There’s a difference between being Christian and being religious THE REV. RENE’ MONETTE

Many people think that being religious is the same as being a Christian.

One of the greatest ironies is that many religious people are in fact not even close to being a Christian.

The word Christian actually began in Acts 11:26. "So it was that for a whole year, they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

We learn from this that Christians were the first disciples. In fact, they were such good disciples that people began calling them "people who followed Christ."

It was probably a term that was used to refer to the people they felt had actually gone way overboard on this Jesus thing. Their lives had become so radically different because of Jesus. They were clearly identified as people who followed Christ.

Is there enough of a radical change in your life for people to refer to you as one of those people who completely and totally follow Jesus?

Unfortunately, a great deception in today’s world is the belief that simply being a religious person means you are a Christian.

Some people think that because you were raised in a Christian home and taught by Christian parents you are automatically a Christian. That is not true.

To clearly understand the difference we must look into God’s Word and see what God has said about being a true follower and disciple of Christ.

1. A Christian has undergone a radical life-changing experience.

Saul of Tarsus went from being a persecutor of Christians to being one of the greatest spokesmen for Jesus. That’s a radical change.

Peter went from being a hot-headed uncommitted fisherman to becoming committed enough to give his life for following Jesus. That’s a radical change.

A Christian undergoes a radical change where a religious person is simply trying to be good in their own efforts.

Jesus makes a radical change in our lives. That was His intention. God wants to change us. We need Him to change us.

Paul said it this way in II Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new."

2. A Christian changes because of what God has done on the inside.

This is one of the greatest differences between a real Christian and being religious. Being a Christian is the result of inward change, not outward actions.

God’s people have had a hard time walking in God’s ways and following God’s commands. The reason is that good works don’t change us, only Jesus changes us. God knew the Law and all its demands could never enable them to keep God’s ways.

Being a Christian is a person who has had a radical change, a person in whom God has performed a spiritual heart transplant, and a person who now walks in God’s ways because they want to.

God wanted to redeem us from the curse of sin and all its effects. God wanted to have a personal intimate relationship with us that could only happen if we had a spiritual heart transplant.

3. A Christian is someone who sees the need for repentance and is "born again."

The radical life-changing spiritual heart transplant causes a person to be "born again". Jesus used this term in John 3:3 as He talked to Nicodemus who was very religious. Jesus said, "I say unto you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

God wants you to allow truth to penetrate your heart. The truth is that you are a sinner unable to save yourself. You are lost, dying, and unable to be good enough to ever warrant the Kingdom of God.

Unfortunately many see being religious as a better way. They see the opportunity to try and be good enough in their own strength as a better alternative than allowing Jesus to change their hearts.

They want to believe that God will give out Heaven to all those who can balance out all the bad things with enough good things they do. Unfortunately, God says this is not true.

You see it was never God’s plan to make us righteous by the keeping of the Law, by good works, or by looking religious. God’s plan from the beginning was always and has always been the same. God’s plan is to make us righteous by our faith in Jesus Christ who was the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

That becomes a key difference between those who are religious and those who are Christians. One is a change on the outside, and one is a change on the inside.

Religious people see repentance as a ritual. Christians see repentance as a way of life. Religious people see their spirituality as something on the outside while a Christian sees it as something on the inside.

Religious people are quick to find a good rationalization for doing what they want to do and they are quick to condemn true Christians for taking the Bible too literally.

4. A Christian compares himself to the Word of God, not others.

To a Christian, the Bible, the Word of God is life and spiritual health. To a religious person, the Bible is a good book that is optional depending on what they think and feel.

A Christian compares himself to the light of the Word of God whereas a religious person compares himself to someone else who they think is worse than they.

Most religious people see themselves as okay, not too bad, as good as anybody, and certainly better than "those" people.

A Christian however knows the truth. A Christian examines himself not on a comparative basis with others, but based on what God says about him.

5. A Christian does good work because he has been changed.

A religious person does good work to impress God and others. A Christian does good works to reveal God to a lost and dying world.

You could say that one is revealing who man is and the other is revealing who God is.

Things may look similar on the outside, but things are radically different on the inside. The motives are completely different because God working on the inside is a lot different than the man trying to imitate God on the outside.

Many think they are okay because on the outside they look religious. They compare themselves to others and they don’t seem so bad. Unfortunately, we can never be good enough to merit a relationship with God. No matter how much good work we do, it will never be enough. Jesus kept telling the religious people of His day that they could never be good enough. He told them in Matthew 5:20

"For I say unto you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

They had a hard time accepting it back then and we have a hard time accepting it today.

If you have a hard time accepting this, ask yourself one simple question. If you can be good enough to go to heaven based on your good works, why did Jesus die for us? Why would He go to such lengths to suffer so much if you could be made righteous by your good works? The answer is obvious. We can only be made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ as the Lord of our lives. We can only become Christians because of what He has done.

Rene Monette is the pastor of Living Word Church, 109 Valhi Blvd. in Houma.

Discipleship Is Not a Dirty Word by J. Lee Grady

Reclaiming the process of discipleship will require a total overhaul of how we do church.

I get funny looks from some charismatic Christians when I tell them I believe God is calling us back to radical discipleship. Those in the over-50 crowd—people who lived through the charismatic movement of the 1970s—are likely to have a bad taste in their mouths when it comes to the dreaded “D word.”

That’s because the so-called Discipleship Movement (also known as the Shepherding Movement) turned a vital biblical principle into a weapon and abused people with it. Churches that embraced the warped doctrines of shepherding required believers to get permission from their pastors before they bought cars, got pregnant or moved to a new city. Immature leaders became dictators, church members became their loyal minions, and the Holy Spirit’s fire was snuffed out because of a pervasive spirit of control.

"Reclaiming this process of discipleship is going to require a total overhaul of how we do church. Do we really want to produce mature disciples who have the character of Jesus and are able to do His works? Or are we content with shallow believers and shallow faith?”

I don’t ever want to live through that again. I know countless people who are still licking their wounds from the spiritual abuse they suffered while attending hyper-controlling churches in the 1970s and ‘80s. Some of them still cannot trust a pastor today; others walked away from God because leaders misused their authority—all in the name of “discipleship.”

Yet I’m still convinced that relational discipleship—a strategy Jesus and the apostle Paul modeled for us—is as vital as ever. If anything the pendulum has now swung dangerously in the opposite direction. In today’s free-wheeling, come-as-you-are, pick-what-you-want, whatever-floats-your-boat Christianity, we make no demands and enforce no standards. We’re just happy to get warm rumps in seats. As long as people file in and out of the pews and we do the Sunday drill, we think we’ve accomplished something.

But Jesus did not command us to go therefore and attract crowds. He called us to make disciples (see Matt. 28:19), and that cannot be done exclusively in once-a-week meetings, no matter how many times the preacher can get the people to shout or wave handkerchiefs. If we don’t take immature Christians through a discipleship process (which is best done in small groups or one-on-one gatherings), people will end up in a perpetual state of immaturity.

David Kinnaman, author of the excellent book unChristian, articulated the problem this way: “Most people in America, when they are exposed to the Christian faith, are not being transformed. They take one step into the door, and the journey ends. They are not being allowed, encouraged, or equipped to love or to think like Christ. Yet in many ways a focus on spiritual formation fits what a new generation is really seeking. Transformation is a process, a journey, not a one-time decision.”

Reclaiming this process of discipleship is going to require a total overhaul of how we do church. Do we really want to produce mature disciples who have the character of Jesus and are able to do His works? Or are we content with shallow believers and shallow faith?

