Fear of man: the acceptable sin

The fear of man is perhaps not the worst sin that a man can commit, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it is one of the most sinister. Not only is it commonplace among Christians, most churches have a culture that encourages this sin. I will endeavor to explain why this sin is so pervasive and to expose the subtle ways that it can ensnare.

First, some basic definitions. I'll be using “fear of man” and “respect of persons” interchangeably. These two terms describe the same attitude which holds the opinions/approval of men in higher esteem than they should be held. This concern for man's approval can be motivated by fear of reprisal, but more frequently it's caused by the desire to fit in. The Bible speaks in broad, but clear terms about the fear of man. It is a snare to righteous living (Prov. 29:26), it is sin (James 2:9), and it causes the perversion of justice (Lev. 19:15).

Fear of man promotes the corruption of churches

I want to point out that much of Christian culture actually encourages fear of man. One obvious example of this is the fear of “going against the pastor”. I've seen many churchgoers who are afraid of saying anything contrary to their pastor. They claim the Bible as the ultimate authority, but their fear of one man's opinion makes them hesitate to follow Scripture, their conscience, and the Lord. When you see people who are afraid to discuss doctrine without including a pastor or other authority figure, this is certainly true of them. Similarly, there is a great fear of openly questioning the pastor's judgment or saying anything critical, even if it's constructive. In reality, I dare say every church could benefit from a healthy discussion, even debate, on doctrine. In the parable of the soils, is there only one soil that represents a saved person, or three? Is Calvinism Biblical? What about theistic evolution? In any church, it's unlikely that any two people see everything exactly the same. Imagine how robust our knowledge of Scripture would be if every church member openly and compassionately discussed any disagreement in doctrine! (Hey, you might even convince someone!) But in what church is this standard practice? The church culture promotes silent passive obedience. Anyone who voices a dissenting opinion is branded a troublemaker, no matter how loving their tone. The average churchgoer thinks, “I don't want to be a troublemaker, I'll just show up, smile at everyone, and grit my teeth when the pastor says something I disagree with.” Thus, fear of man dominates the church landscape.

This may sound like a small thing, but it tends to compound other errors. I've recently seen a church fall to such a degree that they're now preaching heresy to the surrounding community. I know for a fact there are men at this church who know better. However, they don't speak up against this problem because they are afraid of rocking the boat, disagreeing with the pastor, and losing their social status. I have to wonder how often this story is repeated around the globe. How many churches have become unbiblical, heretical, silly, or irrelevant even though they had members who were strong in the faith? How many churches have fallen away because men who knew better were too cowardly to stand up for Biblical doctrine? I imagine those cowards will have much to answer for.

Fear of man hinders the spread of the Gospel

While I'm on the subject of cowardice, this leads me discuss evangelism, another aspect of Christian life in which fear of man is accepted by the church culture. It's normal and acceptable for a churchgoer to share the gospel little, if ever. When evangelism is discussed, so much of what is said is just excuses for those who don't share the gospel, often out of cowardice. There is this perception that the average Christian is too weak/timid to share the gospel with the lost, so they need a lot of training, encouragement, and hand-holding. I'm increasingly convinced this is nonsense. The average churchgoer has little/no interest in evangelistic training, and most of those that do get training never put it into practice. They're more than content to show up to church, put money in the offering, and walk away justified that they're doing their part for missions. I don't buy any of the other excuses. “I don't know how.” Well, if you've been a Christian for more than a few months, you've had plenty of time to figure that out. But then again, if you figured it out, you'd lose that excuse, wouldn't you?

There is a great need for someone to stand up and say: “Your fear of man is a sin. Your lack of love for the lost is a sin. You don't need me to hold your hand, you need to repent.” The cold churchgoer doesn't need to be built up, he needs to be broken and humble before the Lord! Yes, there is a place for discipleship/teaching/training, of course. However, if we want churchgoers to get on board with the Lord's mission, it has to start with repentance. If we want zealous men and women with hearts on fire for the Lord and the lost, that doesn't come through training. That comes when we repent of our sin, draw close to the Lord, and say, “I'll start fearing you more than fearing men. I'll do whatever you'd have me to do.” Then and only then will our training/discipleship have any meaningful effect.

How about you, friend? Are you afraid that the world and quite possibly your church might think of you as a zealot? Have you found it enticing that you can earn a sort of respectability with the lost as long as you're quiet about sin, hell, and Jesus? Maybe there's something unbiblical going on in your church, but you've been quiet until now. Well, I dare say that the fear of man is a sin that has rooted itself deeply into your life. Repent. The Lord will forgive your sin and coldness. Draw close to Him, read Scripture, and obey it. Continue in this and you will find yourself developing the heart and mind of Christ, which includes a love for the lost, and a fear of God alone (Matt 10:28-39).

Basic rules for evangelism partners

The “busy season” for evangelism is coming up for those of us living near a university. The new semester brings campus events and football games; fantastic opportunities to get out a ton of tracts. I’m starting to plan ahead for these events, and I plan to pull together several friends to help with the effort. As I’ve been thinking about this, I decided that I need to sit down and write some ‘rules of engagement’ for who I will partner with and who I will not - and how all this will work. This is mostly for my own benefit, but I make it public for easy sharing and so that it may provoke some through for others to set their own rules and standards.

It’s hard to turn away someone who is interested in working together to preach the gospel, mostly because that passion is so rare. Nevertheless, it’s important to be at least mostly on the same page. So, here’s my list of things that are important for me to see in my partners. It’s best to have these issues out in the open and to avoid working together if we don’t think it will work. The alternative is to find these things out in situ, which makes for a very awkward time.

Goal

My goal is to connect people in the C-U community who are interested in preaching the gospel to the lost. I do not intend for this to be a formal organization, but more like a group of friends with a common passion. I will help coordinate large events (handing out tracts at football games) as well as smaller weekly efforts. Everyone in the network is encouraged to organize, support, and work with one another. If you are interested, please provide an email address (and phone number if you wish) to be shared with the network. We will also be using a shared calendar to help organize events.

Training

I'm interested in working with people regardless of experience. If you have little/no experience, but have a desire to reach lost souls, I would be overjoyed to encourage and equip you. Training programs/materials are fine (and I can recommend a few), but I mainly push a hands-on approach where you join me and observe as a silent partner until you're confident enough to talk.

Tracts

I use several different kinds of tracts and I am willing and able to provide enough tracts for everyone free of charge. You may use your own tracts if you like, but they must follow these basic rules:

1) Must have a solid gospel presentation that does not gloss over sin, but calls out specific relevant sins (e.g. lying, fornication). Must mention repentance and faith as the sinner’s response to the offer of salvation.

2) Must not include a “sinner’s prayer”, asking Jesus into your heart, or any other language that is typical of manipulative evangelistic methods or easy-believism.

