Why I Go To Church

From stuff I've written, you can no doubt tell how fed up I am with the effect that Kool-Aid drinking lemmings, whether Left, Right, Secular or Religious, have on culture. I attend "church" because the Bible warns me not to forsake the assembling of believers. When I go, it's not to socialize or discuss the weather, hunting, politics, or others' personal affairs. When that goes on around me, I concentrate on God, and my own struggles in growing toward Him. I'm afraid some of the folks see me as standoffish, or elitist, not realizing that if they would only fellowship in God's word, I'd be all over it. There is a significant minority of attendees, however, who love God the way I do, and we learn from one another—hopefully—how to get it right. If I had to name the denomination with which I align myself, it would have to be the Tuppence—you know—"Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them." (Matt 18:20)

Wonderful News

Isaiah 28
⁵ In that day(of judgment on Ephriam) the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people,
⁶ and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment, and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

        Just as there will always be judgment for God's wayward people, there will always be a remnant of His people, crowned by the Lord of Glory, a diadem of beauty. The church has no glory but God, and no beauty but His holiness.
        What of those who would fancify His glory and find beauty other than His? Theirs is a hopeless quest. He does not need or want great cathedrals, and the beauty of fine furnishings and art are to Him, ugliness.

⁹ “To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?
¹⁰ For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.”

        One can almost hear the prophet saying, "Does God have any volunteers?" If He can find them, they will have grown past the milk of the gospel. They will be teachable and patient, not having to know it all up front, but willing to accept any crumb of knowledge or wisdom that falls to them.

A Gift From Hosea Chapter 10

¹Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.

        In the Jews' dissolution into two conflicting kingdoms, I see the schism of God's church into denominations and doctrinal camps. Old line denominations fit Israel's description in verse 1 above: Though they became separate entities, they, like Israel, became a luxuriant vine, producing much material gain. But the more prosperous they became, the more they accepted and honored the world's humanistic principles. In essence, they've built more alters to worship their multiple gods of political correctness, along with the lipservice they still offer their namesake, Christ Jesus.

² Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt. The Lord will break down their altars and destroy their pillars.

        Here is a promise upon which the remnant of God's church is counting. Liberal religionists stand among the ranks of secular progressives and humanists saying, "Why can't we all just get along? We must embrace our diversity and learn from those with whom we have historically disagreed. As all truth is God's Truth, many ways lead to God in His many manifestations."
        Now, doesn't that sound tolerant? The problem with such ecumenical philosophy is Scripture contradicts it. Yes, Jesus preached love and tolerance, but only as a redemptive outreach. Jesus was as hard on his religious contemporaries as he was easy on those struggling under the religious brand of "sinner." Not once did He approve of their sin, but he always affirmed their human value and urged them to repent and believe.

Another Gift From Hosea Chapter 10

¹² Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek the Lord, that he may come and rain righteousness upon you.

        This is as valid today as when God preached it through Hosea His prophet. First the instruction to sow righteousness, then the description of its harvest.
        Second, He instructed His people on how to accomplish that: "Break up your fallow ground," which is to accept correction so we might receive His seed of righteousness. "For it is time to seek the Lord" for help in repenting of our old ways, as true repentance is impossible without His Holy Spirit enabling it. Only then, "He may come and rain righteousness upon" us.
        The verse began with His command to "sow for yourselves righteousness," and ended by saying "He may come and rain righteousness upon you." This "sandwiches" God's command with, first, our fallen perspective, and second, God's sanctified perspective. In the end, only His righteousness will germinate, sprout, and grow into a productive vine that bears fruit to glorify Himself.

The Problem of Pride

        Applying chapter six of the book of Amos to today's church might seem a bit of a stretch, but as with most Old Testament passages, an indirect application, carefully and prayerfully done, can be just as valid as if it were addressed directly to us.
        References to Zion, during this period of Hebrew history, mean Jerusalem, and speak of the house of Judah. The mountain of Samaria speaks of the house of Israel. So this applies to all the children of Abraham, and as adopted children of Abraham, today's church must also apply these lessons to itself.

Amos chapter six
¹"Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes!

        This chapter begins by telling us to not rely on our position in God's church for our security. Church membership means nothing in God's sight; he makes no distinction based on membership in human institutions. Responding to a special dream, the apostle Peter said, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35 ESV) And the apostle Paul wrote the following to the Roman church, For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:12-13 ESV)
        The second half of verse one speaks of Israel's respect for the Jerusalem religious establishment. In view of the constant warring between Judah and Israel, this says quite a lot; beneath all the strife was a fundamental respect for the temple worship and the priests who conducted it.

²Pass over to Calneh, and see, and from there go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are you better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory…,

        The Jews' distinction didn't rest on their human qualities or power. And the church is, in the same way, no better than any other cohesive group of people. We are all human, and subject to the whole gamut of human weaknesses and faults.

