Month: June 2016 (Page 1 of 3)

Friend of the World? (2)

June 30, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher Perhaps I made grace sound cheap with the final thought of my last blog: “This,” I wrote, “is Gospel: simply a humble confession from my heart that signals my desire to turn from sin is enough for God to pour in his always-greater grace.” Just so there’s no misunderstanding, here’s a classic quote from German pastor and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer to which I say a hearty AMEN! And which I hope clarifies I’m not for cheap grace.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy for which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.”

Hopefully with a clearer understanding of grace, we turn to James 4:7-10 where James delivers several strong imperatives . . .

So then, submit yourselves to God (4:7a, TEV).

” . . . then” connects this imperative to what preceded: “But the grace that God gives is even greater. As the scripture says, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:6, ESV). In other words, since God gives grace to the humble, “submit yourselves to God.” The Greek verb is often used of submission to human authority. James, then, is urging his readers to humbly submit themselves to the authority of God who opposes the proud but gives grace (“generous, active, effective help far beyond anything we deserve or have right to expect”–Adamson, The Epistle of James) to the humble.

God’s grace is for the one who humbly submits to him. Muslims (“those who surrender or submit”) may understand that better than Western Christians who re-made God into a cosmic-helper! He is that, but only to those who bow and kneel.

Resist the devil, and he will flee from you (4:7b, TEV).

This world is the devil’s realm (“the whole world lies in the power of the evil one”—1 John 5:19, ESV). Pride is one of his primary projects. We are“lured and enticed by our own desire” (James 1:14, ESV); but the devil stands in the bleachers cheering us on.

How to resist? Perhaps by a humble submissive prayer like this: “God, I admit my pride-problem. By your grace, I turn from it. Please help me now live and speak with humility and lowliness.” Before such prayer and presence, the devil will run.

Come near to God and he will come near to you (4:8a, TEV).

“God goes out,” Jewish rabbis taught, “to those who approach him.” So 4:8a was familiar language to these Jewish Christians. But, we mustn’t attach any merit. God doesn’t “come near” to reward our coming near to him. He comes near by grace as we humbly submit ourselves to him and put away our pride.

Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded (4:8b, TEV).

James calls these Jewish Christians “sinners” because they’re “double-minded.” While drawing near to God they’re living like “friends of the world.” “Wash your hands” and “purify your hearts” calls for repentance and moral purity in act and attitude.

Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom (4:9, TEV).

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians offers the best commentary on James , , ,

Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it– I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while–yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern . . . (2 Corinthians 7:8-11v, ESV).

(Confession: my sin-concession to God often becomes emotionless, as if I’m admitting a spelling error. “O God, surely there are sins my heart should break over! Break me then. Guard me from receiving your grace cheaply.”)

Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up (4:10, TEV).

James returns to his theme that threads through this segment. Put aside “bitter jealousy and selfish ambition” (3:14, ESV). Stop fighting and quarreling and coveting and praying to gratify your own passions. Cut off friendship with the world (4:1-4). “Lower yourselves before the Lord” like a proud mountain peak bowing at the command of His Majesty.

The imperative comes with a promise: ” . . . and he will exalt you.”

Once, invited to a feast, Jesus noticed how many guests chose seats of honor. He told them a pointed parable . . .

“When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place. It could happen that someone more important than you has been invited, and your host, who invited both of you, would have to come and say to you, “Let him have this place.’ Then you would be embarrassed and have to sit in the lowest place. Instead, when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that your host will come to you and say, “Come on up, my friend, to a better place.’ This will bring you honor in the presence of all the other guests. For those who make themselves great will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be made great” (Luke 14:8-11, TEV).

* * *

“Lord, enable me to abort arrogant words that create division and humble myself before you, so I might receive generous, active, effective help far beyond anything I deserve or have right to expect before you. And please rivet these, your words, into my mind . . .”

God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.
(James 4:6, ESV)

Humble yourselves, then, under God’s mighty hand,
so that he will lift you up in his own good time.
(1 Peter 5:6, TEV)

Christian Assault in Sexuality’s Name

June 27, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher Years ago I received emails from a couple who had been members of the church I pastored. They had moved to the mountains of North Carolina for a Last-Days’ defense against anti-Christ forces.

I’m not sympathetic to their cause and don’t wish to be numbered among them. But I have written occasionally about the growing anti-Christian bias in America. I have done it, because, if unaware, we’ll be like the frog in the pot, the heat gradually increasing until we’re boiled. Furthermore, how shall we know how to pray, if we’re unaware of the “enemy territory” we occupy? And how shall we know how serious we must take following Jesus, if we don’t know we’re “swimming upstream”?

I contend that these are days we must be seriously committed to our Lord, not just in the four-wall-sanctuary of our churches and homes, but in the marketplace of ideas and in conversation and in all of everyday life.

The following article, from “National Review Digital”, speaks for itself,

The Assault on Christians

By Donald Critchlow — July 11, 2016, Issue

While perusing the “Anti-Civilization” section of Left Bank Books in Seattle recently, I came across a nonfiction book on how to survive zombie attacks. The author instructed readers that while churches are generally to be avoided, church buildings, with their thick walls and heavy doors, can provide protection from the “living dead.” As Mary Eberstadt shows in her new book, Christian churches are actually under attack from the living Left, which is engaging in a massive assault on religion — and the church walls might not prove as strong as they look.