3) Must not include church information. You may include personal contact info or link to a website as long as it is not a church website. Tracts with church info give the sinner the impression that you’re just trying to get church members. I’ve been doing this for years - believe me, it makes a difference.

4) This is not really a rule, but I strongly recommend that you use attractive, short tracts. The best tracts have an eye-catching design and succinct text. The basic tracts I use are all under 200 words. Longer, booklet/pamphlet tracts are fine to give out after a good conversation, but if you just hand them out to everyone, they're less likely to be read.

Doctrinal Unity
It’s important that we all speak the same thing, especially when reaching the lost. So, here is a short list of doctrines that I think are critical. If you have any questions about these doctrinal areas or want clarification, I would be happy to meet and discuss. Perhaps you have some convictions that I haven’t mentioned here. Great! I’d be happy to talk about any other issues to see if we can work together.

1) The gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again and that we can have this forgiveness if we repent and believe. Salvation goes hand in hand with the new birth – a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). A person who claims to be a Christian, but is living in sin or has no interest in the things of God is a false convert. These are not ‘carnal Christians’, because all who are truly saved will be chastened (Heb. 12:6-8). You understand this and want to lovingly warn them of their lost condition.

2) The catholic church, mormons, and “Jehova’s Witnesses” are not Christian groups, but are all cults based on a false gospel. All other religions are false systems that only soothe the conscience. In other words, you can not get into heaven by being a good muslim, buddhist, hindu, etc.

3) Hell and the lake of fire are real places where guilty sinners who are not saved by Christ are punished for eternity. Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved and this life is the only chance that you have.

4) You reject: salvation by faith plus works, loss of salvation by sinning, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, calvinism, prosperity gospel, and pentecostal false prophets. I’m aware that there are some mild pentecostals who would also reject the abuses of pentecostalism. I may be willing to partner with such a person on a case by case basis. In general, I’m willing to meet anyone, but it’s unlikely we’ll be able to work together unless you reject the above doctrines.

5) You reject manipulative evangelism, quick prayerism, and attempts to present the gospel that avoid sin/repentance. This includes the sinner’s prayer, asking Jesus into your heart, and the four spiritual laws. When you share the gospel with sinners, you implore them to repent.

6) You reject all forms of ‘theistic evolution’ and hold to a ‘young earth creation’ viewpoint. You are at least aware of the relevant issues: radiometric dating, fossil record, irreducible complexity, etc. I have some useful articles posted at ourmasterswisdom.com if you'd like an overview.

Biblical sovereignty and the rejection of Calvinism

A little over a month ago, I posted an article in which I described the major errors of Calvinism and how its poison has effected non-Calvinists as well. I also promised that at some future time I would offer a Biblical critique of Calvinism. Now is that time. First, I highly recommend reading the original article: Calvinism poisons everything. If you think this is just an arcane debate for bored theologians, that article will explain what is at stake.

From my previous article on the subject, it should be clear that I accept God's sovereignty, but also realize that the term is often misused, especially by Calvinists. As I mention in my previous article on Calvinism, what they call sovereignty is probably better referred to as “total active control” (TAC), so I'll be using this term throughout this article.

On this matter of TAC, there are varying levels of commitment among Calvinists. Some say that God controls every single outcome of every single action, that everything that happens is part of God's decree and will. Other give a little more leeway. Nevertheless, all Calvinists would argue that God has TAC over the salvation of every soul and that he's actively controlling world leaders at the very least. The idea that God exerts TAC over every single action is easy to refute. Simply ask yourself, “when I sin am I doing God's will?” If no, then obviously he's not actively controlling everything. If you answer yes to that, then you're OK with accusing God of sin and I simply can't help you other than to say you're lost and you need to repent.

So obviously God doesn't exert TAC over everything. Then, how and what does he control? Does he actively control nations? Let's see what God says about this. In Jeremiah 18:6-11 God states that he is free to do what he wants with the nations as a potter with clay. Calvinists must stop reading there, because they fail to see that He goes on to describe exactly how he operates. He states that if he decides to destroy a wicked nation, but they repent, then God will also repent of what he was going to do to them (v.7-8). He says a similar things about nations he blesses that fall into sin (v.9-10). Does this sound like God is going around actively controlling everyone? Of course not. He's watching the nations and dishing out judgment/blessing to evil/good nations. But it's better than that. God says that if he pronounces judgment/blessing on a nation, but they start going the other direction, he will change his mind. This leads us to conclude: 1) As a rule, God is not actively controlling nations. 2) Man has an independent will that can choose good/evil. This is obvious from the fact that when God pronounces his will to destroy/bless a city, man can then change his mind by choosing to do good/evil. God's dealings with the ups and downs of Israel throughout the years demonstrate the principle he describes here. Nineveh also comes to mind as an example. To put it another way, God enforces the outcome of moral choices, but the choices are made by men.

An interesting example is found in Matthew 11:21-24. While Jesus condemns the unbelief of the cities where he has worked, he says that if the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if he did the same works there. Now, we could speculate on why Jesus didn't appear in these cities and do his thing, and there are some very good possibilities, but ultimately it's just speculation. The important thing is that Jesus says they would have repented if he did signs there. Of course, this also means that they could have repented. This contradicts the Calvinist's idea of total depravity/inability. If Calvinism were true, Jesus shouldn't be able to even theoretically say these cities would have repented under different circumstances. It's clear that these cities did not repent because there was, at least to them, a lack of knowledge/evidence/signs. This contradicts the Calvinist's claim that they didn't repent because these people were predestined to damnation.

Saul is another important example of how God deals with kings and men. Did God specifically ordain Saul as king? Absolutely. Yet, as Saul's reign goes on, he disobeys, and God rejects him as king. God even says the he's sorry that he ever made Saul king in the first place. (1 Sam 15:11,35) Does that sound like a God who ordained and dictated Saul's actions as king? Obviously not, but it remains true that God did ordain him as king in the first place. It's also worth mentioning that even after God turned his back on Saul and didn't want him to be king anymore, he stayed in his position for some time. This gives us a good picture of God's sovereignty over nations. He does set up certain people as rulers, but also lets them make their own decisions. Also, just because a ruler is in power does not necessarily mean that God wants him there. Again, Saul remained king even after God turned his back on him.

