Victory over the Taliban

In a recent blog I mentioned a Bible verse that had “hyperbole.” Here's Luke 14:26 to illustrate the point:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Hyperbole, then, is willingness to go to extremes to crush a sin and obey Christ. But the example is ridiculous to emphasize the principle.  Jesus didn't mean we should hate our parents--but if our love for our Savior is great enough, we get the point of what He is saying.  Now I would like to tell you a story—a true story recorded in Voice of the Martyrs—about what life can be like when you follow Jesus—in Afghanistan. When your father is a top Taliban leader. It is a perfect illustration of a hyperbole.

This story is recent, so the names have been changed to protect the innocent. The protagonists will be named “John” and “Mary.” In the beginning of our story, John was 23, had a wife and baby son, and taught Islamic theology in his home town in Afghanistan. He traveled to Saudi Arabia three years ago on a hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. As he slept on the way overnight, John dreamed of a man with shining face and shining white clothes, who said, “My son, I see that you are seeking after me, but the real faith is not in Mecca, and I am not there.” This made John think as he performed the rituals of the hajj; people were really hypocritical in worship. In another night on the trip, John had a vision (not a dream) of the man in white. “Who are you?” he asked the man in the vision. “I want to talk to you because I love you,” the man replied. “If I tell you who I am, you will lose seven things. You will lose the Quran and Mohammed. You will lose your parents. You will lose your child that you love. You will lose your relatives and everyone will hate you. You will lose your wealth. You will be homeless and they will drive you from your country. If you don’t accept the loss of these seven things, you won’t be able to find Me anymore. Before you were born, I had plans for you. What is your choice?”

He couldn't believe it later, because he said "If you tell me your name, I will believe in you.”

The Man replied, “I am your God; I am Jesus Christ.”

Jesus touched John’s head and then he fell asleep. When he woke up, he felt completely different. “I was completely cleansed from the inside, and I felt like I was a newborn baby.” John immediately abandoned the rest of the hajj and flew home. He called his father from the airport in Kabul. Upon arriving home, “Why did you come back?” his father asked angrily. “There are still three days left for the hajj.”
“I found my God. And I don’t believe in your Allah.”
“Whom did you find?”
“I believe in Jesus Christ,” John replied.

“You are an infidel!” his father shouted as he began to beat him. “If you speak to people like this, I will cut out your tongue.”
“I want to tell people,” John said. “I don’t want to stop.”
“If you tell people you have become a Christian, I will burn you, your wife and little son!”

John’s father threw him into a basement bunker on the property that was used for detaining and torturing anti-Taliban insurgents. He was held there for nearly 18 months, enduring repeated torture and pressure to give up his faith in Jesus. No one in the family knew where John was—his father told John’s wife Mary that he was sent to Egypt to study. John was fed almost nothing. His captors put snakes in the basement, but they either died or had no effect on him when they bit him. They also released a vicious guard dog, but it immediately became friendly with John. They even tried to crucify John upside down, but failed.

Throughout John’s long, lonely months in the bunker, he often had dreams of Jesus. “God gave me power, and told me, ‘I am with you.’” His father finally released him with a warning. “I agreed that I would not talk about Jesus to him, but I did not promise that I would not speak to anyone about Jesus,” John said.

When John walked into his home that day, after he cleaned up, he went to his wife, Mary. He wanted to tell her about Jesus. “Mary, I have to tell you something.” He said “I have to tell you something first,” she said. She told him that throughout the time he was missing, she had had dreams of Jesus. Jesus comforted her and promised her that her husband would come home. Mary had come to believe in Jesus, but she had not told the family. John joyfully told Mary everything, and the two cried with happiness.

John didn’t stop talking about Jesus. “I began to tell my mother everything about Jesus, and then all my family believed in Jesus. But they didn’t tell anyone because of fear.” John’s mother, sisters, aunts, and cousins all began to follow Jesus. Each night, when his father was gone, John would teach them what he learned through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Many in the community also learned of John’s new faith, but by miracle, no one knew it.

A few months later, when Mary became pregnant with her second child, John’s father instructed them to name the baby Sayeed Muhammed. “No” said John. “I don’t want to give my son an Islamic name. I am naming him Isa” (Jesus). His father exploded in anger and began beating John in the head. “Shut up, you infidel!” Then he threw John back into the bunker. When John’s father told Mary’s father (a mullah, an Islamic leader, and Taliban member), her father confronted her. “Your husband is an infidel,” he said. “You should abort the baby.”
“I believe in Jesus Christ too,” Mary told him. Her father slammed her forehead on the ground and hit her in the mouth, breaking her teeth. Then he began punching her in the abdomen. Then he tossed her limp body into the bunker with John. Her face was severely bruised from the beating.

While they were in the bunker, John’s father took their little son with him to meet some Taliban leaders in another city. Those leaders blamed John’s father for allowing his son to convert, and they ordered him to kill John. Mary’s mother heard about the plan and called John’s mother. She ran to the bunker and broke down the door. She handed John $2400, his computer, and a suitcase. “Please leave Afghanistan” she told them. “I’ll take care of your son.”

Although they didn’t want to leave their son, John and Mary knew that if they stayed at all, they would be killed. They fled. After three days and some distance, John found a Wi-fi “Skype” connection and called his mother. There was his 2-year old son sitting on her lap. John could see his son on the video screen but her head was out of picture range. His son cried, “Papa! I am fine. Please come back. I miss you.” John’s mother also encouraged them to come home, saying the danger had passed. After the call, when John and Mary made plans to return, John’s mother called back again. “Don’t come back!” she warned. “The Taliban were standing right here when we were talking earlier, with a gun against my head. You must leave immediately.” John and Mary went on the run again, going as far as they could before the money ran out. They tried to register as refugees, but local Muslim workers refused to accept them because they were Christian converts.