A friend of mine had to face this question while he was pastoring in Florida. As a young father, he had a habit of putting his infant son in a car seat and driving him around his neighborhood at night in order to lull him to sleep. Once during this ritual the Holy Spirit spoke to this pastor rather bluntly. He said: “This is what you are doing in your church. You are just driving babies around.”

My friend came under conviction. He realized he had fallen into the trap of entertaining his congregation with events and programs, even though the people were not growing spiritually. He was actually content to keep them in infancy. As long as they filled their seats each Sunday, and paid their tithes, he was happy. Yet no one was growing, and they certainly were not producing fruit by reaching others for Christ.

How can we make this paradigm shift in to discipleship? How can we add “the D word” back into our vocabulary?

• Churches must stop exclusively focusing on big events and get people involved in small groups, where personal ministry can take place.
• We must stop treating people like numbers and get back to valuing relationships.
• Leaders must reject the celebrity preacher model and start investing their lives in individuals.

When we stand before Christ and He evaluates our ministries, He will not be asking us how many people sat in our pews, watched our TV programs, gave in our telethons or filled out response cards. He is not going to evaluate us based on how many people fell under the power of God or how many healings we counted in each service. He will ask how many faithful disciples we made.I pray we will make this our priority.

J. Lee Grady is the former editor of Charisma and the director of The Mordecai Project. You can follow him on Twitter at leegrady. His latest book is 10 Lies Men Believe (Charisma House).

"Destined to Reign: The Secret to Effortless Success..." (or Popular Grace)

by Rev William Lau - The Elijah Challenge

It is time to speak up about a certain teaching on the grace of God which has recently captivated many Christians. The teaching is encapsulated in the title "Destined to Reign: The Secret to Effortless Success, Wholeness, and Victorious Living" taken from a book written by a rising star in Christendom.

Without going into detail about the teaching, it would behoove us to make some observations beginning with the title of the book, especially the phrase “Effortless Success.” This term would appear to appeal to people who are looking to make a fast buck without trying, perhaps to the kind of people who buy lottery tickets hoping for that one-in-a-ten-million dream to come true. There are many such people, even among Christians, and they might want to buy the book and unwittingly enrich the author. But the title does not square with Jesus’ words, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” Certainly taking up the cross is not meant to be effortless and painless. We must discern carefully.

Now even if after buying and reading the book we come to the conclusion that the above is not what the author meant to say at all, nevertheless the title given to the book is clearly meant to attract a certain kind of person---of which there are many. And that could increase sales. What does that say about the author?

The author is also reported to have received in 2009 a salary of nearly US$400,000 from the church which he pastors---about fifty times the wages of a working class person in Singapore. This would not raise eyebrows if he were the CEO of a profitable corporation. But he is a pastor, a full-time servant of God. Would the Jesus of Nazareth we see in the Scriptures approve of such an arrangement? Would Paul the apostle, who warned of “people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain”, approve of this level of income? We need to exercise careful discernment based on this fact alone.

It’s likely that someday this pastor will no longer need to draw a salary from his church because of the skyrocketing sales of his book---as is reportedly the case with a very successful pastor in Houston. Nevertheless, the question of his motivation and what is in his heart remains.

We also might want to examine how the author presents himself, because that might offer insights as to what is in his heart.

Above, the author appears to present himself in a way that might remind us of an Asian version of Elvis or even Michael Jackson. In fact, he---only half-jokingly---compared himself favorably to Elvis in one his meetings by quipping before an admiring audience that he was in fact better looking. (While some may say that Elvis loved the Lord, most if us would agree that pastors should not want to emulate his appearance.) Based on this photo and others, this pastor appears to be making himself attractive in a worldly fashion. It is not wrong for a believer to present himself or herself in a way that will do honor to their Lord. But what kind of Christian is attracted to a servant of God who presents himself as a rockstar or teenage idol---the kind at whom weak-willed women might want to throw themselves? Might such a Christian lack discernment? Such a servant of God, intentionally or not, is a stumbling block to certain women in the congregation.But let us say that after reading the book we find it to be uplifting. Casting aside the question of whether or not his teaching on grace is scriptural - which many say it is definitely not - how ought disciples to respond when the teaching appears good, but the teacher is suspect in terms of his personal life?

When there are areas of personal weakness in a servant of God - weak places in his armor - the enemy will have opportunities to deceive. This deception can and will eventually work its way into his teaching, as wonderful as it may sound. Time will tell. Personal holiness and sound doctrine should go hand-in-hand. Paul said to Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” Paul also prophesied to Timothy, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears...” That time has now come. Christians today love to have their ears tickled.

In his teaching the author of course emphasizes the "radical" grace of God. Why are some people drawn to such an emphasis? It could be that they need to be reassured of God's love because of a strict Catholic background, or perhaps an upbringing devoid of parental love. That is understandable. But there is another reason why Christians might be uncertain whether or not they are saved. It may be because they have not overcome sin in their personal lives and they are not obeying the Lord and living their lives on earth as the Scriptures command. Therefore they might be drawn to the teaching on grace which gives them assurance of their salvation despite their disobedience.

We are not here discussing the conditions for salvation, but rather one type of person who might be drawn to this type of teaching. The teaching effectively offers us an excuse and pretext for not obeying the Scriptures: “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do.” This is despite the repeated denials by the author that the teaching is not a license for immorality. But really, why worry about some present sin in our lives if all of our sins---past, present, and future---have already been forgiven?

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, another type of person who might be drawn to this kind of teaching is the one who is looking for a fast track to the good life and an easy path to the throne. There is no such easy path to the throne. As Paul said to the Corinthians, "I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

Of course, the author of this teaching on radical grace is well aware of these verses and will have refuting Scriptures at his disposal. It will be another case of “my scriptures against yours”. How then can we make any conclusion without first conducting an exhaustive theological examination of the teaching? It may boil down to a matter of discernment.

Do believers today want and exercise that discernment? Or do we want to remain “infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming”? Mature believers want what the Spirit desires. But infant believers want what the flesh desires. And the flesh wants to live on easy street enjoying a free lunch and a quick trip to the top of the heap.

One thing is certain: with his many followers and rising popularity around the world, the author of this teaching has undoubtedly discovered the secret to success and victorious living in this life for himself.

Have we not seen this before in the Church, over and over?

Note: Salvation should be a settled issue for disciples who have been properly taught, and should not need to be revisited over and over ad nauseum. Rather, disciples should now be setting their sights on their eternal reward in the next age, and how not to suffer loss in their reward by doing works that do not stand the test of fire (1 Corinthians 3) or by not beating our body and making it our slave (1 Corinthians 9).

THE WAR AGAINST THE SAINTS by Jan Markell

Can I speak from the heart? I am trying to be positive in spite of the fact that wind chill temps here in Minnesota likely resemble the temps on Mars or Saturn. Houses and cars are buried in snow. Our famous domed football stadium made national news as it couldn't even survive the onslought of snow and cold so we Minnesotans wish the global warming myth were true.

But if you hadn't noticed, the saints are under particular attack these days. The trials and testings seem to never end. One writes, Due to trials, God remains a complete mystery to me. Yet thankfully we have the promise of Heaven and Christ waiting for us and the constant heart of God with us as we struggle and grieve.

Another writes, Thanks to your prompting, Jan, I try to maintain the eternal perspective and get my eyes and mind off of this earth. The enemy has come against my family but we are not giving up hope. All is, however, a great struggle.

