Your faith is meant to impact all areas of life. And yet most Christians are not even aware of this basic biblical truth. They seem to think that the command of Jesus to be salt and light is just some optional extra, or applies only to others. So I spend plenty of my time just getting believers to open their eyes to their responsibilities in the social, cultural and political arenas.

Of course I have carefully laid out that case elsewhere, so I urge you to look at these two articles for example if you want more on this:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/1997/10/10/the-case-for-christian-social-involvement/

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/08/why-christians-should-be-interestedinvolved-in-politics/

But I am still in the ongoing process of answering believer’s objections about this. Criticisms of what I do and what my ministry involves come in on a regular basis. Too many Christians still seem to think that engaging in some of the critical political or cultural battles of the day are just a waste of time, and should not be bothered with.

I could provide many examples of this. Let me just mention one: a little while back a comment came in to my website, chewing me out for what I do. Then a day or two later another comment from this person – a Christian leader of some sort I believe – arrived, asking me not to print his first comment.

So I never did post it, but I of course ran through a mental rebuttal to his points. Let me here just offer his opening lines. This is what he wrote: “Bill, can you point me to the place where you deal with why Christians should spend so much time debating and talking about issues of state? It seems to me that you spend so much time nit-picking that there’s no space left for relational, incarnational, close-proximity love of enemy and neighbour which is surely central to the Gospel??”

His first query is easily enough dealt with. The Bible is where we are told to have an interest in every area of life. God created the state, culture, politics and society. Since these are his creations, we should be greatly concerned about them. But the two articles I link to above make this case more fully.

And what about his criticism that I am merely involved in “nit-picking”. Well, if he thinks standing up for the sanctity of human life is just nit-picking, then we must be on rather different pages here. If he thinks the slaughter of 45-50 million babies a year is not important to God, and just a bunch of nit-picking, then he must have a very different idea of WWJD?

If he really thinks that standing up for God’s institutions of marriage and family, defending them against a ferocious and unprecedented attack, is just a waste of time and mere nit-picking, then again, I am having a hard time finding much biblical common ground with this guy.

And why do I have a feeling that if he were alive during the time of Wilberforce he would likely have sent him the same sorts of criticisms? “Wilby old boy, don’t you know that relationships are where it is at? Why are you wasting your time on all this political stuff? You should simply love your slave-owning enemy, and not work against his livelihood. What does all this negativity and belligerency about slavery have to do with the centrality of the Gospel?”

Notice also the false dilemma he is offering us here: we are either into love and doing gospel stuff, or we are involved in social and political stuff. But why does he assume that to do one must exclude the other? How in the world can he make such a phony disjunction?

The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself. That is a social command, and only can work in social relations. If your brother is in chains as a slave, what good does it do to tell him you love him and want to have a ‘relational proximity’ with him?

If you really love him you will want to see him set free from the horrible injustice and oppression of slavery. Otherwise all your talk of Christian love and relationship is mere baloney. As James so clearly states, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:14-17).

As Norman Geisler says, “What sometimes escapes Christians is the fact that the responsibility to love other persons extends to the whole person. That is, man is more than a soul destined for another world; he is also a body living in this world. And as a resident of this time-space continuum man has physical and social needs which cannot be isolated from spiritual needs. Hence, in order to love man as he is – the whole man – one must exercise a concern about his social needs as well as his spiritual needs.”

Just this past Sunday I was in a church speaking about these very matters. Fortunately the pastor allowed for a Q&A time at the end where these issues could be thrashed out more fully. One gal asked a very good question about priorities, and how much time we should spend on these various Christian duties. She asked what percentage of time should be spent on things like evangelism and missions, and what percentage of time should be spent on things like social and political action.

I answered by saying that the example of William Wilberforce is quite helpful here. He did not see this as an either/or, but a both/and. He was up to his ears in both: sharing the gospel, and social action – especially in his work as an abolitionist.

I reminded my questioner that when he first became a believer (some four years after he was already in the English Parliament) he had the usual questions: Should I become a pastor? A missionary? He got some terrific advice from former slave ship captain John Newton who was now a vibrant Christian (and author of the hymn Amazing Grace).

Newton told Wilberforce this (or words to this effect): “Don’t you dare leave Parliament. You can do so much good for Christ and the Kingdom right where you are. Be salt and light there.” And Wilberforce heeded this wise counsel. And it is a good thing too. Millions of blacks today are forever grateful that they are now free men, and not still fighting the slavery issue.

This was all because Wilberforce saw no discrepancy between being a full-time Christian worker, and being a full time politician and social reformer. The two are really one and the same. So in answer to her specific question about percentages, I answered this way: “I think we should devote 100 per cent of our time to evangelism and sharing our faith. And I believe we should also spend 100 per cent of our time involved in social, political and cultural reform.”

Both are vitally needed, and both are fully Christian duties. We do not need to be forced to choose between one or the other. We should be doing both full time for the glory of God. If not, we are disobeying our Lord and failing in our biblical responsibilities.

And my critic is not alone or unique in his criticisms. Such critics have always been around. Back in Wilberforce’s day, there were plenty of such critics. Let me close with the words of just one: “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life” (Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848, a Prime Minister of the UK, and adviser to the Queen).

Fortunately Wilberforce completely ignored his complaint, just as I will be ignoring the complaint of my critic.

[1410 words]

For example far too many folks – Christians included – allowed the evil of human slavery to occur. Few took a stand against it, and those who did were greatly vilified and attacked by those supporting the status quo – and that included way too many Christians.

Indeed, plenty of slave owners were Christians, and they railed against Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce. He was hated and despised not just by non-believers but by believers as well. He was even known as “the most hated man in all of England”.

But he was also known as “the conscience of a nation”. We need many more such champions. They are in the clear minority. The majority prefer to just sit back, comfortable and relaxed, unwilling to rock the boat. Whatever evil may be happening all around them, they will not speak up. They will not resist. They will not do that which is right.

History is full of such apathetic and callous hordes. At the very time when men and women should have stood up and raised their voices, they stayed silent. As a result they permitted horrific evil to occur. They in their silence are just as guilty as those who did the actual evil.

Consider Germany in the 30s and 40s. Most Germans said nothing and did nothing about the developing cloud of Nazism. Indeed, most supported it. And most Christians also kept silent. Those believers who stood against the evil of Hitler were in the clear minority.