But Mary was in severe pain, and could hardly move, having never healed from her father’s beating. A doctor gave them the bad news. The child in Mary’s womb had died, and Mary could die too if the fetus were not removed immediately. The procedure would cost $5,000. John didn’t have any money. That evening at home, John cried while Mary slept. As he prayed, he felt the Lord leading him to anoint his wife with oil and pray over her. John did, and prayed that Jesus would save his unborn son.  Eventually he fell asleep.

The next morning, Mary was up and around, so they went to the doctor. He delivered some incredible news. “The baby is alive! How is this possible?” John shared his whole testimony with the doctor and told him that he had prayed in the name of Jesus that his son would be healed. “It is a miracle” the doctor said. “I’ve never seen something like this in my life.” The doctor called others from the clinic into the room to witness this. Mary and John shared their story with them too. Several people in the room believed in Christ that day.

The Taliban had continued to stalk John. He received threatening phone calls from radicals in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Saudi Arabia. The Taliban issued a demand: they would return to Afghanistan and recant their Christian faith, or their 2-year old son would be killed. The deadline was October 4, 2013. John did everything he could. He spoke to the embassy. He went to the U.N. Refugee Agency. But no one would help. A few days later, John’s father turned the little boy over to the Taliban—in order to restore his honor among his terrorist friends.

A relative called Mary and John with the horrible news that their older son died. “The Taliban put a picture of my dead son on their website” John said. The murder of the little boy shocked John’s mother and five sisters. They asked how the Islamic faith could justify killing a child because of his father’s actions. They told John’s father that his acts were shameful, and they then told their whole village that they, too, were following the Jesus Christ that John had shared with them.

“Very soon, we learned from my wife’s brother that my father killed his wife and my five sisters and buried them,” John said. “We believe him, because we have not heard or seen anything of my sisters.” Although Mary’s brothers were Taliban members, they disagreed with the leadership about killing John’s son. And then, when the Taliban and John’s father killed John’s sisters, Mary’s brothers initiated a gunfight with other Taliban members. The body of her oldest brother was found days later with one hand cut off, but her youngest brother managed to escape.

When Mary’s father found out that Mary's mother was the one who had revealed the Taliban’s plot to kill the couple to John, he killed her by feeding her rat poison. John and Mary could only weep and pray, saying, ”God, you know.”

In November 2013, John and Mary were baptized. In February 2014 little Isa was born, perfectly healthy. Because of continual threats from the Taliban, the family was forced to move six times in eight months. John continued to share Jesus with everyone, often speaking with Afghan tradesmen working in the markets. He once prayed with a medical assistant about her infertility, and later she called to tell him she had just learned that she was pregnant. John began using the internet to minister to Afghans around the world, including his former Muslim students in Afghanistan. Many have turned to Christ through John’s powerful witness. John continues to teach new converts. He leads hours of internet worship services with small groups several times a week.

In late 2014, John, Mary, and Isa were accepted as refugees in a Western country. And John continues sharing about Christ. “Every second I work for God I want more people to see Jesus. I don’t want people to see me; I want them to see God. I lost everything, so I want to tell people about Jesus. God said He made many houses in heaven; he needs people in them.”

So, since many of John’s beloved relatives were murdered—how, you ask, is my title “victory” over the Taliban? The answer is: Many souls were won to the Lord. John will see his relatives in heaven again. None of their lives meant so much to them—or him—such as to sway them from their indomitable love for Our Savior. They loved Him so much that their feelings for each other seemed like hate in comparison. Our Lord gave up His life for us. What should we be willing to do for Him?   What Jesus spoke was hyperbole in Luke 14:26 above, but John and Mary were the perfect examples of the depth of its meaning.

Acknowledgement Voice of the Martyrs, January, 2015

Dr. MacArthur vs. Easy Believism

There is nothing more important than soteriology—the doctrine of salvation, or how we can know from Scripture if we’re going to heaven.  As anybody who reads my blogs know, I am a long-time foot-stomper on how the doctrine of salvation has been weakened.  But I dug up a book where Dr. John MacArthur, one of my favorite blunt-edge guys, feels the same way, and expresses his agitation much better than I could.  After all, he’s pastor of a church for 50 years, chancellor emeritus of The Master’s University, and editor and author of 150 books.  You will find, as I did, that much of this battle we outline below is a battle of words.  If you can change the meaning of a word that expresses a necessity for salvation, or if you can eliminate that expression entirely, then you have won half the battle.  So Satan—and his followers—have found.  So let’s get into just the first chapter of his book, prophetically written from 1988, “The Gospel According to Jesus.”  

His introduction bemoans the gospel presentations today (“ask Jesus into your heart,” etc). None of them is Biblical—the gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience.  In truth, the cost to follow Him is high, the way is narrow—and few find it (Matthew 7:13). Sadly, the verse points out that the majority of people are headed for hell, whether they know it or not. The verse is a warning call.  As he puts it, “present day evangelicalism ignores those warnings.” 

