Keeping first things first. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

The Apostle Paul probably ascertained some misplaced priorities within the church at the church in Corinth, for he had this to say to them in a letter written to them to point out that very thing – divisions and misplaced priorities.

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep (died).” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6) (Emphasis mine)

The above verses are nearly always used to answer the question “What is the core of the gospel message?” I know I refer to them constantly when discussing the definition of the “gospel”.  Paul was a, in his own words, a ‘Jew among Jews’, with what some term the equivalent of several Masters degrees and Doctorate or two in his curriculum vitae. He nearly always preached in Jewish synagogues first before taking his message to his primary audience, the non-Jewish Gentile community. Wherever he went, his message revolved around the crucifixion of Christ and the work of God in reconciling men and women to Himself through that death and resurrection. More of Paul’s words to the same crowd. . .

“. . ., but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” (1 Corinthians 1:23)

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Many times I’ve heard this sort of reaction to what Paul says is ‘of first importance’:

“So what? That was then and this is now. Just talking about God’s love and how much he wants us to find our special purpose and have our best life now is what attracts people to church. We don’t need all that sin and repentance stuff!”

If you ever get that, a reply to those objections just might be. . .

Well, you might be filling pews (and theater seating) with the ‘unchurched’, and pronouncing anyone who ‘makes a decision’ because they liked the show ‘saved’, but how many ‘newly churched/saved’ folk actually remain ‘unsaved’ because things ‘of first importance’ were not part of your marketing/advertising campaign to get them through the front doors, nor are they preeminent (and in some cases even included) in your preaching, stage presentations?

Something to think about. . .

So that’s what I was thinking about during my ‘morning’ time before I went to work today and during my drive to work. Pulling into the parking lot, I heard a Keith Green song that literally made my whole day. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There is a Redeemer

There is a Redeemer
Jesus, God’s own Son
Precious Lamb of God
Messiah, Holy One

Jesus, my Redeemer
Name above all names
Precious Lamb of God
Messiah, O for sinners slain

Thank You, O my Father
For giving us Your Son
And leaving us Your Spirit
‘Til the work on earth is done

When I stand in glory
I will see His face
And there I’ll serve
My King forever
In that holy place

Signs of the times. . .?

Posted by Dan C. on

Have you ever pulled a book off the shelf because you just wanted to reread it it in it’s entirety, or maybe to revisit certain themes contained within? I did last evening – for both purposes I just mentioned. I just wanted to share a couple of tidbits from that book.

“Everywhere there is apathy, Nobody cares whether that which is preached is true or false. A sermon is a sermon whatever the subject; only, the shorter the better.” – C. H. Spurgeon, 1888, The Sword and the Trowel

“For centuries the Church stood solidly against every form of worldly entertainment, recognizing it for what it was – a device for wasting time, a refuge from the disturbing voice of conscience, a scheme to divert attention from moral accountability. For this she got herself abused roundly by the sons of this world. But of late she has become tired of the abuse and has given over the struggle. She appears to have decided that if she cannot conquer the great god Entertainment she may as well join forces with him and make what she can of his power. So today we have the astonishing spectacle of millions of dollars being poured into the unholy job of providing earthly entertainment for the so-called sons of heaven. Religious entertainment is in many places rapidly crowding the serious things of God. Many churches have become poor theaters where ‘fifth-rate “producers” peddle their shoddy wares with the full approval of evangelical leaders even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency. And hardly a man dare raise his voice against it.” – A. W. Tozer, 1955, The Root of the Righteous

“Tozer. . .was not condemning games, music styles or movies per se. He was sounding an alarm about a deadly change of focus. He saw evangelicals using entertainment as a tool for church growth, and he believed that was subverting the church’s priorities. He feared that frivolous diversions and carnal amusements in the church would eventually destroy people’s appetites for real worship and the preaching of God’s word.” – John MacArthur, 1993, Ashamed of the Gospel, When the Church Becomes like the World

In his book Ashamed of the Gospel, John MacArthur describes conditions in American evangelical churches fifteen years ago using a series of C. H. Spurgeon articles published in The Sword and the Trowel more than 100 years before that focused on what Spurgeon called “The Down-Grade”.

Looking around at the current ‘evangelical landscape’ I fear that in some places “The Down-grade” has nearly reached bottom. – an old soldier, 2008.

Live from Denver, Colorado . . .is it coming to your town?

Posted by Dan C. on

The article below was sent to me by a friend of mine who lives in Denver. It demonstrates the ‘many paths to God’ heresy common to New Age and is becoming accepted by some who call themselves ‘evangelical Christians’.

