn't delay, make excuses, or decide that because he didn't fully understand God's reasoning that he didn't have to complete it.  The Hebrew writer stated that Abraham had concluded "that God was able to raise him [Isaac] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense" (Hebrews 11:19).  Abraham placed his faith in the promise of God and it did not matter whether or not the reasoning of God was understandable from a human's standpoint.  Do we have the faith of Abraham?

Consider also the example of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 13:1-11.  Within this passage, we are informed multiple times that Jeremiah did exactly as God had instructed him to do.  In 13:1-2, Jeremiah was told to acquire a linen sash and to put it around his waist, so Jeremiah did it.  Next, Jeremiah was instructed to take the sash, travel hundreds of miles, and hid it in a rock along the Euphrates river...which Jeremiah does (Jeremiah 13:4-5).  After many days, God told Jeremiah to return to the Euphrates River and retrieve the sash, which was ruined by that point (Jeremiah 13:6-7).  While God explained His reasoning in 13:8-11, the meaning of the sash and the two journeys over hundreds of miles were unclear to Jeremiah as he completed the tasks.  Did Jeremiah complain because he didn't understand? Did he complain because there were closer rivers to him that would have ruined the sash just as well as the Euphrates? Did he inform God as to how unreasonable His demands were? No, Jeremiah's attitude is summed up in the latter part of Jeremiah 13:5 where we read, "So I went and hit it by the Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me."  

There are numerous such examples of obedience within the pages of the God's word (read Hebrews 11).  Do we have the same sense of obedience and urgency in our own Christianity? Do we put off obedience until some more convenient time (Acts 24:22-27) or do we seek to be saved NOW? Think about the example of the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40; the Ethiopian, upon hearing what was required of him, said to Philip in Acts 8:36, "See, here is water.  What hinders me from being baptized?"

Throughout the New Testament, we are given the warning that we do not know the time in which Christ will return, therefore we must constantly be prepared.  We need a sense of urgency because we do not know! Mark  13:32-37 expresses this point for us; we do not know when and we do not want to be unprepared when the time does come.  Paul, quoting Ananias, said, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).  

Aren't We Supposed to Love One Another?

This morning, I opened up Facebook (first mistake) and saw that one of the "trending" subjects concerned how Trey Pearson courageously "came out" as being gay.  Being me, I chose to click on the story to see what people were saying (second mistake).  Because Pearson claims to be a "Christian rock singer", people were misconstruing what the Bible teaches on the subject of "love".  Aren't we as Christians supposed to love one another? Interestingly enough, many like to cite passages concerning "love" (even though they lack an understanding of Biblical love), but they do not cite the passages that deal with propriety in human sexuality.  According to many of the posts I read, God will clearly condemn an individual for not being "loving" enough, but won't condemn an individual for participating in something clearly defined as being sin.  

Can we be condemned for not loving one another? John seems to indicate such in 1 John 3:10-15 (NKJV):

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.  For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother.  And why id he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous.  Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you.  We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.  He who does not love his brother abides in death.  Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Are we to love one another? Absolutely! The question is not about whether we should or should not love individuals in sin (whether within the church or without), but rather about what our love for one another drives us to do in regards to sin.  Does "loving one another" mean that we accept an individual in sin as they are? Does it mean that we ignore the sin in their life? 

Many today purport that "love" means to accept a person as they are, flaws included.  For instance, Christians should accept Trey Pearson (since we started the article with his declaration) as he is and not require him to repent.  In fact, we shouldn't identify his sexual preference as sin or point out that repentance is an option for him since you "can't choose your sexuality" (which is ironic since the same society that informs us that you cannot choose your sexuality is now telling us that you can choose your gender).  Does the Bible teach this principle? What does the Bible teach on the subject of love?

It is impossible to cover everything the Bible teaches on the subject of love within one article or sermon, so that is certainly beyond the scope of this brief piece.  However, one basic principle of establishing Divine Authority is that a conclusion formed from one passage is not sound if it contradicts other principles found in the Bible.  Therefore, if our conclusion is that "love" means that we accept everyone in their sin as they are and without repentance, then our understanding of love is wrong.  Christ and the Apostles taught both love and repentance; in fact, they taught that if we actually love one another, then we WILL teach repentance.