A new article gives us a little glimpse into the lives of ordinary Germans during the rise and reign of Nazism. It tells of one young German woman who simply seemed to be oblivious to what was going on around her. As evidenced by her diary entries, she either did not know or did not care. And her story could be multiplied millions of times over. Here is the opening part of the report:

“Her neighbourhood was bombed by the allies, the Jews around the corner were being sent to Auschwitz and the Red Army had launched its final assault on Berlin. But Brigitte Eicke, a teenaged German, was unconcerned. She was far more interested in going to the cinema, dancing to gramophone records and trying to cope with a ‘disastrous’ perm.

“The 15-year-old Berlin schoolgirl, nicknamed ‘Gitti’, started keeping a diary in December 1942, when the German capital was being bombed nightly and the Nazi Holocaust was killing thousands. As a trainee secretary, she recorded her daily experiences to improve her stenography skills.

“Now, some 70 years on, her diary has been published for the first time in Germany and is being hailed as remarkable documentary evidence of how millions of Germans relied on collective indifference to endure the horrors of war and ignore the brutality of the Nazi rule.

“Entitled Backfisch im Bombenkrieg (teenaged girl in bombing war), Eicke’s diary is an often banal account of everyday life. She started writing it just months before Anne Frank began her diary, but the contents could hardly be more different. ‘Gitti is merely a cog in the wheels that kept Nazi Germany turning,’ is how Der Spiegel magazine described the author last week. ‘She is a young woman skilled in the art of blotting out ugliness, willing to believe what she’s told and, ultimately, one of the lucky ones,’ it added.

“Here is Gitti’s entry for 1 February 1944: ‘The school had been bombed when we arrived this morning. Waltraud, Melitta and I went back to Gisela’s and danced to gramophone records.’ In another raid on her Berlin neighbourhood in March 1943, two people are killed, 34 are injured and more than 1,000 are made homeless. Gitti writes: ‘It took place in the middle of the night, horrible, I was half asleep’.

“In November 1944, Hitler is trying to cripple the advances made after the D-Day landings by planning an offensive in the Ardennes, but Gitti – by now a member of the Nazi Party – is more concerned about her hairdo. She writes that she has just been given a ‘disastrous’ perm by her hairdresser and is worried about going to work ‘looking a fright’.

“Then on 2 March 1945, while Hitler’s troops are trying to halt the Red Army’s advance just 60 miles east of Berlin, Gitti, now 18, goes to the cinema. She writes: ‘Margot and I went to the Admiralspalast cinema to see Meine Herren Söhne. It was such a lovely film, but there was a power cut in the middle. How annoying!’”

OK, that was then, this is now. So how does that relate to today? The parallels are easily found. There is plenty of seismic evil occurring all around us in the West, yet we are sleepwalking through it all. Simply take the abortion holocaust as an example.

With 45-50 million unborn babies killed every year, this makes the Nazi killing machine look rather insipid. We are no different to the Germans of 75 years ago. We worry about our hair. We don’t like to be disturbed. We are annoyed by any interruptions to our life of pleasure and leisure.

“Margot and I went to the mall cinema to see a film. It was such a lovely film, but there was a pro-life demo just outside. How annoying!’” And it is not just the masses of unconcerned and morally numb unbelievers. Most Christians are no different. We have abortuaries close by to our megachurches, yet we are far too interested in being entertained, amused, and theologically coddled than to give a rip about the killing machines next door.

Most pastors will never mention this issue – after all, they have the crowds to please, the buildings to pay off, and the weekly offerings to be concerned about. Rocking the boat and causing offence is the last thing most pastors want to do.

So they will remain silent – deadly silent, about the most important human rights issue of our time. Sure, they may run with a PC sermon on asylum seekers or the “evils of capitalism” once in a while, but they will refuse to speak up for the unborn.

They are safe, secure, and totally in tune with what their listeners want to hear. They will not tell their congregations what they need to hear. Those in the pulpits and pews are well-fed, comfortable, entertained, complacent, lethargic – and dead.

They are those who have blood on their hands. They may know of the 100,000 killed each year in Australia, but they refuse to rouse themselves out of their slumber and damnable indifference. But it is the useless shepherds who are most to be condemned here.

Ezekiel laid it out so very clearly so long ago: “When a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before them, they will die. Since you did not warn them, they will die for their sin. The righteous things that person did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself” (Ez. 3:20-21).

We, the people of God, and our leaders, have blood on our hands. We know great darkness is surrounding us, great evil is enveloping us, yet we say nothing – and we do nothing. But we will not be held guiltless. We will all one day give an account for why we did not obey our Lord.

We will be asked why we ignored verses such as Proverbs 24:11 (Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter) and Proverbs 31:8 (Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What will we say on that day?

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/diary-of-second-world-war-german-teenager-reveals-young-lives-untroubled-by-nazi-holocaust-in-wartime-berlin-8660484.html

[1385 words]

But this is a recipe for disaster, and we had better get such matters sorted out before we cause even more damage. Let me tie this in to a common question. I am often asked what I would do if one of my children were caught out in some obvious sinful behaviour or lifestyle. The homosexual activists especially like to throw this one out: ‘What would you do if your child came out as a homosexual?’

They seem to think that this is a conversation stopper, and that they have nicely cornered me. Well no, it is not the end of the conversation, and no they have not cornered me. The answer is actually rather simple: I would of course continue to love my child, even though I would not approve of the course of action they have embarked upon.

Any parent will love their children through thick and sin. It does not matter if they go off into a life of crime or perverse heterosexual promiscuity. A parent will still love his or her own, but need not and should not condone any dangerous, risky or morally wrong behaviours and lifestyles.

So I of course would continue to love my child, all the while pointing out that the path they are now on is certainly not advised, and certainly not condoned. Indeed, because I love my children so much, I only want what is for their very best. Who would be happy with their children embracing a dangerous and unsafe lifestyle which can take years off their lives?

How is that being loving? If you really love someone you seek the very best for them. You certainly do not just accept whatever path they choose. Especially if you are a Christian, you always want what is best for them, and that means you want God’s best for them.

You do not want them living in open rebellion and defiance of God’s clear word and standard on human sexuality. You will want them to repent and renounce any such sinful lifestyles, and come back to conformity with God’s word and God’s will.

