A Prayer from Inside the City Wall

To you, O God - the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - we come with urgent hearts.

The people of power in our land (people for whom you have bid us to pray) seem bent on scorning you. They are doing it first by scorning us. And, we confess, we have given them reason to scorn.

The problem is not that we have taken in hand the same weapons as they - public dialogue, the privilege of voting, protest, freedom of speech and the like. These are responsibilities you have allowed us to have. The problem is that we have trusted these weapons and, in trusting them, we have reduced ourselves to weakness. People of influence mock our protest marches and stage more elaborate ones. Then they mock you through us. They scorn our political efforts and watch the men and women we trust become corrupted by power. Meanwhile they assemble their vast resources of empowerment and deride our efforts and use us to scorn you.

Now their voices are becoming more unconcealed in revealing their heart toward you. Not content to mock you through us, they are setting their sights on you yourself. It is not that they are saying you do not exist - yet. They are saying you are not who you are and they are saying they repudiate who you say you are. They are forwarding other gods and embracing the imaginations of men. We understand you have given men this freedom. Everyone has the right to be lost if they so choose. No one has the power to force faith on any other person. But these people of power are going farther. They are saying we must not say what you have said. They want to forbid us to tell them that you alone are God and no one can come to you except through your Son, Jesus Christ. Mistaking our weakness to be your weakness and mistaking our sins to reveal your corruption, they are bent on pushing us into a corner. They think that in so doing they will push you out of the world.

In the midst of all of this our leaders are turning their hearts toward an ideology whose prophets have taught its people to forward their cause through violence and intimidation. We blush before you as we remember that we have allowed leaders within the Christian community to advance the same idea. Blood has been wrongly shed in the name of Christ. We acknowledge that though we may take up arms to protect homes and families, you have never called us to take up the sword to promote or maintain faith in your Son. However, as we return to your command to give answers for our faith with gentleness and reverence, we feel naked. We realize with alarm how much we, too, have become enchanted with the armor of men.

O God, we will continue to pray for those in leadership. We must. You have told us to do so. But we struggle. These are not people in a foreign country. These are our own people. It is as though Sennacherib has enrolled his representatives as citizens in the city and is hurling his insults from within the city's walls.

Please, one more time in the apostate West, do one more mighty act which could be attributed to none but you - an act which would give the opportunity for people to consider the claims of your Gospel and would give those who trust you the opportunity to humble themselves in peace and pray real prayers of repentance and turn from their wicked ways in love and not in fear.

Does Chamberlain Still Live ?

I generally avoid commenting on politics. It's a roundhouse subject. You can't corner it. However, I do think Rich Lowry has touched a point worth noting. He dares to suggest that the recent Nobel Peace Prize award is part of an eight-year pattern. That pattern has to do with using the prize to sabotage George W. Bush. With thought-provoking comments, he cites awards given to Kofi Annan and the United Nations (2001), Jimmy Carter (2002) and Mohamed ElBaradei and his International Atomic Energy Agency (2005).

Mr. Lowry did not mention the 2007 award to Al Gore for his efforts in global warming. Memories of that award are especially striking. The news was unblushing in its suggestion that the award trumped George Bush's presidential victory and made Gore into a winner while reinforcing Bush as a loser.

When there is so much discrediting of a political voice, the tumult at least should provoke a second look at the ones being discredited. I'm sure George W. Bush is no Winston Churchill, but there may be some comparisons in the vigorous efforts to neutralize him. When a leader confronts a nations' enemies forthrightly it is predictable that the enemies will seek to undercut him with people who can be flattered as peacekeepers. "Peace in our time" is a scary slogan when, in fact, we may be conjuring up a false paradise (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11).

Will The Real Evolutionist Please Stand Up

I cannot speak from a wide range of research. I can only speak from the nature of conversations and news articles read over the past few years. Nevertheless, I am puzzled.

Does not evolution promote the paradigm of "survival of the fittest"? If so, ought not evolutionists be enthused about climate change and the damaging things happening to the environment? In these things the next epoch of new and stronger life forms should emerge. Do you see my difficulty? Time and again the cries of concern for "global warming" and "pollution" come from those who believe in the chance development of life as we know it out of seemingly hostile environments. Isn't it ironic for the evolutionist to be carrying a "Save the Snail" placard?