One of the most utilized passages concerning love is 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.  Many Christians and even non-Christians have the majority of this passage printed in fancy calligraphy and framed on their walls.  There is no doubt that this is a wonderful passage and that it teaches us much about God's definition of love! Unfortunately, much of the context surrounding and leading up to 1 Corinthians 13 is too often overlooked, and therefore some of the depth and meaning of the passage is lost.  While this is a beautifully written passage, there is a wonderful depth that we really shouldn't overlook!

Throughout the book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul dealt with some unfortunate shortcomings of the brethren; because Paul was so intimately tied to the congregation in Corinth, he spent a great deal of time helping them overcome their problems.  It is important to note that Paul did not accept them as they were, but that he dealt with those problems.  If "love" means to accept someone "as-is" as many try to use 1 Corinthians 13 to establish, then why was Paul dealing with their problems at all? In actuality, Paul is dealing with many of the problems that the Corinthians had as he defined love! Studying through 1 Corinthians makes it clear to the reader that one of the biggest problems in that congregation was a lack of brotherly love, which came from selfishness.  

Consider that Paul wrote that "love does not envy" (13:4), and the Corinthians were envious of others for their spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12).  He also wrote that "love does not parade itself, is not puffed up" (13:4), but the Corinthians were parading their so-called love and were puffed up in their tolerance of their brother in sin (1 Corinthians 5). Paul also states that love "does not behave rudely, does not seek its own" (13:5), but the Corinthians were behaving rudely and seeking their own desires in the manner by which they were taking the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

What about love "does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (13:6)? While there are many applications of this principle to be found within 1 Corinthians, there are two in particular that we will make here.  First, Paul's correction of the problems in Corinth, and second, the correction of the brother in sin in 1 Corinthians 5.  While Paul could have bragged about his tolerance of the attitude of the Corinthian brethren in regards to this brother in sin, Paul rebukes them and instructs them in truth.  The Corinthians were rejoicing in the iniquity of this brother in sin and were puffed up in their "love" (tolerance) of him, but what was the truth? The truth is that that brother would be lost if he did not repent.  If "love" according to God's definition means to accept people as they are, then why did Paul require the Corinthians to deal with the brother in sin and why was the brother in sin required to repent? Again, if our understanding of a passage or a concept within the Bible contradicts other principles taught, then it is our perspective that must be changed.  

Like Paul, our love for one another should lead us to proclaim that necessity of repentance to those we love.  Do we really love someone if we do not teach them of impending doom? Perhaps we should make a "real-world" application to illustrate the point: if you see your child or friend about to burn themselves on something hot, should you just accept them as they are? Because "love" means letting them do whatever they want and just accepting their decision, right? Of course we would stop them! If we would stop them when it comes to burning themselves, why would our love for them not cause us to do everything we possibly can to stop them from sinning? 

Do we believe in God? Do we believe in heaven? Do we really believe in Satan? Do we really believe in hell? We certainly believe that a hot stove will burn our child if they touch it, ad that leads us to stop them...if we really believe in hell, shouldn't that knowledge lead us to action? 

Christ was compassionate, absolutely.  Did that compassion cause Him to sit back and allow sin to go unaddressed? In Matthew 9, Jesus has spent a great deal of time healing the sick in addition to preaching the gospel of the kingdom.  However, we are told that when He was "moved with compassion" was when He noted the spiritual destitution of the multitudes; while compassion moved Jesus to do all of the things in Matthew 9, He was most concerned about the spiritual welfare of the people (Matthew 9:35-38).  Jesus said "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few.  Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest" (9:37-38).  Was He talking about physical needs or spiritual? Christ's compassion and love caused Him to preach repentance and obedience to God's word.

What will your compassion and love cause you to do?

