"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Russell Moore & SBC Obsess Over Race at Expense of Gospel

By Shane Kastler

This past week the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) voted to “condemn the ‘Alt-Right’ and all forms of racism including white supremacy” at their annual convention in Phoenix.  While the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) elected a left-leaning college professor who writes and speaks frequently on “white privilege” and “institutional racism.”  Both of these moves show how far to the political left these once conservative denominations have lurched; and how social and political mantras take precedence over the gospel of Christ.  SBC guru Russell Moore bemoans the “Alt-Right” as being “satanic” – but Satan is undoubtedly more gleeful that these denominations obsess over perceived racism at the expense of focusing on Christ.  America, and indeed the world’s problem is not racism.  Its problem is a rejection of Jesus which ruins the life and damns the soul.

The SBC is becoming more of a joke every year.  Their numbers continue to dwindle, as leaders like Moore continue to steer the denomination leftward.  It’s not that denouncing “white supremacy” is bad. In fact, 99.9999999 percent of the country would denounce it.  It’s the fact that Moore and the SBC feel the CONSTANT need to bring the issue up, that is so annoying and distracting.  Moore loves to manufacture problems that he can then “speak out against” thus making himself a hero to his fawning young supporters.  And in so doing he also gets attention and ink from liberal media outlets such as the New York Times and the Huffington Post, which undoubtedly strokes his ego as well.  In a tweet this week Moore said, “The so-called Alt-Right white supremacist ideologies are anti-Christ and satanic to the core. We should say so.”  The problems with this statement are myriad.

First of all, Moore lumps every “Alt-Right” person into the category of white supremacy.  Are there white supremacists who would be classified as “Alt-Right”?  No doubt there are.  But painting with such broad ideological strokes is both divisive and misleading.  Furthermore, one has to wonder why Moore is not denouncing black supremacy and the racism that exudes from groups such as Black Lives Matter.  It’s not hard to figure out the answer.  Renouncing non-white racism would serve no purpose in pandering to the left-wing race-baiters Moore seeks to appease.  And for all of the bemoaning of “Alt-Right” racism it should be noted that the only LEGAL form of racism in America is racism against whites through such government programs as affirmative action.  While the SBC busies itself with speaking out against a largely non-existent problem, genuine racism boils in America while Moore and his cronies utter not a word against it.  The militant black movement has become so empowered that some have demanded and received separate graduation ceremonies for black students who do not want whites to be a part of their education experience. Ironically, the past struggles for civil rights have been turned on their heads as some blacks now SEEK segregation because of their disdain for whites.  In these cases, the problem is not “white privilege” but rather “white hatred.”  You say, "This wouldn't happen in America today!"  But you'd be wrong.  It happened last month at Harvard University, as well as numerous other liberal cesspools.  If the spineless SBC had the courage they pretend to have, they would renounce these types of “institutional racism” as much as they denounce the “Alt-Right.”  But again, this would serve no purpose in their political pandering efforts.

In all likelihood, the REAL REASON for Moore and the SBC’s resolution against the “racism” of the “Alt-Right” is found in Moore’s personal hatred for Donald Trump.  He constantly bemoaned and badgered Trump during the campaign; and infamously renounced all Trump supporters, implying they were racist (and perhaps not even truly Christian).  Moore’s obnoxious behavior eventually did briefly get Trump’s attention as he swatted Moore away like a fly on his rear end by calling him a “nasty guy.”  Moore then gleefully tweeted about it, seemingly overjoyed that Trump acknowledged his annoying presence.  Moore seemed quite proud of himself.  But his antics grew increasingly irritating to many in the SBC who grew tired of his criticisms and spoke out against Moore, nearly costing him his job as head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.  Moore’s hatred of Trump, and his bogus claims of racism obviously still remain, as seen in this week’s events at the convention. 

I often wonder why Moore’s sycophantic followers never stop to ask him for examples of Trump’s racism?  Is it that Trump (unlike Moore) has the nerve to speak out against radical Islam?  Is it because Trump favors border-security?  Is this what makes him a racist?  And if so, how so?  Shouldn’t the SBC take a stand on the Islamic murder of Christians, (or non-Christians for that matter)?  Shouldn’t the SBC take a stand on illegal immigration?  Or here’s a thought….maybe the SBC should pass a resolution calling for members to “pray for those in authority over us.” (see 1 Timothy 2:1-3)   But perhaps they would prefer I keep the Bible out of their political gamesmanship.  They are, after all, largely a political rather than a religious organization these days.  And Moore is far more lobbyist for the left, than prophet for the truth.

Moore is entitled to his opinion, but his constant whining over largely manufactured racism is growing tiresome and distracting.  Ironically, the black, agnostic actor Morgan Freeman seems to know better than Moore how to deal with perceived racism.  In an interview with Mike Wallace, in which Freeman referred to Black History Month as “ridiculous” Freeman suggests how America can get past racism.  Freeman simply tells Wallace to “stop talking about it” and start seeing people as people instead of constantly bringing up the issue of race.  While some might see Freeman’s point as over-simplistic, it does breathe a fresh bit of air into the tired and stale mantra of white panderers like Moore.  Indeed, on this topic, Moore the Christian could learn something from Freeman the Agnostic.  That’s sad to say, but certainly true.

Unfortunately, Moore is not the only Christian leader to obsess over race at the expense of the gospel.  The once conservative “Gospel Coalition” continues its dizzying mantra against the “Alt-Right” and anything they perceive as being supportive of Trump.  I’ve written in the past that “The Gospel Coalition” is nothing more than a Christianized version of the Huffington Post.  John Piper, once a bastion for the supremacy of God, has become another social commentator who now seems to spend more time talking about race than Christ.  Thabiti Anywabile gets ample ink-space on The Gospel Coalition blog site where he can trash Trump as racist; while The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary holds “discussions” on racism in America with some of its black professors. It is interesting how so many black people have managed to gain high positions of prestige and power in a country that is supposedly as racist as ours.  It reminds me of football star Colin Kaepernick’s complaints about racism, while he cashed million dollar checks in a country that pays him to sit on the bench and run his mouth.  How sadly oppressed he was!  And all of this under 8 years of a black president.  Is white supremacy really that big of a problem in America?  Worthy of a resolution from the SBC? Hardly.

Of course the New Testament church had members obsessed with racial issues as well.  The Jews were enamored with "Jew stuff" (like circumcision, the Law, etc. - Acts 15) and Gentiles were obsessed with Gentile stuff (like making sure their widows were treated right - Acts 7).  But the Apostles refused to take the bait from the Russell Moores of the day.  They insisted that the church was not Jew or Gentile, but ONE in Christ.  All sinners.  All saved.  One race.  One blood is all that matters.  They focused on Jesus, rather than the "Alt-Right." 

In conclusion, I’m not saying that racism is non-existent in America today.  But what I AM saying is Christian entities need to get off of this soapbox and start speaking out about ETERNAL issues.  While Russell Moore whines about “racism” Christians continue to be killed and persecuted the world over.  While Moore whimpers about the “Alt-Right”; Islamists continue their march toward world domination.  And while the SBC passes “resolutions” that amount to nothing more than veiled shots at Trump --  genuine, eternal issues get ignored.  Morgan Freeman is right on this one.  Stop talking about racism! And stop using it as a political ploy and meal ticket to fame.  Russell Moore and his cohorts have milked this issue enough, and the sad fact is that most of the country doesn’t really care what the SBC does anyway.  Their resolutions are meaningless and their political stunts are divisive and self-glorifying.  The SBC is becoming a joke and the only ones who don’t seem to realize it are the SBC leaders themselves.  I pine for the days when the SBC focused on doctrine and the gospel.  But today they have largely become another left-leaning religious organization that is nothing more than a shell of their former glory.  And they have leaders like Moore to thank for that.  Maybe the delegates to the convention should pass a resolution denouncing Moore and let him get on to the business he’s really interested in; which is leftward social issues and political hackery.  Maybe he should move on from the SBC and find a new job in his true, ideological home the DNC.  And let the SBC get back to the business of preaching the gospel.