TORKELSON: New Mile Hi sanctuary: Idea becomes reality
By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News
Monday, April 7, 2008

A vision, dressed head-to-toe in blazing, squint-your-eyes-white, glided up the steps of Mile Hi Church in Lakewood. Barbara McGhee was trying to match the energy of the new $10 million sanctuary. It opened Sunday, six years to the day the idea was launched.

“I just had a thing this morning – I felt new and clean and white,” said McGhee, 60. She wore a white crochet cap over her shaved head, a beaded Indian pendant on her chest, giant hoop earrings and a long, white cotton dress. The ensemble reflected her American Indian heritage and her rapport with “Wiccan” nature religions.

McGhee might have looked less conventional than everybody else, but she still reflected the eclectic spirit of Mile Hi. It draws from the teachings of many religions and mixes in the possibility-thinking of the self-help movement. At its core is religious science, which champions the mind as the manifestation of the divine.

You could say Sunday celebrated the victory of the mind over what mattered – turning the “vision” of 2002 into reality.

“My heart is so full today it’s almost beyond words – but don’t worry, I’ll find some,” said the senior minister, the Rev. Roger Teel, drawing laughs from the packed auditorium. The church has 1,500 newly-minted seats that were filled for three services.

Teel attended this church as a kid and became its leader in 1993. Under his guidance it’s become the largest U.S. church in the 80-year-old religious science movement, which is now called the United Centers for Spiritual Living. This July, Denver will become the center of the entire organization when the church moves its headquarters here from Los Angeles.

“This God of ours,” Teel boomed, “is not a passionless God but throws itself into creation with mighty abandon!”

A fitting description, that, of Mile Hi’s success. It opened in 1959, holding its first services in a vacuum cleaner store. In 1973 it built the distinctive landmark at Alameda and Garrison, often called “the flying saucer.” That’s now dwarfed by the new, pantheon-shaped, state-of-the-art sanctuary, which will welcome regular guest speakers and self-help icons such as Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer and Marianne Williamson.

“I tried some conventional churches where the church was lovely, but the message wasn’t,” said Tom Cauch, a house-flipper, who came with his 9-year-old grandson, Shean. “There, they talked about guilt and fear. Here, they talk about our endless possibilities.”

“The first time I ever walked into this church I felt I was loved,” said longtime member Janet Day.

Ditto for McGhee, a former hospice worker who, years ago, shaved her head to show solidarity with a cancer patient. She then dropped 158 pounds and mustered the courage to be herself:

“It’s all about this church,” she said. “You can do whatever you set your mind to.”

I pray it does not. – B4B

The Rise of Extreme Tolerance

Posted by Dan C. on

The following is an excerpt (the opening paragraph) from an article found here.

“Many evangelicals (once known for a very prudent and biblical approach to doctrine) are fast becoming as doctrinally clueless as the unchurched people they are so keen to please. At least three decades of deliberately downplaying doctrine and discernment in order to attract the unchurched has filled many once-sound churches with people who utterly lack any ability to differentiate the very worst fast doctrines from truth. I constantly encounter evangelical church members who are at a loss to answer the most profound errors they hear from cultists, unorthodox media preachers, or other sources of false doctrine.”

Here is the summary of the article:

“What’s needed today is a generation of men and women who will take a stand on biblical truth. People like that fear the Lord, not men, and will find power and courage from the Lord to uphold His truth in an age of extreme tolerance.”

There’s more worth reading in the middle. . .

The article was adapted from The Truth War, © 2007 by John MacArthur, also worth reading.

Daddy, are we there yet?

Posted by Dan C. on

The above question is not a reference to the question of a small child sitting in the back seat of the family car on a family outing. Back when I was that small child that could have been a ’55 Chevy and I would have been in the back with my older sister and baby brother (if he wasn’t sitting in his Mom’s lap in the front seat with dad. Today the question might never come up because the kids in the back seat are too involved with either on-board or personal entertainment devices. How times have changed! Now that I have dated myself, on to the reader’s challenge. . .

The question is drawn from a portion of one of the statements contained in the following paragraph. The challenge is not to identify the source or date of the quote (that will be provided further down), but to identify the portion of the paragraph to which the question refers, and after a positive I.D., to consider the question. . . “A are we there yet?”