Getting Rid of God

Fig. 1.1

What is the cause of all the trouble in the world? Some purport that "religion" causes all trouble and that without religion everyone would get along perfectly.  Is this true? Does all "trouble" come from religion? Would the world be peaceful without God? 

The other day, I came across this image in a discussion concerning religion.  There are, of course, multiple ways to take it: 1.) While there is a Bible in the image, it could mean all religion and that Christianity merely epitomizes those religions, or 2.) Christianity is the only religion that needs to be done away with.  Are these new ideas? Is there any validity to such arguments? While the Bible actually presents us with numerous examples in which similar sentiments were express (through words or actions), let us first examine whether this makes sense given what we know about the world.

In a world full of dispute, it is obvious that claiming that getting rid of religion will bring peace is an absurdly illogical argument.  Are arguments concerning Global Warming based on religion? Gun control? Issues of race? Oil? Drugs? If all religion were done away with tomorrow, would these issues (some of which have caused the deaths of many people) magically disappear? What about violent international disputes over economic systems? How peaceful have nations without religion been in the past? 

Relatively recently, the lead singer of a band posted a photo of his full-size truck on his own Facebook page.  If, as some claim, religion causes all the strife in the world, then this one post should have had no negative impact, but that simply wasn't true.  "Fans" of this singer began commenting on the photo in the most vile manners possible (on both sides of the issue); there was name calling, cussing, swearing, and many other unspeakable things presented in the "discussion".  Remember, this was over a man's truck. He wasn't discussing religion, nor was he making a political statement...he was only showing a picture of his truck.  How would getting rid of religion cure such rantings and ravings? 

Unfortunately, many generations in America have fallen prey to the misconception that they are smarter and more "enlightened" than any generation that has preceded them.  The Bible is "outdated" and "antiquated", which is generally established by false claims that the Apostle Paul was a chauvinist (or similar argumentation).  Religion, many claim, is the manifestation of a weak, undeveloped mind.  Enlightened minds do not need a "dusty old book" to tell them what is right and what is wrong, and the enlightened mind is able to accept differing viewpoints (except, of course, viewpoints predicated upon religious principles).  No one, in the entire history of the world, has been so enlightened as our current society; remember, of course, that many who make such claims believe the world to be millions, billions, or trillions of years old, so this is a rather large claim to make. 

Mankind is able to determine morality separate and apart from God; we do not need God to inform us as to what is right and wrong...or at least some make such a claim.  Can we logically conclude what is and what is not right by ourselves? Can our system of laws determine such for us? Let us take a moment to examine such a claim using America as a case-study:

It is illegal for someone of "consenting age" to have sexual relations with someone not of "consenting age".  Depending upon state, "consenting age" is 18, while other states are 16. A female who is 12, 13, 14, or 15 (and, of course, younger than 12) is not deemed cognitive enough to make the decision to have sexual intercourse.  However, that same child can, in many states, have an abortion without involving her parents or the father  in any way.  Now, a child as young as 2 or 3 can choose their "gender preference".  Let us follow the logic: a 2 year old can choose their gender, a 15 year old girl can choose to murder  her child, but neither can make the cognitive decision to have sex.

Yes, it is clear that mankind can establish morality apart from God and that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world.  Sadly, many will defend the "agenda" no matter what the cost; in other words, they would argue that the only thing out of sorts in the paragraph above is that children aren't deemed cognitive enough to have consensual sex.  

The problems in the world are not caused by religion, nor are they caused by the existence of morality (as given by God).  Rather, they are caused by mankind and the wickedness participated in by mankind.  While each generation purports to be the most "enlightened" ever, they spew the same wickedness of the generations that came before them.  Remember that King Ahab claimed that it was Elijah that had caused all the trouble in Israel: "Is that you, O troubler of Israel?" Was it Elijah who troubled Israel? Or had he simply made the Israelites feel guilty in their disobedience? Elijah responded to Ahab by saying that he had "not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed the Baals" (1 Kings 18:17-18).  

