What everyone needs…
iBible
By
What if you spent one year obeying the entire Bible? A. J. Jacobs did exactly that
By
Jennie Yabroff reported in Newsweek that “After A. J. Jacobs spent a year reading the Entire Encyclopedia Britannica for his book “The Know-It-All,” he figured he had the yearlong experiment thing down. How much harder could it be to follow every rule in the Bible? Much, much harder, he soon discovered, as he found himself growing his beard, struggling not to curse, and asking strangers for permission to stone them for adultery.”
What I found most interesting about the article is some of the comments Jacobs makes in the interview. When asked how his life is now that he can sin again, he says, “I miss my sin-free life, but I guess I was never sin free. I was able to cut down on my coveting maybe 40 percent, but I was still a coveter.” Jacobs sounds a lot like the Apostle Paul, when he wrote, “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of coveting” (Rom 7:9). Jacobs, like Paul, realized that nobody can perfectly obey the entire law, and trying only makes you recognize your sin more.
When asked if there were any rules he was still following, Jacobs focuses on the Sabbath. He says, “I love the Sabbath. There’s something I really like about a forced day of rest.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that this is what Jesus tells us: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). God knows that we need to rest from our work, and life is better when we take time to rest.
The entire law, really, is to help us live life better with God and with each other. The great deception of sin is that we think it helps us live life to the full, but in reality, sin only gets in the way of truly living life.
Naturally, Jacobs found many of the laws and rules impossible to obey. For example, there’s a funny story in the interview about when he stones a man for committing adultery, but he doesn’t really stone him to death as commanded in Scripture. Of course, if he did, in our culture, he would be a murderer, which would be breaking other Biblical commands. This leads Jacobs to admit that “One of the lessons…[is that] there is some picking and choosing in following the Bible, and I think that’s OK.”
In other words, since God’s standard of righteousness is too high for us to realistically follow, we can lower the standard by picking which commands and rules to obey. How much better would it be to say, “We can’t come close to obeying all these laws, and since God demands perfect righteousness, I need to get it from somewhere else. Jesus lived in perfect righteousness, and tells us that if we believe in Him, He gives that righteousness to us” (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 2 Cor 5:21).
I pray that Jacobs comes to this conclusion. It is evident that the Spirit is working on him, for now that he is without the law, he admits that he feels “unmoored, overwhelmed by choice.” Paul did tell us that the law is a tutor, to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24-25). Jacobs lived under the tutor for a year, and we can pray it will lead him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
If you want to read more about this, you can get his book: The Year of Living Biblically.
Liquidating our Church Property
By
I attended a church planting Conference in Irving, TX a while back in which Todd Phillips shared that, according to current studies and using modern water purifying technology, $10 Billion could solve the world’s water crisis. This got me thinking about my earlier post related to Money, Missions, and Ministry.
Church Property Value is $500 Billion
I am not aware what the value of church property in America is currently, but I know that in 1931, the estimated value of church property in America was $4 billion. When you realize that the average home price in 1930 was $7,000, imagine how much churches are sitting on today? The average home value today is around $230,000, an increase of 3300%. So $4 billion in 1930 would be $1.3 trillion today. I have no clue how accurate this number is, but let’s say it’s less than half of that and call it $500 billion.
If only 2% of the churches in America sold their buildings, and put the money toward solving the world’s water crisis, we would have enough money.
But churches don’t want to sell their buildings. After all, where would they meet?
Churches Paying Taxes on their Property
Okay, then, here is another option. In 1930, it was estimated that since churches were tax-exempt organizations, they were being “subsidized” by the government at $250 million annually. In other words, if churches were being taxed, the government would receive $250 million from them annually (which is 6%). Again, I don’t know how tax rates have changed since 1930, but let’s say they haven’t changed at all.
If, in 1930, the government could have gotten $250 million by taxing church property (valued at $4 billion), then today, if our property value is only $500 billion, our taxes today would be over $31 billion!
