Reflections on South Korea

I returned Monday from a 11 day trip to South Korea. During that time, I had the opportunity to preach 5 times and teach a 3 hour intensive for Liberty University on Biblical Theology. I also had the blessing and privilege of meeting and fellowshipping with some wonderful people. Dr. Timothy Chong was a marvelous host and translator. Since I have been back, I have taken some time to reflect on the experience. Permit me to share with you what I observed.

First, it stuck me how similar seminary students are all over the world. With the exception of he language barrier, which seemed very minor, the students I taught in South Korea were similar to students I have taught in Fort Worth, Nashville, Lynchburg, and Kansas City. They love the Lord, feel called to ministry, want to prepare as best they can, are somewhat idealistic, and have a ton of questions concerning the practical side of ministry. It was a real joy to spend the week with them.

Second, I was struck by the strategic importance of South Korea. As goes that nation, so goes the nations of the Pacific rim. Many philosophies are vying for the soul of that nation. Islam is making strategic inroads, Communist agitators have infiltrated from the North, and traditional eastern religions like Buddhism and Taoism are still very prevalent. At the same time, with South Korea's upward social mobility, secularism and atheism are also pulling at the cultural fabric. Korea is a mixture of extreme light and extreme darkness.

Third, I was struck by the need in the churches for equipping. Churches in Korea range from the largest in the world to very small. Pastors are honored and diligent in their desire to walk in obedience to the Lord. The greatest challenge from my observation is training the churches in how to reach people with the Gospel. Equipping pastors to equip their people to reach their country and culture seemed of paramount importance. Equipping the people in Apologetics and particularly how to present the Gospel in light of competing world-views struck me as a first priority.

This is a great time for Liberty University and Liberty Korea to be crafting a strategy to equip pastors and their churches to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I am grateful for the godly leadership of Dr. Timothy Chong. I am grateful for the opportunity I had to play a small part in God's big work in such a strategic place in our world.

Jesus Came to Build His Church

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Matthew 16:18

This text is rooted in a play on words between "little stone" and "bedrock." Peter is the former and the truth of Who Jesus is constitutes the latter. Peter had just made the declaration, "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God." After Jesus' responsive affirmation of blessing--"Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but My Father in Heaven"--Jesus makes His magnificent declaration. "I will build My church and the gates of Hell (Hades) will not prevail against it."  Here is another reason why Jesus came...to build His Church!

The Scripture is not saying that the Church will be built by or upon Peter, but rather it will be built upon the truth of what Peter proclaimed. Peter had confessed Jesus' true identity. He (Jesus) is the foundation upon which the Church will be built. In the words of F.F. Bruce, "what matters here is not the stature of the confessor, but the truth of the confession" (see The Hard Sayings of Jesus, p.143). Peter declares Who Jesus is, and  Jesus declares that He Himself will build His Church.

Notice in this passage that not only is Jesus' true identity revealed, but His work is likewise unveiled. He will build His Church. This is the first time the New Testament mentions the word, "Church." This word in the Greek text, comes from combining two smaller words, "to call" and "out of." The word "Church" literally means "the called out ones." All those who have heard God's invitation and responded constitute the "Church." 

Jesus goes on to describe the Church's invincibility, "and the gates of Hades (or Hell) will not prevail against." Though some see this as a straight forward declaration that Jesus will not allow the devil and his forces destroy the Church, I believe Jesus is actually pointing to another and equally true reality. Gates are for keeping people and possessions in, or people and possessions out. "Hades" is the normal word for death and the grave. Here, Jesus is declaring that not even the power of death will be able to halt the building of His Church. 

True, God's intention is to build the Church upon Jesus, but He will use people all through history as His instruments. Can He use you?

Why Did Jesus Come? Part I

In the last 2 years I have have done a slow and methodical study through the New Testament asking the question,"Why did Jesus come to earth?" I came up with over 600 answers to this question from Scripture. The purpose of what is called the "Incarnation" is a lot more complex than most people think. In the short Epistle of 1 John for example, we find ten distinct reasons. Let me share the first three with you.

1. Jesus came to provide a remedy for our addiction to sin. Chapter 1, verse 7 states "but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin."  Whether sin is an active rebellion or a passive indifference toward God is immaterial. It is the central fact of life that all of us have to contend with. And Jesus came and specifically went to the cross (hence the reference to His blood)  with the express intention of providing us a remedy for our sin. Sin is something from which we must be cleansed. It makes us dirty and Jesus can make us clean! Jesus came for the purpose of cleansing us from all our sin!

2. Jesus came to be our "Advocate." Chapter 2 verse 1 reads,  "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The word "Advocate" means that He is our defense attorney, literally, one who comes along side of us. Jesus used this word to describe the work of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John.  Jesus is fulfilling that role at this very moment.

We can go to Him (that is prayer), confess our sins (this means admitting them) and He represents us before the Father. In 1:9, we are told, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." He always wins His case! And He is our Advocate! In His role as Advocate, He deals with the presence, power and penalty of our sins!

3.  Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins." The Apostle John adds, "and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world." The word "propitiation" is translated the  "atoning sacrifice" in one translation (NIV). It is the word used to describe the Mercy Seat in the Ark of the Covenant in the ancient Temple. God said when He saw the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, He would pass over and not bring judgment. God's Mercy Seat for our sins was the cross of Christ. Hence, He is the reason God forgives. Our sins were judged in Jesus on the cross. He is our "Propitiation!"