People around the globe are waiting on God. Let none who wait on You be ashamed (Ps. 25:3). Those waiting may be sick, weary, solitary, discouraged, perplexed, and frightened. God seems silent. Some are disappointed in God. Yes, waiting can seem like an eternity but let none of you be ashamed.

So why are the saints being pounded? Here are some thoughts:

* We are in the last of the last days and the enemy would render us ineffective in sharing the gospel while there is still time. If we focus on our issues only, we lose sight of the lost as well as our assignment in these last days.

* You are doing something incredibly right. You need to be stopped or at the least, rendered less effective. Your testimony must be squelched.

* God is allowing the trial so you will learn to wait on Him. Some are asked to wait for days; some for months; others, for years. In my book, Waiting for a Miracle, I had to wait 20 years to hurdle the "chronic fatigue syndrome." My ministry was interrupted and my quality of life totally tanked those years. But I did learn to wait. Finally, God intervened and removed the affliction. I do recommend this book to you if you are waiting, struggling, doubting God, and more.

* What is called the "remnant" is particularly hard hit. The remnant have a love for truth and love to pass it on. The enemy wants truth to be withheld because then one is susceptible to being deceived. The remnant is waking people up and thus the heavy guns are pointed at them. If they get distracted by trials, they are distracted from spreading both the gospel and the truth. The remnant is small in number but nonetheless, powerfully effective.

* Satan wants us all to doubt. Most today even doubt the concept of "the blessed hope" of Titus 2:13 -- the Lord's return. Take away our hope and you're one dejected, down-in-the-mouth Christian. Who would want to seek you out for anything? Your role of providing "salt and light" just turned to pepper and darkness.

* This is a fallen planet and all creation groans. Bad things happen to good people and to God's people. Believers are not exempt from some of the worst trials and groanings. But in the end, we win. Read the last chapter.

Our love of God is linked to our love for one another -- and particularly to those who wait and who are in turmoil. Love of God is inseparably linked with love and care for the brethren. Nothing will lighten your own personal load like reaching out to someone else and helping them ease their load.

Thank you for easing my load. Since October 1 I have had a 12-hour back surgery, a heart attack, and a hacked Web site. I have waited on the Lord! Your e-mails, notes, calls, gifts, and visits have helped so much. To be kept apprised of these issues, visit this link. My thanks to my staff and leadership for carrying an extra load in my absence!

Thank you for your support of this ministry financially in 2010. We air our Understanding the Times radio program on 415 outlets. We are ending the year in the black and we are gearing up for 2011.

In the new year, commit to being an encourager. Try to encourage five people a week with a good word! The Bible says, Encourage the faint-hearted, support the weak, be long suffering toward all (I Thess. 5:14). Heaviness in the heart of man makes him stoop; but encouragement makes him glad (Proverbs 12:25). Make someone glad even today!

In the meantime, never give up! Ask God to put another knot in the end of your rope and to help you hang on! He will.

Are You a Disciple? … or Just Part of the Crowd?

by J Lee Grady

In 2012, Jesus is calling us to re-enroll in the school of discipleship.

Besides being the Year of the Dragon in China, 2012 is full of global observances. World Peace Day was Jan. 1, World Rabies Day is Sept. 22 and the World Day for Laboratory Animals (huh?) is April 24. There is also Global Hand-washing Day (Oct. 15), Star Wars Day (May 4), International Cat Day (March 1), and—for all Johnny Depp fans—International Talk Like a Pirate Day (Sept. 19).

I don’t know who comes up with these odd celebrations, but I’d like to add one more. Can we declare 2012 the Year of Discipleship?

“When Jesus started talking about repentance and the necessity of the cross, people lost interest. Crowds always thin out when the message gets tough.”

This would be an appropriate time for it, since Jesus had 12 disciples, and that number won’t be showing up for a while as far as years go. But I doubt 2012YD would inspire much more than a corporate yawn. Discipleship is just not popular, even though the word figures prominently in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19, NASB).

Notice that Jesus did not say, “Go therefore and make converts,” “Go therefore and gather crowds” or “Go therefore and build churches,” even though those things aren’t wrong. The mandate is very specific. Jesus wants disciples, or “taught ones”; He wants followers who know Him intimately, who have surrendered fully to His will, and who can impart His life to others. He wants mature sons and daughters who reflect His character.

As I have reread the gospels over the past few months, I’ve noticed the Scriptures offer a clear contrast between the fickle crowds who followed Jesus to get something from Him, and the small group of disciples who turned the world upside down after He left the planet. It’s no different today. Jesus has tons of followers on any given Sunday, and those crowds know how to fill seats, make noise and “have church.” Our problem is not quantity. What we lack is quality.

In Jesus’ day, the crowds chased miracles while the disciples hung around for private mentoring. The crowds showed up for the free lunches; the disciples fed the crowds after Jesus blessed the loaves and fish, and they learned about faith in the process. The crowds listened to a few sermons, and oohed and aahed over Jesus’ amazing authority, but when He started talking about repentance and the necessity of the cross, people lost interest. Crowds thin out when the message gets tough.

It was German martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said, “Salvation is free, but discipleship will cost you your life.” He was troubled by the lack of discipleship in the German church in the 1930s, and he blamed it on a flimsy message coming from pulpits. He wrote: “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”

Here in the United States, cheap grace is just one of many methods we use to draw crowds. We’ve also twisted Scriptures to promise people prosperity, and we’ve manipulated the Holy Ghost to entertain people who need an emotional high to get them through another week. Since people are not interested in the discipline of prayer, or in developing personal integrity, or in how to resolve marital problems, or in crucifying the flesh, we offer a smorgasbord of exotic charismatic delights to put Band-Aids on wounds. We turned church into an ear-tickling show and worked everybody up into a frenzy, but in the end nobody’s character was changed.

In some churches, regular prayer and consistent Bible study are viewed as “religious” and unhip. We prefer something sexier in the age of attention deficit disorder. We want the Word shortened into Tweet-sized sound bites, and we want our pastors to keep the message under 20 minutes because we have places to go. We want the gospel spoon-fed to us on our terms. And we don’t want any of those politically incorrect “hard sayings” about hell or sexual morality.

In 2012, I believe Jesus wants us to repent of our selfish, adolescent ways. He is calling us to grow up. Let’s stop chasing miracles and become miracle-workers; let’s stop manipulating God to bless us and instead submit our lives to His surgery. Let’s abandon cheap grace and return to the Cross. Let’s re-enlist in His school of discipleship, even if it means we have to leave the crowd behind.

J. LEE GRADY is the former editor of Charisma and the director of The Mordecai Project (themordecaiproject.org). You can follow him on Twitter at leegrady.

The Uncomfortable Reality of Hell

Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell is a prophetic reminder that we can’t compromise the gospel.

California pastor Francis Chan is one of my heroes, partly because he has given most of his book royalites—reportedly $2 million—to charity. Another reason I admire him: He’s written a new book about hell at a time when many Christians are questioning the idea of eternal punishment. The guy has some chutzpah.

His new book Erasing Hell (David C. Cook) is a direct response to Love Wins, the controversial book by celebrity pastor Rob Bell of Michigan. While Bell’s book flirts with universalism and suggests that a loving God would never send anyone to hell, Chan’s message is blunt and biblical—yet without a hint of self-righteousness.

“Hell is not a popular doctrine. People don’t shout, dance or wave handkerchiefs when we preach about it. They don’t line up to come to conferences about it. Sermons about hell don’t make people feel good.”

