|
“H |
e kicked the bucket.” No one is quite sure about the origins of this familiar American idiom but we all know what it means. It means that someone passed away. Expired. Croaked.
The Rob Reiner film, The Bucket List, has captured the attention of millions of movie-goers provoking us to muse about what we would do if we found out that our days are numbered. In the film, the working class Carter Chambers (played by Morgan Freeman) and billionaire Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) have both been diagnosed with cancer and given less than one year to live.
In the film, Chambers begins to half-seriously compose a list of things he’d like to do before he “kicks the bucket.” But when Cole sees him composing his “bucket list” he not only recommends a few upgrades, he offers to make the list a reality by financing a whirlwind, no expense spared, globetrotting adventure for the both of them.
Now many would consider taking an extended vacation gallivanting around the globe to be a pretty good bucket list. In fact, the desire to travel may well be the single most popular activity that people desire to undertake before they die.
The movie does raise a question, however. If this had been real life, would such a trip have been the smartest thing for Chambers and Cole to do? Put another way, if they knew they were months away from meeting their Maker, did they act wisely?
To be sure, in the morals department Chambers’ list of “to-dos” was much milder than Cole’s. But that’s kind of beside the point. We’re forced to ask ourselves, “Is trying to squeeze the last bit of juice out of life really the best way for us to approach death?”
Though we try to suppress it, each of us knows in our heart of hearts that the answer is no. The Bible says, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9.27). This verse provides us with two important pieces of information. The first is what most of us already know, which is that God will judge us after we die. However, the second thing we see is that there’s no “in between” place such as Purgatory or Limbo. After the judgment there’s only Heaven or Hell.
There’s only one way to ensure that our “reservation” is booked in the former and not in the latter. Our Lord Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11.25-26).
The fact is, like Chambers and Cole, we already know our days our numbered. Yes, we may have more than a year to live (though not guaranteed) but in the scheme of things our remaining time is remarkably small no matter whether we’re nine or ninety.
Our wise “bucket list” should have only two things on it: first, to be saved by giving our lives to Jesus Christ and second, to live out the remainder of our days for Him. This may not sound very glitzy or fashionable. But it sure beats the alternative.
Glen
O’Keefe is Elder of First Baptist Church of Enfield, CT
|
O |
ne of the questions I’m most often asked is, “what's the difference between a Baptist and a Catholic?” The question is interesting because in the 21st century we find that people not only don't understand other denominations, they often don't even understand their own. That is, Protestants have no idea what makes them a Protestant and Roman Catholics can't explain what makes them a Catholic. Their denominational choices were primarily based on the household into which they were born.
The answer to the question “what's the difference?” is a complicated one that does not lend itself well to the “sound byte” type of answers Americans have become accustomed to. The issue involves nearly 500 years of history and without a thorough explanation it becomes too easy to caricature either side in ways that are not appropriate.
Hence, to properly address this issue, I will try to provide the answer to this question in a four-part series. Even then, we’ll only be scratching the surface but by the end of the series both Protestants and Catholics should at least have an idea of what the Protestant Reformation was about. More importantly, readers should end up with a working knowledge of some of the most important tenets of their faith whether Catholic or Protestant.
In our series I will try to be as tactful as possible without sacrificing important historical and theological facts. The goal is not to bash or criticize but rather to inform readers and then let them draw their own conclusions. In an attempt to minimize bias I will often quote the original historical players in this pivotal Christian event. When I present the Roman Catholic position, my sources will be Rome, i.e., the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II, Papal encyclicals and so forth. When I present the Reformed position, my sources will be the Reformers themselves such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and others.
As an Evangelical myself, it’s interesting that most Evangelicals believe our differences with Rome surround practices like the Mass, the veneration of Mary, Penance, and so forth. But to the Protestant Reformers, these were not the problem but rather the symptom.