Eberstadt’s catalogue of actions by these groups to suppress religious liberty will startle readers, even those who have followed the stories of fines against bakeries for their refusal to provide services to gay weddings, the attempt to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptives in medical insurance, Brendan Eich’s ouster as CEO of Mozilla because he contributed to a proposition campaign in California affirming traditional marriage, and the Houston city council’s issuing of subpoenas ordering pastors to turn over sermons mentioning homosexuality or gender identity.

All these cases gained national attention, but Eberstadt shows that the national media have ignored dozens of other assaults on religious liberty. InterVarsity and other Christian student groups have been thrown off campuses across the country because they refused to sign university “non-discriminatory” clauses in support of same-sex marriage. In Atlanta, an Evangelical Christian fire chief was suspended for writing and self-publishing a book professing his Christian beliefs; Catholic and other Christian adoption and social-service agencies are under legal siege because of their support for traditional Judeo-Christian marriage; military chaplains and personnel have been punished for wearing pro-life buttons or displaying personal religious symbols on their desks; and public-school teachers have been fired for explaining Biblical passages to their students. These attacks are so numerous that they are cause for genuine alarm.

There has been a well-organized campaign against Christianity, making use of new interpretations of the concepts of free speech, civil rights, and social justice. Eberstadt argues correctly that this assault goes to the very core of our founding constitutional principles of freedom of worship and free association, embodied in the First Amendment. The Founders understood that political liberty and religious liberty were fundamental to a well-ordered republic. It was not coincidental that it was the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights that ensured the protection of the free exercise of religion. Legal scholar Philip Hamburger showed in his magnificent study Separation of Church and State (2002) that the Jeffersonian-Madisonian concept of erecting a high wall separating church and state was rejected by Congress when it enacted the First Amendment and did not gain traction in legal discourse until anti-Catholic campaigns in the late 19th century. But Congress did enact the free-exercise clause, and meant it.

The concept of religious toleration came slowly to the West and to America. Some scholars point to evidence of ancient Romans’ tolerating other religions in their empire and Muslims’ toleration of Jews in their empire, but these cases are misleading. Romans tolerated religious cults provided they did not threaten state religion, and the Muslim concept of toleration allowed Jews to practice their faith, provided they paid a tax to local caliphates. These policies did not incorporate the ideas of free association and free speech embodied in the Western concept of religious toleration.

Eberstadt finds the concept of religious toleration in the West in the 18th-century European Enlightenment. She could have looked farther back in European history: The beginnings of the modern concept of religious toleration are found in the Treaty of Westphalia, which followed the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), and the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688. The Thirty Years’ War, which began as a religious struggle between Catholic and Protestant principalities, degenerated into a barbarism that left entire villages devastated and destroyed economic, cultural, and moral standards. The terms of the Peace of Westphalia ending the war allowed for the recognition of the primacy of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Protestants within their own principalities. Religious minorities in these jurisdictions were subjected to various kinds of pressure and occasional persecution, but the first seeds of religious toleration had been sown.

A more important step toward religious toleration came in England with the Settlement of 1688, which replaced the Stuart dynasty with William of Orange. Under William, the Church of England allowed the modest integration of nonconformist Protestants into the church. In this context, English philosopher John Locke, the great apologist for the Glorious Revolution, wrote his “Letter Concerning Toleration” in 1689, arguing for toleration of Protestant religious groups. Roman Catholics continued to be excluded from holding public office, but local officials began to turn a blind eye to restrictive laws against Catholics.

The greatest advance toward religious liberty and religious toleration came in America with the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. The myriad Protestant denominations and sects created a pluralist environment that made it impossible for one group to dominate the religious order. Yet even in this environment, religious toleration was not complete. Many states continued to bar Roman Catholics, Jews, and Muslims from holding public office. These discriminatory laws and local ordinances quickly broke down, however, owing to republican culture and mass immigration.

The illiberal assault on religious liberty today represents a return to the past in which people were persecuted for their beliefs. Unlike the persecutions of the past, in which people were burned at the stake, today’s persecution of Christians takes place in the courts, the administrative bureaucracies, and the forum of public opinion. At issue, as Eberstadt correctly observes, is “nothing less than the future of free speech and free association.” On the surface, the intensity of the persecutor’s mind is difficult to explain. Why are those acting in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” so intent on uniformity of thought and culture? Eberstadt says the “quasi-religious” belief of these reactionaries is invested in the sexual revolution: “It is that sex between (and among) consenting adults is good — and since sex is good, the more sex, at least in theory, the better.” The sexual revolution, which began in the 1960s, is “not libertarian.” It is instead “neo-puritanical — that is, it is aimed at safeguarding its own body of revealed and developed truths, and at marginalizing its traditional competition.”

She observes that this “religion of sex” mimics traditional religion with its own “hagiography of secular saints, . . . proselytizers for abortion and contraception, like Margaret Sanger and Helen Gurley Brown and Gloria Steinem; crypto-scholastics whose work is revered by generation after generation of the faithful and off limits for intellectual revisionism.” These saints are joined by a “full-blown secularist martyrology, according to which tragic deaths like those of Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk achieve supercommunal status and symbolism.”

Eberstadt’s understanding of the quasi-religious nature of this anti-Christian crusade is poignant. Theologically, the tone of the sexual revolution devolves into a kind of pre-Christian gnosticism, in which believers have a secret knowledge unknown to the masses. Unlike the gnostics of the past, who were sexual ascetics obsessed with the spiritual universe, the mystery cultists of the sexual revolution are obsessed with the carnal world. The modern-day gnostics project themselves as an enlightened class willing to overturn centuries of faith and practice about sexual relations and the importance of family in maintaining a well-ordered society.