Erasing Hell is an answer to prayer and a prophetic response to the spineless gospel many Americans have embraced in recent years. Chan does not wave a “TURN OR BURN” sign, nor does he dangle his readers over hot coals. Yet he forthrightly states that people who reject the merciful gift of salvation through Christ will get what all of us deserve—terrifying separation from God that lasts forever.

Chan read Bell’s book carefully and was willing to ask whether hell was, in Chan’s words, a “primitive myth left over from conservative tradition.” After much prayer (he says we must “weep, pray and fast over this issue”) he became convinced that we cannot remove hell from our message. Chan makes four arguments that poke holes in Bell’s theology:

1. Hell is real. In Love Wins, Bell discounts the biblical view of hell as eternal punishment and suggests that it might be a metaphor for the horrors of life on earth—poverty, genocide and injustice, for example. But Chan goes back to the words of Jesus, who spoke more about hell than anyone in the Bible, and clears up the confusion. He writes: “Hell is not considered to be the various ‘hells on earth’ that we face every day. It’s a horrific place of judgment where God punishes people for their sins.”

2. Hell is final. Universalists who blend Christianity with other religions teach that all sinners will get an extra chance to come clean with God after death. But Chan says that’s not what the Bible teaches: “There’s no single passage in the Bible that describes, hints at, hopes for, or suggests that someone who dies without following Jesus in this life will have an opportunity to do so after death,” he writes.

3. Hell is fair. People who question the doctrine of hell often ask, “How can a loving God send anyone to perish in eternal fire?” Chan says that’s a prideful, self-centered question. We can’t define God, or His perfect love, from a merely human perspective. We are the clay, and He is the potter. We must humble ourselves and view life from the perspective of God’s rightousness, justice and holiness. Chan also writes that the apostle Paul made reference to the fate of wicked people more times in his epistles than he mentioned God’s forgiveness, mercy and heaven combined. If hell doesn’t seem fair to us, we aren’t seeing it from God’s viewpoint.

4. Hell is escapable. Rob Bell’s flawed premise is that God will end up saving everyone regardless of how they acted or what they believed. Chan argues that the gospel is not good news unless there is a hell that sinners can escape from. He writes: “While hell can be a paralyzing doctrine, it can also be an energizing one, for it magnifies the beauty of the cross.”

Hell is not a popular doctrine. People don’t shout, dance or wave handkerchiefs when we preach about it. They don’t line up to come to conferences about it. Sermons about hell don’t make people feel good. But every revivalist in church history has kept the doctrine of hell at the core of his message, and we will see revival only if we reclaim it.

Charles Spurgeon advised aspiring ministers in the 1800s to constantly meditate on the sobering reality of hell in order to stay fervent in their faith. He wrote: “Meditate with deep solemnity upon the fate of the lost sinner, and, like Abraham, when you get up early to go to the place where you commune with God, cast an eye toward Sodom and see the smoke going up like the smoke of a furnace. Shun all views of future punishment that would make it appear less terrible.”

Do you see the smoke of Sodom? Are you constantly aware that people around you are going to hell? Or have you bought into the trendy philosophies of backslidden preachers who question hell and have no power to free people from it? I’m grateful that Francis Chan had the grace—and the guts—to point us back to this biblical truth.

J. Lee Grady is contributing editor of Charisma. You can follow him on Twitter at leegrady. His most recent book is 10 Lies Men Believe (Charisma House).


Related articles:
'A Massive Shift Coming in What it Means to Be a Christian?'
Is There Anything Wrong With Rob Bell’s Gospel?
Rob Bell: "You're Amending The Gospel So That It's Palatable!"
Counterfeit Gospels Author: Rob Bell Threw Grenade at Evangelicals
Endtime Apostasy: Is Hell Dead?

Restoring the Virtue of Meekness

John MacArthur - Grace to You

Pride has been redefined in American culture as a virtue. The strong, the beautiful, the powerful, the intelligent, and the privileged take every opportunity to put themselves forward. Politicians manifest pride in speeches and debates; entertainers glamorize pride in their movies and lifestyles; educators teach pride by emphasizing self-esteem and making every child a winner (whether they deserve it or not); and sports icons reinforce pride as the path to greatness.

Probably the least admired character quality in America is meekness. And yet the greatest Person who ever lived was a meek and humble man - "learn from Me, for I am gentle [meek] and humble in heart" (Matthew 11:29). Jesus exemplified meekness during His first advent, even as He ministered in the power of God. Those who follow Him will also demonstrate meekness, or gentleness as fruit of a Spirit-filled life (Galatians 5:22).

"Meekness" is a humble attitude that expresses itself in the patient endurance of offenses. "Gentleness" is a virtual synonym. It implies leniency and long-suffering.

Meekness is not weakness; it is power under control. As the writer of Proverbs says, "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city" (16:32). In contrast, the individual who is not gentle is likened to "a city that is broken into and without walls"
(Proverbs 25:28). Gentleness always uses its resources appropriately, unlike the out-of-control emotions that so often are destructive and have no place in your life as a believer.

And don't equate gentleness with cowardice, lack of conviction, or mere human niceness. It's a virtue that draws courage, strength, conviction, and a good disposition from God, not from self-centered human resources.

Gentleness characterizes our Lord Jesus Christ. He always defended God's glory and ultimately gave Himself in sacrifice for others (see 1 Peter 2:21-23). Jesus didn't lash back when criticized, slandered, or treated unjustly, but He did respond fittingly and firmly when God's honor was profaned or His truth was perverted or neglected. He twice cleansed the Temple by force (Matthew 21:12-17; John 2:14-15), and He repeatedly and fearlessly denounced the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 23:13-36; Mark 12:13-40; John 8:12-59; 9:39-41).

When His time of suffering came, however, Jesus submitted to the will of His Father and endured the abuse and murderous intentions of the hypocritical leaders. He demonstrated meekness to the very end. "While being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" (1 Peter 2:23).

Like Christ, the gentle person does not defend himself (see 1 Peter 2:21). That's because he has died to self and therefore does not worry about insult, material loss, or even personal injury. The believer who embraces meekness knows that in himself he does not deserve defending and that, in the long run, all his possessions are not worth fighting for. In that sense, gentleness is the opposite of violence and vengeance.

For some, meekness leads to suffering. "For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered" (Romans 8:36). But there is triumph for the meek, even in suffering - "But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (v. 37).
Meekness is a path worth following. It may not lead you to a spot on "American Idol" or "Survivor," you may not win a political campaign, but you'll find the reward of God is yours in abundance. Jesus promised, "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5).

Adapted from The Quest for Character, by John MacArthur. © Copyright 2006. All rights reserved.

Powerful Testimonies From Former False Converts

These four testimonies represent millions of untold people in America who believe themselves to be right with God because they have bought in to an easy form of Christianity that is nothing more than an insurance policy to save a person from hell. Christ's power is not only to save one from hell, but to change His followers by giving them new hearts and making them more like Him in a lifelong process called sanctification. If you didn't change, then you are not one of His. Please watch these testimonies and examine your own testimony.

Is the Local Church Becoming Obsolete in the Present Kingdom Movement?

by Joseph Mattera

To Be Truly Kingdom-Centered One Must Start With Being Local Church-Centered

Can you imagine a time when key apostolic leaders—both in the church and marketplace—would come together to exert strong influence over cities, communities and nations, with or without the cooperation or partnership of local church pastors and congregations? A time when the local church would almost be irrelevant when it comes to societal transformation because leaders would form their own ecclesia that would be mobile and not nuclear in nature? A time in which the local church would be relegated merely to shepherding our families, pastoral counseling, and Sunday school for our children?