The first serious break from Scripture was from an alleged evangelist, Lewis Sperry Chafer in his book in 1918 (note:  Chafer was a founder and the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, where it can be easily proved that this heretical doctrine has been taught there).  The theory goes like this:  there are two classes of Christians, carnal and spiritual.  As he wrote in his book, “the ‘carnal’ Christian is characterized by a walk that is on the same plane as that of the ‘natural’ (i.e. unsaved) man.”  Dr. MacArthur points out that “that was a foreign concept to most Christians in Dr. Chafer’s generation, but it has become a central premise for a large segment of the church today.”  He argues that Scripture clearly is opposite.  For instance, I John 3:10: 

 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Of course, a Christian cannot be perfectly righteous, and will stumble, but as the great theologian B.B. Warfield put it, “the remainders of the flesh in the Christian do not constitute his characteristic.  He is in the Spirit and is walking, with however halting steps, by the Spirit.”  The Christian wants to come back to God when he sins. He wants to confess.  Such is abiding (a requirement to remain Christian, in John 15:1-6).  It is to ALL Christians that Scripture says, “sin shall not have dominion over you.”  (Romans 6:14).  But the easy doctrine (“I can still be carnal”) won the people’s love. Many people think they are Christians but have no interest in holiness, in abiding in Christ.  The carnal life is good enough for them.  What do we learn?  That false prophecies move fastest into acceptance, through the pastors who were taught this heresy, to the people.  

Another crack in the surface of soteriology was forwarded by dispensationalists (who believe that God acts differently in different ages).  They assert that the Old Testament was the “age of law.”  The New Testament is the “age of grace.”  God is kinder, He is different, now.  Chafer wrote, “the age before the cross…represent the exercise of (i.e., God’s judgement was based on) pure law, while the (current) period represents the exercise of pure grace.”  Grace, of course, has a new meaning:  it means “God is kinder” to them.  That’s not the meaning of the word at all, but who cares?  Sounds better.  To attack this malign heresy is easy:  first, God doesn’t change.   Salvation has always been, whether Old or New time periods, by grace through faith, not by the works of the law.  Galatians 2:16:

a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified

Well, what saved them in the Old Testament, without faith in Christ?  It was faith in God.  Let’s consider Abraham, who lived in what they call the law-period. In Genesis 15, God promises him many descendants—but he’s 85 years old.  But he believed God for a miracle. He doubted, but he always came back to God.  He got what God promised.  Note Genesis 15:6:

And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Abraham was right with God because of his faith. So it wasn’t any different in the Old Testament than in the New.  It’s all the same—belief by faith in Yahweh, or belief in Jesus Who also was God.  But these clear verses hasn’t stopped those of the “two age systems” to warp it into believing that God was harsh in the Old, but changes the rules and becomes compassionate in the New.  A problem for them, though, was in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, where He set a higher bar than the Law had set for God’s judgement.  They had to discount that Sermon, or else God’s judgement of sin would be harsher than the Law.  In the Law, a sex act outside of marriage was adultery:  But Jesus said, to look on a woman to lust after her was adultery in our heart (Matthew 5:28).  And Jesus said, murderous thoughts in our mind, such as being angry with our brother without a cause, would be judged as murder.  And He gave more of the same in that Sermon.  The point is, the dispensationalists considered these as impossible—so they announced that the whole Sermon on the Mount was for the future Kingdom age (yay, another age), where Jesus will rule for 1000 years.  It wasn’t anything to get seriously concerned about now. I guess we should say, “Whew!  I guess carnal living is still OK.”  But Dr. MacDonald saw through their fog, and called this a “lamentable hermeneutic.”  He said it “emasculates the message of the gospels.” 

Further weakening of salvation theology continued on with those arguing the dangers of “Lordship salvation.”  Even as early as Luke 2:11, Jesus is called Savior and Lord. Along with many other Scriptures in the same vein, these two clearly go together. We must do honor to Him on both counts to be saved.  He not only saved us from hell, He saved us from sin’s power.  He is to be Lord of our lives, and we are to read His Word and listen to the Spirit to make decisions to be in His perfect will. 

Again, the dispensationalists are fighting for weakness here: They claim it is possible to receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord.  You have an option to say “maybe later” on Lordship when you are “saved.”  As if.  To some reputed “theologians,” that is the norm for salvation:  to add such a requirement as Lordship is to “add works.”  So I guess, then, that professing obedience in behavior to Christ in our life is “adding works.”  But get real.  James has a whole chapter on how faith, without works, is dead.  It is not faith at all.  Remember our brief discussion of the narrow gate above, and few getting into heaven?  Let’s look at Luke 13:24:

“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Now if there were ever a dirty “works” word, “Strive” would be it.  Yet Jesus quotes it in connection of salvation. There are many other verses that echo the same theme. The problem is, when Protestant theology was first formed, the Reformers (Luther and Calvin) hated all the sacraments, all the works, that Catholics put on salvation. The Catholics had martyred thousands of them, so the hate was real.  But they put a new definition of “works” that is way too sensitive, and ignored a huge body of Scripture (such as the above) that points out the importance of works, for fruits.  Luther hated the book of James, calling it “a book of straw,” so he ignored it.  Because James, under God, said that faith without following works was dead.  But you cannot ignore one book, or thirty other verses, to “get what you want” soteriology to be. So they went too far to expunge what they call “works.”  With some churches, if you reveal that you have rules in your family about limiting TV watching, or requiring prayer before every meal, they will call you “legalistic.”  Let us not run so far from the Catholics, all you Protestants, that we swing the pendulum away so far from works so as to enter a fuzzy, non-existent world of complacency—do anything you want, pay no attention to laws (they are all Old stuff, right?  Uh, no, Jesus had a few clarification commands refining Law).  No, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we must strive.  We must say “no” a lot—to the temptations of the world.  We must abide in Christ.  When Paul says, “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified,” he is simply saying, we aren’t saved by works.  God looks to our faith.  Good works follow faith, though. We will have an urge to follow Christ in our actions.  Such good works are called “fruit.”  Without fruit, we are NOT ON the VINE (John 15:1-6).  A.W. Tozer put it well:  “The Lord will not save those He cannot command.” 