Shouts of bigotry and intolerance are directed at those who stand up for God and for His word and they are meant to intimidate.  They are agenda driven and they are argued from emotion rather than from an objective viewpoint.  Man is not "enlightened" apart from God.  Man cannot find the correct path without God.  Too many Christians are falling prey to the empty rhetoric of this world and are accepting sin as being fine with God.  Forget what the world purports as being "right"; the world cannot discern right from wrong without God! 

"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23).

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12). 

Heart Rather Than Politics

So far, I've tried to refrain from entering into political discussions too much on Facebook (at least regarding the presidential campaign). As a whole, my individual perspective isn't going to alter who is going to be president (as proven by the last two presidential elections...).  That being said, the following does pertain at least in part to politics.

However, here is something we, as Christians, ought to think about: how did Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders become the top runners for the most powerful position in the world?

Generally speaking, the "leader" reflects the people; while there are cases throughout history where the opposite was true ( Josiah - 2 Kings 21-23; 2 Chronicles 33-35), it more often than not is true.

First up, we have Donald Trump. Why is he even being considered? He's loud, he's obnoxious, he's rude, he's a bully, and he goes whichever way the wind blows. Now, look at our society: we're great at screaming down those who disagree with us rather than having rational discussions, we call people "stupid" if they don't agree with us, we rarely listen to actual arguments and instead attack the person, we bully people by telling them that if they don't agree with us then they are "hating" us or others, and we rarely, if ever, spend time thinking through an argument when it is so much easier to go with whatever sounds good at the moment (Proverbs 18:17). But hey, he's rich, so he'll be great for our economy...but let's not look too closely at his shady business deals.

Second, we have Hillary Clinton. She is a known liar, likely a murderer, known advocate of abortion, and yet she is still the front-runner in the Democratic party. She clearly lacks integrity, but we are a society in which integrity doesn't matter because we "do what we want". This is 'Merica. Just capture the West Virginia vote...we've elected incarcerated criminals to office.

Third, we have Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably the most "likable" of the three, but does that qualify him for the position? His socialist "principles" fit with everything fought against in World War II and the political "Cold War", and yet we have a generation coming out in droves to support him. Why? Because we have generations of spoiled people in this nation who have no clue how they got the freedom to be spoiled. They're told by society that reality doesn't matter when their individual feelings are "hurt" and that reality is whatever they "identify" as. Society teaches them them that they are entitled rather than teaching hard work. Promise them free stuff, and they will vote for you. This generation has been given a trophy every time that they've sneezed in life and told how much of a genius they are. Sanders clearly does not understand economics, and neither do his supporters.

Where does this leave us? Do politics matter to Christians? While our eternal home and our goal is to be heaven, we do still have to live in this world (1 Cor. 5). If we are given the freedom to voice our concerns openly about the detrimental impacts such front-runners can have on the spiritual well-being of our society, then ought we to use it? Unfortunately, I've followed numerous discussions among Christians this go-around and many, in their efforts to support their chosen candidate, have shown the same short-comings their candidate does: bully tactics, mocking, entitlement, and lack of integrity.

The problem(s) in America isn't politically related, it is heart related. How can we expect to alter a person's politics without first altering their hearts? There are many things, like the economy, that do not matter in the grand scheme of things; Christians can easily disagree with one another one what the best economic system is and it doesn't impact either of their abilities to reach heaven. However, if we teach that we are entitled to have things for which we have not worked, is that appropriate? Is that compassionate (2 Thess. 3:10)? If we advocate monetary gain by shady methods, is that appropriate (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10)? Greed and covetousness can apply in a capitalist society, and it certainly applies to socialist societies (no matter what the rhetoric states). They are wrong under both systems.

The example of Josiah (already mentioned), and in the example of his grandfather in the preceding chapters of each respective book, shows that a society can be "legislated" into obedience without their hearts having been changed (as evidenced by the book of Jeremiah). No matter who the president is, our job as Christians remains the same: change the hearts of the people.