The Redemption of John Mark

By Shane Kastler

John Mark came from a very prominent family in the New Testament church.  He lived in Jerusalem with his mother Mary, and the church met in their home.  Acts 12 records the Apostle Peter being held in prison, while the church prayed for him at Mary’s house.

It seems that Mary was the sister of Barnabas, who was also a prominent leader in the church.  It was Barnabas and Paul who were called by the Holy Spirit to go on a missionary journey, taking the gospel to the regions around them.  John Mark, being a relative of Barnabas, went with them as a “helper.”  But he soon became a deserter.  Acts records, “Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Acts 13:13

It was the church in Antioch that fasted, prayed, commissioned, and sent Paul and Barnabas out.  But Mark did not return to Antioch when he went AWOL.  He went home to Jerusalem.  I think a pretty strong case can be made that John Mark was never supposed to go on the first missionary journey. The text says “Barnabas and Saul (Paul)” were set apart for the work.  It says nothing about John Mark.  Barnabas, known well for his encouraging spirit, probably pushed for John Mark to go.  John’s mother Mary might have also pushed for this.  But it was not John Mark’s time.  He wasn’t ready.  And he consequently failed.

But failure wasn’t the end of the story for John Mark.  On the second missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas disagreed sharply over whether John should have a second chance.  Paul refused; so Barnabas and Paul split up. Barnabas took John Mark and Paul took Silas.  Now the church had two teams; and in time God blessed both.  In time, Paul also forgave Mark.

Near the end of his life, Paul writes to Timothy saying, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.” (2 Tim. 4:11) And when Paul writes Colossians from a Roman prison; he also mentions Mark as “sending his greetings” indicating Mark was with him. 

Mark failed miserably when he got homesick on his first missionary journey.  But God still had work for Mark to do.  Not only did he end up serving prominently with both Peter and Paul.  He also received an honor from the Lord that only three other men received.  Matthew, MARK, Luke, and John wrote the four gospels of Christ.  Mark the failure, became Mark the evangelist.

You have failed at times too.  But God is likely not done with you.  Are you willing to be used by him? Do you desire it?  God might use you in ways you never imagined.  Submit to his sovereignty and trust in his daily strength.  Seek his face and find your destiny.  Have you failed? Repent and forget it.  Learn, but move on.  John Mark failed miserably.  But God still used him.  God will do the same for you.

Why Thabiti Anyabwile Is Wrong about Trump & Immigration

By Shane Kastler

The Great Commission does not tell all the nations of the world to come to America to hear the gospel. The Great Commission tells the church to GO TO all the nations and take the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20). The current immigration crisis in America has blurred the eyes of many American Christians who seem to want the Federal government to do the hard work of missions for them. Rather than wrestling with whether or not they should GO and TELL; many American Christians simply want the government to enact an open borders policy so other nations can COME and HEAR. This is spiritual laziness, disguised as Biblical piety and missionary zeal. Thabiti Anyabwile is one clear example of this type of unbiblical and wrong-headed thinking; and how many Christian leaders will misinterpret the Bible to achieve their political purposes.

In a recent interview for “The Gospel Coalition” Thabiti bemoaned how selfish American Christians were for supporting a restriction of the national border. He smugly commented that “Christians need to go back to their Bibles” to be informed on issues like this. Of course, the obvious question would be, “What exactly does the Bible say about American immigration policy?” And the answer is nothing. Thabiti took the question, “How should Christians respond to refugees?” And answered the question, “How should the United States respond to immigration?” These are two entirely different questions because the United States is not synonymous with Christianity and all immigrants are not refugees.

For those unfamiliar with Thabiti, he serves as a pastor of Anacostia Baptist Church in Washington D.C. - having preciously served as pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands and as a staff member at Mark Dever's Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington. He made a name for himself in evangelical circles because of his association with Dever, and later having ties to John Piper. He was born as “Ron Burns”, but changed his name when he converted to Islam. He later converted to Christianity, but kept his Muslim name. He has a compelling testimony and many conservative Christians respect him as a fresh tonic to the phony reverends like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who give black Christians a bad name. While Thabiti may not be in their ballpark, he is much closer than most of his fans realize. He has spoken glowingly of Bernie Sanders and the Black Lives Matter movement, while criticizing police and elevating “black” causes at the expense of Christian unity. Thabiti is the worst kind of dangerous because he mixes racial politics with conservative Christianity to sound orthodox while leading the undiscerning astray. I don't know his motives. Maybe he means well, but I don't trust him.

Thabiti, and many other Christian leaders like John Piper and Russell Moore continue to confuse the United States government with the Church and draw praise from many confused Christians who KNOW that Christians should be gracious to everyone, and ASSUME Thabiti and others are right when they criticize American immigration policy. The problem here, is that it is the church's job to be gracious and evangelize whoever they come in contact with. It is the Federal government's job to protect us and our liberty as we do this. And immigration standards fall well within the government's role in this area. The Bible says the “governing authorities” are to “wield the sword” and keep the peace. They are to punish evil and protect the innocent. (see Romans 13) But they are not to step in and do the work of missions for an increasingly lazy (and liberal) church. Many Christian leaders are nothing more than pawns for whatever political group they belong to. Thabiti complains about this reality, even though he himself seems to be just as guilty of it. In citing Old Covenant Israel as an example of those who were called to be gracious to “sojourners among you” he states, “The American church has been cozy with power for a long time; and it doesn't remember slavery in Egypt.” The problem with this statement is that American Christians never were slaves in Egypt. They were slaves to sin. And to take the typological picture of Old Covenant Israel and pagan Egypt; and then try to see the fulfillment in America and it's immigration policy is to distort scripture, mix and match covenants, and force a physical fulfillment on a spiritual reality. We are not Old Covenant Israel and we were never slaves in Egypt. The true church is the “New” Israel and were freed from our bondage to sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with America's policy on immigration. Should the church be gracious to “the sojourner among you?” Of course. But this doesn't mean the Federal government should disregard all security measures and promote an open borders policy. Not even Old Covenant Israel did that. They had walled cities, with armies, and guards, and laws which had to be obeyed.

Thabiti's words sound very pious, but they seem to be more rooted in his personal hatred of Donald Trump than in anything the Bible actually teaches. For months, Thabiti has railed against Trump with every fiber of his being. He's accused him of being a racist, as he openly endorsed Hillary Clinton. In so doing, Thabiti tipped his hand as being more concerned with his personal preferences than with protecting life itself. If Thabiti had supported a third party candidate, or no one at all....more power to him. But Thabiti, openly announced his intention to vote for the infanticidal, feminist Clinton. And that is shameful. And in so doing he lost all credibility on cultural issues.  And strangely enough, he uttered not a word against Barack Obama's immigration policy which also included temporary bans and deportation.  Of course, he still has a large platform because he has “The Gospel Coalition” seal of approval. This means that many conservative, and even theologically “reformed” Christians will swallow whatever rhetoric he puts forth and assume he is trustworthy. Even if he has a clear ax to grind and is twisting scripture to defend his political positions. Unfortunately, The Gospel Coalition seems to be morphing more and more into a Christianized version of the Huffington Post; and Thabiti is becoming the new Arianna Huffington.

In The Gospel Coalition clip, Thabiti goes on to make the ludicrous and breath-taking comparison of Paul in Athens in Acts 17 as an example to defend his immigration position. He cites that God has determined the “boundaries and habitations of people that they may be brought to the gospel.” Thabiti apparently sees this as a justification for open borders. But doesn't the text itself say that citizens of other countries “boundaries and habitations” have been determined by God? And was Paul making any reference at all to immigration, or even more absurd, to AMERICAN immigration? Of course not. Has the sovereign God who determined a Syrian live in Syria, also decreed that they can't hear the gospel unless they come to America? Or did God tell Christians of all nationalities to GO and TELL, rather than expect them to COME and HEAR?