In their own eyes, they hold a revealed knowledge that sexual identity and the family are social constructions created by a patriarchal, oppressive society. Eberstadt understands that the foundation of the secular/progressive worldview is the doctrine that “the Pill and its backup plan, abortion on demand, have liberated humanity — first, by freeing women from the chains of their fertility, and second, by having broken down the door to the fortress of traditional morality, after which one sexual minority after another has been liberated.”

Eberstadt compares the anti-Christian onslaught today to the witch hunts in 17th-century New England and the anti-Communist hysteria in the 1950s. These analogies are somewhat misleading. New England Puritan leaders prided themselves on being rationalistic and scientific-minded. However misplaced their concerns about actual witches, they sought empirical evidence of the devil’s hand at work in the natural world. In the end, they concluded — too late for many who were sentenced to death as witches — that scientific proof was lacking for further trials. Today’s anti-Christian witch hunters, who look for signs of sexism, homophobia, and cisgender prejudice, are driven not by reason or historical experience, but by sentiment and passion. No facts to the contrary will dissuade them from their effort.

And whatever the ills of McCarthyism and its false accusations, there were actual Communists at work in America in the 1950s. We know from the Soviet archives and U.S. intelligence sources that there were over 300 American spies working under the directives of Moscow. Contrary to the anti-Christian propagandists of today, American culture is not permeated by widespread prejudice against women and homosexuals.

The movement against Christians and organized religion today has hysterical overtones, but it is a well-calculated endeavor. It is led by activist lawyers, foundation officers, government bureaucrats, and college-educated secularists. Secular non-believers are becoming a majority in Europe and America, especially among the youth. If Christians become the minority in America, this is all the more reason to protect their fundamental rights of free speech and free association against the “tyranny of the majority.”

Eberstadt remains optimistic that in this war on Christianity, as in previous moments of hysteria, common sense will ultimately prevail. A religious awakening, such as those that occurred in the 1740s and in the 1830s, can reverse the decline in American culture. Meanwhile, the task of Christians is to continue to defend their rights, evangelize for their faith, and involve themselves in their communities to produce good works.

Eberstadt concludes: “Courage is required for people like that to stand not only against the cultural tide, but against the inner worms of human nature.” Christianity was founded on the persecution of its Savior and a belief that faith and reason will ultimately prevail.

The “Anti-Civilization” section of Left Bank Books in Seattle has replaced the “Marxism” section, which is now just a small shelf of dusty books. Faith in progress and reason is being sorely tested these days.

– Mr. Critchlow, a professor of history at Arizona State University, is the author of Future Right: The Forging of a New Republican Majority.

Wisdom That Grows a Righteous Church

June 26, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher Ah, the hilarious wisdom of old age . . .

The dispersed-among-the-nations Jewish Christians to whom James writes are neither aged nor wise (while professing to be—wise, that is). Instead, they’re foolishly tongue-lashing each other (James 3:1-12), harboring jealously and selfish ambition in their hearts (James 3:14) and arrogantly fighting with one another (James 4:1-12).

Before we dig into James’ rebuke, note three key words, two of which don’t usually make our top-three-church-virtues today. First, peace. This we want. A church at peace. Without internal conflict. No fighting. Everyone loving everyone else.

Second, wisdom. We want a growing church, a friendly church, a great-music church, a well-programmed church. But who longs for a wise church?

Third, righteousness. When’s the last time somebody congratulated your church for being righteous or the last time you read a magazine highlighting a righteous church?

It appears from James, God wants his church to be at peace, wise and righteous.

James starts this section (which really continues his thoughts from 3:1-12) with a question to grab attention . . .

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom (James 3:13).

Yes, who? Not the members who speak and act as if they know more than everybody else. Not simply members with a good sense of judgment. But members who make right moral choices before God. Specifically, in this case, members who do beneficial praiseworthy acts from a spirit of humility and gentleness.

Our churches are not always sanctuaries of peace, schools of wisdom and overflowing fields of righteousness. True, the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. But sick sinners should be getting better! And that improvement should be progressively obvious. Apparently, in the churches to whom James is writing, the opposite was obvious . . .

But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. (James 3:14,15).

” . . . selfish ambition” reminds me of politicians. They solicit support more for their own political profit than the nation’s good. A lost seat to a competitor would color them envy-green. James rebukes church members like that. In fact, he reserves some of his harshest language for them. Paraphrase: “You brag about how wise you are as a Christian, when your “wisdom” doesn’t come from above but from here on earth. It’s just natural, human, totally absent God’s Spirit. It is, in fact, demonic. (Can you imagine a pastor preaching this rebuke today? Church-shopping time!)

For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. (James 3:16).

On what does James base such a harsh diagnosis? The churches’ disorderliness and confusion. Their moral corruptness. Their evil practices. I can’t imagine describing a church like this. Such “fruit” can mean only one thing: members are envious and selfishly ambitious. And their so-called “wisdom” is “earthly, unspiritual and demonic.” What a contrast “the wisdom that comes from heaven”!

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness (James 3:17,18).

” . . . wisdom from above” is . . .

pure. It produces people of moral and spiritual integrity.
peaceable. It produces people who are conciliatory peace-makers.
considerate. It produces people who are fair and generous.
submissive. It produces people who put themselves under others in importance for Jesus’ sake.
full of mercy and good fruit. It produces people who show compassion and forgiveness toward those they have power to harm,
impartial and sincere. It produces people without prejudice or hypocrisy.

