Believers Armed and Dangerous

Judges 17:6 (ESV)
⁶  In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

The society we live in and most of the Western world accepts secular humanism as its standard worldview.  They reject Christianity as outmoded, “holier than thou,” bigoted, and basically too restricting.  I’d like to look at the difference between the two and the consequences of each.

Secular humanism is based on man, humans.  Humanists believe humans are the ultimate authority for morality, social structure, and legal issues.  Morality is defined Either by society rule or individual choice.

I took a marketing class years ago, and the instructor told us that business ethics is based on current law.  Whatever was legal was ethical.  I asked if that was true of 1950 America.  I said, “There are people in this room of different races and sexes.  In 1950, we could pay them less because of those traits.  Was that ethical?” I continued.  “Then came along moral crusaders, Reverend Martin Luther King and Simone de Beauvoir who told us race and sex didn’t matter.  It is the content of our character that counts.  If the law of the time were correct, then we should have expunged Rev. King and Ms. De Beauvoir from society.  Would that be ethical?”  The instructor said, “I have to teach what’s in the text book.”  That’s Secular Humanism, the belief that morals can change with society.  I spoke up again and told the class that morality cannot be subjectively based or it has no basis at all.  True morality requires an objective standard.

Some humanists would tell us humanism is based on the society.  What society agrees upon should be the standard.  As with my marketing instructor, we can see this fails as society changes usually for the worst.  Another humanist might say it is the individual who sets the moral standard for himself.  Then of course we would have to empty the jails as they are full of people who believe their desires overshadow yours.

Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible.  We have a foundation upon which we stand morally.  What could be wrong with that? The question arises, though, that Christians have killed millions of people over the centuries, so how moral could it be?  There are two points I’d like to make on that.  The first is that Christians may have murdered people, but that is not Christianity.  The two can be separated since Christians, being human, can do horrible things when misguided.  The Bible didn’t teach Christians to kill millions.

My second point on this is to address the millions killed.  The New York University history department did a study in the 1950s to see how many people had been killed by Christians in all the wars, the Inquisition, etc.  The number they came up with was fewer than 4,000,000.  That is a troubling number, it’s true.  But let’s look at another number.  The number of people murdered in just the past century by secular humanists who disregarded any authority higher than their own.  Just five men, five humanists, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, and Pol Pot are responsible for the murders of more than 100,000,000 people, their own people.

So, just on a purely rational basis, we should reject humanism.  But, I’m afraid it’s here to stay, at least for awhile.

Moral relativism is a consequence of secular humanism.  Moral relativism is the belief that there is no true moral standard.  We can do what we want.  We see this today, of course.  Greg Koukl, the founder and head of Stand to Reason, did a survey asking people if torturing babies for the fun of it was wrong.  One of the answers he received was “I wouldn’t do it, but I’m not sure I could say it was wrong.”  When there is no foundation for morality, there is no morality.

Moral relativism is provably fallacious.  If moral relativism is the superior moral standard, then it cannot be true.  Moral relativism states there is no superior moral standard.  It’s self-refuting.  Most philosophy departments at our universities have stopped teaching it for that reason, but it continues to spread through society.

My major concern is for the children of families who instill objective moral standards at home, but those children are continually taught their parents are wrong, that there is no moral standard.  To believe it is foolish and puritan.  As adults, we can think these things through.  We can arrive at a moral standard we want to live by.  Our children are not equipped to think critically, and most public schools no longer try to teach them to do so.

The consequence of a Christian worldview is people reaching out to those in need, a dedication to a better society, and a life pleasing to God. Humanists will say they are capable of the first two of those three, but why? They have no reason to help others except it makes them feel good. There is no standard, no basis in humanism to help others or create a better society.

Christian parents and grandparents need to equip themselves to address this plague.  We need to teach our children and grandchildren why this type of thinking is wrong.  We can do this by familiarizing ourselves with what humanism is and why it cannot stand on its own.  Humanism requires a public unwilling or unable to think these issues through to their logical conclusions.  Let’s you and I get started educating ourselves today.

In earlier posts, I’ve shared some ways to study the Bible (topical method, abcd method, Character study, word study, paraphrase method). In this post, I’d like to look at some of the ways NOT to study the Bible.