Likewise, Catholics think of Evangelicals as people who've trusted in Christ as their personal savior, have asked Jesus into their hearts, or other clichés that have become fixtures in Evangelicalism. However, from a doctrinal perspective, you might be interested to know that none of those statements is particularly inconsistent with Roman Catholicism.
Well then, what was the issue? The single question so hotly debated between Rome and the Reformers was this: How are we justified? That is, how does a sinner (which we all are) come to possess the righteousness required to spend eternity with God? In short, how is a person saved?
As you might guess, Rome and the Reformers had two radically differing views and unfortunately they can't both be right. Indeed, the issue of justification remains the central sticking point to this very day.
Next time, we'll
begin to explore the question that was — and still is — at the heart of the
Protestant Reformation: how are we justified?
Glen O’Keefe is Elder of First
Baptist Church of Enfield, CT
|
I |
t is very common around the Easter Season for several newspaper and magazine articles to discuss the resurrection of Jesus and the “Historical Jesus.” Such writings often make the Bible seem incredibly unhistorical or describe the “Historical Jesus” as something that is totally divorced from the “Christ of Faith.” When I think of these things, I am reminded of what the Apostle Peter commanded Christians to do: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).
There are many reasons for hope in Christ, his resurrection, his life described in the Bible, and his return. The Christian faith is rooted in history, and the Christian God is a God of reason. I don't mean we can prove or understand everything about God. I merely want to stress that faith and reason are not opposites, but complementary in a Christian's life. Jesus often criticized his opponents for not thinking clearly about the evidence he gave them. In one such instance he said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (John 10:37-38). He expected his audience to put two and two together, putting their faith in him based on the data right in front of them.
The Bible was written so we would be able to understand and believe. John 20:30-31 says Jesus performed signs and they were recorded so we may know and believe in him: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.”
Let me reiterate, though God gives us many reasons for faith, that does not mean we can use our human reason to prove everything about him. Our knowledge is limited. God has revealed many things to us, but he never promised that we would understand him or his ways fully. Our reason is faulty. If you need me to prove that to you, I recommend you spend some time with teenagers — they are quick to catch you in your mistakes. Our reason is also severely damaged by sin. You can prove this to yourself by thinking of a time when you talked yourself into doing something you knew you shouldn't. Easy examples are, “a few more cookies won't make a difference,” or “it's only a little white lie,” or “it’s not so bad, everyone else does it.” I also think about what Paul Simon wrote in his song, The Boxer, “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Sadly, his words are too true too often.
In this first in a series, I wanted to give a few examples which demonstrate that Biblical Christianity is not meant to be a “blind faith.” In later articles I will attempt to “give an account for the hope” that is in Christians, providing some of the reasons why you should trust in Jesus Christ. My hope is that it will encourage you to read the New Testament yourself, come to faith in Christ, or perhaps increase the faith you already have in him. For now, remember that we can only “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering” not because of wishful thinking or faith in our own faith, but only because “He who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10:23).
Greg
Rossano is a Deacon of First Baptist Church of Enfield, CT
|
T |
One of the most treasured passages in the Bible is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 13. You may not know immediately what that is but I bet you’d recognize it because it’s read at many (if not most) weddings. It’s often referred to colloquially as “the love chapter.” It begins, “Love is patient, love is kind.”
“Love” here is the well-known Greek word, agapé and “love” is indeed the proper rendering for the word. Some translations render the word “charity” because Wycliffe took the Latin word “caritas” out of Jerome’s Vulgate version of the Bible. Jerome did that because the kind of love meant by “amor” in Latin did not represent what’s meant by the word agape. That was probably a good decision.
But Wycliffe probably would’ve done better to pull from another source. In English, agapé is best represented by the word, love. Interestingly, the word agapé was not commonly used prior to the New Testament. Before that, the highest concept of love was love of the best and noblest things. But Christians came to think of the highest concept of love as that quality that we see on the Cross.