³ …O you who put far away the day of disaster and bring near the seat of violence?

        The thought continues with the fault that is common to all, regardless of their race, nation or religion. With few exceptions, humans practice active denial concerning the consequences of our actions, and insist on continuing in our aggressive behavioral patterns. Odd, isn't it, how we pick fights and expect to never loose.

⁴"Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory and stretch themselves out on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall…,

        Here, Amos stopped preachin' and commenced to meddlin'. Our reaction to this chastening is, "What the heck is wrong with a few comforts and possessions? I worked hard for my stuff and I should enjoy the fruit of my labors."
        Despite the Puritan ethic that says we're blessed because of our hard work, our blessings are not our due compensation for our work. All blessings come from God, not from our own hands. Often he chooses to pour out his blessings upon us as a reward for our faithfulness, but we must not expect them as our entitlement or demand them as our right.

⁵… who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp and like David invent for themselves instruments of music…,

        Not only are we to not expect rewards, we most certainly must not rejoice in them, as if they were due to some great thing that we accomplished. Such is the pride that goes before the fall(Proverbs 16:18).

⁶… who drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!

        Amos goes on to extend God's judgment to those who celebrate their achievements with much wine(signifying revelry) and self-anointing with perfumed oils(signifying the blasphemy of attributing to oneself what God's Holy Spirit has provided).

⁷Therefore they shall now be the first of those who go into exile, and the revelry of those who stretch themselves out shall pass away."

        Don't get used to the self-congratulatory "high life," because it will most certainly be taken away. Exile signifies separation from ones supportive peer group, whether their church congregation, some social group or family. Such separation wouldn't necessarily be forced on the reveler, but one might withdraw due to shame or incompatible lifestyle. If shame is the separating factor, that is also the first step toward reconciliation—but for vain pride's intervention.

⁸The Lord GOD has sworn by himself, declares the LORD, the God of hosts: "I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate his strongholds, and I will deliver up the city and all that is in it."

        If the eternal, self-existent Author of the Bible used such a strong word as "abhor"—used only once in the entire Bible—regarding Jacob's pride, and that was under the Old Covenant's shadow of Messiah's complete truths yet to come, what must he think of the pride contaminating today's church? The Authorized version translates it, "I abhor the excellency of Jacob," obviously applying the word "excellency" to the Jews' bloated self-esteem. Pride, arrogance, majesty, pomp, swelling—that pretty much covers the attitudinal sins associated with an exalted view of oneself.
        Once again, in case this didn't penetrate: God used the word translated "abhor" only once in the Bible. Did he use it in regard to murder, or adultery, or lying, or stealing, or homosexuality, or idolatry? No! He applied it only to the sin of pride. Yet, within the institution of religion, that is the one sin that we typically accept, or even encourage.

⁹And if ten men remain in one house, they shall die.

        Continuing the theme of passing away, God doesn't mince words, but spells out pride's severe penalty: total extinction! Obviously, that sentence hasn't been executed as yet; there is still plenty of pride infecting Christendom. But the judgment is coming, and when it does, no one will doubt God's seriousness.

The balance of Chapter six continues the theme of vs. 9, describing in various, unobscure ways, the total obliteration of God's people of they persist in their elitism, their arrogance, their unabashed pride in their religion. For pride in anything or anyone but our eternal, self-existent God is nothing more or less than idolatry.

Believe is not a soft verb

When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You get here?" Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." (John 6:25-29 NASB)

        How can believing be any kind of work? Isn't belief a rather abstract affirmation of some claim, idea or concept? Usually, perhaps, but Jesus had a more concrete meaning here. Referring to Mark 11:22-24, where Jesus spoke of faith in God, after he told them faith, without doubt, could move a mountain into the sea, he spoke of more practical faith-matters, specifically, "all things for which you pray and ask." Then comes the key word "believe," but not "that you will receive them." Jesus said, "that you have received them," stating that God knew the need and granted it before it was voiced.
        That speaks of far more than a passive, abstract affirmation of something. It speaks of stepping on an invisible bridge in full confidence that it is really there—because God clearly and understandably said to do it. Then, knowing that even if it wasn't there, the falling would somehow glorify God.
        People throughout history have done outrageous things because they felt that God had commanded it: cruel, murderous things. Yes, under the Old Covenant, some of those commands were really from God, because the greater work that God wanted accomplished required it. Today, the only "Promised Land" tells us to possess is the life characterized by God's unique holiness and love, without which no one will see Him.