As I’ve said previously, reading the Bible is in some ways like reading the daily newspaper.  God uses stories and figures of speech to make His points.  The problem is when we take everything in the Bible as absolutely literal and try to dig deeper in areas where it is not called for.  Isaiah 55:12, for instance, says “the trees shall clap their hands.”  Trees don’t have hands.  This is a metaphor, a figure of speech.  To try to do a Bible study on trees clapping their hands will end in frustration and maybe even in error.

Bible critics even use these figures of speech to say the Bible doesn’t make sense.  Isaiah 11:12 says Judah would be gathered from, “the four corners of the earth.”  The critics point to this passage and say the Bible is claiming the earth is flat.  Of course, this is just foolish.  Again, it’s just a figure of speech.

The pitfalls arise when Christians take these figures of speech literally.  I have read odd expositions on God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 32:12 that his offspring will be like the sand of the sea.  The writers explain how many grains of sand exist on the earth and argue that’s how many offspring Abraham would have.  Some argue Jesus will return when that number is reached.  But, is that the meaning of the passage?  Isn’t it saying the number would be so high we can’t count it?

If the number of Abraham’s offspring equaled the number of grains of sand of the sea, it would also equal the number of widows in Jer. 15:8, the number of birds in Ps. 78:27, and the amount of grain mentioned in Genesis 41:49.  The operative word in all these passages is “like.”  The number is “like” or “as” the sand of the sea.  These passages are using similes, exaggerations to make a point. 

How many times have we heard someone say that in prophecy a day equals a thousand years since with God, a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8)?  I hear this all the time.  The rest of the verse say a thousand years is like a day to God.  So, do they cancel each other out?  No.  Again, the operative word is “as” or “like” here.  The verse is just saying time for God is not like it is for us.

Another pitfall in Bible study is the parable.  Jesus used a lot of parables in His teaching: The Parable of the Sower, the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan.  Parables are stories making one point and one point only.  In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus is telling us our hearts need to be ready in order to accept the gospel.  In the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, He says we should be willing to give up everything to gain the kingdom of God.  In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, He tells us even those who have fallen far away from God can be restored gladly by the Father.  And, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, He tells us everyone is our neighbor.

Bible study is rewarding and exciting.  Sometimes we will find a nugget of truth and start to dig deeper.  We follow a vein of gold until we hit a Mother Lode of treasure in God’s Word.  When this happens, we are so thrilled we want it to happen again and again and again.  Sometimes, we seek out those veins when they simply aren’t there.

To read the Parable of the Good Samaritan, for instance, and try to mine a deeper truth than the simple direct meaning of the passage can lead us into all sorts of errors.  We want to make something of why the priest passed the injured man.  Why a priest?  Why did he cross the road to the other side?  What do priests wear?  If he had been a scribe, would he have acted that way?  When we do this, we miss the point is trying to explain: “Love your neighbor, and everyone is your neighbor.  Act like it.”

When we major on the minors of life and of Bible study, we can lose our way.  If you want to dig more deeply into God’s Word, there are plenty of places to do that.  Start with the Sermon on the Mount, Peter’s sermon in Acts chapter 2, or work through Romans chapter 8.  Don’t start digging where the treasure is obviously right there on the surface for all to see. 

Acts 2:42 (ESV)
⁴²  And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Years ago George Will had published a new book of Baseball statistics.  During his conversation with Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show, he had spouted from memory what seemed like hundreds of statistics.  Finally, Johnny said, “I could never remember all those numbers” to which Will replied, “That’s why I wrote them down for you.”

Before the apostles died, they left us a robust body of teachings.  The New Testament is an instruction book, not just a spiritual guide.  Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus give us the basis for running a church, for instance.  But, people think they know better sometimes and start making things up as they go along.

By the beginning of the second century, the church at Corinth was having trouble.  The younger folks in the church had overthrown the older leadership and began to run the church “their way.”  Clement, a disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to them saying the bishops (pastors) had been appointed by the Apostles. So, we should understand the authority of the bishop of Corinth was based on the fact the apostle who appointed him thought he was qualified.

At the time, there was a major force within the church, the Gnostics, fighting the teachings of the Apostles.  The Gnostics taught Jesus wasn’t really physical, that He was a sort of phantom.  They took a verse out of context from the writing of an apostle to support this:

1 Corinthians 15:50 (ESV)
⁵⁰  I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

“So,” they taught, “If physical men cannot inherit the kingdom of God, Jesus couldn’t be physical.” 

Another group at the time, the Judaizers (Ebionites) taught that Jesus was only a man, not God.  Funny thing was they used the same verse to say since Jesus is a man and not a spirit, He can’t be God and inherit the kingdom.

