Ever since I bought my first home last December, I've had a desire to make it a place that is open to my friends and family. I truly believe God gives us all that we have so that we can glorify him by caring for and loving others. So on Labor Day, I decided to fire up the grill and invite a few friends over my house for a time of fellowship and fun. We had such a great time hanging out together. My brother and I were working wonders on the grill, Dwayne brought some of his signature "you're officially invited to every event I have at my house" macaroni and cheese, Christiana FINALLY brought the fruit tray that she promised to bring to the last barbecue, and my parents came over late as usual with a few African dishes that the barbecue just couldn't be complete without. We all had a great time together.
That evening after everyone went home, I decided to do some cooking to relieve me from the guilt of the burger/hot dog/mac-n-cheese feeding frenzy I enjoyed earlier. While baking some maple glazed salmon to eat with vegetables for lunch this week and preparing spaghetti for my brother and I, a thought came to my mind. One of the biggest barriers I've had in my quest to learn how to cook has been my indiscriminate taste buds. You see, I've always been the kind of person that likes a lot of different kinds of foods and doesn't tend to be very selective or picky with the foods I eat. A large reason for this is because...well....most things tend to taste ok to me. I know it sounds strange to some, but I don't care if two foods in my plate mix. If the food I select at a restaurant doesn't taste that great, I usually won't send it back, and it's not because I'm a passive guy who doesn't want to offend anyone or make them do something out of their way, I'm just not that selective. It's probably because to me, it really doesn't taste that bad. Here's the other strange twist to this...this is NOT the case when I eat African foods. Growing up, my mother and grandmother were great cooks and were constantly complimented by people who ate the food they prepared. As a result of eating the same kinds of foods with distinct tastes over a long period of time, I could easily tell what was missing or added in an African dish and developed a very selective taste of African foods.
The problem this presented as I attempted to cook was that my indiscriminate tongue didn't taste what was missing in a dish. It accepted almost anything. And since I wasn't highly selective in my likes and dislikes and didn't pay attention to the distinctive flavors and spices in the foods I ate, it didn't matter much to me. So I was the perfect chef...as long as I was cooking for myself because it all tasted fine to me. Over time I have become much more aware of the flavors in dishes, and a bit more picky as a result. The transition began to take place when I became intentional about learning to cook with a desire to host dinners at my house in the future and learning the appropriate taste to look for through intentionally eating foods that were prepared well and asking how they were made. All of a sudden, flavors and spices mattered so much more, and knowing that I'd be cooking for others was additional motivation.
One of the things I try to do and encourage others to do as believers is to live lives where everything we do is shaped/fashioned by the gospel and try to use our everyday lives and experiences as a means of reflecting on the truths of the gospel. While cooking, this reflection came to mind. If you had to choose between two chefs to cook a meal for an important event, would you pick the one who has developed a keen sense of taste that enables him to know the fine details of how to make a dish taste just right...or a chef with an indiscriminate tongue? One who enjoys what he cooks up, even though it might not taste the way it should? Now consider the words of the bible that mean much more than food or drink. Would you prefer to have a person preaching to you who has studied the scripture and has taken the time to carefully understand key doctrinal matters in order to make sure the words he uses are not passively spoken, but carefully understood and defined for the listeners? One who teaches and shepards in a way that encourages the listeners to live a life shaped by clearly defined truths? Or would you be fine with a preacher who proves by his handling of the word that he does have some sort of concept of important truths of the gospel but does not have a firm grasp on them? One who passively speaks about them so that the congregation ends up having an assumed understanding of important things, but they don't have any depth in their knowledge of these VERY important and essential truths?
Like the cooking example I gave, this is often the case for speakers and hearers alike; the dangerous practice of speaking and listening with an indiscriminate ear. Some of the keys that result in developing an indiscriminate ear are the absence of consistent teachings that have a high view of God and the truths explained in the word, and the absence of the examples of lives lived out which clearly show that they are shaped by these truths. I developed a taste for African food that helped me to be able to know the difference between a properly cooked African dish and one that was missing important ingredients through consistently eating well made dishes. We learn to know sound doctrine and theology through consistently hearing sound theology and checking for consistency with the word. As we hear them, the Holy Spirit aids us in understanding rightly what Christ did for us, giving us an appropriate understanding of scripture that we can learn to follow. On the other hand, we learn to hold tightly to wrong doctrine if we are constantly taught it and don't look into scripture to see if it's correct (as scripture commands). If the chef never learns to know the difference, his customers, if they eat at the same place consistently for a long period of time, will learn to develop a liking for food that tastes similar, but is not prepared properly. And they will possibly develop a distaste for the food that is prepared right. The distaste for good food is a result of a paradigm that has been shaped by the wrong foundation of the untrained chef's cooking standard. If we are consistently taught the scriptures wrongly, the result is that even when something sound is taught, it is understood according to a wrong paradigm and becomes useless .