Conformity, The Root of All Movements

Humans are a social being; we associate with like-minded folks for a sense of family, or for personal affirmation. And we achieve both ends by membership in various social and interest groups.
        For many of us, such memberships happen in a haphazard process of random associations and personal affinities. Acquaintances we find attractive, or whose company we enjoy, introduce us to their friends—if we qualify. Acceptance makes us "somebody" in their group, and if their interests don't clash too badly with our convictions, we begin identifying with them and their passions.
        From stuff I've written for this blog, you no doubt realize how fed up I am with the effect that Kool-Aid drinking lemmings, whether Left, Right, Secular or Religious, have on culture. These joiners eagerly swallow the pablum influential people feed them, becoming willing, ideological clones who are ready to die for the cause ... as long as it doesn't interfere with watching their favorite sit-coms. Such group members reserve critical thought for "them," i.e., those who fail to board their bandwagon, becoming intellectually lazy and compliant.
        Tragically—from my perspective anyway—members of Christendom conform to my stereotypical, joiner's snapshot all-too well. We(yes, I include myself) stumble along with our denomination, fellowship, movement, or whatever we like to call our religious group, automatically conforming to group norms and dogma, though we have not the foggiest idea of where many of them came from. "It's what we do," is our mantra. But that's a bum rap for Evangelicals; ours is, "It's Biblical."
        My critique of organized religion places me in an interesting—though not untenable— position. I fall into pop-culture's category of "Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist," because the I believe the Lord said to: share my faith(evangelical), in Christ(Christian), with respect for the Bible's inerrancy(fundamentalist).
        I actually have thought-out reasons for attending "church." The Bible warns me to avoid forsaking the assembling of believers, though to my mind, that doesn't necessarily include trivial socializing that includes, but is not limited to, discussing the weather, hunting, politics, and others' personal affairs. When that useless prattle goes on around me, I concentrate on God, and my own struggles in growing toward Him.
        I'm afraid some of the folks see me as standoffish, or elitist, not realizing that if they would only fellowship in God's word, I'd be all over it. There is a significant minority of attendees, however, who share my priorities, and we learn from one another—hopefully—how to get it right.
        If I had to name the denomination with which I align myself, it would have to be the Church of Tuppence—you know—"Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them." (Matt 18:20)

A Rare Agreement

        Whoda thought I'd ever finding myself agreeing with white-supremacists. You know, those are the folks who love the ol' Stars and Bars, the Red and Gray, the "South Will Rise Again" kinda stuff. Well, today I found an infinitesimal area of agreement with those folks.
        I realized that in today's politically correct parlance, racism applies only to the white imbeciles who hate others simply because they are different. By that standard, African-Americans aren't racist. Neither are Arab-Americans, American Indians or Hispanics. When those folks hate whites, they practice "reverse-racism," which is somehow less nasty than white, skinhead-style racism.
        For anyone who truly loves and identifies with the name of Jesus, and claims to follow Him in His love and grace, hatred of any person is not possible. Yes, I realize lots of self-styled Christians would dispute that, and I could go into a litany of Scripture passages that support my tenet, but that is a subject more suited to a book than a blog. In case you've missed it, my point is racism—whether reverse or otherwise—is arbitrary hatred, and Jesus died because of, and to eradicate human hatred.
        Some would argue that God hates those who practice evil that is particularly detestable to Him. But how could that be, since He offered His Son Jesus as a living sacrifice for the sin of all humanity? If Jesus, a Jew, loved Gentiles, Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, Arabs, and anyone else of the nearly infinite variety of humanity, insisting that Christians can and should hate people doesn't make a lot of sense.
        But foolishness is no respecter of sensibility.

The Righteous Judge

        In this world, everyone—even the highest judges and executives of the land—are subject to a law outside themselves. Despite the sociopathic acts of criminals and usurpers, no one is exempt. But even aside from those violent offenders, law exists because of humanity's penchant for asserting itself against any authority. Without law, anarchy would ultimately reign, with chaos despoiling any remnant of civilization.

Who is The Law, and is it binding?
        Law, without an enforcing authority, is impotent. All societies employ police forces to apprehend lawbreakers, judiciaries to assign consequences for lawbreaking, and a penal system to execute punishment.
        The office of Judge holds, by its very title, the grave responsibility of dispensing justice. How must judges feel, perched upon their high-backed, leather chairs behind the benches of judgment, elevated above both the guilty and innocent? Are they unique in their moral perfection? Have they never sinned against God or man? Regardless their lofty positions, judges are only men, and their sole qualification for occupying that office is their demonstrated knowledge of the Order of Jurisprudence.
        Though their title is Judge, our nation's Constitution usually limits their role to that of a referee, or arbiter, between the defendant and the plaintiff or the State. In that role, they must exercise the authority of the judicial bench with candor and prudence. So they don't actually judge the riffraff that stand accused before them. The Constitution relegates decisions regarding law and morality to a jury of the accused party's peers. No one expects moral perfection from the jury, which is the reason for utilizing a multitude of jurists, according to the Biblical principle: Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. (Pro 15:22 ESV)