What the church did at this point was shameful.  They went to Clement’s letter and decided the bishops in the church had the authority to rule these two heresies as wrong.  The heretics, though, used Paul’s words too and claimed theirs was apostolic teaching as well.  They made the same claim the church did.  Hmmm.  What to do.

Rather than going to what was recognized as Scripture at the time, the church decided to go back to Clement’s letter. They interpreted it as saying not only was the authority of the apostles passed down through the bishops, but the bishops’ authority was passed on through the bishops those bishops appointed as well.  That stopped the heretics in their tracks.  They could no longer claim apostolic authority since their teachings were contradicted by the bishops of the time.  The church smiled, crossed its arms, and said, “So, there!”

What also happened here was the church began to accept church tradition, the teachings of men, over what the Bible had to say.

The three things the church drew from Clement’s letter, Clement never meant:  Firstly, since Clement was Bishop of Rome, the church at Rome now had the authority to settle disputes and therefore was of a higher rank than all other churches.  Secondly, authority equal to Scripture was now entrusted to the bishops of the church (apostolic authority).  And, thirdly, this apostolic authority was handed down from bishop to bishop as they were ordained (apostolic succession).  The church now had a second source of authority alongside of the Bible, its bishops.  Later, a third source of authority would be added, “Ex cathedra” (“From the Chair”), where the Bishop of Rome, the Pope now, could sit in St. Peter’s Chair and pronounce something to be infallibly true even if it wasn’t in the Bible.  The most recent example of this was on November 1, 1950 when Pope Pius XII pronounced the assumption of Mary into heaven as dogma.

Don’t think I’m blaming the Catholics for this problem.  This was all settled upon long before Luther and Calvin stepped into the arena.  My point is that we drift far away from God’s Word when we begin to accept what we are told by men.  True, God has put godly men in pulpits and other teaching positions who accurately and honorably represent Him and teach His Word clearly.  The good ones tell us to check what they teach.

When we start to believe what men tell us without first looking into what God has said, we are setting ourselves up for trouble.  Like George Will, God has written all this down so we can see what the full truth is.  When Paul and Silas came to Berea from headquarters and taught about our Lord, the Bereans received it but checked it out:

Acts 17:11 (ESV)
¹¹  Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Our response to the teachings of men should always be the same.  Receive but check it out.  “Trust but verify.”

So, I’m talking with some friends the other day, and the topic came up on how deacons should be chosen in a Christian church.  According to Acts chapter six, deacons were chosen by the people as directed by the Apostles.  They were voted on by the congregation.  The argument then came up that deacons should be voted on in our church since it was right there in Scripture how deacons are chosen.

This is really a fairly common mistake.  Something is done in Scripture by a Christian leader or even Christ Himself, and we decide it’s a command.

What we really need to do is see the Bible, in a way, like the local newspaper.  Sometimes, newspapers are just telling you how something happened.  Just because it happened that way, doesn’t mean we need to make it happen that way.  In my church, deacons are chosen by the pastor.  That’s fine.  If Acts chapter 6 tells us they did it another way, we don’t need to do it that way.  We aren’t commanded to follow their example.

We do need to do things we are commanded to do such as communion and baptism.  Those aren’t optional.  But, things like how church governments are run, how churches are run, is pretty much up for grabs so long as no one disobeys a command of God.

We have lots of examples of things in Scripture that are no more than just that, examples.  For instance, Jesus had a group of 72 followers that He broke into pairs and sent them out to evangelize:

Luke 10:1 (ESV)
¹  After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

So, why aren’t we arguing that we can’t evangelize unless we gather 72 people and divide them into pairs?  You get the point.  Commands are different from examples in Scripture just as they are in the newspaper.

If you’re wondering how to tell the difference between the two, commands and examples, commands are said directly:

Matthew 28:19-20 (ESV)
¹⁹  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
²⁰  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Examples are just part of the narrative.  As an example of an example, there are three types of church government mentioned in Scripture.  There’s an implied congregational form (Acts. 6) where the congregation votes on everything.  In Acts 20:28, we see implied the Presbyterian form where the church is run by a board of elders, and in 1 Timothy, we see an example of an Episcopal form of church government where the Pastor is in charge.  None of those are commanded forms of government, just examples.

Jesus, however, told us we should observe communion (1 Cor. 11:23-25).  He told us to be baptized (Matt 28:19-20).  These are commands, not suggestions or examples.