You see, we cannot confuse love with acceptance. Biblical love is willing the highest good for the other; it is not allowing them to wallow in sin and a dead-end lifestyle. I will always love my kids no matter what, but I do not have to accept everything they may choose to do or engage in.

There is nothing loving about allowing any person you love and care for to head off on a destructive and hurtful direction. We dare not accept anything and everything they get themselves into. Yet far too many Christian parents are doing just that.

They think they must accept, embrace and condone anything their children do. That is not at all being a loving parent. That is being an irresponsible and unbiblical parent. That is simply sending their kids to an early grave and a lost eternity.

And our Western governments are no better on this issue. They have in fact gone full circle here. They once prohibited such dangerous lifestyles, but then went to permission, and have now gone all the way to active and zealous promotion.

Yet on other high-risk behaviours it has reversed course. I refer to how governments deal with tobacco use. Once it was open slather, but now the state is cracking down big time. The state is doing everything it can to deter smokers and deter others from taking up smoking.

Thus we now pay outrageous prices for a pack of cigs – this is called a “sin tax”. Astronomically high taxes on tobacco products are there for one reason – besides being a revenue raiser: to discourage folks from smoking or taking it up. And it works.

Smoking rates are now well down from what they were 50 years ago. So why the bizarre double standards here? Why does the West actively endorse and promote one dangerous lifestyle, while actively deterring and discouraging the other?

In fact, we are witnessing a major role-reversal when it comes to this topic. While Russia once was the “evil empire” doing great evil at home and abroad, and America was once the light on a hill and a force for good, remarkably the tables are now turning.

America under Obama is getting more and more evil by the day, especially with his active and incessant promotion of the radical homosexual agenda. Meanwhile, Russia under Putin is taking the opposite approach. He has championed a number of courses which will not give the homosexual militants free reign.

Most recently Russia has passed a new law that prohibits the promotion of homosexuality and other risky sexual behaviours among minors. It is concerned enough about its children to actually withstand the militant homosexual agenda here.

And Obama is doing the exact opposite. Consider this news item: “At an event at the White House on Thursday commemorating Pride Month, two third-grade children introduced President Barack Obama. Zea and Luna, nine-year-old twins, read appeals from a letter that they apparently sent to the nation’s leader last December. Among the other subjects they discussed in it was gun violence, increased funding for schools and — same-sex marriage.”

Using and exploiting young children for crass political purposes is always wrong, and when these children are used to promote dangerous and unhealthy agendas, it is even more to be condemned. But this is par for the course for Obama.

But back to the original question: What do you do if your child comes out as a homosexual? You love them and always be there for them. But you do not condone or mollycoddle their dangerous and risky behaviour. Governments too should do the same – and most are when it comes to something like tobacco use. Yet they have caved in when it comes to an equally high-risk lifestyle: homosexuality.

We certainly live in confusing times. And the confusion over love and acceptance is a big part of this.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-howl-as-russia-protects-its-children-from-gay-propaganda

www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/14/we-have-two-moms-third-grade-kids-introduce-obama-at-white-houses-gay-pride-event/

[1044 words]

In addition it seems he actually tried to exorcise some persons of another faith tradition, but we await further word on that. However it does seem clear at this point that his reckless actions have resulted in the loss of numerous important religious works worth some fifty thousand pieces of silver.

An investigative team from the First Church of Tolerance is right now looking into this sordid event, and will soon issue a statement about it. In the meantime we are calling for the immediate suspension of this rabble-rouser. We demand that he be prohibited from doing any more teaching or speaking until further notice. This sort of activity is totally unjustified, and we expect that he will be properly disciplined for his offensive and uncalled for actions.

Comments

Sirs, thank you so much FCT for alerting me to this. I also have had many concerns and misgivings about this Paul character. He has always struck me as a trouble-maker, and quite over the top. He seems to delight in going out of his way to offend people. He has no consideration for the feelings of others, and he is doing great harm to the cause of Christ. His complete lack of restraint and tact makes him quite unsuited to being a representative of our newfound religion. I too call for his immediate sacking.

In Christian grace, Alice from Berea

Sirs. This was one of the most unloving and intolerant things I have read about in quite some time. This was nothing less than a case of hate speech. How dare this man come into a peaceful community and cause such an uproar? Indeed, it seems he and his band of deluded followers are trying to turn the world upside down. This is shameful. As a long-time follower of Jesus, I know he would never approve of such shameful conduct. I thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I hope for the sake of the gospel that this man is never allowed to preach again. He is a disgrace.

Anon

Sirs, as the head of the Ephesus Interfaith Council, I can assure you that we are completely staggered at this intolerant act. We regard this activity as being utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. Even though I am of course a Christian as well, the actions of Paul have damaged greatly our attempts at interfaith dialogue with those of other faith traditions.

His hurtful actions have set back our cause by decades. I certainly hope this trouble-maker is stripped of any authority he might have, and kept away from all Christian and religious activity. We had been making such progress with those in Ephesus, and I can vouch for the fact that these folks, regardless of their belief systems, are very fine people indeed. There is a wideness to God’s love and mercy, and he embraces everyone. We all may have different approaches to spirituality, but we have no right to condemn anyone else, or tell them that their beliefs and practices are wrong. That sort of bigotry is no longer acceptable in our day and age.

Ralph, director of the EIC

Sirs, as a new believer, I really don’t like this Paul fellow. The God I serve is all about love and acceptance. Jesus was into tolerance and inclusion. He ate with sinners. He did not burn their books. I am sad that in these enlightened days a fraud like Paul can get away with his judgmental and unloving activities.

Rosemary

Sirs. I am not a Christian, and would never become one, based on the crazy beliefs and actions of Paul. He is so intolerant and judgmental. If there is a God, he accepts us all and loves us all equally.

Sam from Corinth

Sirs, thank you for alerting us to this. I will make sure to give this fanatic a wide berth if he should ever come my way. We have long ago moved away from such narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance. We know that the only way we can get along as a society is to put aside all these petty bigotries and out-dated fundamentalisms, and learn how to just love one another. Thank you again for taking a stand on this matter.

Anon from Galatia

Sirs, this is nothing but hate speech, and the sooner we get some new laws in on this the better. We clearly need some religious vilification legislation put in place to prevent this despicable sort of behaviour from occurring again. We must champion toleration, and not allow these hot-heads to destroy our community.