It's worth mentioning that Calvinists love to talk about God's hardening of Pharaoh. I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time on this because I've already shown that TAC is not how God operates. Even if the hardening of Pharaoh happened exactly as the Calvinists would have us to believe, it would merely be an exception to the rule, at best. However, I think it's worth noting a could things with Pharaoh. First, Pharaoh hardened his heart first, so this is not an example of God overriding someone's will. Second, Calvinists often think of this as a sort of psychic intrusion whereby God tinkers with Pharaoh's brain/soul and hardens him. This is an unlikely assumption. We are not told how God hardened Pharaoh, only that He did. But comparing this with other passages, we see that hardening is likely done through circumstances. One of the best descriptions of how hearts are hardened is Isaiah 6:9-11. God tells Isaiah to harden the hearts of Israel by preaching to them. In other words, Isaiah is delivering the truth they don't want to hear. They refuse to listen, but Isaiah is credited with hardening them. This is nothing mystical, merely Isaiah putting people in a position where they have to either obey, or harden themselves to avoid conviction. It's entirely possible that God did something like this with Pharaoh. 

One final point on this matter of God's sovereignty over nations. Calvinists insist that God is in control of everything, so where does Satan fit into all this? Calvinists typically ignore Satan's role, but Scripture calls him the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Does this not imply some large degree of power or control? At the very least, he can lie and blind the minds of unbelievers. Certainly God doesn't want to lie to unbelievers and blind their minds. So again, it's obvious that God isn't enforcing his will all the time.

In conclusion, there is strong Biblical evidence for the free will of nations. In other words, nations of men make their choice to pursue good or evil and God acts accordingly by blessing or cursing. God does intervene in the affairs of nations by setting up leaders, and causing rise or fall of the nation, but does not intervene in any way that would override or invalidate man's moral choice. Furthermore, there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that God forces his will on people by directly interfering with their thoughts or will. Therefore, Calvinism presents an anti-biblical view of God's sovereignty and should be rejected as the doctrine of devils.

For reference, here's a short list of other passages that present these same ideas. This is by no means intended to be exhaustive, but it should be sufficient.

Men responsible for their own hardness - Deut. 10:16, Acts 7:51, Matt 14:28-31

Men make free moral choices and God holds them accountable (In particular, if-then statements demonstrate man's ability to choose): Ezek. 3:17-21, Ezek. 18:4-32, Ezek. 33:7-20, Deut 11:22-23, Deut 12:24-25, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 6:14-15, Matt. 10:7-15

A call for laborers

I generally try to write thoughtful and thought-provoking articles for this blog. Not today. Today I have a rant. Yet, it's a very important rant that I hope will positively influence others.

This all started a few weeks ago. With the end of the spring semester, the university becomes relatively empty and my favorite witnessing spot dries up. This summer, I decided to try a slightly different evangelistic style. I'm working my way around the city door-by-door, but not door knocking as I have done in the past. This time, unless someone is visible, I'm just leaving a tract on the door and moving on. If I meet someone outside, I'll try to strike up a conversation. The goal is to get as many tracts out as possible, while still being open to divine appointments.

I'm keeping track of my progress on a city map. It makes me realize how big of a job it is to preach the gospel. It takes a good 3-4 hours of work just to mark off a few square blocks. I look at the map and think “man, I'm hardly making a dent in this city”. It's overwhelming at times, because I know how badly the gospel is needed in my city. Forget the 40/10 window. If you live in C-U or any other average American city, I can guarantee that 98-99% of the people you meet are not Christians, and maybe 95% of the people you meet do not know the gospel, and likely have never been confronted with a Biblical gospel message. I have no survey to cite, but this is my estimate after 7 years experience.

For the last few days, as I realize how much work there is to be done and how little impact I can make, I can't stop thinking, where are all the other laborers? There are dozens and dozens of churches in this town that at least know and supposedly stand on a Biblical gospel (heretical churches are disqualified). Yet, it's extremely rare for me to find evidence of others preaching the gospel. Where is everyone? Is there no concern for souls? No compassion? No love? Anything remotely Christ-like in these supposed Christians and their churches?

Perhaps it's there and I'm just not seeing it? I don't think so. You see, I've also visited a good number of churches over the last year. At each church, I ask around about outreach. Of course, there's typically some sort of homeless ministry or something, but the church does not officially go out and preach the gospel. For every church I've visited, I would be willing to bet that I could throw a rock from their parking lot and hit the house of someone who has never heard the gospel. That fact alone should have you in tears, dear reader. Of all my visits, I still know of only one church in town that has a weekly gospel outreach time – and even that is quite poor. On average, only 2-3 groups go out, and each group will visit only 4-5 houses. From what I've seen, that's the most “passion” churches in this town can muster. Absolutely pathetic. I thank God that in my visits I have found a few rare individuals who are interested in personal evangelism. However, they each struggle against an infection of passivity due to the church culture around them.

Now, dear reader, how about you? Have you lifted a finger to point a lost soul to Christ this week? This month? Are you blind to the reality of heaven and hell? Or are you consumed in a fake world of TV, movies, and sports? Are you content to go through life enjoying wasteful hobbies while others march to destruction? Worse yet, perhaps you've been convinced that your “calling” is to teach Sunday school,or AWANA, or some other church ministry. You think that's your spiritual duty, so you don't really need to focus on evangelism. Here's the thing, if you don't even have a moderate passion for evangelism, you haven't grasped Christianity 101. How could you teach others about Christianity if you don't even have the basics down? Men, how do you expect to raise Godly children if you don't even attempt to set an example of Christ-like compassion for souls?

If God answers my prayer, someone will read up to this point and will be feeling awful, maybe even angry. That's good, you should be upset. Do something about it. Don't squirm out of it by trying to rededicate yourself, or by reading your Bible more, or praying more. You're feeling bad because you've been disobedient to the great commission. You can't get out of it by trying to be more obedient in other areas. Go preach the gospel. Now. Or as soon as possible. And please contact me. If you're in the C-U area, I would be happy to provide you with training, tracts, encouragement, and support. Whatever you do, don't ignore the conviction to preach the gospel.

Calvinism poisons everything

While the title might sound like hyperbole, I'm coming to realize that Calvinism poisons everything important in Christianity. Even worse, this poison has spread even to those who would not self-identify as Calvinists. As I go through points, I'll offer some Scriptural support to direct your mind. However, my point here is not to refute various elements of Calvinism, only to show its poisonous effects. I am planning to soon write an article that is more of a direct refutation.

As you read, please think about the consequences of this doctrine that I'll be pointing out. Examine whether you might have some of this poison in your theological system in some way, however subtle. Even if you are not a Calvinist, I would be surprised if you aren't in some way affected by their theology. For those who claim Calvinism, look at the consequences of this theology. If it damages or contradicts things that are so obviously true from Scripture, doesn't that imply that your system is wrong? I'll show exactly how in an article in the near future.