So if churches in America decided that for ONE year, we would put aside only 1/3 of what we would owe the government in property taxes for that one year, we could solve the world’s water crisis in one year! Should churches do this (or something similar)?
Absolutely.
Will churches do this if made aware of the opportunity? Call me pessimistic, but probably not.
Maybe we could just spend less on sound systems.
Challenging my own Finances
So the question then becomes, “What am I doing personally to help solve the world’s water crisis (and similar needs) around the globe?” Rather than pointing the accusatory finger at the churches and their vast wealth, I need to take a hard look at my budget, and my possessions, and where my money is going. I may not have $50 million to put toward a building, but if I have $50 which I am going to spend on coffee this year (it’s probably more than that), maybe I should consider giving up my coffee so someone else can simply have water…
But that’s too convicting.
Would you invite this couple back to your church?
By
Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!
As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the “churchgoing” type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and they don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.
But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, they put their arms around each other and hold one another close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.
During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.
After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”
What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?
Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.
Now, with that information, what would you say?
P.S. I originally wrote this post 10 years ago! It is interesting to compare the comments that came in back then with the comments that come in today. Be part of the historic conversation and add your own input below!
Money, Missions, and Ministry
By
A pet peeve of mine has been how much churches are willing to spend on buildings, all in the name of “ministry.”
I used to live in Dallas, Texas, the mega-church capital of the world. There are more mega-churches in Dallas, TX per capita, than anywhere else in the world. One street I was driving down recently contained four mega-churches in a one-mile stretch.
I don’t mind the number of churches so much. What gets me going is how much these buildings cost. First Baptist Church in Dallas recently spent close to $50 million to construct a new “ministry” building! They say this will help them better reach the residents and people of downtown Dallas. Truly, I hope it is money well spent, and I wish them well.
But I often wonder what that $50 million could have bought in Africa or Papua New Guinea. If they answer by saying they were trying to reach the people in Dallas, then I wonder how many meals for homeless people in Dallas that $50 million could have bought? If they answer that they were trying to build a place for people to come for education and instruction so they could better their lives and get a good meal, then I have to ask why the building has “clever accessories” (that’s their term) along with 9000 square feet of exterior glass, state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment, wi-fi hotspots, beautiful stain-glass windows, comfy couches and lounge chairs, etc., etc.
Don’t misunderstand. I am not condemning mega-churches. I attend a mega-church. Many mega-churches are doing a lot of good in their communities and around the world with spreading the gospel. I just wonder if all of us (big churches and small churches alike) could be a little wiser with our money.
I wonder if First Baptist Church in Dallas could have built their building for about $10 million less, and sent the extra $10 million overseas to plant about 2000 churches (It costs around $6000 to build a church in Africa). OR, what if they said to their donors, “This building will cost $50 million, but we need to raise $100 million so we can build churches overseas as well.”? What would happen if a church plant, from day one, decided to give at least 50% of it’s budget to missions?
The issue, of course, is “How do you define ‘missions’? By “missions” I mean anything that is helping you accomplish the mission of the church, which is to make disciples of all nations. If you can really, honestly say that you need a $50 million building to accomplish the mission God has given you in Dallas, then I say “build away!” It’s not what I would do with $50 mil, but if it is truly what you believe God has called you to do, go for it.
But here’s what really gets me going… I read today about a church that has alerted its missionaries that after this year, the church will not be able to support them any longer. Why? Because the church needs a new auditorium and can’t do both. You can find out more about this here. Certainly, I don’t have the whole story, and this church definitely does not answer to me for how they use their money.
But one thing I know: American churches are the richest churches in the world.
Yet our primary use of the funds God has given us seems to be to construct bigger and nicer buildings for ourselves and our “ministry,” I am just not sure this is what Jesus had in mind when He said, “I will build my church.”
So what does your church budget look like? What does your church raise funds for? Whose kingdom are you building?
UPDATE: FBC Dallas recently pledged $115 million for further renovations.