Talking about the necessity of fruits, there was also a fight over the word “repentance.”  The “weaker salvation” theologians have argued that repentance is not necessary in salvation:  It stresses “works.”  A dirty word to them.  But the Greek root of repent is metanoia, defined as “to perceive afterwards, implying a change in mind.”  (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words).  He adds that in Scripture, it is almost always used as an exhortation, and a change for the better. Also note that the word repent is the first word used by John the Baptist, by Jesus and by Peter at the start of their ministries (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, and Acts 2:38).  They wanted a change in heart about sin. Or you’re not saved.  By placing the word at the very beginning of their preachment, the concept was important in the gospel. And note what John the Baptist says as proof that you really repented in Matthew 3:8:

 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance

 This clearly shows that repentance is tied to equally important fruits in salvation.

Yet another battle arose on the word “discipleship.”  Again, it so goes that there are two classes of Christians:  ‘believers’ and ‘true disciples.’  Dr. MacArthur, in attacking yet another split, quotes the Great Commission, Matthew 28:19-20.  Note that His disciples were not asked to go out and bring everyone to salvation:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Dr. MacArthur quotes appropriately from James M. Boice (by the way, if these names are all unknown to you, it just proves that I’m older.  You can read up on them in Wikipedia). Boice wrote: 

“In days of persecution, those who are in the process of becoming Christians have to count the cost of discipleship carefully before taking up the Cross…But in good times, the cost (of following Christ) does not seem so high, and people take the name of Christ without undergoing the radical transformation of life that true conversion implies.”

Boice bluntly called this two classes idea “defective theology.” 

I trust you might have noticed a trend in the heretical theologies that have weakened salvation doctrine.  All of them want to give you a choice of one of two ways to go, after being “saved”:  you can have the option to carry on the same life as before, just with the added “fire insurance” policy of salvation for heaven through mental assent that, yeah, Jesus died for my sins.  Thanks, Jesus.  They then give you the other option, the tough life, which is rejected by most people.  It says:  Leave it to the zealots to claim to follow moral law, or Lordship, or discipleship, or the saintly life.  Most “saved” people choose the easy way; they still like the carnal life, not trying for the impossible like the Sermon on the Mount.  The choice is to their destruction.

The Catholics have a similar theme in their doctrine.  If you are a true disciple, or saint, you go directly to heaven.  The rest of us, who want to enjoy the dung of carnality, as long as we commit no mortal sin, we can go to purgatory, and get purged of all of that scum later, and then maybe we can eventually go to heaven.  So you see, the “two-way” soteriology is in there too.

Well, Jesus had a Word for that.  Note the danger in His words:  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!’

In “lawlessness,” there’s the final word that Jesus still pays attention to moral law.  And in the phrase “does the will of My Father,” you have the final word that there is an element of works in final salvation:  we must “do the will” of God.

Holiness, obeying the moral Law, Old Testament or New, is essential.  Giving your life to Christ. It’s not really asking too much, since Scripture shows how much He loved you (He died to get your sin out of the way so you can get reconciled to God). Discipleship is essential.  Lordship is essential.  Repentance from sin is essential.

Got it?  More than you thought?  Well, as Jesus said, count the cost.  Luke 14:28:

 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it

The parable is for those who realize, from Scripture, that it’s truly a narrow way to final salvation. But the choice, as the verses point out, is….heaven or hell.  I can’t overstate how important THAT decision is.  Well, you read it here, straight from Scripture.  And crusty Dr. MacDonald.  God awaits your decision.

Good Guys, Bad Guys--Part II

On the subject of “who are the good guys, who are the bad guys,” I have another thought-provoking article for you.  We’ve all watched cowboys and Indians when we were kids.  Cowboys were always the good guys, protecting our women and children from the savages who would scalp them, right?  Well, that’s not always the way it really was.  I have a true story about the year 1780 and thereabouts, and it happened in our original colonies, during the time of the American Revolution.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words, “All men are created equal” and endowed with rights, it must be bluntly admitted that he only meant white men—he did not mean black men--or Indians.  Even as early as 1780, our colonies were already in the practice of making treaties with Indians, then breaking them, pushing them back, confiscating their land, even though it was necessary for Indian survival, and paying them nothing for it.  Some eastern Indian tribes had already been pushed nearly to the point of extinction. Many starved, many were not able to move a great distance to land that was not arable (most Indians were not raised as nomadic).  Americans fighting for freedom from taxes and authority felt no compunction about stealing Indian livelihood and freedom.  The Indians fought back, and reacted viciously.  It’s also true that many Indians sided with the British during the Revolution, but why does this not surprise us?  The British treated them better than American colonists, as careful study will show. For instance, under a treaty with colonists, the British set up forts to try to prevent American settlers from crossing over the Appalachians and stealing more Indian land.  Americans, in a continuation of “Christian high character,” reneged on that treaty too, and continued westward anyhow. 

George Washington, would you believe, demanded that there be a final solution for one section of soil (I hate to use "final solution;" yes, George Washington was advocating genocide)—he wanted the total annihilation of the six Iroquois nations, who were raiding them persistently—but, keep in mind, they were trying to save their land.  The American soldiers began burning down Iroquois villages in 1779-1780.  Their march down the Susquehanna had the same goal of Sherman’s march to Atlanta. They burned all the grain, all the crops, every fruit tree.  Thousands of Indian women and children and the old died of starvation in this “scorched earth” policy.  Survivors fled to Canada.