A wise way to prevent this is by looking for a church that has a high view of scripture. Some signs are:
- A church with biblically qualified leaders. (Titus 1:5-16 9*)
- Exegetical preaching: preaching of the word that goes through the text and emphasizes what was actually meant by the text and does not add meaning to what was inspired by God. (2 Tim 4:2, 1 Cor 1:17, 1 Cor 15:2)
- Practicing of biblical church discipline. It honors God's word and shows a trust for God's means of lovingly dealing with sin. (Mat 18:15-20)
- A church that clearly defines terms such as atonement, justification, conversion, and most importantly, gospel.
If these things are not clearly seen in a church, chances are you may have a chef with great intentions who presents a meal that is very similar to what you ordered (the gospel), but it's not what you ordered at all. If there's one place where it helps to be a picky eater, it's with the most important food you'll ever eat; the word of God.
One thing I have come to learn in my walk with Christ is that the Gospel is the key to understanding life appropriately, and in the categories that we disagree with it, disobey its call, or do not rightly comprehend it in our hearts, we will find the root of most of our frustrations. Okay, I know that was a lofty thesis, but I promise to break it down. I once read a quote from Jim Elliot that reads:
"I may no longer depend on pleasant impulses to bring me before the Lord. I must rather respond to principles I know to be right, whether I feel them to be enjoyable or not."
The verbiage of this quote may throw you off, but like myself, this is probably something you need to remind yourself of constantly. Think about how many of us behave when it comes to essential disciplines such as the studying of the word and prayer. When we are in seasons where we are on a proverbial "spiritual high", we tend to have hearts that long to study the bible and pray. We become increasingly attracted to conversation that exalts God and shuns the trivialities that almost constantly steal our hearts away from weighty, important things. We find a deep and strengthening sense of joy in the realities of God. Our sensitivity of sin becomes heightened, the realities of the truths of the gospel become clear, and the urgency of the gospel message becomes dyer. But then there are the seasons where our emotions are not as deeply stirred by the truth. As a result, we do not push ourselves to wake up in the morning and spend time in prayer and meditation; forgetting that this is a privilege and not just a check mark on the "Christian Duties" to do list. We are not careful with how we spend our time during the day. We are not aroused enough about God to speak about him. There is no urgency concerning the souls of the people around us..... I am reluctant when using the word "seasons" because I do not want to portray these experiences like we have no part in their happening. We are guilty in every sense of our dryness. We cling to the very things that rob us of the joy of the Lord and the reality of life as God sees it. We watch programs and listen to music that makes light of sin. We indulge in conversation that is not God honoring and shrink rather than bring Christ into it. Our issue is usually not one of seasons or victory and defeat, it's one that stems from obedience and disobedience.
