Creation, Man, and God's Image

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). So begins the Bible’s description of the creation events.

Science and mathematics tell us the universe is not eternal. If it were, the laws of thermodynamics tell us all the universe’s energy would be long depleted. Even unbelieving scholars insist the universe began to exist. And if it began to exist, there must be a cause, a “cause” sufficient to explain the existence of all there is.  Christians and other theists believe God—a personal, loving, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent being—is the only sufficient cause.

When you survey the universe in which we live, you can only stand in awe of the creativity and majesty of the Creator. It is not just the myriad of galaxies and star systems which create the sense of awe, the earth itself creates a sense of wonder and amazement.

Moses’ account of God’s creative activity pushes you to come to grips with all he made. The sun, moon, stars, and seven—or is it eight—other planets in our rather insignificant solar system draw our attention to God’s interstellar handiwork. The majestic mountains, dry deserts, and fertile plains remind us our God appreciates aesthetics. Consider the flora and the fauna on the planet—huge creatures, feral cats, devoted canines, and all manner of cattle, insects, sea life, and the smallest bacteria. God created all of it from the depths of his creative mind. And man, male and female he created them—the apex of his creative activity.

Consider, too, the fact he established the universal natural laws—gravity, inertia; even the laws of logic—and put them into place. While he maintained his power to rule over nature, he set the universe in motion governed, for the most part, according to the laws he established. Could he intervene? Of course, he is the Creator and the created is never superior to the Creator.

Think of all the universes he may have considered and could have made. A universe he created did not necessarily have to operate on the physics he established for this one. Writers of science fiction have long written about life forms based not on carbon but some other element. We see their fictional imaginations displayed in Star Trek, Star Wars, and, if you’re my age, the Man from Planet X. Frank Herbert created a completely different world in Dune and all its sequels. None of these imaginings, however, could come close to imagining the variety of possible universes inhabiting the mind of God.

But he chose to Create this universe and within this universe is the Milky Way Galaxy a hidden in that vast space (to us) is a “bright blue dot”—the planet earth.

The psalmist asked, “What is man that you are mindful of him…” (Psalm 8:4). David, the author of the psalm, continues, “You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands and you have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:5, 6, ESV). Obviously written after Adam’s sin, this passage reveals God still values much in the being he created. He did not wrest dominion from Adam and he still stands just a tad below the angelic beings. In other words, human beings during David’s reign still possessed something of the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27).

We all know the story! God placed Adam with Eve in a beautiful garden. They had meaningful work—they were to “dress and keep the garden” (Genesis 2:15). It was a lush and beautiful place in which to live. God expressed to Adam only one caveat or warning, “You may surely eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16, 17, ESV).

Why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Didn’t God know Adam would not obey? Wouldn’t it be better had God left that tree from the garden? Why that tree?

Those who opt for Open Theology hold God may have considered the possibility of Adam’s sin but could not know he would sin. Open theologians believe God can know only that which can be known. He may have goals for the future; goals which he can inexorably bring to pass, but he cannot know precisely how the future will unfold. This is not the place for a discussion of the philosophy of time or what omniscience means. I’m only telling you how the proponents of Open Theology see it. Open theologians believe God is giving Adam true freedom to choose, and Adam made a poor choice!

Arminians among us believe God knew beforehand Adam would choose badly but permitted him the right of truly free choice. For Arminians, Adam’s disobedience was no surprise to God because his foreknowledge informed him of Adam’s choice. Because God valued Adam’s freedom more than he valued keeping him safe, he permitted Adam to make his choice.

Reformed theologians take the view that God not only foreknew Adam’s choice, permitted Adam’s choice, but he actually ordained Adam’s choice. According to the Calvinist, God predetermined Adam’s fall long before creating Adam from the dust of the ground. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the official statement of faith/creed of most Bible- believing Calvinists, says:

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1)

Reformed thinkers try to get around this statement, but it is hardly clear in itself. If God ordains whatever comes to pass, then Adam sinned because God predetermined he would sin. (See my previous post.) The answer is compatibilism, which says each individual is free to do what they sincerely want to do, but God arranges things so that they want to do what they do. Did you follow that?

Let’s look at one other concern before I quit. The Bible says God created humans “in his image.” What does that mean? It obviously does not mean mankind has omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. Adam did have sovereignty for God gave him “dominion over the earth.”

What does it mean to be in “the image of God?” At the very least, it means human beings are spirit beings. Humans don’t just “have a spirit,” they “are a spirit.” Humanity’s spiritual nature is not such because each person possesses a “bit of God entrapped in a case of flesh.” That’s Platonism! Not only is man spirit but he is able to communicate in words in the same way God communicates in words. In addition, and most importantly, being in the “image of God” means that human beings are capable of relationships. God, as he exists, is always in relationship. God, the Father, relates to God, the Son, and to God, the Holy Spirit. (I’m not even going to try to explain the Trinity. The nature of the Trinity is way above my pay grade. I believe it because the Bible teaches it.)

When I speak of God’s image in terms of relationship it is insufficient only to speak of relationships with other humans. Being in the image of God means having a “built in capacity for God relationship.” The “image of God” in man makes possible a relationship with God and conveys innate knowledge about God. Human beings have the capacity (form) for a relationship with God (content). The image of God in Adam was complete: he had full form and content prior to Adam’s disobedience in the garden.

What happened when Adam sinned? The Bible says, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” (Romans 5:12). Genesis three describes the result. The relationship between God and Adam fractured and God’s judgment came upon all things. Adam’s relationship and the relationships of all things became different. Adam’s disobedience affected the entire universe. Adam’s relationship with the natural world changed. Adam’s relationship with Eve changed. Adam’s relationship with God changed.

Death (separation) came upon Adam and upon all things. Death is separation! When Adam sinned, he died spiritually—he was separated from God. At the end of his life, he died physically—his spirit separated from his body.

In all ways, Adam’s sin “marred/defaced/damaged” God’s image. Adam did not lose the capacity for relationship with God (form) but he did lose the relationship (content). The potential for relationship remained but as long as Adam remained alienated from God restoration of the relationship remained in place. To illustrate the extent of damage to the relationship, God sent Adam and Eve from the garden.

There was one other effect of Adam’s sin. The “damage to the image of God” created a weakness—or tendency—which passed down to all humanity. The Apostle Paul expressed it this way, “For while we were weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). Adam’s sin left humanity weak and sickly and prone to sin. It left humanity depraved in a sense, but this is not total hereditary depravity. Humans are depraved creatures because they sin—because they sin—not because they are sinners. The Bible says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:27).

What does all this have to do with anything? Salvation is the full restoration of the image of God in man. This salvation is called a “new birth” and the individual “becomes a new creation.” Being “dead in trespasses and sins” does not mean the individual’s spirit is inert or without the potential to respond. It means the “spirit is separated from God” – they are not in relationship. [This truth is illustrated in Jesus’ parables of the lost boy, the lost sheep, and the lost coin. The prodigal, the sheep, and the coin are lost precisely because they were not where they were supposed to be—they were “out of relationship.”]

Reformed theologians argue that the minds of those in sin “ The statement comes from Ephesians 4:18, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” In this passage in Ephesians Paul contrasts those who reject Christ with those who enjoy the new life in Christ. I will grant the fact those outside of Christ are in darkness, ignorance, and are lost. I insist, however, they are lost because they choose to be lost not because God so arranged their lives they want to be lost.