Jack from Antioch

Sirs, let me also add my voice to this. I am a follower of Jesus and I am ashamed of this man Paul. He has nothing to do with Jesus, and is a lousy representative of him. The Jesus I know accepts everyone and is about love and peace. This Paul is just a narrow-minded oaf who should be put out of his misery.

Gloria

Sirs, when I first heard about this I was shocked, and hoped it was not true. But sadly it looks like it is. When will these bigots be locked up so that we can live in peace? It amazes me how arrogant and self-righteous this Paul is. He actually thinks that unless everyone believes like he does that we are all doomed and condemned. Well I got news for this loser: this is the first century, and we have moved beyond such hate and intolerance.

Justin from Rome

Sirs, thanks for the update. This is not surprising in the least. Our churches have long ago banned this fanatic. He is not someone who deserves entry into our church services. All he does is alienate people and cause offence. His message is one of hate and division. That is not the gospel I know of, and that is not the Jesus I follow. I hope all churches follow our example and keep this nutter out. He is doing nothing but great damage to our cause.

Mike from Thessalonica

Postscript

Acts 19:11-20

And apologies to this article: sacredsandwich.com/archives/2781

[1060 words]

No one would even know most people who call themselves Christians are in fact followers of Jesus. Not only do they live lives which are identical to any worldling, but you never hear a peep out of them – they never talk about Jesus in public – and hardly ever in private as well.

It is time for these closet Christians to out themselves. They need to get out of that closet and start acting and talking as if they really were disciples of Jesus. Those who refuse to speak up on behalf of their Lord and who operate in the fear of man can be rightly questioned as to whether they really are Christians.

Those who refuse to say anything about their faith for fear of offending someone are likely not Christians at all. Jesus made all this perfectly clear. He pointedly told us that if we will not stand for him, he will not stand for us. It is that simple. Consider just a few passages on this:

-Matthew 10:32-33 Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
-Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.
-Luke 9:26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
-Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.

These are some pretty sober warnings coming from the lips of Jesus. If you think you can be an “undercover” follower of Jesus and never open your mouth and testify about him, then you are only kidding yourself. We either stand boldly for Christ, or we deny him.

And while we’re at it, it is time to start coming out on the crucial issues of the day as well. Remaining silent about the things God cares greatly about is a betrayal of our faith. Indeed, as the new Pope Francis said recently, to refuse to get involved in the political arena as a Christian means you are really just a Pontius Pilate:

“The one adult – a Spanish and religion teacher – who asked the pope a question, wondered what kind of role, if any, Catholics should play in politics. The pope said Catholics have ‘an obligation to get involved in politics. We can’t play the role of Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of it. Politics is one of the highest forms of charity because it seeks the common good.’

“He said those who complain that politics is ‘too dirty’ should ask themselves why. Perhaps it’s ‘because Christians haven’t gotten involved with an evangelical spirit.’ It’s easy to blame others, he said, but people need to ask themselves: ‘Me? What am I doing’ about it?”

Yes, what am I doing to be salt and light? It is easy to just complain about things, but how many believers are actually doing anything about all the evil and injustice in the world? And getting involved in politics is part of this. We must let our faith impact the social and political arenas.

We must no more remain silent about things like the destruction of marriage and family, or the slaughter of the unborn. We must come out of the closet and start speaking up for that which is important. Failure to do so is also a sign that we are not really His.

One woman has recently written about this very thing. When it comes to standing up for the unborn, she has decided to come out of the closet – and stay out. Here is part of her story: “The day I ‘outed’ myself to my ultra-liberal family I was terrified.

“These are the people that basically tried to bully me into aborting my son (aka, their grandson) back in 2011. Lord knows I love them, but I was seriously considering taking this to the grave. You’ve got to understand that I’ve always been the person in my family to keep my opinions to myself. Thank goodness I didn’t do that when I found out I was pregnant at 17 years old….

“Now, at 19, I am taking these things more seriously and trying to live like a Christian in every aspect of my life. I’ve noticed the gifts God has given me that I’ve stuffed down for so long. I have a voice. I’ve always used this voice in music, and my parents were always blown away by my sometimes very dark, deep lyrics. At some point your ears are burning too much that you just POP! Well now I use my voice. They like to think this is an ‘early 20’s phase’ and that I only believe abortion is wrong because I’m a Christian. Oh, also something about me living in Texas.

“Sorry to break the news, folks. I’m pro-life because of many, many reasons. Yes, I do believe the Bible is clear about this issue. But for me, I just have a hard time ignoring the scientific facts. I have a hard time believing that the testimonies of people who have worked in the abortion industry are ‘fake.’ I know those pictures of aborted children aren’t photo-shopped. I know countless women who regret their abortions. My mother-in-law hung out with Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. Norma, who helped make abortion legal, is now pro-life!

“I mean, come on guys. I have yet to meet someone who has made the switch from pro-life to pro-choice and has medical evidence to back up their claim. I know you think that it’s rude to be in people’s business because everyone had their private reasons for aborting their child. I get it. But with that same logic, if I see a little girl being punched by a guy on the street I shouldn’t call 911 or somehow intervene. I mean, he MUST have his own private reason for abusing her right?”

Yes she is quite right. We are all appalled when we hear of a news item telling us about some poor women who was being attacked in broad daylight yet people just passed by saying nothing and doing nothing. We rightly say, “How can they be so callous and apathetic?”

Yet are we not like this every single day? We know babies are being butchered in nearby abortion mills yet we say nothing and do nothing. Our silence condemns us, and one day we will have to give an account to our Lord for our deadly silence and inaction.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer knows all about the importance of speaking out – even when it is very costly to do so. He paid for his courage with his life. As he once said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Silence of the Lambs
Wandering the hillsides of complacency
Grazing in apathetic fields
Drinking from still waters of indifference
So far from the shepherd’s will
He cries as He hears
The silence of the lambs
Heaven’s eyes look on in tears
At the lack of concern for man
The created fail to fulfill
The Creator’s perfect plan
And He cries as He hears
The silence of the lambs
(Harry and Joyce McCollough, 1994)

www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1302499.htm

liveactionnews.org/my-coming-out-story/?fb_action_ids=10200914816247847&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200914816247847%22%3A200991650056786%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200914816247847%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

[1332 words]

Well, just for the record, I am not aware of ever having said this to anyone in public – and I don’t think I ever said it to anyone in private either. But my hypothetical is actually not all that hypothetical, and it does serve a valid theological and biblical point.