This is not a post that is meant to discourage Christians from voting for legislation that will, even temporarily, halt immoral things from happening in our country. However, for us to be able to combat such immoral issues in our society, we have to avoid being drawn in by the empty rhetoric spewed by an ungodly society, and we have to strive to change their hearts. Changing hearts will NEVER be accomplished by "accepting" people in sin AS THEY ARE (a very unscriptural "principle"...again, 1 Corinthians 5).

We cannot complain about our presidential candidates when they simply reflect our society perfectly.

"The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?" (Jeremiah 5:31)

Peace, Peace...When There is No Peace

While at the Exton Study, Chad Lynn (Huntington church of Christ) asked me to summarize my material on the book of "Jeremiah" (which we are currently studying in our Wednesday evening Bible class here in Montana). My joking response was: "Repent or die." While this was a quip, it is essentially true; God's message to Judah was that their wickedness had reached new levels of degeneration and their departure from God was obvious.

Throughout "Jeremiah", there is evidence that the people of Judah were attempting to keep the law (ex. - offering sacrifices to God) while pursuing their own desires (ex. - offering human sacrifices to idols [2 Chron. 33:6]). How should we apply the principles expressed throughout "Jeremiah" to our lives today?

There are (at least) two ways that we can read through "Jeremiah", and both are applicable. One method is to pull out the principles and apply them to the world at large, which means that when Jeremiah discusses the murder of children (Jeremiah 32:35), we can apply that to abortion in our own culture. This is a fair comparison, and both show a lack of natural affection in each respective society.

However, we must ask to whom the prophecies of Jeremiah were directed; while the prophecies did impact cultures other than the Israelites, they were primarily FOR the Israelites in Judah. The Israelites, according to the Law of Moses (given by God), were the chosen people of God (Deuteronomy 7:6); likewise, Christians are the chosen people of God under the new kingdom (1 Peter 2). Therefore, perhaps we should make application of the principles within Jeremiah to ourselves, which is infinitely more difficult to do (which is the second method of looking at "Jeremiah").

In the last few days, there have been numerous posts concerning the transgender bathroom debate that have elicited responses from both sides. It is to be expected that those of the world will advocate such "progressiveness" since there is no objective truth that guides their lives, but the real concern comes when purported Christians (some that are even "preachers" or "preacher's wives") argue that these things are "real" now and therefore we, as Christians, must accept them without comment or objection. Such comments show more faith in the "science" of men who claim that these perversions are "natural" or are somehow "genetic" than it does in the Scriptures.

How do these two topics tie together? In the book of Jeremiah, there were numerous false prophets and rulers that advocated a false peace, thereby deceiving the people by giving them a false sense of salvation. In our society, very similar things happen; we have "evangelists" who claim that God's grace covers all sin and that He requires no obedience. We also have many who claim that sin is natural, and therefore we should not oppose it. If we have the natural disposition towards sin, then it must be natural, and therefore acceptable.

Jeremiah 6:13-15 states, "Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, everyone is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even to the priest, everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt of My people [FALSE HOPE] slightly, saying, 'Peace, peace!' when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! they were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,' says the Lord."

It is sad when there are many Christians who support the world's view of "tolerance" rather than objecting to sin as it is (note: there is a difference between objecting to sin and mistreating a person, although the world, for sinful gain, does not acknowledge this difference). Christians too often declare "Peace, peace!" in order to placate the feelings of those in sin. Is this fair to the person in sin? Is it an acceptable stance before God above? Our job as Christians is to live acceptably before God and to declare the truth of HIS will, not our own subjective opinion. If we declare "Peace, peace!" when there is no such peace, does that alter the eternal outcome of those living in sin? No, but it WILL impact our own salvation. In "Jeremiah", the false prophets continually placated the people, but did they alter the outcome? Did they save the people by simply declaring peace?