So, next time someone tells you need to wear a robe because Jesus did or walk everywhere, or you name it, ask them where is that commanded in Scripture.  You’re life will be much less complicated and freer in Christ.

Have you ever had someone try to use Scripture to explain something, and you just know he’s abusing the passage but aren’t really sure just how?  Well this problem is as old as the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)
¹⁵  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
¹⁶  as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

This is a pretty neat passage.  It identifies Paul’s letters as Scripture at a time when they were still very new and  that Scripture twisting is at least 2,000 years old.  But how do people do this, twist Scripture.  There are lots of ways.  Here are just three of the most common ones.

Some will take a passage out of context to try to prove something entirely different from what the passage says.  Look at 1 Cor. 8:6 –

1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Jehovah’s Witnesses will tell you this proves that Jesus isn’t God because for us there is only one God; the Father.  But, if you read the surrounding context, you’ll see the passage says there are many lords and gods as there were in that culture – so, it’s comparing cultures.  It’s saying there may be many called gods but for us, there is just one.  Another problem here if you’re trying to prove only the Father is God is that logic leads you to say only Jesus is Lord.  Even Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that.

Here’s another.  Some people will quote the Bible to draw you into their way of thinking.  Mormons will tell you that Joseph Smith prayed for wisdom using James 1:5:

James 1:5 (NASB77)
⁵  But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Smith tells us he prayed for wisdom as James told him to, and he was visited by two heavenly beings who told him all the churches were wrong.

Smith should have recognized a couple of things here, first the fact when we pray it isn’t only God who hears.  And, secondly, to check on who shows up, we should test what we are told in Acts:

Acts 17:11 (ESV)
¹¹  Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Smith should have checked what he was told by these two “heavenly personages”  just as you and I should and as the Bereans did and were commended for it.  James 1:5 isn’t the only verse in the Bible.

Galatians 1:8 (ESV)
⁸  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Don’t listen to “heavenly beings” just because they look authoritative.  The Bible tells us to test things we hear:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV) ²⁰  Do not despise prophecies, ²¹  but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Lastly for this post is the fact some people will misquote Scripture for their own advantage.  The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said,  “Christ said, ‘Be still and know that I am God.’ Be still and know that you are God and when you know that you are God you will begin to live Godhood, and living Godhood there is no reason to suffer.”

There are several things wrong with this, of course.  Jesus didn’t say this.  This is a quote from Psalm 46:10.  The original meaning of the statement is completely different.  It’s telling us to trust in God, not ourselves.  The passage has nothing to do with us being gods.

So, just like the Bereans, we need to be careful in how people use Scripture to convince us of something we don’t recognize as truth.  As Walter Martin used to say, “New truth is almost always old heresy.”

Do Miracles really happen?  Miracles are important to Christians.  Our very faith rests on the miracle of Christ rising from the dead.  Paul, just a few years after Jesus’ death, wrote this:

1 Corinthians 15:14 (ESV)
¹⁴  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

If Christ has not been raised, Christians are in bad shape.  Our faith is just a bunch of rituals and fantasies.  So, miracles are important.  But, can they be defended?

David Hume, an 18^th Century Scottish philosopher, said something very interesting that has stood in the way of Christians for four centuries.  He said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Sounds right, doesn’t it?  Claiming a body was fully dead, stored in a cold damp tomb sealed from outside tampering could rise after being dead for three days – well, that’s just silly.  We’ve never seen anything like that happen before.  The evidence to prove it would need to be phenomenal, don’t you think?  Hume thought so.

Hume’s argument, like so many other philosophical ideas, sounds intellectual, brilliant, and logical.  But, is he right?  Do we really need extraordinary evidence to show Jesus rose from the dead?  No.

The soldier who pronounced Jesus dead on the cross pronounced people dead for a living.  He was very aware of what it meant to die on a cross.  Just to make sure, though, a spear was thrust through Jesus’ side, and the blood and water that gushed out was proof of His death.  So, we’re certain Jesus was dead.  No doubt about it.  If he hadn’t been quite dead, three days in a cold damp tomb after being scourged, crucified, and speared would have certainly finished the job.

Now the question is if He was alive three days later.  Well, He was seen by quite a number of people, people who were very familiar with Him.  He showed Himself to His disciples demonstrating He was alive.  He asked them to feel His body to show He was alive.  This is all well documented in the gospels.  The genuineness of the gospel of Luke is confirmed by biblical critics as a first century document written by Doctor Luke.  This is all in that gospel.