The fact that most believers today would recoil in horror if any Christian leader dared to say such things tells us that they are the ones who in fact need to think again. The truth is, past Christian leaders have said it. Indeed, no less a Christian leader than the Apostle Paul basically said it, and he did so under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

He was inspired by God to do so in other words. “Where did he ever say that?” you ask. Hey, open your New Testament. He in fact said it more than once. Consider his less than flattering words in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-10):

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

Now them’s fightin’ words! No beating around the bush there. He has come out with all guns blazing. Indeed, so incensed is he with how the Galatians have lost the plot concerning the gospel that he foregoes his usual MO when it comes to writing epistles: he refuses to offer them a nice intro to his epistle.

As Philip Graham Ryken comments, “He was amazed and astounded. He was shocked and outraged. Thus the body of his letter seethes with righteous indignation. The apostle did not even pause to say a few kind words to the Galatians. This is in sharp contrast to the other letters. . . . After the doxology in verse 5, we might have expected a blessing. What Paul gives instead is a curse.”

And a curse it was. The “anathema” that Paul twice pronounced here is straight out of the Old Testament, and has to do with the curse of God. Says Ryken: “This is the Old Testament idea of ‘a person or thing set apart and devoted to destruction, because hateful to God.’ To be anathema is to be under the divine curse, like the Canaanite cities that God utterly destroyed. Paul is saying that he would be damned if he ever preached another gospel. Anyone who teaches another gospel is subject to the wrath and curse of God.”

Or as James Montgomery Boice states, “The word translated ‘eternally condemned’ (anathema) is related to the Hebrew word, herem and is used of that which is devoted to God, usually for destruction. In spiritual terms it means damnation. We must not think however, in speaking in this way Paul is merely giving vent to an intemperate outburst or even merely to partially justified anger. For one thing, he is impartial in expressing his judgment. He has not named names. He has even included himself in the ban, should he do otherwise in his preaching than he has done thus far. Moreover he is universal in his judgment. His words include ‘anybody’ who should so teach (vs. 9). How can it be otherwise?”

This false gospel is “another gospel” – indeed it is no gospel at all. To reject the real gospel is to in fact reject God. It is that serious. As John Stott says, “It is impossible to forsake it (the gospel) without forsaking him (God).” And those who reject the true gospel must themselves be rejected. It is that important.

Stott again: “Anybody who rejects the apostolic gospel no matter who he may be, is himself to be rejected. He may appear as ‘an angel from heaven.’ In this case we are to prefer apostles to angels. We are not to be dazzled, as many people are, by the person, gifts or office of teachers in the church. They may come to us with great dignity, authority and scholarship. They may be bishops or archbishops, university professors or even the pope himself. But if they bring a gospel other than the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament, they are to be rejected. We judge them by the gospel; we do not judge the gospel by them.”

And notice how he contrasts the preaching of the real gospel with the fear of man, and men-pleasing. Paul insists that we must choose: it is either one or the other. If you are going to choose to please men and give no offence, then you cannot be a true minister of the gospel.

And the very way in which he tears into the Galatians shows how little he cares about the praises of men. His lack of a warm and soothing introduction and his harsh words on damnation show that he is not a men-pleaser. As Luther said, “This is not preaching that gains favour from men and from the world.”

The need of the hour is to have ministers of the gospel who will stand for truth always, and not give a rip about what men think. We must stop the preaching of other gospels in the church. And there are plenty of these false gospels. Simply think about the syrupy-sweet, therapeutic, me-centred gospel which is endemic in the church today.

What would Paul say about those who proclaim a gospel to make you feel good about yourself, flatter yourself, get financial gain, and think more of yourself? He would hurl curses at them just as much as he did at the Judaisers and others back then. Yet we have far too many spineless church leaders who would never dare to say anything so strong and so convicting.

Now don’t get me wrong here – I am certainly not suggesting that we necessarily go around telling people to go to hell. That misses my point. My point is simply this: Paul used the strongest imaginable language – and actions – to rebuke those who had perverted the gospel. He took the truth of the gospel so seriously that he was quite happy to see such false teachers sent off to eternal destruction.

That is how much he cared about the gospel, because that is how much he cared about God. Yet we have far too many churches which care neither for the gospel nor for God, but care about what the crowds think, care about attendance records, and care about the weekly offering.

To all such churches and preachers Paul would say, ‘Go to hell’ – or words to that effect.

[1258 words]

We have basically adopted the values of the world, the mindset of the world, the beliefs of the world, and the worldview of the world. Instead of offering a counter-cultural critique of the world and its ways based on the Word of God, we have for the most part capitulated to the world.

We are not able to offer any prophetic words to challenge the current secular culture because we have for the most part absorbed and embraced that culture. Instead of being salt and light, we have become a poor reflection of everything found in the world.

Jesus of course was the most counter-cultural man to walk the earth. So too were the prophets, and the disciples. But where are such counter-cultural voices today? Where are the prophets who boldly stand against the tide and proclaim biblical truth?

Our inability to offer such a voice is because of our lack of biblical discernment. And this in turn is a result of the paucity of a Christian mind and a Christian worldview. Indeed, it is even worse than that: we seldom demonstrate biblical discernment today because we are so very biblically illiterate.

We do not really know the Word of God, or have a basic grasp of Christian doctrine and fundamental theology. Our biblical illiteracy means we have a hard time thinking biblically, and offering true biblical discernment. Thus we just go along with what the world offers, assuming that going to church once a week somehow makes us great Christians.

Thus biblical discernment has taken a nosedive. The examples of this are legion. I encounter it all the time, and it grieves me mightily. So many people who have been believers all their life, been to church all their life, and may even have parents who were pastors or church leaders, seem to be devoid of a basic understanding of what Christianity is all about.

The obvious examples include things like capitulating to the radical homosexual agenda, and caving in on God’s design for human sexuality, marriage and family. But plenty of lesser indicators can be cited here. As one example, I will often be told by other believers that they support noted individuals or organisations which are involved in helping others, especially overseas.

Yet when I point out to them that the same individuals and organisations are in fact a very mixed bag, promoting things like abortion and other anti-life policies, they will not only admit to not knowing this, but go on to say they will still support such people and groups!

I even had one couple once tell me they prayed about this, and felt God wanted them to continue financially supporting one such organisation! I was tempted to reply, “OK, so let me get this straight: you prayed, and God said to you: ‘Yep, that is just fine; keep on supporting the murder of new life which I have created. I am quite alright with all that’.”

