"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan." - Prov 29:2 (NKJV)
"The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." - Prov 21:1 (NKJV)
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." - Rom 13:1 (NKJV)
"By long forbearance a ruler is persuaded, And a gentle tongue breaks a bone." - Prov 25:15 (NKJV)
____________________________________________________
Well, that magical time is upon us once again: Presidential election season! Every four years, we have the pleasure of being inundated with more promises, TV ads, slander, broken promises, slander, mud-slinging, debate, slander (did I already mention that?), and campaigning than should be permitted by law! Not to mention the promises (OK, I know I already mentioned that). What a joyous time to be an American (please note the obvious sarcasm . . .)
Of course, one of the big questions that mainstream media likes brings up during election season is this: "what role will Evangelical Christians play in this year's election?" That's right, folks: you and I, the body of Christ, who are often dismissed as out-of-touch, condemning, clueless, and a host of other not-so-flattering adjectives, are actually taken somewhat seriously once every two years, albeit around a topic that often leaves us divided.
Well, believe it or not, you and I actually play quite an important role when it comes to the elections in our country. As a matter of fact, given what the Bible says, even as messy as politics and the electoral process can be, great importance has been placed on our vote. Let me explain:
As you can see, I referenced a number of scriptures at the front-end of this post, all of which deal with rulers and authority in some sort of way. The first scripture resonates with many of us, as we have had to deal with the consequences of living under a host of unrighteous rulers (we won't name names, as it's unnecessary for the heart of this article); we've seen it manifest itself in public humiliations, financial corruptions, sexual misconduct, and in the many other ways that have given our government a black eye, both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, we can include in this "unrighteous" category all of the legislation that has been passed and Supreme Court decisions that have been made since the inception of our great democratic-republic that have made us scratch our heads and say "Where did we go wrong?" There is very much a need for righteousness in government.
But you might think this: "Will, one of your scripture references says that God directs the king! How can we do anything about unrighteous politicians?" My response? "Thank you for making my point for me."
You see, the kings of Israel (starting with Saul himself) were all ordained by God, which means that God put them there, not men. Therefore, the king was sovereign in his rule (he only answered to God). As a matter of fact, we even see that some kings had their hearts hardened by God (i.e. Pharaoh). And, as the authorities placed by God, the people's job was to submit to them. We, however, do not live under a king. So how do these scriptures apply to us? I'm glad you asked.
You see, the democratic-republic in which we live, which was founded through much prayer and seeking of God, gives power to the people, and, in turn, their delegates (congressman, senators, and even presidents, all of which are elected in order to best represent the will of the people). Yes, it gives power to the states as well, but the states are comprised of, you guessed it, people. So, even though the people in authority are to be yielded to, their power flows from the people, which just happens to include you. Bottom line? The people rule, not the politicians.
Honestly, the poor character that we see in our representatives largely represents the people who put them there, though we'd probably prefer not to look at it that way.
So, we can see that the people are actually subject to themselves by way of the people that they put into power. The people rule.
Now, if the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, but we have no king, we could probably say that the heart of the ruler is in the hand of the Lord, and, since the people rule themselves through delegated authority, it's really the hearts of the people of our great country that are in the hands of the Lord.
Well, that begs a great question: how does God change the hearts of the people. That's easy: through us! That brings to our fourth scripture.
Now, when someone is in power, whether it's a boss, a pastor, or a coach, it can take a long time for them to change the way they do something, especially if they've been doing it that way for a long time; hence the point made in Proverbs about long forbearance. Now, our country didn't become the way it is overnight, so it's not going to change back to a more Godly way overnight, either. However, we can take heart from the scriptures that, as long as we keep fighting the good fight of the faith and persuading the sinner to righteousness in hopes that they'll find repentance, that our country will change it's way. However, we will never truly see a change in the kind of people we elect into office until we see a change in the hearts of the people who put them there.
So, while it is necessary to make sure that we're vigilant about doing our research and make most righteous election we can (that means not voting for people who overtly go against the things that God says are right), we must fight the war on both fronts by continuing to preach the good news of Jesus so that a change can be made in the power base that rules our country, the people. Then, we'll definitely see righteous rule, and there will be much rejoicing.
Showing posts with label Public Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Relations. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Different, But The Same . . .
"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all." - 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 (NKJV)
Do you ever think about what would happen if every church in your area was exactly the same? What if you all had the same styles of music? Better yet, what if you all played the same list of songs? And in the exact same way? What if all of those churches put on the same events? What if all of the local pastors taught for exactly the same amount of time each service, used the same number of verses per message, and taught out of the same translation?
The answer to all of these questions is apparent: if anything, our churches would all reach the same people (if anyone,) and only the people who found this particular stencil of church appealing would be able to receive the Gospel.
