The Curse of Complacency in the U.S.

There are three cultural and religious conditions in America that mix together into a toxic formula that will severely reduce our power in the Lord, unless we take deliberate action.  Let’s name them and tell what toxic results the admixture leads us to.  Here are the components: 

1.      High relative income.  America doesn’t have the wealthiest people on the planet, but it has the highest average disposable household income, in 2013—if you are Caucasian.  America’s $60,256 is ‘way ahead of second highest among the measured  nations, Luxembourg, whose median was $52,493. 

2.       Belief in eternal security—“once saved, always saved.” A rapidly-growing phenomenon.

3.       Belief that Christians will be raptured before the seven-year “tribulation.” This is called the pre-trib rapture theory. Its opposite is the post-trib theory, belief that Christians must endure the tribulation before being rescued.  Pre-trib belief is a growing phenomenon. A recent study of 1000 people show that twice as many believe in pre-trib as those who believe in post-trib rapture, 

So, what is the result, in most cases, from mixing these three elements together? You won’t like what I think is the answer:

COMPLACENCY--“a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better…especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies”

Not a good spiritual position, I think you will agree.  Why do I believe complacency exists?  The main reason is simple statistics.  Jesus said, in Matthew 7:13-14:

 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. ¹⁴ Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it

As I said in an earlier blog ("Most Americans are Not Saved"), the word “few,” upon study, means as little as 6 or 7 out of 100.  So if America is average in its Christian ratio, 6 or 7--say 7--Americans out of 100 are going to heaven. Yet the latest surveys reveal that 83% of Americans claim to be Christians, or saved (ABC News). So if you took 100 people, 83 would say they’re Christian, but only 7 of those might actually be saved.  So out of every 12 people who say they are saved, only one really is—the other 11 are deceived. They think they are Christian and going to heaven, but they are not. They are on the broad way to hell.  Eleven out of 12 claiming to be Christian therefore have complacency--they have “unawareness of actual dangers,” do they not? Since this ‘unawareness” rate is so high (almost 92% of those who think they’re heaven bound are really on the way to hell); it seems to  indicate complacency is toxic throughout the culture.   

Unless you want to make the argument that, oh yes, 83% of America is truly saved.  We are ‘way above average in the world. In fact, you’re saying that compared to the meaning of Jesus' word "few,"  supposedly we’re not "few"--yes, we're 12 times the average.   I would like to give a simple argument that should crush such thoughts:  Christianity turned the Roman Empire upside-down between 30-300 AD.  They went from being a small band of hated “heretics” to being declared the state religion. Huge social improvements were put into place.  (You don't read about these things because your school history class "has to" avoid religion.) Yet what percentage of the population caused that?  The answer, according to best statistics, was shocking: Christians never got higher than 10% of the population! With the power of God, they did it.  So I ask you, what powerful social changes have Christians done lately in America, with allegedly 8 times the ratio as Rome?  Few, is it not?  This argument, as you see, doesn’t hold water.

Now you may argue, “Well, they were under persecution—this made them stronger.”  OK, that’s another way of saying “Well, we’re weak now.”  Exactly what I maintain.  Our weakness is due to complacency, my friends.  If we really stood up for Christ in a separated life, we would also experience huge persecution.  But we're not.  Oh, yes, a few people in America have indeed suffered--but few.  

So I am maintaining that we have complacency.  Now let’s look at the causes.  I’m saying that the causes of our complacency are the three above-mentioned American religious and cultural conditions.  Let’s start our proof with:

High Relative Income. If they have any “religion” at all, the most-frequent assumption people make that have high income is this:  “God gave me high income because He loves me.  As Deuteronomy 28 shows, He blesses those who follow Him.  So since I am blessed, He must love me, so I’m heaven bound.”  Well, that’s Old Covenant.  Jesus introduced the rules for rich people in the New Covenant.  Let’s look at the new rule: Matthew 19:23-24:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Let’s make sure we understand this:  Jesus was saying, it’s more difficult for a rich person to be saved than a middle or lower income person.  So if the overall saved average in the world is 7%, then America, with a larger number of richer people, would actually see a lower than 7% saved rate.   And people who have a family disposable income of higher than $60,256 (see above), are in particular danger. They get involved with the world, they love it.  But Jesus says they can't also love God.  