We have here a clear case of subjective feelings trumping the plain teachings of Scripture. They “feel good” about continuing with this support, even though they now know they are contributing to the death of many unborn babies. So what will they say to God when they stand before him one day? “Well, we felt good about it”?

Biblical discernment in such cases is altogether missing. And it does not get much better by those who claim to be good students of Scripture. The other day I encountered two examples of those who do not seem to have a clue about what Christianity is all about, even though they proclaim their great biblical knowledge.

The first one insisted that C.S. Lewis was an “unsaved Modernist” because he actually smoked a pipe, and did other related evil things! There you have it folks: one of the world’s greatest Christian apologists is seen as an infidel because this person managed to find pipe-smoking in a Bible that nowhere ever mentions such matters.

The truth is, millions of people have been saved and discipled by the likes of Lewis, yet this guy wants to start a war over pipes! Go figure! What did Jesus say about ‘straining at gnats and swallowing camels’? It is so tragic really.

Adding man-made rules and regulations to the Word of God is not a sign of biblical purity, but a sure and certain sign of a demonic cult. Such extra-Biblical legalism is a clear indication of a cult which thinks it knows better than God and his Word.

The other case involved a person insisting with absolute certainty that the great commission of Matthew 28 is not for believers today, and that that sort of work is only the business of “called ministers of the Gospel”! Yes he actually said that. Oh foolish me. And there I thought I had an obligation to share my faith and help grow new believers.

I obviously must be out of the will of God here. I actually thought I had a Biblical obligation to evangelise, share my faith, build others up, be involved in discipleship, and work with God to help build and extend the Kingdom. But now I learn only a few professionals are allowed to do this! Obviously Luther was quite wrong about the priesthood of all believers as well!

So not only do we have plenty of believers who know very little about the Bible and their own Christian faith, but we have those who think they know their stuff, but are in fact steeped in extra-biblical and anti-biblical ideas and beliefs. No wonder the church is in such a bad way.

With all this biblical illiteracy we are thus unable to offer any clear biblical discernment. So we just soak up what the world has to offer. This my friends is not a good place to be in. The Bible everywhere speaks of the need to have godly discernment.

God blessed Solomon wonderfully because that is the very thing he asked for: Godly wisdom and biblical discernment. Jesus rebuked the crowds saying, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:54-57)

They could discern the weather but not current events. Paul said we must “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22), while John wrote that we are to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits” (John 4:1,2). The Bible is full of such admonitions to discern, assess, judge, test, evaluate and think carefully.

We are not to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14), and we are not to be conformed to the world and its standards (Romans 12:2). Instead we are to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Having the mind of Christ comes from knowing His Word. We must get back to basics here. For too long we have allowed biblical ignorance to rule. This must stop. As Wayne Grudem once said,

“I am convinced that there is an urgent need in the church today for much greater understanding of Christian doctrine, or systematic theology. Not only pastors and teachers need to understand theology in greater depth — the WHOLE CHURCH does as well. One day by God’s grace we may have churches full of Christians who can discuss, apply and LIVE the doctrinal teachings of the Bible as readily as they can discuss the details of their own jobs or hobbies – or the fortunes of their favorite sports team or television program.”

Or as J. Gresham Machen said in Christianity and Liberalism “But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine. There should certainly be no debate with regard to Paul himself. Paul was not indifferent to doctrine. On the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life.”

Only a rediscovery of God’s Word and a new love of his truth can get us out of the spiritual morass we find ourselves in today. At a time when spiritual discernment is needed more than ever, we seem to have less of it than ever.

[1510 words]

But none of us can afford to go without the truth. Sometimes the most painful truth is the thing we most need. Consider medical truth. If you are afflicted with a deadly cancer, the number one thing you need to hear – regardless of how unpleasant it may be – is the truth about your condition.

No doctor worth his salt would ever withhold valuable information about a possibly fatal condition or illness for fear of upsetting a patient or making him feel bad. He will instead speak the truth about the cancer or whatever, and then offer steps to correct or heal things.

There would be nothing loving about denying medical truth to a patient if that truth can result in a life being saved or real healing taking place. The truth about cancer may never be pleasant, but it is always vital, and must be shared. Not to do so can have disastrous results.

Spiritually speaking this is also the case. We must always speak biblical truth, even when it seems unpalatable and unpleasant to do so. And many spiritual truths are not so nice or so pleasant. The truths about daily dying to self, crucifying our flesh, and carrying our cross are not exactly light and bubbly – but they are fundamental Christian truths nonetheless.

Telling a non-believer he is a sinner headed for future judgment unless he repents and turns from sin and self to Christ will not be seen as very pleasant either – but it is a core biblical truth which all believers are obligated to share. And fellow believers also need to be told the truth, even if it offends or stings.

Paul never shrunk away from telling the truth, even if it was costly to him. He may have lost friendships and alienated others, but truth was always something he never withheld or weakened or watered down. In fact, he got a lot of flak when he shared biblical truth.

In Galatians 4:16 for example Paul says this: “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” That always seems to be the case when we stand firm on the Word of God and biblical truth. It will alienate some. It will offend some. It will create enemies with some.

Jesus knew all about this. Wherever he went he stirred things up, caused controversy, made enemies, and got harsh reactions. Indeed, we are often told that the crowds were divided because of his words. It is the nature of truth to do that: either we come to the truth and embrace it, or we reject the truth and flee from it.

Yet today it seems most Christians would rather run a thousand miles away from the truth, than risk getting some opposition and flak for proclaiming it. We have a church full of invertebrates who think that not rocking the boat and not offending anyone is their highest calling.

They are terrified of getting anyone upset, so they will rather keep silent about the things that matter than boldly proclaim truth, regardless of the negative consequences. Jesus had a few things to say about those who refused to speak out.

It is not just the gospel of Jesus Christ that many believers are afraid to publicly express, but so too any words on the vital issues of the day. Our silence on things like the sanctity of life and God’s ideal of marriage and family has been deafening.

Indeed, I am fully convinced that if something like Facebook had been around 70 years ago, there would be plenty of Christians defriending you if you dared to speak out on what the Nazis were doing, or showed pictures of the Holocaust and the death camps – just as today they will defriend you for talking about abortion, and revealing its ugly face.