But my difficulty doesn't end there. Does not creationism have the paradigm of stewardship responsibility for the well being of the planet and its occupants? Should not creationists be saying things like, "We have a responsibility to our Creator for the wise use of natural resources and for the maintenance of justice and help for the poor"? Am I the only one who meets people who claim to believe in the Creator yet who seem to think things economic and environmental are as they always have been and there never has been and never will be any real cause for alarm or need to interfere? Isn't it oxymoronic for the creationist to be saying, "Leave things alone."

Who is the real evolutionist, anyway?

Book Review (of sorts) - "Why We're Not Emergent"

"Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" is a must-read book for developing an awareness of the direction of emergent spokespeople. Blending propositional and random writing styles, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck present a forthright critique of the emergent radical drift toward denying the realities of hell and sin and substitutionary atonement and just about anything else having to do with the substantive good news of the Gospel. I would say that the epilogue (Listening to All the Churches of Revelati0n) by Kevin DeYoung is worth the price of the book. It should be read first and then read in its assigned place at the end.

Although the book is a critique of the emergent movement, it is not a diatribe. The writers are faithful in mentioning areas where God can use the movement to force Fundamental and Evangelical groups to do some soul searching. As DeYoung puts it: "...though our approach is critical, don't assume we dislike all things emergent. The long sentence above describes Ted and me in some ways too. But because this book is Why We are Not Emergent and not An Evaluation of the Emerging Church, we will not take much time to list what we appreciate about the movement, though we could." (p. 22)

The one frustration I had in reading the book has to do with that "long sentence above" to which the writer refers. That long sentence, under the heading "Are You Emergent?" (pp. 20-21) reveals in list form several things which, when taken together, pretty well identify someone who is a practicing emergent. DeYoung and Kluck are right on the mark as far as I can see. The frustration with the list is that there are several items which are very important to me as well. Forty years in Fundamental / Evangelical ministry have taught me that we tend to take lists in an all-or-nothing way. If someone embraces any part of the list he is suspect of embracing the whole. Therefore, with this review I feel the need to speak to some of the points which the reader (but not the authors) might riase as yellow flags concerning me as one of the Fundamental / Evangelical fellowship.

(1) They drink lattes in the afternoon. Actually, I prefer what I call a cafe-com-leite even though some insist that "latte" is the proper term. And, beyond that, I am more apt to drink one in the morning unless wanting to visit with a friend in a casual setting such as the local college-hang-out-coffee-shop which is owned and operated by someone not at all on the same page as I am in most cases.

(2) They are politically concerned about poverty, AIDS, CEO salaries, consumerism, racism, and oppression. Me,too (although maybe not as "politically concerned" since I am also concerned about politics itself). I should add that I am also concerned about abortion (which doesn't seem to be high on their list) AND about the fact that we in Fundamental / Evangelical circles are not heavily known for reaching out to the un-aborted un-wanted. I am also opposed to gay marriage (which is not an emergent strong point) AND annoyed by the fact that we in our circles seem to be limiting our discussion to the family relationship category rather than articulating a full-orbed biblical understanding of true, natural love.

(3) They loathe words like "linear," "propositional," and "rational." Thankfully, I don't loathe these words. In fact, I camp on them. However, I do think we can slip into linearism, propositionalism and rationalism which can cause us to divorce letter from spirit in the presentatin of truth. Maybe their loathing is meant by God to drive us to examine the next (related) feature.

(4) They spurn systematic theology and embrace narrative. Well, I like theology - both systematic and narrative. However, I have long thought and still think that one of our problems in the Fundamental / Evangelical community is a failure to present doctrine imaginatively. By that I do not mean a free-wheeling Picasso. I mean, searching the Scripture in its narratives as well as its propositions to "see" what various truth categories look like. Jesus did that marvelously in parables. He did not give a definition of "neighbor." He told a story which forced his hearers to "look" at the subject. The emergent repudiation of the atonement must be countered not only by restating the great propositional statements about propitiation, but by drawing word pictures which can help people embrace what it looks like. I contend that people are, at their core, imaginative thinkers. As we speak propositionally we must be careful to define our terms carefully and know how the listener might be "seeing" or "hearing" what we are saying. An ongoing debate between my wife and me illustrates this point. She cautious (and I do listen, really) about the use of the word "story." I say, by definition, that it is a legitimate word to use. She says, correctly, that to the ear of many people it refers to fantasy or fiction. Thus, when I speak of the "unfolding story" in Scripture, my hearers could be thinking I'm speaking about something fanciful when, in fact, I mean real events with a divinely overarching plot and meaning and destination.