2nd Update: The final cost came to $130 million
Wake-up Call for Bill Hybels
By
I visited Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Church while I was living in Chicago in the late 90’s. And while it is always dangerous and unwise to criticize a ministry you have little firsthand knowledge about, I remember thinking, “This is fantastic for the unchurched…but what are they doing for the believers?”
I asked this to one of the church leaders, and he told me the church had Saturday and Wednesday night services for the maturing believers, as well as small groups, and leadership training tracks.
At the time, I felt this was satisfactory.
But guess what? Bill Hybels now says that it isn’t working.
EDIT (2011): When I originally wrote this post, I had a video from Bill Hybels. That video has now been pulled off the internet because Bill Hybels said he was misunderstood. Maybe he was… Either way, here is a video from one of his staff members from about the same time:
Bill Hybels and Willow Creek published a book about their findings, and you can read all about it in Reveal
I have great respect for Bill Hybels for admitting (thirty years into ministry!) that what he and Willow Creek have been doing is not working. I truly hope that they can make the necessary changes.
The lesson for the rest of us is to make sure we are learning from this. How are we doing in training our people to feed on the Word for themselves? How are we doing in helping people learn to follow Jesus? How many of the people in our church are trained well enough, that they themselves could train others also (2 Tim 2:2)?
If you have a website or a blog which shows how your church (or a church you know) is teaching and training believers to be fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, please post these links in the comments section below.
Ever Wanted to Write Your Own Bible Commentary?
By
I used to have a site listed on this page which provided you a way to write your own commentary. But I deleted the site.
If you want, you can now interact with me on a commentary I am writing at Grace Commentary.com
Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?
By
We often hear that while works are not required for justification, they are the necessary result of justification and true saving faith. I argue that this makes works a condition of eternal life.
Here is the article so you can read it:
Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?
See this follow-up article here:
The Relationship Between Faith and Works according to Three Systems of Theology
Fun? Duh… Mental! (Fundamentalism)
By
I am a fundamentalist.
I am NOT a fundamentalist.
So which is it?
It depends on what you mean by “fundamentalist.”
History of Fundamentalism
The term “fundamentalist” was coined back in 1910 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterion Church decided to take a stand against encroaching liberal modernism and listed the “five fundamentals” of the faith:
- The verbal inspiration (and inerrancy) of Scripture
- The divinity of Jesus Christ
- The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
- Substitutionary atonement by Jesus
- The bodily resurrection and future return of Jesus
They published booklets defining and defending these five points from Scripture. If you were in agreement with them on these things, you could call yourself a “Fundamentalist.” So, based on this definition, I suppose I am a fundamentalist. I firmly believe and teach all five of these fundamental truths.
But in the last thirty years or so, fundamentalism has come to include lots of other “non-negotiables.” A “fundamentalist” today must hold to certain views of women in ministry, the end times, abortion, creation vs. evolution, the method of baptism, dress code, drinking alcohol, gettting tattoos, style of music, playing cards, smoking, evangelistic methods, political involvement, etc.
So if this is how “fundamentalists” today are defined, I am not a fundamentalist. Sure, I am quite conservative in many of these areas, but in others, I would be considered “liberal” by some modern fundamentalists. So I am not a fundamentalist.
Encounters of the Fundamentalist Kind
Recently, I have had some personal and online interaction with some of these modern fundamentalists, and have realized that their name is quite descriptive.
First of all, many of them are not much FUN. Sour and dour describes them best. Always frowning. Always criticizing. Always telling you that unless you believe and act the same way they do, you are going to hell. They are not the kind of people who would feel comfortable around Jesus when He goes to parties, drinks, tells potty-humor jokes (yes, Jesus did this! – cf. Mark 7:15), and hangs out with prostitutes and sinners.
A second thing that characterizes modern fundamentalists is their method of argumentation, which is summed up in the word DUH. Modern fundamentalists have already made up their minds about the entire Bible, and when you try to explain that some of their favorite Bible-thumping passages have been ripped out of the cultural and Scriptural context in which they were written, the Fundamentalist acts as if you are the stupidest person on the earth for trying to understand a text this way.