This is a peaceful church, a wise church, a righteous church reflecting the character of Christ himself. But it doesn’t just happen. It takes members, like farmers, “planting” these virtues in peace. Nor is such a church born in a day. It takes time for “fruit” to grow. But it will; the Holy Spirit will work through “planting” members and eventually “a harvest of righteousness” will be the yield.

Wisdom is the necessary ingredient. How shall we gain it? James has already answered . . .

If any of you lacks wisdom,
let him ask God who gives generously to all without reproach,
and it will be given him.
(James 1:1:5)

Here’s a prayer we might pray . . .

O LORD, I turn my ear to wisdom that comes from your words and commands.
I apply my heart to understanding. I call out for insight.
I cry aloud for understanding. I look for it as for silver.
I search for it as for hidden treasure.
I am trusting that then I will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.
I rest on the promise that you give wisdom
and from your mouth come knowledge and understanding.
This I pray in the name of your Son,
who is my wisdom and righteousness. Amen.
(from Proverbs 2:1-6).

Friend of the World? (Part 1)

June 24, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher I’ve always held to the “you-can-catch-more-flies-with-honey-than-with-vinegar” philosophy. When I spoke with church members needing correction, I usually did it with gentle, kind words. James, on the other hand, went heavy on the vinegar. But he ends this scorching segment with unexpected, sweet grace.

New Testament letters are occasional documents—most topics occasioned by issues in the recipient church. Because so much verbal violence is raging in the churches of these dispersed Jewish Christians, James can’t band-aide their conflict; he has to shovel to the cause and root it out. Hence he starts with questions . . .

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? (4:1, NIV).

The root cause of their rage is no mere difference of opinion. They’ve each got a desires-war within. The Greek word translated “desires” is haydomay)— “lusts”, used of natural, uncontrolled appetites. Their fallen nature’s desire for self-gratification wars against their new-birth desire for righteous living. Hence they are fiercely frustrated . . .

You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures (4:2,3, NIV).

Hard to imagine they were actually murdering one another. Either James is using “kill” in the sense Jesus did for “anger” (“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment”—Matthew 5:21,22), or he means (as the TEV translates) “ready to kill.” Either way, they’re coveting what belongs to a brother and, unable to get it, frustration erupts in verbal war.

Can church members really behave like this? After a lifetime of pastoring—yes. My situation was never this bad. But even when hostility between groups of members simmered beneath the surface, it was dreadful.

James prescribes prayer . . .

“You do not have because you do not ask God for it.”

We shouldn’t miss the import of James’ diagnosis. Jesus promised:

“As bad as you are,
you know how to give good things to your children.
How much more, then, will your Father in heaven
give good things to those who ask him!”
(Matthew 7:11, TEV).

And the psalmist taught:

“Seek your happiness in the Lord,
and he will give you your heart’s desire”
(Psalm 37:4).

We’re to see our Father as our source of satisfaction and ask him for our heart’s desire. Then rest in his answer, whatever it is, as good. The alternative (to try to grab for ourselves, especially at others’ expense) leads only to fights and frustration.

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures (4:3b, NIV).

Motives matter. Why didn’t they receive when they did ask God? Because their passion in prayer was only their own desires. “Pleasures” translates the Greek haydonays–used of indulgence or lack of control of natural appetites. “Lusts” or “lustful pleasures” would be a good translation.

Jesus used”spend” (Greek, dapanaysata) of the prodigal son who “squandered his property in wasteful living” and “spent everything” (Luke 15:13,14). So we might translate: “that you may waste all you get on your pleasures.”

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? (4:4,5, NIV)

“You adulterous people”. No address could shock these Jewish Christians more. Their prophets used it often of Israel’s shameful unfaithfulness to God . . .

Oh, that I had in the desert a lodging place for travelers,
so that I might leave my people and go away from them;
for they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful people.
(Jeremiah 9:2)

Then in the nations where they have been carried captive,
those who escape will remember me–
how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts,
which have turned away from me,
and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols.
They will loathe themselves for the evil they have done
and for all their detestable practices.
(Ezekiel 6:9)

What does James mean by “the world” that friendship with it is “hatred (hostility, animosity) toward God”? The “world” (Greek kosmos) is all of humanity alienated from God and hostile to Christ. To be on friendly terms, then, with humanity that opposes God in Christ, is to identify yourself as one with God’s enemy.

The church in which I grew up often identified “worldliness” with outward things—girls wearing short skirts, movie-going, dancing, etc. Rarely was coveting “stuff” for yourself mentioned. But the “unmentionables” are usually more insidious.

Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?

A notoriously-difficult question to translate from the Greek. Is “spirit” the Holy Spirit who is jealous for us? Or is it our spirit that envies what others have. I lean toward the latter, but will just leave it there to move on to unexpected, sweet grace.

I’m surprised at James. For five verses James has excoriated us. Had I been one of those church members I’d feel mentally skinned alive. He’s called us adulterers, God-haters, selfish and greedy pray-ers, friends of this fallen world. I’m no better than the pervert who runs to a prostitute. No more righteous than the evangelist who begs poor widows to give another offering so he can buy a new jet. Instead of loving my brother, I’m angry enough to kill him.

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (4:6).