A group of Indians who suffered the worst fate of all were the Lenape, who began in Pennsylvania.  Most Lenape were pushed out of their homeland during the 1700s by expanding European colonies, and by newly introduced diseases, mainly smallpox.  They finally settled in the Ohio River basin.  What’s unique in this case is that many of them were sincerely converted to Christianity by Moravian missionaries before the Revolution (ed. Note:  After study, Moravians are regular Protestants from what is now Czech Republic).  They were non-resistant—i.e., they wouldn’t fight back under aggression.  They laid down their tomahawks and bows and arrows, remaining neutral in the Revolution, and they truly meant to follow Jesus in loving their enemies.  Their village was named Gnadenhutten, which means “huts of grace.” But they were, in 1781, pushed out (by British allies, this time) to near Lake Erie near the Sandusky River—still in Ohio, but this time their new howm village they named “Captive Town.” They lost their independence, and without initial crops, they were going hungry—but they were ignored under Washington's draconian rules.  And it was past harvest time. In February 1782, more than 100 of them, out of desperation, returned to their old Moravian villages to harvest the crops and collect stored food they had been forced to leave behind. The frontier war was still raging. In early March, the Lenape were surprised by a raiding party of 160 Pennsylvania militia led by Lieutenant Colonel David Williamson. The militia rounded up the Christian Lenape and accused them of taking part in raids into Pennsylvania. Although the Lenape denied the charges and explained their non-resistance from reading about Christ, the militia held a council and voted to kill them. Attacked by conscience, some militiamen walked out. They could see the Christianity in the Lenape.

After the Lenape were told of the militia's vote, they requested time to prepare for death and spent the night praying and singing hymns. 

Despite the fact that these soldiers had witnessed the Indians praying and singing hymns, they still were eager to see them die.  The next morning on March 8, the militia brought the Lenape to the "killing houses," one for men and the other for women and children. The militia tied the Indians, stunned them with mallet blows to the head, and killed them with fatal scalping cuts. In  all, the militia murdered and scalped 28 men, 29 women, and 39 children. (I can't imagine scalping children).No Indians resisted.  Two Indian boys, one of whom had been scalped, survived to tell of the massacre. The corpses were piled in the mission buildings and the American militia burned the village down. They also burned the other abandoned Moravian villages nearby. One of those soldiers who opposed the killing of the Moravian Lenape was Obadiah Holmes, Jr. He wrote,

"one Nathan Rollins & brother [who] had had a father & uncle killed (ed., not by Lenape) took the lead in murdering the Indians, ...& Nathan Rollins had tomahawked nineteen of the poor Moravians, & after it was over he sat down & cried, & said it was no satisfaction for the loss of his father & uncle after all".

After slaughtering everyone, the militia now turned to greed.  They looted the village before burning it down. The plunder, which needed 80 horses to carry, included everything which the people had held: furs for trade, pewter, tea sets, and clothing. A few years later, Moravian missionary John Heckewelder, who had just heard, collected the remains of the Lenape and buried them in a mound on the southern side of the village.

Some Americans were outraged when they heard about all this, but most of the settlers on the frontier supported the American militia’s murderous action.  No criminal charges were ever filed, and the war rolled on. 

Our treatment of the Indians, in general, was a standing reproach of our “Christian” governments for nearly a century, and a blood-red blot upon our annals of history.  The kind of story like the Lenape never gets told in history classes in elementary or secondary schools.  It is the kind of story that should be told, to warn and admonish us of the depths of our sin, and our prejudices and our ability to dehumanize men—a product of our sinful nature, and we can’t blame wartime, the ever-popular excuse.  The men who persecute Christians have a special place in hell.    

The Kingdom of God

What was John the Baptist’s first words?

Matthew 3:1-2: In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

What was the theme of Jesus’ first message? Was it man’s need for salvation? Was it God’s love for mankind? Was it the necessity to be born again? Was it that He would die as a ransom for us? No, we find the answer in Matthew 4:17:

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand..”

Mark 1:14-15: Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

The kingdom is the only thing that Jesus labeled as the gospel, which means “good news.”

For further on the importance of the kingdom, note what Jesus says in Luke 4:43, again early in His ministry:

But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.”

So what was the reason He was sent? For salvation? Yes, as many other verses point out. But it was also to set up the kingdom of God. It’s time, is it not, that we pay attention to this idea. After all, Jesus only talked once about the new birth; He mentioned His ransom for us only one time; there are only five or six passages in which Jesus used the word “salvation;” yet the kingdom of God is mentioned in the gospels nearly 100 times! Most of Jesus’ parables were about the kingdom. And as you saw above, Jesus said that the reason He was sent to earth was to preach about the kingdom. But do we hear this theme emphasized in the preaching of pastors today? No. All we hear is that Jesus’ primary purpose in coming to earth was to save us from our sin. Of course, that’s wonderfully important—but it still omits something vitally important. After all, wherever He went, He preached about the kingdom of God:

Matthew 4:23: And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

This is repeated in Matthew 9:35:

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

And again in Luke 9:11:

But when the multitudes knew it, they followed Him; and He received them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who had need of healing.

He also made it the second petition in the model prayer, the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come…

That’s how high it ranks in the priorities of Jesus, and where it should rank in ours. Then what are we doing, ignoring this doctrine? The kingdom of God is almost totally missing from the gospel of today!

Now, you might argue that while Jesus was alive, He couldn’t say much about salvation through His death and resurrection—but surely, after these were completed, His disciples’ main theme was about that, right? Not the case. When Jesus commissioned His disciples, He specifically instructed them to preach about the kingdom.

Matthew 10:5-7: These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: ….6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Luke 9:2: He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick

Luke 10:9: And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

In nearly every passage where Jesus gave preaching instruction to His disciples, He told them to preach about the kingdom. And they didn’t change the emphasis after He died and rose again.

Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized

Acts 19:6-8: And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all. 8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God

Even at the end of Acts—when Paul is under house arrest in Rome, having written about finally giving his life for Christ, what is he still thinking about? Acts 28:23:

So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.

