The Battle Between Mainline Liberal and Conservative Christian Churches

 My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "read what it says in Matthew 18 before you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on the pastors' views I expressed, they may not be members of the “church,” as Scripture defines it. And, since Matthew 18 says to confront them face-to-face first, how does a little guy like me privately approach these people?  Their pastor should do that job, really. And let's not forget that 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 boldly made that, whether they know it or not, are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, those who have the gift of pastor are supposed to be shepherds; his congregation are the flock of sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend the sheep? 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 against this blasphemy by speaking up.

Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar (we referred to it on the blog of 7/25), there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’d like 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. Nor does it mean that every single church in that denomination is in line with some heretical thinking we give.  But we may ask:  If you, after reading this, disagree on your denomination's major theological points, why would you stay in that denomination?

Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, have gotten to the point that their "gospel" presents a major contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor I used here, of course, is the statements of Scripture vs. their stated belief system. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though, in fairness, their congregations often don't take His Word seriously), and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. Opposing them, though, are groups who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to an anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation of it in light of today’s sensibilities. Keep in mind that Scripture definitely claims to be the Word of God.  Consider the definite meaning of "God-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Mainline “churches” who have "updated" their beliefs (and often "water down" the Gospel message, and even become heretical) include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, 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 the substitutionary atonement of Christ.  This leads people like H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise that their creed amounts to: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Evangelical denominations who believe Scripture is God-breathed include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, 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 post its creed. Also, don’t get put off by people who use sarcasm, calling evangelical groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge proudly, maybe a little too proudly.  But as you can see, there are plenty of churches that have a loose leash now that they are free to judge God on what's "really" His Word for now. (Men judging God?)

So let's get down to brass tacks:  Here are five fundamental beliefs, 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 proof of his statement, 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." Atonement, by the way, is that Jesus paid the price for our sin. This lady has the wrong Christ.  And a similar blasphemous quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong (who died in 2021): “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.” But, as Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.” Both heretical statements above are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. Neither of these people will lead you to heaven.  Believe what they say here, and hell is your destination.  These congregations 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. By beliving the Bible might not be true for today, they are stating that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin--as Scripture defines it--without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, and the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong said Scripture promotes slavery, demeans women, and he says our Bible “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.

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; culture majority rules. 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 1950s 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, even if the German citizens didn't call attention when it went on under their noses. The majority who were soldiers were willing to kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If such a “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—and that, to them, is a no-no. So, by their own rules, they have to remain silent on genocide.  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 4:10, 12? Those veses sound pretty religiocentrist:

...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...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 those verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold, nevertheless. Remember, no quoted Scripture returns void (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride. Don't expect the real Gospel will attract friends.  Remember what happened to God's prophets in the Old Testament.

Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, one cannot say  anything is truly 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 non-believers, 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.”

Recent data indicate that they are just as numerous as conservative Christians.  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 be condescending, calling them 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 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 when you say it; after all, we should pray for the lost).

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

The Extremes of Antinomianism vs. Legalism

  Another great sermon by Dr. R.C. Sproul, again very nearly word-for-word.  On “doubtful things.”  Enjoy.

 The next step of our Christian life following our justification is sanctification, by which we are called to grow to maturity and into conformity to the image of Christ.   In defense of the gospel of justification by faith alone, Martin Luther said, “Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.  A true faith that is saving faith will immediately, necessarily, and inevitably begin to show forth the fruit of that faith in the progress of sanctification.”  Also remember the apostle who told us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling. For God is at work within us both to will and to do His good purpose.” (Philippians 2:12-13).  This means that we are not to be at ease once saved.  (Ed. Note:  I looked at the major translations of 2:12; they all ended with "fear and trembling."  I realize that people will use those words to avoid God, but the closer we get to Jesus, the better we can understand those words.)

 There are various pitfalls that undermine that progress along the way.  And perhaps the two most dangerous pitfalls are the distortions that we call antinomianism and legalism.  Antinomianism means “anti-law-ism.”  It asserts that once I am saved by grace, I no longer have to be concerned about living a life of obedience, or give any particular significance, to the Law of God.  One of the critical concerns of 16^th century Romanism, with the advent of the Reformation, was a belief that this doctrine of “faith alone” would lead to a spirit of antinomianism, because once the Law had fulfilled its purpose of driving us to Christ and the Gospel, it would have no more impact among us.  And there were those who literally moved in that direction. But we believe that though the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ and therefore abrogated, nevertheless the laws that are rooted in the very character of God, and are revealed in His moral law, still have relevance to the Christian.  Not as a means by which we achieve salvation, but rather as a means by which we proceed in sanctification—to do that which is pleasing to God.

 But we live in a time, within the evangelical church, where antinomianism is epidemic.  One denomination, in their doctrine, says the Old Testament Law has no further import to the life of the Christian.  And in that antinomian spirit, we have seen, I think, one of the most destructive doctrines that has been embraced widely in the evangelical community—namely the concept of the “carnal Christian.”  It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.  True, we have a fleshly spirit that is not completely eradicated until we enter Glory, but that’s not the problem when we encounter the doctrine of the “carnal Christian.”  Their idea is that a person can be truly saved, and receive Christ as Savior—but NOT as Lord.  And they may never produce any fruit of a sanctified life; but may remain carnal (fleshly) until death.  Christ is supposedly in this person’s life, but not reigning on the throne of their life.  “Self” remains established in the governing center and the core of the person.

 But on the other extreme of the continuum is the threat that’s always there of legalism.  What is legalism?  There is not one single monolithic form of legalism.  There are varieties, different types of meaning.  The worst meaning has reference to the idea that by your works, you can satisfy the demands of God’s Law, and can gain salvation through your own works.  That is the view that is so widely held by people who have never heard the Bible say that “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified” (Romans 3:20).  In fact, the vast majority of people out there really believe in a works-salvation, a legalistic manner and means of being redeemed.  Which is false not only with respect to the way of salvation set forth in Scripture; but it is a way of salvation that if it were indeed the Biblical way of salvation, would cause these people who believe it nothing but everlasting Doom.  Because none of us do the works of the Law that are required to satisfy the legal demands of God.