(5) Like the emergent, I do like the imagery of church as a community that is relaitonal. I'm not so much into the tribal picture, though, unless I'm allowed to mean that there is some biblical truth to the assertion that "it takes a village" to do many of the things we would like to think we can do on our own on an isolated farm in the mountains. There is more to koinonia than Sunday events and pot-luck suppers. Maybe God is using the emergents to put that thought onto the table of our thinking.

(6) I do not believe that "doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus." However, I do believe that wrong conclusions based on unbalanced true doctrine can do exactly that.

I would recommend that one of the great features of "Why We Are Not Emergent" is the ability to make you think through your own thoughts. It is not the kind of book that lets you get away with declaring "everything about those people is wrong." Rather, it is the sort of book which clearly identifies their significant errors but presents enough of their overall views to strike some familiar ideas in your own belief system. When that happens you are forced to sit back and ask, "Why do I believe that and in what way am I different from those who profess to believe the same thing but have drawn drastically wrong conclusions in other areas?" It also gives you the freedom to conclude that your belief is biblical even though held by someone whose overall belief system is unbiblical.

PRAYER PROBLEMS
Copyright Harold H. Comings
First Published as Meditation Moment # 3 - October 1, 1998

Abraham, in Genesis 17:17-18, illustrates two besetting problems which many of us face when we start taking prayer seriously.

Years earlier God had promised Abraham a son and, through that son, a multitude of descendants from whom would come a blessing which would bring good to all people (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6). Because Abraham's wife, Sarah, could not have children the couple decided to take advantage of an approved custom of the day. Abraham fathered a son by Sarah's servant. The son's name was Ishmael and he was, in Abraham's eyes, the fulfillment of God's promise. Then came the day (Genesis 17:15-16) when God explained to Abraham that the son whom He had promised would not be the servant girl's son but would be born by Sarah, his wife. At this point Abraham demonstrated the two problems which often bother us.

First, he laughed at the absurdity of the whole idea (Genesis 17:17). In other words, Abraham was hindered in prayer by his sense of the impossible. Now, to be sure, there are things which are not going to happen just because we pray for them. While God CAN do all things it does not mean that He is willing to do all things. The little girl with brown eyes (Amy Carmichael 1884-1951) did not get blue eyes simply because that was what she wanted. God had given her the eyes He wanted her to have for a special ministry she would have in India one day. However, once we know that God has given a promise in His Word which may be claimed then we know that God will move heaven and earth to fulfill it. He can even cause an old woman (Sarah) to give birth and have the physical and emotional capacity to raise a child.

Abraham's second difficulty (Genesis 17:18) was that he was obsessed with his own script. I do not know about you, but I am an expert at writing scripts. Not published manuscripts for plays but mental ideas of how God should do something. The problem is that God seldom if ever uses my scripts. He did not use Abraham's script either. The servant girl's son was not the son God intended for the fulfillment of His promise. How often in prayer we grow discouraged because God does not approve our plans! But, if we would be still and watch and listen we would find in His time that He had a much more far reaching scheme in mind.

Our sense of the impossible and our focus on our own plans: these are two things which frustrate us in prayer. In fact, they even keep many from entering a personal relationship with God in the first place. If a person ever becomes convinced that he is in trouble with the holy God of this universe (Romans 3:23; 6:23) that person struggles with the impossible idea that God can freely and justly offer him not only forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7) but also peace with God (Romans 5:1) and hope for eternity (John 14:1-6) and a new life now (John 10:10). Instead of accepting that promise the person will insist that he must in some way earn or merit God's love and forgiveness. He will hold to this idea in spite of the fact that God has clearly stated that it cannot be done that way (Ephesians 2:8- 9; Titus 3:5; 1 John 4:19). However, once he accepts God's way that person will discover that God is a God who can be enjoyed and that because of Him there is something worth living for and even worth dying for.

Do the twin problems of a sense of the impossible and a focus on your own plans frustrate you in prayer? God will give grace to work you through this struggle if you will let Him do so. We would love to have you join us in our prayer workshops on Wednesday evenings. We are all involved in growing in this ministry.

Are these difficulties keeping you from receiving the offer of salvation and new life which Jesus Christ has given (Matthew 11:28)? Please feel free to check the page on this web site which specifically explains His offer. And, even better, please accept our offer to phone us or to stop by the church or to attend our services. It would be a privilege to speak with you.