“Some things are true and some things are false. I regard that as an axiom; but there are many persons who evidently do not believe it. The current principle of the present age seems to be, “Some things are either true or false, according to the point of view from which you look at them. Black is white, and white is black according to circumstances; and it does not particularly matter which you call it. Truth of course is true, but it would be rude to say that the opposite is a lie; we must not be bigoted, but remember the motto, ‘So many men, so many minds.'”  The school of modern thought laughs at the ridiculous positiveness of Reformers and Puritans; it is advancing in glorious liberality, and before long will publish a grand alliance between heaven and hell, or, rather, an amalgamation of the two establishments upon terms of mutual concession, allowing falsehood and truth to lie side by side, like the lion with the lamb. Still, for all that, my firm old-fashioned belief is that some doctrines are true, and that statements which are diametrically opposite to them are not true,—that when “No” is the fact, “Yes” is out of court, and that when “Yes” can be justified, “No” must be abandoned.”

About the quotation. . .I found it as a result of connecting to a link provided at another blog that had used a different section of the same source for a blog post. That blog post is here. The quotation was taken from an address to college students by C.H. Spurgeon and published in the March 1874 edition of Sword and Trowel. The entire address is here.

Something worth fighting for. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

Excerpted from John MacArthur’s book, The Truth War:

“Much of the visible church nowadays seems to think Christians are to be at play rather than at war. The idea of actually fighting for truth is the furthest thing from most churchgoers’ thoughts. Contemporary Christians are determined to get the world to like them – and of course in the process they also want to have as much fun as possible. They are so obsessed with making the church seem “cool” to unbelievers that they can’t be bothered with questions about whether another person’s doctrine is sound or not. In a climate like that, the thought of even identifying someone else’s teaching as false (much less “contending earnestly” for the faith) is a distasteful and dangerously countercultural suggestion. Christians have bought into the notion that nothing is more “uncool” in the world’s eyes that when someone shows a sincere concern about the danger of heresy. After all, the world simply doesn’t take spiritual truth that seriously, so they cannot fathom why anyone would.

But Christians of all people, ought to be most willing to live and die for the truth. Remember, we know the truth, and the truth has set us free (John 8:32). We should not be ashamed to say so boldly (Psalm 107:2). And if called upon to sacrifice forthe truth’s sake, we need to be willing to be willing and prepared to give our lives.”

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” – The Apostle Paul (Romans 1:16)

How many Christians do you know who don’t talk about God much, in the workplace, at school or college, in a recreational setting, etc.? I know quite a few, not just in a ‘mixed’ public setting, but even amongst themselves in any of those settings!  I know a lot who come to church on Sunday morning and talk about everything BUT God, in the sanctuary, when spiritual music is softly playing, even when there is a big slide up front inviting them to pray!

Having made that observation, it comes as a pleasant surprise when I meet other believers who like to discuss their faith, what God is doing in their lives, how a scripture verse jumped off the page at them, and of course when there’s some ‘earnest contending’ for the faith going on. 

It’s sad though, when the contending, which might just be sharing scripture, or asking if what someone ‘says scripture says’ is seen as intolerance and bigotry. It seems that some of the time, sharing one’s personal thoughts and opinions (no matter how crude or vitriolic) is inversely proportional to the desire for biblical truth.

But that’s to be expected – biblically speaking. . . 🙂

Saturday morning random thoughts?

Posted by Dan C. on

I actually had no idea for a title to this post, but I wanted to say something about an ‘interesting’ statement I read a couple of days ago, for which I needed some semblance of closure – or at least stop the annoying bouncing.  

This was a very serious statement I came across in the comment thread of a blog concerning ‘tolerance’, complete with scripture to support the statement and delivered with utmost sincerity:

“God has willed that all men be saved.”

Supporting scripture:

John 6:40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The matter at hand in the discussion thread was the “all men” phrase in John 12:32, and after another commenter had mentioned that God’s actions in drawing and saving men revolve around His ‘elect’ from every tribe, nation and people, the eisegetical big guns came out. Among the artillery shots was the above statement, that probably caught my eye because I am employed as a technical writer/editor and such things do tend to hit my brain in boldface font.

“Everyone who sees and believes” is plainly NOT “all men”. Why is it even important?

I can think of several reasons, from the original “all men” issue to the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, and points in between. At this point in time, what struck this old soldier (was military in a former life) is the importance of personal Bible reading and study under two beginning assumptions:

1.  Receive the meaning of the text for what it says, not what you want it to say.

2.  What is says is truth. Any seeming contradictions sort themselves out over time.

Just read it and take it for what it says.  It was reading it for a high school ‘advanced’ English class that caused me to notice that being a Christian wasn’t about what I did on Sunday morning (attend the Lutheran Church down the road), but it was who was supposed to ‘be’ with my whole life. Unfortunately it was the late ’60s and I went AWOL from perceived hypocrisy and spent seven years in ODF status. (AWOL is Absent WithOut Leave and ODF is Out Dere Flappin’). It was picking it up and reading it again that caused the prodigal to want to ‘come home’). It’s been personal Bible study that has helped me grow the most.