God – To know God is surely the most important thing for everyone. Yet, Calvinism presents a heavily distorted view of the creator. The Calvinist's deity is arbitrary. Some he saves from the fires of Hell. Others, he declines to save, but takes pleasure in watching them burn. Calvinists then have the audacity to claim that this deity “loves all”, is “full of mercy” and “is no respecter of persons”, things that are indeed true of God, but not the arbitrary God of Calvinism. Their concepts stand in clear contrast to the God of the Bible who constantly stretches out his hands toward rebels and who weeps over the lost, offering forgiveness if only they repent (Isaiah 65:2, Matt. 23:37). Of Calvin's arbitrary God, Dave Hunt asks in the title of his book on Calvinism, “What love is this?”. One could ask the same of the other qualities of God that Calvinism corrupts – that God is longsuffering and full of mercy, to name a few.

Salvation – If you look at the teachings of Calvinism in a way that is logically consistent, you must conclude that the salvation of an individual does not hinge on them exercising repentance to God and faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, but upon an eternal decree of God. In other words, if you are elect, God will cause you to repent and believe. If you are not elect, you have no chance to repent and believe the Gospel. This is a severe corruption of the requirements of salvation. To the Calvinist, Christ died only for the elect and salvation will come whether you intend to respond or not. Biblically, Christ died for the sins of the world and God calls every individual to respond, with no indication that something might unconditionally hinder such a response. (Ezek. 18:4-32, 1 Tim. 4:10, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 9:13, and many more) Logically then, the Calvinist believes that someone may simply wait around for God to save them. However, the Bible calls for the individual to actively repent and believe. This contrast is shown most clearly in the life of Charles Finney. In his evangelistic efforts, he preached to people in Calvinistic churches who were just waiting around for God to regenerate them. Finney's revival earned him the ire of Calvinist leaders who lied and misrepresented him during his life, and even worse after his death. Misunderstanding of salvation can lead to gospel preaching with an open-ended response, which leads to false conversion and hell. In contrast, Scripture strictly calls men to repentance and faith.

Grace - Simply defined, grace is unmerited favor. In the context of the Gospel, this means that Christ died for our sins even though we didn't deserve it. God extends to us an offer of love, forgiveness, adoption, reward, and eternal life to his enemies. This is a beautiful thing. However, Calvinists are uncomfortable with the idea that man can even accept this offer through repentance and faith. Therefore, grace is not so much an kind attribute of God, but more of a mystic force that God irresistably zaps you with. To a monergist, grace is not only unmerited favor, but also unwanted compulsion. This is because, in their mind, you couldn't possibly desire God, so he has to force you to love him with this mystic force they call grace. Obviously, this is a strange way to use the word 'grace', and an even stranger way to talk about God.

Sin / repsonsibility – According to the Calvinist, all things have been ordained by God. Every single thing that happens was planned by God. Even sin. The most evil of Calvinists will flat out admit that God authored sin in some way. What a terrifying accusation! Sin was not intended by God in any way, but was allowed and thoroughly dealt with in God's big plan. A lesser manifestation of this is those who say “oh well, everything is in God's hands” when something happens. Now, I want to be careful here because it is true that everything is in God's hands, in the sense that he is watching with interest and can intervene at any moment. The Christian can indeed take great comfort that God is watching over their life. However, this does not mean that everything is caused by God. When something happens it might have been caused by any number of free moral agents – God, demons, or ourselves. For example, if you get fat and have health problems, it's probably because you ate too much ice cream, not because the devil is after you, nor because God thought it would be good for you to have heart disease. However, we can be sure that whatever happens, God is paying attention and can intervene whenever he feels necessary, though He often lets us experience the consequences of our sin (and even things we didn't bring upon ourselves) so that we can learn a lesson. To rephrase it succinctly, God is in control, but that in no way negates or diminishes your responsibility in any circumstance, and your actions certainly have consequences. If you've ever thought “Oh well, God has it under control, I don't really need to try hard.” then your concept of responsibility has been poisoned by Calvinism.

Sovereignty - Obviously this is very much related to my comments above on sin and responsibility. It's worth specifically pointing out though, that Calvinists throw the word sovereign around like a comma, but they don't use it correctly most of the time. Look in any English dictionary, sovereignty is a word that describes position or authority. However, Calvinists use the word to describe what is better called 'total active control' – the idea that God is not merely in control of the world, but is actually controlling everything, and we are little more than puppets on his strings. In discussing this issue, it's critical to understand there's a big difference between “God is in control” and “God is actively controlling everything”. If God is actively controlling everything, then sin must have been part of His plan too. This would imply that God is the author of sin, a terrible accusation. However, if you properly understand sovereignty, it's easy to see that a king may be "in control" of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean that he approves of everything that happens.

Inherited sin nature – This error in particular is not localized to Calvinists, but has infected most non-calvinists as well. Historically, this doctrine seems to start with Augustine, who was the first the systematize it into what would become the catholic church (Irenaeus possibly tended in this direction, but he didn't take it as far as Augustine). When the reformers separated from the catholic church, they kept the doctrine of original sin, along with infant baptism and other false doctrines of Rome. Sin nature has remained a part of evangelical “orthodoxy” ever since, despite a complete lack of Biblical support (unless you count an ambiguous line from a poem, or are intent to misread Romans 5). Of course, Calvinists take the game to a whole new level by developing a systematic theology that revolves around the idea of not only sin nature, but total depravity/inability which affects salvation as described above. Though many non-calvinists rightly reject the T in TULIP, they hold to “total depravity light”, a poison which has persisted mainly due to tradition and given many a sinner a great excuse for his sin.

Evangelism – If you believe that God has already chosen who he will save and who he won't and there's nothing anyone can do about it, how could that not effect evangelism? At the very least, it takes away the motivation. Historically, some Calvinists have recognized this and have completely rejected the idea of preaching to the lost. Modern Calvinists usually have some sort of token “missions” program in their church. However, each one that I've seen is not about finding lost people and preaching the gospel, but it's about finding “less educated” Christians to convert to Calvinism. I dare say that, to these, Calvin is more important than Christ. For non-Calvinists, I still can't help but wonder if the coldness toward evangelism exhibited by nearly all churches is due to some remnant of this poisonous thought that “If God wants to save the heathen, he'll do it without us”.

How did you do? Have you found any remnants of poison in your system? If so, try to identify the source of the poison. Perhaps a popular preacher that you listen to? Piper, MacArthur, Baucham, Mohler, Sproul, Washer, Driscoll, and many more carry this poison to varying degrees. Maybe you already knew that and thought you were listening with discernment, but if you've realized that it's affecting you, it's probably best to take a break altogether. Instead, fill yourself with pure living water that comes from the Scripture. Set aside the books and commentaries for a while, and just feast on the Bible directly. This is a good rememy for any theology that ails you.

Quiz - is your church about people or a building

The church is the people, not the building. (T/F)

Of course, this statement is true. I imagine that nearly everyone who reads this will agree. Indeed, this idea is preached from the pulpit in nearly all fundie and conservative gelly churches. I dare say that you would have to look hard to find anyone who disagrees with this statement. Well, we say this is true, but is it really practiced?