There is a growing tendency in the Body of Christ among practitioners in kingdom societal transformation to bypass the local church in order for the reformation of society to take place. This is due to the frustration of many marketplace leaders with the slow pace, bureaucracy, myopic local view, and lack of high-level leadership found in many of this nation’s congregations. As more of us receive greater light regarding the kingdom, and we rightly go from a church mindset to a kingdom mindset, I am afraid some will have a tendency to go too far and jettison the local church altogether!

Further exacerbating this challenge is that many who are on the leading edge of cultural change are institutional (para-church) or marketplace leaders who by nature are entrepreneurial, independent, high-performance leaders who have not always had a strong anchor in a local church even before they came into the kingdom message. This independent spirit and impatience for change will influence their kingdom theology to the point of finding prooftexts or doctrines that justify the bypassing of local churches.

It is my position that jettisoning the local church, or relegating it merely to the purpose of shepherding our families, would be a huge mistake! Whether we like it or not, God has chosen the local church to be the beachhead that facilitates social and religious change in the nations. We need to reform the church not jettison it! We need to help transition the local church to becoming kingdom-centered; being kingdom-centered and local church-centered need not be mutually exclusive. To be truly kingdom-centered one must start with being local church-centered.

In addition, each local church needs to view itself as one congregation among many in a particular region that, combined, comprise the city church. (The New Testament epistles such as Philippians, Romans, Colossians, etc. all assume one church per city or region.) Hence, this view necessitates cooperation and collaboration with other congregations as a biblical responsibility.

Likewise, pastors are never solely called to shepherd only their individual flocks but are to be shepherds or chaplains to whole communities.

Let us now go back and attempt to understand the local church paradigm and pattern.

First, when God desired to reconcile world systems and redeem individual sinners He sent His Son—who didn’t come as a political or business leader couched as a religious rabbi. Jesus began as an itinerant teacher of the Word of God (Luke 4:18). Those with him in synagogue were His platform for inauguration as the King of Kings as Lord of Lords (John 18:37).

With Jesus and His people there is no separation of the offices of king and priest. Jesus was a combination of priest (His body was the sacrifice given once for all; Hebrews 10:10, 14), prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18-19) and king (Rev. 1:5, 19:16). All three offices are completely summarized and unified in Hebrews 1:1-3.

The model of Jesus for reformation shows the most powerful and effective starting point and matrix to initially operate for reformation is the (so-called) religious sphere of society.

There has been a popular teaching during the last ten years in which people are categorized as either functioning as priests or kings in the kingdom. However, marketplace leaders miss the mark when they say preachers of the gospel merely function as priests—whose primary role concerns the priestly duties related to “spiritual” things—while Christian political and business leaders function as kings who take the cultural lead in His kingdom.

It is clear Romans 5:17 was written for all believers. This passage shows that all saints reign as kings in this world. Ephesians 2:4-6 teaches that all saints are presently reigning with Christ in heavenly places.

In the book of Leviticus the priests not only administered animal sacrifices but were also the ultimate authority interpreting the Law of Moses to judges and kings (Deuteronomy 17:18). The 613 laws involved civic as well as sacrificial rules and regulations. Individually these priests even administered in the areas of health by regulating the Jewish diet (Leviticus 11), examining homes for harmful mold and mildew, and even examining individuals to determine if they were physically clean or unclean (Leviticus 13-14). Thus, these priests functioned in both the context of the temple and the community without a dichotomy between sacred and secular, or as we now term it, priest and king.

The later divisions between the priesthood, the prophetic, and the kings of Israel seem to separate these offices (read 1 Samuel 13:8-13 and 1 Kings 12:32-13:6 when the kings were judged for offering priestly sacrifices). However, King David, who was a prophetic foretaste of the Messiah, had a New Testament kingdom dispensation as he was able to approach God’s presence and offer sacrifices (1 Chronicles 16:1-2), eat the showbread (1 Samuel 21:6; Mark 2:25-26), prophesy (Psalms 22 and 110) and rule the kingdom (2 Samuel 5:1-3). Thus, all three functions were integrated in him.

Jesus said that even the least in the Kingdom of Heaven are greater than John the Baptist and all of the Old Covenant prophets and leaders (Matthew 11:11). This implies the prophetic, kingly, and priestly functions are all combined in God’s people in the kingdom age. Even so, with the advent of the kings of Israel the priests still had to regulate societal functions for the community as written in the Pentateuch. Nowadays these functions would be classified by some marketplace leaders as kingly functions.

Furthermore, what category would we place Joseph and Daniel? They both functioned as political leaders but would also neatly fit in the category of priest because of their spiritual bent and prophetic lifestyle. Also, who would ever say that the prophets Elijah and Elisha were merely functioning in a priestly role? Both of them gave commands to political leaders (for example, the kings of Israel as in 1 Kings 18:18-19) and framed major policy initiatives for societal reformation. Elisha even gave military advice to Israel when the nation was at war with Syria (2 Kings 6:8-23).

I have never accepted the assumption that I, as a bishop, should function merely in the priestly realm and concentrate primarily on spiritual things while Christians I work with in business or politics function as the kings in the kingdom who are responsible for governing and practical application of kingdom concepts in the natural realm. I have always functioned in both roles, and feel just as comfortable with both pastors and marketplace leaders. Furthermore, as a leader in my city I have always been involved in community, business, and political processes and decisions that help frame public policy. I personally believe that my priestly roles of intercession, prayer, and meditating on the Word of God empower me to act as a king by influencing my community and city in matters related to both the church and society.

Furthermore, the original apostles, who were given the command to disciple nations (Matthew 28:19) actually were commanded to leave their marketplace vocations and serve full-time in the religious sphere. In Acts 6:2, 4 Peter said they weren’t even allowed to wait on tables so they could give themselves fully to the ministry of the word and prayer. It was out of this powerful context of being in the presence of God, studying and preaching the word, and planting local churches in key cities that the first century apostles were able to “turn the world upside down” (Acts 17:5-7). Thus, reformation of society will not come outside of the local church or from a separation of kings and priests in the kingdom, or to the neglect of the local church authority in the kingdom, but out of the local church context.

We see this further unpacked in Ephesians 4:10-12. The primary call of church apostles and five-fold ministers is to prepare God’s people for the work of the ministry which, as described in Ephesians 4:10, has as its goal to fill up all things. Thus, the center of power—equipping and releasing for cultural leadership—should emanate out of the local church context that houses the five-fold ministers.

First Corinthians 12 teaches that true local churches are first started by those gifted as apostles then prophets. This has more to do with establishing cultural beachheads for kingdom purposes than just exercising spiritual gifts in a church building.

When we attempt to reform society outside of the context of the local church (which Paul calls “the ground and pillar of truth” in 1 Timothy 3) we are attempting to have a missiology without a clear ecclesiology. This results in having unaccountable marketplace leaders who are not groomed and discipled in regards to their character development, family lives, and personal emotional health—and possibly are in a place of power merely because of their giftings! (Although to be fair, the same can be said of pastors and church ministers who are not in accountable relationships with their peers and overseers.)

God is called our Father. The church is supposed to function as a family of families so that we can restructure, reform, and serve humanity, and build a healthy civilization that stands upon strong marriages and families. God told Abraham that in him all the “families” of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3). This is how biblical dominion and transformation will take place.