Now, of course, you may dispute all this.  You may say:

1.        Yes, we have higher income.  But I think we’re saved anyhow.  We accepted Christ.  My possible responses to that argument: 

a.       Praise the Lord if that’s really true; as Our Lord said in Matthew 19:26:  “With God all things are possible.”  But there’s a few questions I’d like to ask:

b.      How much time do you spend praying over the death and suffering of your brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world?  Things are unbelievably bad for them in China, Syria, Somalia, and North Korea, just to name a few.  How much of your income do you donate to their relief and missionary endeavors annually?  How much time do you reject the purchase of unneeded material things so that you can give more to the Lord’s work?  And I do not mean your local church here.  The suffering is so much greater elsewhere in the world. If none of these things have entered your mind, are you really saved?

c.       Have you ever meditated on just exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 6:19-20:

 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; ²⁰ but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

As I point out in another blog (A Radical Truth:  Part I), Jesus is commanding us (per the phrase “DO NOT”) not to save money beyond imminent use of funds.  This strongly suggests giving away all income that we don’t really really need.  This is in actuality advocating redistribution of wealth—on a voluntary basis, of course. Done by Christians.  After all:  What do men go to war for?  Really, isn’t it because other people have more than they?  Such radical redistribution as Jesus suggests, such giving, effectively snuffs this greedy homicidal impulse—and can save many of these people for the Lord.  And seriously reduce war and killing.  Giving sacrificially is the greatest witness for Christ of all!

d.       Yes, you accepted Christ.  But have you given gifts to the Lord, as Galatians 5:22-23 says?  Are you spending time reading Scripture to learn how to copy Jesus, how to obey His every commandment—and thus abiding in Him?  As John 15:6 says:

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them, and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 

I have a blog on how to maintain salvation ("Getting to Heaven")—Scripture says we must endure to the end to be saved.  It would be a mistake to lean too much on that past salvation experience, if not followed with appropriate deeds.  Getting saved, then not radically changing your life, says you are not abiding in Christ--and you could be headed for being thrown in the fire.

2.     Now, of course, you may simply argue “I’m not rich.  We make $75,000 a year, and can barely get by.  So this isn’t relevant to me.”  I would say, your $75,000 puts you above average in the U.S., to begin with.  But thinking on a worldwide scale, in the long march of past history, as Jesus is addressing, you are one of the wealthiest people who ever lived.  There is a special responsibility, a special burden, to go with this wealth—and you must fight hard against deceit and complacency, which will come your way, which would tear you away from your mission for the Lord.  Consider Matthew 13:22, where the Sower has many failures and only a few successes; here is one of his failures:

²² Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

What kind of “deceitfulness” did the Lord mean?  How about “I am rich because God loves me.”  We’ve already covered the falseness of that deceit. Yet rich people continue to complacently  believe it. We should say, “God, through no particular reason on my part, allowed me to be rich—what does God want me to do with this special gift?”

Let’s move on to the second cause of the cultural disaster known as Complacency:  Belief in eternal security.  Supposedly, all you have to do is say, “I was saved at a youth camp in the summer of 2002.  So I’m saved forever.  No need to worry about hell.” So what do a lot of these people do?  These “2002 savers,” say, get married, and if they feel good about it, they stay married; if they don’t like it, they get divorced.  And remarried.  Much of their conversation, even with Christians, is functional—when they want a car, they talk up cars with everybody.  And so on through houses, boats, jobs, how to get the “best” girl (her religious behavior ranks low on importance for most--in fact, if she seems a "fanatic," it excludes her).  God does not enter the discussion.  Retired people, I can tell you, we have endless conversations about restaurants, how to save a dollar buying something, golf game, etc.  Or, for the younger, they may live in fornication (sometimes even if they have young children), then they “get saved,” but if they break up, and get into financial straits or loneliness, they live with someone again.  Later they might get married.  These people pray—or appeal to God--only when they get desperate.  They never read their Bibles, except in an occasional short streak. They might get to church every other week, until they can afford a boat, or get a job working Sundays. Then you better hope for a Saturday night sermon.  They are never torn about the possibility of hell for themselves, their family, or their friends. The point I am trying to make?  God’s plan for what to do as a "new creation" are never considered by the majority of those who believe in eternal security.  Jesus’ commandments about forgiving, about adultery and divorce, etc are never considered as serious enough to be seeing yourself on the pathway to hell.  So, abiding in Christ?  Not happening.  But a doubt about their salvation?  Not a wisp of worry in their mind.  It happened in 2002, don’t you know.  It was a great event.  So I’m Rock Solid about Eternal Security.  (Definition:  I’m as complacent as I can be).  Pastor told me so.  Well, God bless that pastor.  He will have to give an account for his deception.  Scripture is full of verses that clearly indicate that security is conditional on holiness.  I have a three-part blog on this one:  Escaping Hell (Part 1), and Do Peter, James and John…(Part 2) and Do Paul…(Part 3).  I know that you Eternal Security folks are ingrained in your beliefs, but consider again that 11 out of 12 of those who think they are saved are not!  What are the odds that you’re one of the 11…or can you assume that you’re for sure the 1 in 12?  This is heaven vs hell we’re talking about, it’s worth a few hours of open-mindedness and reading all of Scripture, especially every word from Jesus, and praying for His guidance. 