When you ask why your interpretation is wrong, they innundate you with a list of other passages pulled out of context and numerous quotes from authors and pastors who agree with their position. They do not argue from exegesis and proper hermeneutics, but from tradition and citations of other authors.
All of this leads to the conclusion that many of them are MENTAL. They are like people in mental institutions who hold strange beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Their spittle-spewing rants and tirades are called “holy” because they are “defending God and His Word.” But in reality, they are mindlessly defending their own views and opinions and will not even consider the arguments of any who disagree. No matter how ridiculous their view is, they will not listen to even the most articulate, logical, and gracious arguments.
Are there practices and beliefs in our culture and among Christendom that need to be corrected? Of course, but not with hate, slander, and name-calling, but instead with grace, and speaking the truth in love.
So hold to the fundamentals, but don’t be a fundamentalist.
Thanks goes to ASBO Jesus for this cartoon.
What is the meaning of Luke 15 and the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Prodigal Son?
By
In Luke 15, there are three famous parables: The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son (also known as The Prodigal Son). (Read my post here about the Prodigal Son).
The most common view on these parables in Luke 15 it that the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son all refers to unbelievers, and Jesus goes out and finds them, and brings them back to Himself. So when people ask about the meaning of Luke 15 and the three parables, the answer that most people get is that unbelievers are becoming Christians.
But is this really what Jesus meant by these stories in Luke 15? I think not.
The Lost Sheep are Not Unbelievers, but Believers
Upon careful inspection, however, it soon becomes clear that the parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Prodigal Son in Luke 15 are not about unbelievers becoming Christians, but about straying Christians repenting and being restored back into fellowship with God.
For example, the Lost sheep already belonged the shepherd. The Lost Coin already belonged to the woman. The Lost Son was already a son of the father. The Shepherd does not get a NEW sheep into his sheep fold, but returns one that was lost and found. The same is true of the Lost Coin and Lost Son.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke itself is not an evangelistic book in the Bible, but is a discipleship book. That is, Luke does not say much of anything in his Gospel about how unbelievers can receive eternal life. But he writes a lot about how believers can better follow Jesus and grow in their faithfulness and obedience to Him. The Gospel of John is the only real evangelistic book in the Bible, and it says over and over and over how to receive eternal life (believe in Jesus for it).
So again, the immediate and broader context of Luke 15, we see that the issue is not unbelievers becoming believers, but straying believers being brought back into the care, protection, and provision of God. In light of the context and the terms uses in the passage, this seems to be what Jesus is saying in these parables.
Furthermore, the traditional interpretation of this passage leads to some dangerous theological results.
The Traditional View of Luke 15 Can Lead to Universalism
For example, if these three parables are talking about how Jesus goes out to find unsaved people, and the lost sheep, coins, and sons therefore represent all the people of the world, what is keeping us from a universalist interpretation of this passage, since Jesus doesn’t stop searching until he has gathered all 100 back into his fold?
I recently discussed this online with a person who had come to this exact conclusion. He wrote:
I’m living for the Shepherd who will leave ninety-nine sheep to find the one that is lost. If the entire world was lost, I expect He found every last one.
Certainly, not everyone who holds the view that the lost in these parables in Luke 15 refer to unbelievers are universalists, but this man did arrive at a universalist position partly as a result of viewing the lost sheep, the coins, and the sons as unbelievers.
Luke 15 is an Encouragement to You
This truth from Luke 15 is a great encouragement to you and to me. It shows us how much God loves us, and that even if (when!) we stray, God will not shrug His shoulders and say “Good riddance! Buh bye!” No, instead, God will go to every length possible to find you and bring you back into His care. He will search high and low. He will scour every nook and cranny. He will never stop watching, waiting, and looking.
And when He sees you far off in the distance, He will not make you crawl back and beg for forgiveness. No, He will run to you with open arms and throw you a party for your return.
Have you stayed from God? It’s okay. Hopefully you have learned a few things while away. Now, return to Him. He is ready, willing, and waiting to welcome you back.
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
Get Books by Jeremy Myers
