Nik’s Notes

Comfortable Christianity

Ξ March 27th, 2007 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Doctrine, Christian Living |

Let me say at the outset, that this is more of a vent than a message. Sure, venting can be cathartic and even wind up being more useful than a lot of prepared articles, but just so you are warned ahead of time, this is going to be a different article - and it may be useful to no one but me. Having got that off my chest, I’ll proceed.

I imagine many writers and/or speakers are driven to present on issues that are affecting them at the moment. Often, it isn’t realized that an author is driven by things that are directly impacting him. I have heard it said that those that preach the hardest against certain things are often either the worst offenders in those things - or at least have great weaknesses in those particular areas. That is not to gainsay the Spirit of God at work in a man. But scripture says that no man knoweth the things of man but the spirit that is in man and no man knows the things of God save the Spirit of God. So, in many ways, it is a great necessity that those that speak, write and preach on what they do are often driven to do so by what may seem self-centeredness (they are going through something so they have to speak on that). This is where discernment is of the utmost importance. Jesus was “qualified” to speak and minister to us on earth in part because He experienced all we do. He was touched with the feelings of our infirmities and was tempted in all points like as we yet without sin. The preacher who ministers a word today may well be led by the Spirit of God, but you can bet that what he is speaking about is a matter of immediate importance to him personally. Sometimes because it is a crisis of conscience that he struggles with, and sometimes because of conviction of the Spirit of God. Be careful, then, how you judge those in places of authority and those that teach. They receive the greater judgment because they are responsible for so many hearers.

What, then, should we say about nice, neat, academic, prepared sermons? While this is not the main focus of my message, it leads into what I want to express. These sermons are those that are amply researched, often rewritten and proofread countless times to ensure that there is no grammatical error, no unintended expression and certainly no deviation from orthodoxy. All this is well and good, but what does it engage? What does it entrench? What aspect of man does it address? You see, while many churches are witness to these kinds of sermons that serve mainly to show off the minister’s literary skill, the same thing is liable to happen in churches where the ministers speak in a more motivational style or in churches where the sermon is outlined but the minister simply “flows” with the tenor of the message. Even in churches where the minister has a topic in mind but doesn’t prepare any notes at all. You see, the churches have come to a place where the Word of God as expressed in Hebrews 4:12 is all but absent. I have not been to most churches but I do know that we have come to a place where the goal of Christianity, in the main, is to make people comfortable with themselves. Yes, there may be preaching against sin and in favor of holiness. Yes, there may even be calls for repentance and restoration. All these are wonderful, but there is something largely missing (and you must realize I can only speak in generalities as I do not have personal experience in every church in North America). The messages and the teaching may be correct, it may contain accurate statements, it may even be entirely composed of accurate statements about relevant spiritual issues, but - as someone I greatly respect in the faith has said - it was good, it was right, it was true and it was sound, but it was NOT the Word of God.

In more reserved churches, the sermon is an essay composed and read by a learned man. In churches with more energy, the sermon is filled with emotional pleas and exhortations. In churches that are a little of both, the sermon is intellectual with a hardness that demands men follow after holiness but cannot equip them adequately to do so in the way God desires. We speak to the mind. We speak to the heart and we even speak to the soul and the conscience - but the problem is that it is “we” that are doing the speaking. The mind may be fed interesting facts or laws or it may be chastized - but it is not cut down with the Sword of the Spirit. The heart may be thrilled with the ecstasy of hearing about what the Lord has done or singing wonderful hymns or songs of worship or it may even be saddened by hearing of others that do not follow the Lord and the hardships they face. But all this is vanity unless the heart is quickened to believe on Him who knows it full well - and to recognize its own inability to please God. The soul and the conscience may be challenged to understand and to either take heart or to abase itself that the Lord may fill and nourish the inner man. But all this is done, by enlarge, by man’s words and intimations instead of the Spirit of God subtly but firmly halting all of man’s self-will and allowing that man to submit in quietness to the firm but loving Hand of the Almighty One. You see, a Comfortable Christianity has set in. It is a christianity that is comfortable for one reason and one reason alone - the flesh retains a measure of control. Not self-control, but control of surroundings. The flesh wants to reign and it can even reign when it seems to be abased. Just as the self-flagellations of medieval monks was a puffing up of the very flesh it may have seemed to be putting down, so too is it all too easy for us to accept things that may seem to be the Word of God, when those words are just man’s imitation of what he thinks the Word of God is expressing. The difference is immense. We are most comfortable when we have control of our surroundings. The Spirit of God - the God of All Comfort - shows us that true, Godly comfort is only had when the surroundings are left to themselves and we possess self-control which is one of the fruits of the Spirit of God.