We live in a time when our concept of the highest love falls far short of even the pre-New Testament definition. We think that the greatest love of all is “learning to love yourself” as demonstrated by the immense popularity of the 1980s song. That would’ve been considered vulgar even to the ancient pagans. It shows we might not be as smart and enlightened today as we think we are.
The love we see on the Cross is of a whole different quality. This is love for people who are utterly unlovable. Romans 5.8 says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Can you imagine someone rejecting a love of that kind? The Bible says, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, … of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb 10.26-29).
The phrase, “love is patient” may also be translated “love suffers long.” The most important thing in the context of our discussion is that it pertains to patience with people rather than with circumstances. It’s a willingness to take what we might consider someone’s unpleasant character traits in stride.
So in his very first item on the list, Paul goes straight to the heart of one of the biggest problems in any local church — that is, impatience with one another. You know, I’ve often thought that it would be great if God only saved people who were just like me!
That’s a very silly thought, isn’t it? But subconsciously that’s where we often are. I told my wife and daughters recently after I got home from work, “how come I’m the only one on the road who knows the right speed to go? The people in front of me are too slow and the guy tail-gaiting me wants to go too fast!”
There’s a humorous little poem that goes, “To live in love with the saints above, O that will be glory! But to live below with the saints we know, now that's a different story!”
That’s a funny poem, but the fact is, it’s not supposed to be a different story! Our collective experience in the local church is meant to be a foretaste of that glory! The apostle John asks the sobering rhetorical question in his first epistle, “he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?”
That’s a good question, isn’t it? Our love for the brethren is a barometer of how much we love God! Similarly, as God is forbearing with us, so we must be with our brother or sister in Christ.
Glen O’Keefe is an Elder of First
Baptist Church of Enfield, CT
|
T |
he names of Jesus were featured prominently in the Christmas
season, so the book Names of God, by Nathan J. Stone, seemed a good choice
for the New Year. Twelve Old Testament
names of God are discussed with Scripture references and enough historical
background to help the reader understand both the meaning and significance of
the name.
This is another book that I would love to quote in its entirety
but that would defeat the purpose of encouraging you to borrow the book from
the library! The author observes that “there is a wonderful and significant
order in these compound names of Jehovah as they appear in the Scriptures... In
these names there is a progressive revelation of Jehovah meeting every need as
it arises in the experience of His redeemed people-saving, sustaining,
strengthening, sanctifying...for God’s saints in all ages.”
You have probably heard the names
Elohim and Adonai and are probably aware that they are plural and possessive,
but have you encountered the name Jehovah-shammah? It is found in the last
verse of the book of Ezekiel and means Jehovah is there. What a comforting
thought for meditation!
Ann McDougal is Librarian at First
Baptist Church of Enfield, CT
by Glen O’Keefe
|
L |
ike your own
mailbox at home church mailboxes are inundated every day with unsolicited
mail. You'll find plans and programs that
promise to transform your church, ignite exponential growth and give every
church member perfect contentment.
Recently we received a mailing from Purpose
Driven inviting us to participate in their wildly popular program, 40 Days of Purpose.
For the uninitiated, Purpose
Driven is arguably the most influential movement in Evangelical America and
it’s founder, pastor Rick Warren, is de facto the most influential man in
modern Evangelicalism.
I first became aware of Rick Warren some years ago when he
wrote his 1995 watershed book, The
Purpose Driven Church. The impact
of the book has been immense with thousands of pastors eagerly adopting
Warren’s recommended model for church growth.
Relevant is that Warren leads the mammoth Saddleback Church in Lake
Forest, CA which grew under his ministry from zero to 10,000 in only fifteen
years and is now 20,000 plus. Hence,
when Warren speaks, pastors listen, especially when it’s the poor village
minister being pressured by his congregation.
I recall being initially intrigued by the book because of
it’s stated approach of simultaneously viewing the Great Commission (Matthew 28.18-20) and the Great Commandment (Matthew 22.36-40) as a single focus for the
local church. But not many pages into
the book it becomes clear that neither of these play a material role in
Warren’s church growth model.