Separating the ecclesia from the local church will not accomplish this task because mobile churches in the context of a business or political system do not engender strong family structures, nor are they equipped or called to!

In the local church, older men and women are to be treated as fathers and mothers. Younger men and women are to be treated as our brothers and sisters, or sons and daughters (1 Timothy 5:1-2). This produces the greatest learning environment in which to teach discipleship because the Kingdom of God is based on relationships. This is also potentially the greatest equipping center to bring healing to individuals and enact policy change for cities and nations.

Separating business and marketplace leaders from the local church has historically been a disaster. It is also one of the primary reasons we have lost the culture in the United States. Mark Noll (read his great book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) and others have done a great job documenting the fact that Ivy League universities abandoned the Christian worldview when pastors and clergy were replaced as the college presidents by business and community leaders during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Recently I spoke to one major Southern Baptist leader and asked why so many Christian colleges eventually lose their Christian identity and become bastions for liberalism. He told me the colleges that stay connected to a local church or keep their school under the auspices of the church usually stay biblically focused but those schools that separate from the local church historically become liberal, lose their Christian voice, and compromise biblical values within a few decades. Consequently, if Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools stayed under the guidance of local church leadership they would still be churning out future presidents of nations and Fortune 500 CEO’s for the kingdom and glory of God!

When it gets down to it, perhaps the real challenge we have is our lack of apostolic local churches led by apostolic leaders with a leadership lid capable of leading high-impact marketplace leaders called apostolically to culture. The answer isn’t to jettison the church (which would be against the biblical pattern laid out in the New Testament) but to reform the church so that apostolic strategies and leadership become the norm, not the exception.

If you are a marketplace leader who is frustrated because your local church doesn’t have apostolic vision then ask the Lord what to do. Perhaps He will lead you to another church that is more regional and kingdom in its scope. But whatever you do, don’t use your situation to change your theology in an attempt to justify your independence from the local church.

Source here.

Church Needs "Bersih"?

Amendment to Church Constitution

At the recent AGM of Calvary Church (CC), Deacon David Peter presented a motion to amend the Church Constitution to include “a new dispute resolution” clause.

The proposed clause to be included in the Constitution will be known as Rule XVI and basically sets out the procedures on resolving disputes in the Church. The new rule will “make it mandatory for any unhappy member to abide by the stated procedures, instead of subjecting the Church to a very public court process.”

Although David Peter proudly proclaimed at the AGM that the CC Constitution is the “most advanced Constitution among all the AOG churches in Malaysia”, nevertheless, he admits in the preamble in the motion that the Constitution currently does not have a satisfactory dispute resolution provision. So much for his proclamation of the church having the most advanced Constitution!

Or perhaps what he meant was that the CC Constitution is the most advanced in terms of concentrating total autocratic power in the Senior Pastor whilst paying lip-service to being a congregational church?

Or maybe, the most advanced in making it impossible for members to initiate any change to improve transparency and accountability in the church and by the church leadership?

It is certainly the most advanced in ensuring that the Senior Pastor cannot be removed by any means and the most advanced in denying the fundamentals rights of members to voice their opinions or to question the leadership.

Click on the attachments at the end of the Article to read David’s letter and the motion.

However, by presenting the amendment to the Constitution, indirectly Senior Pastor Prince Guneratnam (PG) and the Board of Deacons are actually acknowledging that the TTG (Truth, Transparency and Governance) Group’s process in their attempt to resolve the ongoing church crisis was correct and scriptural.

The entire process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration were proposed and attempted by the TTG on many occasions but all efforts failed due to the recalcitrance and defiance of PG.

The proposed dispute resolution process and the TTG’s various attempts to resolve the conflict are set out below:-

<><> <><><>

Proposed CC Conflict Resolution Process	TTG’s Efforts to Resolve Conflict  (6 Separate Attempts at different times identified as 1 to 6 below. These attempts are numbered in chronological order of time)
Negotiation: Parties in conflict to write to each other and meet up to try to resolve the issue in conflict.	1. Members of the TTG individually and/or collectively wrote numerous letters and petitions to the Board of Deacons to review a number of issues in contention including the extended ministries and the severely-flawed constitution. They received either no replies or downright meaningless response to their letters and petitions. A number of the TTG members did individually and corporately meet up with the Deacons and Pastors at various times but nothing was accomplished. All the TTG’s negotiation efforts were simply disregarded and ignored by PG and the Board.
	5. After failure of Steps 3 and 4 by NECF, PG’s lawyer, KK Wong, also tried for out-of-court settlement. PG’s lawyer requested the Plaintiffs (7 TTG members) to submit a proposal for an out of court settlement to PG and the deacons. The Plaintiffs complied.    After sitting on the Plaintiffs’s proposal for almost two months, they rejected the proposal without any willingness to negotiate at all. PG’s slap in the face for KK Wong’s effort probably was the reason why the lawyer withdrew from representing PG and the deacons..
Mediation: If parties fail to resolve the issue through negotiation, then either party can initiate mediation. Mediator will be appointed by either the General Superintendent or Assistant General Superintendent of the AOG Malaysia.	2. TTG members agreed to the mediation attempt by a prominent ex-Calvarite and the AOG General Superintendent as co-chairmen. Two days before the pre-agreed scheduled meeting, PG chickened out and informed the co-chairmen that the date was “not convenient”. The prominent ex-Calvarite gave up in disappointment especially since he had purposely rushed back from an overseas event for the meeting. (This ex-Calvarite who was an ordinary member was then subsequently demoted to an associate member by PG. He has now left CC and moved to another church) To Read CT post click “PG Chickens Out”
	3. NECF picked up from step 2 and tried to restart the mediation process (after waiting many months in vain for AOG to step in). The Plaintiffs agreed and supported NECF’s effort. PG did not respond to NECF’s attempts and the mediation failed.
	6. Plaintiffs made one last attempt at out-of-court settlement and initiated a “court-assisted mediation” with a proposal to drop the entire Originating Summons with only one request which is that the Constitution be reviewed by an independent committee made up of the two sets of lawyers representing the Plaintiffs and PG PG and the Board of deacons, who had agreed to this court-assisted mediation initiative by the Plaintiffs, however, rejected this one simple request and preferred the matter to be tried in court. To Read CT post click “PG Chickens Out Again”
Arbitration: If mediation fails then either party can initiate arbitration. Each party to appoint an arbitrator. The two appointed arbitrators will then appoint a third arbitrator. If the two arbitrators cannot agree on the third arbitrator, then the GS or AGS of AOG shall appoint the third arbitrator. Decision of arbitrators final and binding.	4. After NECF’s mediation attempts (step 3) failed, Plaintiffs agreed that NECF initiate Christian arbitration. Plaintiffs offered to withdraw the Originating Summons if the issues can be placed before an arbitration panel of Christian senior lawyers and/or ex-judges nominated by NECF acceptable to both parties. PG informed NECF that he was not agreeable to mediation or Christian arbitration. NECF gave up. To Read CT post click “PG says No to Christian Arbitration”

After more than 2 years, the Constitution Review Committee has only managed to come out with this one proposed change in the Constitution. And this proposed change is not even addressing the core issues of the total lack of accountability and transparency and the abuse of power by PG and his Deacons, which were the primary causes of the crisis in Calvary Church.

The joke of it is that the proposed procedures in dispute settlement as highlighted above is something PG and his deacons do not subscribe to, anyway.