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, also a document confirmed as genuine by biblical critics, tells us all the disciples saw Him alive as well as James, His brother, and over 500 others.  Seeing if someone is alive is not extraordinary evidence.  It’s common sense anyone can verify.  If He’s walking, talking, and physically present – if He was confirmed dead just a few days earlier, He has risen from the dead.

A friend of ours had lumps in her breasts.  Several of us prayed for her.  When she went in the next morning to have them removed, the doctor couldn’t find them.  He looked at the previous tests, and there they were.  Then he felt her breasts to find the lumps, and they weren’t there.  No extraordinary evidence.  Like the rising of Christ, something was true one moment and false the next.  She had been healed by the hand of God.

So, don’t be bullied by folks who tell you miracles can’t happen, and if you claim they do, you need extraordinary evidence to prove them.  The evidence needed is usually pretty simple and there if you want to see it.

Philippians 2:3-4 (ESV)
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Years ago, Gale Sayers, a Hall of Fame player for the Chicago Bears, wrote a book I Am Third.  In the book, Sayers tells of his Christian priorities in life.  Jesus Christ is first.  Others are second, and he is third.  I think we’ve lost the real meaning of that book and the passage in Philippians.

Sure, you and I do our best to help others.  We reach out to ministries to those in need.  We give of our finances and our time.  That’s good, and it is included in what Paul is saying in the text above.  But, there might be more, a deeper concern for the good of the unlovable, even for those we fear.

Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, was arrested by Roman soldiers in 155 a.d.  He was to be burned in the Roman arena at Smyrna (in present day Turkey).  His response when he was approached by the soldiers was to offer them dinner.  He must have heard what Jesus told us in Luke 2:31 which tells us to treat others the way we would like to be treated.  Jesus doesn’t qualify the word “others.”  It’s just others – all others.  How do we serve those wishing to hurt us, though?  God presents ways.

Maybe Polycarp was thinking of Philippians 2:4 when he thought to serve the hungry soldiers.  They had the authority to take food if they wanted, but Polycarp saw the need in his enemy and supplied it before he was asked.

I guess offering dinner to those who were sent to arrest you and eventually kill you is the Christian thing to do, but I don’t have that heart.  I wish I did, but I don’t have it yet.

At a talk she was giving in postwar Germany in 1947, Corrie Ten Boom was approached by a guard who had tortured her and her fellow inmates at Ravensbrück Prison Camp where she had seen her beloved sister, Betsie, die just a few years earlier.  The guard had become a Christian and, while Jesus had forgiven him of his terrible sin, could Corrie?  She did.  She shook his hand and offered the forgiveness he asked for.  It was difficult, but she did it.

When she did, she felt bitterness flow from her.  Peace flooded over her, but that isn’t all there is to the story.  The guard needed her forgiveness.  Jesus had forgiven him, but now his need was for forgiveness from someone he had hurt.  When Corrie reached out her hand to shake his, she was meeting the needs of another, a past enemy.  He had become a Christian.  Now he was seeking peace from her as well as the Lord.

Louie Zamperini  had been in a similar camp on the other side of the world, a Japanese WWII POW camp.  He had been beaten and tortured there, too.  On a speaking tour in 1952, Zamperini had the chance to meet with the prison guards of Sugamo Prison where he had been held.  He asked to speak to the guards who had treated him so cruelly.  A Christian now, Zamperini wanted to tell the guards he had forgiven them and God would forgive them as well.

Zamperini’s story is different from Corrie’s in that the guards he spoke with were not seeking his forgiveness though he offered it freely.  True it helped Louie deal with some things, but it also gave the guards something they needed, maybe they didn’t even know they needed, forgiveness.  Zamperini had released them from the guilt they had for how they had treated him.  Louie considered the needs of others over his own discomfort returning to Sugamo Prison.

When Polycarp offered dinner to his guards, when Corrie shook the hand of that former Nazi, when Zamperini offered grace to his captors, they were fulfilling a command of God.  They were also fulfilling their needs.  Grace and provision mean the most to someone when it is the hardest for us to give.

When we think of the people who have hurt us, people we fear, people who threaten our very existence, do we seek to fulfill their needs, to help or provice for them? When we don’t we are denying the words of both Paul and Jesus Himself.