Instead it is Warren’s organizational genius that produces growth. And the 40 Days of Purpose program, which is now three years in the running, is proof of his abilities. The glossy pamphlet claims that “over 20,000 churches of all denominations” have participated and this is probably an understatement.
The two overarching promises of 40 Days is that churches will grow and that their members will become more spiritually mature Christians. As to the first promise, 40 days clearly delivers. Churches that participate often grow in number, sometimes drastically.
But the second promise of biblical spiritual maturity is nothing less than an abject hoax that makes 40 Days a poster child for 2 Timothy 3.5, which speaks of those “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”
Ironically, one of
the most startling evidences of this deficiency is found in the endorsements
section at the back of the glossy 40 Days
pamphlet. The very first testimony is
from “pastor” Tami McGrew of Riverside Community Church in Riverside CA. McGrew praises the 40 Days program for the amazing spiritual growth in her staff and
congregation. Curious, I visited the
church’s website which provided the following “spiritually mature” statement: “We view the Bible as
an inspired and reliable written word of God and regard it as our manual for
living. We do not hold scripture to be infallible or inerrant.”
Now this is strange. One would think that if the 40 Days program really produced its advertised effect that two things would have happened at this church: First, Ms. McGrew would have resigned her pastorate due to her newfound conviction over 1 Timothy 2.12. Secondly, the newly-matured congregation would have repented and affirmed the Bible to be what it indeed is — infallible and inerrant. But despite the “transforming” influence of 40 Days, that apparently has not happened at Riverside.
And this is not at
all surprising. Although 40 Days claims to emphasize Bible study
and discipleship, the studies are in reality
devotionals written by Rick Warren.
Which leads us to what is by far the most glaring weakness in both 40 Days and the Purpose Driven program in general, which is Warren himself.
Rick Warren’s understanding of even the most basic biblical fundamentals is highly questionable. His bestseller, The Purpose Driven Church, though it claims to be written for pastors, is actually written at about an eighth grade level and has so many exegetical errors it’s difficult to know where to begin. Some of them, such as his claim that Jesus used parables to help people understand His vision are only mildly irritating. But others, such as his assertion that Jesus drew crowds only after earning their trust, are downright blasphemous. I can assure you that when the I AM says nothing more than, “follow me,” the creature responds!
Further, Warren’s admonition to “never criticize any method that God is blessing” has opened a Pandora’s Box at Evangelical churches. In the name of evangelism almost any practice — no matter how outrageous — is deemed blessed by God because it is filling pews.
Other aspects of the Purpose Driven movement are equally troubling. In his book, Warren speaks at length about his church’s target constituent whom they call “Saddleback Sam.” Saddleback Sam is hip, in his late thirties, married, has two kids, is well-educated and upper middle class. Warren claims to target such people simply because of the area's demographics. Oh, please.
Purpose Driven’s slick, upscale website underscores this target marketing. It is replete with pictures of people who, almost without exception, are beautiful, affluent looking and for the most part under 40 years old. It instantly raises the question in my mind, if Purpose Driven is so Bible-centered, why doesn’t the site depict the brethren as we really are (1 Cor. 1.26ff)?
Lastly, let me point out what you won’t see much of in the Purpose Driven movement. You won’t see much about Calvary and the
precious blood that flowed to wash away our sins. There’s little discussion about Christ’s soon-return which is
supposed to be the blessed hope of the Church.
There’s not much awe over the excellency and resplendent majesty of
Christ. There’s no cogent explanation
of the means of our justification, which Luther called the article on which the
Church stands or falls. Too, don’t look
for much talk about denying yourself, suffering persecution or forsaking this
world’s ephemeral charms.
Brethren, are not these
the things for which we should be purpose-driven? Thanks to Warren, fewer and fewer churches think so. And that’s what makes 40 Days of Purpose an ominous, purpose-driven hoax.
Glen O’Keefe is an Elder of First
Baptist Church of Enfield