In Acts 28:30-31, we should ask, what did Paul emphasize for two whole years at the tail end of his ministry? The answer? The kingdom and Jesus:

Then Paul dwelt two years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

As it was in Acts 8 above, these two verses have a dual emphasis in preaching: both Jesus Christ (and His salvation)—and the kingdom of God. The two go hand in hand. If you want Jesus as Savior, you need to accept His kingdom over your life too. Obviously, one of the main principles is:  He is the King in His kingdom, so we obey Him. Salvation is not the end of our religious effort; it is a means to an end—after we are saved, establishing our place in His kingdom should then be emphasized; what can we do to forward His kingdom? Notice carefully what Jesus said to Nicodemus:

John 3:3-5 (partial): Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot…enter the kingdom of God.

Being born again is not the end of our effort:  It is a means to another end. Our real purpose is not to gain salvation, but to live to the highest use in His kingdom, to please our King. The kingdom is an absolutely crucial aspect of the gospel. When we tell people about salvation and ignore the kingdom, we are not preaching the gospel. We’re only giving half of it. We can’t have the King apart from the kingdom. Preachers must also call people to become citizens of His kingdom.  And spell out our obligations.

So why is it that the gospel of the kingdom is not being preached? How did we miss this? We just don’t pay much attention to what the Scriptures really say anymore, I guess.

Well, now let’s talk about just what is the kingdom of God. All kingdoms have four components: (1) Ruler; (2) Subjects, or Citizens; (3) Domain, or the region the ruler has control; and (4) Laws. But God’s kingdom is sometimes different. God’s kingdom doesn’t have an earthly ruler—its ruler is Jesus Christ, who reigns from heaven. And unlike earthly kingdoms, who change rules, Jesus’ policies never change. They are spelled out in His infallible Word, the Bible. As to its subjects? The test, or method of determining who is a citizen in the kingdom of God is those who “bring forth the fruits thereof,” Matthew 21:43. What are the fruits? Holiness and praising God. The kingdom of God includes everyone IF they are bringing forth its fruits, if they are willing to gain in holiness. It excludes nobody—but those who exclude themselves by not bringing forth its fruits. To be heirs in this kingdom, we have to belong to Christ. We enter the kingdom through the new birth (see John 3). You can’t bring forth its fruits, you can’t be holy, without the help of the Holy Spirit, who is given to you at the new birth. It is His indwelling that brings forth fruit. See I Peter 2:9-10:

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people…that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God.

As to Domain: The kingdom of God’s subjects do not occupy a certain portion of the earth; they are interspersed among all the nations of the world.

But there are conflicts among His people—because we live under two kingdoms. You are a citizen in one of the kingdoms of the world, and you are a citizen in the kingdom of God. And since there are differences in their laws, those two kingdoms occasionally force a conflict, on occasion demanding of you two opposite actions at the same time. Of course, we are to follow our heavenly King; Jesus expects you to follow His laws, not the kingdom of darkness (Colossians 1:13). (That's a pretty stark comment on all the world's governments.)  This may mean persecution because many governments want you to respect them as your kingdom, and don't want you to be free to look elsewhere.

 Now you can’t avoid persecution by saying the kingdom is for the far future, or it is a spiritual kingdom, so I can ignore His commands. Luke 17:21 says the “kingdom of God is within you (KJV),” which some people translate as spiritual--but the phrase "within you" means “in the midst of you” (per Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words), a huge difference of meaning. Instead of saying “within me spiritually,” it says the kingdom is operating NOW among God’s people.

I want to say more about this conflict between the two kingdoms in another blog. It’s important to keep in mind, as we think about this, that most of the people in the world (including the U.S.) are not citizens of God’s kingdom. Most people are not willing to be holy and sold out for Christ.  The people of the world cannot see the kingdom of God, and cannot understand our intolerance and refusal to keep up with the latest cultural trend. Jesus told Nicodemus, in John 3:3:

I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Colossians 1:13 says people are still in the kingdom of darkness. It also says we are NOW in the kingdom of God, if we’re saved and living for God—it’s not future:

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love

If we’re not living in His kingdom while we’re on earth, we’re not going to be there after we die. But most professing Christians don’t even know what the kingdom of God is. People equate it with “the institutional church,” with a certain political party, or even with a certain country. Those ideas limit what it is. Thinking about it makes you want to know what our King wants from us, especially as we possibly approach the last days, because Scripture says we can expect conflict, as I alluded above; and we must make each decision in those conflicts to advance the kingdom, and endure the persecutions to be in heaven when the time comes (II Timothy 2:12).

Keep in mind that salvation is not merely mental assent, but an active trust in Christ—it’s called “abiding in Christ.” Thereby we bear fruit. Knowing that we’re in His kingdom will help us to seek out and obey the King’s commandments, versus ignoring them, which goes on way too much today. Read John 15:1-6 or my blog on Initial vs Final Salvation. Following His commandments are necessary for final salvation, for an eternity in the right place—heaven.