What is it that brings light into dark places? I remember being in the depths of Missouri’s Marvel Cave when the guides turned out the lights. The result was total darkness—darkness so thick you could feel it. One small match lit in the darkness expelled the overwhelming blackness. So it is with the Gospel and the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. The truth of the Gospel can penetrate the blackest heart and Christ can draw them if they would only listen. Can you see Jesus looking over Jerusalem and hear his words: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Luke 13:34, 35, ESV)

Contrary to the Augustinians or the Calvinists who read my blog, God offers the opportunity to freely (real freedom, libertarian freedom) to make a choice. He takes no pleasure in anyone who rejects him. It is not that he can’t save them in spite of themselves; he won’t save them.

Is the God of the Bible the Originator of Evil

Let me start with a definition—a definition of “compatibilism.” Stick with me, you’ll soon see what I’m about.

Compatibilism: Compatibilism, in contrast to “Libertarian free will,” teaches human beings are free, but defines freedom as “choosing according to one’s greatest desire.”

In other words, according to compatibilism, individuals always choose what they want—and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature).

Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all. This view holds that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence. In short, choices are undetermined by anything or anyone.

Compatibilism forms the basis for understanding human freedom in Reformed (Calvinism) theology. The rub comes when you begin to understand the whole Reformed system which is based in a faulty concept of God’s sovereignty. Calvinists believe God determines—predetermines or predestines—everything. If so, then even human choices are predetermined—set in stone—by God. Calvinists believe God influences your desires to the point that God has exhaustive control of all that goes on including human choice. In other words, all human choices are expressly the choices God predetermined and predestined to be made.

When you think this through, God becomes the author and cause of evil. He created the universe pristine and pure and set Adam in a beautiful garden. According to Genesis 1, 2 Adam had full access to the Garden and could care for it as he chose except for one undeniable prohibition. God specifically told him not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You know the story. Adam disobeyed and the result was immediate. Death passed upon all things!

The question arises: Why did Adam eat of the forbidden fruit? Did he freely—Libertarian freedom—choose to eat or did God’s predetermined will work in such a way that Adam did what he wanted to do? I don’t think there is any question about Adam doing what he wanted to do, but prior to the Fall Adam possessed the full “image of God” and surely he wanted to remain in fellowship with God. Yet he chose to disobey God indicating, according to the Calvinist, that it was in his nature—or God placed it in his nature—to want to disobey God.

I asked a proponent of Reformed theology the following question: Are you saying Adam had Libertarian freedom? In other words, did Adam truly make a free choice?

Here is the two-fold answer I received:

I am saying that Adam had free will. He was created good, and he did not have a sinful nature. Such is not only the Reformed viewpoint, but that of the Fathers and the Medieval theologians. St. Augustine said Adam was "posse non peccare" (able not to sin), but that after the fall mankind was left "non posse non peccare" (not able not to sin), and after our new birth (regeneration) was are returned to the state of being "posse non peccare," and in heaven we shall be "non posse peccare" (not able to sin). God is not the author of evil. Evil requires no author as it is the absence of good just as darkness requires no creator because it is the absence of light. God created light, and God created goodness which is found in perfect form only in Christ and is imputed to us by faith.

This response sounds as if the writer accepts the belief Adam acted as a truly free moral agent in the Garden. It sounds so scholarly and written in the language of the Reformed divines. That was not the complete answer. He followed with this:

The Westminster divines stated the matter thus: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1)

He is saying Adam acted from (he would not admit this) Libertarian freedom but only as God had preordained it all to come to pass.

The Reformed theologian can’t have it both ways. Adam cannot act with Libertarian freedom if God ordains it to come to pass. Saying an action is preordained means God must cause it to happen either directly or indirectly. It is not a matter of foreknowledge because, according to their view, God determines it will happen. Thomas McCall rightly said:

After any appeals to 'secondary causality' might be made, for the Christian who holds to [the Calvinist account of sovereignty], the answer is clear and unavoidable: if everything is determined, and if God determines everything (even if he determines it via secondary causality), then these things too are determined by God."

The inescapable conclusion is God was directly involved, by what he ordained to occur, in bringing about evil. Whether seen as the absence of good or not, evil is part of our fallen world and it exists because God preordained it. He caused it! Reformed attempts to prove otherwise are inconsistent at best and double-talk for the most part.

I, of course, disagree with the Reformed approach. God, in my view, knew the possibility of disobedience existed when he placed Adam in the Garden with the prohibition regarding the tree in its middle. Desiring creatures who chose to love him, he gave Adam the choice and Adam "blew it." God did not predetermine Adam's choice to prove anything. (Reformed theologians believe God ordained Adam's disobedience so that God could demonstrate his wrath.)

Recognizing the possibility of Adam's sin, God did preordain the life, death, and resurrection of his only begotten son to again make possible human redemption. We do know that! (1 Peter 1:20) Jesus came and died for all who would receive him thus taking care of the problem Adam brought about by his disobedience. Evil came into the world because of the first Adam's disobedience and the obedience of the second Adam took care of the results of Adam's sin (Romans 5) and potentially the results of individual disobedience as well.

Reformation Theology and the Origin of Evil

A satirical Youtube video appeared in Facebook earlier this summer. The video portrayed Adolf Hitler and his henchmen discussing an imagined theological shift from Calvinism to Arminianism. It would be more humorous if the video failed to challenge basic Reformation (Calvinistic) theology. 

Hitler and the Nazi regime, with its murder of 6 million Jews plus millions more, revolts Christians and any civilized person, religious or not. In spite of the fact Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao slaughtered millions, Hitler remains the epitome of evil in the 20th Century. One writer said, "the Second World War has to be one of the most apt metaphoric expression of the evil men can do to one another. 

Why does evil exist? The unbelieving world questions God's existence with that very question. Atheists supposedly prove the absence of a Supreme Being with the following syllogism:

1. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and good, then evil would not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, either God is not good or he does not exist.

I am not a logician, but the syllogism is valid and the conclusion follows by necessity. To disprove the syllogism one or both of Propositions one or two must be challenged. It is difficult to suggest evil does not exist in the world today. Not only does evil exist, much of it is gratuitous. It may be argued, I suppose, that evil itself is non-existent because it is merely the absence of good. The gas chambers of Buchenwald and the Killing Fields of Cambodia would question such a suggestion as would the rape of an innocent child, the senseless murder of an aged citizen, or the aborting of millions of babies. 

Reformed theologians have difficulty explaining evil. In their view, God not only created the Universe, he sustains it and because he is all powerful moves every atom, controls the movement of the planets, and controls every event which transpires on earth. Not only does he exercise his sovereignty with such control, he predestines every existing and future event and movement even to the determination of every thought and decision of man. Just as God knows every hair on your head, he knows every thought, every decision, every action because he either directly or indirectly predestines them and assures that such things come to pass.

God, then, is the author and originator of evil!  It can be no other way. Calvinists go so far as to believe God so arranges things, controls thought, and so on in such a fashion that the individual does "what he wants to do." Thus, when God placed Adam in the Garden, placed the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden, and told Adam not to eat, he didn't mean it. He had already predetermined Adam's failure even before creating the Universe. Adam made his decision because he wanted to, but he wanted to because God so arranged the circumstances and the thoughts and the actions so that Adam sinned. 

And when Adam sinned, evil entered the world. Not only that, but all future evil occurs at God's direction. Either directly or indirectly, through direct or secondary causes, God is the author of evil. And why? It is because Calvinists believe God must exhibit his wrath toward evil-doers so that he may be fully glorified. Evil exists in order for God to be glorified. 

There is, of course, far more than I've been able to plumb in this essay. I will undoubtedly write more on the subject.

America's Devaluation of Human Life

While studying at Cincinnati Christian Seminary in the 1970s I took an ethics course. The course considered topics such as the Christian's role in government, divorce and remarriage, war and capital punishment. We dug into issues surrounding the value of human life. The Roe v Wade decision was fresh in everyone's mind and much of the discussion focused on abortion. During the study, Dr. Cottrell pointed out how abortion was an indication of the slippery slope in the national attitude concerning the value of human life. Cottrell predicted with the acceptance of abortion would lead inevitably to the acceptance of euthanasia.