Does this mean Christians who support secure borders are being “un-Christian” and hateful, as Thabiti suggests? Not at all. In fact, Christians can and should support helping refugees and others in need. But it shouldn't be through government policy, it should be through private charity in both practice and in financial support. The knee-jerk reaction of most Americans is to look to government in general to solve all their problems. And to use the United States government in particular to solve all the world's problems. But this is not America's job as a country. And it is not the government's role as the “governing authorities.” If you feel led to support Syrian refugees for example, then YOU should give from your own pocket to support them rather than trying to force the government to take from everyone's pocket to support them. If you feel a burning desire to share gospel with Syrians then you should give to missions causes in that region, or consider going there as a missionary yourself rather than trying to force the entire country to welcome all (even potential terrorists) to enter through open borders. America is not the church. Immigration is not missions. And national defense is not “hateful ideology” as Thabiti suggests.

Thabiti uses a lot of liberal buzzwords that will probably go unnoticed by many Christians who have been hypnotized by such words. He speaks of “injustice, empathy, sojourners, and the voiceless” to criticize Christians who expect the government to do it's God-ordained role of keeping the peace through immigration policy. And to promote his own “anti-all things Trump” position of open borders, etc. For a man to have the audacity to browbeat Christians for not defending the “voiceless” when he himself openly supported Hillary Clinton is both staggering and nauseating. In this clip, Thabiti comes across as pious, pompous, and condescending. He waxes eloquent about his own perceived Biblical knowledge, while distorting the scriptures to achieve his own political ends. And then accuses anyone who opposes him of doing the same things he does. He has taken a page from the playbook of the Democrats and duped many conservative Christians in the process. While he may be right on some theological issues, I encourage Christians to just avoid him. He's too blinded by his hatred of Trump to speak rationally on matters of culture.

 

The Case for Confrontation: Why Jesus Insulted & Offended People

By Shane Kastler

Jesus was the most complex man who ever lived; and he was FAR MORE confrontational than most people realize.  At times he was very tender, like when he forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8). At other times he was very combative, like when he turned over the tables in the temple (Matt. 21; John 2). He spoke with perfect grace, and he spoke with perfect judgment. None of us could ever live in the perfect way that Jesus did. Of course, during his earthly life, he was nothing less than “God in the flesh.” His divine nature obviously set him apart from the rest of humanity. He was not a “created” man, but rather “all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) Jesus is eternal. He has always been. We are created. We are mortal. Which is why we need a relationship with him to be forgiven and saved. And it is why we examine his earthly life and character to see how we should live.

In one regard, we are called to imitate Christ. In another regard, we should never try. We SHOULD imitate his character. We CANNOT imitate his divine authority. Yet we do try to live under his divine authority and emulate his love, mercy, grace, and truth to the world around us.

Perhaps the most neglected, ignored, and unknown aspect of Jesus's character was his confrontational style. While he was very tender and gracious to some, he was also very critical of others. Modern people love the “gentle as a lamb” Jesus. But most don't even know the “fierce as a lion” Jesus. Yet both analogies aptly describe him. Jesus was not afraid to speak the truth. And to do so, “to your face.” This is most clearly seen in his numerous confrontations with the Jewish Pharisees.

The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that was widely considered to be the most “holy” of all Jews. Fiercely legalistic, they openly paraded their so-called righteousness in front of crowds, so as to be bragged upon. They legitimately thought themselves to be better than others, and their arrogance was breath-taking at times. You might think that the “average” Jews would be able to see through this hypocrisy; but most could not. They revered the Pharisees and they were intimidated by them. Jesus was not.

Jesus taught in parables for many different reasons. Sometimes he specifically taught in mysterious parables so that people WOULD NOT understand. Jesus told the disciples this himself, saying that his cryptic teachings were only understood by those to whom understanding has been “given to.” When he gives the interpretation to the parable of the sower, he tells the disciples that they are “blessed” in being told this mystery. In other words, it's not that they are more intelligent than others; but that God has chosen to “reveal” truth to them that he doesn't give to others. (Matt. 13:10-16)

Jesus sometimes taught in parables to teach his disciples a spiritual truth. In Matthew 22, he gives the parable of the wedding feast and opens the story by saying, “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to...” He is teaching the disciples a spiritual truth through the analogous story. Yet sometimes when Jesus spoke in parables, his enemies knew full well what he was saying. The gospel of Matthew records: “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:45-46)

In his parables against the Pharisees, Jesus compared them to wicked workers who killed their boss's son (Matt. 21:33-44). He compared them to arrogant wedding invitees, who refused to come to the King's banquet (Matt. 22:1-14). And he repeatedly compared them to disobedient sons who treated their father with contempt (Matt. 21:28-32; Luke 15:11-32). When he spoke against the Jews, he also spoke in favor of gentiles who possessed faith. Jesus made it abundantly clear, that all were sinners by nature; that no one deserved salvation, regardless of their bloodline; and that only believers would enter the kingdom. Sinners are saved by grace, through faith; and legalistic, self-righteousness was a broad road that led to Hell. And Jesus did not shy away from telling the Pharisees this in very descriptive ways.

Jesus not only confronted the Jews with parables, he also confronted them with direct arguments. When we read through the gospels, we find Jesus calling them “hypocrites, blind guides, white-washed tombs, Sons of the Devil, evil, stumbling blocks, brood of vipers, and wicked.” Many today would accuse him of being too confrontational, combative, and insulting. Some would say he was engaging in petulant “name-calling.” Yet the Bible presents Jesus as the sinless Son of God. He wasn't petulant, he was brutally honest. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a person is to take off the “kid gloves” and tell them the plain truth. Jesus did this to perfection. But even in his own day, he was accused of being too harsh. After giving some of his famous “Woe unto you Pharisees” statements, the gospel of Luke records:“One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, 'Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too.' But He said, 'Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them.'” (Luke 11:45-47)

Amazingly, rather than recant and apologize, Jesus speaks even MORE forcefully and pointedly. When the “lawyer” (an expert in the Mosaic Law), tries to get Jesus to “tone it down” – Jesus moves from a general criticism of “Pharisees” to a specific criticism of the very lawyer who is confronting him. In other words, he points out the man's faults, to his face. Say what you will about Jesus, he was certainly not a coward.

On yet another occasion, Jesus's disciples tell him that he is insulting the Pharisees. They seem to think that Jesus is oblivious to how harsh his language is. And they say to him: “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matt. 15:12-14) Jesus knew full well that he offended the Pharisees. In fact, that was his intent. And when his opponents, or the crowds, or even his own disciples were aghast at his words, Jesus merely spoke more loudly and more direct. He didn't water down the confrontation, he fanned the flames of confrontation. Truth doesn't need to apologize. And Jesus never apologized for speaking the truth. Yet truth, often offends people in a world where they are accustomed to dishonest “niceties.” Those who speak the truth and are shouted down usually cower and submit. Even when people know they're right, they often resort to “group-think” and allow themselves to be intimidated and silenced by the ignorant and evil masses. But sometimes rare individuals come along who refuse to be silenced. This is true in a Biblical sense (e.g., Jesus). It is true in a historical sense (e.g., Martin Luther). And it is even true in a political sense (e.g., Donald Trump). Luther was correct far less than Jesus; and Trump is correct far less than both. But the common thread in such people is that they refuse to shut up, when they believe they are in the right. Though mortals like Luther and Trump may at times be wrong; their courage in the midst of opposition is both rare and commendable. When Luther refused to recant of his Biblical beliefs at the Diet of Worms, Christians should have taken notice. Likewise when Trump confronted Hillary Clinton in a debate over the evils of partial-birth abortion. Instead, such brave acts are often decried, even by Christians, as being too brash and confrontational. Still, someone must stand up to the bullies of the world; and often times the one who does this will be accused of being a bully himself. But bullying a bully is righteous. Jesus and the Pharisees teach us this quite clearly. When someone refuses to back down and actually speaks LOUDER rather than shutting up --- many will despise him, and seek his destruction. The world hates the truth, in all forms. And relishes dishonesty, and sometimes Christians get sucked into this thinking as well. But we should not encourage the world's lying tongues or be brow-beaten by their threats. Jesus certainly wasn't.

Which leads me to one final thought. Though we should seek to emulate Jesus's character, we must also realize that we never will perfectly be able to do this. Jesus had the ability to know exactly when to speak, what to say, and how to say it. But we are prone to sin with our words. We should not shy away from “calling a spade, a spade” but we must also seek to “speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15) Admittedly, this is not easy to do at times; so we must daily rely upon the Lord and try to be discerning in what we say. We must not let our emotions govern us; and we must not lose control. Yet, at the same time; we must not be muzzled and shy away from honesty. Hypocrites should be called hypocrites. Blind guides should be called blind guides. Jesus once called King Herod a fox (Luke 13:32). There's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise when our “governing authorizes” warrant it. Speaking the truth is not a sin. Jesus did it better than anyone. Let us therefore, “go and do likewise.”

 

Believers Stop Believing Because They Aren't Really Believers

By Shane Kastler

Why do people leave churches? Why do children, who grow up in church, abandon the faith when they go off to college? Why do some adults who once embraced Christianity grow skeptical and eventually reject it? These are questions that modern church growth gurus and statisticians frequently try to answer. They poll apostates to find out why they left. They besmirch churches that “run people off” by relying on the Bible. And they attack God's Word, as the reason for why people leave. In numerous odd attempts to explain unbelief, the so-called experts of today miss the “elephant in the room.” Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. In other words, the reason why some people grow up to reject the Christian faith they grew up being taught is because they were never true believers in the first place. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)  Jesus said, “Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom.” (John 3:3) The problem with those who leave the church is not that they are dazzled by 21^st century arguments against Christianity. The problem is that they are “dead in their sins.” (Ephesians 2:1) And when the spiritually dead lose interest in the Christian faith it simply proves the reality of their spiritual deadness.

Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley, of North Point Community Church in Atlanta, doesn't see it this way. He considers the Bible to be the problem and has recently increased his attacks on Scripture as an authoritative voice for Christianity. In a recent message, Stanley said: “Perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, ‘Jesus love me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’ That is where our trouble began.” This shocking statement is merely the latest salvo from Stanley in his attacks on Christianity. He goes on to argue that the Bible cannot be defended as historically accurate and therefore Christians should stop trying to do so. He argues that adults leave the faith because of a childish notion they were taught growing up that the Bible is God's Word. Once they become enlightened they realize the Bible is full of holes and they reject it. Stanley's solution, is to go along with their rejection and instead point them to “historical” Christianity. Of course the reality is we would know very little of “historical Christianity” apart from the Bible. In Stanley's worldview the idea of having faith in the unseen God is too simplistic for modern man to accept. To him, teaching a “God-inspired” and infallible Bible is a dead end for churches. To him, Christians who believe in the maxim “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so” are making a grave mistake. And to him, this reliance on the Bible is “is where our trouble began.” In an article refuting Stanley, Albert Mohler states that Stanley is pushing “an apologetic disaster that would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe.”

Stanley's argument is eerily reminiscent of another opponent of God's Word from a bygone era. “Hath God said?” is an attack as old as the world itself. Satan tempted Eve by questioning God's Word and God's authority in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1). Stanley tempts modern believers with the exact same attack today. And therein lies the truth that these attacks on God's Word are old, stale, and common. Stanley's heresy is nothing more than a modern day version of the same theological liberalism that has plagued the church for eons. It's root lies in the oldest of rebellions against God, and it's father is the “father of lies.” Sadly, many will fall for Stanley's deception because of his fame, his name, and his church size. Many will gladly accept this attack on God's authority because they have no desire to live under God's authority. And they will salivate over a pastor who smugly tells them they don't need to. The Apostle's Paul's admonition to Timothy is prescient: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4 NASB) Truly that time has come.

The true hope for the church is the exact thing that Stanley rails against. Far from downplaying the importance of Scripture, the church needs to go back to the Bible to understand how God saves sinners. While God uses preachers and the proclamation of the gospel, it is not by man's clever manipulations that people are saved. Spitting on the Bible in a vain attempt to woo unbelievers is not the way God has seen fit to bring spiritual life to the spiritually dead. In fact, the Bible warns against the very type of evangelism that Stanley and so many modern gurus espouse: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1Corinthians 1:21) The world considers itself too intellectual to accept the “foolishness” of the gospel. But it is this “foolish” gospel and this “foolish” gospel alone that tells the sinner of salvation. Is it too simplistic of a message for people to believe? Is it too naive to expect modern man to embrace this message on the authority of the Bible? Stanley says yes. God says otherwise.

It is very telling that the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that he PURPOSELY avoided the very thing Stanley preaches: “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5) Does Stanley believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified? He says he does. But he arrogantly attacks the very place where this truth is taught. And he clearly rejects the means by which people come to understand this truth. Stanley wishes to sweet-talk the unbeliever into the kingdom, but you can't sweet-talk spiritual corpses. You lovingly tell them the truth, but only God can give them life.

Unbelievers don't continue on in their unbelief because of a need for modern methods that attack the eternal truth. And so-called believers don't grow up to drift away because of the insufficiency of the Bible. They drift away and reject the faith because they were never born again in the first place. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools.” (Romans 1:22) Sometimes those fools sit in the congregation. Sometimes those fools stand in the pulpit. In both cases, their assumed wisdom is nothing more than the evidence of their spiritual death.

The church needs to rediscover what Paul called, “a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” The church needs to proclaim a God who is sovereign and a sinner who is helpless. The church doesn't need to jettison the Scriptures. The church needs to stand upon them and proclaim them and know the truth of what God has said. Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. But TRUE believers persevere unto the end. TRUE believers trust in Christ and rest in His work. TRUE believers do more than profess the Lord with their lips, they also proclaim Him with their life. TRUE believers keep believing because the “work” that was done in them was an eternal work performed by God. Their faith is not undone by modern persuasive arguments. Their faith is not undone by secular attacks on the Scriptures. And their faith is not undone by false shepherds who boast of knowing God's hidden truth, while attacking God's revealed word.

 

Brother Saul & Brother Abdul

By Shane Kastler

Saul of Tarsus despised Christians; so much so that he terrorized the New Testament church. When the first recorded Christian martyrdom took place at the stoning of Stephen; Saul was there giving “hearty approval.” After that he became somewhat of a Christian bounty hunter, chasing believers from city to city so that he might persecute them. The Bible says, “Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2 NASB)

While on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians, Saul was confronted by the risen Christ and was converted by an act of God's sovereign grace. Being physically blinded, Saul was told to go to a specific house in Damascus where a man named Ananias would pray for him and he would regain his sight. Saul's reputation was so violent, that even when the Lord appeared to Ananias in a vision about Saul's conversion, Ananias hesitated. In fact, years after Saul's conversion the early Christian church remained fearful and skeptical. His past persecutions and reputation died hard. But his conversion was genuine as the remainder of his life would show.

When Ananias came to pray for Saul he addressed him by calling him, “Brother Saul.” (Acts 9:17) While this may seem insignificant when you consider that “Brother” is a common title in Christian circles, the fact that this was Saul of Tarsus who was now a “brother” is astounding. Christianity's fiercest opponent was now “preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” (Galatians 1:23) By an act of sheer divine grace, “Terrorist Saul” had become “Brother Saul.” And the world would never be the same again.

Saul's conversion could be likened unto a fierce Muslim terrorist being saved and becoming an outspoken preacher of the gospel. “Brother Saul” could just as easily be “Brother Abdul” or “Brother Muhammad.” In fact, such things have happened in the past and continue to happen today; not just within Islam but within all religions. God's sovereign grace calls sinners of every stripe and creed out of spiritual darkness and into the kingdom of His beloved son (Colossians 1:13). You might be hesitant to accept this, given the past history of persecution that some Muslims have been a part of. But God is bigger than any man or any religion. As the classic hymn "Jesus Paid It All" states, He can “change the leper's spots and melt the heart of stone.” In all honesty, Saul's conversion is no more miraculous than your own. Though you might not have been a persecutor of the church, you were a spiritually dead sinner just the same (Ephesians 2:1). And unless God opened your eyes to the truth, they would have remained forever sealed shut.

As Christians we should praise God for “Brother Saul.” We should also praise God anytime a “Brother Abdul” or “Brother Muhammad” comes into being. When this world passes away, there will be gathered around the throne of the Lamb in Heaven, those from every “tongue, tribe, people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9) Christians from every people group will be represented. Saul of Tarsus (better known as Paul the Apostle) will be there. Former Muslims will be there. Former Jews will be there. Former atheists will be there. All those who turned from sin in repentance and trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord will be there. It will be a worship service unlike any ever experienced on earth. It will be a sight to behold. Will you be there to see it?

How Can You See the Invisible God?

By Shane Kastler

How can you see something that is invisible? How can you see SOMEONE who is invisible? The Bible speaks both of something and someone who is invisible and yet can be seen; and both of these invisible entities pertain to God. The book of Romans says that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...” (Romans 1:20 NASB) Likewise, Colossians, speaking of Jesus, tell us, “He is the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15) One passage speaks of “invisible attributes” that are “clearly seen” while the other passage speaks of the “image” of one who is invisible. How can these things be?

The first issue deals with an apologetic argument for the existence of God. Some would say that since we cannot see God, then HE cannot truly exist. Of course on a purely philosophical and even scientific level, this argument holds no water. Lots of things exist that we cannot see, as even the most skeptical scientists will readily attest to. The Apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, argues that though God is invisible His attributes are clearly seen. Where might we go to see these attributes, you ask? The verse tells us that we see His attributes “through what has been made.” We see the creation around us and it screams to us of a Creator. We see rain fall from the sky and food grow out of the ground and it screams of a Creator. We perceive through scientific study of our planet spinning on an axis at a constant rate for as long as we can trace it. And it screams of a Creator. The earth does not slow down, nor speed up. How can this remarkable consistency remain lest there be a God behind it all? We orbit the sun at a constant rate bringing the four seasons of the year; and this again happens every year. How do we explain this? Evolutionary atheism fails us at such points for evolution does not teach the uniformity and constancy of our world, but rather the massive flux and change of all things, even to the point of animals changing species. Evolution would have you believe there is no God and that chemical and creative processes simply sparked from no viable source. And while the Christian may be mocked as a religious fool by the atheist, the Bible is quite prescient when it remarks, “The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'” (Psalm 14:1) Fool being defined as one who refuses to see what is plainly in front of him. Fool as being further defined as one who rejects the invisible attributes that are “clearly seen.”

To truly “see” and know the Lord in a saving way requires a work of God. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” (John 3:3) So God must take spiritually dead sinners and grant them spiritual life (regeneration) for them to embrace Christ and the gospel. But regeneration is not required to know that God exists and that He is a God who works wonders. This is clearly seen in the creation through both His “eternal power” and “divine nature.” A scientist, no less brilliant than Albert Einstein himself, once remarked the following: “There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments, one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable: life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”[1]

Einstein's conclusion was wrong, but his instincts were right. His personal belief could best be described as “agnostic” but even at that he could grasp the idea of the eternal. And in this way, the great physicist is described eerily in Romans 1, for Einstein could “clearly see” God's “eternal power” though he refused to recognize it as such. Instead he did what all mean do by nature, he “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:22) God's attributes then are “clearly seen.” So too, is God's Son.

Jesus is described as the “image of the invisible God.” This profound phrase would have sparked much consternation among many of the Jews to whom Paul wrote; for “images” of God were strictly forbidden under Mosaic Law. Amazingly, no painter nor sculptor could supply an image adequate anyway. For God alone would provide His own image in a living, breathing, flesh and blood person. Do you want to know what God looks like? He looks exactly like Jesus because Jesus is “exactly” God. There is one God who exists in three constant, eternal forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine of the Trinity is mesmerizing, yet clearly taught in Scripture. Also clearly taught is the “oneness” of God as Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Jesus showed His divine nature, time and time again during His earthly ministry. He commanded the wind and the waves and they obeyed Him (Luke 8:22). He commanded demons and they obeyed him (Matthew 8:32). He commanded physical sickness (Luke 5:24) and blindness (Mark 8:22-25) and it obeyed him. He even commanded the dead to come alive and they obeyed him (John 11:43)! These physical manifestations of Jesus's divinity are amazing examples that we would classify as miracles. Phenomenon which occurred outside the boundaries of the laws of nature. But Jesus didn't limit His authority to the physical world alone. Indeed He reigned over the spiritual realm as well. Jesus forgave sins. What man has the authority to truly do that?

In the gospel of Luke we are told of a paralyzed man whose friends were so desperate to get him to Jesus that they tore up the roof in a home where Jesus was at and lowered his stretcher down to him. The text records, “Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? “But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—“I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God. They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen remarkable things today.” (Luke 5:20-26 NASB)

First of all, Jesus could “see their faith.” What does that mean? It doesn't mean that He could simply see their desperation and their belief that Jesus had the ability to heal. You and I might be able to see the “effect” of faith, but Jesus could see their “faith.” Jesus could see something that was non-physical and invisible. What does faith look like? Where do you buy it? What does a box of faith look like? Faith itself is not tangible. The effects of faith can be seen, but faith is invisible. Yet Jesus could see it.

Also, we know that the “faith” Jesus saw was much more than simply their belief that Jesus had the power to physically heal. We know this because of what Jesus went on to say next as He declared, “Your sins are forgiven.” Sins are not forgiven on the basis of a belief that Jesus is a really good medical doctor! Forgiveness of sins is not based on a positive attitude that Jesus could grant a miracle. Sins are forgiven on the basis of saving faith that recognizes Jesus for who He truly is as the sinless Son of God. The paralytic and his friends had such faith and Jesus “saw” it, granting forgiveness.

The Pharisees who were present grumbled that no on can forgive sins but God alone. In this they were correct, yet they were standing in the very presence of God and rather than worshiping Him they hated Him. And yet again we see Jesus's divine knowledge on display when we are told He knew “the reasonings” in their hearts. While you and I might think we know what someone is thinking; Jesus knows beyond all doubt. He confronted them over their grumbling and then proceeded to do the amazing yet again. Jesus not only forgives the man's sins, but He also grants the physical healing. Clearly this was no mere carpenter from Nazareth as evidenced by His authority and His power. And hearkening back to Romans 1, we might say His “eternal power and divine nature” were clearly seen through what He did. Likewise, we might say and see clearly that Jesus was “the image of the invisible God.”

God has revealed enough of His attributes that all people are “without excuse” in their rejection of Him. (see Romans 1:20) While unseen with the physical eye, God's presence is painfully obvious to all. By nature we can see God is there, but also by nature we “suppress” this truth and reject Him. No person is a natural born atheist, but all people are natural born sinners. Being “dead in our trespasses and sins” we ignore the obvious traits of God before our eyes and instead seek to be “gods” in our own right. We refuse to submit to God, who “is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27) And we refuse to believe in His son, Jesus Christ. The image of the invisible God came and lived and died and rose again. And in our sin we reject Him, to our peril. But God is still there and He still sent His Son. And if you saw the Son, you saw the Father. (John 14:9)

So if you had lived in New Testament days and you saw Jesus in all His glory; performing miracles, giving sight to the blind, and life to the dead, then realize this: You would have seen the image of the invisible God!

Likewise, if you had lived in those days and saw a dirty, sweaty carpenter from Nazareth who ate and drank with “sinners” and tax collectors, and stooped down to wash the filthy feet of His ungrateful disciples: You would have seen the image of the invisible God!

Even today, if you read these words about God becoming man and dwelling on earth; and living a perfect life and dying a sacrificial death to pay the eternal sin price for all who trust in Him. If you believe He is who He says He is, and want to follow Him with your life and are willing to suffer for the sake of His name. And you do this knowing you will suffer and maybe even die for the faith. And IF you still say, “I want to know and follow this Jesus of whom you speak.” Then realize that you have just seen God. The eyes of your heart have been opened to see what your physical eyes and your rock hard heart would never see on its own. You have just seen the image of the invisible God. Which is amazing when you consider that it's impossible to see the invisible. Impossible, that is unless God allows it. Because what is impossible to man is possible for God. For with God “all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27)

 

 (Note: To hear an audio message I preached on this topic, click here).

---

[1] Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein (New York: Viking Press, 1973), 11.

Why God Ordained the Murder of Stephen

By Shane Kastler

(NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this topic, click here).

The sovereignty of God can be a deep and thorny issue to ponder. Most people (at least in Christian circles) joyfully concur with the sovereignty of God over the good things that happen in life. Regardless of their theological bend, most Christians are content to see God's hand at work when they get a raise at work, or a new house, or an unexpected inheritance. But what about if they lose their job, lose their spouse, or lose their health? Is God still sovereign....even over the bad things of life?

For the sovereignty of God to truly have any meaning, then God must be sovereign over all things. Indeed, the very word “sovereignty” suggests a power that is without limits. For example, when America is spoken of as a “sovereign” nation this typically means that we answer to no other countries. We are a “stand alone” power, if you will. But if we actually forfeit sections of our sovereignty to other entities (the United Nations for example), then we are not truly a sovereign nation anymore. If the claim is made that we are sovereign over all matters, except military. Then we aren't really sovereign at all, for “sovereignty” is an all-encompassing word. Sovereignty is either absolute, or it is non-existent. Partial sovereignty isn't sovereignty. Another word must be found to describe this condition, for sovereign power is absolute power. And sovereign power is what God possesses. He is either sovereign over everything. Or He isn't sovereign over anything.

One area in Scripture where this is taught is in the life of Job. Most are familiar with the sufferings of Job, who seemingly had it all, then lost it all in one catastrophic day. Job 1 gives an account of God and Satan conversing about Job and why it is that he worships God as he does. Satan suggests that it is due to God's “hedge of protection” that He has blessed Job with and that if this were removed Job would “curse you to your face.” Of course God allows Satan to inflict horrendous blows upon Job's life. He loses his livelihood, his servants, his children, and eventually his health. The moral of the story is that Job is faithful through it all and eventually has the blessings restored. But an even deeper moral to the story is that God is sovereign over whatever comes to pass. Both good and evil.

An often forgotten aspect of the Job account is that it was actually God, not Satan, who suggested Job as a candidate for suffering to begin with. “The LORD said to Satan, 'Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.'” Job 1:8 NASB) God remains in complete control through the entire ordeal. Satan unleashes havoc on Job's life, but he does nothing without God's permission. And though you may not recognize this truth, Job certainly did. When his wife derisively suggested that he “curse God and die” (Job 2:9); Job responds by saying: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not evil?” While different English translations may say “adversity” or “trouble” instead of evil; the point remains the same. Job sees God's sovereignty ordaining all the events of his life. Both good and bad.

Another passage that shows God's sovereignty over good and evil can be seen in the martyrdom of Stephen. The gripping account of this early church martyr's violent death is well known to most Christians. In an incredible, Spirit-inspired sermon, Stephen rebukes the Jews for their rejection of Christ and suffers a violent death as a result. While Stephen may have been speaking to the Jewish “authorities” make no mistake, his death was not truly an “execution” but rather a murder. There was no trial. There was simply mob justice (or rather injustice) that led to the stoning of Stephen. But where was God while these events transpired? And why did He not intervene? The text tells us that God was watching it all; and even allowed Stephen a glimpse of what He was up to. “But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56) The Lord was there. The Lord was watching. The Lord had the power to prevent the death. And the Lord did not. Why? Because Stephen's death was ordained by God for a greater good that those at the time could have scarcely conceived.

God used Stephen's death to fulfill His purpose to begin the global “gospelization” of the world. You might say, “That's not how I would have done it!” Maybe not. But that IS how God did it! And it is fascinating to see God's hand at work when you trace the line back to Jesus's final commission to His disciples. In Acts 1:8 Jesus told His disciples, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” As a side note, please notice that Jesus wasn't asking them to be His witnesses. He wasn't giving an “invitation” as it were. He TOLD them. You WILL BE my witnesses. And they were. This is the type of authority one speaks with when He is truly sovereign. All things would go down in accordance with God's perfect plan. The disciples would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, and then fan out to greater Judea, Samaria, and even the remotest parts of the earth. The text tells us this plainly. “And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison. Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.” (Acts 8:1-4)

The early Christians were not only the Lord's witnesses.....they were the Lord's witnesses in exactly the way the Lord said they would be. They fanned out, starting in Jerusalem and took the gospel to Judea, Samaria, and beyond. And as an amazing piece of dramatic foreshadowing, the text also throws out a name for us to consider: Saul. This angry, young Pharisee who hated Christians began to ravage the church. And in so doing he simply throws gasoline on the gospel fire even further. And the church continues to spread. With utmost fascination, we see God using Saul to spread the gospel even before Saul was a Christian. God's sovereignty is sometimes funny that way. Of course once Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle, his gospel work increased. And it increased with a new found vigor that comes from a regenerate heart on fire for the Lord. As Saul, he was spreading the gospel inadvertently while trying to stamp it out. Post-Damascus, Paul is spreading the gospel with gusto. Now, for him, “to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21) But God was in control both times. When Saul hated Christ and when Paul loved Christ. God still reigned and ordained all things for his good.

Eventually the text further elaborates on how Stephen's death was God's catalyst to spread the gospel. “So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.” (Acts 11:19-21 NASB) And once again we see the words of Christ fulfilled:“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” (Matt. 28:19) From the murder of Stephen on, the gospel marches forth; from Nation to Nation; to both Jew and Gentile.

Now back to Stephen. After he saw the Lord and then began getting pelted with rocks, notice what he says. Clearly, its time to pray. But what would you expect him to pray? What would you have prayed? Perhaps a heartfelt prayer for deliverance. God save me from these violent men who seek to kill him! God spare my life that I might live for you! These would not have been bad prayers. They would not have been wrong or sinful prayers. But they would not have been prayers in accordance with God's will at the time and Stephen didn't pray them. He simply said, “Lord receive my spirit.” Stephen was dying. He knew he was dying. And he wanted to die. And who could blame him! If your options are a sin-cursed world with rocks cracking your skull, or the presence of Jesus and the glory of God; what would you wish for? Stephen saw Jesus and wanted to be with him. And Jesus received him by way of a violent death; that would be used to spark the early church to fulfill it's missions mandate.

And in the life and death of Stephen; just as the life of Job – we see a sovereign God at work bringing about his perfect purpose through both good and bad events. Through the righteous deeds of the saints and the wicked deeds of the reprobate. While all sinners are indeed accountable to God for their evil; God's hand reigns as the most powerful entity in the universe as he orchestrates what He wants to come to pass. You might balk at such a high level of sovereignty. You might answer by saying, “If God is so sovereign, then why am I to blame for my sin? After all, who resists His will?” Of course this very question was asked in Romans 9, where the Holy Spirit inspired answer is given. “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God.” (v. 20) Regardless of whether you like it or not, the ultimate answer to the sovereignty of God is that in many ways it is beyond our comprehension and all we know of it is what God has graciously allowed us to know. And we really have no grounds for accusation if there is any aspect of it disturbing or confusing to us. Rather than point the finger, we should bow the knee and confess, “Your ways are above our ways!”

God ordained the murder of Stephen as a means to spread the gospel. And this early martyrdom and the ensuing missions movement led to YOU hearing the gospel. As a 21^st century citizen, you would not have benefited from gospel grace had the gospel not left Jerusalem, gone to Judea, Samaria, and beyond. If you are a Christian, you owe it completely to the grace of God. The grace that saved you. The grace that brought the gospel to you. And yes even the grace, that killed Stephen; and what's more..... the grace that killed Jesus. Evil acts ordained by God for a greater good. Bow the knee and be amazed at His ways, which truly are “past finding out.”

In closing, consider the following prayer from the Apostles as it pertained to the evil act of killing God's son; and ask yourself: Who was really in control?  I leave the verse for your perusal without further comment.  Peace.

“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (Acts 4:27-28 NASB)

Using Logic To Refute Gay Marriage - An Example From Ryan T. Anderson

By Shane Kastler

Recently, after a speech defending the traditional view of marriage as being between man and woman, Ryan T. Anderson took questions from the audience on the issue. A homosexual man stood up and asked why Anderson thought it was acceptable to “discriminate” against him and his “partner” by not granting them the legal right to marry. The question was posed under the guise of the federal income tax code. The homosexual man wanted the right to file his taxes “jointly” with his “husband” and thus receive the same potential tax break as a heterosexual married couple that files jointly. (Scroll to the bottom of this article to see the video).

As a Christian, as a Pastor, and as a Logic teacher I appreciated the way Anderson answered the question. Let me explain what I mean, from all three perspectives. First of all, from the standpoint of logic.

Anderson employs two different logical tools in his argument. First he points out the potential fallacy of “special pleading” that the homosexual man is engaging in. The man wants to re-define marriage to benefit himself and his partner. Anderson asks him, if he would also like to extend marital benefits to the “throuple” (group of 3) or the “heterosexual quartet.” Or does he only want to re-define marriage to the extent that it benefits him and go no further than that? The homosexual man has no answer for this and was clearly unprepared for Anderson's line of argumentation. Of course if the homosexual had stated the obvious, that “throuples” and “quartets” are not really “marriages” then he would have also refuted his own argument. Homosexual couples are not “marriages” either. If, on the other hand, the homosexual had embraced the absurd argument Anderson was presenting and said in essence, “Sure, let's grant throuples and quartets the legal right of marriage!” Then he would have been exposed as one who basically wants to do away with marriage all together. This is the very point that Anderson fleshes out in his answer. He tells the man that it doesn't sound like he is really interested in marriage at all. But rather is interested in abolishing marriage all together.

Again, from the standpoint of logic, Anderson presents what is known as a “Reductio Ad Absurdum” (Reduction to Absurdity) argument when he asks about granting marriage rights to “throuples” and “quartets.” Actually, you could press the absurdity beyond that. What about those who desire to enter a marriage relationship with their pets? What about pedophiles who would desire a relationship with children? Truly when you seek to redefine anything in accordance with your own desires, the absurdity knows no bounds.

What is exhibited in this exchange is one man (Anderson) using simple rules of logic to prove a point; and another man (the homosexual) resorting to left-wing, talking point cliches. He continues to throw out words like “discrimination” and “civil rights” and “minority” rather than answer Anderson's counter questions. The reason for this, of course, is that he has no answer.

Anderson's conclusion and ultimate answer for the man as to why he is “discriminated” against is that he is not discriminated against at all. He should be legally allowed to marry..... a woman. Because that's what “marriage” is. The true issue at stake here, as Anderson points out, is that this man isn't really interested in marriage at all. He is interested in a homosexual, romantic relationship with another man. Call that whatever you will; but it isn't “marriage.” Because “marriage” involves two “complementary” parties. Male and female. Husband and wife. And potentially at least, father and mother. And therein lies one of the greatest arguments against so-called “gay marriage.” Regardless of one's religious views (or total lack thereof), nature itself cries out against the same-sex relationship in the complete inability, even theoretically, for two members of the same sex to reproduce. Even an atheist would be forced to admit, based on nature itself, that if homosexuality were normal, then society would soon cease to exist because no reproduction would take place.

This leads to my second reason for appreciating Anderson's argument. I appreciate it from a Christian perspective. While myriads of bizarre beliefs get pawned off as “Christian” these days; the Bible is clear on homosexuality. The fact that it is sinful in the eyes of God. The fact that it is clear evidence of human depravity. And the fact that it will lead to the Lord's judgment. The first chapter of Romans says: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB) The sinfulness of homosexual behavior is clear in Scripture. Of course the sinfulness of all sexual behavior outside the context of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is clear as well. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we commonly translate as “immorality” or “sexual immorality” is the word “porneia” from whence comes the English word “pornography.” It is a term to describe sexual sin in general, both homosexual and heterosexual in nature.

As it pertains to relationships, my views are probably more accepting than many Christian ministers I know. Because of my “libertarian” political leanings I have no desire to grant the government the legal right to kick down the door of homosexuals and cart them off to prison for their sinful behavior. No more than I would wish to grant government the right to kick down the door of a man and woman living in sin and cart them off to prison. Both situations involve sin. But there is a big difference between a “sin” and a “crime.” While many Christians fail to see this nuance, it would be the height of folly to grant a secular government the power to punish spiritual sins. Some acts are BOTH sinful and illegal; as they should be. Murder and rape for example. These are both violent crimes committed against another individual. Sins between consensual adults are another matter. I have no desire to criminalize such behavior, but I have no desire for the government to endorse and “bless” such behavior either. This is really what the argument for gay marriage is. A desire to grant privilege to a couple that should not have such privileges. A desire to redefine marriage in terms of what it isn't and in essence abolishing marriage all together.

Perhaps a better position to take would be for government to get out of the marriage business all together. While this argument strikes many people as absurd when they first hear it; I think it makes more sense when one ponders on it. Have you ever wondered why you should need the government's permission to get married in the first place? When my wife and I married those many years ago, why did we have to apply for a government license? If we had a church and a pastor who recognized our union as holy in the eyes of the Lord, then what business is that of the State's anyway? Of course I know part of the answer to this is that there are certain benefits, legally speaking, to being married. Certain “tax breaks” if you will. But rather than redefining marriage, perhaps we should just abolish the income tax. Of course, THAT is not a direction the government will ever seek to go in. But re-defining marriage because it “discriminates” will most likely be done eventually.

My final reason for appreciating Ryan T. Anderson's argument is pastoral in nature. To be perfectly honest, I believe he made a complete fool out of the homosexual man who was asking the question. Or rather, I believe the man made a fool out of himself. Yet Anderson's tone was kind and courteous through the entire exchange. From a Christian perspective, I believe there needs to be more of this type of tone. Anderson was adamant about why the man was wrong. He never back-pedaled and he was very clear as to what marriage is and is not. But Anderson was never rude to the man. He commended him for asking a “fair question” then pointed out graciously why the man's position was so dreadfully wrong. He used clear laws of logic to present his case and to discount his opponent. And he did so in a kind and gracious manner. As a pastor, I appreciated that.

Let me close with some words that the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB) This passage, I believe, sums up the tone of Anderson's exchange. I know nothing about Anderson's spiritual condition, and I know very little about the homosexual man who he was debating. But I do know this, everything about the homosexual man screamed confusion. He looked confused. His argument was illogical. And he had no answer when counter arguments were presented. He looked confused, but indeed it is worse than that. He is more than just confused, he is lost. Spiritually speaking, he is “dead in his trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1) But than again, according to the Bible, “we all also formerly walked according to the course of this world” (Ephesians 2:2) As the passage from 2 Timothy 2 states he is “ensnared by the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” This man needs salvation. This man needs deliverance. This man needs to be born again. He doesn't need a legal right to marry. He needs new spiritual eyes to truly understand what marriage is. And he needs so much more. He needs to know the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And he needs the grace of God to show him this truth and change his heart. This won't come about by encouraging him to embrace his sin. Nor will it come by shouting him down and calling him names. To the contrary, we are called to “speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15) Ryan Anderson did a good job of answering this man. My complements to him for his honesty and grace in how he handled this controversial question.

 

My Twitter Debate with an Atheist Over Moral Absolutes

By Shane Kastler  (Twitter: @sekastler)

This past week I had a short debate on Twitter with an atheist over moral absolutes. This is one area in which atheists will often show their hypocrisy and prove beyond doubt that atheism is irrational. The debate began over an article I wrote defending Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, for some comments he made in a prayer meeting. Robertson basically gave a hypothetical scenario of an atheist's home being invaded and the atheist's wife and children being harmed. Robertson stated, that while a Christian would look at these acts and rightly call them evil; the atheist would have no grounds for determining what is “good” or “evil” since he rejects the very notion of God and thus a moral authority on which to stand. I agreed with Phil, and pointed out further that the atheist will proudly declare certain things to be “good” or “evil” or “right” or “wrong.” The atheist contradicts his own worldview in doing this. So, without further ado, here is the debate between “Bantha” the atheist and me over moral absolutes. Keep in mind, on Twitter you are limited to 120 CHARACTERS per response. For the sake of further explanation I have added some of my additional commentary in parenthesis. As an additional note, I assume “Bantha” is a made up name. According to his Twitter bio he teaches high school and lives in San Jose, CA.

Bantha: Something doesn't need to be "evil" to be objectionable. Most mammals value family connections and defend their mates/young.

(My Commentary: Bantha bristles at my referring to the atheist's family being tortured as an act of “evil.” He declares that while the behavior would be “objectionable” it is not evil. To prove his point he goes to the animal kingdom where we have examples of animals protecting their young. Incidentally, I would note that if you have to go to the animal kingdom to justify your beliefs and actions you are already regressing and moving the wrong direction on the intellectual “food chain” so to speak).

Shane: Yes. But some objectionable things are evil. We need ability to define evil. Some mammals care for young. Some eat them.

Bantha: Why do we "need" ability to define evil? I don't believe in a concrete "good" but live a very moral life. Charity, moderation, care for my community.

(My Commentary: This is a GLARING contradiction on “Bantha's” part. He says that he does not believe in a “concrete good.” Then he immediately tells me that HE HIMSELF is “good” though he instead uses the word “moral.” Aside from the fact that he, nor anyone else is truly good (see Romans 3:10); what basis does he have for determing anyone or any deed as being “good” or “bad”? He just said that he did not believe in “good” (nor evil for that matter). While mocking my faith, he contradicts his own worldview and proves that atheism contradicts it's own claims).

Shane: Maybe you do. But everyone doesn't. Evil must be defined in a moral society.Phil Robertson was giving a clear example of it.

(My Commentary: Rather than pointing out his hypocrisy and chasing the “I'm good” rabbit; I chose to stick to the issue. That even though he considers himself “good” (i.e, a law-abiding citizen), there are others who are not. We cannot simply float through life claiming no moral absolutes. Evil must be defined. This is what Phil Robertson was doing in his example).

Bantha: No, he was trotting out the "morality requires religion" fallacy. No one needs Christianity to abhor child rape & murder.

Shane: Not to abhor it. But to define it as evil you do. You may know its wrong. But what makes your standard right? Christianity has an answer. Atheism does not.

(My Commentary: In this exchange Bantha makes the claim that he can abhor something that is evil (child rape and murder). Yet he has already confessed to me that he does not believe “good” exists. Nor does he believe “evil” exists. He said things might be “objectionable” but not “evil.” He is self-contradictory and for an obvious reason. Deep down inside, he knows the truth, but he has “supressed it in unrighteousness” (see Romans 1:18). He knows that things are “good” and “evil” but his dogged determination to cling to atheism will not let him admit it. What standard shall he point to that would define for us “rape” or “murder” as being evil? I point to God and the Bible. Notice in the following exchanges what he points to).

Bantha: Look to nature. What we call "altruism" and "morality" has clear parallels in other social primates. Read "Bonobo & the Atheist."

Shane: We're not talking about good, but evil. Monkeys may be nice. But how can an atheist define evil? This is my point. What is your answer?

(My Commentary: Bantha again moves the wrong direction down the intellectual food chain to justify his belief. His claim is that since monkeys are nice to each other and they don't have religion; then religion must not be necessary for “morality.” This is a 'red herring' on his part, since, according to his worldview there is no morality. Now he claims monkey's act in “moral” ways though he refuses to define it as “moral” only “natural.” I again try to get him to stay on track. I don't care about monkeys. I want him to tell me how an atheist can define evil. Notice, he cannot do it so he frequenlty dodges the question and eventually gives up).

Bantha: Chimpanzees aren't "nice." “Good" and "evil" are human constructs. They act in socially beneficial ways.

Shane: What about when they DON'T act in socially beneficial ways? What about when they act in ways that only benefit them? Rape, for example, benefits the rapist. How can an atheist tell him this is “wrong”?

(My Commentary: Bantha attempts to define “good” as that which is “socially beneficial” and he claims that people and animals do this “naturally.” Yet if you've lived in this sinful world for even 5 minutes, you know this isn't true. While people (and animals) might be trained to benefit one another, they also frequently do that which beneifts them alone. And often do this by clearly violating the person or property of another. Rape, murder, theft, and assault are all clear examples of this.

Bantha I don't disagree that it "benefits" him or her, but that doesn't make it beneficial for the community.

Shane: What if he lives in community of rapists? The “community” might consider it beneficial then.

(My commentary: Again I am trying to point out the logical inconsistencey of his worldview. He basically believes that whatever benefits society at large is “good.” This is a common notion in athiestic circles. But it is a philosophical fatal flaw to atheism. The reason is that what particular societies value as “good” varies between different groups and at differnt times. There was a time when the majority of Americans believed slavery was acceptable. Does this make it so? What if the hypothetical rapist lived in a community that sees nothing wrong with rape? Then according to the atheist's definition, rape would be a “good” thing since society deems it so).

Bantha: Come on man, what healthy human would consider a "community of rapists" not abnormal? How do we need religion to tell us that?

Shane: Many male-dominated societies accept rape. And woman have no rights. Is this wrong? I say yes, because of Biblical teaching. Atheism has no answer.

(My commentary: At this point Bantha thinks I'm crazy. My hypotheical world where rape is acceptable seems absurd to him (as it should). Yet there are many societes where rape is considered acceptable. Perhaps Bantha needs to watch the news a little bit more. But an even deeper issue is this: How can he call rape “evil” when he has already told me he doesn't accept the existence of good and evil? He believes these are “human constructs.” Nevertheless he knows rape is bad. He just can't tell me why. And at this point, he ends the converstation out of frustation. My hope and prayer is that our discussion caused him to question why he believes what he believes and that by God's grace he would see the illogical absurdity of his worldview). Notice our last exchange.

Bantha: I recognize that you view the world differently, and I'm just going to drop it. Keep defending Phil Robertson, its hurting Christianity more.

Shane: Nice talking with you. Have a blessed evening.

(My commentary: Bantha is correct in saying that he and I view the world differently. Not only is this because I'm a Christian and he is an athiest. But also because my worldview is logically coherent and his is not. Christian faith is not at odds with logic. In all honesty, atheism is at odds with logic. For all of their claims of being “rational” the atheist cannot defend his worldview from an intellectual perspective. His reasoning is full of holes and our job as Christians is to lovingly point that out. This is what I attempted to do. And thus I ended the conversation on a polite note. Hopefully he could tell that I was attempting to speak the truth in love. Or perhaps the kindness made him angrier. Either way, we are called to “give an answer for the hope that is within us with gentleness and reverance” (1 Peter 3:15) and leave the results to God.

 

CONCLUSION: There are many ways to engage unbelievers in general, and atheists in particular in evangelism. We could point to a whole host of things that give evidence for the existence of God. What I did in this conversation was go beyond evidence to the very foundation of belief. Rather than arguing about what is moral I questioned him on how he can even define “moral” at all, since he rejects the very existence of God. In the world of Christian apologetics (the study of defending the faith) this is known as “Presuppositional Apologetics.” And I believe, it cuts the “intellectual legs” out from under the atheist. With no basis for morality he has no leg to stand on in his argument against the Christian.

NOTE: To study this more in-depth, listen to my 14-part sermon series entitled "Expositional Apologetics" on Sermon Audio by clicking here.