I want to propose a short and simple quiz that should be useful for some self-examination. Carefully consider the following questions.

1) If someone sat in your church service every Sunday and participated in several activities, but otherwise interacted with people only occasionally and never in any spiritually meaningful way, would they be considered an unfaithful member?

2) If someone came to a Sunday service only occasionally and participated in little/no programs, but was actively and consistently involved in the spiritual life of the people and regularly met with them outside the church services, would they be considered an integral part of the church?

3) If you answered 'no' to either question, please explain how you reconcile this with your claim that the church is the people, not the building.

I'm sorry, but if you had to answer 'no' to question 1 or 2, you failed the quiz. Number 3 is a trick question, these things can't be reconciled. What did you learn? The first step toward fixing a problem is recognizing that it exists. In practice, most churches value faithfulness to programs over faithfulness to people, even though they claim otherwise. If this describes your church, try to make others aware of the problem and attempt to fix it. If this fails, consider learning about Biblical house churches and starting one.

Spiritual warfare in evangelism

One of my passions in life is to share the gospel with the lost and to stir up Christians to do the same. I truly believe there is no other activity we can do on Earth which is more dear to the heart of Christ. However, if you're doing it Biblically, you can guarantee that you'll be on Satan's radar too. Preaching the gospel to the lost is an act of spiritual warfare and Christians should be aware that much of the fear and nervousness they feel about witnessing is normal, and should be expected. To make this point and give tips on fighting through it, I'd like to share my recent experience. Hopefully, if you read this and find yourself nervously sitting on an evangelistic fence, this will encourage you to hop off the fence and join the fight!

For a week, I had planned a time to do some evangelism on the UIUC quad. This is nothing new. It's been my favorite 'fishing hole' for years, and though I'm out of practice due to the long winter, I've surely done this more than a hundred times before. Yet, as I'm gathering my tracts before I leave, I'm overcome with a wave of nervousness. This is nothing new either, but is as strong as I've ever felt, forcing me to take a deep breath before I push myself out the door.

As you go through these feelings, you should immediately recognize them as spiritual warfare. You're going out there to steal members from Satan's family – of course he's going to fight! The demons tend to use the same tactics. They're predictable, but can still be very effective. They'll pull on every desire, weakness, and heart string that will take you away from your destination.

As temptation arises, the thoughts enter my mind as I drive toward the campus. “You're really tired, should just go home and rest.” “You're sick, maybe you can push through, but you'll feel even worse later.” “You're alone again. Who could blame you for quitting?” Wherever the thoughts originate from, I swat them aside and try to push through some prayers for strength and wisdom. I feel my chest tightening the whole time.

In times like these, you have several weapons at your disposal, and it pays to be prepared. Prayer is always a good option, but don't just wait until you're in the battle. You know the fight will happen, so pray beforehand as well. Scripture is great for encouragement and conquering temptation. Read it and memorize it. Songs can help as well – yet another reason to know some strong hymns. There's no magic formula for each situation, you must simply fight on. The Lord never promises to completely remove temptation, but he does promise that we will be able to handle it and that there will be a way out.

As I park my car, I'm hit with a wave of strong and completely irrational fear. I can't find it in me to open the car door. I pray a little more, then sing to myself a few lines of “Lord, send me anywhere”, a hymn that has often comforted me. I ask myself out loud, “Is your love for Christ so weak that you can't overcome this?”. Now it's on. There's no way I'm going to let a challenge like that stand. I collect my tracts, get out of the car, and walk toward the quad. On the way there, I see my first face and the crippling fear melts away instantly, replaced instead by love and concern, surely a mere fraction of a shadow of what Christ has for these lost sinners. I smile and cheerfully hand him a tract, “hey man, a free gift for you.” The next couple of hours are enjoyable and relatively easy.

I've found that this pattern repeats itself almost every time that I go out to preach the gospel. As I've talked to others who share the same convictions and act upon them, they report the same struggles. Though preaching the gospel is incredibly enjoyable and rewarding, there's nearly always a huge up-front energy barrier that must be overcome, usually in the form of fear/nerves. To be clear, as a scientist, I've done important presentations to superiors, public speaking at conferences, etc. Those things are work – not as enjoyable as sharing the gospel, but there's less fear associated with those things. However, when it comes to doing this thing that I really enjoy, there's a huge barrier of nerves/fear before I get started. Isn't that interesting? This can only be explained by spiritual warfare. Recognize this, and fight back! As I related in my story, the biggest struggle is overcoming that initial barrier, but it gets easy after that. Remember, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7).

Finally, I recommend taking some time to debrief after you are done. This is obviously useful with regards to content (What objections were raised? How can I handle them better? What do I need to study? What verses should I memorize?), but it's also useful when it comes to handling spiritual warfare. Sometimes you won't be able to see the whole picture, but often you can. For example, you'll likely find that spiritual battles are more intense than normal if you are about to walk into a big opportunity. As you begin to recognize these trends, it teaches you to fight harder, recognizing that if the enemy is opposing you strongly, it might mean that this is a particularly important battle. In the example that I gave above, it turned out that there was a softball game that just ended, so there were many more people at the quad than normal. I was able to have several conversations, one which ended in great clarity, and hand out ~150 tracts, several times more than I'm able to do on an average day at the quad. That's certainly a good cause for the devil to want to keep me away from there. Was it the number of tracts? Or maybe the conversation with a pair of professing Christians where I pointed out that they are obviously not yet converted – and related their need of repentance, faith, and the new birth. Maybe both. Most of the time, you won't know how much difference your efforts will make, but the stakes are heaven vs. hell! If you could make that kind of difference, even for just one soul, would that not make every battle worthwhile? The point is, recognize the enemy's tactics, and don't forget what you're fighting for!

In conclusion, I've related this personal story with some commentary in the hopes that it will be an encouragement to others who are struggling through the same thing. Really, we have it quite easy in America, let's make use of our freedom. From the immature Christian struggling with the idea of sharing the gospel with strangers, to the battle-hardened elder, may we all be refreshed in our understanding of the importance of this great battle, and be encouraged to work harder for the Lord.

Book review - The House Church Book

This is a review of Wolfgang Simson's "The House Church Book". This book is the condensed version of another of Simson's books, "Houses That Change the World". I came across this book in some of my reading on house churches and thought I'd give it a shot. Simson's goal in this books is to describe house churches and give advice to those looking to start one.

I'll start on a positive note. Simson does correctly identify the unbiblical leadership of institutional churches and how it inevitably leads to a clergy-laity division, even if it's unintended by the leaders. He also presents a decent discussion of the lack of fellowship in institutional churches caused by the 'one man show' and he argues for the necessity of small house churches for real fellowship to be possible. Simson suggests that the maximum size of any individual house church should be about 20-25 in order to maintain close connections. This seems reasonable, and agrees closely with what I've heard from friends in house churches. Finally, I appreciate Simson's discussion of the 'city church' concept, where the local church really should include all likeminded Christians in the city, even if they meet with different groups. In other words, the local church really should be a network of house churches.