 Other forms of legalism were those perfected by the Pharisees, which drew the rebuke, and at times, the wrath, of our Lord Himself. The Pharisees were fond of majoring in minors.  That’s a form of legalism where you give great zeal and great attention to minor matters of the Law, but ignore the weightier matters of the Law.  They paid attention to the tithe, but ignored justice and mercy.  You know people like that; they’re scrupulous in their church attendance, they wouldn’t think of shorting God in the collection plate--but as far as the rest of the fruit of the spirit is concerned, they could care less!  They have majored in minors.

 The other thing the Pharisees were experts at was a kind of “ethical loop-holism.”  If they could obey the letter of the Law, never mind the spirit of the Law, they spent time looking for a way around it to suit their needs.  If they wanted to go on a trip that was more than a Sabbath day’s journey, they would simply, during the week, have a courier leave a toothbrush under a rock at various intervals, because, legally, the presence of one’s toothbrush established temporary legal residence.  And so even though they made a trip of 15 miles in one day (thus breaking their law of travel on the Sabbath), they only went the distance passing these rocks containing their toothbrushes—so thus they legally never went more than a “Sabbath day’s journey.”  (These were Philadelphia lawyers before there was a Philadelphia.)

 But one of the most destructive forms of legalism then and now, the one that was most seriously practiced by the Pharisees, was to add to the Law of God. To bind men’s consciences where God had left them free.  Substituting the human tradition for the Law of God.  We wag our fingers at the Pharisees for doing that, but that problem has plagued the church in every generation.

The problem that we have between antinomianism on the one hand, and legalism on the other, depends on what kind of an atmosphere you have at your church.  To these poles of legalism and antinomianism are the questions of “indifferent matters” and Christian liberty.  Matters that are indifferent refers to those areas where God has not commanded to do or to abstain from.  We have Christian liberty in that zone.  Remember, though, Christian liberty never gives anybody the liberty to disobey God.  That’s another form of antinomianism, where Christian liberty becomes the disguise, or the license, for licentiousness, where people are saying, “I’m free, I’m liberated, by the Spirit (and so I can disobey God).”

 So the big issue is:  How we as Christians can co-exist, when we don’t always have the same understanding of what it is that fits into the category of God’s “indifference” and where our Christian liberty begins, and where it ends.  That was a problem in the Corinthian church, it was a problem in the Roman church, and it has been a problem ever since. Let’s look at Romans 14:1-2:

 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. ² For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Let not him
who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 

 Paul is saying, in the body of Christ you have weaker brothers who have this particular scruple about that which God has not legislated.  How are you to respond to the weaker brother?  We might insist on educating him on the spot, that our way is “correct.”  No; we both belong to Christ; how dare we judge one who is Christ’s servant?  If we are to judge, we are to judge according to the explicit standards set forth in sacred Scripture, not by dithering about on uncertain scruples.  I don’t think this situation is as bad today as it was 50 years ago.  Then, evangelicanism was plagued by a kind of spirit of legalism that said that if you’re a Christian, you don’t drink, you don’t smoke, you don’t dance, you don’t play cards, and you don’t go to movies. Now, those virtues still prevail in certain places; but this became such a matter that one’s entire spirituality, and even Christian profession, was to be judged by conformity to these specific taboos within the Christian community.  And you go through your Bible, and you can’t find anything explicit about them in Scripture.  So how can you judge?  But these became so important that they became the tests of one’s Christianity.  A lady who tells the waitress at a restaurant, “Oh, no, we don’t drink, we’re Christians,” leaves the waitress with the impression that that’s what Christianity is all about.  But is that what the Gospel is?  That’s not what the apostle Paul is saying here in this Romans text.  But many people have been taught that it is a sin to do things that God does not declare to be sinful.

 So, if I believe it is a sin to do these taboos, if I do it, is it a sin?  Yes!  Not because the thing itself is sinful; but what is sinful is doing something you believe to be sinful—that’s sin to do it.  That’s why we all have to be exceedingly sensitive and careful what we do around these folk.  Go back to the Corinthian problem (I Corinthians 8ff).  Meat was offered to idols in a pagan worship service, and then was sold in the marketplace—as meat.  Some Christians, not wanting a hint of scandal, or association with paganism, said, “I’m not going to buy that stuff.  It’s been tainted.”  What’s Paul’s view?  Hey, it’s meat.  It’s the difference of what we call primary and secondary separation.  Primary separation is where you separate yourself from offering meat to idols, which itself is a sin.  But if I decide I have to separate myself from anybody else who has ever offered meat to idols, or from the meat itself, that’s what we call “secondary separation.”  Actually, to be consistent in the application of secondary separation, you’re going to have to leave the planet!—because no matter where you are, or what you do, or from whom you buy, you’re going to be dealing, at some level, with people who are in sin.

 So how does the stronger brother deal with a brother who has this scruple? You can make fun of him, badger him with criticisms—or you can respect his conscience.  You should say, “I know you have this scruple, and I don’t want to make you stumble by trying to entice you to indulge in something that you are convinced is a violation of the Law of God.”  Paul says, and I don’t think he is just using hyperbole, “I will give up meat altogether for the sake of my weaker brother.”  That is his attitude.  If a person has a scruple that I don’t share, and that’s unto the Lord, and because their conscience is held captive by their understanding of the things of God, I am to bend over backwards to be caring, loving, sensitive to that person.  And not flaunt my liberty in their face.  You might do it in private so as not to scandalize the weaker brother. Thus, our liberty is not an autonomy whereby we’re allowed to do anything we feel like doing.  But it is a freedom that must always be accompanied by a charitable sensitivity to those who have scruples that are different from ours.

 But now here’s where it gets complicated.  What happens when the weaker brother wants to elevate the scruple he or she has to the level of a moral standard for Christianity, or a standard that must be obeyed to be a member in good standing; or a standard that it becomes necessary to be obeyed in order to be an officer in the church?  Now, the weaker brother becomes the legislating brother; and now he begins to take the scruple he has and uses it to bind the consciences of the people, and destroy Christian liberty—what do you do now?