Through the years it has been personal Bible reading and study that have been the mainstay of my Christian walk. Occasionally it has been very helpful to have an original language concordance and a commentary or two, but for the most part an accurate translation will suffice for growth in godliness and righteousness. I attribute that opinion to the dynamic of the indwelling Holy Spirit working in direct contact with the regenerated human mind and heart.

By the way, I do have a couple of bookshelves filled with the likes of Augustine, Calvin, John Bunyon, Spurgeon, John MacArthur (to name a few), Bible dictionaries, concordances, and commentaries. Then there are all the ‘tools’ that modern technology has to offer – entire biblical research libraries on CDs (got that), with more available on the Internet.

But guess what? In most cases, all of the ‘big ones’, for whom I have the utmost admiration and respect, tell me what the Bible already told me. (I read them anyway, but not primarily.)

I just wanted to share that. Thanks for listening.

Is this really a ‘summary’ of the gospel?

Posted by Dan C. on

I found this statement on a blog I visit occasionally:

“I heard a sermon yesterday in which the pastor quoted from Abraham Lincoln to summarize the gospel:‘malice toward none, charity toward all.‘”

I asked the person who submitted the post if it was Abe’s Lincoln personal summary of the gospel, or what was considered by the pastor to be a good summary of the gospel. I asked out of curiosity, since whenever I hear the term ‘gospel’ used, I invariably am reminded of how the Apostle Paul ‘summarized’ the gospel of Jesus Christ to the church at Corinth (reemphasized, actually).

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 1-7)

Regardless of who considered that quote a ‘summary of the gospel’, the same question exists – is it really a ‘summary’, or a smaller piece of the whole – the ‘big picture’? After all, that sentiment can also be found in other religions and can be said to be the individual’s responsibility in response to/working out of his/her religion. Or, it can be just a good principle to live by and not be connected to ANY religion.

I’m not saying anything here to personally criticize anyone, especially the author of the comment that started me thinking about all the ways I’ve heard the gospel of Jesus Christ summarized lately, without a mention of sin, or with a wrong definition of sin (sin is just bad things we do occasionally or some unseen gulf between us and God). It’s a reminder to me that when I share the gospel with anyone, I need to include the ‘sin’, it’s proper definition as something the corrupted humans to the ‘uttermost’, and then God’s remedy – belief in His Son.

The Core of the Gospel Message

Posted by Dan C. on

The post below is from the site listed at the bottom of the article, and deserves attention. I commented on it at the bottom.

Did the Apostles use ‘God Loves You’ Evangelism?

The list below includes every instance of evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, a summary of content, and an analysis of emphasis.

1. Pentecost, Acts 2:14-39

Peter notes the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that all had been witnessing, then ties them to the fulfillment of prophecy of Joel about the last days. He then preaches Jesus as the Messiah–attested to by miracles and by the resurrection which was prophesied by David–and the guilt of the crowd for the crucifixion.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

2. Peter at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:12-26

After Peter and John healed a man lame from birth, Peter placed the blame for Jesus’ death on the shoulders of the listeners. He then appealed to fulfilled prophecy and told them either to believe and return and thus receive forgiveness and times of refreshing, or be destroyed.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

3. Peter before the High Priest, Acts 4:8-12

Peter attributes the healing of the man lame from birth to Jesus the Messiah, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. He quotes prophecy and says there is no other means of salvation but through Jesus. Peter then refuses to be silent about the Gospel.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship

with him.

4. Peter’s Defense a Second Time before the Council, Acts 5:29-32

Peter proclaims the resurrected Christ as Prince and Savior who brings forgiveness of sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Council of putting Jesus to death. They are so infuriated they want to kill the Apostles. Instead, on the advice of Gamaliel, the believers are flogged and released.

There is no mention of God’s love or any kind of tender relationship with Him.

5. Stephen’s Defense before the Council, Acts 7:1-60

Stephen recounts the history of the Jews in which they constantly rebel, rejecting God’s deliverer. He accuses the Jews of being stiff-necked, resisting the Holy Spirit just as their forefathers had. He accuses them also of betraying and murdering the Righteous One, the Messiah. They are so filled with rage they murder him.

Emphasis is on the guilt of the Jews. There is no mention of God’s love.

[Note: When God speaks to Saul about his future during the events surrounding Saul’s conversion (Acts 9), there is no mention of an intimate relationship, only that Paul would suffer much for the sake of Christ.]

6. Peter’s Message to the Household of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43

Peter talks of the ministry of Jesus, His miracles, death on the cross, and resurrection. Peter tells the Gentiles it is his job to solemnly testify that Jesus is the One appointed by God to judge the world, that Jesus’ coming was prophesied, and that belief in Him brings forgiveness of sin.