In short, Simson seems to understand the big picture of a Biblical model of church. However, he fails miserably when it comes to the details. I'll provide a few salient points. The most serious problems in this book stem from the author's charismatic and ecumenical perspective. Throughout, his outlook leads him to promote and speak well of false teachers such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially David Yonggi Cho (who was recently convicted of embezzling from his church). 

It should come as no surprise then that Simson is also soft on the gospel. For example, he accepts mass "conversions" of people who are run through a sinner's prayer as genuine, suggesting they would be interested in church if only churches were better. I agree that Biblical churches would tend to promote more interest and zeal in Christians...but those who show no interest in Christ, who have never repented, who have never been born again...they're not Christians at all! Shame on Simson for not recognizing this simple fact.

As if his misunderstanding the gospel wasn't bad enough, Simon's charismatic errors lead him to nearly undo his main thesis in the second half of the book. Early on, he correctly identifies key issues with the way leadership is done in institutional churches, but he makes those very same mistakes when he describes house church leadership. He describes essentially every leadership position as being outside of and separate from 'the flock'. In other words, he correctly rails against the aloof single man leading a show, but goes on to suggest that leadership should be several aloof men who lead from a distance (p.66-69). How does this make a difference?

In reality, church leaders are supposed to function within the body, leading mainly by example (1 Peter 5). For this to occur, leaders should not be considered as scouts walking a mile ahead, calling for everyone else to keep up. Rather, leaders should be more like connective tissue, woven throughout the body, connected to each part, helping the body connect with its other parts, providing structure, support, and nourishment. There are no superheroes except Christ. He should be the Head, leading the body, which operates through various roles, but follows him as one.

Simson continues to undermine his own position during his discussion of parachurch structure. Early in the book, he correctly criticizes the normal instutional model of denominations, mega-pastors, and popery. Yet, he goes on to propose that house church networks might be lead by "apostolic regional fathers" at the city, regional, and even national level (p.85). In short, Simson actually supports leadership by superstar, as long as you call them an 'apostle'! Surely the 'apostles' won't have even bigger heads than the 'pastors', right?

At first, this book seems to be a real boon to house churches, but the solutions Simson offer still carry the super-pastor leadership problems that are found in institutional church. Pardon me, I meant super-apostle. In the end, I can't recommend this book. There is some good discussion of the 'big picture' of house churches, but any benefit is drowned in a sea of errors by the time you reach the end.

The widow's mite: an example of sacrificial giving or modern religious abuse?

What a title! I'm sure we all know the answer, right? The widow's mite was a beautiful example of sacrificial giving, now praised in pulpits around the globe. At least, that's what I've always been told. Surely that can't be wrong, can it? As I discuss this passage here and show how the story of the widow's mite is often misused, let it also serve as a lesson that careful Bible study is absolutely necessary to avoid being confused by various teachers.

The story of the widow's mite is related in Mark 12:42-44 and Luke 21:1-4, but I'll be making the argument that really the whole chapter should be included in the story. Looking at these isolated verses, it seems like a nice simple story. The rich cast in much, but Jesus notices a poor widow who puts in only a few coins. He comments that she has given much more than anyone else because it was all she had. That's a story that will preach! The cries ring out: Give your all to Jesus! Won't you give your all to the Lord's work? This poor widow had nothing and gave to the Lord's work, surely you can give your 10% ! Of course, those in the 'prosperity gospel' camp are the biggest swindlers, but you will hear these types of things in fundamentalist and evangelical crowds too. Instead of “give me money and God will bless you”, it is phrased, “To be a good faithful Christian, you need to put God first in your finances (and that means putting your 10% in the plate)”. While the fundies and gellies tend to be more cautious about promising blessing, they will still tell stories of those who gave during hard times and how it worked out better in the end, floating the implication that tithing had something to do with it.

In all this, everyone seems to miss the fact that Jesus does not point out this woman as an example of righteousness, but as a victim of a wicked religious system. Jesus' observation of this widow is not a random, standalone happenstance, but occurs as his final blow in a dispute with the scribes, elders, and chief priests that started in Luke 20:1. This dispute starts when Jesus is teaching in the temple and the priests came looking for trouble. They wanted to catch Jesus in his words and make him look stupid, but instead they are the ones who end up looking foolish. After some time and a barrage of questions, they realize they are fighting a losing battle and so they stop talking (Luke 20:40). But Jesus isn't done yet. He goes on the attack, challenging their understanding and showing that the Messiah must be God's son according to the Scriptures. He then turns to the audience and says:

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. (v.46-47)

Immediately after Jesus says this, he looks up to see people giving their offerings and points out the widow who put in everything that she had (Luke 21:1-4). In other words, Jesus is delivering a scathing rebuke about the scribes, only to look up and behold a perfect example of his warning. It's like he's saying, “Look, even now, do you see that poor woman over there? She just gave everything that she had. That's exactly how they are devouring widows' homes!” So, from the context it is obvious that Jesus is not praising this woman for giving her all, but he is pointing her out as a victim of the abusive religious system that he is condemning. Interestingly enough, despite his other errors, John MacArthur is one of the few to get this one right, as seen in this video. However, he merely applies this to the prosperity preachers, missing the fact that evangelicals can be almost as guilty.

Just to be clear, sacrificial giving is not the problem. The problem is when bad leaders make Christians feel like they are in some way obligated to give, but this is especially bad when done to the poor. There is a time and place to dig deep and give, as mentioned of the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8, but Paul only accepted their giving after 'much intreaty' (v.4). He also goes out of his way to make it clear to the Corinthians that any giving is to be done voluntarily and without any feelings of compulsion or necessity (9:7). It would be wrong for pastors to compel giving/tithing for even good causes, but observe, where does the money go after it's put in the offering plate? Paying for the church building, insurance policies, new sound systems, etc. A super-pastor building a church in his own image is bad enough, but to build it on the backs of the poor is downright evil!

How much this applies to modern churches! Not all, but many pastors are either 'rock stars' or authoritarian 'men of God'. They love the dress-up, the show, the way people treat them, the position of authority and importance. They'll do what it takes to keep up their spiritual image, and they have no problem taking money from the widows and the poor to support all this! As we've seen with the widow's mite, they'll even take the very passage where Jesus taught against this kind of abuse and twist it to support their doctrine! It would seem that Satan has an appreciation for irony.