As Christians, we need to cease accepting sin and allowing the humanistic/"scientific" views of the world alter what the truth of the Bible clearly states. While the world constantly argues that sins such as homosexuality and transgenderism are a genetic predisposition and therefore are not wrong (amazingly enough, they do not accept that a pedophile is genetically predisposed), we need to view sin as God sees sin. When the people of Judah had forsaken Him, God said: "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns - broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jeremiah 2:13). Do we dare forsake God for that which has no profit? Consider Jeremiah 2:8, "The priests did not say, 'Where is the Lord?' and those who handle the law did not know Me; the rulers also transgressed against Me; the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit."

If we place our faith in the "progressive" "reasonings" of men, then we believe in that which has no profit. God, through Jeremiah, stated to the people of Judah: "Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit" (Jeremiah 7:8). If we support sin, degrade those who oppose it, and yet call ourselves Christians, then we are certainly backsliding as those in Judah had done. In Jeremiah 2:19, God told the people of Judah this: "'Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you. Know therefore and see that it is an evil and bitter thing that you have forsaken the Lord your God, and the fear of Me is not in you,' Says the Lord God of hosts."

Further references:

2 Peter 2:18-22

Romans 1 & 2

Jude

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

More for Less

In today’s society, everyone wants more for less; we want more house for less money, more car for less buck, free healthcare, and free education.  This is not a new concept, nor is it isolated to our own modern society.  If you follow the current political debates, you’ll notice that some platforms include “free” products and services, and they are gaining a lot of ground from the younger generations who too often lack a valuable work ethic.

It is no surprise, then, that this attitude/perspective bleeds over into religion.  The predominant “religious” view is that IF God exists, then He will not or does not require us to “work” for our salvation.  If He required us to “work” for our salvation, then that somehow means that we have “earned” our salvation, and since we cannot “earn” our salvation, then God must not require us to “work”.  It is, as you can plainly see, a very self-serving argument; through such arguments, we can have our salvation and yet be free of any action contrary to what we want to do.

Are these arguments new? Are we the first generation to come up with such? Can God ever get salvation correct? Will we ever be satisfied with God’s plan?

History distinguishes clearly between those who truly loved God (those who obeyed) and those who were selfish and thought only of themselves (those who disobeyed).  The Israelites, from the time that they departed from Egypt, wanted God to work on their own terms and constantly complained against both God and His servants.  Consider it this way for a moment: God frequently provided for the Israelites and required very little effort on their part.  For instance, only two months out of Egypt, the Israelites began to complain against God and said, “Oh, that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and when we ate bread to the full! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3).  It is clear that this generation of Israelites had very poor short-term memories; they were enslaved in Egypt and Pharaoh had increased their workload to unbearable levels to keep them docile (Exodus 5).  How much easier did the Israelites want their lives to be? God had promised them great things, including a glorious land that they would simply walk into and take over by the hand of God.  After their complaint in Exodus 16, God provided “bread from heaven” (16:4) for them and required very little from them in return. 

What did God require of the Israelites? Did God require too much of them? The account in Exodus informs us that the Israelites were to gather a certain quota every day for five days, then an extra quota on the sixth day, gather nothing on the seventh day (Sabbath Day), and, except for the night of the sixth day, they were to leave none of the bread overnight (Exodus 16:15-31).  However, the Israelites violated these very simple commands; they left Manna over until the morning (16:19-20) and some attempted to gather on the Sabbath Day (16:27-30).  Couldn’t God get it right? Perhaps, if God truly existed, He should have made the bread appear inside their tents for their convenience? How could God be so inconsiderate as to implement rules governing the Israelites concerning the bread for which they did not have to cultivate soil, plant, water, weed, harvest, process, and bake? And yet, what attitude did the Israelites have? One of disobedience, selfishness, and ungratefulness, for they said “our soul loathes this worthless bread” (Numbers 21:5). 

When we complain about what God requires us to do today or claim that there are no stipulations placed upon salvation, we are telling God that “our soul loathes this worthless bread”.  Why are we so arrogant and self-righteous as to insist that the almighty God bend to our wishes? Why do we pretend that God ought to be grateful of us for whatever service we decide to “bless” Him with?