Recent disclosures reveal how far down the path of barbarism America has traveled since 1969. Videos taken at Planned Parenthood allege the organization harvests body parts from aborted infants for use in scientific experimentation. Protests understandably erupted from Planned Parenthood but subsequent videos drove the nail of suspicion deeper and deeper. Surprisingly, a few ostensibly Bible believing Christians also spoke out denying the allegations against Planned Parenthood. With more than 50 percent of the American people no longer supporting abortion on demand, it is a wonder that a closer look hasn't been taken at Planned Parenthood practices. I am uncertain how anyone can ethically support such a barbaric attitude toward life. It smacks of the same attitudes expressed by Mengele in Nazi Germany.

Not far behind the abortion on demand racket is the broadening of support for euthanasia. This is particularly true in attitudes expressed toward those living with birth defects, developmental or mental issues. It is particularly troubling when considering attitudes expressed toward the aged and infirm. Oregon is just one state which has supported the right of terminally ill patients to take their own lives and to reject prosecution for those who assist them. During the Obamacare debate, what there was of it, it was suggested the plan called for the formation of death panels to determine treatment for the aged. While such panels do not yet exist, it is clear that medical plans comprising Obamacare do determine whether or not to provide treatment or life saving operations for those who are considered "too old." There are known cases where aged adults over the age of 70 or 80 are denied treatment, not because the treatment would be ineffective but merely because they are considered too old. The expense of the treatment, we're told, is not worth the quality or viability of life in those aged or infirm individuals.

As assisted suicide becomes more acceptable the possibility for positive action to end the life of an aged person becomes increasingly possible. Such actions are indicative of a growing disrespect for human life. In a day when the life of a snail darter, blue whale, or other endangered species is of greater concern than human life it must be realized that human life has been reduced to mere animal existence.

There are a few hopeful signs. The growth of opposition to abortion on demand, particularly after the few weeks it takes for the fetus to be identifiably human, is one of those signs. Opposition to abortion will mean little, however, unless the national conscience once again recognizes the intrinsic value of human life.

The value of human life matter is not a political issue. It is a moral issue of great significance. While it may not be right for the church, as congregation, to take sides in political issues such as immigration, voter identification, or the like, the issue surrounding value of life issues is another matter. Genesis 9:6 states that human life is of such great value that when unjustly taken, the only just punishment is the life of the murderer. The church must speak out on moral issues and be clear in doing so.

Thoughts on Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

I've been interacting with heirs of the Restoration Movement who have opted for Reformed Theology (Calvinism). Most of those involved were educated in non-instrumental colleges and universities. There are a few in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ who are adopting Reformation thinking, too. The Apache Junction Christian Church here in Arizona is a prime example. On January 1 that congregation became known as Reformation Bible Church and adopted the basics of Reformed theology. Many others in the Restoration Movement adopt Reformed thinking without realizing it. At least the Apache Junction church was honest enough to "boldly go" their own directions.

My discussion with those in the New Eclectic Society, a Facebook page open by invitation only, is forcing me to do a deeper study of Reformed and Arminian thinking. The more I read and the more I study, the more Calvinism and its concept of God repulses me. One good outcome of the discussion is the fact I finally came to understand why so many New England Puritans became Universalists. The opposite of Calvinism isn't Arminianism, the opposite of Calvinism is Universalism.

Let me try to explain why. 

As anyone who has studied Reformed theology understands, the essence of Calvinism can be summed up in the famous tulip acrostic:

T otal Hereditary Depravity 

U nconditional Election

L imited Atonement

I  rresistible Grace

P erseverance of the Saints/Preservation of the Saints (Once Saved, Always Saved)

Calvinism's fundamental principle is the belief in the absolute and unswerving sovereignty of God which requires God to absolutely control and direct every creature, event, decision made. The fundamental principle is God's sovereignty; God's fundamental value is his glory. Everything God does has repercussions regarding his glory. So much so that even those who are objects of his wrath fulfill the purpose of his glory. Bruce Ware says it this way, "The glory of God is the supreme value of God ... we his creatures must simply bow and accept what God in his infinite wisdom, holiness, goodness, and power has determined will bring to expression the greatest glory to his name."

Because of Total Hereditary Depravity mankind is now unable to respond to God in any way. So God, in his generosity and mercy, determined to choose out from the mass of humanity a people who would acknowledge his glory. Those whom he chose he regenerated and enlightened them so that they could understand what Christ did for them. To assure the elect would do so, God so ordered their circumstances and their lives to create a situation where they would want to choose to worship and adore God. The elect made their choice "freely" because they were inclined to do so and, to put it bluntly, God's eternal decree and sovereign power created a situation where that was all they could do. Those not elected were consigned to perdition, again to assure the glory of God. Their punishment would vindicate God's justice and both the elect and the lost fulfill the means to assure his glory.

Here's the rub. If a God of love could create circumstances where a person would freely choose God, and if all are invited to come to him as Calvinists claim, why did not simply create circumstances so that all men were inclined to receive him? The election of the few while consigning the rest to perdition when God determined all circumstances for both the elect and the lost does not jibe with any concept of love. If God truly loves, then all he needed to do was create the means by which all men would be inclined to acknowledge him. 

Colonial Puritans, wrestling with their own lack of certainty regarding their election, could only conclude that a good and loving God would not consign his creation to hell. Thus, ultimately all would be saved. 

Arminian thinking--and I disagree with some of the Arminian conclusions--is far more rational and expressive of God's nature. God's primary attribute is his holiness. From his holiness spring the attributes of love and justice. Adam's fall did not totally destroy him or render him totally depraved. Instead, it marred or damaged the image of God, darkened his mind, and left him depraved in all his parts. Yet although the mind is darkened it is so only until enlightened. The "lamp" is the Word of God. Each individual is free--truly free, the opposite of determined or controlled--to choose or reject God. There is no merit in the choice. There is no good work to perform, only submission to the God revealed in Scripture. 

I know this presentation is inadequate, but it is where I am at the moment. I must work on expressing my understanding more clearly and more completely...and more succinctly.

Thoughts on July 4, 2015

Our nation celebrates its birthday tomorrow, July 4. For 239 years we've celebrated our many freedoms. After recent Supreme Court decisions, which I think flouted the Constitution, I started thinking about how many of those freedoms we've lost and how many we're in the process of losing.

We once had the freedom to say what we think. We're now afraid to speak up for fear we'll look stupid, bigoted, or politically incorrect. Whatever happened to, "I disagree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it"? I don't want to be offensive, but we've developed such thin skin that almost anything offends someone.

We once had the freedom to do business with whomever we chose. I well remember signs in restaurants that said, "We refuse the right to serve anyone." Now I know some people posted those signs because of racial prejudice and bigotry. Like many others, I believe racial bigotry is immoral, but I still think the owner of a restaurant, or any business for that matter, should be able to refuse to do business with anyone. The owner loses the income because of his/her refusal to accept someone's business while the customer can go down the block to someone willing to take the money. Remember, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"?

We once had the freedom to hold whatever religious convictions we held dear. No longer. The Bible is being reinterpreted and recast in molds never before accepted. Moral values clearly taught in Scripture are being cast as outmoded and old fashioned to the point that all manner of sexual sin is seen as moral. Check out: http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-christian-swingers-dating-site-offers-faithful-couples-chance-to-hookup-102844/. I don't remember how I ran across that site, but you will immediately see what I mean. Want variety in your sexual life though married? Swing...fornicate to your heart's content. It's okay we're told. The same is true of the "gay" lifestyle. Matthew Vines is the new "Joshua" leading us to the "promised land" of gay and lesbian paradise. But don't bother to suggest such practices as these are sinful. Oh, no! If you do you're intolerant, prejudiced, or bigoted.