There's a few things to learn and apply from this. First and foremost, if this describes your church, run away and take as many people with you as you can! In addition, this passage is a great example of how easily Scripture can be twisted right under your nose. How many times have Christians read over this passage, yet still most wrongly teach that it's about sacrificial giving. I admit that even I didn't see this until recently when a friend shared a helpful article. It just goes to show that if you want to really 'get' Scripture, you have to be very discerning about teachers. If you aren't paying close attention, it's very easy to get duped. Let this motivate you to further concentrate your study of the Scriptures.

Analysis and aftermath of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate

Let's get this out of the way...Bill Nye won the debate with Ken Ham.

Ouch. In this debate, which was covered at least in some measure by major news outlets, Christians had an opportunity to take a crack at many atheists, but it ended in a bit of a flop. The pain of this failure is made worse by how rare these debates are. For the past few decades, in order to discredit creation and avoid the issues, atheists have made it clear that their tactic is to avoid debating creationists. This cowardly tactic is no secret or conspiracy theory, but is vocally promoted by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. Even in this case, many told Bill he shouldn't do this debate at all. So, I certainly respect Bill Nye for having the guts to stand up and argue for his position. Since I feel that Ken Ham's performance was poor, and in order to help bring about some good from this event, I'd like to offer some commentary and analysis. The point is not to slam Ken, but to learn from this experience to see what Christians can do better in the future when we engage with atheists.

First off, I'd like to explain why I say that Ken Ham lost the debate. It's quite simple really: he just didn't sell any of his points because of a failure to be assertive/aggressive. He made some good comments, but failed to hammer the point home. His initial 30 min. presentation was quite good, but he fell apart quickly after that. It's unfortunate because the rebuttal section is generally where debates are won or lost. Ken spent most of his first rebuttal talking about Christians who don't believe in creation, leaving Bill unchallenged and ignoring the topic of the debate, thus leaving a very weak impression. Bill Nye wasn't terribly on-topic either, but at least made a few clear points and drove them home. In the rebuttals, Ken lost because he just played defense and when he finally tried to make a positive attack on Bill's position, it was too little, too late.

Calling out Bill's bad arguments

I'd like to now analyze some things that Bill said and show how Ken should have called him out on it. As a reminder, let's clearly state the topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? In general, Bill's tactic involved bringing up a lot of irrelevant things and acting like they proved his point. For example, he spent a lot of time discussing advancements in medicine, engineering, etc. but these are irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue. Bill also brings up the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as evidence for his position, but this again is irrelevant. The CMB appears in creation models also. In light of this, Bills argument melts away. What is his point? How is the creation model invalid? He never says.

It was also clear that Bill wasn't familiar enough with creation models to even know what he's arguing against. Bill brought up several issues that have already been well-addressed by creationists: feasibility of the ark, ice core dating, radiometric dating, etc. Reasonable models have been presented on all of these topics. (To get an overview of some of these issues, see A short course in creation/evolution). Again, I ask, in what way is the creation model invalid? Where is Bill's argument?

This is a little off-topic, but I think it's also worth addressing Bill's ignorance of the Bible. Frankly, a lot of the atheists I meet are just as ignorant. They make the same claim as Bill, “Well, the Bible is unreliable because it has been translated so many times and it's kind of like the telephone game.” Seriously guys, get some facts before speaking. Want to know how many times the Bible was translated to get an English text? Once. From the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. By the way, those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are the most well-established historical documents. Long story short, If you have a Bible translated from the textus receptus (KJV), you can guarantee that you hold in your hands a translation of what was written thousands of years ago. The evidence is that sound. Now, I partly understand the confusion of the atheist due to the multitudes of Bible versions out there, but that's another topic for another time.

The attack Ken should have made

Now for some offense. Here's a short summary of what I think Ken should have said: Compared to evolution, creation is a far superior model of origins. Evolution survives in the scientific community merely because of an imposed absolute adherence to naturalism. Evolution predicts that organisms would be simple things, able to be generated by many small steps, evolved to be little more than sufficient for their environment. Creation predicts that organisms will display complex patterns and well-engineered forms that evidence the work of an intelligent creator. The prediction made by the creation model is true, and is the grounds of a whole multi-disciplinary branch of science called biomimicry. Evolution predicts that natural selection and random mutation can work together to generate creatures of increasing complexity. Creation predicts that natural selection and random mutation acting on an initially perfect creation will have a detrimental effect, causing loss of complexity and ultimately disease. Modern genetics confirms the prediction of the creationist, that if positive mutations occur, they are few and far between, and that they get “washed out” in the sea of bad mutations. Therefore, creation is not only a viable model of origins, but indeed seems to be the correct one. I could go on in this comparison, but I think you get my point.

The Christian reaction to the debate – driven by laziness?

When I first set my mind to write this post, this section was not included. However, after reading so many Christian responses to the debate, I feel there are major issues that need to be addressed. I've seen many private comments that concerned me, but for now I'll focus on the response written by Al Mohler since it is a good representation of the problem. In general, many responses that I've seen from Christians intimate a dismissal of the whole debate, an attitude of “who cares” or “debates don't change anyone's mind/heart, so why bother?” This is particuarly ridiculous to me, because debates on the creation/evolution issue were helpful to me in coming around to a creation position, which then made me open to the gospel. If I determined 10 years ago that the Bible was merely a book of stories, I'm sure any Christian that tried to share the gospel with me would have a much harder time. In other words, I know this stuff is important because it was helpful to bring me to Christ.

Now, looking specifically at the article from Al Mohler, he expresses a sentiment that I see coming from many Christians when he says that the real problem is “autonomous human reason”. In essense, Mohler sees human reasoning as the enemy. He intimates in this article that human reasoning is corrupt and therefore only divine revelation will help the lost sinner. In other words, don't engage the sinner's reasoning because it can't possibly work. How silly. Mohler seems to imply that we should do nothing more than walk up to an atheist, deliver a monologue about the gospel, then expect God to save them. I've seen a lot of Christians saying similar things...or at least showing that they give up way to easily. What happened to pleading with the lost, reasoning with them (as Christ and the apostles did, by the way), working, and doing whatever it takes to bring them to an understanding of the cross?

Now, when sharing the gospel, there are certainly times to move on. If they stop listening and are merely mocking, don't waste your time, but find someone else. However, in my experience, that's only about 30% of atheists. The majority are willing to have a reasonable conversation, about creation, the gospel, etc. Oh, and don't think that apologetics aren't important. Yes, sharing the gospel is the most important thing, but using just enough apologetics to shake his naturalistic foundation is a wise move.