This “But” is a stream of cold water in a desert. ” . . . he gives more grace.” God’s grace (his “generous, active, effective help far beyond anything we deserve or have right to expect”–Adamson, The Epistle of James) is greater than sin in me. By it God saves me from my adultery, my God-enmity, my selfish and greedy praying, my cozying-up to this fallen world.

Not, however, if I proudly refuse to lower myself and admit my sin. Then God will surely set himself against me.

But if I humble myself and confess my sins, God will give grace greater than my adultery, greater than my God-enmity, greater than my selfish and greedy praying, greater than my corrupting friendship with this world. This is Gospel: simply a humble confession from my heart that signals my desire to turn from sin is enough for God to pour in his always-greater grace.

Dear Subscribers

June 24, 2016 / Allan Babcock

P.Allan I began blogging back in March 2014. Driven to retirement after 44 years of pastoring by primary lateral sclerosis, my mind longed to continue in ministry while my body fought against it. I dreamed of writing a book, but that intimidated me. A blog seemed the best bet.

So, after praying for guidance, I began. “If nobody reads it,” I reasoned, “at least I’ll be somewhat creatively capturing my thoughts in printed form.” Soon, however, I realized, “If nobody reads what I write, what’s the point?”

I devised a plan: I would subscribe members of the church I formerly pastored. Surely they would be okay with that. And, if not, they could easily unsubscribe. (Yes, that’s the sneaky way some of you ended up receiving my blog. )

For a month or more, daily visitors languished in the single digits. Well, at least a few were reading. So I plugged along, enjoying the study and the writing, and praying readership would grow. I didn’t aim for a “mega-blog.” That was (is) way beyond me. But I really did want to speak God’s Word into the lives of as many people as possible. In short, I hoped to continue my preaching ministry through a writing ministry.

My motivation wasn’t entirely selfless. As an “older-old” (now 72) and mostly shut-in, I very much needed a continuing sense of significance. Not ego. A sense that my life still counted for the sake of the Gospel. I wasn’t ready to curl up on the couch with potato chips watching TV through glazed-over eyes. I wanted to serve, to contribute.

I always pastored small churches over 44 years. The first (in Atco, N.J.) had been without a pastor for nine months when I arrived. A handful of older people hanging on, but when Lois and I left three years later, the church had grown to 40-50 people, a sizeable young people’s group among them.

We left because I had been asked to plant a church in northern New Jersey. We named it The Living Church, and it was the most “alive” church I’d ever known. From zero, we grew to about 120 at its peak after nearly 17 years of ministry. Not a magazine-feature number, but a broad age-range and multi-ethnic members made it a most exciting community of believers.

Next we spent 24 years in Florida. What began as a dying church of older folks (Port Richey Community Church) became a church of all ages, though small—as many as about 90 people at one time, but mostly around 50-60. We sold an old building and built new (something I said I never would do!) and SonRise Community Church (our new name) grew into a Christ-centered family with exciting prospects for the future.

But my illness left me behind. As I said, I longed to continue in significant ministry. But would it be significant?

Well, as of today, theoldpreacher.com has 651 subscribers! According to my statistics, people are reading from about 2/3 of the United States and more than 20 countries around the world. (Obviously these are English-speaking readers, because the best I could do even in high school Spanish was a “D”!) Far more people are reading my words about God’s word (his word is what’s important) than ever heard me preach over 44 years combined!

I’m not telling you this to boast. Like the apostle Paul, my only boast is in the Lord. This is his doing. The glory, the praise, the applause all goes to him.

I am so grateful to still be able to serve. I praise him that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). My body may be “wasting away”, but God hasn’t taken back his gracious gifts!

And I thank him for you, dear reader. That you make the time to read what I’ve written about our Lord. That you allow the Holy Spirit to cause his word to come alive in your life. That I have a small part in the person you are becoming for your greatest good and God’s greatest glory. I don’t even know most of you. But I so much appreciate you. You don’t know how you’ve blessed me by subscribing and reading. You are God’s gift to me at this time in my life. Thank you.

I don’t want to make more of this than warranted. I’m sure you have others who speak God’s word into your life to a greater extent than I. I’m content to be supplemental. To serve where the Lord has put me.

So I pray to be faithful. I pray to be fruitful. And I thank you for the blessed encouragement you are to me. I pray you will receive the greater blessing. So that through our “connection”, God may be most glorified, the name of Jesus exalted, and the Holy Spirit’s presence enjoyed and made visible in our lives as we follow our Lord together.

Evangelicals! Vote with Integrity!

June 23, 2016 / Allan Babcock

Just read the following by David French. I’m posting it so you can too. French’s words cut to my conscience. I had thought it wise to vote for Trump to insure conservative Supreme Court justices would be nominated. French blew that idea out of the water. Better, I think, to be a man of integrity than to contribute to a potentially greater problem. See what you think . . .

Don’t Bend Your Knee to Trump, Evangelicals

A candidate who subverts all of our most cherished values should be avoided at all costs.

By David French — June 20, 2016

Yesterday, hundreds of Evangelical leaders gathered in New York City to meet with Donald Trump. I must confess that I don’t understand their purpose.

I suspect that it was exactly the kind of meeting that Trump wanted: One where he could mouth a few platitudes and those Evangelicals who are desperate for power and influence would emerge gravely pronouncing themselves “satisfied” that he is in their corner. Of course, they’ll maintain their “reservations” — including their professed distaste for his racist rhetoric, disrespect for women, and habitual lying — but they’ll fall in line. The Supreme Court is the reason, they’ll say.