Now we move to the third of the triad causing our country’s massive complacency:  The pre-trib rapture believers.  (By the way, I used to be in all three of these camps before.  But I’ve always been a reader, and He led me to some good reading material.)  (Also, I have 3 blogs which can squash this pre-trib belief for the open-minded:  "Scripture says that Christians will go through—part 1"; "Rapture and God’s wrath—part 2"; and "How long to Christians have to suffer—part 3").  I only have space to give you one difficulty with the pre-tribbers:  Their theology has Christians being raptured, without any indicators, before the end-times tribulation.  The horrible things of those last tribulation days—wars, famines, earthquakes, massive persecution and martyrdom—will happen on earth while they’re enjoying heaven.  The Holy Spirit, a Comfort to His beloved and thus a witness of His grace to non-believers, will be gone along with them when they are raptured.  Thus, a “Christian” who believes this will be effectively saying, to his unsaved relatives and friends:  “You should be saved as I am.  We can leave this scene and leave non-believers to suffer the greatest misfortune of their lives without us.  When they need us the most, Jesus takes us out of here.”  You know what the thinking non-believer will imagine when hearing this?  “Oh, sure; you want me to believe in a theology of abandoning people I care for, of complete selfishness.  Is that what Christianity is?  You can keep it, my un-friend.”  Well, the truth is, the pre-trib theory is not a historical Christian belief; the idea began spreading around 1830.  It’s the opposite of the “post-trib” theology that was believed by almost all "futurist" Christians for 1800 years before that.  The predominant historical belief was, some Christians will have to hang around through the end times and suffer, and giving their life for Him.  So this newer pre-trib idea says, in effect:  For the first 1800 years, when the greatest minds that Christians had, from men close to Him, men who changed Rome, they all believed mistakenly, because they believed Jesus had two Advents--birth and rapture.  The “truth” is, they say, Jesus is having 3 Advents—the middle one a secret rapture of Christians living then. Of course, there isn’t a single solid Scripture to prove it, but if you twist some Scripture like a pretzel, and compartmentalize and contextualize others, you’ve got this great theology that people love to hear about, so it must be true! All those 1800 years, those guys were all wrong.  We have it right now—the subname for our theology is:  Good Luck, the rest of you: We’re Outta Here!  If that isn’t a Complacent theology (“I won’t have to suffer, no sirree!”), I don’t know what is. 

So there you have it.  Three corrupting effects.  Lots of complacency.  Oh, you still don’t believe we’re in a complacent period?  I have a “closing argument” thought for you:  Have you heard about the stat that “Christians” divorce at the same rate as non-Christians?

Here’s a shocking statement from Christianity Today, 2/14/14: 

     Andrew Walker interviews Dr. Bradford Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project, and asks him the question, "Are religious conservatives really divorcing more than religious liberals, or more than people who have no religious affiliation at all?" Dr. Wilcox answers,

Up to a point, yes. The article finds that conservative Protestants, and counties with higher shares of conservative Protestants, are indeed more likely to divorce—compared to Americans in other mainstream traditions, from mainline Protestantism to Mormonism to Catholicism.

Thus, conservative (i.e., evangelical) “Christians” have a higher divorce rate than “mainline” (i.e., liberal) Christians. That’s a shocker by itself, saying that the supposedly more committed Christians divorce at a higher rate. The article goes on to say,

…A new article by sociologist Charles Stokes in www.family-studies.org suggests that the problem here is mainly with nominal conservative Protestants—those who attend (church) rarely or never. It's these nominal conservative Protestants who are much more likely to divorce.

That word “nominal” (“in name only”) seems to back my claim that most of those who claim to be saved aren’t.  By the way--aside from my personal experience, here’s the reason I keep harping on the subject of divorce.  What did Jesus command?  In Matthew 5:32:

whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

You would have to conclude that there’s a lot of adultery going on in America among “Christians,” is there not?  Now, what does Galatians 5:19-21 say?

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, ²¹ envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Think about this:  God hates divorce so much that He places it in the same camp as the idolaters, the sorcerers, the murderers—all these terrible people, including divorcers who remarry (if unrepentant) are going to hell!  Were Jesus and Paul blunt about hating divorce?  Yes.  But do we get it?  No; we have people all over the place who choose temporary residence in a new marriage, hoping for a little more bliss in this life—and they are trading it for an eternity in hell!  Bad trade, folks!  Do our pastors get it?  No.  For the most part, they insist God will forgive you, without demanding that you see what danger you’re in, or even asking you for repentance.  No church discipline, no loss of Communion under more liberal popes.

All this sounds like “unawareness of actual dangers,” does it not? Well, that’s the definition of complacency.  I’ll say the statistic one more time:  11 out of 12 people who think they’re going to heaven are actually going to hell. Are you sure you’re not one of the 11?  Take some time to study the Scriptures, ask God to open your eyes, read my blogs on these dangerous beliefs.  May God bless you.  

It's About That Gallup Poll...

The latest Gallup survey (May 7, 2017) makes sad reading:  Only 24% of Americans believe the Bible is the “actual Word of God, to be taken literally.”  This compares to 37% in 1984.  The lowest number for this category in the 40-year history of Gallup polling.  Since the number is even lower for college grads (only 13%) and the young (only 12%), we will continue on this downward path, except for revival, for a very long time. 

These miserable numbers are confirmed at the other end of the poll:  The skeptics.  Those who believe the Bible is “fables, history, moral precepts recorded by man” went from 15% in 2005 to 26% now, in only the last 12 years. 