Obviously, with the conglomeration of cultures that make the United States the diverse nation that it is, we wouldn't be able to reach all of the different kinds of people in our nation if we didn't use different kinds of bait (I say "bait" because Jesus called us to be fisher's of men; we're obviously not trying to dupe and lure people, seeing as we preach the truth.) This seems to be a truth that all of us can accept, yet somehow we still manage to find a problem that ties directly into this idea: churches speaking out against the activities of other churches.
Now, you may say, "I've never known another church to openly disapprove of the activities and outreaches of another church." Well, stick around: the unfortunate truth is that you're likely to see it at some point. And, even if we don't see it happen publicly, who knows the number of times leaders from a particular church have sat behind closed doors, ridiculing the activities of another body. I'll give you an example:
Here in Arizona, we had a church that was putting on a very highly-publicized sermon series on sex (back when such things were less common than they are now.) There were banners generated, stories run in local newspapers, and many other mediums used to draw attention to the sermon series. Needless to say, community response was tremendous: the church, whose normal Sunday attendance was around 1600, was seeing Sunday crowds of around 3000 (my numbers may be off, but the difference in attendance was quite drastic.) Many of these new attenders were people who may have never darkened the door of a church had the topic not been sex (we'll address that thought more in a moment.)
Under normal circumstances, having that many people come into a church and be exposed to the Gospel would be highly celebrated, especially given the opportunity created to bring those people to Christ. Of course, there was one problem: the subject matter used to bring the people in, and it drew fire from some local churches. While most of the criticism was not given on the record (and thank God for that,) there was absolutely some disapproval among many local churches, wondering why we would go to such "extremes" just to get people to come to church. Questions arose about the merit, morality, and motivation behind such a sermon series. This is where our foundational scripture comes into play:
" . . . there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all."
Teaching openly about sex on a Sunday morning safely falls under the category of "diversities of activities." Now, I realize that our canonized Bible is not exactly running over with teachings about the particulars of sex, but it is definitely a topic that it covers. Nowhere in the Bible is there a passage that says we can't address it, and seeing as it's one of the foundational parts of marriage, it seems like something too important not to teach on.
At this point in our nation's history, it's probably safe to say that we need to do whatever it takes to reach as many people as we can with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, short of committing sin to do so. If that means that (God forbid) we need to teach on a topic that is relevant to most people in our country, and that will actually cause them to come to church because they see the value in what's being offered, then there should be no place for anyone to nay-say, especially if the salvation of lost souls is the result.
We're not saying that every church needs to teach on sex like this; obviously, we're a body, and we all perform different functions, and we're all necessary in our own way (more on this topic at another time;) what we are saying is that we can no longer afford to stand in the way of ministries that are doing something that reaches people! The Church in America, in a lot of ways, has been highly ineffective for too long, and it can no longer be acceptable for us to throw our two cents in when a church is making an impact. Remember: it's still God who is working all in all! That means that if God's love is the motivation, and salvation results, then there should be nothing left to say. Who are we to say that God can't use a teaching on sex to remove the veil from darkened eyes? Or that a church conference on political issues can't cause a person's mind to be renewed? Or that God disapproves of reaching out to prostitutes on the street?
Remember: Jesus our savior met us at our level as a servant; in reaching our nation, we must be willing to do the same.
Please understand that this is by no means an exhaustive dissertation on the need for diversities of activities, and the need to embrace such diversities, but for now, this is sufficient for getting us thinking on the right track.
I leave you with Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (NKJV):
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Do you ever think about what would happen if every church in your area was exactly the same? What if you all had the same styles of music? Better yet, what if you all played the same list of songs? And in the exact same way? What if all of those churches put on the same events? What if all of the local pastors taught for exactly the same amount of time each service, used the same number of verses per message, and taught out of the same translation?
The answer to all of these questions is apparent: if anything, our churches would all reach the same people (if anyone,) and only the people who found this particular stencil of church appealing would be able to receive the Gospel.
Obviously, with the conglomeration of cultures that make the United States the diverse nation that it is, we wouldn't be able to reach all of the different kinds of people in our nation if we didn't use different kinds of bait (I say "bait" because Jesus called us to be fisher's of men; we're obviously not trying to dupe and lure people, seeing as we preach the truth.) This seems to be a truth that all of us can accept, yet somehow we still manage to find a problem that ties directly into this idea: churches speaking out against the activities of other churches.