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s Disease, is a horrible affliction.  It can attack the body’s nervous system and cause the victim to no longer feel pain.  Once he cannot feel pain, the victim is unaware of injuries or infections resulting in the loss of limbs.  The body just literally rots away.

Symptoms are characterized by white spots appearing on the skin which penetrate below the surface.  The spot becomes a circle with raw skin at the center.  The hairs of the infected area turn white.  Leviticus chapter 13 is dedicated to recognizing this disease and the procedure for preventing its spread.

In Scripture, when someone was healed of leprosy, the healing was described as a cleansing rather than a healing. That’s appropriate since leprosy is more easily transmitted in unsanitary conditions.  If you and I had close contact with lepers, careful bathing every day would go a long way to prevent contracting the disease. 

Father Damien as an example, headed the leper colony on Molokai, Hawaii for 16 years.  He ate out of the same bowls as the lepers and worked closely with them building homes, schools, and roads.  He bathed regularly and so did not show any symptoms of the disease for 11 years.  Though he did eventually die of the disease in 1889, he showed us close attention to personal hygiene can go a long way in prevention.

In biblical times, leprosy was a long and lingering death sentence.  One needed to be inspected by the priests to confirm the disease (Leviticus 13 deals exclusively with leprosy). Those who had the disease were separated from the community and had to call out “unclean” whenever they were near others.  Imagine the loneliness and isolation for these people.  They could only mingle with other lepers.

We’ve looked at leprosy as such an ultimate example of filth and infection. Now, let’s look at the other extreme, the holiness and purity of God. 

God is free from evil and sin.  He is “without spot.” When man stands before God, he must feel he is nothing but “unclean.”

Isaiah 6:5 (ESV)
And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

This is why Paul says his greatest achievements are trash compared to Christ:

Philippians 3:7-8 (ESV)
Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

So, we have looked at the contrasts between the clean priests and the unclean lepers; between the holy spotless God and filthy sinful man.  The separations are tremendous. 

When I reach out to God in prayer and feel His presence, I feel as though, Like Isiah, I should shout “UNCLEAN!”  Yet that holy and pure God Who took on human form feels compassion on me as He did 2,000 years ago.  Jesus, as a flesh and blood man Who was not to touch the diseased person reached out to touch the dirtiest human in that society, the leper:

Matthew 8:3 (ESV)
And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Jesus doesn’t move away from us because we’re unclean but reaches out to us to cleanse us no matter how filthy or diseased we may be by sin.  If He will touch the leper, He will touch us too. If we let Him, we can become “cleansed lepers.”

Many individuals have said over the years they don’t need to go to church.  They pray, they read the Bible, they know Jesus, they feel close to God just walking through His creation. So, why should they need to go to church?

There are several good reasons to be involved in a local church. Let’s look at some of them.

 Fellowship is a good reason.  Christians aren’t meant to be loners.  God is a communal God, He likes interacting with His children, and He’s designed us to be communal creatures.  We find it hard to walk the Christian walk without other Christians around to help us. When adversity strikes, it’s good not to face it alone. We are encouraged by others in our Christian life.

Hebrews 10:24-25 (ESV)
²⁴  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
²⁵  not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Reproof.  In this case, “reproof” can mean to rebuke.  A Christian might no longer realize he’s living with sin.  Normally, the Holy Spirit will convict him of the sin, but repeatedly practicing that sin will harden his heart. He can become jaded to the point he no longer thinks of it as sin.  Sometimes a Christian is aware of his sin but rationalizes it away.  Obedience to God’s reproof is a blessing:

Proverbs 1:23 (ESV)
²³  If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.

Correction is different from reproof.  It’s meant to keep our beliefs straight.  I was supposed to present a Bible study at a rest home a few weeks ago.  I came across a portion of Scripture I didn’t understand which made me dig deeper, and I came up with a pretty odd explanation of the passage.  No commentary addressed what I was thinking, so I called a learned friend of mine who agreed it was a little too spooky to be teaching without a solid basis.  After all, teachers are held to a higher standard (James 3:1).

That’s what I mean by correction.  We watch out for each other and are there for one another.  Proverbs 27:17 says this: “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.”   You don’t get sharpened or corrected much by walking around in the woods.

Accountability sort of comes with fellowship but is much more personal.  I meet with a group of Christian guys once a week, and actually all six points of this blog are addressed in that group.  We share what is going on in our lives, the areas we need to work on, our doubts, our understanding of Scripture, and our prayer needs.  We also ask each other how we’re doing with things we’ve shared previously.  We’re held accountable.  Because of our openness and vulnerability, these men have become some of my closest friends.  Accountability is not something a Lone Ranger Christian can do.  We need each other.