We once had the freedom to own and carry firearms. We still do, but you know as well as I do that in time the voices calling for gun control will win. Like Charleton Heston, they'll get my rifle when they can pry it out of my cold dead hand.

Piece by piece, law by law, ruling by Supreme Court ruling our freedoms are being taken away. We are no longer vigilant and we are too apt to remain silent. We turn the other cheek and do so all too often. Pray for your leaders. But for crying out loud, it is time to do more than pray. Stand up! Speak up! If you don't you'll soon be told once and for all to "shut up!"

Secularists Just Don't Get It!

Secular conservatives and secular progressives are equally obtuse when it comes to religion. Whether conservative or liberal our national leadership and the media can't make themselves understand how religious beliefs motivate those who hold them. This was brought home this week (February 15-22) by the State Department's Marie Harf and President Obama when their talking points suggested the way to deal with the ISIS threat was to provide jobs.

Secularists can't think everything can be understood by applying Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs. ISIS beheading and burning can't possibly come from religious belief. Such violence must arise from frustration due to lack of opportunity, economic hardship, or ignorance. It couldn't possibly come from any kind of religious conviction. So, the secularists hold conferences to see what can be done to raise the standard of living and provide opportunities for the downtrodden terrorists. As the well-intentioned meet the Islamic terrorists decapitate more hostages, crucify more children, or slaughter anyone who doesn't believe what they do.

The truth is, ISIS terrorists are Muslims who believe the Qur'an and take it literally. They understand Jihad is a Holy War directed toward unbelievers--anyone who does not adopt their literalistic interpretation of the Qur'an. Therefore, they are willing to take up the sword and the AK-47 and force belief on others on the pain of death. Their goal is the imposition of fundamental Islam on the world! They will not be satisfied--in their own words--until the flag of Islam flies over every world capital. Led by fanatics who believe they are preparing the world for its appointed eschatological end, these terrorists are preparing the way for the Mahdi who will rule the world and impose their vision of peace and prosperity.

The secularist replies, "Surely no one is serious about such things!"

As another head falls to the ground make that silly statement one more time!

What's worse, and no one wants to buy this either, the extremists aren't the only Muslims looking for their dream of domination to come true. Millions of Muslims who aren't in the violent ISIS Jihad agree with their efforts and support them with money and prayers. American Muslims live by Sharia law in their enclaves and would impose it upon the rest of us if they could. Not all of the American Muslims, of course, but far more than you know.

Like others before them, those not participating in the violent Jihad plead for understanding and toleration. When they become the majority, watch out! Toleration will exist, for Muslims! Jews and Christians will be tolerated as long as they pay their tax and do not "proselyte".

One of the basic problems here in America is that we expect those of other religions to be like us--uncommitted to their beliefs beyond lip service. In a poll taken years ago George Barna said only four percent of America's evangelical Christians live out their faith with any consistency. What's more, even the four percent are so steeped in worldly thinking they can hardly be identified from others.

What will stop the Jihad? It is the role of government to protect the good and punish the evil doer. (Romans 13). Governments don't "turn the other cheek!" They are "God's avenger" and "don't bear the sword for nothing." It is time to take up the sword and stop the ISIS advance and set the example for every Muslim who would impose their beliefs on others. It took Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours to stop the Muslim advance into Europe in AD 732. Martel and an army approximately 30,000 defeated the Muslim forces numbering an estimated 80,000. ISIS and fundamentalist Islam must be confronted and soundly defeated. ISIS must become an example to discourage Muslims from such violence and radical behavior in the future.

Islamaphobia?

I keep hoping someone publicly indicates an understanding of Islam. Tonight Fox's Monica Crowley and John Stossel demonstrated they understood the threat and the root cause of Islam. 

It is disturbing to listen to individuals differentiate between "good" and "bad" Muslims. Muslims are Muslims! Like Christianity, Islam is not monolithic. There are sects and factions--denominations--within Islam and they fight themselves. In spite of this, all Muslims believe the basic--the fundamentals--of Islam. The major difference between Muslims isn't whether they are good or bad, Shia or Sunni, or whatever. The basic difference is one of commitment. Some Muslims believe the Qu'ran and are committed to it. Others see the Qu'ran as expressing a belief system in which they do not have a vested commitment. 

Jihadist Muslims understand the Qu'ran when it says Allah's followers are to take Islam to the world by persuasion when possible; by force when necessary. The Qu'ran teaches Allah's followers are to eliminate anyone who does not comply. The only exceptions are Christians and Jews who are tolerated--sort of--because they are "people of a book." However, Christians and Jews must pay a special tax and they are forbidden to proselyte (evangelize). Allah, it seems, brooks no competitors! Muslims know when such limitations exist the opposing religions wither and die.

The so-called "good" Muslims are like all too many Christians. "Good" Muslims believe in Allah, give lip service to the pillars of Islam, do the bare minimum to maintain their identity as Muslims, and accept Islam as a "faith" which provides existential meaning. Americans have difficulty understanding one other basic Muslim characteristic--a Muslim is "what you are" not "what you believe." Fundamentalist Jews understand this characteristic. Catholics, Lutherans, or Anglicans--among others--where these religions are the state religion understand this characteristic. A person born in France is Catholic; that's who they are! 

In the United States an American is what you are; you choose to be a Christian and you can choose to be a Catholic Christian, Lutheran Christian, or Anglican Christian or whatever. Where Islam predominates the individual has no choice. This fact confuses Americans because it is so foreign to the way they think.

A few years ago George Barna's research revealed 80 percent in America believe in God. There was no explanation of what the respondents meant by "God." The response could mean Allah, Jehovah, the Mormon god, a heathen deity, or what. Barna reported nearly 60 percent were "born again." Of the "born again" only 4 percent lived out their faith.

The same is true in the Muslim world.  The bulk of the Muslim world may accept the tenets of Islam to some extent but the "born again" Muslims are Jihadists. The majority see the Jihadis as radical but when they understand their religion they know they exemplify the literal and fundamental principles Islam preaches.

Muslims and Christians clash because committed Muslims and committed Christians see their faith as the only true faith. Muslims believe "Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet." Christians believe "there is no name given under heaven whereby we must be saved except the name of Jesus."  Christians take their message to the world by preaching the Gospel and persuading people of the truth of their claim. Muslims take their beliefs to the world and force compliance at the point of a "sword."

I saw much of this when I visited Turkey. When Kemal Ataturk took control of the Turkish government he envisioned a secular Turkey. He wanted to separate "mosque and state." His approach was not true Islam. Until recently Turks were secular in public and religious in private. When we were there we did not see anyone responding to the daily calls for prayer. We were in the Blue Mosque when one of the daily prayer times came and if anyone responded I did not see them.

Why doesn't the Muslim world rise up and quell the Jihadists? Because they know the Jihadists are living the faith and obeying the Qu'ran's teaching. Why don't they get involved in the Jihad? They do! They just don't pick up weapons for the fight. They support the Jihadists with their prayers, their fortunes, and the lives of their sons and daughters. Those who aren't willing to get involved are usually too busy or too caught up in worldly pleasures. If they were Mormons, we'd call them "Jack Mormons." They are "Jack Muslims!"

There are only two ways to handle the Muslim threat. First, the church--Christians--must be willing to take the Gospel to Muslims. Doing so may be martyrdom--it did for the original Apostles. It may mean Christians must be willing to "obey God rather than man." Second, the state must protect its citizens. Doing so may mean going to war--a real war. It may means acknowledging the truth America is involved in World War III. Because of the nature of radical Islam, it may mean massive deaths. Let it be known; there are no innocent Muslims. Their system is corrupt, the ideology false, and their religion repugnant to the true God revealed in the Bible.