Now, you may say, "I've never known another church to openly disapprove of the activities and outreaches of another church." Well, stick around: the unfortunate truth is that you're likely to see it at some point. And, even if we don't see it happen publicly, who knows the number of times leaders from a particular church have sat behind closed doors, ridiculing the activities of another body. I'll give you an example:
Here in Arizona, we had a church that was putting on a very highly-publicized sermon series on sex (back when such things were less common than they are now.) There were banners generated, stories run in local newspapers, and many other mediums used to draw attention to the sermon series. Needless to say, community response was tremendous: the church, whose normal Sunday attendance was around 1600, was seeing Sunday crowds of around 3000 (my numbers may be off, but the difference in attendance was quite drastic.) Many of these new attenders were people who may have never darkened the door of a church had the topic not been sex (we'll address that thought more in a moment.)
Under normal circumstances, having that many people come into a church and be exposed to the Gospel would be highly celebrated, especially given the opportunity created to bring those people to Christ. Of course, there was one problem: the subject matter used to bring the people in, and it drew fire from some local churches. While most of the criticism was not given on the record (and thank God for that,) there was absolutely some disapproval among many local churches, wondering why we would go to such "extremes" just to get people to come to church. Questions arose about the merit, morality, and motivation behind such a sermon series. This is where our foundational scripture comes into play:
" . . . there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all."
Teaching openly about sex on a Sunday morning safely falls under the category of "diversities of activities." Now, I realize that our canonized Bible is not exactly running over with teachings about the particulars of sex, but it is definitely a topic that it covers. Nowhere in the Bible is there a passage that says we can't address it, and seeing as it's one of the foundational parts of marriage, it seems like something too important not to teach on.
At this point in our nation's history, it's probably safe to say that we need to do whatever it takes to reach as many people as we can with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, short of committing sin to do so. If that means that (God forbid) we need to teach on a topic that is relevant to most people in our country, and that will actually cause them to come to church because they see the value in what's being offered, then there should be no place for anyone to nay-say, especially if the salvation of lost souls is the result.
We're not saying that every church needs to teach on sex like this; obviously, we're a body, and we all perform different functions, and we're all necessary in our own way (more on this topic at another time;) what we are saying is that we can no longer afford to stand in the way of ministries that are doing something that reaches people! The Church in America, in a lot of ways, has been highly ineffective for too long, and it can no longer be acceptable for us to throw our two cents in when a church is making an impact. Remember: it's still God who is working all in all! That means that if God's love is the motivation, and salvation results, then there should be nothing left to say. Who are we to say that God can't use a teaching on sex to remove the veil from darkened eyes? Or that a church conference on political issues can't cause a person's mind to be renewed? Or that God disapproves of reaching out to prostitutes on the street?
Remember: Jesus our savior met us at our level as a servant; in reaching our nation, we must be willing to do the same.
Please understand that this is by no means an exhaustive dissertation on the need for diversities of activities, and the need to embrace such diversities, but for now, this is sufficient for getting us thinking on the right track.
I leave you with Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (NKJV):
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Can We Discuss This In Private?
"These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 (NKJV)
"As these disagreements and wrongs surface, why would you ever entrust them to the judgment of people you don't trust in any other way? I say this as bluntly as I can to wake you up to the stupidity of what you're doing. Is it possible that there isn't one levelheaded person among you who can make fair decisions when disagreements and disputes come up? I don't believe it. And here you are taking each other to court before people who don't even believe in God! How can they render justice if they don't believe in the God of justice?" - 1 Corinthians 6:4-6 (Message)
I remember that, late in 2006, I was walking through the lobby of my church, in a building that we were sharing with a school. It was late, and I was ready to go home. As I passed by the school's reception desk, I noticed a recent issue of Time Magazine. Normally, I wouldn't have cared to stop and look, but the cover story caught my attention: "Does God Want You To Be Rich?" As I picked up the issue and began to read, my heart sank within me.
Here we had extremely high-profile preachers of the gospel going toe-to-toe, discussing the doctrine of prosperity (a topic we'll address at a later date.) Normally, it wouldn't matter that these preachers were discussing this, or even that two of the most renowned of them were obviously at opposite ends of the discussion. The problem was this: Time Magazine, a secular publication, was being given the opportunity to play referee over a divisive issue in the American Church. This was especially troubling with one of the preachers referring to the other's viewpoint as, and I quote, "baloney," which was obviously the most mature term one can use in a debate, right?
Anyway, the article took me to the scripture mentioned at the beginning of this post. The apostle Paul gave specific instructions about letting disputes like this be judged in the eye of a world that doesn't understand spiritual things: DON'T DO IT! Now I realize that, in the actual context of 1 Corinthians 6, he's talking about lawsuits, but doesn't the same reasoning seem to apply here? Why would we, who are supposed to represent the body of Christ as a whole, want to put any division in the body on display for the whole world to see? Where is the positive witness in that? According to 1 Corinthians 2, they can't even understand what we're talking about, so why would we include them in the discussion?