The mark of a move of the Spirit of God is usually so subtle that it isn’t recognized at first. The flesh fights it naturally, and it is only when the minister patiently persists in presenting the call of the Spirit that the hearer eventually becomes aware that he is indeed resisting the Spirit of God at some deep level. It is a resistance that is not emotional, but it can bring about an emotional response just as an acquiescence to the Spirit of God is not emotional, but can evoke emotion that is so deep, that it becomes apparent that it is not even from our own selves. The Christian church of the Western World is increasingly walking the path of the idolatrous - whose God is their belly - and the things of God that transcend intellect, emotion, and desire have been sidestepped.

There have been a few times that I can remember when I have been aware of this wooing of the Spirit. Those times are unique. When they occur, there is no doubt that it is not something of man. The minister did not bring it about and my own mind didn’t concoct a feeling. It is undeniably “other”. And as the flesh pushes against the Spirit’s work, there must come a recognition of that war so that the flesh can be restrained. The only job of the hearer is to restrain the flesh and let the Word and Spirit of God have its perfect work. But we don’t want to do this. We want to reason what seems logical or find some way to sidestep the confrontation. If we are honest with ourselves in this moment, we cannot do either. Emotion and intellect have been bypassed. And it is well - for they are part of the flesh that deceives and cannot please God. Neither are wrong, but neither can do what the Spirit of God must do. THEN (and only then) once the work has been done, there is a marvelous change wrought in that man. A change so beyond understanding that he cannot understand how his mind and his heart can be so quiet yet so joyous. His flesh can be so minimized yet he is at peace - the peace that passeth all understanding is his because he has allowed God to work.

But until we have ministers that patiently present that which God speaks - until the flesh of men is subdued in the teacher - the hearer finds nothing to fight against and the flesh is given the preeminence. This is, I believe, why we have so many men preaching health, wealth and lives of ease - because the flesh is allowed to have sway. There is nothing wrong with health, wealth or comfort. These are all gifts to be received with thanksgiving - but they are just that - gifts. Even life itself is a gift. But to exalt these things is to put the gift above the Giver - idolatry. There is a great treasure to be had in Jesus Christ. One which never enters into the heart or mind of man but by the Spirit of God. This treasure is beyond all that is seen and is hardly affected by outward poverty and tribulation. In fact, the times it is affected by hardship is when it is made stronger and greater. You will hear no sweeter praise nor more powerful worship and understanding of God than when you meet a man who has suffered immensely for the gospel of Jesus Christ. In general, you will find that in anyone who is walking in full submission and obedience to the will of the Heavenly Father.

We have these treasures in earthen vessels but we naturally give preference to the vessel instead of the treasure. The Christian church today (again, generally) has it inverted. The only way this is going to change is if the Word of God is allowed to have its sway. No great work on man’s part is needed. Only to restrain the flesh in all aspects of its existence. Not to punish it nor to glorify it but to restrain it. Taking up our cross is one of going into a seemingly anonymous existence. The flesh loves pain and tribulation if it can be recognized for it. That is not what Jesus requires. Laying down our lives one for another means not only sacrificing time and resources, but giving up recognition. We are told, when we give a feast, to invite the lowest of the low. The poor, the sick, the lame - all those that are unable to repay in any way - then we will have treasure in heaven. Otherwise, we already have our reward. This is not a comfortable way - but it is the only way one who has the Spirit of Christ can operate. It is the way that he must go if he is to live. His flesh must be left out of the picture and have no recognition. Such a lonely death - just like the Saviour’s.