Acknowledgement: David Bercot’s CD, “The Kingdom of God,” Scroll Publishing

The Problem of Celibacy in the Priesthood

Dr. John MacArthur  delivered a 2002 sermon on the Roman Catholic priesthood, which later appeared on You Tube.  It is theological at the beginning, historical in the middle, and empathetic at the end.  It may sound judgmental, but please read it to the end.  That was not what it was intended to be.  Here is a summary of his words: 

Let’s talk about the issue of celibacy.  Celibacy is an obligatory law to be a priest. But a poll shows that 70-80% of Roman Catholics believe that the priests should be allowed to be married. The Magisterium (Catholic official doctrine) defends celibacy partly on Matthew 19:12 where Jesus said ‘there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.’  The Apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 7, also says in times of extreme distress, being single is better.  Catholic thinking was, you don’t have to worry about the wife and the family’s safety, so you can give your entire focus on the Lord, even in poverty.  But I question all that.  Paul also says in the same chapter that in normal times it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.   Actually, those verses make it very clear that overall, marriage is preferable to singleness.  Some tried to twist the Scripture so as to make Peter into an unmarried man.  In I Corinthians 9:5, where Paul says, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas” (Note:  that’s another name for Peter) He clearly had a wife.  The Catholic Bible says, “…a believing sister....”  But the Greek word is “wife.” Twisting Scripture to make it agree to doctrine. Thus, making celibacy mandatory is utterly unbiblical. Here’s an interesting reference to celibacy in I Timothy 4: 1-5: 

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴ For every creation of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; ⁵ for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul is saying, those who forbid marriage (or certain foods on Fridays) are advocating a doctrine of demons (with the exception of economic or political extremes, such as persecution).  They are listening to deceitful spirits.  I really believe that Satan has managed to control this element of the Catholic system.  The Bible clearly says that marriage, like food, is to be sanctified, and received with gratitude—because marriage comes from God. 

Celibacy grew slowly in the Catholic world; it started in the 2^nd century.  It had a pagan history already in places like Asia and Buddhism.  The 3^rd century saw the theology of Gnosticism becoming popular—they emphasized that ‘matter’ (like the body) was evil.  Its followers took the path of scorning the things of the flesh. It was felt that attainment of the highest levels of spirituality was only possible if the body’s needs or desires were supplanted.  Many took vows of poverty, of chastity, of obedience, of stoic diets, even of silence.  Many other groups felt that Mary remained chaste, a virgin, so they followed her.  The truth is, she had a whole family with Joseph (Matthew 13:55-56, as any version reads.  Assuming Joseph had a family before he met Mary has no Scriptural support.)  Others followed Christ, who was celibate. But forcing celibacy among bishops, priests, and deacons happened first in Spain around 390 AD; Catholic supervisors were simply told they would be deposed if they kept their wife and children. Nevertheless, celibacy spread and completely dominated Catholicism in the West by the 5^th century.  But east of Constantinople (Istanbul today), the Orthodox churches never took to it and later split. 

It was finally made canon in 1079.  But widespread sexual sin followed. Quoting a reliable historian:

This mandate generated all kinds of immorality.  The abodes of priests were often dens of corruption.  It was common to see priests frequenting taverns, gambling, having orgies, and speaking blasphemy.  Many priests kept mistresses; and convents became houses of ill fame.  In many places the people were delighted at seeing a priest with a mistress because the married women would be safe from him.  

This celibacy requirement began under Pope Gregory VII. If you ask, “Why did he do this?”  The answer is political.  The priest, if married, was immediately separated from his wife and his children—permanently--AND it was required that all his property was confiscated.  Priests, up to that time, were very influential, very powerful people. They had wealth, passed it down through their families, and it accumulated, giving families power and influence.  The Pope determined that priests controlled too much wealth, and the Church should take it.  Because if the Church was going to have more power than the State, if it wanted to rule the world, it needed to take wealth and property away from the people in power. (The number-one landowner on the planet today is the Church).

In 1123, they went further and declared all existing marriages among priests invalid.  Women were cut loose with no means of support, and many of them died of hunger.  Some were suicides; some turned into streetwalkers. But the Church accumulated massive wealth. The people, largely illiterate and poor, enthusiastically supported this dictum. (Get back at the rich priests!) They scorned, even attacked and mutilated the priests when they refused to obey. The disobedient priests were run out of town and exiled. If they wouldn’t give up all their property, the Church would exile them and confiscate their property.  Their children were designated as illegitimate, and their wives were often buried in unconsecrated earth. 

So it was all about power, about avarice, about a system that wanted to engulf the earth—a horrible story surrounding an unbiblical, pagan doctrine.  In an Oxford Encyclopedia entry under the Reformation Age, Hans Hildebrand, editor, Oxford University Press, 1996, wrote that the priests, without a wife now, often lived with a long-term concubine, and received special dispensation from their religious supervisor so as to have their children legitimated. But this, too, changed in the late 12^th century when concubinage was prohibited.  Some clergy responded to this latest dictum by rioting.  Enforcement of this meant women from reputable families no longer entered into relationships with priests, knowing that it could never be called a valid marriage.  But the priests often could not withhold their sexual desires, and defied the mandates by simply using discretion in their sexual relations.  Denied any release, and usually unsaved, they still slid into gross corruption. 

Keep one thing in mind:  a vow of celibacy does not mean you are bound to a promise of chastity.  Canon law does not require sexual chastity; it only prohibits marriage.  You don’t break the law of celibacy by engaging in sexual relationships.  Because of its ‘lesser’ importance, they decided that absolution for sexual relations comes by pardon from a fellow priest.  That’s all you have to do to get it expunged! (Sorry, but God doesn’t so easily absolve this unbiblical ‘law.’)  If a priest wanted to get married, on the other hand, absolution has to come only one way—from the Pope.  Why this inequality of treatment?  Because they care more about a priest who marries, and the impact that will have on the power of the system, than they do about a priest who commits sexual sin.  Marriage is far worse for the system than sexual sin, because it threatens the Church’s power and property.

In light of all this, how can the Church hold that marriage is a sacrament, the way that they compromised it? Their most holy people—priests and nuns—are denied this sacrament.  The Council of Trent, which solidified Catholic doctrines to counteract the Reformation, pronounced anathema (damnation) on all who teach that the marriage state is preferable to celibacy. But Jesus even said, ‘Not all men can bear that.’  Paul said, ‘It is better to marry than to burn.’  In the eyes of the priesthood, considering they were still often taught that the flesh is evil, they often perceived that sexual desires is inherently unclean—so, they were (and probably are) filled with guilt.  And unable to give good advice to families.