What adds to this is the irony of these passages being written in 1 Corinthians (to understand this point better, click the "Why This Blog?" link at the top of the page.)
Now, we as Christians know how to handle disputes (or at least we should.) Can we agree to this? Can we do what Paul did and determine, at least as far as the world is concerned, to not know anything except for Christ and Him crucified? For now, that's all they need know. The disagreements? Let's keep those internal. We can address and discuss them, but let's not drag the world into the debate.
Now, let me say this: are there certain things that are going to come out anyway? Will the media still try and take things that go on inside the Church and spin them negatively? Will the darkness of this world still do everything it can to tarnish the name of Christ in the eyes of those who need Him most? Yes, these things will happen. Here's the difference: when they ask us for our opinion, let's stick to the company line, "Christ and Him crucified." Is it OK for them to know that we don't agree on everything? Yes, that's fine, but let's not go dragging our brothers and the differences in their beliefs through the mud just for the sake of some press, or for the sake of establishing our doctrinal superiority. There's too many lives at stake for us to have any selfish ambition or gross division among us.
Let's keep our message to the world simple: "Jesus loves you, and you need Him." That's what wins the lost. Let's keep the rest of the discussion between us.
If you'd like to read the Time Magazine article, just click the link below: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448-1,00.html
Thank you for your continued support, and for spreading the word about Psalm 133.
"As these disagreements and wrongs surface, why would you ever entrust them to the judgment of people you don't trust in any other way? I say this as bluntly as I can to wake you up to the stupidity of what you're doing. Is it possible that there isn't one levelheaded person among you who can make fair decisions when disagreements and disputes come up? I don't believe it. And here you are taking each other to court before people who don't even believe in God! How can they render justice if they don't believe in the God of justice?" - 1 Corinthians 6:4-6 (Message)
I remember that, late in 2006, I was walking through the lobby of my church, in a building that we were sharing with a school. It was late, and I was ready to go home. As I passed by the school's reception desk, I noticed a recent issue of Time Magazine. Normally, I wouldn't have cared to stop and look, but the cover story caught my attention: "Does God Want You To Be Rich?" As I picked up the issue and began to read, my heart sank within me.
Here we had extremely high-profile preachers of the gospel going toe-to-toe, discussing the doctrine of prosperity (a topic we'll address at a later date.) Normally, it wouldn't matter that these preachers were discussing this, or even that two of the most renowned of them were obviously at opposite ends of the discussion. The problem was this: Time Magazine, a secular publication, was being given the opportunity to play referee over a divisive issue in the American Church. This was especially troubling with one of the preachers referring to the other's viewpoint as, and I quote, "baloney," which was obviously the most mature term one can use in a debate, right?
Anyway, the article took me to the scripture mentioned at the beginning of this post. The apostle Paul gave specific instructions about letting disputes like this be judged in the eye of a world that doesn't understand spiritual things: DON'T DO IT! Now I realize that, in the actual context of 1 Corinthians 6, he's talking about lawsuits, but doesn't the same reasoning seem to apply here? Why would we, who are supposed to represent the body of Christ as a whole, want to put any division in the body on display for the whole world to see? Where is the positive witness in that? According to 1 Corinthians 2, they can't even understand what we're talking about, so why would we include them in the discussion?
What adds to this is the irony of these passages being written in 1 Corinthians (to understand this point better, click the "Why This Blog?" link at the top of the page.)
Now, we as Christians know how to handle disputes (or at least we should.) Can we agree to this? Can we do what Paul did and determine, at least as far as the world is concerned, to not know anything except for Christ and Him crucified? For now, that's all they need know. The disagreements? Let's keep those internal. We can address and discuss them, but let's not drag the world into the debate.
Now, let me say this: are there certain things that are going to come out anyway? Will the media still try and take things that go on inside the Church and spin them negatively? Will the darkness of this world still do everything it can to tarnish the name of Christ in the eyes of those who need Him most? Yes, these things will happen. Here's the difference: when they ask us for our opinion, let's stick to the company line, "Christ and Him crucified." Is it OK for them to know that we don't agree on everything? Yes, that's fine, but let's not go dragging our brothers and the differences in their beliefs through the mud just for the sake of some press, or for the sake of establishing our doctrinal superiority. There's too many lives at stake for us to have any selfish ambition or gross division among us.
Let's keep our message to the world simple: "Jesus loves you, and you need Him." That's what wins the lost. Let's keep the rest of the discussion between us.
If you'd like to read the Time Magazine article, just click the link below: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448-1,00.html
Thank you for your continued support, and for spreading the word about Psalm 133.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)