We need a revival of discomfort and spiritual dissatisfaction.

He that is Spiritual

Ξ March 23rd, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Christian Living |

There is a verse in Paul’s epistles that speaks of “he that is spiritual” restoring a fallen brother in Christ.

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Galatians 6:1

This is one of the few places in scripture that speaks of a “spiritual man”. Hosea 9:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:15 are the only other references I know of where a man, specifically, is called “spiritual”. The law is called spiritual, Paul refers to a spiritual house, there are many references to spiritual gifts, spiritual food, spiritual wickedness and even spiritual cities are referenced.

Here are the other two references to a man being spiritual :

The days of visitation are come, the days of recompence are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.
Hosea 9:7

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1 Corinthians 2:15

The basic question here is “what does it mean to be a spiritual man”? It doesn’t appear to mean one who has a spirit. The criteria seem to be a bit more specific than that. If it refers merely to one who has the Spirit of God, then is the fallen brother in Christ of Galatians 6:1 not spiritual (or was he ever spiritual)? It seems to me that I Corinthians 2:15 answers the question the best - the spiritual man judges all things and is judged of no man. The spiritual man has discernment into things in a way that few others do. The spiritual man has his focus on things of the spiritual realm - specifically the things of God.

I have often thought of the man of God - the truly spiritual man - to be somewhat aloof. While not entirely separated from men, the things that he thinks on set him in a lonely class. He is not worried about the pursuits of the flesh, though he does not ignore the demands in this life placed upon him and his family. His understanding of God and man make him uniquely qualified to render verdicts on many things - yet precisely because he is spiritual, he “judges nothing before its time”. Like everyone born of the spirit, even his entrances and exits are often unnoticed. Not because he tries to hide, but because his flesh is under subjection. He is led in ways and to places that the natural man gives little heed to. In other words, the spiritual man draws little attention to himself. All the attention comes as a result of his persistent obedience to God. The humility of spiritual man is apparent to all. And, because men are not naturally humble, it is not uncommon for his quiet consistency to arouse jealousy and anger in men who are entirely carnal. It seems that the spiritual man’s constant concern with the things of the spirit and the things that are not seen is often an irritant with men who are not so concerned. Yet the spiritual man is also able to speak to others in their situation. The wisdom of Christ is made his, and he uses it wisely. He recognizes things in others that they do not (and cannot) see, and the application of this wisdom is like a sword that penetrates to the deepest regions of man’s being. With a single word or phrase, the sword is thrust in and the corrupt flesh removed - leaving the recipient changed. The words used, of themselves, often seem insignificant - but the power that brings about their action is immense. It, too, seems to come from nowhere. And no matter how hard the fleshly man tries, he cannot duplicate what seemed so easy yet so effective - the fruit of a spiritual man.

I think I see all this because it pretty much encompasses what I’m not.

Modern Christianity - About God or Man?

Ξ March 7th, 2007 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Doctrine, Christian Living |

Recently, William and Mary College came to a “compromise” with students and alumni and put a cross back up in a prominent place (though not on the altar where it had been for many years before the decision came to remove it altogether). You can find the story here : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257138,00.html. And while I don’t think much about having crosses on altars or anywhere, really, I couldn’t help but be struck by the message that it sent. Certainly, such a scene might be a replay of something done in the days of Cromwell when Roman Catholic idolatry was still an issue and “popish baubles” replaced the true articles of faith. But today, while the church is being stripped of imagery, there is a very different reason for it. The edifice is coming down and it is showing a corrupt, naked, poor body that bears little resemblance to the church that is the true Bride of Christ. Those doing the stripping are not zealous followers of Jesus Christ, but rather men against the very idea of absolute truth.