 Jesus was, to use a popular term, purpose-driven. In this passage, we discover that He came to cleanse from sin, be our Advocate when we sin, and be our substitute taking our punishment for the sins we have committed. What a great Savior! Next Tuesday we’ll dive into 3 more reasons Jesus came. 

Is God Too Big for One Religion? A Response.

Years ago I learned two principles which I have never forgotten. First, ideas have consequences. I first understood this as I read Richard Weaver's book by the same title. In brief, his motive was an attempted prescription for the perceived decline of western civilization. A second principle, like the first, is that often times actions (and ideas) have unintended consequences. In fact, some label this the law of unintended consequences. At times, in pursuit of one objective, a result is attained that is both unexpected and counter-productive.

These two principles jumped into my mind when I read Joe Phelps' essay, "God too big for one religion," published by the Associated Baptist Press (Phelps is the pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, KY which is affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship).

The essay begins with Phelps' personal story of a grade-school friend, Mindy, who was Jewish. By his description she was a wonderful person. He then relates his personal dilemma because he had been taught that without Jesus, all people, including Mindy, were lost.

This dilemma was rectified, he relates, when "a quiet voice rose in my heart that responded: 'Mindy is my child and I love her as much as I do you. Let me worry about Mindy.'" He then goes on to affirm his own conviction that "exclusivity" is a bad thing. He explains, "when one approaches faith with a presupposition of exclusion it is easy to find passages to justify this position." He goes on to argue that "the heart of God is inclusive and gracious." His conclusion is that "we (practitioners of all faiths) are all on the same team. Our understandings of God may differ, but ultimately, there is one Sacred Center toward which all faiths move when practiced in humility and reverence." He closes by quoting Michael Franti's "God is too big for just one religion."

So, how do you respond to an argument like this?

His "idea" is based on his boyhood feeling, "a quiet voice...in his heart." The idea, simply put, is his belief that all who practice some kind of faith are acceptable to God. How does he know? He had a feeling. Here, his emotion has displaced Scripture as the norm of what is to be believed.

By what he says and does not say, Phelps is arguing that Christianity is one valid religion among many valid religions. Of more critical importance is his refusal to believe that Jesus is the exclusive way to Heaven. If what Phelps believes is what he says, Jesus is optional.

So what are the consequences of his ideas? If people are lost without a Savior, and that is the unequivocal message of the Bible, then he in his "I am OK, you are OK" argument, gives his readers and listeners assurance of a salvation without a Savior. And if a person actually believes that they are "good enough," or that "all religious roads lead to Heaven," then they need not turn to Christ which is in effect what he was communicating concerning his friend, Mindy.

The unintended consequence, in his attempt to make Mindy feel safe, is that he has unintentionally locked her into her lostness. I only wish he had embraced the prayer of Paul, "my heart's desire and prayer to God for them (including Mindy) is that they might be saved" (Rom. 10:1).

Flannery O'Conner, the great American writer, stated, "the truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." For Phelps, it certainly appears that truth for him is optional, if truth is indeed to be measured by Scripture.

Pastor Phelps has the right to believe whatever he wants. He does not have the right to parade it as orthodox Christianity. Neither does it give him the right to give people without Christ an assurance of Heaven. I wish a quiet voice would rise up in his heart and say," this is one you need to reconsider."

Q&A: On Atheism

I recently joined a discussion on Quora: "Is Atheism a crutch for those who can't bear the reality of God?"

The question is awkwardly posed due to the juxtaposition of the rational with the emotional. Atheism, by definition, has “begged the question,” as Aristotle framed it, because it assumes the posture that God (however He may be defined) is non-existent. This is a conclusion based on assumptions reinforced by experience which I would argue no matter how extensive it is still severely limited with respect to the possible scope of that which is indeed knowable. 

Atheists, and anyone else for that fact, ought to consider seriously the complexity of our universe both from a macro and micro perspective. Can any rational thinking human being honestly examining the complexity of life in any or all dimensions seriously conclude that everything we perceive just came into existence ex nihilo? The information, for example, contained in the genetic code of a single human cell in its DNA contains enough specific codified information to fill 8,000 volumes. To me it is an absurd notion to conclude that this phenomenon just happened accidently through some contrived scheme of natural selection. 

It is absolutely intellectually honest to conclude that the extent of design and balance in the universe has no other rational explanation than that some superior being designed it and I choose to call that being “GOD.”

As far as the consideration of the notion that Atheism might be perceived as a crutch for those unable to bear the possibility of the reality of God, I think a better question might be posed: “What evidence would a professing Atheist accept as proof that God just might exist somewhere in the realm of reality that they have yet to perceive or even consider as credible?” 

The notion of “not bearing the reality of God” is an emotional description while Atheism by definition is essentially a rational posture. I do think that it is possible for people to draw conclusions based upon emotions and not reason. Yet, even Anthony Flew, a famous former Atheist, came to a posture of Theism, simply because there is something instead of nothing. He concluded that Theism was a more rational posture not because as an Atheist he could not bear the reality of God, but because Theism, ultimately, was simply a more reasonable posture crutches not with withstanding. 

Any honest Atheist would be better served by taking the position of Agnosticism. Then, again, epistemological issues could be raised which might dictate that some truth claims are more credible than others and that is the subject for another day.