But, what about justice?
        In the final analysis, is the administration of justice left to flawed human beings? Since the inevitable mistakes in meting out punishment are both unjust and unfair, are the cynics right in their jaded view of life?
        If what we touch, taste, smell, hear or see is all this world offers, life is simply the sum of our sensations. What, then, of the abstracts most of us enjoy; friendship, aesthetics, interpersonal bonding, spirituality, passion, reason, conscience, and yes, justice, all contribute to a dimension of life that is infinitely beyond the physical. Were one or more of our physical senses compromised, those abstract senses would not be lessened, but heightened.
        What authority can possibly administer judgments that satisfy those higher, singularly human, senses? It would have to be an authority incapable of error, the very definition of rightness. Without it, all our abstract senses would be for naught. Yet, no one can deny that we have them. Therefore, our abstract sense of reason tells us that righteous Authority must exist.

Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum"
        Blaise Pascal, pioneer mathematician, and contributer to the theory of probability, wrote of a "God-shaped vacuum" within each human being, that only the Author of humanity can fill. To have created this abstraction we call man—with mental faculties and self-cognizance far beyond that of any animal—He must have designed us according to similarly a superior convention. That Creator, that Ultimate Authority, must therefore exist apart from His creation, and be characterized by a perfection beyond mortal imagination.
        Materialists patently reject any concept of a Supreme Being existing outside of our frame of reference. Their claim that "man created god after his own image" is impossible, however, because of the fact that Man's understanding of God's unique attributes is outside of our human frame of reference, necessitating the existence of Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum." And though most of God's attributes are unimaginable, humanity's innate sense of the abstract reflects the Creator in whose image we were formed.

Origins
        Rather than admit the possibility that an authority existed before, and continues to exist beyond, homo-sapiens, materialists desperately sought an alternate, naturalistic explanation for what we all see around us. In a stroke of genius, they invented the big-bang theory of origins, wherein an infinitesimal particle of near-infinite mass imploded in a superheated detonation that projected all matter outward from its point of origin. That theory takes into account the "red shift" astronomers have discovered, meaning all distant objects in the cosmos are moving apart relative to each other—and us.
        But, wait a minute; does that grandiose theory seem to circle back upon itself? Do Naturalists attempt to explain the universe's existence with something that already existed? That would seem to smack of the archaic theory of spontaneous generation—the belief that fruit flies just popped out of nowhere.
        Why, that defies all logic ... in fact, evolutionists are guilty of the same circular reasoning of which they accuse creationists. Thus, in denying that God exists, they prove that He could exist, even if they as yet have no apparatus that can sense Him.

Back to the Judge
        Tragically, for those who live to usurp any threat to their perceived autonomy, denying the existence of the King of kings and Lord of lords does not, in fact, make Him non-existent. The One who put that infinitesimal speck of near-infinite mass in its place and caused it to go BANG, is the righteous Judge before whom all creation will ultimately bow.

In Defense of Boot-Strap Witnessing

In Chapter 2 of Power Through Prayer, E. M. Bounds said:

The preacher may feel from the kindling of his own sparks, be eloquent over his own exegesis, earnest in delivering the product of his own brain; the professor may usurp the place and imitate the fire of the apostle; brains and nerves may serve the place and feign the work of God's Spirit, and by these forces the letter may glow and sparkle like an illumined text, but the glow and sparkle will be as barren of life as the field sown with pearls. The death-dealing element lies back of the words, back of the sermon, back of the occasion, back of the manner, back of the action. The great hindrance is in the preacher himself. He has not in himself the mighty life-creating forces.

        I wonder how wise such convicting teaching is, when it may suggest to the believer that his own, personal level of spirituality determines the effectiveness of his testimony. That belief will inflict self-condemnation on any believer who shares his testimony without apparent effect.
        Bounds, in his attempt to persuade preachers to seek a higher walk with the Lord through broken-hearted prayer, may only succeed guilt-tripping the most sincere of witnesses. But the apostle Paul said:

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 1Jn 3:19-20 ESV

        By all means, fall on your face before God; one can never be too broken before Him, but we must readily accept His reconciliation through Christ Jesus, for there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 ESV) While we cannot save ourselves, neither can we condemn ourselves when we are in Christ Jesus.
        We will never be spiritual enough to testify of God's grace toward us, but that doesn't exempt us from Jesus' Great Commission. As long as we realize it is His holiness that brings seekers to Him, we must limit our responsibility to (letting our) light shine before others, so that they may see (our) good works and give glory to (our) Father who is in heaven. (Mat 5:16 ESV)