But there is a third option that Gallup included—what some analysts are calling a “medium” view (and we all love to avoid the extremes, right?)  Those who believe the Bible is “inspired by God, but not all of which are to be taken literally” are 47%.  This has remained fairly stable through the years.  Gallup’s commentary puts a rosy image to all this data, by saying, when you combine 24% literal+47% medium, ”thus 71% continue to believe the Bible is a holy document.” 

Well, I beg to differ.  I want to focus on the 47% “medium” folks.  When people say the Bible is “not all to be taken literally,” they’re really saying they reserve the right to disbelieve the Bible when it suits them.  For instance, they believe the Lord’s Prayer is inspired, and may have memorized it, or sang it, or heard many sermons on it; but does Matthew 5:31-32 inspire them the same way?  It records Jesus saying:

 “Furthermore it has been said (i.e., Old Testament), ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³² But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

This would stop most “Christian” divorce lawsuits cold—if Jesus’ command were believed. But this Scripture clearly doesn’t stop anything, since divorce rates among those who call themselves “Christian” are as high as those who are of other faiths--or no faith.  This data is from Barna Group Research, a Christian poll-taker.  However, Barna takes great pains to point out that regular churchgoers have a lower rate of divorce than the “nominal” ones that just call themselves “Christian” and do not attend church regularly. 

Well, that’s exactly my point.  There are lots of people who think they are Christians, tell people they’re Christians when it suits them, but they think they don’t have to obey Scriptural commands when it doesn’t suit them; they cherry-pick Bible verses for their moral structure.  The truth is, they are under serious deception. These “medium” believers are more than likely not Christians at all. 

It’s fairly easy to prove this Scripturally.       

Let’s start with Jesus, who claimed to be God.  John 10:30-33:

 I and My Father are one.” ³¹ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. ³² Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”³³ The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

 Jesus, who indeed was God, believed the Bible was the literal word of God:  In John 10:35, He said “the Scripture cannot be broken.”  In many other places, He asserted the literal inspiration of Genesis, Jonah, etc, even despite the “fantastic” stories of God’s creation and Jonah being swallowed by a “big fish” and being vomited out alive three days later.  So, if the God-man, Jesus, believes every word, it’s obvious that His disciples--if we really fit the definition of "disciples"--should as well.  If you think you can deviate from God on something as important as divorce doctrine, you are not His follower.  So, you are not a Christian.

So, you “medium” folks, if you say that not all Scriptures are literally inspired, aren’t you calling Jesus a liar?  Can you call God a liar?  Of course, the traditional escape that people do here, is to say that we don’t have the original inerrant Bible, and man has made copies of copies, and we all know what happens, right?—errors creep in.  Well, here’s the thing.  If you believe that God lovingly gave His gospel, showing the way to get to heaven, why on earth would He allow errors to distort the gospel, where people reading it-- carefully--still miss out on the heaven-trip?  It makes no sense that He would allow that to happen.  So we have to conclude that the commandments of Christ, and the way to heaven, did not get distorted.  God loves us too much to allow the way to heaven to become ill-lit.

Well, you may say, “Maybe it did get distorted anyhow, but He’s got your back by giving sincere seekers a pass; He knows their intentions to do good, right?”  Well, where does it say in Scripture that “good intentions” mean anything?  It doesn’t.  As I have written in several other blogs, the way to heaven is to form a relationship with Jesus through repentance of sin and belief in Him and what He said--then daily, through asking the Holy Spirit’s help, acting on that repentance—if it was genuine—by learning and following His commands.  True belief involves trust in His decisions for your life.  After all, if you’re saved, He is the sovereign Lord of your life, and you follow His commands.  His commands, unlike what skeptics accuse, are not unclear.  The above command on divorce is crystal in what it expects.  You don’t want to be one of those folks who “made a decision for Christ” simply as a “fire insurance from hell,” then live life making your own decisions about what is moral and acceptable, and what is not—that makes your decision to “follow Christ” a meaningless blink.  If you only search Scriptures for verses that confirm your decision, you’re just using—and abusing--His word.  In that case, you are sovereign of your will for life—you have made yourself a God of judgment. You pronounce judgment: “This Scripture I like, that Scripture I don’t like.”  I would think that the only God, who is jealous of idolatry, or letting anything get in the way of His being close to you—would have a problem of you setting yourself on His throne and pushing Him out.