Another Congregation Lost to the Movement

Barry Thorton posted a link on Facebook to a video explaining why Community Christian Church in Apache Junction, AZ is becoming Reformation Bible Church in January 2015. The church posted the text of the video on the church's website.

In the letter the church's elders acknowledge Community Christian Church's relationship to the American Restoration Movement of the 19th century. It lists three reasons for the change:

1. A biblical reason which is linked to the church's accusation the Restoration Movement is a "works righteousness" movement because of its emphasis on baptism. The letter accuses the Restoration Movement of teaching baptismal regeneration.
2. A historical reason tied to the church's decision to link to the historic Reformation of the 16th century. In essence they would rather be tied to Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli than Jesus and the apostles. 
3. A pragmatic reason due to the fact that the change in name reflects the church's change in theology and approach to ministry.

In response to Community Christian Church's decisions, I simply want to make the following observations.

1. As a locally autonomous and self-governing congregation the elders and the church have the right to make these decisions. The independence of each congregation to follow their understanding of the Bible and its teaching is, at the same time, the Restoration Movement's greatest blessing and its greatest curse.
2. The changes leading to the abandonment of the Restoration Plea is an indictment on the ministry of Jack Martin who preceded Joel Ellis, the current minister. It is the responsibility of the teaching minister and the eldership to assure a church's adherence to sound doctrine. The fact Community Christian Church is choosing to leave the Restoration Movement during the ministry of the individual following Jack Martin reveals the church's lack of biblical grounding.
3. The decision of the church's leadership demonstrate what can happen when a church calls its ministry from denominational sources. Ellis is a graduate of Liberty University and the minister of Discipleship is a graduate of schools with no relationship with the Restoration Movement. 
4. Warnings regarding the encroachment of Reformation and Evangelical theology have been issued now for well over a decade. Few seem to listen! The thinking expressed in the letter from the elders of Community Christian Church reflects Zwinglian thinking. Ulrich Zwingli's theology constitutes a major shift in the understanding of apostolic Christianity. It was Zwingli who denied the place of baptism in salvation issues. Believe me when I say Community Christian Church is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last, to adopt such teaching.
5. There seems to be a studied effort on the part of those educated in Evangelical colleges and seminaries to "invade" Restoration Movement congregations with the intention of subversion. Although the example of which I'm aware are few, there are undoubtedly many others within all streams of the Restoration Movement.
6. One major problem contributing to the ease with which subversion takes place is the way many preachers and teachers within the movement teach baptism for the remission of sins. It is all too easy for those educated in Evangelical or Reformation schools to interpret Restoration teaching on baptism as "baptismal regeneration." It is high time to begin preaching and teaching that a person is saved by faith. Alexander Campbell taught salvation by grace through faith. The Bible teaches salvation by faith in baptism. When a person believes and places their trust in Christ they are saved but salvation is formally conferred in baptism. The Bible still says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:15, 16).

I predict, and I am no prophet, many more congregations will follow Community Christian Church into Evangelical false teaching. All too many Restoration Movement congregations have an aversion to teaching "sound doctrine." When was the last time you heard a message from the pulpit on an issue of doctrine? 

I've done quite a bit of diagnosis here. Let me offer a prescription or two.

1. Restore the place of expository preaching and teaching to the pulpit. Leave behind the topical and textual messages and preach the Bible--the whole Bible. After all, the Bible only makes Christians only. Do not be afraid to preach doctrine as it is revealed in the biblical text.
2. Restore the Bible school as a place where content can be taught. Small groups are fine but the average small group, unless strictly guided, become a pooling of ignorance. Small groups are horrible for teaching content. They are great for building relationships and accountability but are simply ineffective in teaching content.
3. Hold our colleges and universities accountable to the standard of the Word of God and the position and plea of the Restoration Movement.

Books I've Written

I'm now a published author! Hey, no big deal; I published them myself with the help of Amazon.com's Create Space. However, I'm too cheap (and too poor) to pay for an extensive marketing campaign. So here is some information about my books.

This book is my "magnum opus" as it presents my version of Restoration History. I spent most of my academic life teaching this subject. I wrote the first draft while on staff at Canton's First Christian Church in Ohio. It was a book of just over 100 pages then. This completed book is over 400 pages and brings the history of the movement, particularly the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, to 2014. It is available from Amazon.com right now for $14.28. It usually sells for $16.95 or more. I never expected to retire on my royalties...and I'm not! The neat thing about this book is that I plan to periodically update it (correct typos and other editing corrections and update material) on a regular basis. Those who buy the book and email me at professormike1943@gmail.com can receive free updates when they come out. The updates will come in PDF format you can read on your computer or transfer to a Kindle.

My ex-daughter-in-law thought it would be a good idea to write my life story for my grandchildren. This was before she and my son divorced but I thought it was a good idea. I started it several times then finally after retiring I finished it. It takes the reader on a journey with me through all the places I lived as I grew up in Iowa and the places where Delores and I served in ministry. It's got the good, the bad, and the ugly. Amazon is selling it for $15.86. It contains oh, so many memories. As I wrote the book my memories just tumbled out. The chapters are chronological but I can't guarantee that my recollections are. 

This is a rewrite of a concise early church history I wrote for Moriah School of Ministry in Australia. It encompasses the first 16 centuries of church history in 108 pages. The book is indexed--all my histories are indexed--and available on Amazon.com for $9.95. By the way, I took the cover photo in the ruins of Laodicea when Delores and I visited Turkey in 2010. There are other illustrations throughout the book.

In addition to these, Delores and her sister, Janice, edited nearly 100 of their mother's "down home" poetry.

Lot's of little insights into what it was like in Northeast Nebraska prior to 1970. The ladies are selling this book for $8.50. Vera's style is pretty homespun but her poetry marks special occasions, comments on church life, and reveals what it was like in the days the Olson sisters were growing up.

I also have a book of questions and answers. Surfers to the Canton church's website asked questions through the website. I responded. This little book is a selection of those questions. It too is available through Amazon.com.

I'm also working on Later Church History which will bring my history of the church to the present. I tried to keep it concise but it's been so much fun writing it I'm afraid it is getting a little long.

Don't know if any of you who read my blog are interested in these works, but they are "out there" and hoping to be used.

If I don't tell you again before the end of 2014 please have a Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year.

What About Ferguson?

Good friends asked me about my take on Ferguson, Missouri, while eating Sunday lunch at Fuddrucker's last Sunday. I intended to write something about it last week but just didn't.

It is always a tragedy when a family loses a child. Loss of a child means more than losing a child in some violent fashion. It is sad when a family loses a child because of disease or accident, too. It is just as tragic when a child is lost due to their rejection of the family and its values. The Prodigal's father understood loss even though his son was not physically dead. For that reason I feel badly for the Brown family in the loss of their son Michael in the tragic shooting last summer.

Having said that, I cannot feel much sympathy for the young man. He is certainly not a victim. He is instead a victimizer. As much as his death hurts his family it did not have to happen. My read on the events and the subsequent Grand Jury refusal to indict Darren Wilson is simple. Michael Brown was an arrest waiting to happen--an arrest he apparently resisted through a physical attack on the officer. Like so many who violently resist arrest he paid the price for it.