Lorraine Boettner, in a book on Catholicism, writes:

Henry VIII of England, in 1535, appointed commissioners to inspect all monasteries and nunneries.  So terrible were the cruelties and corruptions uncovered, that a cry went up from the nation that all such houses without exception to be destroyed. 

True, Henry wanted to dismiss Catholic theology so he could continue to divorce and remarry, but he couldn’t have gotten away with destroying their housing without approval of the people.  We conclude that priests were still actively involved  with sexual sin.  By the way, having men who are trying to suppress their minds, in monasteries with other pent-up men, and all day, every day, listening to people in confessionals describing their own iniquities, sexual or otherwise—is that a healthy environment?  How can the priest think holy thoughts?  My heart goes out to priests. Boettner’s book further says, ‘The largest collection of books in the world on the subject of sex is in the Vatican Library.’  (Who checks them out?!)  Seriously, better that they could go to prison, when found guilty; at least they have a time limit on their sentence, so they can get out and lead a normal life.

The Catholics still teach priests a divided system, which is not in the Bible; the natural, or secular, and the spiritual. Only the spiritual was pleasing to God. While the natural man is satisfied in the day-to-day mundane, the ideal was the mystic, who disdained the day-to-day issues.  To him, the natural events were viewed as a hindrance.  For the priest and the nun in monasteries or convents, withdrawal from everyone was the only way to truly develop the spiritual. BUT in God’s eyes, there is no difference between the sacred and the secular, in seeking spirituality.  Scripture tells us that whatever you do, whether to eat or drink, you do it all to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31).  You don’t serve God better by withdrawing from the world.  Jesus even prayed, ‘Father, I’m not asking that You take them out of the world, but to protect them from the evil one (John 17).  The Catholic doctrine of celibacy, as we have seen, given our sinful nature, had actually the opposite effect; it forfeited the reality of developing the spiritual life.  Forced celibacy introduces hindrances that will diminish, even pervert, most peoples’ spirituality.  Charles Hodge wrote the truth about marriage in his Systematic Theology:  

It is only in a married state that some of the purest, most disinterested, and most elevated principles of our nature are called into exercise.  All that concerns filial piety and parental and especially maternal affection depends on marriage for its very existence.  It is in the bosom of the family that there is a constant call for acts of kindness, of self-denial, of forbearance, and of love.  The family therefore is the sphere best adapted for the development of all the social virtues, and it may be safely said that there is far more of moral excellence and of true religion to be found in Christian households than in the desolate homes of priests or in the gloomy cells of monks and nuns.     

To introduce another element, latest surveys say that 50% of new priests are homosexuals.  But these men are predators, tempting the pent-up priests already there.  The thing that’s so sad about the priests is, he gave up all relationships, so he has no past to bring with him and treasure it.  His family name, without a child, has no future, so he has no legacy, and no binding family life. This is truly sad. 

A Scripture often misapplied is in Luke 14:26, where Jesus says:

 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

This verse is often taught to mean that Jesus told us to cut ourselves off from family.  It is instead a hyperbole, much like Matthew 19:24, where the likelihood for a rich person to enter heaven is compared to a camel going through the eye of a needle.  It’s not impossible for the rich to enter heaven, just difficult. Likewise here: Jesus is not saying to cut off and hate wife, mother, etc.  He is saying that our love for Him must greatly exceed our love for our wife, etc.  To the point that if your wife or your mom rejects Christ, you should still trust Him and endure persecution, even if you’re abandoned by your family by so doing. But it does not teach to cut priests off from family. Priests are broken, shattered, tragic, disconnected people.  They are victims of a terrible system. It is a soul-destroying process. 

On the elephant in the room, pedophilia: A recent survey shows that the average male homosexual offender will abuse 150 boys.  (The average heterosexual violator will abuse 20 girls or women).  Abusers of children don’t quit, they can’t quit.  The Church should have taken lightning action to eliminate this—but they’re spending most energies on hiding it and just moving these awful priests around.  Pedophilia is not where a priest begins, it’s the end of a long, long, pornographic conduct trail. Pedophilia is the caboose on the train. You don’t start your sin there—you end there. The deviation, after awhile, still doesn’t satisfy anymore as at first; so, often, the age of the child-victim has to get younger, so as to increase his excitement.

About the nuns:  There is a corrupt system to proselyte young women to become a nun.  The confessional is the recruiting booth for the convents. The best ‘prospects’ for nuns are women who are coming off of a shattered relationship. The Church looks for a sensitive soul who comes often to confession, often attends Mass.  So they prey on these women in their time of weakness, offering them that they can be like the Virgin Mary, having a secondary virginity. Or they will emphasize that the young woman could be married to Christ, and experience no betrayal of trust.  They have 60 days to give their possessions to the Church. For her to renounce the family is harder than for the men.  She has to kill all maternal instincts, which are God-given; she has to put to death the idea of being cared for by a man, which is God-given.  In the end, the nun is one of the most remarkable products of the Catholic Church; she is really a slave—she occupies hundreds of hospitals, or she teaches—either way, is poorly-paid; likewise in parochial schools and orphanages; one who is willing to offer her life (this would fill Communist leaders with jealousy). I’m surprised Amnesty International doesn’t raid those places.

There is no way we can strike an alliance with this system.  We need to rescue these people, both priests and nuns, and give them the real Gospel which does not depend on works to get saved. Give them freedom and deliverance in Christ.