In all these responses, it seems that Christians have given up way too easily, so much so that we no longer expect dialogue or debate to do any good at all. I can only imagine that this is driven by laziness. There are so few Christians that share the gospel in the first place. So, to ask someone to go the next step and try to learn a thing or two in order to better engage with atheists...well, that's just asking too much, right? Is this how cold Christianity has become? Is our passion for reaching the lost so dead that we give up after a single half-hearted attempt? It's so much easier to just say, “well, he's entrenched, unreachable, etc.” than it is to examine ourselves and question if we are actually giving the atheist a compelling argument. If you have a desire to see people saved, don't fall into that trap. Try to put yourself in their position...if you were an atheist would you be compelled by the things Christians say? Try different things, learn, improve, find someone passionate about evangelism and learn from them. Eventually you'll get quite good at talking with atheists. But please, whatever you do, don't just act like it doesn't matter.

Christians need wisdom!

In this post I plan to tackle a subtle, but important point relevant to Christian living. Specifically, what role does wisdom have in our lives? How do we make decisions? Should we be worried about the “wisdom of the world”? As with many of my posts, my motivation for writing here comes from personal experience. I have run into too many Christians who act and speak foolishly and who refuse to learn, who are so afraid of “the wisdom of man” that they dive into folly. Even worse, I've observed “shepherds” who seem to encourage this fear of wisdom to keep the sheep in line. It's hard to describe in detail all the ways in which this thinking has weakened Christians. Let me start by using a fictional (but all too familiar) story to illustrate my point.

Hank is a bright high school senior. With graduation coming up, he's trying to decide what to do with his life. Hank was saved about a year ago and genuinely wants to please the Lord in everything. Hank has always loved working on cars, and there aren't any good mechanics in his town, so he's looking to become a mechanic. One day Hank discusses his future with his pastor, who warns him that although according to the wisdom of the world, becoming a mechanic would make sense, he should pray a lot about it, “lean not on your own understanding...and who knows, you might even be called to preach”. Hank agrees to do some serious prayer, but doesn't initially think that he'd ever be a pastor. Sure, he has grown spiritually by leaps and bounds since his salvation, but he has never considered being a pastor himself.

Over the next few weeks, Hanks prays much about his career choice. With consistent nudging and whispering from people around him, Hank starts to believe that these things are an answer to his prayer, that God is telling him to go into ministry. Hank has heard that you need a 'calling' to be a pastor, so this must be it. He doesn't know why, he just feels it emotionally (it's not hard to get those feelings when several men you respect are nudging you along with your ego). Hank goes on to seminary (which is, ironically, modeled after the world's education system.) and graduates with no job in ministry, despite a lot of looking. Hank is sure this must be a trial from the Lord. He struggles financially for years, working whatever job he can to make ends meet. Finally, he finds a job as an assistant pastor, then graduates to a full pastorate where he teaches other young men to make decisions in the same way that he did so many years ago.

Making decisions with wisdom

I've written already on the problems with the seminary system and modern church polity, so in this story I'd like to focus on the way decisions are made, and again, this question of wisdom. This story illustrates how, in most churches, the decision-making process has been hyper-spiritualized and feelings/nudges/promptings are held as the authority above common reasoning. I'm not saying that the Lord doesn't direct us, but that he directs us unequivocally. Most of the time this direction takes the form of wisdom. As James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5). This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit will immediately make you smart, but in my experience, this typically occurs by the Holy Spirit bringing passages to mind.

And how are we to make decisions? Not looking for nudges, promptings and feelings, but with wisdom that is informed by Scripture! “The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit” (Prov. 14:8) and again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” (Ps. 119:105) We are supposed to understand our path and scripture is intended to be a guide for us. If your path is darkened, it may be because you have neglected your lamp. “But what about decisions related to your job, relationships, etc. You know, stuff the Bible doesn't talk about?” Are you kidding? The Bible addresses every area of life! Of course, it doesn't cover everything in complete detail, but provides enough direction that you can use a little wisdom and apply the instructions to any situation. Herein lies the problem: many Christians lack the wisdom to apply Biblical admonitions to real-world situations.

This wisdom does not come by osmosis or a half-hearted search. “Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.” In other words, don't expect to be wise if you're just doing your 'daily bread' devotionals. If you want wisdom, you must separate yourself from distractions and intentionally seek it as a pattern of life. The first step is to really desire wisdom, to value it above any money or treasure. This is easy once you realize how important it is. A foolish servant is of no use to his master, but can actually be a burden. How can a man without understanding please the Lord? Also notice that the call to wisdom in Proverbs is intended for all men, not just some special class (Prov. 1:20-24). In other words, if you're a Christian, you should be doing this, not relying on your 'clergy' to carry you. There are 2 books of the Bible specifically devoted to the topic and it is discussed in many other books as well, so I can guarantee it's important!

How do I avoid 'the wisdom of man'?

What about this matter of man's wisdom? We see in the first three chapters of 1 Corinth. That we are not to rest in the wisdom of the world. So, what exactly is 'good' wisdom and what is 'bad'? There are only a handful of passages that make a distinction about wisdom – either God's or man's, but from what I can tell, it seems that when the distinction is made, the Bible is talking about wisdom informed by a particular worldview. For example, in Prov. 23:4 laboring to get rich is identified as man's wisdom. Well, if you had a naturalist/materialist worldview...then laboring to get rich would make sense for maximizing your enjoyment in this life, it'd be wise. With a Christian worldview, we realize that trying to get rich is a bad goal, that we should lay up treasure in heaven and use our wealth to further the gospel, not to spend on our lusts. Not only does Scripture tell us this, but it just makes sense once you have the Christian worldview. Taking this perspective, the first few chapters of 1 Corinth. are easy to reconcile with the rest of Scripture. The “wisdom of man” is not a boogeyman that will bite the Christian who studies too hard, but it is the result of trying to obtain wisdom by starting from a worldview that rejects God.

Let's drive the point home by looking at some other passages. In 1 Corinth. 1:17-31 Paul blasts the wisdom of the world and says that God has chosen to work through foolishness, but is careful to point out that these things aren't actually foolish, but only seem so to the world (ie a person with a worldview that rejects God). We see this in v.34-35.

What about Proverbs 3:5-7? This verse is often used to support the idea that we should not use our own wisdom when making a decision. However, that idea contradicts the rest of the book. Instead, this passage is better understood as an admonition for the student of wisdom to have a Bibilical worldview. Of course I'm paraphrasing here, but read the passage both ways and you'll see what I mean.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that wisdom is critically important for Christians. A lack or misunderstanding of wisdom is most dangerously shown in the hyper-spiritualization of otherwise obvious decisions. This corruption of the decision making process leaves Christians vulnerable to poor life choices and false doctrines that are emotionally satisfying. I've also explained the difference between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God, showing that a Christian grounded in a Biblical worldview can give themselves to a search for understanding and wisdom without fear of somehow mysteriously being infected with the 'wisdom of man'. Therefore, I strongly encourage everyone to diligently pursue wisdom. “Get wisdom, get understanding...wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.” (Prov. 4:5-7)