To those who say Darren Wilson's actions were excessive because Michael Brown was unarmed, I want to make something abundantly clear. Michael Brown was not "unarmed." True, he did not have a firearm or, to my knowledge, a knife or club but he was armed and fully able to do bodily harm or kill the officer. Michael Brown was a young strong man fully capable of killing without any weapon external to himself. The man was over 6' tall and weighed at least 290 pounds. In addition he was stoned on marijuana, a fact that undoubtedly accounted for his irrational attack on the policeman. If you don't think a 6', 290 pound man can do bodily harm--even kill--another human being all you need to do is remember he was as big and as strong as an NFL lineman.

Huge people intimidate and threaten others. For many years I was 6' 2" tall and weighed in excess of 300 pounds. While my weight was spread over my body it wasn't muscle. In spite of that fact, I could intimidate smaller men. There were several times I got in the face of abusers and threatened bodily harm if they beat their wives again. Those guys took me seriously! My friend Mike Smith is 6'6" (or more) and weighs 300 pounds. Although Mike is a gentle giant he has the ability to intimidate by his very presence. Sheer size is intimidating and if the large person is aggressive or violent and out of control because of drugs there is good reason to fear one's life.

What really galls me, though, is the way the whole incident was handled and reported. In our nation there is always a presumption of innocence. That presumption exists even when there is the appearance of guilt. That goes both ways, too! The fact is, however, the police have a right to stop a possible offender and arrest them if necessary. Guilt on innocence is brought out later in a trial and a trial almost always occurs unless there is evidence to suggest an indictment is not needed.

We all know there are occasions when we think our Justice System gets it wrong! I'm thinking of the O.J. Simpson trial. Simpson was indicted, stood trial, and was declared innocent. At this point it does not matter whether or not he killed Nicole Brown Simpson. The court said he was innocent. It no longer matters whether or not Michael Brown was unnecessarily killed. The Grand Jury said there was insufficient evidence to bring an indictment. That's the way it is!

Before you go, consider these facts in the case:

1. Michael Brown is seen on a security tape stealing from a convenience store.
2. Michael Brown is seen bullying the convenience store owner--we are unsure what Brown said to the owner in the process of the theft including threats.
3. Michael Brown was high (stoned) on marijuana.
4. Police Officer Darren Wilson was made aware of the convenience store robbery.
5. Michael Brown and his compatriot were impeding traffic when Wilson told them to get out of the street. Further, Wilson knew Brown was the probable convenience store thief.
6. There was some sort of scuffle in which Brown resisted arrest and may have tried to take the officer's firearm.
7. According to testimony, Brown was shot and started to leave the scene when ordered to stop.
8. According to testimony, Brown acted aggressively and rushed the policeman with head down (an indication of attack mode).
9. According to testimony, Officer Wilson feared for his life and fired on Brown killing him.

On Playing Football and Injuries

I saw it online this morning: a former high school quarterback from Illinois is suing the Illinois High School Athletic Association because of concussions he sustained 15 years ago. This action takes such lawsuits to a new "low" adding to suits against the National Football League and college sports.

Football is a rough and violent sport. I played four years in high school and two years in junior college. (I would have played more except I went to junior high where there were no programs.) I've seen players get injured during games. In fact, my football career ended when I sustained a shoulder injury and the doctors suggested I quit. There were no sports medicine doctors in Norfolk, Nebraska so I never knew if my injury could be fixed. It still aches on occasion but I still regret not taking the scholarship at Northwestern College of Iowa.

But here's my point! Those who choose to play the game know it is a violent game! They know in advance they could get injured. That's just part of the game! Most players don't have serious injuries but there are lots of bruises, cuts, and sprains that go with the game. We lost two tackles to ACL injuries my senior year in high school. One JC player had a concussion on the kickoff of the first game of my first year in JC. If you know the game is violent and you are unwilling to take the risks associated with the game don't play! Don't blame everyone else for your own decisions.

Now, having said that let me add that it is proper for equipment manufacturers to provide the best and safest equipment possible. It is right for leagues and organizations to adapt rules to enhance player safety. Research is ongoing and football has come a long way from the leather helmets of yesteryear to the highly technically developed helmets of today. My freshman year in high school was the first year bars and facemasks were required on helmets--that was 1957. My freshman year in junior college was the first year for mouth guards and the JC players painted latex rubber on dental impressions to make our own. When I coached junior league ball in Grand Junction we made certain the league purchased the safest helmets available for our fifth and sixth grade players.

It is horrible when a player sustains an injury that leaves him paralyzed or crippled. That's for certain. But he chose to play the game! No one forced him. And once a player reaches the NFL--and few do--they are making so much money it is insane.

In our litigious society we hold organizations and individuals responsible for things no one knew was harmful. Why did this former high school quarterback wait 15 years to file suit? No one knew how serious concussions were in 1990. It has only been the last 10 years or so that such injuries have received much attention. There are always lawyers who will "chase ambulances" or look for opportunities to sue. All that does is remove the consequences of individual choices and make the rest of society pay the price.

I know this is simplistic, but when and where does individual responsibility enter the picture?

I AM SICK OF IT

I am getting really sick of people telling me (or anyone else) what I can or cannot say! I believe in the freedom of speech even when I disagree or it is offensive. The only one hurt by a stupid or offensive remark is the one who makes the remark. Whatever happened to, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

This past weekend Curt Warner, formerly an NFL quarterback and now TV commentator, made a remark concerning his disbelief in macro evolution. He went on to say he did believe in micro evolution and then transitioned to an evaluation of the "evolution" of Pittsburgh Steeler quarterback Ben Roethlisburger. From what I saw on Fox News "Five" yesterday, there are evidently fans who are squealing like "stuck pigs" at the remark.

Why? Because Curt Warner is a Christian!

Underlying all the crap is the secular conviction that science is always right and everything else is wrong! Science is supposed to have the answer to everything and be able to explain everything. So if you question Climate Change (ala Global Warming) you are stupid, a denier, and ______________ (you fill in the blank). Global warming is just one category. 

Why is it so hard for people to realize that scientific data is open to interpretation? Quite often the interpretation of data and the conclusions reached change. The change occurs for one or more of at least two reasons: (1) Interpretation of the data is prejudiced and/or wrong. (2) Additional data refutes previous conclusions. 

I will grant that Christians interpret scientific data regarding the origins of the universe differently than secularists. Why is it interpreting from Christian presuppositions is wrong when interpreting the same data from a non-Christian or secular position is okay? Creationism and belief in a steady-state universe requires faith on both sides of the question. 

But...there is something greater to all this! It is the right to say what one thinks or to present a personal conviction openly and without fear. I grew up believing I could say whatever I wanted to say as long as I was responsible. I knew I shouldn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded building. I also knew using language to bully or deride another was improper...not to say unChristian! I learned I should not say anything about someone if I couldn't say something positive. But I also grew up thinking that I could express my beliefs, my position, my view, my perspective, my convictions without fear even if they were contradictory or offensive to someone else. 

Today atheists, secular-progressives, and unbelievers have the right to say anything about my beliefs, my convictions, and I am not supposed to respond. Right now Christians are facing a not-so-quiet persecution that isn't going to go away anytime soon. Want to know what it will look like? Look at the ancient Roman Empire...

Frankly, it is our fault Christians! Through our inaction we have failed to evangelize sufficiently to maintain a Christian majority. We have this "myth" of a Christian nation pounded into our heads so much we have forgotten that America was once a nation of Christians--at least a nation of sufficient Christians who live by Christian principles. Sadly, we're not even that! A few years ago George Barna said that only 5% of the 80% who claimed to be Evangelical Christians actually lived their faith! That's not going to be a lot of "salt" or "light" in a dark world!

Is It Denominational?

A growing number of Christian Church mega churches sponsor multiple campuses. Here in Phoenix Central Christian Church in Mesa and Christ's Church of the Valley in Peoria boast multiple sites. I can't begin to list all of the others around the country doing so. As I've thought about this trend, it strikes me that in each case a series of new denominations are formed by such actions.