So I’m saying, unlike Gallup, that 71% of Americans do NOT regard the Bible as a “holy document,” if you consider the real meaning of “holy.”  No, I’m saying that only 24% truly consider following Scripture totally, and have faith that all its commands are good for them—because they were ALL given by a God who loves us more than our moms do.  The other 76% are more than likely not Christian, because they are not standing up for God even when it's inconvenient, or not standing up for Christ when it counts, rejecting His word.  I’m saying that a huge number of people (maybe even 47% of the sentient population) who call themselves “Christian” are not really Christian--they have deceived themselves. 
What proof do I have for asserting this self-deception?  Well, in another blog, “Most Americans are Not Saved,” I prove, using Scripture, that it is a statistical impossibility that the people who claim to be Christian are truly Christians. I also prove it on the basis of the above-stated fact that those who call themselves “Christian” have the same rate of divorce as non-Christians, when the command of Christ in Scripture would forbid a high percentage of those divorces. I prove it on the basis that we haven’t rescinded Roe v. Wade after 45 years of its terrorizing innocent babies, causing 60 million—60 million!—deaths of human life.  It’s horrible to think of what God will do to our country.  This is ten times the Holocaust.  Science is clear—that baby is a separate human being—yet we allow this lethal disgusting belief that “I get the say over my own body.”  It’s convenient, but it’s totally non-Scripture—and non-scientific.  IF we actually had 71% Christians who truly respected the Bible, those huge protesting "Christians" would’ve rioted long ago about this worse-than-Nazi holocaust, and scared judges would’ve repealed Roe v. Wade on an immediate appeal.  If we’d saved most of those 60 million little ones, I can’t even imagine about how God would have blessed us. Instead, we’re in the impotent position of standing by, doing little while they debate whether taxpayer money (!) can be used for murder.   

I can also prove my assertion on the basis of our “Christian” teenagers, who indulge in pornography and premarital sex.  This is a raging problem, so youth ministers tell us.  They’re not respecting Scripture either.  They think that their “decision for Christ” will get them to heaven, but they seem to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture like I Corinthians 6:9b-10:

Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

“Fornicators” includes those who engage in premarital sex.  Verses in Ephesians 5:5-6, and Revelation 21:8, mentioning “sexually immoral,” echo the same end-result of being turned away from heaven.  The “escape clause,” thank God, is that if you truly repent from these things, and cease indulging in them, and truly follow Christ again, you can be on the heaven-bound path again. But doing it, repenting, then doing it again—that’s not repentance, and that’s not following Christ.  You’ve deceived yourself again.

Finally, I can prove my assertion by referring to how widespread the deception is, by seeing how Christ highlighted it in Scripture.  Listen to His words in Matthew 7:21-23: 

   “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

These verses assert that doing services for Jesus is not the key to heaven; too many use His name, and then, in secret, “practice lawlessness”—i.e., still form their moral structure on their own when the chips are down.  Yes, I will get an abortion; yes, I will get a divorce—never mind Scripture.  The Bible is not the best way for my life here; I do not have to follow it “literally.”  Not in this case.  I’ll follow it most of my life.  Thus, some murder a baby, or some murder a marriage.  And they go to church!  And people pray for them, that “God will guide you in your crisis.”  Well, does any of these clueless souls realize that God has already guided them in His Word?  Well, if someone wants to be kicked out of that prayer group, all you have to do is quote Scripture and take away their deception.  I remember my “Young Marrieds” Sunday School group.  Teacher was really up on Scripture.  Turned out that every single couple in that group—except me and my lovely wife—got divorces.  Their reasons were always off the Scriptural acceptance map.  They all felt that they were saved, but maybe they’d “lose a reward” when they go to heaven.  Well, they’re part of the pathetic 47% “medium” literalists.  “Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don’t.”    

What these people need is a hot seat, put there by a preacher who isn’t afraid to heat up the sanctuary with hot Scriptures—which nobody does anymore in the ‘burbs.  The Dangers of Hell is not a top-10 sermon, but you can get more souls in heaven by some inoculations now and then.  All you folks with the gift of evangelism:  Preach it; don’t let those people get away still deceived!  If you’re a preacher and never gotten anybody really angry with you, you’re not preaching all the Word.  Jesus never did a thing wrong to anybody, yet He was killed after only 3-1/2 years of giving them the truth—He spoke of both God’s love and God’s “other side” of judgment on those who formed their own moral structures, distorting His Word. Are you ready to be treated the same as the Master?  Ready to suffer some persecution?  As goes the teacher, so goes the students, as Jesus said. 

Pastors may say, “Well, I’m persecuted—my people ignore my sermon advice and fight over petty things.”  That’s not persecution—that means you have a bunch of baby Christians, who are possibly not even saved at all.  You fed them milk, milk, milk.  Bland, bland, bland.  Make the sanctuary a boot camp.  Slap some sense with some tough love Scriptures, maybe they’ll eventually march together and accomplish things that the church should accomplish.  Such as living their lives for others, being humble and sacrificial.  Give them meat.  Let them grow up.   