I know that many Christians do this all the time – they simply don’t like the controversy and big debates. They prefer to live a quiet and peaceful life, and will never deal with these massively important topics. Many will not even share the gospel for fear of offending people or ruffling feathers.

One day we will all stand before our Lord and give an account of our time here on earth. Jesus already warned us about this: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9).

Of course having said all this, I do not for a moment mean to suggest that there is no need for tact, diplomacy, grace and sensitivity when presenting the truth. It goes without saying that we are to “speak the truth in love” as Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:15.

Sure, we must pray for wisdom and guidance as to if and when we speak out. Being careful and wise in how we share truth is of course important. But my point here is a different one: far too many people who call themselves followers of Christ seldom, if ever, speak forth truth.

And with people heading to a lost eternity, babies being slaughtered in the millions, and God’s provision for human sexuality taking a hammering – to name but a few important issues – such silence is morally reprehensible. We will be judged for our silence just as much as for anything we may have said or done.

The church of Jesus Christ needs some Holy Ghost boldness today, and must repent of the sin of men-pleasing and cowardice. Paul prayed for boldness to proclaim the truths of God – we must do so as well.

[1000 words]

One group at least seems to argue against any such consolation. I refer to the word of faith teachers, or the positive confessionists. They basically claim that all “negative” experiences, such as sickness, suffering or poverty, are of the devil, and have no place in the believer’s life.

Consider the comments of just one representative figure here, Charles Capps. In his book, Why Tragedy Happens to Christians, he says: “We have heard many sermons about how God led the children of Israel in the wilderness: and most of these sermons seem to convey that the ‘wilderness experience’ was to perfect them or make them stronger. But it did not make them stronger. It did not perfect their faith. It was not the will of God that they be in the wilderness all those years. Their ‘wilderness experience’ was not God’s blessing – it was a curse!”

There are a number of biblical passages on this episode, and they seem to give a rather different slant to the story. The relevant texts speak of God leading Israel through the desert (Ex. 13:17,18; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 136:16); of blessing them (Deut. 2:7; Ps. 78: 24-25); of caring for them (Hos. 13:5); of giving his spirit to instruct them (Neh. 9:20), and so on.

Indeed, as Dale Allison notes, “despite the tradition of disobedience and murmuring in the desert and the fact that there is no nomadic or desert ideal in the OT, the time in the wilderness was sometimes described in glowing terms (e.g., Is 63:11-14).”

All this does not sound like a curse to me. Sure, it is true that Israel did snub God’s good provision and blessing, and tested God, for which Yahweh grew angry (Deut. 9:7; Ps. 78:40-41; Heb. 3:8-10). But the point remains: God did indeed lead them into the wilderness.

Take for example Deuteronomy 8:2 which reads, “Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.”

Here the concepts of God’s leading and the educational function of the wanderings are stressed. Eugene Merrill suggests that in the light of the verbs ‘humble’ and ‘test’, “it may be best to see the desert itinerary as a learning experience rather than a punishing one. . . . Thus this is discipline in the positive sense of education.”

Thus it is not all gloom and doom. Indeed, Raymond Brown puts a very positive spin on this period. God had “been good to them in the barren desert. They had learned lessons there which prosperity could never have taught them. Through those bleak wilderness years, he had been like a compassionate father who occasionally has to discipline his children for their own good. Some lessons can only be learnt in trouble.”

Now the thinking of Capps and others is not without some foundation in this regard. Passages like Numbers 14:32-34 speak of God’s judgment on Israel, stating that they would suffer and die for their sins in the wilderness. But this came after their disbelief of the spies’ report on Canaan (Numbers 13).

This period of 40 years judgment (38 years according to Deut. 2:14) began after over a year of wilderness wanderings. As Chris Wright perceptively remarks, “There is always more than one way of looking at history. . . . Like other events in biblical history (e.g., the story of Joseph, the rise of the monarchy, and ultimately, of course, the cross itself), the wilderness wandering is presented to us both as arising out of human sin and rebellion and as having a divine purpose.”

An important New Testament commentary on the Old Testament wilderness wanderings is the story of Jesus’ own wandering into the wilderness to experience temptations. Most careful scholars acknowledge that among other things, Jesus is here acting as the true Israel.

What Israel was called to do and failed, Jesus did successfully. As Schneider and Brown comment, “The temptations of Jesus recapitulate, in his individual life as the Son of God, the temptations of the nation of Israel in their corporate life as the son of God.”

David Hill remarks: “In his confrontation with Satan, Jesus triumphs over the temptations to which Israel succumbed in the desert, and takes upon himself the destiny of Israel to carry it to its fulfilment.” Or as N.T. Wright put it, “the story of God’s people is being encapsulated, recapitulated, in his own work”.

The interesting point is that we are clearly told that Jesus was “led by the Spirit” into the wilderness, being “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1). No Satanic source here. God was fully behind it. Now if Jesus was indeed meant to be a kind of showcase of what the new or true Israel was meant to be, can we take the principles and extend them backwards?

That is, can we argue that Israel too was led by God into the wilderness, contrary to the claims of the faith teachers? It seems that the biblical texts already cited, plus the example of Christ, could result in an affirmative response. Thus the biblical imagery of the wilderness contains both positive and negative elements. It is not to be seen purely in terms of judgment or curses.

It is, as Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman write, “an ambivalent image in the Bible. If it is a place of deprivation, danger, attack and punishment, it is also a place where God delivers his people, provides for them and reveals himself.” Thus there is a case to be made for God taking his people into ‘wilderness’ situations.

If we keep in mind that God is more concerned with our holiness than our happiness, then such periods of testings and hardship can in fact be welcomed and not shunned. As P. C. Craigie remarks, “The wilderness makes or breaks a man; it provides strength of will and character. The strength provided by the wilderness, however, was not the strength of self-sufficiency, but the strength that comes from a knowledge of the living God.”

So when you next find yourself in a ‘wilderness situation,’ allow God to do his work in your life. While all the why’s of the situation may not be apparent, the who’s are – God will be with you in the desert, just as he was with his son Jesus.

[1137 words]

I have dealt with this teaching elsewhere, eg: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/29/problems-with-the-positive-confession-movement/

Here I want to focus more closely on the nature of God and the nature of prayer. It seems that the positive confession movement has a defective understanding of both. Indeed, it seems that for many evangelicals (not just the word of faith folks), prayer has become much more of a magic charm, a magic wand, or a type of amulet, instead of what it is intended to be – a means of communication and relationship with God.