Instruction is pretty apparent.  In the local church, we have the opportunity to learn from people who know the Bible better than we do. It’s a place where we can ask questions and hear solid biblical answers. It’s also a place where we hear from people who have been through trials we’re currently facing.  All learning isn’t “book learnin.”  God uses others to speak to us.

Ministry, and this is the hardest lesson for us to learn about the local church.  It seems the majority of Christians see the church solely as a place to be served.  They go there to learn, to see friends, even for financial help, or a listening ear.  Once we’ve been a Christian for a while, we should begin to see the church as a place where we can minister to others as well.  We should also see the local church as a base from which we can reach out to our communities with the love of Christ.  

So, let’s not look at our relationship with Christ as exclusively an individual experience.  We need other Christians around us.  Besides, God tells us not to forsake the fellowship of other believers (Heb. 10:25).  God knows we need each other.  Don’t we all really know that too?

Colossians 2:8 (ESV)
⁸  See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Philosophy, like most things, can be used for good or for evil.  You can use philosophy to convince people of absolutely foolish ideas.  Moral relativism is the idea that moral (ethical) standards should be set by either the individual or the culture.  It has cost millions of lives over the past century and damaged even more.  In a marketing class years ago we were discussing business ethics, the instructor said, “what is legal is what is ethical.”  I objected and pointed to 1950s America where it was legal to pay women and minorities less for the same labor.  “Was that ethical?” I asked.  Then I asked if Simone De Bouvier and Martin Luther King should have been expunged from our society for going against culture and saying people should be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color or sex.  She was stunned and said she needed to teach what was in the textbook.  Sad, but the class saw my point.

We see this sort of thing deeply embedded in our culture today.  No one can say what’s right or wrong without someone else being offended.  Moral relativism is at the root of many of our problems.  Accompanying moral relativism is epistemological (factual) relativism: “What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me!”  Recognize it?  If there is no objective truth, there can be no standards.

Philosophy can be used for good too, of course.  In previous posts, we’ve looked at the philosophical arguments and evidence for the existence of God.  Using logic (a discipline within philosophy) we’ve looked at many arguments against biblical truth and found them wanting. 

So, how do we tell the difference between godly and evilideas?  As Paul says in Col. 2:8, if we listen to the philosophy of the world we will be taken captive, deceived.  Some lies sound perfectly plausible and even attractive, so we need to be watchful.  We need to be so familiar with the truth lies are easily recognized.  The Bible is the standard for truth and morality not man.

If we follow philosophy according to Christ, if we search for actual truth, if we look for the real answers to the world around us, we end up on solid ground.  A Christian philosopher, Rene’ Descartes, told us that truth can be identified by its consistency.  Lies are inconsistent.  While some lies are complex, and the inconsistencies are well buried, they will eventually be found out.

There is a difference between one’s personal philosophy and philosophy as a discipline.  Your personal philosophy is the filter through which you view the world.  If you’re a Christian, you see the universe as a creation of God.  Because of what an atheist believes, he sees something very different.  That doesn’t mean they’re both true.  In fact, it means at least one is false. 

There is a considerable amount of philosophy in the Bible.  Jesus often reasoned with the Pharisees.  The Sermon on the Mount is very philosophical.  At least seven times in the book of Acts, we are told that Paul “reasoned” with the Jews and with the Greeks.  His argument starting in chapter 17:22 was a demonstration of logical reasoning to convince another of a specific truth.  James tells us wisdom (sophia from which we get philo-sophia, the love of wisdom – philosophy) is open to reason.  That’s a good definition of godly philosophy.

James 3:17-18 (ESV)
¹⁷  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

Christian philosophers over the past century have been making a difference.  They have taken the stance that all truth is God’s truth.  Alvin Plantinga has shown that evil and a loving God can exist at the same time.  William Lane Craig has given mountains of evidence pointing to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact.  Francis Beckwith has done amazing work for the pro-life movement, Greg Koukl has been fighting relativism, and the list goes on.

So, next time someone says something derogatory against philosophy, remember, much of what we believe is based in it.  Besides, “Philosophy is foolish,” is a philosophical statement.

Isaiah 1:18a (ESV)
¹⁸  “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: