"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Movie Review: Hacksaw Ridge (By Shane Kastler)

By Shane Kastler

It’s been said that “War Is Hell!”  But an even greater Hell is OPPOSING War, and yet still volunteering to go into a battle that you might not agree with.  This is the premise of “Hacksaw Ridge” the recent movie directed by Mel Gibson.  The movie tells the story of Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector, who nevertheless felt compelled to volunteer for combat service.  What ensued, at least in the movie, was Doss being harassed and ridiculed for his stance on designing to save life rather than destroy it.  As he uttered the phrase, “with all this life being busted apart, it seems like a good thing for me to try to put some life back together again.”  This phrase garnered an applause from the folks in the crowd; but I fear it would be lost on many Americans.  Doss didn’t seek to kill; he sought instead to heal.  As a conscientious objector he refused to bear arms.   And for this he faced a court martial (at least in the movie); but in real life he proved his bravery beyond question.  In the battle for Okinawa; Doss, without any weapon, brought 75 different soldiers to safety; and in so doing earned the Congressional Metal of Honor.  He was the first conscientious objector to earn such a privilege.  And proved beyond doubt that one can long for peace and still serve in war in such a way that his comrades commend him and applaud his service. 

While many disagreed with Doss's stance they nevertheless respected his views, and by the end of the movie, they refused to enter combat until he had prayed for them.  As a Christian; and as a minister, I rejoiced in this scene.  It is a scene that seeks to let patriotism trump godliness and long to kill the enemy.  But Doss sought to persevere life rather than destroy it.  He sought to help rather than to destroy.  And in this he should be commended.

The movie ends with real life interviews with soldiers who served with Doss.  To a man, they respected him for his pacifist position; and his willingness to suffer for the sake of that position.  Doss was honored for serving and saving his fellow man.  But his views on the way did not change.  He refused to take life, opting instead to preserve life.  He won great accolades, but even more, he won the respect of the hardened soldiers who served with him.  Mr. Doss is worthy of our respect.  He sought God’s approval above man’s.  And in so doing he earns our eternal respect.  Let us seek God’s will and serve the kingdom of man when we feel God has allowed us to do so.  Until then, we live for God and submit to His sovereign control over all things big and small.  Desmond Doss did this; and for this he earns our respect.

Noah Found Grace In the Eyes of the Lord

By Shane Kastler

Noah is most famous for building an ark.  He is also described in the Bible as a “preacher of righteousness.” (2 Peter 2:5)  But have you ever wondered why Noah was righteous?  Some people incorrectly think that Noah was the only righteous man on earth, so God saved him and his family while destroying the rest of mankind.  While it is true that mankind was evil in Noah’s day, it is also true that by nature, Noah was evil too.

All people are born with a sin nature.  As a result of Adam’s sin in the garden, the human race is infected with a curse.  Our natural inclination is not to please God by lovingly obeying him.  Our natural inclination is to go our own way and give in to our own sinful desires.  This was true of Noah as well, because he was a descendant of Adam.

Noah built the ark because he had faith, he knew the Lord, and he revered the Lord.  The book of Hebrews says, “By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” (Hebrews 11:7 NASB) But how did he get to a place of knowing and revering God?  How did he escape the sin curse into which he was born?  The book of Genesis gives us the answer.  “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” (Genesis 6:8 KJV) This means that, even though Noah was sinful by nature, he was righteous because of God’s grace.  God changed Noah from a sinful man into a saintly man.  And this was not because of Noah’s goodness, but because of God’s benevolence.

You and I are likewise sinners before God.  We can do nothing to earn his favor and we can do nothing to merit his salvation.  We are wholly dependent on the grace of God and apart from His grace, we perish.  Is God showing you grace, even now?  Do you have a desire to turn from your sin in repentance and believe in Jesus by faith?  Do you have a desire to shun a life of sin and instead embrace a life of holiness and faith in Christ?  If so, then you have something in common with Noah.  You may never build an ark.  Indeed, you won’t need to.  God will save all those who are in Christ.  Do you know Christ?  Will you turn to him today?  Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.  I hope the same will be said of you.

Audio From Church & State Radio: Barrilleaux, Rader, Gallion, McCall

On Nov. 17 & 18 I guest hosted the "Church & State" radio program on KELB radio in Lake Charles. Below is the audio for the four interviews I did.

 

Nov. 17: Hour 1:  Dr. Bryan Barrilleaux, Topic: We discussed his recent campaign for U.S. Congress and got his toughts on the election of Donald Trump.  (Click here for audio).

Nov. 17: Hour 2: Pastor Casey Rader, Life Church, Sulphur, LA; Topic:  We discussed Casey's recent appointment as Senior Pastor of Life Church and how he was transitioning from his previous role as Children's Pastor.  (Click Here for audio).

Nov. 18: Hour 1: Pastor Rob Gallion, First Baptist Church, Petersburg, IL; Topic: We discussed Rob's call to ministry and his prepartion for the ministry in seminary. We also discussed differences between ministering in a large city vs. a small town. (Click here for audio).

Nov. 18: Hour 2: Barry McCall, President & Founder of KELB radio. Topic:  We discussed the sovereignty of God and how it is linked with current world events.  Also discussed border security and the Biblical justification for it. (Click here for audio).

 

The Christian Case for Border Security

By Shane Kastler

Opinions vary greatly over how America should handle immigration; and the recent presidential election captured perhaps the two most extreme positions. Hillary Clinton favored open borders with little to no security whatsoever. While this was not her public position it was discovered through leaked e-mails that contributed to her political downfall. Border security was not a priority for Hillary. But it was for Donald Trump.

Much of Trump's campaign focused on the flood of illegal immigrants pouring into the country and the fact that SOME of them have mischief on their mind. This is not true of ALL of them and Trump never said it was. He repeatedly said SOME of them are “murderers and rapists” and the statistics prove him right. He favored building a secure wall at the border and tightening restrictions on who enters the country; while making the legal process quicker and more efficient so that those who are qualified to enter could do so faster. The scope of this article is not to compare the policy positions, but rather to point out that the idea of securing the border is both Biblical and Christian in terms of it's philosophical and ethical moorings. In other words, it's not a sin for a nation to secure their country any more than it would be sin for a Christian to lock their doors at night to protect their family. Allow me to explain why.

In Old Testament times, building walls around cities was commended as a common sense means of national/ municipal security. Invading armies would rout Israel if they did not build walls and raise armies to protect themselves. One might say, “Why didn't they just trust God?” It goes without saying that God would and often DID protect Israel supernaturally. But that doesn't mean they were exempt from doing the hard work of securing their property. God often uses natural means to fulfill his supernatural purpose on the earth.

King David prayed to God, “By Your favor do good to Zion; Build the walls of Jerusalem.” (Psalm 51:18) And lest we be mistaken, the “walls” around Jerusalem were PHYSICAL walls for protection from enemies. These walls didn't show a lack of faith, but rather the presence of common sense. What nation will survive without borders? What nation will survive without walls? What nation will survive without armed security? Old Testament Israel had a vast army, skilled in warfare. Why would any earthly nation not have this? But some would question the Christian relevance of this. Is it “un-Christian” for America to have border security? Should we encourage unchecked immigration for the good of those who seek to enter? Even when some of those entering, do not seek our good?

At this point, I should probably point out that many Christians confuse the Church with the government. The Church has a role, indeed a command, to proclaim the gospel of Christ to all the world. If immigrants come to our nation, we should tell them of Christ and pray for their conversion. This is the church's job. But it is not the Federal government's job. According to Romans 13, a government's job is to safeguard the security and the liberty of it's people. The Bible says, “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:3-4 NASB)

If a Christian argues that securing the border is “un-Christian” then they could just as easily argue that all police and military services are “un-Christian.” Police exist to keep the peace and protect the liberty of the citizenry. Likewise military personnel exist for the purpose of national defense. Securing the border is merely another plank in this overall plan to protect the citizens. Of course securing your own home is the first line of defense against evil forces that would harm your family. Jesus said, “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.” (Luke 12:39-40 NASB) The context of Jesus's remarks was the 2^nd coming of Christ. But the example he uses is very prescient. If a man knows his home will be broken into, he will take measures to prevent it. This is not sinful. It is righteous to protect his family; and it is logical to prevent a crime.  Strangely enough, some people expect the government to show a level of hospitable stupidity that they would never do with their own property.  People who consistently lock their doors at night and build fences around their property, all the sudden become pious when a nation seeks to do the same thing.  You wouldn't unlock your door and fling it open at night inviting everyone in to do as they wish with your family.  You wouldn't allow un-screened guests coming and going as they please when its your house and family.  So why would you expect the nation to do this?  Many people hold the government to a much different standard than they live by themselves.  This way they can hypocritically point out how welcoming they are to immigrants the world over; all the while they themselves are doing nothing to deal with the potential problems that arise.

In conclusion, for Christians to have a Biblical idea of border security they must understand the distinction between America as a nation and the Church as a redeemed, spiritual people. As Christians we should welcome those who enter our church doors and minister to them with the gospel of Christ. We don't know their background and furthermore we don't care. We are called to love and to evangelize. We are called to point them to Christ. But this is not the role of the Federal government. To the contrary, we should desire the government to stay out of religious affairs and leave the preaching to us. The governments role is to protect the people; and this most surely involves border security. Some immigrants seek to enter our nation for righteous reasons. They are good, hard-working people who want a new start. Others are not so benevolent. Others, indeed are, murderers, rapists, and thieves. Terrorists have come in with the purpose of killing Americans; and many times this has happened. Only a nation that is both naive and insane will let this go on unhindered. We must take the counsel of Jesus and be “shrewd as serpents, yet innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) Be nice and be “Christian” to those you encounter. But don't trash the governing authorities if they do their role, appointed by God, to brandish the sword for your protection. Their defense of us is not profane. To the contrary, it is in accordance with both Old and New Testament teaching. Let us be witnesses unto the world. But let us be WISE witnesses in the process.

Christian Unity

By Shane Kastler

Sometimes Christian unity suffers when believers take their eyes off of Christ and focus on lesser issues.  The Apostle Paul wrote to the Philippian church encouraging two women in the congregation to “bury the hatchet” and come together in love.  He wrote:  “I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:2-3  NASB)

Paul said that these women “shared his struggle” in the cause of Christ.  In other words, they were not profane unbelievers, but rather faithful Christian servants.  But sometimes, even faithful Christian servants end up at each other’s throats.  When this happens, Christian wisdom dictates that the warring factions stop and re-focus their gaze on Jesus.

When our focus is on the Lord we value eternal matters over temporal matters.  And when we value eternal matters we have a tendency to be less bothered by not getting our way in this life.  Churches should be recognized in the world by their love for the Lord and their love for each other.  But when church members bicker with one another they damage their witness to the unbelievers around them.

Sometimes we are genuinely insulted by a brother or sister in Christ.  And sometimes the insult we think we’ve suffered is only in our head.  Regardless of which is true, we should be willing to overcome the tension for the cause of Christ.  Since no one is perfect, we should extend forgiveness to one another, just as Christ has forgiven us.

Do you know about the love and forgiveness of Christ?  Have you turned from your sin in repentance and trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord?  Peace with others won’t exist until you have peace with God.  And the only way to have peace with God is through His son Jesus Christ. 

Forget about your own wants and focus instead upon the Lord and His glory.  Seek unity with others by seeking reconciliation with God.  Keep eternity in your windshield and selfishness in your rear view mirror.  You will be happier.  The church will be better off.  And most importantly God will be glorified in your attitude and your actions.

Trump Against the World

By Shane Kastler

I suspect this will be my last article prior to the election on November 8.  So I’ll try to make it short, sweet, and to the point (although admittedly I’m not good at that).  Athanasius was a well-known defender of Christian truth who, almost single-handedly defended the doctrine of the Trinity at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.  On his tombstone was written: “Athanasius Contra Mundum” which is Latin for “Athanasius against the world.”  In some ways, this is how I see Donald Trump in this election.  Democrats hate him.  The media hates him.  Establishment Republicans hate him.  If this many people have united against you, then you MUST be doing something RIGHT!

I’m not saying Trump is worthy to be compared to Athanasius.  Trump is not a Christian leader; and right wing attempts to “Christianize” him are wrong in my opinion.  But with that said, he does have a considerable amount of righteous Christian influence and he has openly committed himself to defending Christian liberty and appointing judges who will defend the cause of life.  This, in and of itself, should garner him much support from Christians.  Yet, many oppose him.  Why?  In my opinion it is because many evangelical Christian leaders are clearly controlled by the Republican establishment.  If a more “worthy” candidate, with the exact same views as Trump, had won --  he would have been roundly endorsed by the Christian Pharisees in charge.  But since an out spoken and opinionated “outsider” with a checkered past won; the Christians followed their Washington orders and repudiated him.  In so, doing they will likely usher in the election of Hillary Clinton.  Who is arguably the most ardent and proud, pro-death, pro-abortion, anti-liberty, anti-Christian candidate to ever run for the office.  I would congratulate Christian leaders such as Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and John Piper for their help in electing Hillary; if it wasn’t so painful to do so.  All their rhetoric about fighting for the “unborn” melts away in their constant attacks upon the only major candidate who has spoken in ardent defense of the unborn.  Make no mistake, Trump has said without reservation that he would support life.  Yet, these pawns have opposed him time and again.  They may appear pious to their legion of followers, but Christian history will show them to be have been absent when the cause of life was in need of unreserved defense.  This is their prerogative as Americans and as Christians.  But using the considerable influence that God has blessed them with to constantly speak out against the only major pro-life candidate is unconscionable, in my opinion.

Trump has been called a racist for attempting to secure the border.  The recent murder of 10-year-old Kayla Gomez-Orozco by an illegal alien is the latest in a long line of violent crimes committed by convicts who had no business in America to begin with.  Trump has pointed this out from day one; and has been misquoted and maligned for doing so.  He has repeatedly said that “SOME of the immigrants pouring into our country are murderers and rapists, while others are good people.”  Yet, this qualified statement has been misquoted so many times by the corrupt press (and sadly repeated by many Christian leaders) that most fall for the ruse that he said, “All immigrants are murderers and rapists.”  He never said that; but the sound bite usually wins the day.  Shame on the Christian leaders who have taken part in advancing this lie.

Trump is accused of being racist for his questioning of Barack Obama’s birthplace.  While some might question the wisdom of this move, politically speaking; it is a question that many have entertained.  To question whether or not a president who has a Kenyan father and was raised in Indonesia is a natural born American isn’t racist.  Forcing a black person to sit at the back of a bus because of his skin color is racist.  Questioning a Kenyans place of birth is mere common sense.  This again, has been an unfair charge against Trump.  Levied in many cases by Christian leaders who have proven themselves to be nothing more than political pawns in the hands of establishment elites.

Finally, Trump has been blasted by some for not being pristine enough for the office of president.  To say this is to betray an obvious historical ignorance of the innocence of former presidents.  For 250 years the oval office has been occupied by any number of perverts, dictators, and elite snobs.  Yet, Christian leaders seem to assume Trump is the first “warted-man” to seek the office.  Ronald Reagan was a divorced Hollywood actor, turned politician; who was a liberal, pro-CHOICE Democrat for most of his career.  Yet Christian leaders gladly forgave him and supported him in 1980 when he ran and won against Jimmy Carter.  Mohler worked tirelessly for Reagan’s election, yet speaks out vigorously against Trump.

Mitt Romney, likewise was a die-hard, left wing, pro-CHOICE governor from a New England state; who enjoyed near universal adoration from Christian leaders.  John Piper openly endorsed him; while he has constantly castigated Trump in 2016.  Why is this so?  I believe that Trump’s biggest fault is his open proclamation of his strong opinions rather than an openly pious benevolence that will win over Christian conservatives.  In other words, Trump’s biggest fault is that he isn’t a big enough hypocrite to placate most Christians.  If he were more of hypocrite and not so openly opinionated, then the evangelical intelligentsia would support him.  But since he states what he truly believes, and doesn’t kiss the backside of the self-proclaimed Christian leadership he is panned as a “degenerate.”  Are his conservative convictions a mere ruse to gain votes?  That would seem unlikely since he has run off many voters by stating his honest opinion on a whole host of issues.  For all of Trump’s faults, he doesn’t seem to be a natural politician.  And this is why he is ridiculed by the Christian politicians who oppose him.  They are political hacks.  He is an honest bullhorn.  And this, they hate.

The facts are clearly before us.  God has ordained that Donald Trump win the Republican nomination and that Hillary Clinton win the Democrat nomination.  This is beyond argument.  One of these two will inhabit the oval office.  One of them has openly committed himself to governing according to Christian principles and defending the cause of life.  The other one has openly bragged of her disdain for the unborn and has committed herself to defending the murder of babies at any and all costs.  One has openly proclaimed a desire to defend our borders and protect the citizenry from criminal gangs.  Another has proudly declared her support of open borders and spit in the face of Americans who long for both security and freedom.  Trump has vowed to support religious liberty.  Clinton has called him a racist for doing so and will attack Christians with a pro-death, pro-hate speech, pro-Muslim White House.  What will you choose America?  Shall it be a modicum of freedom under Trump?  Or a feminine dictatorship under Clinton?  Tomorrow you decide.  Weigh your options and choose accordingly.  There won’t be a “door number three.”  Pick your poison and live with the consequences.  Or bury your head in the sand and get Hillary as your Queen.  It’s up to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

Christian Leaders Hold Trump to Higher Standard Than Most Pastors

By Shane Kastler

This presidential election has certainly been one for the ages.  No one expected Donald Trump to make it through the early primaries.   Yet, he won the Republican nomination.  No one expected Hillary Clinton to be challenged in a “cake walk” through the Democrat primaries.  Yet she still tirelessly "CHEATED" in order to beat Socialist opponent Bernie Sanders.  When it was all said and done, we had Donald Trump, a pariah to both the Republican and Democrat establishment.  Versus Hillary, a pariah to anyone with a modicum of common sense and ethics.  And while neither candidate is a “Christian’s dream” – we have seen many Christian leaders devote more time to trashing Trump than to telling the truth about Clinton.  Hillary has been largely ignored by vast swaths of Christendom, so they can fix their sights on Trump.  They consider him profane. Racist. Chauvinistic.  And dangerous.  Yet when pressed to give examples, they can point to nothing earlier than 2005 to justify their slander.  His racism is apparently found in his questioning Obama’s birth in Hawaii.  This is not racism, but a legitimate question. It creates a “head-scratcher” for lots of other Christians who wonder why the only pro-life candidate with any chance of winning would receive such abhorrent opposition from Christian leaders who typically treat other leaders with grace.  His "chauvinism" is apparently tied to comments he made in 2005 (11 years ago); and while the illegitimate press continues to harp on this, a Christian might wonder why Christians leaders would harp on comments that Trump has since repudiated and sought forgiveness.  Are they hopeless tools of the main stream media?  Or simply unforgiving Christians?  I guess Jesus's admonition to "Love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44) doesn't apply if it's Trump?   Why should we love those who our Christian leaders have openly encouraged us to hate? Hillary gets a pass.  But Trump gets crucified.  So what’s going on?

In an earlier article I wrote about why some Southern Baptist leaders, including Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, have constantly spewed venom against Trump.  My personal opinion is that they want Hillary to win.  They would never come out and say this; and I doubt that they really think highly of Hillary.  But they know that if Hillary wins, there will be another Republican candidate (presumable better than Trump) in four short years.  Of course, by then Hillary may have already appointed up to five new Supreme Court justices.  And America’s road to perdition will be largely set.

These leaders would have you believe that their opposition is due to the fact that they are so holy and pious, while Trump is so vulgar and profane.  Yet, when other corrupt Republican candidates have emerged in other elections these leaders remain eerily silent.  Or they express their open support for those who are outwardly pristine, yet inwardly ravenous wolves.  Sadly, for many Christians, it’s the appearance that matters; not the substance.  Many Christians long for someone who can hide their warts and be a good hypocrite.  This makes the Christian feel better about themselves and justifies their support for a scoundrel.  After all the candidate’s sleaziness is hidden behind a sweet veneer of sanctimony.  Sadly, many Christians love the phonies and openly support them.  And they roundly assault with countless verbal grenades any threat to the establishment.  And Trump is a threat to the establishment.  If Hillary wins, then Mohler and Moore are still in the good graces of the established Republican leadership to which they have sworn allegiance.  If Trump wins, all bets are off.  They’ve lost their evangelical influence and are no longer seen as tails that wag the dog.  I doubt they wish to risk this threat to their power.  And many other Christians leaders blindly follow suit; either out of unethical motive to gain political power, or out of pure naivety.  In many cases it is naivety.  Enter John Piper.

My respect for John Piper is near boundless.  In the theological realm, none have influenced my understanding of God more than John Piper.  While I am not a personal acquaintance of his, I have met him on occasion.  And I thank God for how Piper opened my eyes to the sovereignty of God and the importance of glorifying God in one’s life.  Piper is simply in a place by himself in my personal affections.  But I fear he is sometimes duped when he delves into the greater political world.  Piper oozes theological brilliance and genuine piety.  But his discernment is sometimes lacking.  He proved this in 2010 when he invited the worldly, pragmatic pastor Rick Warren to speak at his annual Bible conference.  And, I fear, Piper is once again showing his lack of discernment in the political arena by his consistent opposition to Donald Trump. In a recent message, Piper said, “I am not saying we are bound not to vote. I am saying that the children of God are free to hear the voice of their Master about how to best witness to his supremacy. I will vote. But I have no intention of voting for either of these presidential candidates.”  Piper gives his personal, political opinion in this sermon.  But in so doing, he influences many malleable Christians who hang on his every word.  He should be more careful.

Piper’s overall message is very good, in my opinion.  I would encourage Christians to listen to his arguments that Christians should not seek a “Christianized” state and that we should vote for those candidates that most closely display our values.  But I fear Piper tips his hand a little too much when he castigates both candidates as unworthy of support. And announces that he is voting for neither.  This is his prerogative as an American and even more, as a Christian.  But I think it unwise, considering his vast influence. He passionately reminds Christians that they do not have to vote!  This is true and in one sense I rejoice in hearing a major Christian leader remind believers that their allegiance is not rendered to an earthly regime.  But in another sense I know that God has ordained that we “carry on” for a season.  And as such we should vote for candidates who most closely share our values.  And who stand a legitimate opportunity to win.  While I respect the Christian’s right to vote third party, or to not vote at all; I also respect the Christians who will vote Trump for the sake of the unborn.  And I reject Piper’s apparent repudiation of their electoral logic.

Christians should also be wary of Wayne Grudem.  While Grudem in an imminent theologian and has written one of the greatest systematic theologies of our day; he is not politically astute.  As such he wrote a well-reasoned and logical defense of Trump as a legitimate Christian candidate.  Then as soon as some dirt became public on Trump, Grudem recanted his endorsement.  Then after a few days, he re-issued his endorsement.  I love Wayne Grudem; but he should stay out of the political realm.  He is easily swayed and as such he should stick to theology.  The "political theological" world is a jungle and some should avoid it for their own good; and the good of Christianity at large. His on again off again on again support confuses people.

In some cases, Christians have sought to hold Trump accountable to the level of pastors in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.  Most Christians aren't able to hold this level of accountability; which is why these standards are presented in the first place.  Yet some Christians have said that a president must be held to these standards.  Even most truly born again Christians aren't held to this standard (only pastors).  So why would an unregenerate government leader be held to this standard?  This is both unbiblical and illogical.  We might long for perfect Christian leaders.  But we would be fools to expect it, in this fallen world.  We are not Israel.  We are not under the Old Covenant.  And we are not electing a King or Queen.  Our world is fallen.  Our nation is temporal.  And our elected leader is supposed to be bound by congress and constitutional authority. He (or she) is not supposed to be a monarch.  They are elected officials and should be thought of as such.

Hillary Clinton is adamantly pro-death, to the point of openly embracing partial birth abortion.  Donald Trump is pro-life and has vowed to appoint only pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.  Whatever his other faults may be, this should be taken into consideration.  Piper’s view non-nonchalantly tosses aside Trump’s promise of protecting life, because Trump’s personality offends Piper.  With all due respect to Dr. Piper, he might need to “get over it” for the sake of the unborn.  No candidate is as pristine as Christians would like.  Nor should we necessarily expect this.  We live in a fallen world and America is not our home.  Nor is America a “Christian nation.”  Nor has it EVER been.  Many of our founding fathers were Deistic, non-Christians.  We can't always have devout Christian leaders, therefore we should (at the least) seek those who are committed to life and liberty.  This is consistent with Christian teaching under the New Covenant.  But many Christian leaders seem to abandon the New Covenant in favor of an Old Covenant mindset that would seek a “righteous” king for Israel.  We are not Israel.  We are not under the Old Covenant.  And we do not elect kings.  Our system of government is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic monarchy.  And as such we should seek candidates who espouse liberty, rather than perfect Christian morality.  If the latter is what we insist on, the former will never be attained.  Our TRUE KING, is Jesus.  And he has a kingdom that is “not of this world.”  Therefore, we must understand that all earthly rulers will fall woefully short of our ideal.  And every election involves the “lesser of two evils.”

In conclusion, I believe that Christians should always remember that their home is “not of this world.”  Their rightful king is always Jesus, no matter who wins an election.  And that they should vote for the candidate who will defend their liberty.  Some Christians might consider that this candidate is Donald Trump.  If so, they should not be ridiculed, especially by other Christians.  Vote for Trump if you feel it is best for the cause of life and liberty.  Vote for someone else if you feel so convicted to do so.  Vote for Hillary, only if you have lost complete control over your senses.  She is both pro-death, and historically corrupt.  In the end, know that God is in control.  You won’t be condemned for voting Trump.  And you won’t be judged for refusing to do so.  Trust in God and know that ALWAYS….. ALWAYS……. His will is done.  None can thwart His perfect plan. No matter what transpires on Tuesday, we will praise the Lord.  And in so doing He will be glorified.  Vote for who you think it best.  Then sleep soundly on November 8, knowing that God is in control.  And beyond this.  Nothing needs to be said.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

How I Prepare & Deliver Sermons

By Shane Kastler

This article details how I typically prepare and deliver sermons. Not that anybody particularly cares; but I thought it might be helpful for some people to know anyway. Maybe some of these things will be helpful to other preachers. Or maybe it will be helpful to congregants to know a little bit about the process.

Most weeks I preach three sermons (Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening); and they typically last from 45 to 90 minutes depending on the venue. Wednesday nights are sometimes longer because it is more of an informal, “give and take” setting. Some preachers like to boast about how long they can preach; but I find this counterproductive and arrogant. Preaching for 2 hours means nothing if the congregation has checked out after 30 minutes. It might boost the preachers ego but it does nothing to build up the saints. On the flip side, other preachers boast in their brevity but this can also be counterproductive. A 15 minute sermonette simply won't give you the time to explain the context of a passage or adequately expound a text. Rather than focus on the time issue, preachers should primarily seek to explain the text adequately and tell the people why they should care about it. Long ago I was told that a good sermon will do three things. It will explain what the text says (in context). It will explain what the text means (to us). And it will tell the people how to apply it. A preacher should work to set these things up in his introduction so the people aren't waiting 40 minutes for him to “get to the point.” Tell the people up front why this text is so important. Then explain it to them in words they can understand.

The picture above shows my notes from a recent Wednesday night sermon. Every preacher is different; but I typically preach from “notes” that I've prepared. Some preachers type out a complete manuscript but I never do. When I've tried that in the past I ended up getting too bogged down in “keeping my place” in the delivery. It works for some and if so, they should do it. But it doesn't work for me. Other preachers memorize their sermons and use no notes at all. I have found that my memory isn't good enough to do that; and if I try I end up leaving out vital points that came to me in the preparation time. Once again, if this works for other preachers then they should do it. It doesn't work for me.

My notes are typically four pages long. After 20 years of preaching I've found that for me, four pages of notes usually ends up being about an hour's worth of sermon. I also type up an outline which I give to the congregation so they can follow my train of thought. This isn't always required, but I think it is helpful to provide some structure for the people and to give them something tangible to look back on after the sermon, if they so desire.

I often say things in the sermon that aren't in my notes (which I think a preacher needs to be willing to do). And I often skip things which I have in my notes. I think a preacher needs to operate as a “spiritual quarterback” who “calls audibles” when the Lord instructs him to. Sometimes I sense that I have made a particular point adequately and another reference or illustration will be redundant. At other times, I do the opposite. A particular passage or an illustration might come to mind that I had not planned. Again, I see this as God's provision and I try to be sensitive to His leading at all times. As a fallible man, I might get it wrong. Maybe I should have used another reference; but sooner or later you have to “move on” from a point and trust in God to apply it to the listener's heart.

I use a system of “color coding” my notes with highlighters. This is a system that works for me, but might not work for everyone. In my case, I always highlight the main points in blue. Why blue? No reason, other than it is my favorite color and that's how I've trained myself to do it. I highlight Biblical passages that I plan to quote in pink. Why pink? Because it's close to red; and when I see something written in red it reminds me of Bibles that print the words of Christ in red. So when I see “pink highlight” in my notes it immediately jars my brain into realizing it's a scripture text. I use orange to highlight points of application or illustration. I also use exclamation points (!) and the letters “APP” in all caps when it's a point of application. I use an asterisk (*) when it is a sermon illustration. For my “pre-planned” illustrations I typically just use one or two words that will remind me of the illustration. I don't type them out. Once again, I would get bogged down if I did. I use yellow highlighters for quotes.  The final color I use is green, to highlight places in the sermon where I plan to explain a particular doctrine in greater detail; or dig deeper into a particular point.

In addition to these things, I usually indent progressively under the main point so that my mind can see the flow of where I'm trying to go. If I want to present a question for the people to consider I will write in a large question mark in the margin. Then sometimes I will write the word “ANSWER” in all caps, highlighted in orange so I can adequately answer the question I just presented. This is called “dialogue and argumentation” and it is vital to the sermon process in my opinion. When I've finished a sermon I always try to “preach it to myself” first. Not only so I can attempt to “practice what I preach.” But also, so I can anticipate questions the listeners might have and attempt to answer them in the sermon.

After I've finished all of this “prep” work for the sermon and made the notes; I go back over them and jot some hand written notes in the margin where needed. I also draw arrows to help me move from one subpoint to another and to help me build an argument and drive it home. After all of the notes are completed, I look over them repeatedly (as time permits). On Saturday nights and early Sunday mornings I look over my Sunday morning sermon notes. On Sunday and Wednesday afternoons I look over the evening notes. This doesn't always work out because family and ministry needs often arise. But that's OK. A pastor's job is more than preaching and when he puts the notes aside to address an issue he is still doing his job. Sometimes that means he must preach a funeral. Or visit the ill. Or have a tea party with his 9 year old daughter. All of these events are important. If a preacher consistently blows off sermon prep so he can play golf or goof off; it will eventually show up in the pulpit. But if he genuinely must address spiritual needs, then God will honor what he does. Real life happens everyday, and the preacher who doesn't “live life” will pay the price for it. The church will suffer, his family will suffer, and he will soon find himself in another line of work.

In my opinion, a good preacher will play the roles of expositor, theologian, lawyer, counselor, and quarterback. He presents the text only after doing the heavy lifting of private study. As he preaches the text he also explains and teaches the theology it presents, being careful not to “force” a doctrine that the text itself isn't proclaiming. He will be like a prosecuting attorney presenting the case from scripture and excoriating Satan in the process. He will point out why heresies are wrong and why accurate doctrine is right. And just as he attempts to “lower the boom” on the spiritual opposition, with power; he will also seek to counsel the saints, with tenderness. People don't need brow-beaten; they need fed. Sometimes the tone must be powerful. Sometimes it must be soft. A good preacher will exhibit a wide range of emotions that are appropriate to the point he's making. You shouldn't be jovial when speaking of eternal torment. And you don't have to act like a zombie for every illustration or point of application. Preachers shouldn't act like robots. In fact they shouldn't “act” at all; they should be natural and trust in the Holy Spirit to speak through them. Which leads to my final point.

All of the preparation in the world is worthless if God is not the center of the whole process. Some might think that all of this preparation removes reliance on the Holy Spirit; but this would be a grave mistake. God blesses hard work. It's true of farmers and it's true of shepherds. Even spiritual ones. Preachers shouldn't try to copy other preachers. But they might benefit from seeing how others do the work of preaching. With that said, if any of my suggestions are helpful then by all means use them. If they don't work for you, then don't force them. All preachers should be alike in that they should seek to accurately proclaim God's Word with due reverence and rigor. But all preachers are different, just as all people are different. This is in accordance with God's plan and by God's design. At the end of the day we are all merely “chosen instruments” who are tools in the hands of the Lord. We can seek to be used by Him and prepare. Or we can be lax and flippant and thus be unprepared. As for me, a healthy fear motivates me to study and prepare. I know I'll give an account to God for what I've taught and I want to get it right. Then I want to present it to the people in an understandable fashion. This is my goal and I hope and pray the Lord is glorified; both in the process and in the presentation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(NOTE: I have two of my seminary professors to thank for some of these methods. Dr. Don Whitney taught me the importance of color coding notes. Dr. Ben Awbrey taught me how to prepare and preach sermons. Numerous other professors taught me various aspects of ministry, but these two most greatly affected how I present the message).

 

BOOK REVIEW: Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer

By Shane Kastler

As a professor, Scott Hendrix observed a void in the area of Martin Luther scholarship and he sought to fill that void by penning the biography, Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer. Hendrix succeeded by producing a work on Luther that is both well researched and highly readable. Since much attention will be devoted to Luther in the coming days, with the 500^th anniversary of his 95 theses; Hendrix adds a pertinent layer to the available material on Luther's life that is both valuable and timely.

It would be a poor writer who would make a biography of Luther boring. His life was prodigiously interesting and exciting; and Hendrix brings that out in this book. Luther's father desired for his son to study law, but Martin's life was drastically changed when he was frightened by a thunderstorm and promised God that he would enter a monastery. While Hendrix raises doubt as to the historical accuracy of this event, the decision of Martin to become a monk is unquestioned. The zealous Luther sought to please God and assuage His wrath; and in so doing he entered the Augustinian order with fervor. Martin's father was not happy with the decision, but eventually came around and was present with a large entourage when his son was ordained. According to Hendrix, Luther's father was skeptical himself of the Catholic church and wanted his son to thus avoid the priesthood. Yet, against his father's wishes he joined; and Hans Luther would eventually rejoice at his son's rejection of Catholicism and the ensuing reformation.

Martin's legalistic Catholicism eventually clashed with what he read in the Scriptures and he famously spoke out against it. As he observed the selling of indulgences by the established church, he rightly called it out as a scam that preyed upon the fears of the common people. He sought to right this wrong by posting his 95 Theses on the castle door at Wittenberg.

It has been well established that Martin never dreamed his act would spark such a response as it did. Yet God was pleased to use Luther in ways that he never would have imagined. Luther originally sought reform within Catholicism, as opposed to the establishment of a new denomination. But time, and the Pope's edict, would soon force his hand. Luther grew more and more emboldened as time passed; and he spoke out brazenly against the Pope. At times, openly insulting, Luther eventually embraced the conclusion that the Pope was the Anti-Christ and a tool of Satan himself. This led to his defrocking. But it also led to his historical status as a reformer and legendary figure in Christian history. “Lutheranism” became powerful in Germany as the corruption of Catholicism was exposed. Still yet, some of Luther's greatest defenders were German political leaders who remained faithful to the Catholic hierarchy. Luther could have easily been executed; yet political favor and more importantly divine providence, protected him.

Hendrix's work reads almost like a novel in it's narrative; but it retains the feel of a scholarly work. He seeks to separate the Luther myth with reality and at times is forced to speculate on how events transpired. In what might be a disappointment to Luther fans, he argues that Luther had a lot of help from others during the Protestant Reformation; and that he probably gets more credit than is warranted. This is undoubtedly true, but still Luther's prominence is adequately presented in the book, albeit in a more tempered line of reasoning.

Hendrix is also unashamed to point out Luther's faults. For example, Luther was often brash, overly opinionated, and combative. These traits, which endeared him to so many, could at times serve as a two-edged sword in leading him into some fights that he might have otherwise avoided. Still yet, Luther is presented as the man that he was. Outspoken to a fault? Yes. But outspoken for what he believed to be divine truth? Certainly.

Some of Hendrix's observation's of Luther are helpful:

“Keeping quiet was never Martin Luther’s strength. He offered his opinion, sought or unsought, on most matters that crossed his desk.”

“He pronounced the world “utterly perverted” and blamed it on the absence of faithful preachers. Among perhaps 3,000 preachers, he contended, only four good ones could be found.”

“Erasmus was hurt by the accusations in Luther’s book and told him so: “The whole world knows your nature; truly you have so guided your pen that you have written against no one more rabidly and, what is more detestable, more maliciously than against me.… I would wish you a better disposition were you not so marvelously satisfied with the one you have.”

Luther's famous debates with Erasmus are well documented in the book. As are his well documented comments at the Diet of Worms where he refused to recant his views regarding the corruption of Catholicism. In time, Luther had assisted many nuns in shunning their vows, which he viewed as unbiblical; and helped them find husbands. He ultimately married a nun of his own and fathered six children with his beloved Katherine; who is presented as one who is brash in her own right and makes a good counter-punch and companion to the irascible Luther.

Eventually, Luther ran his course, kept the faith, and died in faithful service to the Lord. He had fought against several physical ailments in his later days and finally succumbed to sickness at the age of 62. His mark on Christianity was indelible. Scott Hendrix does an admirable job of presenting this most interesting life in all the grandeur it deserves. While the reader might not agree with Hendrix in all his assumptions and conclusions; it is without doubt that he presents Luther's life in a very accurate and interesting manner. The reader may draw his own conclusion; but this work will aid him in forming an accurate opinion of a man who intellectually feared no one; and “took no prisoners” in the realm of theology. Luther's fame is well deserved and Hendrix succeeds in presenting this, while also reminding the reader that Luther is still a fallible man. Luther was used of God to further His kingdom. The same might be said of Hendrix in this enjoyable biography.