Let's think about it. What are the marks of a denomination? There are several the Restoration Movement has used for generations:

1. A fellowship of churches using a common name to identify and identify them.
2. A common Statement of Faith (Creed) to which all agree.
3. A central organization to which all churches look to for advice, direction, identification, and oversight.
1. The central organization receives all the offerings and dispenses all the funds.
2. The central organization owns all the property.
3. The central organization governs all the activities and selects all the staff.
4.  A person who serves as the visible leader.

In the case of the Presbyterian Church, USA those marks would work out as follows:

1. The common name: Presbyterian Church
2. The common Creed: The Presbyterian Church, USA recognizes the historic creeds but its basic statement is the Westminster Confession of Faith
3. The central organization: Headquartered in Louisville, KY
4. The staffing: Ministers of associated congregations are licensed and approved by the denomination.
5. The visible leader: Heath Rada, Moderator

Transpose this to one of the Christian Churches with multi-site campuses:

1. The common name: Christ's Church of the Valley 
2. The common creed: A Statement of faith published on the CCV website.
3. The central organization: The Elders and Leadership Team at CCV, Peoria Campus, Phoenix
1. CCV receives all the moneys given to the church.
2. CCV owns all the property.
3. CCV hires/firest all the staffs associated with the various campuses.
4. The visible leader: Dr. Don Wilson

Congregations meeting in Surprise, Peoria, Scottsdale, and Athem currently comprise the CCV denomination. With the exception of size and extent there is no discernable difference between the United Presbyterian Church denomination, the United Methodist Church denomination, or any of the other standard denominations currently existing.

If a Presbyterian Church associated with the Presbyterian Church, USA finds itself in disagreement with the denomination it may withdraw but may lose property and identification in the process. A congregation associated with CCV may withdraw and no one knows what will happen. The whole process goes far beyond the classic Restoration Movement principles surrounding the concept of locally autonomous congregation. It is doubtful that a congregation with facilities built with funds paid from the entire CCV membership would simply be turned over to rising leaders within the various campuses identifying with CCV.

I've only used Christ's Church of the Valley as an example. Exactly how the leadership there would react to these situations is unknown simply because it has not happened. In part that's the question. I have no doubt the leadership within the variety of multi-site mega churches have done so with good intentions. Their concern is outreach, growth, and convenience for attenders. However, what will happen should the Lord tarry and problems arise in 50, 100, 200 years.

In all of this history repeats itself. The early church followed  a similar path establishing satellite congregations. The "bishop" of the first church sent presbyters (elders) to the satellites with the elements of the Lord's Supper since the theology of that day said "no bishop, no baptism; no bishop, no Lord's Supper). In time the satellites grew and the presbyters became identified with a specific assembly but the "first church" maintained its oversight and control. 

In time five major churches arose with similar circumstances -- Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome. Other congregations looked to these five major churches for advice but retained their identity and autonomy. Leaders in each congregation saw themselves as equals but the more successful churches and their leadership were "more equal" than the others. In due season Constantinople replaced Carthage. For a variety of reasons Rome and Constantinople vied for recognition as having the greatest influence. Finally the two churches split and congregations identified with either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

It seems far fetched now, but it is not at all impossible for numerous multi-site mega churches to grow in influence. In fact, it is already happening as evidenced by the selection of speakers and the recognition of leaders occurring at the North American Christian Convention. The only redeeming factor is the reality seen in numerous congregations of various sizes who view the "brotherhood's" mega churches as anomaly and are not caught up in the emphasis on size. 

What do we do about the current situation? Nothing! There's really nothing to do. Congregations can, because of the nature of the Restoration Movement, do whatever they think best. I simply write to express a warning, " Vigilance is the price of freedom." In my view, the action takes place in the local church and it is only when biblically qualified leadership determined to remain faithful to New Testament teaching can the nature and purpose of the church be preserved.

It's Happening Just As I Predicted

Events unfolding in Houston and Idaho fulfill a prediction I made to a Sunday school class over a month ago. I predicted the day would come when any hesitation to marry, accept into membership, or employ those openly gay would come under scrutiny and legal process.

In Houston the City Council passed a non-discrimination ordinance at the behest of a newly elected openly gay mayor. Seeking to cut down on criticism or opposition the ordinance led to charges Houston biblically-oriented ministered violated the ordinance. Subsequently the Council ordered pastors to surrender sermons opposing the lesbian mayor and preaching the biblical truth about homosexuality.The action captured the attention of Fox News reporter Todd Starnes who regularly deals with faith issues. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz recently spoke out on the Houston City Council's actions calling it a violation of First Amendment Rights.

Today (10/20/14) Fox News reported Donald and Evelyn Knapp are facing fines or jail time for refusing to marry same sex coupes. The Couer d'Alene couple operate a "for profit" wedding chapel but the Knapps are ordained ministers. Their refusal to marry a same sex couple brought them into conflict with recent Idaho statutes permitting gay marriage. The rationale for the lawsuit filed in Federal Court alleges the Knapps must provide marriage services to gay precisely because their chapel is incorporated as a "for profit" entity.

A couple operating a bakery in Colorado were recently sued because they refused on religious grounds to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Again the suit stipulates that since the couple operate a "for profit" business they must make their services available to all comers regardless of personal conviction. Other similar suits have been filed around the country creating a crisis in conscience for a variety of businesses.

The United States is merely following in Canada's footsteps. Canadian law prohibits "gay bashing" or speaking openly about the sin of homosexual behavior. I guess it is still okay to preach so as to oppose adultery or heterosexual misbehavior but not against gay behavior.

The potential here in the United States will undoubtedly follow the Politically Correct attitudes of Canada. American preachers will be permitted to speak in opposition of sexual sin--even homosexual sin-- but to do so may result in the message being labelled "hate speech." A church speaking out in such a matter may be labeled as a "hate organization" and openly condemned.

In my opinion the government has gone out of its way to openly abridge the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. That's been true long before the homosexual agenda reared its head. At one time restaurants and other businesses could display a sign which said, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone." That is obviously no longer true! Granted, most of us would agree it is wrong to refuse service to someone because of their race, color, religious persuasion, or whatever. Nonetheless, the only ones truly hurt from such prejudice is the business owner. I still see signs saying, "No shirt, No shoes, No service!" If someone does not have the right to refuse service to someone--regardless of who they are or what their color or sexual preference is--how can they refuse service to someone who elects not to wear shoes?

The church is facing trying times. Heresy from within and without, the rise of false religion, and the whole Politically Correct agenda is creating an atmosphere much like that in the early Roman Empire. Everything in Rome was hunky-dory as long as you were tolerant and accepted anything and everything as okay. Christians stood in the face of such goofy-ness saying, "Jesus is the only way!" Their willingness to die for their faith and their refusal to deny the Lordship of Christ eventually overcame the world. Whether it happens again depends on the willingness of Christians to stand for something!

A Strange Feeling

It has been more than a year now since I retired from the preaching ministry. With few exceptions I served local congregations from 1962 to 2013. I was the Senior Minister or had major responsibilities in the churches I served.

There were exceptions. I went full time with Intermountain Bible College in 1977 but Northeast Christian Church was home after spending four years with Orchard Mesa Christian Church. Even though I was never and elder or deacon at Northeast I was part of the church's inner circle. Leland Griffin and I were good friends and I had input through him and Frank Goodman. I taught a Sunday school class and Delores and I led the Junior High Youth Group. I served Northeast twice as Interim Minister spending nearly six months in the pulpit during those ministries.

After Intermountain Bible College closed I was Minister of Adult Education and Administration at Westwood-Cheviot Church of Christ in Cincinnati. Westwood was a historic church and the ministry carried with it quite a bit of prestige. During my three years there the leadership exhibited a great deal of confidence in my work and included me in the eldership (as they did the other two ministers).