 That’s one question.  Another question that is close on its heels is the question, “who really is the weaker brother?”   How do you discern it?  You can try to extend God’s morality, but extend it too far.  We have to be very sure that the standards we impose upon people in the church are Biblical standards, and not our own traditional scruples.  I’ve known ministers who have required of their elders that they must sign a pledge not to have any alcoholic beverage including wine—ever—in order to be qualified to be an officer in the church.  Thus they make a standard in the church that would preclude the membership of the apostle Paul, and, yes, of Jesus Himself!  That same pastor will tell you that the wine used in the Bible was not fermented.  Well, it’s not so clear.  Jesus was not called a wine-bibber because He drank Welch’s grape juice.  Nobody worried about exploding old wineskins by putting grape juice in them.  It’s not grape juice that “maketh the heart glad,” and it’s not grape juice that you take for your stomach’s sake.  The attempts to take a cultural thing in America and force it upon the Mideast cannot be done.  You go to Palestine and say that the vineyards were used to make raisins and grape juice; they will laugh you to scorn. No doubt a strong, vehement prohibition against drunkenness is needed, but we find it too easy to add to the standards of God.

 So here’s my problem.  When the pastor imposes that standard that I’ve just used as an example, or any other such extra-Biblical standard on the elders, will that minister admit to being a weaker brother?  Unlikely.  Ministers should not be weaker brothers; they should be able to handle Scripture in a way as to not be caught up in issues of whether to eat meat or vegetables—they should know better than that.  For the solution of this conundrum, let’s look at Galatians 2:11:

 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face…  

 Why? The next words: …because he was to be blamed.   Here we have a controversy between two titans of the apostolic community, Peter and Paul; and it’s not sensitively done in private, but to his face; and, under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, Paul incorporates it in sacred Scripture.

 Why are we breaking the rules about sensitivity, which will include not embarrassing him, and what about not reprimanding, that we outlined above?

Peter, from his Cornelius event, knew it was right to eat with the Gentiles when the Christians gathered.  But when the Judaizers came, Peter avoided the Gentiles. Paul felt that Peter was caving in (as Scripture puts it, “played the hypocrite with them
”) to the heretical doctrine of the Judaizers—who preached that Christians must also obey Jewish law when saved.  They had an army of scruples on matters where God had no doctrine to avoid or affirm.  Salvation did not include the old law and its man-made burdens.  We are to live by love, and by the Holy Spirit.

 Now, this is no longer the simple matter of eating vegetables or eating meat.  This had escalated into the Judaizer heresy, where they had reinstituted the requirements of the dietary and ceremonial laws upon Christian believers.  This was serious, and the Judaizers were the weaker brothers.  These people couldn’t live with the liberty that Christ had given them from these Old Testament practices.  Jesus gave that liberty, not simply out of kindness, but there were profound theological concerns there.  Paul said, if you enforce circumcision again, since the significance of circumcision has been fulfilled once and for all in the death of Jesus Christ—who was circumcised, or cursed by God—then you are now placing yourselves, symbolically, again, under all of the terms of the Old Covenant , that have already been fulfilled by Jesus—and you’re crucifying Christ afresh.  So it’s not just a matter of scruples; it’s the matter of the Gospel.  As Galatians 5:11-14 says:

 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. ¹² I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!  For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. ¹⁴ For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 Note that Paul really wishes people with serious heresy would be cut off from the church—and, as it really says, cut off from God! Paul insists that liberty is there, but warns against carrying that to the extreme of antinomianism. On the other side of the coin, God instructs sensitivity to those with scruples.  But the Judaizers were insisting that he circumcise Titus, to use another example.  And what did Paul do about that?  As soon as the weaker brother tried to enforce his weakness to become the law of the church, the real Gospel was threatened; and Paul fought tooth and nail against the tyranny of the weaker brother.  Anyone that tries to make it a rule of the church, they must be resisted. They must not be allowed to establish laws where God has left us free.  Applying these principles takes the wisdom of Solomon.  We apply the Word of God and the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts.  We cannot simply tenaciously hold on to our own liberty, but to protect the Gospel while being patient with those who are young in the faith—but try not to allow people to tell waitresses—and promote distortions about what being Christian is.

The Holy Spirit will help us in these decisions.  It is made easier by the overriding principle of love.

A new look at persecution and the Jews

 Here is another great sermon by David Pawson.  When you read it, you will see God’s hand in current history.  Hopefully my Cliff’s Notes (since the sermon was over 1-1/2 hours) still caught all the highlights. 

History’s greatest disasters happened in the 20^th century.  And of all of them, the most horrific was the holocaust.  The murder of 6 million Jews, one-quarter of them children, still seems unbelievable in the world.  They weren’t even fighting anybody. It was genocide, the murder of a race. Euphemisms abounded—the Germans called it a “solution,” (as if there were a problem); it’s also called “ethnic cleansing.”

Here is a terrible fact that has been hidden from us.  In 1938, the nations of the world realized that the Jews of Europe were in mortal peril—150,000 had already fled Germany, and they all knew full well what Hitler was going to do, since he laid out his fanatical hatred of the Jews 13 years before in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.  Franklin D. Roosevelt called a 10-day conference in July at a famous spa resort on Lake Geneva called Evian-les-Baines; 32 nations’ diplomats showed up.  He wanted to discuss what could be done to help Jews fleeing Nazi persecution.  They finally decided that changing immigration laws were the only option.  They desperately needed to open up nations to fleeing Jewish refugees. But two of the ‘great powers’ (U.S. and France) flat-out refused to help. The U.S. said they ‘can’t take any more.’  This set the tone for the conference; only three nations offered minimal help—Britain offered to take a few thousand children. The Netherlands and the Dominican Republic were willing to take a few hundred adults.  So the conference was a failure, and after the first day, most of the delegates were out sailing on their boats on Lake Geneva.  Observers went back to Germany and reported to Hitler, “you can do what you like with the Jews, the nations don’t care.”  Mr. Pawson believes that World War II was God’s judgment on the Western nations.

It was realized as early as 1942 that the Jews were not only persecuted, but being exterminated as a regular daily occurrence in camps.  This was obtained through decoding of the Enigma spy decoder that the U.K. obtained a copy of; it was valuable for determining enemy positions.  Part of the reason we didn’t consider swooping in to rescue was that Hitler would know we figured out his Enigma, and change the code.  (Ed. Note:  But why didn’t we bomb all the railroad lines leading up to them, to at least slow down the slaughter?  And, since it was a good bet that the genocide would speed up if the Germans were losing, and since victory was pretty certain by early spring 1945 (when the Battle of the Bulge didn’t stop us), why did the Allies not send special elite troops of commandos to take control over the camps?  The Air Force could be sent to defend the commandos’ positions.  It would not have required any exhaustion of our forces at all.)

(Further notes:  Of nations under Nazi rule, Poland, where most of the death camps were, has the terrible distinction of wiping out the highest percentage of Jews who populated there pre-war:  they murdered 3 million of their 3.3 million original population, or 90%.  Shockingly, a close second place was Greece, who murdered 87% of its pre-war Jewish population. At the other end, Denmark only killed 1% of their populated Jews, despite pressure to do more from their Nazi masters.  Last note:  Most of the Ukrainian refugees, in their current war with Russia, are going to Poland—how will they treat them, I wonder?)

Back to Mr. Pawson:  I could tell many grisly stories about how ‘functional’ the Germans found their Jewish prisoners—hair for cushions, skin for lampshades, their fat for soap, even their ashes for fertilizer. In Treblinka, the fields were a yard deep in ashes. Let’s not go any further.  The whole story can be visually obtained in London, at the Imperial War Museum; or by reading Martin Gilbert’s book, ‘The Holocaust:  Jewish Tragedy.’

Think about the irony of it:  Germany, the land of Luther, together with Germanic Austria, with their combined beautiful culture in Berlin and Vienna, and their glorious history of musical composers—Beethoven, Mozart, Strauss—yet that is where the germ of Jewish hatred began—in a ‘Christian’ country, not in Islam. But Germany also led the world in theologians who believed in Higher Criticism—the purpose of whose efforts was to denounce as liars and fakery the God-inspired Scripture.  By destroying faith in the Bible, it helped empty the churches in Germany; and its poisoned work spread to Britain and the U.S. Many of our seminaries are still teaching our new pastors not to trust everything in Scripture as Truth.

The big question is, “why did this happen in Germany first?”  It was ‘Christian;’ the northern half was Protestant Lutheran, the southern half Catholic.  We’ll start with Hitler.  He didn’t always hate the Jews.  He started out as a failed watercolor artist in Vienna, so poor he didn’t have an overcoat.  And a rabbi took pity on him and gave him one, which Hitler wore for years.  But Vienna already had a strong anti-Semitic mood.  Jews were despised—but Hitler wrote this in his diary:  “In the Jew, I saw only a man who was of different religion; and th
erefore I was against the idea that he should be attacked just because he had a different faith.  Anti-Semitism is unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people.”  Can you believe that?  So, what went wrong? He actually began his massive killing spree (October 1939) not with the Jews, but with the physically and mentally disabled.  They were herded into trucks, hose pipes were connected to passenger chambers, and they were gassed by carbon monoxide. Then he moved on to the elderly, whom he regarded as ‘useless eaters.’ He conducted this killing under the guise of a Euthanasia program. (Euthanasia is now legal in the following European countries:  Belgium, Netherlands, Holland and let’s throw in Canada—under Justin Trudeau—but not Britain; and surprise, it is legal in a Catholic country in Europe, Spain).  They often pressure the old, lonely patient shoved off into a nursing home, about quality of life, and assist in their death.  Hitler’s SS men asked no questions:  They tottered or wheeled them off to their death camps.  Then he moved on to undesirables, like half a million gypsies, the homeless, the tramps.  Hitler decided who was unworthy of belonging to a great people, the Aryans.  He didn’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses for no reason known; and he killed other Christians who spoke out and protested.  Two come to mind:

Dr Martin Niemoller, a theologian, had a famous quote that he used to explain his boldness on speaking out against Hitler:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

As you can see, we should care when anybody was denied their civil rights, no matter if we agree with them.  Niemoller escaped, and lived until 1984.  Then there was Dr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also a theologian, who helped plot the failed assassination attempt on Hitler.  But he was killed.

But Hitler eventually concentrated on the Jews.  Several reasons have been suggested for his changing his focus of hatred:  Could it have started because he obtained syphilis from his lover, a Jewish girl?  Hitler willingly shared her with his deplorable friends, so that possibility was his fault.  Could he have read a famous fraudulent booklet, which originated in Germany, called “The Protocols of the Ancient Elders of Zion,” which speculated that the Jews had a secret conspiracy to take the whole world over.  Or was it because he, having military aims, needed to unify the people by focusing on a common enemy that he blamed for their troubles?  The Jews filled that need for a scapegoat well.  Oh, Germany had troubles, that led to chaos. Extreme hyperinflation wiped out the value of savings for retirement, or anything else.  That plus their high unemployment led to a ripe situation for dictators.  They had also signed a humiliating treaty to end World War I, which forced them to pay reparations to the world which they damaged. The Allies rubbed their noses in it, and they sought revenge.  (The Allies needed the spirit of how Abraham Lincoln handled the South, not the spirit that pervaded at the Versailles Treaty.)  They were forced to set up a democratic system, which was not in accord with their military sense of blind obedience to leaders. Eventually they only had two choices for political parties that changed:  the extreme left-wing Communists (which Hitler felt they were full of Jews), or the right-wing fascists. The upper class people were reading Darwin, Karl Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche too much as well (even though two of them were Jews); it is said that Darwin banished God from nature, that Marx banished God from history, and Freud banished God from the human soul. From these poisoned sources, hey believed God did not care, and that life was an animalistic struggle for dominance. And in their nationalism, they believed that the superior Aryan working man was more honorable than the rich proletariats.

There were increasing outbursts of anti-Semitism; in Poland, in Russia (which had its pogroms), even in France, where a Jewish military officer, Alfred Dreyfus, was banished due to his spying.  But there was no evidence.  His fellow officer was the spy, but easily convinced people by planting the evidence on him, a Jew.  Interestingly, that incident had a part in leading to the founding of the Jewish state of Israel.  Through all the previous centuries, the Jews were persecuted in Europe on religious grounds—namely, deicide, killing the Son of God. But that didn’t bother Hitler as much as their race, which he considered inferior. 

Pawson considers that underlying all factors for their continuous persecution was the fact that they were the chosen people of God, as Scripture said.  And the majority of humanity is in rebellion to God.   BUT why should God allow His chosen people to be persecuted and murdered?  Why did He abandon His people in their hour of deepest need, during the holocaust?  Did He make it happen?  Many Jews have been asking their rabbis, and abandoning their faith, not getting an answer for this question.  Some say it was reincarnation (or karma), for the sins of the previous generations.  Some rabbis say, “we don’t understand God, He is mysterious, hidden. It’s not our place to question God—He is sovereign.”  There is nobility in that argument, but it is not satisfying.  A more realistic explanation is, without the holocaust, there never would have been the state of Israel. And the nation of Israel has a part to play in Scriptural prophecies of the end times. In any event, the nations of the worldhad an outpouring of compassion and guilt that seldom happens; they granted something that never would have happened otherwise(Hard to believe the racism of man, but between 1945 and 1948, the British were transporting Jewish refugees to barbed-wire camps in Cyprus, and even sending them back to Germany. The world has never really accepted refugees, no matter how desperate their circumstances.

Here's the most interesting answer floated to that question: Many rabbis quoted Isaiah 53, about the suffering servant of God, and felt that in the holocaust, the suffering Jews shed their blood, and were making atonement for the sins of God’s people in the whole world.  THAT seems arrogant.  But we know Isaiah 53 prophesies Jesus shedding His blood for His people—but, of course, the Jews don’t believe in Jesus, which is why they were under a curse.  Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 lists most of the curses for disobedience.  Other chapters listed the blessings for obedience.  The Jews chose the former.  Interestingly, the two curse chapters reads like a journalistic report of the holocaust.  Here is a verse that shows a character about God that you will never hear about; Deuteronomy 28:63 warns of a curse of disobedience:

Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.

The Jews defied God terribly from 900 BC on, when Solomon’s death led to his sons splitting the kingdom.  They were defeated in war and oppressed countless times, but there were some incidents really severe that stand out.  They were massacred by Titus in 70 AD for their part in the death of Christ, but that was a short-lived suffering.  But it took til’ 1933 AD before God began administering a severe punishment that killed six times as many as the beating they took from the Romans, and it lasted 5 years in its greatest intensity. Mr. Pawson believes that the holocaust was partially due to how the Jews who lived in Germany forgot about God, and their connection to Him.  They were assimilated, and lost their identity, even their language (they spoke Yiddish in Germany).  But God’s chosen people were to be different, as we Christians are to be different from the world.  If they had abided in Him, He would have blessed them and they would be a wonderful evangel. But God had no use for His people who wanted to be the same as the world.  God knew that wherever Jews assimilate, anti-Semitism rears its ugly head.  Besides, it was another slap in the face and another defying their covenant they made with Him in Exodus.  To get God’s feeling about that, read Ezekiel 20:32-33:

“You say, ‘We want to be like the nations, like the peoples of the world…But what you have in mind will never happen. ³³ As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will reign over you with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath. 

There it is again, this thing about God’s anger you probably never hear about.  We should always read Scripture with the focus being to know God.  It is stupid not to know what He wants, and pay the price for that ignorance, as we see with the Jews. We can learn a lot about God treating His people from the Old Testament.

Another dunderhead move by the Jews that prob
ably added to their punishment was the following:  An agnostic Jew, Theodor Herzl, got a prophecy (sent by God), and persistently bothered all the Jewish influencers in all of Europe to seek their own land—oddly, he did this in the 1890s!  He tried to hold a Zionist congress of Jewish leaders in Munich in 1896, since he could see dangerous anti-Semitism on the horizon in Germany (this is why I claim it was a prophecy).  Would you believe, the German Jews appealed to their authorities and got him banned from such a meeting? He finally got It in Switzerland the next year, and later made a prediction that the Jews would get their nation in 50 years’ time.  (He was wrong by two months).  Herzl got his original inspiration from his anger over the Dreyfus incident.  But the nations remembered him later; he was a big reason they did get their country in 1948.  Unfortunately he died in 1904.  This incident proves that God will even work with someone who doesn’t even believe in Him to keep His plan rolling.  You have to believe God is in charge. I wish my history teacher could have taught us like Pawson taught.

Last, let’s consider Warsaw Poland, which had the most religious Jews left at the time (and there were not many overall).  Why did the whole city become a ghetto, and why did they get crushed in a futile battle with Nazi soldiers, if they were religious?  Well, because of their embrace of religious tradition and rejection of God’s Word.  They were supposed to be living under the Torah, or the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible).  Yes, there really were 613 commandments and bylaws in those books (thank God for the New Testament).  But Jewish law was allowed to become a confusing mishmash of God’s laws and rabbi’s traditions, such as in the Mishnah and Talmud.  It was already going on in Jesus’ day when He said, “you nullify the Word of God by your traditions.” (Matthew 15:6) But they ignored Him.  The legalistic tradition became burdensome; they didn’t like God.  Synagogues still discuss more interpretation of tradition than they do of their Holy Scripture. Sacrificial atonement for sin, a heart of the gospel to the Jew, had been replaced by repentance. Righteousness is an outward goal, not an inward one, as it should be. So the butchery of Warsaw was God’s answer.  He had used the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Midianites, the Edomites, now the Nazis—to discipline His people.  (That does not excuse those other nations who He uses to discipline them.)

Thank God for His mercy in this:  there was a limit to the sanctions of the covenant; i.e., on how much God’s discipline would hurt.  Any wrath outpoured would be temporary, first of all.  All the Old Testament prophets, while talking of Israel’s sin, always put out a hope for the future.  Secondly, God would never completely abandon His people—sanctions would never be total. Look at Jeremiah 31:35-36:

This is what the Lord says,

He who appoints the sun to shine by day,
       who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar,

       the Lord Almighty is his name:
³⁶ ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the Lord,
  &n
bsp;   ‘will Israel ever cease being a nation before me

 

Unfortunately, Israel is now learning Western ways and abandoning any sense of religion.  They have a higher percentage of agnostics than most nations. Few are orthodox, and are looked upon as the Amish in America. They must blame God for all their troubles, but if you read the Old Testament and what I’ve added above, the blame begins with them.  It is easy for people to blame God for suffering.  There is much to be learned about God in this paper, and by reading the Old Testament.  Do not assume God has changed His personality into a soft touch, like Grandpa God.  Jesus talked more of hell than anyone or any book of the Bible.  Matthew 7:13-14 says that only a FEW will reach life, or heaven.  The majority are headed for destruction, or hell.  Many, who assume they are “good” for heaven, will be shocked, on the day of judgment, to hear our Lord redirect them to hell, as He warned 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!’

 

Are you sure you are doing God’s will?  Do you definitely know God’s will that He is speaking of here? I have other blogs on this, but I urge you to a rapid reading through a red-letter Bible, and write the verses that speak of what pleases God’s will. “I
accept Jesus” is nowhere near a complete answer.

 

While Mr. Pawson does a great job pointing out reasons for God’s allowing persecution of His people, we need to look at ourselves and learn from this.  If we have pain, or grief, it is not always due to some gross sin that we did.  Sometimes that’s true.  But other times, we just have to accept that in the sin-filled world, lives get messed up.  We learn patience.  If we are truly born again, hopefully we never lose our trust that God still loves us, and brings us closer to Him.  If our lives were always roses, we would easily decide that we don’t need God—and forget that His mercy in just letting us live is more than we deserve. We all deserve hell, because our sins defy His holiness.  It is too easy to forget Him, and we are so easily drawn to the world, and not in pleasing Him, which is where we should be.  Let us show mercy to others, as He showed to us.  On a practical level, let us donate to the less fortunate, let us not be so strict on immigration laws.  Let us defend the unborn.  Let us see ourselves as mistake-ridden like the Jews, let us learn from them, and get determined to change our lives, going His way, in His will.

 

 

The Incarnation

 Christmas is about the incarnation of Jesus. From God to man. Strip away the season’s hustle and bustle, the trees, the cookies, the extra pounds, and what remains is a humble birth story and a simultaneously stunning reality — the incarnation of the eternal Son of God.

This incarnation, God himself becoming human, is a glorious fact that is too often neglected, or forgotten, amidst all the gifts, get-togethers, pageants, and presents. Therefore, we would do well to think deeply about the incarnation, especially on this day.

Here are five biblical truths of the incarnation.

1. The Incarnation Was Not the Divine Son’s Beginning

The virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem does not mark the beginning of the Son of God. Rather, it marks the eternal Son entering physically into our world and becoming one of us. John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated (ed., ruined) if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).

2. The Incarnation Shows Jesus’s Humility

Jesus is no typical king. Jesus didn’t come to be served. Instead, Jesus came to serve (Mark 10:45). His humility was on full display from the beginning to the end, from Bethlehem to Golgotha. Paul glories in the humility of Christ when he writes that, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).

3. The Incarnation Fulfills Prophecy

The incarnation wasn’t random or accidental. It was predicted in the Old Testament and in accordance with God’s eternal plan. Perhaps the clearest text predicting the Messiah would be both human and God is Isaiah 9:6: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

In this verse, Isaiah sees a son that is to be born, and yet he is no ordinary son. His extraordinary names — Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — point to his deity. And taken together — the son being born and his names — point to him being the God-man, Jesus Christ.

4. The Incarnation Is Mysterious

The Scriptures do not give us answers to all of our questions. Some things remain mysterious. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God,” Moses wrote, “but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Answering how it could be that one person could be both fully God and fully man is not a question that the Scriptures focus on. The early church fathers preserved this mystery at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) when they wrote that Jesus is “recognized in two natures [God and man], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. The Incarnation Is Necessary for Salvation

The incarnation of Jesus does not save by itself, but it is an essential link in God’s plan of redemption. John Murray explains: “[T]he blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 14).
And the author to the Hebrews likewise writes that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).

The incarnation displays the greatness of God. Our God is the eternal God who was born in a stable, not a distant, withdrawn God; our God is a humble, giving God, not a selfish, grabbing God; our God is a purposeful, planning God, not a random, reactionary God; our God is a God who is far above us and whose ways are not our ways, not a God we can put in a box and control; and our God is a God who redeems us by his blood, not a God who leaves us in our sin. Our God is great indeed!

Written by Joseph Scheumann, December 25, 2013

Fleeing an Ancient Darkness

Here's a bit of how the poorest live; it may spark your giving internationally as well as domestically:

Sitting in a home that doubles as a church building in rural Sierra Leone (one of the poorest countries in Africa, income $500/year average), 24- year-old Miracle Conteh was about to share secrets from her childhood that she knew could get her killed. But then, those who would kill her—members of a secret society to which she once belonged—were already pursuing her for leaving their ranks to follow Christ. For two years, Miracle, known as Sassa until coming to faith in Christ at age 14, performed ancient rituals that involved interacting with demons, casting spells, and performing bodily mutilations. She learned the rituals from her grandmother, who leads the secret society.

During those two years, Miracle said, she felt no fear of the evil spirits with which she interacted. In fact, she felt comfortable in their presence. ”Wherever I went, I sensed the presence of evil spirits all around me” Miracle said. “There was nothing in me that made me feel that I must come out of it, because I never sensed anything like God in me. I was just going forward more deeply into it.”

More than half of Sierra Leoneans are Muslims, and nearly 13% are Christians.  Most of the remaining population practice ethnic religions.

Despite this public adherence to religion, an estimated 90% are additionally aligned with secret societies that dominate all aspects of life in Sierra Leone. At about the age of puberty, boys are often initiated into the Poro society.

Leaders of these societies hold considerable local power, and national politicians even seek their endorsement, and promise to protect their rituals and customs. Most politicians approve of the rituals, with some supporting Poro and Bondo (for young women) houses financially to ensure that the rituals continue throughout Sierra Leone. They believe that the societies help create social order, and preserve cultural values.

Families that refuse to join or participate in the societies, including Christians, are treated as outcasts.  They are denied any decision-making roles in their village.

During the Poro initiation ceremonies, boys receive ritualistic cuts on their backs, signifying the teeth marks of a demonic spirit. Likewise, girls who enter Bondo suffer ritual genital mutilation as an initiation to womanhood. Nine of ten girls undergo this ritual in Sierra Leone, which has the highest rate of female genital mutilation in Africa. The women who administer these rites are revered, and are believed to hold supernatural powers.

Miracle was born into a Muslim family, and raised by her grandmother from a young age.  Her grandmother is a zowie, a Bondo leader for her village. When Miracle turned 12, her grandmother began preparing her to become a zowie as well. At the end of a school year, when the Bondo initiation rituals often take place, Miracle’s grandmother would send her into the forest to collect leaves for secret rituals. “Before she could send me to the forest to pick specific leaves, she would consult an evil demon spirit,” Miracle recalled. “Then I would be able to find the leaves that she needed.” The leaves are used to make a potion thought to prevent the girls from feeling pain during the ceremony. 

As the Bondo initiation starts, the girls have their faces painted with white clay, and are led deep into the forest by a demon.  The zowie, who embodies the devil, wears a wooden mask and a costume generally made of palm leaves. The devil typically uses an unsterilized razor or knife to mutilate the girls, who receive no form of anesthesia other than the leaf potion. The girls are often tied down, and their mouths are covered.

 

Following the ritual, the girls take an oath of secrecy, and are told that if they disclose the society’s secrets, they will be killed. Just discussing the ritual with a nonmember, including a doctor, could be considered breaking the oath.

As Miracle grew in her understanding the rituals, her grandmother allowed her to wear the devil costume and conduct the mutilations herself.  She was 13 at the time. “I was the one actually doing almost everything,” she recalled.  “At my young age, I initiated 35 girls into the secret society.”

Looking back on those two years of her childhood, Miracle said she felt as if she had lost control of her soul, invoking demons and seeking their guidance.  “In the secret society, you are assisted by an evil spirit to carry it out,” she said. “In most of my work, I operated alongside the evil spirits, and they directed me what to do.

In addition to teaching her the initiation rituals, Miracle’s grandmother taught her how to enter a spiritual realm through incantations, and by invoking demonic spirits. Then, Miracle said, she could interact with the demons to further learn the ways of the secret society, and to control people. Miracle ceremonially entered a witch’s coven. And in their presence, she said, she could physically control and harm people in ways similar to voodoo, which originated in the nearby West African country of Benin. “That attracted many young people to me because I gained power in the spirits,” Miracle said. When I am inside that witch’s coven, those in the physical realm, whatever I tell you, no matter how big you are, you listen to me and you do what I tell you to do.”

Miracle said that she and her grandmother even killed children by ritually kidnapping their souls.  The disturbing tales of these “killings” included figuratively “eating” their flesh and “drinking” their blood—all from the spiritual realm. Miracle said that later, in the physical world, parents would find their children’s bodies and have no idea what happened to them.

These shocking claims were corroborated by a Christian front-line worker who had escaped the Poro secret society as a young boy, and now helps former secret-society members like Miracle. He said stories like hers of demonic-influenced killings are common throughout the region. “A doctor can’t find any blood,” the worker said. “The child is plain white, and when you take them to the hospital, the doctor will tell you, ‘There is no blood in this child.’”

Reflecting on her time in the secret society, Miracle recalled limitations to the dark power she gained by invoking the support of demons and witches. Each time her power was limited, a Christian was involved. “There is something in the Christian that prevents you from taking that soul.” I want to tell you that it is not only because my grandmother said it, but I myself tried it and saw it with my naked eyes. I saw it in the children who became Christians; when we wanted to take them, it was difficult. Those children you cannot take. There is a force that fights you.”

One evening when Miracle’s grandmother was visiting another village, a Christian pastor arrived with a projector and a small screen.  He had come to the village to share the JESUS films. As she watched the life of Jesus projected on a portable screen that lit up the night, Miracle said she felt moved by Christ’s teachings and miracles. She also realized that she had encountered Jesus in the spiritual realm. He was the force that protected the Christians she and her grandmother had tried to control. “My heart was fixed to the Lord Jesus Christ,” she said. “I started yearning to give my life to Christ.”

At the conclusion of the film, the pastor asked if anyone wanted to place his or her faith in Jesus Christ. Miracle decided to walk forward.  “I made an attempt,” she said, “but it was like something held me back.” Although she didn’t walk forward at that moment, Miracle later joined the pastor and others at a church in a nearby village, where they prayed together. Miracle still hadn’t come to faith in Christ, but she said she felt at peace during the all-night prayer meeting.

When Miracle returned home the next morning, her grandmother, who was back from her visit, asked her where she had been. “The people who came, they had a church,” she answered. That was all her grandmother needed to hear.  “I have made you a leader in our society,” she shouted, “what are you doing with these…church people?”

Her grandmother gathered the elder Bondo women, and told them that Miracle had attended a church service. “Immediately, a decision was reached that for treading my foot in the church, I should be killed,” Miracle said.  “I had violated the law.” About 30 women took Miracle into the forest, made her take off her clothes and tied her down.

“They flogged me very seriously that night,” Miracle said, crying. “They said, ‘If you ever try to follow that pastor, the next time we will kill you.’”

Miracle headed for the pastor’s house as soon as she was untied, but the women realized where she was going and recaptured her. They beat her again, and one of the women rubbed a crushed hot pepper in her eyes and elsewhere on her body. Screaming, Miracle broke free from the women and continued running, eventually reaching the pastor’s home.

Realizing Miracle’s life was in danger, the pastor and his wife immediately let her in their home. When the women arrived at the house a short time later, they ceremonially cursed the area where the pastor showed the JESUS film and led worship services. Throughout the night and into the morning, they threw stones at the house and ordered the pastor to release Miracle so they could kill her. Eventually, the pastor was able to take Miracle to a church, where she stayed with another pastor for about a month.

While staying at the church, Miracle placed her faith in Christ. After her baptism, she took on the name “Miracle” to honor the way God had brought her out of darkness and into light.

Ten years after coming to faith in Christ, Miracle is part of a vibrant church and continues to grow in faith.

In December 2022, Miracle graduated from a three-year sewing program. She said she is grateful for her sewing machine and the training she received from the school; they are helping her provide for herself and have given her a place in society that doesn’t require keeping secrets. “I want whoever reads my story to be praying for me to stay in the Lord,” she said. “That is the most important thing, staying in Christ.”

Miracle’s grandmother is unable to attack her through the spiritual realm, but Miracle has heard that she is still pursuing her. Still, she doesn’t fear her grandmother or the others who wish her harm. She keeps her eye solely on Christ. “Until I go to glory,” she said, “I will be with the family of Jesus. My grandmother, I don’t think about her.”

Instead of the demons and witches she interacted with as a young girl, Miracle is now filled with the Holy Spirit and protected by the blood of Christ. She trusts God to continue lighting the path before her in a spiritually dark region of Africa. “What happened to me in the spirit realm, I didn’t understand,” Miracle said. “Today I can call on the name of Jesus and I am able to understand that dark realm and the Light of the world. I praise God that I am now in the light.”

Two Proofs About the Timing of the Rapture (Part 2 of 2)

Joel Richardson’s sermon on the 10 virgins, is my second proof in this parable that the time of the tribulation vs the rapture is not what people think (the first proof was last week).  His sermon on this second proof is short, as well as the rest of this paper. He disavows the pretribulation rapture. He explains how the Jewish marriage supper is an allegory of us Christians (the Bride of Christ) having a wedding supper with the Groom (Jesus). And how it proves a post-tribulation rapture; a rapture after most of the tribulation; not a pretribulation one, as we will summarize.  It’s in The Parable of the Ten Virgins, told in Matthew 25:1-13:

…the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. ² Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ³ Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, ⁴ but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. ⁵ But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’ ⁷ Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. ⁸ And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ ⁹ But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ ¹⁰ And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut. ¹¹ “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ ¹² But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ ¹³ “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

First, the groom is not marrying 5 women at once.  The word ‘virgin,’ in this case, is simply a young woman, unmarried.  The 5 who got in to the wedding supper might just be bridesmaids, or the bride’s entourage. The important lesson is that another 5 of the 10 young women were not preparing for the groom’s arrival, so they were not allowed in the wedding feast.  Applying that to us, if we are not loving our Lord enough to be anxiously looking for His arrival, and eagerly awaiting the opportunity to escape the sins of earth, we are not true Christians.  Do not get lost in the world, people, and learn to focus to the necessity of your abiding in Christ instead (John 15:1-6). Otherwise, you may miss heaven, Jesus is saying in those sections of verses. If your priorities did not get radically changed (into a new person) when you got “saved,” you may not end up saved. 

You may ask, “if that’s the main purpose of this parable in Matthew 25, why are we looking at it for End Times discussion?” Well, Matthew 25 may not appear so, but is still part of His Olivet Discourse on the End Times. Also, it does speak of the Coming of the Bridegroom for His bride, so it has relevance to our subject. It answers the question, “Do Jewish wedding rituals in the first century prove a pretribulational rapture—or a post-tribulation one?”

(Besides this discussion, I suggest reading Revelation 19:2, 7-9; here are the salient portions:

“For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.” …the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. ⁸ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

Notice in context of nearby verses in revelation that the marriage (and supper) is after the coming of the Lord, since He has already performed  Judgment. These Revelation verses, and the Ten Virgins verses, are the only two sections of verses that explain the timing of the rapture vs. the marriage supper.)

Why is the timing of the wedding supper an issue? Pretribulationists believe Christians, previously dead or alive at rapture, go straight to heaven. But there is a problem. Somehow they have to try to enjoy the marriage supper, while the new Christians and Jews and their unsaved families are getting murdered by the millions during the tribulation back on earth.  Kind of a downer idea, isn’t it? Uh, I’m not ready for dessert.

On the side, I just want to throw in another important idea:  the Bible takes the view that Israel is the Bride.  Is there any room for us Gentiles?  Not a problem; in Romans 11:17, Paul exposits that we saved Gentiles were grafted into the Israel’s olive tree, and become part of God’s Israel. Saved Jews and Christians are all called “Israel.”  To express the unity of the Church.  Galatians 3:28 says “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” 

Pretribulationists, usually also followers of dispensational ideology, really need to learn that God doesn’t treat the Jews and Christians as separate groups under the New Testament.

Now let’s get back to the Ten Virgins. We’ll start by saying, first century Jewish wedding customs placed the marriage supper at the home of the bride, NOT at the home of the groom or his parents.  For the Last Days, that means we do NOT have the marriage supper in heaven (Father’s house), but on earth, at the New Jerusalem (Bride’s house). After that supper, according to custom, the groom would take the bride to his house--heaven.  (J. Snodgrass, Stories of Intent.  He is basing this on Tobit 7 and 8, in the Apocrypha).

So the order of events is, the Groom (Jesus) leaves His house (leaves heaven), and makes His way towards earth, then pauses in the clouds, waiting for His angels to act. His angels ride with him (not us riding with him).  When the groom is visible from earth (that’s where the cosmic disturbances bring that about), the shout and trumpet blast are given, and, if we are ready (ie, having been born again and love Him, and are looking for His arrival), we (the bride) come up to greet Him (in the clouds) and escort Him back to her house on earth.  Like coming to greet a visiting dignitary and escorting him back.  A big meal is served, and the father gives his daughter to her groom, with his blessing, and then they go back to his house to consummate the marriage. That’s when we go to heaven. (I have another blog on when we go to heaven).

To prove the point Scripturally, notice my underline in v. 10 of Matthew 25 above.  Note that the bridegroom came, the prepared young women went in with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut. That’s it—clearly those were done in one place.  No mention of flying off to the groom’s place.  The supper, clearly, was there—at the bride’s dwelling. 

I hope this gives the proper meaning of this allegory, and helps you believe how pretribulation rapture is a figment of an 1830 imagination (I have another blog on that). This is one of many proofs of the opposite—it is post-tribulation.

If we live in that time, we will have a target on our backs. Temptation to abandon Christ will be great. (Or, believing in a false doctrine will be great).  The Scripture says we must endure to the end to reach heaven.  May God show us how to endure the tests of the man of sin, if we are alive in those last days, and may God show us how to prepare for His coming.  We don’t want to miss heaven.  No. Nyet.