For some, that will be pure subterfuge. Access to power is a powerful drug, and there are quite a few Evangelical leaders nursing an addiction. It must be especially hard to kick the habit for those whose fortunes are on the decline. There’s a reason why Trump’s surrogates mainly represent a traveling band of the has-beens and “almost-weres”: He’s their last, best hope for relevance.

But others will hold their nose and cling to him, genuinely convinced that all of his faults are outweighed — just barely — by his (kinda sorta) promise to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. Trump’s so mendacious that one can measure his lies by the minute, but in this case they’ll believe he’s telling the truth. Because they want to believe.

This is a grave mistake. American Evangelical Christianity does not exist for the purpose of placing one or two decent judges on the Supreme Court. It — along with its Catholic and Orthodox counterparts — represents the body of Christ on this earth. It is a flawed vessel, to be sure, but its moral witness is still of incalculable worth.

Despite the media’s grotesque caricatures, American Evangelicals (and Mormons) are the nation’s most generous citizens, giving their time and money to the poorest and most vulnerable of their fellow citizens at a rate that puts most other communities to shame. They are among the leaders in seeking true racial reconciliation, with each of the leading denominations dedicating countless hours and resources to bridging the cavernous historical divides that persist. Pentecostal churches are often our nation’s most diverse, places where men and women of every race and ethnicity unite in joyous worship.

We have our well-known flaws, but our churches are at the forefront of fighting for the family. They’re at the forefront of combating substance abuse and providing fathers and mothers for the world’s orphans. They battle for life even where abortion is available on demand, persuading countless women to keep and to love children they once wanted nothing to do with. I’ve never in my life attended a church that failed to feed the hungry, care for the needy, and minister to those in prison.

Just think for a moment how many of those values Trump subverts. He has discarded two wives and brags of his sexual conquests. He praises Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion mill. He intentionally foments racial division, attacking an Indiana-born judge merely because his parents came to America from Mexico. He retweets the most vile online racists. Everywhere he goes, white supremacists follow, tormenting his online opponents with horrific images and overt threats. He claims to support the working man, yet he demonstrates aggressive economic ignorance, threatening to play games with American credit and trade in a way that would prove ruinous for families who live paycheck-to-paycheck. He views our fighting men and women as mere instruments of the presidency, and expects them to commit war crimes on his orders. He traffics in the worst conspiracy theories, treats his opponents with utter contempt, and uses his friends to his own ends. He lies as easily as he breathes.

The faithful Evangelical every day pleads with God, “Less of self, more of thee.” Trump each day demands, “All of self, none of thee.”

RELATED: Trump Ain’t Gonna Change

And yet some Evangelicals appear willing to use their God-given talents and abilities to actually help elect him — because of the Supreme Court. What are they thinking? Hasn’t Trump clearly demonstrated his own contempt for the judiciary? As he made plain when he launched his attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, he believes that the judiciary exists to serve him, not to serve the law. He’ll make his judicial picks based on one and only one criterion: what’s best for him.

Evangelical leaders: If you back Trump, for the rest of your days, you will be forced to live with having had a hand in fracturing our nation on the basis of race, discarding the sanctity of marriage, and scorning honesty itself — all for the chance, the remote chance, that Trump will make one or two decent Supreme Court picks. You will be selling your integrity for the most meager of returns.

Otherwise, you can fight all the way to Cleveland, and beyond if a strong independent candidate emerges. If the choice does come down to Trump or Hillary Clinton, you can instead reserve your vote only for those down-ballot candidates with the integrity to resist corruption from either presidential nominee. Faced with the choice between further debasing our politics and refusing to do so, you’ll emerge with your integrity intact.

Christians have had to take tougher stands in darker times before. They do so in other nations today. This decision, by contrast, should be easy. Trump is not worth your consideration or even one moment of your time. Let others bend the knee.

— David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

Leftist Religion: No Peace

June 22, 2016 / Allan Babcock

P.Allan I’m astounded that the current administration in Washington seems to believe that getting America’s enemies to the diplomatic table will bring peace. Just to be clear, I’m not making a political statement. I’m not pro-war. And I have no workable solution to bring world peace through human channels.

But this naiveté of inherent human goodness totally ignores the reality of sin . . .

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'”
( Romans 3:23).

Sin not only separates us from our Creator and his glory, it depraves human nature, including our mind. Writing of Gentile sinners, Paul urges the church . . .

” . . . you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do in the futility of their minds.
They are darkened in their understanding,alienated from the life of God,
because of the ignorance that is in them
due to the hardness of their heart.”
(Ephesians 4:17,18).

That’s God’s word. It means we cannot simply trust “the goodwill of man” when we sit at the bargaining table. I don’t deny the need for diplomacy. Sure, try to reason with people driven by hostile ideologies. But we can’t assume that a signature on the bottom line certifies the agreement.

And that brings me to the importance of worldview. In the latest edition of “National Review” online, Ben Shapiro writes . . .

Obama believes, as doctrinaire leftists do, that human beings do not derive meaning from ancient religious superstitions and deep-seated ideas about how the universe ought to operate. Given relief from material want and prevention of emotional distress, Obama believes, all human beings would get along just fine — and would then be free to cultivate themselves as they see fit.