In Boise I taught at Boise Bible College and ministered with First Church of Christ. The church grew and the leadership respected me. The only reason I left was personal depression created partially by Dave Girvin's death. Dave was my associate and my best friend and losing him hurt me and the church.

In Canton I was Minister of Adult Education and led in restoring the church's historic Bible school to prominence. Attendances in Bible school were consistently in the 900s and we broke 1000 on several occasions. I was an integral part of the leadership team and the elders and deacons respected my leadership. I worked closely with 28 adult Bible classes reorganizing, closing, merging, and launching new classes over 8 years.

I left Canton for Phoenix and began several frustrating years back in the Intermountain West. Still, I had input and exercised leadership.

Over the 50 years of ministry I served churches of 40 or on the staff of mega churches. My graduate studies and experience gave me tremendous opportunities to learn a lot about what makes churches tick and grow. I learned there were numerous practical changes churches needed to institute in order to communicate with the current culture. I knew what needed to be done but couldn't always get it done because of the old "we've never done it that way before" syndrome.

Now after a year in retirement I'm feeling like I'm no longer a part of things. Delores and I became part of Paseo Verde Christian Church in Peoria, AZ. Right now it is a declining church. I can see numerous reasons for the decline and leadership is "running scared." The church hired a new minister from the East Coast and his lack of experience and approach just isn't doing anything for me. The people are great and they are doctrinally sound but the church is clinically depressed right now. Communication is poor and leadership is cutting programs and personnel to save money.

As a result I feel like a preacher without a pulpit. I really understand how difficult it is for preachers who retire and are in positions without opportunities to lead.

Freedoms Lost--First Amendment Under Attack

Sleepy disengaged Americans are watching the erosion of their freedoms without knowing it.

Witness: Business owners no longer have the freedom to operate their business as they choose. Take the couple in Colorado who refused to sell their products to whomever they choose. Religious convictions aside, it seems to me owners should be able to operate their businesses as they choose. Were there not other bakeries willing to serve homosexuals? It seems to me the only people hurt by a refusal to serve a particular person or group is the business owner.

No one likes prejudice or those who are terribly biased but shouldn't people have the freedom to believe what they like. There's a world of difference between refusing to bake cakes for a homosexual wedding and beating a gay man or woman. I'm not advocating violence or the propriety of a prejudiced person to attack and do  violence to someone for whom they hold a prejudice. After all, everyone is prejudiced in one way or another.

Witness the current IRS attack against the church. Biblical teaching on marriage, they say, is equivalent to electioneering. Teaching biblical truth about marriage, sexual morality, destruction of the unborn and so on is tantamount to opposing the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. Who says so? Liberals, Social Progressives, and atheist groups...that's who.

Witness current restrictions in Canada prohibiting preaching biblical truth about homosexuality. Preachers explaining Romans 1 can be charged with "hate speech" in Canada. Churches refusing to limit their speech could lose their tax exempt status, ministers charged with slander and the church labelled a hate organization.

Granted there are ministers challenging the IRS and the Federal Government for its evasion of the First Amendments. As long as we continue electing government leaders who reflect Secular Progressive ideas will continue to erode our freedoms in the name of Political Correctness. Once labels get attached they are more easily attakk

A New Cold War?

I don't like to get into politics in this blog. I have from time to time but I've tried to keep my observations on political issues to a minimum.

Today, though, the news reports are rampant with reports of new sanctions on Russia. Vladimir Putin continues to exercise dangerous activities in the Ukraine. Russia took the Crimea and is trying to take eastern Ukraine. Putin may want to restore the old borders of the Soviet empire but more likely he's pushing to control as much of the old empire as he's allowed. Time will tell of course!

What strikes me is how all these pressures--the Ukraine, Israel, and our own Southern borders--are cropping up now. I want to point out one simple fact. While the Bushes led the country in two offensive wars in the Middle East every other conflict since the Civil War occurred during the presidency of Democrats.

A look at military history leads you to one conclusion--wars occur during Democrat presidencies because Democrats generally gut the military and focus on social issues at home. For the most part Democrat foreign policy is unable to recognize the reality of the enemies aligned against us. They prefer to wage war with words rather than acts. I could provide lots of examples to prove my point but I'll just leave it here for the time being.

Books Recently Published

Since retiring I've been spending a lot of time at the computer. But then, when did I not spend time at a computer? The answer has to be: prior to 1985. Even then I was learning Wordstar on Intermountain Bible College's Altos computer. Now I'm spending as much as eight hours a day at the computer.

I've always wanted to write. For several years this blog provided a public outlet allowing me to express myself. Then Lee Mason asked me to write a column for the Restoration Herald. It's always been an ego boost to see my writing in print in a magazine. From the few scattered articles in Lookout and Christian Standard to the Restoration Herald it has always increased my self-image. Since I retired in July 2013 I've directed my writing to the production of books. As of today I have two available books and two more in the "pipeline." 

I chose to release my books through Create Space. Create Space is an Amazon.com company specializing in publishing independent authors. I looked at several but chose Create Space because of their cost, assistance, and professionalism. I know marketing my books is more difficult through Create Space but I never expected to be a "best selling" author anyway. As I is I'm surprised a bit at what's happening. It is slow but the growth and interest is coming along. I wanted to  control the content of my books. I didn't want the editor from one of the Restoration Movement (or other) publishing firms to tell me what to say, how many chapters to include, or where I could market them. Create Space is "user friendly" and books become immediately available on Amazon.com.

So what are the books in print and those I'm working on?

1. On the Move: The Story of an Iowa Boy. This book tells the story of my life. It is my recollections of where I've been and what I've done. It tells of relationships, dashed hopes, personal experiences and so on. The chapters are in chronological order starting when I was about 4 and taking the reader on a journey through time to last year's meeting with three brothers and sisters I did not know I had. The recollections in each chapter are not exactly in chronological order. They are largely vignettes I wrote as I remembered them.
2. History of the American Restoration Movement. I always wanted to formalize my classroom material in book form. I just never had the discipline to do it. I wrote a beginning effort while serving First Christian Church in Canton but it was brief and incomplete. Lee Mason gave me permission to serialize it in The Restoration Herald. I figured that would give me the push to discipline myself and write it. So it is done and on the market. It is somewhat different than most of the movement histories because I try to place the movement into its social and historical context and I spend quite a bit of time writing about what was going on in the general American culture noting the impact it had on the developing Restoration Movement.
3. Questions People Asked. This one is now in the proofing stage and will be released after making corrections. I based this book on questions submitted through the First Christian Church website in Canton. A few of those questions were no longer available because FCC had a brief controversy over baptism and the elders asked me to remove a few of the answers which I reluctantly did. The questions cover a wide range of topics from biblical questions to social and political matters.
4. Early Church History: From Pentecost to the Reformation. This book originated from a request of the leadership at the Moriah School of Ministry in Australia. I intended to write a companion briefly surveying Christian history from the Reformation to the present. I still intend to do that if the Lord permits me to live long enough. The book is a concise survey (less than 125 pages) of early church history. It too is in the proofing stage and I hope I can make it available in a few weeks.

Charles Krauthamer's recent book Things that Matter spurred me to go back through all my Disicpler blog entries and essays to consider a book entitled Christian Things that Matter. I'm just starting to work on that. There are several other ideas rattling around in my head including some ethical studies, theological material, and church leadership. I'm hoping my friend Bob Kuest will work with me on the last topic. He's the expert in church leadership!!

I hope to have all the titles in eBook form within the year. That takes some coding expertise I have to learn. So I'll see if you can teach an old dog new tricks.