I guess you can tell that I’m tired of “medium” Christians and medium pastors.  Oh, yeah, I can’t resist laying down one more Scripture: What Jesus said about people that are neither hot nor cold—i.e., “medium,” or lukewarm.  Revelation 3:15b-17:

I could wish you were cold or hot. ¹⁶ So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I will vomit you out of My mouth. ¹⁷ Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—

In truth, most of those “medium” believers, those who straddle heaven and the world—an untenable position—are there because they loved the world and still wanted to be called “Christian.”  In the world, they accumulated comfortable assets.  But spiritually they are poorer than Bangladeshis living at the trash pits.  For the most part, they are not bound for heaven.  Maybe they thought that “God made me rich, so He must love me.” Sorry, no such rule in the New Testament.  A fantasy of your own brain.  Don’t listen to the prosperity preachers.  Follow Scripture.  God is perfectly clear there on how to get to heaven.  Only a minority of people get there.  Do you fear God enough to get out of the mediocre majority?  They’re headed down the broad path.  And you know where that goes, right?  

The Battle Between Mainline Liberal vs. Conservative Christian Churches

My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "practice what it says in Matthew 18 when you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their expressed beliefs, these people are not members of the “church,” as Scripture defined it. And how do I privately approach these people in the first place? In my defense, too, St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

People who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church--should we allow them freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't simply gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made that are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.

Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my "Reader’s Digest summary." I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Now, I hope you understand that if I denounce a denomination's expressed theology, that does not mean every single person in that denomination agrees with it--or even knows what it is.

Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor, here, of course, is the statements of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. Opposing them, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these updated, or perverse, beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online.  I would be leery of joining a church that doesn't). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge proudly, maybe a little too proudly. Jesus, after all, said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12); but sarcastic attitudes and statements don't really amount to persecution.  We have it pretty good in the U.S., for religious freedom.

So let's get down to brass tacks:  Here are five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of non-Christian liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return.  Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.

Mr. Putnam has a shocking conclusion:  he argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in God). For an example of what we're dealing with here, Mr. Putnam quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that's Jesus paying the price for our sin).” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and their knowledgeable leaders will have the same ultimate destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.

The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They are surmising that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “claims” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins.

A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to 'the mob rules.'” Following through with that reasoning, the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just a rabble-rouser trying to change culture for his own race's benefit. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to
criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens didn't provide enough of a warning when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—and that, to them, is a no-no. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic” about not judging anybody's morality.

They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride.

Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”

The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and deeper and deeper sin under a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:

the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word in society) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time later on in the argument, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).

The author finally warns that “these (liberal) "Christians" will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter "non-believers" with the sword? Religious people.

Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?

Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn

What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things like that got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…

First, a definition: A good guy, for my purposes, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again--and he does not hurt those he perceives as his enemies. Because Jesus commands it.  Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

If a person doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Even in a violent time period in world history. if he was likewise violently brutal with his enemies, no way can he be a "good guy."  If he is a disciple of Christ, he must go counter to the culture.  We don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points.  Then we know you're the good guy.

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and the groups were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was then set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and Bible translator John Wycliffe. The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were 50-150 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes.  The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes also gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

On Halloween, 1517, (500 years ago), Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was actually born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade on them, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, but they were poor for life.  They worked the property, and their profits went to the princes.  (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal oppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.

This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The Jewish synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent motivator for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s insistent rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.

Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:

“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge:  At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the liberal Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand, but...as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (a tax used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, stumbled upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jewish) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course, and St. Augustine's theory that unbaptized infants were damned backed it up—but it was completely un-Scriptural.  It also was unchallenged by the Lutheran Reformers. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to permit them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. They decided that only the people who followed Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this "radical" idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to investigate Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves, a novel conception at the time--but completely Scriptural. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some beliefs considered strange at the time—not taking oaths (first allegiance only to Christ), not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their ideas (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups got it harder--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine, and they must be behaving badly in secret.

The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they were not all killed--and some are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Hey, they learned to live without Smartphones.  Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered in those days just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.

Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning, and testified against them more than once.  Former students. A cowardly act of a compromising man. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12:

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach radical ideas is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47--on other issues. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements.  Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Let us seek to be more courageous and like Him .

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD 

The Fear of God

The fear of God is an important, yet little studied topic. Let’s start by examining Acts 2:41-47, using the New King James (NKJ):

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

In these verses, we ask, in light of the tremendous power the church had, being close to God, sharing their assets compassionately with one another, and “having favor with all the people”—were any of these wonderful things caused by their fear of God? It wouldn’t seem possible—such a negative emotion leading to a good result. Let’s explore this mystery together.

We start by defining the Greek they used for the word “fear:” phobos. (From which we get “phobia”). According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, phobos means (1) “dread, terror, always with this significance in the four Gospels.” Let’s keep that in mind; whenever Jesus is quoted saying “fear,” that’s the meaning. The other meaning of phobos is less intimidating: (2) “reverential fear of God as a controlling motive of the life; in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a dread of displeasing Him.” Examine your hearts: when you're thinking of sinning, do you have a real dread of displeasing Him? Is your fear of what He might do, enough to make you stop? Is the fear of God a controlling motive in your life? I suspect the only thing keeping us back from many sins is the fear of being discovered by our friends or family and losing our reputations, or more. The serious dread of displeasing God is often just not there; we just don’t think about Him.