ARE NATURAL DISASTERS PUNISHMENT FROM GOD?

copyright Harold H. Comings / Originally Published as a Meditation Moment - September 15, 1998

Recently some of us were talking in Sunday School about Hurricane Georges. The question was asked, "Is a storm like this a judgment from God?" It is a question which can be asked about any tragedy whether a violent storm or the crash of an airliner. Because we can explain how such things happen we tend to think that God has played no role in it. However, once we think of God being involved we think of judgment.

In the Bible judgment events usually have a supernatural quality about them. The fire and brimstone which fell on Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be reasonably explained by natural causes. Neither can the plagues on Egypt recorded in the book of Exodus. Yet, other unpleasant events such as famines, locusts and storms at sea are seen as a part of the way things are in a sin spoiled world. God uses them to do certain things in the lives of people, but they are not considered supernatural or unusual.

One day Jesus was talking with some people about a tragedy in which eighteen people died when a tower fell on them (Luke 13:4-5). Jesus asked the people, "Do you think those eighteen people were greater sinners than other people because they were caught in this accident?" Then He answered His own question by saying, "No, they were not. The fact is, unless you repent you will all perish." In other words, the event was a warning.

The meaning of a tragedy is determined not so much by the tragedy itself as by a person's relationship to God when the tragedy strikes. For those who are choosing to live their lives their own way it is an encounter with the truth that they do not have the control they think they have. For those who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior the event is a means by which they can grow in their relationship with their God (James 1:2- 5; Romans 5:3-6). It is the "valley of the shadow of death" through which the Lord takes His people to bring them to better things which He has in mind for them (Psalm 23).

Basically, the Bible talks about two major judgments. There is the judgment of those who have rejected God's love and who, after death, will face eternal condemnation (Hebrews 9:27). For these people an earthly tragedy can become a judgment if it carries them away in death unprepared to meet their God. On the other hand there is the judgment which took place on a cross outside the city of Jerusalem nearly two thousand years ago. There Jesus Christ, God's Son, took the judgment of any and every person who would receive Him by faith as their sin bearer and Savior (2 Corinthians 5:21). For such people the earthly tragedy which takes their life is the means by which God brings them to their better Home in Heaven (2 Corinthians 5:8).

We here at Bible Baptist in Cortland would love the opportunity to share with you the life which God offers in Jesus Christ and which can enable you to face life's trials without the burden of thinking that you are forsaken by God.

THE NAMES OF GOD

Originally posted September 1, 1998 as Meditation Moment

In the Scriptures God has told us what He is like in many ways. Among those ways is the selection of several names which highlight some part of His character. Recently we have been looking at some of these names in our morning worship service. Let me share with you a pair of names. They are El Shaddai (the Almighty God) and Jehovah Jireh (the LORD will provide).

El is the general Hebrew word meaning "God." It tells us that He made everything in the past and keeps it all going today. Shaddai is a term which can make a person think of a mother lovingly nursing her child. Together the name El Shaddai speaks of a God who is totally able to satisfy anyone who trusts in Him. Jehovah is a covenant name. That means, it is a name God uses with people to whom He is committed. Whereas El speaks of the God who was and is, Jehovah tells us that God lives today and that He will be here tomorrow. Jireh puts together three ideas: first, that God sees; second, that He will arrive; and, finally, that He will provide.

Together, El Shaddai and Jehovah Jireh talk about God's ability to meet needs. However, they each carry a special message. In Genesis 17 the name El Shaddai is used for the first time. A man named Abraham is given a promise which involves an impossible situation which defies common sense. The Almighty God assures Abraham that He possesses all of the resources make the promise happen. Jehovah Jireh is first used in Genesis 22. This same man, Abraham, is confronted with the prospect of having to be willing to lose the one thing in life which is most special to him. In the face of this crisis Abraham takes a deep breath and speaks of confidence in the God who is personally committed to him and who will see his need, arrive on time to meet that need, and provide Himself in the meeting of the need.

El Shaddai--the God who is sufficient to see us through impossible situations. Jehovah Jireh--the personal God who will meet our deepest need the the face of loss. Both names meet in Jesus Christ. Of Him Paul said, "for to me to live is Christ (El Shaddai) and to die is gain (Jehovah Jireh)."

Have you sought for Jesus Christ? Have you found Him? May we help?