Karl Marx wrote that “life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing, and many other things.” In this view, unhappiness derives from scarcity in these resources or from social relationships created to guarantee these primary needs for some at the expense of others. Religion, meanwhile, exists only to misdirect such unhappiness toward the cosmic rather than toward one’s fellow man. Hence Marx’s belief that abolition of religion is “the demand for their real happiness.”

This is “leftist religion.” The replacement of “ancient religious superstitions” with a religious-like ideology that what we all really need is our “primary needs” supplied. If we would only help our fellow man attain those provisions we would have world happiness and peace. (ISIS reveals that worldview’s paucity when they aim to take over the world by slaughter!)

Our “leftist religionists” stop short of Marx who claimed “Religion . . . exists only to misdirect such unhappiness toward the cosmic rather than toward one’s fellow man.” In other words, energy devoted to getting right with God should be directed to getting right with one another. Today’s “leftists” allow for God, just not as Savior and Lord through his Son. Leave him, please, to just “bless” us.

“Leftist religion” will never deliver, nor will diplomacy based on it. God won’t be content to be merely a “blesser.” He will be honored as God! Belief in the inherent goodness of man, if only his primary needs are met, is blind and ignorant faith stemming from hard-hearted-ness toward God the Father of Jesus. The world cannot be saved by mutual goodwill and understanding, because the foundation (man) is fallen.

This is why our only hope lies not in a new U.S. president or deal-making Congress or more talented diplomats or even the military’s overpowering force. These are necessities for today—until the Peacemaker returns to Planet Earth . . .

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away
have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one
and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two,
thus making peace,
and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God
through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
He came and preached peace to you who were far away
and peace to those who were near.
For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
(Ephesians 2:13-18)

Now, until that day when Jesus comes to bring world peace,
drink in his Spirit of peace for your own soul
as you prayerfully listen to the video above.

Tongue-Taming

June 20, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher I was 18 when Lois and I married—and immature. My tongue spewed it in arguments. Not curses. Insensitive, harsh, and callous words, impossible to take back. Heart surgery may be more urgent, but James claims tongue-taming may be more critical . . .

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check (James 3:1,2).

Hear ye, every prospective Bible college and seminary student, every Bible study leader and Sunday school teacher, every Christian parent! Caution! Tremble! Because “the tongue . . . is a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (3:8). Because “ . . . we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). And because only a perfect person never sins with his words (3:2). If that person could, he’d be able to keep his whole body from sin. Such is the tongue’s deadly threat.

James issues this warning to Jewish Christians dispersed among the nations, probably trying to protect them from false teachings from without and unqualified teachers from within. They’re suffering trials (1:2) and mustn’t fall prey like dumb sheep to hungry wolves. Nor must they wound one another with their false or foolish words. Neither must we.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell (James 3:3-6).

James sounds tongue-obsessed. Such a small organ! But think of the bridle’s bit. Not big. Put In a thousand-pound horse’s mouth, it “can turn the whole animal.” Only strong winds can drive a sailing ship through the sea. Yet it needs only “a very small rudder” to direct it. So our little tongue proudly wags sparking far-reaching devastation—for hearers and speaker alike. An evil word (from heresy to jealousy) “corrupts the whole person” and “sets the whole course of his life on fire”, because his words’ source lies in hell itself.

“Whoa, James. Little over the top, no?” Well, think of a politician suspected of sexual immorality. Guilty, but he defends himself with a lie. New questions arise; a second concocted. More suspicions arise. He lies a new one. No conclusive evidence, but after months of lies, his career is in the can. James might say, “That’s the power of the tiny tongue!” We Christians have even more at stake—the integrity of our Lord and his Gospel. And, we’ll have to give account for every word. “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken “(Matthew 12:36, Jesus).

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water (James 3:7-12).

No man can tame the tongue? Really? It can’t be subdued or domesticated like wild animals on the new earth (Isaiah 11:6,9)? Is is really “an unstable, uncontrollable evil full of death”?

At a particular elders meeting one elder voiced a decision that ticked me off. Angry words exploded from my mouth. Instead of calming the situation, I had inflamed it. Or, to continue James’ metaphor, instead of speaking healing life into a serious situation, I spoke poisonous death. Later, I had to humbly ask forgiveness. James’ tongue-description is sadly accurate.

The tongue I used that evening to angrily criticize my made-in-God’s-image brother in Christ was the same tongue I’d used a few days earlier to praise God in corporate worship. O Father! “Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing.” It’s not right! It mustn’t happen! It violates God’s creation (and new creation) order. The same spring can’t produce both fresh and salt water. A fig tree can’t bear olives. A grapevine can’t bear figs. It’s abnormal, deviant, perverse. Sometimes, according to James, I am.

*****

Because as pastor I taught God’s word for 44 years, I will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). So will you if you’ve preached or taught Bible studies, Sunday school, or your own children. It’s a terrifying thought, tempered only by the good news that God’s mercy will triumph over his judgment, if we have shown mercy to others (James 3:12,13).

The culprit in this scenario is our tongue. In 3:8 James warns that it’s “evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison”, unable to be tamed by us. Which is why, it appears, he leaves us in 3:1-12 with no hope of bridling it. Yet in 1:26, he suggest it is possible to control that wagging hunk of flesh: “If anyone does not control his tongue, his religion is worthless and he deceives himself.” Not tame the wild-tongue-horse, but bridle
it so you control the animal.

So it’s all on us, then? Thankfully, not at all. James offers divine help when he writes of “the wisdom from above” (3;17). Here, then, is what I infer we can do. Pray for wisdom from above concerning what we say with our tongue. God has promised to give it (James 1:5). This is God’s part in tongue-bridling.

Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry (James 1:19). This is our part. As Ben Franklin says in Poor Richard’s Almanac, “it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

Cute—at this age!

funny tongue photo: tongue tied tonguetied.jpg

But real soon—need the knot!

Laugh

June 19, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher I can’t believe Jesus didn’t laugh at this. Well, I did anyway. Nothing theological about it. Nothing spiritual. Just very funny. If you haven’t seen it, I hope it brings a grin to your face and a little happiness to your day. (I think we’ll laugh at lot on the new earth. So let’s practice now.)

Blaming Christians

June 18, 2016 / Allan Babcock

O Preacher I’m almost speechless. Please read this article by David French from the “National Review.” It’s his response to Jen Hatmaker’s viral Facebook page (link in article).

we need the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit of Christ-like love in us, even while we call sin what it is!

The Orlando Shooting Launches a War on Christianity

Somehow, Omar Mateen’s massacre has put American Christians on the defensive.

By David French — June 15, 2016

We are now fully through the looking glass. A Muslim man walked into a gay nightclub and gunned down 49 men and women, most of them gay or lesbian. He paused in the middle of his massacre to call 911 and a local television station, making clear that he wanted the world to know he had pledged allegiance to ISIS. There are no dog whistles here. This is a textbook example of jihadism in action, plain and simple.

Yet somehow, Omar Mateen’s massacre has put American Christians on the defensive.

Yesterday, Anderson Cooper grilled Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, accusing her of hypocrisy for expressions of support for slain Floridians. Why was she hypocritical? Because she opposed same-sex marriage:

Today, the New York Times editorialized about the domestic threat to LGBT Americans and declared that they were “casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.” The “society” the Times condemned wasn’t the ISIS caliphate — it was America, and specifically states such as Texas and North Carolina that are fighting federal edicts that demand that men should have access to women’s restrooms. The Times couldn’t bring itself to condemn Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but it attacked North Carolina governor Pat McCrory and Texas governor Greg Abbott.

Even well-meaning Christians are adopting the secular-progressive line. In a viral Facebook post, popular writer and speaker Jen Hatmaker declared, “We cannot with any integrity honor in death those we failed to honor in life.” She then proceeded to offer a standard leftist broadside against Evangelicals, arguing that Christian “anti-LGBTQ sentiment has paved a long runway to hate crimes.”

The principles, such as they exist, seem to be this: If you oppose same-sex marriage or mixed-gender bathrooms, then you not only can’t legitimately grieve the loss of gay lives, you’re partially responsible for the massacre in Orlando. Conservative efforts to protect religious freedom and freedom of association from unprecedented infringement will kill people. Never mind that all the actual evidence in the case points to Islamic motivations extrapolated from well-known and widely shared interpretations of Shariah law, somehow those darn Baptists are to blame.

Does this mean that Barack Obama would have been complicit in the massacre if it had happened four years ago, before he publicly changed his stance on same-sex marriage? What about Hillary Clinton? She opposed gay marriage until 2013. Her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Orlando shooter lived for years under Democratic administrations that opposed same-sex marriage. I guess Bill Clinton shares some blame as well.

I don’t have the words adequate to express my contempt for this view. Does any living, sentient being believe that if a Christian had launched this attack, these same liberals wouldn’t blame his religious beliefs? The so-called “reality-based community” ignores the actual evidence in the attack — Mateen’s own loudly declared jihadist beliefs — in an attempt to shame a community whose primary “sin” is opposing the sexual revolution.

But there is something even more sinister at work than garden-variety anti-Christian bigotry, aided and abetted by gullible believers such as Hatmaker: Americans are being purposefully and intentionally distracted from our true enemies. Once again, the jihadist threat is being minimized.

Some on the left simply refuse to believe what terrorists say about themselves and about their intentions. Osama bin Laden couldn’t have really attacked the World Trade Center in part out of a desire to avenge Christians’ 15th-century conquest of Muslim Spain. Iranian leaders don’t really mean “death to America.” Muslim nations that mandate the death penalty or other draconian criminal punishments for homosexuality don’t truly express the will of their people.

The result is bigotry running two ways — an unreasoning, irrational hatred of American Christians and a comprehensive denial of Muslim moral agency. American Christians are responsible for things they don’t believe. Sharia-observant Muslims, by contrast, aren’t responsible for the things they do believe.

And make no mistake, said Muslims don’t care a whit what the New York Times, Anderson Cooper, Jen Hatmaker, or any other anti-Evangelical terror apologist has to say. To them, one American life taken is as good as any other. They will attack again, maybe at another gay bar, or another office Christmas party, or a coffee house, or a sporting event, or a church. And when they do, there will surely be some Americans who excuse their actions out of eagerness to blame other Americans, instead.

— David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

A few impressions to take away. One, Anderson Cooper implies that if we are not “champions” of the LGBT community, we are bigots who hypocritically grieve over these deaths. Two, and more importantly, this is Emperor Nero returned: blame the Christians for Rome’s fire. So for the Orlando mass shootings. Not Mateen, not radical islamist terrorists. It’s us Christians. Why? Because we’ve not “championed” a cause our Bible-driven faith calls sinful.

Face it. We’re out of step with American culture. A minority. We will be blamed, whether guilty or not. But let’s be sure we’re not guilty. Speak the truth? Absolutely. But in love. It’s a tricky business. How