Many sermons are expounded on God’s love, few on His hate--of sin. Many sermons on our loving God, few on fearing Him. This paper will attempt to show how many verses there are on how fear of God is good for you. It’s a desirable attribute. Hopefully after reading it you can introspect on His holiness and get to know His “dark side” more. Like medicine, it will seem unpleasant—but it’s good for you. Let’s begin with Genesis 20:11, where Abraham sees the good side of men fearing God: They would be less likely to murder him and take his beautiful wife:

And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.

Just two chapters later, in Genesis 22, God is testing Abraham’s willingness to obey Him implicitly, regardless of how illogical His instructions seem. He is asked to sacrifice his son. Note that Abraham doesn’t delay, doesn’t ask himself: “God wants me to kill my son? The son He promised? Let me argue that, or get a second opinion.” He knew that God loves him, that following Him regardless of logic, even doing things we never imagined we could do, will all turn out well. Have we developed that trait? Look at verse 12:

And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Note that God commends him on his fear of Him. His fear led him to obey God without question. God respects his obedience, and no harm is done.

In Genesis 31:42a, Jacob has a name for God: The Fear of Isaac. Nowhere does God disapprove of this name. Note how Jacob appreciates this-named God as his God, connecting it with His protection for him. Finally note how the three patriarchs of Israel, giants in the faith, are all given to fearing God:

Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you (Laban) would have sent me away empty-handed.

In Exodus 1:17, the children of Israel are slaves in Egypt. The pharaoh, fearing for their numerical advantage, has instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies as soon as they arrive out of the womb. But the midwives refuse to do it—even though disobeying pharaoh endangers their own lives—because of their fear of God (fear of His judgement for murder). Note His blessing on them because their fear of God was greater than their fear of the pharaoh.

But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive... because the midwives feared God…He provided households for them.

Maybe we’d have fewer abortions if the mothers or attending nurses had a real fear of God today. In the 60 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v Wade, these women did not have enough fear of God to dread His ultimate punishment for murder. How many have read Galatians 5:21, which says that (unrepentant) murderers “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and would spend an eternity in hell?  Society may have persuaded these women that abortion--murder--was a good choice. I have no idea what percentage of repentance we're talking about, but if it's miniscule, that means possibly 60 million women are going to hell.  Unless they truly repented before God, and developed a fear of Him after the abortion, and He forgave them.

In Exodus 14:31, after God’s great plagues, after the exodus, and His killing the pursuing Egyptians, then the children of Israel finally feared God. After that, they really believed Moses and God. So, a real belief in God, with obedience following (for awhile), results from a fear of God.

Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt; so the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD and His servant Moses.

In Exodus 18:21, Moses is to select men as judges, an extremely important function. The first requirement for such men? You guessed it; they need to have a fear of God.

Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds…

In Exodus 20:20b, the Ten Commandments are given. The very first words that Moses says at this momentous occasion include the following:

God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

The Ten Commandments is supposed to awaken the soul to a proper fear of God. The Commandments are His rules--but it still takes a consistent fear of God to obey the rules consistently. Once again, God’s Word is saying that fear of God reduces sin.

There are plenty more in the Old Testament, but to make this paper short enough to be readable, let’s skip ahead to the New Testament; what did Jesus say about fear? Matthew 10:28:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

People experience “peer pressure;” they shrink back from declaring for Christ, particularly in public. And so it was for the Jews, who did not want to go against the Pharisees, who could be a genuine threat to your life if you followed Jesus. But Jesus was unsympathetic for those feelings; He has a stark word (one of many—He talked a lot about hell): basically, "it’s them or me, you can't have both. Follow me, and the worst they can do is take your life. But you get an eternity in heaven. Follow them, you’ll have friends in the world, but then your worry should be about hell—which is forever."

We definitely need an injection of fear for God in this attractive world, to keep us out of hell. (Don’t forget, we said in the two definitions of “fear” that the meaning in the Gospels here is “dread, terror.” Jesus was blunt. Your terror of what God can do to you should be greater than your terror of what people can do. People can take your lives, but God can take your eternity).

You want mercy from God? We all should, because the depth and frequency of our sin means we need lots of mercy. Luke 1:50 tells us how to get mercy:

And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.

Luke 5:26 gives the peoples’ reaction when they see Jesus healing: Fear. Why? Of His supernaturalism, of things about God which they do not know.

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!”.

Today we would be more cynical and sophisticated about healings. Which is the better reaction? Note how their fear didn’t stop their glorifying God. Another good result from a supposedly negative emotion (The same thing happens in Luke 7:16).

In Luke 23:40-41, one criminal on a cross next to Jesus rebukes the other. The one who feared God admitted his execution was proper punishment for his deeds.  That's a noble thought--but something few criminals do. He also judged Jesus as innocent, something the people and the Pharisees couldn’t do. Fear of God allows you to judge people properly, and to be humble. Also, wonderfully, the one who feared God got saved. The other one was going to hell.