The purpose appears to be more of an attempt to muzzle the unhappy members and disallow them to refer Church disputes to external parties rather than a genuine objective of wanting to resolve Church issues amicably.

Anyhow, the members at the AGM approved the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution and it is understood that the Church has submitted the same to the AOG Malaysia for their endorsement.

It should be highlighted here that the approval and adoption of this Proposed Amendment to the Constitution may be invalidated, if challenged in Court due to the breach of the Rules and Procedures set out in the Constitution governing such motions. The breaches are:-

1. Rule IX (6) (c) requires that such motion must bear the full name and address of the proposer and seconder and duly signed by them.

If you look at the letter below from David Peter and the motion, there are no details and no signatures of the Proposer and Seconder. David Peter submitted the motion to the Board of Deacons but he did not specify if he was the Proposer or if he was merely submitting a motion he has received from someone else.

2. Rule IX (6) (d) requires that the Secretary of the Board of Deacons distribute the motion to all members at least 14 days before the AGM.

    This was not done. A copy of the motion was slotted into the Annual Report, which was not mailed to the members but was required to be personally collected by the members prior to the AGM. Since not all members collected their Annual Report, many attended the AGM with no knowledge of the proposed motion. The onus is on the Secretary to prove the distribution of the motion to all members at least 14 days before the AGM.

The Proposed Amendment is also not well thought out. It does not spell out what the aggrieved member can do if the Church, Pastor or leader or the AOG General Superintendent or Assistant General Superintendent refuse to cooperate and abide by the rules, that is, if they refuse to negotiate, refuse to mediate or refuse to join the arbitration. It is also not stated what happens if they abide by the procedures but refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrators.

 

 

Continue reading here. 

Counterfeits of the Spirit's Fruits

Joe McKeever

"Your words have stood men on their feet." Job 4:4

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Half the people I know in church have this list of Christlike qualities memorized. But I find myself wondering if they also know the list of counterfeits which precedes it. In some respects, it's every bit as important to know the negatives, the dark side, the alternate universe if you will, of those wonderful positives.

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also toldyou in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

Note that these ugly traits are:

1) Of the flesh. Man-generated. We can't blame them on God.

2) Against the Spirit. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." (Gal. 5:17)

3) Anti-love, every one of them. Earlier, Scripture says, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14). Each one is a perversion, a corruption, of true love.

4) Your ticket to hell. "Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

At this, the beginning of a series on the fruit of the Spirit, let's take a closer look at these counterfeits.

Keep in mind what a counterfeit is supposed to do: fool the owner into thinking he possesses the real thing.

Listen to the person deeply involved in adultery, sexual pleasures and promiscuity, jealousies, and the like. It's all about love, they will tell you. "I'm just a loving person." "I fell in love with her." "It's my nature to love a lot of people."

Love has nothing to do with it, friend.

It's about lust: "uncontrolled, untamed desires." We generally use the word to refer to sexual lust, but in itself, it has no connection to sex. It's merely a wayward force in your life that wants what it wants, wants more and more of it, and is never satisfied with what it gets. One can have a lust to possess more cars, or the biggest house on the block, or collectibles. Or, he can lust after his neighbor's wife, as the tenth commandment puts it (Exodus 20:17).

Lust and love are strangers to one another and enemies in all that matters. Lust is love's ugly cousin, the bastard child (excuse me, mom) of the black sheep of the family. Lust claims the family inheritance but should be denied all rights and privileges. Lust must be tamed and controlled and regularly nailed to the cross.

Adultery is not about love.

Sorry, friend, no matter how you dress it up, it is not. Adultery is about "getting my needs met," "achieving the happiness I deserve," and "finding fulfillment with the man/woman of my dreams." Adultery is all about me. And anything that is all about "me" bears no relation to love at all.

When the pastor's wife left him for a man in the church (who also left his family) and ran off to another state, some women from the congregation tracked them down, and tried to talk some sense into her. "You are interfering with the will of God for my life," she stubbornly answered. As the song put it, "This feels so good, it can't be wrong." But it was. She soon realized it, but not before destroying two marriages.

I'm not sure what Tina Turner had in mind with her hit song of a generation ago, but "What's love got to do with it?" surely pertains to adultery.

Fornication is not about love for anyone.

The Greek word porneia gives us our word "porn" or "pornography." The idea is any and all sexual iniquity, not just fornication (which we generally interpret as sexual relations outside of marriage).

I could not believe my ears. This deacon widower was dating a widow who had long been a pillar of our church, with both in their mid-70s. He sat in my living room and said, "Pastor, is it wrong if Mildred Ann and I sleep together?" I sat there quietly for a moment, then said, "Where have you been all these years? Have you not heard one thing we have said about sexual faithfulness?"

I knew exactly what had happened (and their ages had nothing to do with it). Once they were convinced they were in love and that no one would be hurt by their actions, as soon as their desires got the best of them, they quickly rationalized their actions.

All the sexual iniquity does not take place in honky-tonks on Bourbon Street, friend. Not all of it involves dirty old men preying on vulnerable young girls. Some of it takes place between the nicest and best people.

Lewdness is not about love for anyone but yourself.

Some translations call this "indecency" and "uncleanness." It's a general term that covers a lot of sins (but not, we hasten to add, the way love does! A reference to I Peter 4:8, which is itself a quote from Proverbs 10:12.).

We can imagine some drunken husband trying to get his wife to look at pornographic movies with him, or engage in bizarre sexual behavior. He may be so far gone that he thinks this is all about love. He certainly uses the term a lot. Pity the godly woman he is married to, who has to deal with this on a regular basis.

Idolatry is not about love for God.

Anything we put in the place of God--even if we claim it helps us worship Him--is an idol. Our minds immediately go to household deities people of some religions install in their living quarters and before which they bow. We think of various manmade representations of deities, everything from a rag on a stick to a totem to a gold-layered idol in a jewel-encrusted temple. But idolatry is often much closer to home than all that.

In Old Testament days, God told Moses how to build the "Ark of the Covenant," that gold-covered box into which was placed the ten commandments, the rod of Moses, and samples of manna. Above the ark, on the "mercy seat," artists were to build and place cherubim, one at each end, facing each other. The Lord then said to Moses, "There I will meet with you. I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two churubim on the ark...." (Exodus 25:22)

Before long, the people of Israel got it in their minds that God lived in that box, and from there it was a short jump to believe the box was God. See I Samuel 4 for the kind of foolishness that brought about. Idolatry is folly.

Sorcery has nothing to do with love.

This is an interesting word in the Greek: pharmakeia. Our word "pharmacy" comes from that. It originally referred to medicines of all types, but eventually came to mean the kind of drugs used in magic, the occult, and witchcraft. Pagan religions often used mind-altering drugs in their worship practices.

God would have none of this foolishness. Whatever the person's motives, love has nothing to do with it. After all, Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (see John 14:21,23,24.).

Hatred and love are sworn enemies.

There is no room in the life of a disciple for a quarrelsome spirit, for strife and enmity. One of the saddest features of the modern religious landscape is the groups that spout hatred in the name of the Lord. They picket at public events telling homosexuals that "fags will burn in hell forever." They picket any religious meeting that they decide is soft on their issues. They thrive on strife, they feed on hatred.

It would be interesting to slip in unobserved and watch the private worship meetings of these people. I wonder if at any point they stop and bow before the Lord and quietly and humbly worship Him. Do they ever prostrate themselves at His altar and ask a loving God to "have mercy on me the sinner"?

They do not.

No one who experiences the living God in worship can then rise to his feet and step outside and hate his brothers. He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even now (I John 2:9).