With all of that said, Jim Elliot's quote portrays the reality that our propensity to desire God and pursue him is too impulse driven rather than truth driven. The reason we should desire to pray, study the word, stay in Christ glorifying fellowship and turn away from the things that dull our hearts to the glorious and weighty realities of the gospel is NOT how we feel about God on any particular morning. Our desire must be driven by the truth, or as Jim Elliot stated, what he knew to be right, weather it feels good or not. The fact that God is REALLY GOD!!! The fact that He means the radical things he says in his word and realizing what was accomplished on the cross should bring us to our knees. Think about how this concept of "feel" and "impulse" being the measure of our willingness to do or sacrifice permeates all of our life. So even truth is determined by your "feel." And if God's word challenges us radically, we say "he couldn't have meant that!" because we FEEL like Gods call couldn't be that demanding and he can't be that jealous for his glory. I have bad news for you....God could care less about what you "feel" when it comes to his truth. But this is a problem with the modern view of Christianity that has been infected by the relativism in our Godless culture. Too many churches have not trained their congregations to love truth or honor the bible as absolute objective truth, as a result, the people are slaves to their desires and are resistant to any truth that does not correspond to their "feel". With that in mind, here is a frightening question: if you are not preaching a biblically accurate Christ to your congregation, then who are they singing to when they raise their hands? If the Christ of the bible who demands EVERYTHING from us is presented to them, would they still want him? After we hear a message, the questions commonly asked are "how did you feel about the message? Did you like it?" and the response to these questions are usually shaped by all of the wrong things. How entertaining was it? How funny was he? How deep was it? How "real" was he? So the measure of a good, God honoring sermon is relative to our "feel." But the measure of a message is not and should never be its entertaining value or even how inspired you feel by it. The measure is truth. And many of the messages we hear these days are not biblically sound, but people have been so trained to love, desire and listen for the wrong things that they do not know the difference between what is true and what is not. No biblical discernment has been developed in order to know the difference between what is true and biblical vs. what is an experientially stimulating yet damaging mishandling of the truth. To hear "an experientially stimulating yet damaging mishandling of the truth" should make our blood boil as believers who love the truth, but we don't mind because, like the preachers who present these messages, as long as it keeps churches filled, keeps us feeling good, and we see people walking out with smiling faces, it must be a good message. This is the modern measure of a successful church.
Before I go on, I really hope this is as disheartening to you as it is to me. This has been a great burden on my heart for a long time. I have had many evenings where I have woken up in the middle of the night broken by this painful reality. So many who believe themselves to be converted are not and churches are not preaching an honest and complete message. If the church is full of carnal, self seeking, church members who are interested in getting all they can get from God and living out the Christian version of the American Dream….full of young people who see no problem with being entertained by the arrogant and ungodly activity found in music and TV programs/movies – the very things that Christ suffered for…full of people who live lives that are shaped by the Godless culture around them rather than the gospel….then what exactly did the death and resurrection of Christ accomplish? If this is the case, then his blood was only powerful enough to save us from hell, but it is not powerful enough to save us from our sin. If this is how we are living, we do not understand the cross and it is very likely that we have not been converted. The blood of Christ is not weak and insufficient. If Christ is only a savior from hell and not a savior from sin to you, then he has not saved you at all. His death powerfully took men that were dead in sin and did not desire God and changed the orientation of their hearts so that they love what he loves and hate what he hates. This is what the blood accomplished in the lives of the elect.
The issue presented to us is truth and the question is do we love it or even know it? Do you love the Jesus that the truth of scripture presents or the one that is not scriptural and has been created in the minds of unbiblical preachers?...the one who gives grace because he knows you won’t stop sinning rather than giving you grace as the powerful means by which men no longer live in sin? But to simply state it this way is not enough. There is the bible that we believe to be absolute truth, and then there is the way the bible is understood and presented. This is where truth is lost for many -- in how it is understood and presented. We believe what we hear is true because it comes from a book that we agree is true and the message includes bible verses that seem to make sense. One area that many preachers get wrong is in neglecting to understand that the bible is objective truth, and when Paul was writing, he had one meaning. This means it is not ok for us to take a text and read into it what we want in order to get our point across. We must understand what Paul meant when he said it to the audience he was speaking to. We must also know what Paul believed before we can understand what he meant. Like I stated earlier, the gospel is the key to understanding life appropriately, but what happens if you don't get the gospel right? What happens if you understand it incorrectly or misinterpret it? I don't think it's hard to see the results of not getting the gospel right. Simply take a look at modern Christianity, where the average nominal Christian does not have a biblical view of the finished work of Christ on the cross and as a result, the people who call themselves Christians live lives that are carnal, self centered and self promoting in the name of Christ. Take a look at the large number of pastors who do not understand the Gospel and lead congregations that are in danger of living out Luke 6:40 "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher". I find it funny that the Bereans questioned what was said to them by Paul, the man whom God inspired to write half of the New Testament, and somehow we almost NEVER question what comes out of the mouths of the people who teach us. In large part, this is because we do not know what to question. We do not have anything to measure what we hear against. If you do not have a firm grip on truth, you cannot tell what is counterfeit from what is authentic.
In closing, I will sum this blog up with a quote from J.I. Packers introduction of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen:
There is no doubt that evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and or equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. Why?
We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men Godcentered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be 'helpful' to man - to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction - and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was 'helpful', too - more so, indeed, than is the new - but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