When a college named William and Mary (very prominent royalty of history - also Protestant) makes a decision to remove a cross because it “sends a message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than others”, how is true Christianity not torn down? How is it NOT that the state has controlled Christianity to the point that it all but denies its viability and acceptability as a rule of faith? How has the state not made a law respecting religion?

The statement made by the college president is very revealing. In a “christian college”, in a “christian chapel”, the message that is not tolerated is “the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than others”. Surely there is little proof needed that something drastic has happened to elevate some twisted idea of selective tolerance above the idea that there is right and there is wrong. Where the state had originally limited itself to not making any laws respecting religion, the people have accepted that to mean that there is no mixture of faith and politics. From there, we have seen any evidence of true faith - mainly the predominating faith of the early years of this country - being separated from anything that has any connection whatsoever to the state. From schools to offices to public sidewalks, that has been extended to anyone who pays taxes. This has meant a “trickledown” of atheistic state policies becoming ingrained in the minds of the people. In essence, the values of the state have become paramount because everyone has something to do with the state every day - regardless of their religious beliefs. And since there cannot be a void, either the values of the state or the values of the religion have to win out. There can not be neutral territory. It is either one or the other. If not, then the situation is hopeless - nihilism will have set in and anarchy becomes the only rule (every man for himself).
So what has happened? The state could not limit itself to things of its jurisdiction - criminal and civil proceedings, taxes etc… And in a country where the founding is based upon a recognition of God-given rights and God-mandated government, the only reason for eliminating religion from anything state-related is that a coup has occurred. The state has risen up and defied those things that were set in place - not merely by the founding fathers, but ultimately by God Himself. The State has said “no” to God and men have been forced to choose between one or the other - instead of serving the state which recognizes the operation of God, as was intended. We have, then, a state religion. It is true. There may not be any explicit law stating it straight out (not de jure) but it has been done covertly, so as to undermine the spirit of the existing framework (i.e. de facto). The constitution hasn’t changed, but it sits on someone else’s throne. Man’s. That’s why this president did what he did. He has agreed to the state religion - man as God.

What difference is there between taking a cross from a chapel because it implies ownership or identification with a specific belief (and not all share that belief) than taking a flag from a nation because that flag implies ownership by a specific country with a specific set of rules and specific set of core values? Even though many may walk on its soil, there is a recognition that it only belongs to those who become citizens - agree to adhere to the laws of the land. Instead of land, this was a christian chapel. Instead of a flag, this was a cross. Erosion of national Sovereignty, as seen by that parallel, is an earmark of the replacement of God with man. It was the religion of Rome, the religion of Russia and it is the religion of today. All three in very different forms, but all saying the same thing - no to God. Rome, granted, recognized transcendence - but they placed a man (notice that 666 is the number of A man) in that place. Russia removed the transcendence of a single man and placed the state there. Now, we have a state religion that places all men on the same plane - all men are God/all is God.

The college president reflects the values of many in society at large. But what about the professing church today? I only have one thought for now as this is a massive topic covering a whole host of doctrinal issues. On a more general level, the church at large has taken on several faces - emerging, seeker-friendly, and even mystical.

The merging (emergent) church replaces theology with philosophy - the study of God with the study of man’s ideas about God. Man’s understanding is the measure.
The mystical church seeks “new ways” to approach God and “new ways” to have an encounter or spiritual experience. How has anything changed? There is still only one way to God and those that seek an experience do not seek God. Those that seek God will have an experience, but one which they themselves would never have sought or chosen. The difference is immense. Man’s emotions are the measure.

The seeker-sensitive church looks to attract people into the church. In the end, the program and teaching are driven by people’s wants and their standards instead of scripture’s. Man’s desires are the measure.

These are just broad labels. It can’t be said necessarily that one church is only seeker-sensitive, but it can be said that churches are characterized by their approach. When the eyes aren’t on the Lord, His Word and His standards, what comes in is a replacement - often subtle enough to lead many astray. The world can’t be expected to do much different than it is - unfortunately, when the church looks a lot like the world, everyone’s in trouble.