But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”

Now we go to the book of Acts. God’s stamp of approval was definitely on the man who was the first Gentile to receive the Gospel preached by Jewish men. Cornelius was that man. How did he get to be first in line for such a wonderful event? Because he feared God, among other positive features. A description of him is in Acts 10:2:

…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

Note that fear of God is listed ahead of his giving to the poor, and ahead of his passion for prayer. I’ve heard lots of sermons on giving and the power of prayer, but none on the power of fearing God.

Once again, for brevity, we have to skip lots of verses, and move on to the Epistles. In Romans 3, Paul is enumerating the horrible sins of those bound for hell…”Their throat is an open tomb,” etc. He then describes sin that gets worse and worse as men get farther away from Him. And how does he end it; what phrase did he use as the worst, the source of all this defiant sin and rebellion? It’s in Romans 3:18 (just before the gospel is explained):

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

In Romans 11:20-22, Paul is justifying why he is bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles—it was because the Jews (the natural branches of Jesus, the Vine) rejected it and got “broken off” the Vine. So God turned to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles might get haughty (“we’re smarter than the Jews”). His solution for that? They needed to fear God, or else He could cut them off too (God hates pride). Further, note that God is called “severe.” Haven’t heard any sermons on God’s “negative” qualities revealed here:

Because of unbelief they (Jews) were broken off, and you (Gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but FEAR. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Does God sound antagonistic there? Well, deal with it; change your definition of God’s love. He is in charge of the universe, and makes the rules. We should be grateful that He reveals Himself to us so we know what to do to get on His good side, and what gets on His bad side.

In II Corinthians 7:1, Paul has the method to be holy (necessary for salvation, as my other blogs discuss): Fear God.

Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

So the fear of God helps us to perfect holiness.  And holiness is necessary to be saved (Hebrews 12:14).  Sounds like the fear of God is necessary to get us on the road to salvation.

In Ephesians 5:21-22, women are going to dislike me for this, but Paul has a solution for women who can’t submit to their husbands because they don’t trust them. Now I realize that there are other qualifiers for wives and husbands, but it clearly says that fear of Him is the key in submitting to one another. I’m reminded of our verses above, where Abraham was ready to do something illogical because he trusted God. And it worked out, because God honored his fear of Him--He made sure all was well. Women, take a hint—trusting your husband is really trusting God, because you’re obeying His commandment to submit. He will honor your trust in Him and make it all work out. The verses are broadened to include all of us acting unselfishly and trusting all the brothers and sisters. One more time--What makes us take a chance and submit to others? Fear of God. I have never heard a sermon on this angle of husbands and wives. Putting these two verses together is called “context.”

…submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Once again, brevity demands a stop. I couldn't cover some other great verses. All you need to do is go to biblegate.com and search the word “fear.” But I think you’ve gotten the message. Fear of God is absolutely necessary to reduce sin and to be more holy, to obey God. A lot more people would be saved if they had this attribute. The only question is, how do we develop this fine characteristic? Here’s a few suggestions: (1) Read more of the Old Testament. Lots of judgment and hellfire for disobedience. Not pleasant, but you need to see how much God hated sin. Don’t fall for the argument, “God was different then.” If you believe that, you haven’t gotten the right message about Jesus, either, so that leads to suggestion (2) Read the Gospels just to study exactly what Jesus said. Do you notice how much He talked about judgment? Well, there you go. God doesn’t change, after all, in how much He hates sin, between Old and New Testaments. Write down everything that suggests what it really takes to be saved (or read my blog on initial and final salvation for a quickie summary). When you’re reading, be careful to “update” Biblical words like “idols.” Maybe you think that’s just for primitive folk, wood and stone. So it doesn't apply to me, you say. But read a Biblical definition of idolatry, then spend some time asking yourself if you’ve been into idolatry, in its modern applications. In other words, spend some time asking yourself about the sins you’ve done, and the effects on the family, placing yourself above God (that’s idolatry too). And then think about God, who loves you more than you can imagine, watching you sin. You (and everyone) could do much more with your life if you dedicate yourself 100% to Him. He would make you so happy. So why don’t you? Examine that—is it simple selfishness? Greed? Fear of being laughed at? Then imagine yourself at the judgment seat—we will all be there—when you give your reasons, your lame reasons. What are your Scriptural gifts? You don’t know? Have they been given to God? Do you know what the fruits are, a requirement for you to have them for heaven (John 15:2)? How about your time with God? A person you’re in love with, you talk to daily—how much time do you spend during the week talking with God? Maybe you conclude that you don’t really love Him? That’s not good, read I John when it separates saved vs unsaved, measured by the love you show. It’s never too late to change.

As you can see, lots of Scripture reading and introspection are needed. Please, take time for this. Most people’s mind goes ten different ways when trying to be quiet and meditate on Scripture. Or they sink into this, “I’m just a worm and can’t do anything.” (Maybe appealing for sympathy to get out of being judged always worked when you were a kid; it doesn’t work with God). Developing a fear of God would be frowned at by most ministers today, but who cares what they think? Their “moral leadership” is why we’re in a mess in the U.S. Better to read Scripture like the above to get the real truth about qualities God loves to see. Like fearing Him.