The emphasis is on Jesus, the prophesied Messiah who either brings judgment or forgives of sin. There is no mention of God’s love.

7. Paul’s Message to the Jews in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16-41

Paul preaches Jesus as the anticipated Savior, affirmed by John the Baptist, crucified by the Jews, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophesy. Paul then proclaims forgiveness of sin and freedom from the Law for all who believe.

Paul proclaims Jesus the prophesied Messiah crucified and resurrected. His emphasis is on forgiveness amidst warning.

8. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:22-31

Paul discloses the nature of the “unknown God,” One who is responsible for all creation, and in whom we all depend for our very existence. He calls all men to repent, because God has appointed a judge, a man who has risen from the dead.

Emphasis is on the nature of God, and the reality of judgment. There is no mention of relationship or God’s love.

9. Paul’s Defense before the Jews in Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-21

Paul gives his testimony, detailing his persecution of Christians motivated by his zeal toward God, his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how his sins were washed away in Jesus’ name. When he mentions his mission to the Gentiles, however, the Jews protested violently.

Emphasis is on Paul’s personal encounter with Christ, his own forgiveness from sin, and his subsequent mission. There is no offer of personal relationship with God or mention of God’s love.

10. Paul’s Defense before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:1-6

Paul says he is on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. There is no mention of the love of God.

11. Paul’s Defense before the governor, Felix, Acts 24:10-21

Paul establishes his innocence regarding the Jews’ charges, then affirms the Law and the Prophets and the general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, a belief for which he says he is on trial.

There is no mention of God’s love or even of forgiveness.

12. Paul before Felix and Drusilla, Acts 24:24-25

Paul speaks of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come which frightens Felix who then sends Paul away. There is no mention of God’s love or of a personal relationship with Him.

13. Paul’s Defense before the Agrippa, Acts 26:1-29

Paul gives his testimony, noting the importance of the resurrection. He tells of the commission Jesus had given him, proclaiming the Gospel with a goal of deliverance from Satanic darkness to receiving forgiveness and an inheritance from God. Paul claims his message is the same as the prophets regarding the Messiah’s suffering and resurrection.

Emphasis is on the resurrection of Christ, prophetic fulfillment and forgiveness, and Paul’s responsibility to preach the Gospel. There is no mention of love or a relationship with God.


The love of God is never mentioned
a single time in the entire book of Acts.

1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at
1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

_______________

I don’t think the author is saying is that we cannot/should not speak of God’s love when we share the gospel, but it is intended to show the primary emphasis of the Apostles’ evangelism efforts. Of course God loves us, the greatest expression of that love is His death in our place on the cross of Calvary! When Paul deemed it necessary to clarify the gospel message to the church in Corinth, this is what he told them:

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 15: 1-6)

That God loves us in inherent in the death of His Son for our sins. When the realization of sin dawns upon the person whose heart has been awakened by the Holy Spirit, and that person is told that God sent His Son to die for his/her sin, the love of God FLOODS the heart without a single word spoken! To speak only of God’s love thinking that we do the drawing instead of God (John 6:44), and to omit the ‘sin’ issue is to leave out one of the two main points of the message (Christ death and resurrection) on our behalf.

Whatever any person places as #1 in his/her life is that person’s ‘god’ – true or false?

Posted by Dan C. on

I suppose you could call this an ‘opinion’ piece, but then again maybe not.

If we take a serious look at the history of man, we find that humans have a tendency to worship something, whether they call it God, a god, or something else. One of themes carried throughout the Bible is that the God spoken of therein is he God we were created to worship.

In the end, the bible tells us that God does anything and everything in order to bring glory to Himself or to His Son. We were created to love, worship and glorify the God who created us. To that end, we were created with the ability and need to worship. The problem that the fall of the Adam brought to the human race is, among other things, the corruption of human nature to the extent that we now enter life in rebellion against the God who created us to worship HIM and bring HIM glory.

Being religious beings by nature, we will find something to worship. If not the God of the bible and His Son, it might be another religion apart from Christ. Or, we might claim to be ‘atheist’ and that we don’t believe in any sort of ‘god’ or ‘religion’. In that case, whatever takes the first place in the endeavors of life, that thing for which we labor and strive to please, becomes our object of ‘worship’. No matter what that might look like, in the end I think it comes down to pleasing ourselves first and foremost in all of our endeavors. We call it ‘self-actualization’.

What is terribly sad is that much of today’s American Christianity is nothing more than ‘self-actualization’ disguised as proper religion.