Dennis Okholm warns about confusing prayer with magic: “Magic attempts to control or manipulate the divine will in order to induce it to grant one’s wishes, especially through the use of techniques such as charms, spells, rituals, or ceremonies. Christian prayer involves a struggle of wills in which the pray-er attempts to persuade God, all the time seeing prayer as a divinely given means whereby the pray-er can participate in God’s agenda.”

To argue that prayer should be understood in this sense is not to deny the element of petition and request. That is certainly there. But it seems to be a minor sub-point, not the main theme. W. Bingham Hunter in his 1986 book The God Who Hears develops this idea nicely:

“Most of us tend to view getting answers as the goal and prayer as the means to that end. But God views it differently. Given the perfection of his person, it is certain that God does not need us to talk to him because he’s lonely or insecure, nor does he depend on our advice or help in running the universe. Yet the commands in Scripture to pray suggest that he wants us to pray; he actually enjoys having us speak to him. Developing a relationship with us is God’s goal, and answers to prayer are a means he uses to foster self-disclosure, growth and understanding of both him and ourselves.”

Indeed, this idea of relationship is vital. It gets at the heart of the matter concerning the purpose of prayer. If prayer can simply be defined as talking to God, then prayer is, at its core, the means to relationship with God. We tend to see prayer in an instrumental sense – as a means to an end. But God desires prayer for the purpose of fellowship with himself – a love relationship. Augustine could go so far as saying that “true, whole prayer is nothing but love”. Many believers – and not just positive confessionists – miss this vital truth.

Jesus did not pray a lot to “get” things from his father. He prayed because of the love relationship found within the divine trinity. Michael Green and Paul Stevens put it this way: “Prayer for Jesus was not primarily a ‘discipline’ but the daily meat and drink of fellowship with the Father. Prayer is like fellowship. As in friendship, prayer is not for anything at all, even for ‘answers’. It is for the relationship. It is for communion. . . . Jesus reveals that what God wants from our prayers is not the substance but the relationship implied in our praying”.

A major problem with the idea of positive confession is that it treats God as some cosmic servant, waiting to do our every bidding. And prayer is simply the means by which we get the divine dispenser to dish out the goods. Such a view not only cheapens the concept of prayer, but turns our understanding of God into idolatry. As H. D. McDonald puts it, “that prayer is a sort of Aladdin’s lamp, which anyone can operate at will once he has learned the secret”.

Moreover, this view too highly stresses the role of the one who prays while minimising the role of the one who answers prayer. That is, all the emphasis is on having faith, being persistent in prayer, standing on the promises, and so on. It is as if whatever good comes to the believer is the result of his or her own efforts, instead of the goodness and grace of God. Again, prayer must be distinguished from magic.

In this regard David Crump has some incisive things to say about the nature of prayer. In his volume on Jesus and prayer in Luke-Acts, he notes that to speak to the efficacy of prayer is to misunderstand it. Prayer, he insists, is “a means by which individuals discover God’s will revealed to them so that they may become attuned to it and participate in its continuous unfolding”. Thus the issue does not lie in how much we pray or how fervently we pray or how often we pray:

“God enlists human prayer in the outworking of his plan, but the efficacy of prayer is not determined by anything which the pray-er brings, except agreement with the will of God. It would be difficult to find a more non-magical view of prayer than that presented in Luke-Acts. The distinctive feature of magical thought, wherein one seeks to control or compel divine forces to operate in a desired fashion through the careful use of specific techniques, is far removed from the attitudes expressed by Luke.”

The positive confession mindset also seems to render senseless the concept of unanswered prayer, and/or the silence of God. A theology that demands God’s instant response to our every hue and cry will certainly struggle with the idea that God might be silent, absent or distant. Yet this theme is found throughout Scripture, and has been the experience of many devout believers throughout the ages.

The moving words of C.S. Lewis, written soon after the death of his wife, are a classic example: “When you are happy … you will be – or so it feels – welcomed [by God] with opened arms. But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside. After that, silence. You may as well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become.”

And consider just a few of the passages which address this theme:

-Psalm 10:1: Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
-Psalm 13:1-2: How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart? How long will my enemy triumph over me?
-Psalm 22:1-2: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
-Psalm 28:1: To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
-Psalm 83:1: O God, do not keep silent; be not quiet, O God, be not still.
-Isaiah 45:15: Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.
-Habakkuk 1:2: How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save?

These and other passages make it clear that often God is silent, or at least appears to be. For reasons we may not understand, it is part of the walk of faith to experience this silence, this absence, this sense of God’s abandonment. As Winkey Pratney once put it: “Everyone who has set his heart on serving God will have this darkness come at some point”.

The question is not, ‘should I be experiencing this sense of forsakenness and darkness?’, but, ‘how will I respond to this temporary but painful chapter in my life?’ Or as Hunter remarks, “Truly victorious Christians are those who admit their humanness and who admit the emotional insult of God’s apparent silence when we suffer” (1986, 90).

Finally, we must acknowledge that a loving God will of necessity often say no to our prayers. It is a distorted picture of God, and a faulty understanding of Scripture, to assume that God should grant us our every request. No loving parent would do such foolishness. Neither does God.

Indeed, of necessity some of our prayers must go unanswered. As Lewis remarks, “anyone can see in general that this must be so. In our ignorance we ask what is not good for us or for others, or not even intrinsically possible. Or again, to grant one man’s prayer involves refusing another’s. There is much here which it is hard for our will to accept but nothing that is hard for our intellect to understand. The real problem is different; not why refusal is so frequent, but why the opposite result is so lavishly promised.”

The biblical accounts of the prayers of God’s people receiving a divine no are numerous and well known. One thinks of Job, David, Jesus and Paul, to name but a few. Thus we are in good company when a request is denied or a prayer not answered as we would like.

Leith Anderson devoted an entire volume to the dilemma of unanswered prayer. He provides many examples of the unanswered prayers of saints past and present and writes, “God doesn’t act the way we choose. He doesn’t always give the answer we want. No is a common word in the divine vocabulary with regard to prayer – even when answering the greatest of the saints”.

Thus we must have a fuller and a more biblical understanding of prayer than what we so often get from the positive confession camp. If not, we will see many more people shipwreck their faith.

[1690 words]