In our society, entertainment reigns supreme, which naturally leads to the attitude mentioned earlier that many people want more for less (or for nothing, in most cases).  Our society desires freebies; we want to have fun all the time and not be bothered with work.  This concept is clearly defined for us in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Paul’s command for those who were refusing to work and were busybodies was that they should not eat.  However, we want to take that a step further; while it is clear that Paul’s immediate context concerned physical needs, is there a spiritual application we can make? If we refuse to do the commands of God (work), should we be able to have salvation (eat)?

Salvation does not come on our own terms.  Our fulfilling the commands of God does not negate the grace of God, although some attempt to make these concepts mutually exclusive.  Did the Israelites somehow “earn” their Manna (miraculously given) because they picked it up off of the ground? Could they have had their Manna if they had not picked it up off of the ground? In reality, it is a ridiculous argument to claim that we earn salvation because we adhere to the commands of God; both parts of the equation are necessary or salvation will not be obtained (reference also 2 Kings 5).  As Jesus stated in John 14:15, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” 

The Seed

In Mark 4, Jesus presented His audience with the parable of the sower.  Often, when Christians discuss the sower and spreading the Gospel, they talk about how to alter the methods of the sower so that the soil will accept the seed.  Too often, this translates into altering the message with the hope that the soil will receive what humans and society perceives as a kinder, gentler message.  Is there a “one size fits all” method of preaching the Gospel? Examples provided for our learning within the Scriptures indicate that the method of teaching depends upon the circumstances in which the Gospel is being taught, but the message is never to be changed; note that in the parable of the sower, the message (the seed) is exactly the same for all different kinds of soil and, in this case, the sower even sows the seed in exactly the same manner. 

Many Christians and evangelists today advocate the preaching of a “kinder, gentler” Gospel and purport that if the soil rejects the seed then the message was not presented in a kind or gentle enough manner.  What did the sower do wrong? Was his tone or words too harsh? Did he talk too much about the cost of discipleship and not enough about the benefits? Many people assert that because Jesus had compassion and taught in a gentle manner in some instances that this is the only method of teaching; further, they too often condemn other Christians who do not adhere to this conclusion. 

Consider the example of the following teacher: like most evangelists, this man received mixed reactions to his teachings.  Some people welcomed both the man and the message, while others rejected both.  Still others would initially welcome both the man and the message, only to reject both later.  To this point, he clearly fits what Jesus taught via the parable of the sower in Mark 4.  In one particular instance, this man had a prospective convert “on the line,” but thwarted the opportunity by telling his student what the gospel would mean specifically to him.  What did this sower do wrong? How could he be so harsh? Did he lack compassion? In yet another instance, this same teacher used physical force to establish his point.  Another time, this teacher used derogatory terms to describe an entire group of people to whom he was lecturing.  By this point, it ought to be clear who this teacher was: Jesus the Christ. 

What would happen today if a Christian had enough zeal to drive out the unrighteous? Would we claim that they are too harsh? Would we claim that they would drive individuals from God rather than to Him? Would we claim that they have an anger problem? In John 2:13-22, Jesus physically drove the money changers and merchants from the Temple using a whip.  Was it anger that caused Him to do this? John 2:17 states that it was zeal that caused Jesus to do this.  Was this a rash decision on the part of Jesus? John 2:14-15 tells us that Jesus saw the merchants and money changers in the Temple, He then went and made a whip of cords, and then went to the Temple to drive them out.  It appears that if Jesus had initially been acting out of rashness or anger, He would have calmed down while He created the whip.  Likewise, what would happen if a Christian used derogatory terms to describe an entire group of people that they are addressing? In Matthew 23, Jesus calls His audience hypocrites, blind guides, fools, whitewashed tombs, and murderers.  Would we dare use such harsh terms in our own politically correct society?

Many Christians today are worried that prospective converts will be driven away if we do not present the message in a kind or gentle enough manner.  Too many evangelists assert that Christians are only to teach the good things contained in the Bible, such as salvation, the resurrection, and eternal life.  If a Christian implies that there is a cost to discipleship and that an individual must alter their lifestyle, they are deemed even by fellow Christians to be “un-Christ-like” and “un-Christian-like.” 

While the parable of the sower established for us that the message is to always be the same, are we granted a certain amount of leeway in how that message is presented? The Scriptures through multiple examples indicate that this leeway is granted.  It is clear that there is not a single, one size fits all method for teaching lost souls the Gospel.  Did Jesus always use derogatory terms towards His audience as He did in Matthew 23? Absolutely not! Did He always use physical force to establish His point? Absolutely not! Jesus had both compassion and great zeal when it came to completing the tasks that God the Father had set before Him (John 2:17).  In Matthew 9:35-38, we see the compassion of Jesus in two different ways; first, Jesus was aiding the people by “healing every sickness and every disease” that was among them (9:35) and second, “He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (9:36).  The compassion of Jesus truly showed through when He observed the spiritual destitution of the multitudes; Jesus said to His disciples that the “harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few.  Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (9:37-38).  Were these laborers intended to care for the physical needs of the harvest or the spiritual needs? Matthew states that Jesus was moved by compassion because the multitudes “were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (9:36).  Is the job of the shepherd to make the sheep feel safe even when there is a wolf amongst them, or is the shepherd’s job to warn the sheep of impending doom?

It is to be noted that our attitudes while teaching the Gospel do matter and we can establish this principle by examining the book of Jonah. It is clear that Jonah had a horrible attitude and that God showed His disapproval of Jonah’s attitude by dealing with it.  That being said, modern Christians need to stop seeking to lay the blame for the soil’s rejection of the seed at the feet of the sower.  If the soil is good, it will accept the seed, but if it is bad, then it will reject the seed; this principle is also established in the book of Jonah.  In spite of the fact that Jonah had the worst attitude a teacher could ever have towards his pupils, his pupils accepted the message and responded to it.  Clearly we are not to have the attitude of Jonah, but Jonah’s attitude did not alleviate the responsibility of the Ninevites to respond obediently to the message of God.  In other words, God held the Ninevites accountable to the message even though Jonah did not proclaim it with a nice enough attitude; God also held Jonah accountable for his attitude. 

Compassion and zeal should drive every Christian to teach the entire Gospel to lost souls.  Rather than determining to utilize only a single method of teaching, those same characteristics should dictate to us what method of teaching best suits the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  The message should never be altered, a principle which is also established in Mark 4; same seed, different soils.  Jesus, the Apostles, and the inspired writers of the New Testament used multiple methods of teaching; from kind, gentle, encouraging words (1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-5) to harsh rebukes and descriptions of destitute false teachers (Jude; 2 Peter 2).  We even have examples of nearly identical wording producing two entirely different outcomes (Acts 2:1-47; Acts 7:1-60), which indicates that the reaction depends more upon the hearer than the speaker.  Did Stephen have less compassion than Peter, or was his audience composed of the wayside soil (Mark 4:4)?

Whether we like it or not, acceptance or rejection of the Gospel depends upon the individual and what kind of soil they are.  As Christians, our compassion and zeal should drive us to ensure that they have received the entire message of God; this means that we need to show them from Scripture that there is a reward for obedience (James 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:6-8), consequences for disobedience (2 Peter 2:18-22; Matthew 7:22-23), and what the cost of discipleship may be while they linger here on earth (John 15:18-25; Matthew 10:32-39). 

Too often, we accept “it isn’t what you said, but how you said it” as a viable reason why an individual rejects the Gospel and we are successfully distracted from the real problem of sin in the life of that individual and condemn the teacher for their method of teaching.  Again, we must ensure that our attitude in teaching is in adherence with the Scriptures, but the attitude of the teacher is rarely the reason a person accepts or rejects the Gospel.  As Jesus emphasized with the parable of the sower, the message (seed) is the same, but each person (soil) is different.  We cannot control whether an individual will accept or reject the Gospel, but we can control whether or not they have had the chance to hear it in its entirety.