Contentions are the antithesis of love.

I have known church members who lived to argue. If there was no fight going on in their congregation, they started one. If the pastor proposed the church do something, they looked for flaws in the plan and reasons to oppose it.

These are the people who drive pastors and other church leaders to early graves. And, we hasten to add, they will stand before the Heavenly Father and give account of what they have done.

The puzzling thing is that a church's trouble-makers will protest a deep love for the Lord.

But they do not love the Lord. They may love a lot of things, but if they loved Jesus Christ, they would obey Him. Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say? (Luke 6:46)

Jealousies masquerade as love, but don't be fooled.

Law enforcement people will tell you the most dangerous part of their job is dealing with conflicts between couples when jealousy has entered the picture.

We pick up the morning paper and read where some jilted lover is so incensed that his ex- has broken up with him and moved in with the new guy, he takes a gun and kills them, then turns it on himself. "Where is the reason in this?" we wonder. What did he possibly hope to achieve?

The answer is that jealousy is not rational, does not see clearly or think sanely.

Jealousy is a dangerous blend of lust and pride. As with everything else here, love has nothing to do with it.

Someone asks, "Doesn't the Bible say God is jealous?" (I recall hearing that Oprah Winfrey marked "God" off her list when the pastor preached that He is jealous.) The answer is so simple a child can get it: He is jealous for us not of us. As with any loving parent, He wants to protect us from harm. He wants us to do well, and resents anything interfering with that.

Outbursts of wrath are not about love.

"Fits of rage" they're called in one version.

Here's a husband who beats his wife, then later repents and vows his undying love for her. Before long, he does it again. She tells the doctor she "ran into a door" or "fell down the stairs."

I've seen wives like that sitting in my congregation. Their eyes reflect the cruelties with which they live. Unless they escape to a safe haven and find help, they soon become like whipped puppies and unable to think or act for themselves. The scoundrels to whom they are married, however, speak of love. Eventually the wives become so warped in mind and hurt in body that they really do think such husbands love them. Not so.

Selfish ambitions are the enemies of love.

On the shelves in my study are a number of commentaries on Galatians. When I consult them for insights on these unholy qualities, I find they have no patience for the repetition the Apostle Paul does here. They end up grouping the traits. (John R. W. Stott says the first three have to do with sex, the next two with religion, followed by eight terms having to do with society, and the last two--drinking and carousing--dealing with drinking.)

Many a book or program promising success and material wealth will demand that the practitioner of their dark arts spend all their time planning and scheming, working and climbing, to get to the top of the pinnacle. Say goodbye to one's family, to outside activities, to church, to hobbies. It's all about "me" and all about "getting to the top."

One wonders why those who buy into this scam never seem to notice that others before them have done this and found it to be a dead-end route to happiness. I keep thinking of a cartoon in the Wall Street Journal from a generation ago. A businessman in a large office tells his visitor: "I owe my success to my first wife. And I owe my second wife to my success."

Dissensions will destroy love.

Is this different from quarrels and outbursts of anger? Only slightly. I think of the competitive spirit that drives so many people in our world. Propose a plan for children to play ball where no side loses and they go ballistic. "Whoever heard of such? The whole idea is to teach the kid to win!" That is not anywhere near the "whole idea," but it shows how skewed is the mind of such people.

We see this competitive drive in church people who sleep through church but whose juices really flow when they think of their college football team and the drive to win the championship. "Beat State!" is their mantra.

If they are pastors, they want theirs to be the biggest church in town. If they are fathers, they want their children to be better and smarter and stronger and more successful than all the others in school.

Such people need to learn to chill. That contentious spirit will destroy everything good and noble in their lives.

Heresies are not about love.

"Sectarian parties" and "party intrigues" is how some have translated this. One calls it "canvassing for office."

As a pastor with a theological education, "heresy" means only one thing to me and that is people who stray from pure doctrine to concoct their own religious brand. However, the idea here is simpler: these are people who just cannot seem to get along and go along with the other disciples.

A pastor I know found himself at odds with a couple of strong leaders who happened to be successful lawyers. He told how they worked behind the scenes to undercut his ministry and eventually succeeded in ending his work at that church. Later, reflecting on what had happened, he observed, "Trial lawyers don't always make good church members. They spend their time scheming and maneuvering all week and when they get to church on Sunday, they can't quit scheming and maneuvering."

Envy is the opposite of love.

Envy is a twin to "covet," the essence of the tenth and final commandment in Exodus 20, and a close cousin to "jealousy" in our list here.

Love rejoices when you succeed, but envy/jealousy wishes he had succeeded in your place. Love is glad to see you have a new car, whereas envy/jealousy wants it for himself.

Murders have nothing at all to do with love.

It hardly goes without saying, but we are amazed at how many killings are done in the name of love. A jealous spouse, a spurned lover, a misguided zealot.

Drunkenness and love are sworn enemies.

This and the trait that follows--revelries or carousings--may have been associated with pagan worship rites in Paul's day. In our day, however, worship has nothing to do with the drunkenness we see every day.

So many of these qualities involve excess or out-of-control behavior. One feels strongly about something and cannot control his anger, his temper, or his desire, and the result is always bad.

Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, Paul says (Ephesians 5:18), but be filled with the Spirit.

One of the most bizarre legal defenses ever attempted in this country involve drunkenness. "Your honor, my client is not responsible for what he did. He was under the influence of strong drink at the time."

In a court of law, this would be laughed at. However, untold thousands of men and women try that ploy on each other and their children all the time. "Daddy doesn't mean it when he says that. Daddy sometimes drinks a little too much and does things he regrets. You understand, don't you, darling?"

God help the child.

Carousings. Revelries. Love's counterfeits.

Surrounding the large universities in most cities you will find fraternity and sorority houses. Young men and women who go off to college seeking an education are lured into these setups where they are taught the skills of partying, drinking, and promiscuity. Are there exceptions? Probably, although we rarely hear of them. The rule is sufficiently true that it should make clear-thinking students wary of having anything to do with such training centers of ungodliness.

Promiscuity masks itself as a form of love. We speak of "making love," as though any kind of sexual activity meets the criteria for that. Hardly.

That's the list. Rather an unholy grouping, isn't it. Thoroughly depressing.

I recall as a young pastor about to begin a series of sermons on The Fruit of the Spirit thinking it would be in order to preach one before on "the works of the flesh" here. In studying and preparing, I found myself so depressed by that laundry list of vices, I abandoned the plans and made occasional references to it.

In his commentary on Galatians, Timoty George mentions several ways in which the two lists--the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit--are presented here in Galatians 5. These are great insights and worth noting.

First, Paul did not contrast the works of the flesh with opposing works of the Spirit. Actually, that was probably the first thing most of us looked for in studying these lists, to see if the first quality was the opposite of love, the second the opposite of joy, and so forth. But no.

Second, there is a difference in the way the two lists are structured.
The fleshly traits are "works," plural. But the "fruit of the Spirit" is singular. Dr. George writes, "There is one fruit of the Spirit that manifests itself in nine Christian graces...."

Third, the 15 items Paul mentions in his catalog of evil are not meant to be exhaustive. So when he came to the end, he added, "and the like." He could go on and on all day with this!

Finally, let me add a note of my own here. Clearly, I have seen all these unholy traits as the opposite of love itself, the first-mentioned of the nine qualities that make up the fruit of the Spirit. In some places, that is clear, but in other cases I might have stretched the point a little. Readers will have your own thoughts on this.