The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ, but had walked away from the church as a young man and never returned. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia, I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more Reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and the most conservative spectrum of Reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity, and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a Reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years, where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and attending a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology, but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is that they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture, which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and not-so-strong sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity, such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals, tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return, with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit" and what that means exactly. They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. 

My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing, vital, daily personal relationship and experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time and is something I am constantly discovering more about. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strongly grounded in God's word. The downside of this, however, is that Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics, on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture that they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work, they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit and what it means and looks like. This is especially true of those in reformed circles, from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest that for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends, we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this tension throughout the various posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now, in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but tendencies. All groups for the most part would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add that the last church I attended (Baptist in affiliation) was more "charismatic" than most, and the former charismatic church I was in was far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology, while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My last church emphasized the past work of Christ and minimized the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 who was instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. about his understanding of spiritual formation - often referred to as sanctification. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware, he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by "religious" Edwards means spiritual, as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today, or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk with in and by the Spirit. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now, this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected, click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment today for the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here. 

Hypocrites in the church?

A complaint we often hear from those outside the church is why are there so many hypocrites in the church? The answer comes down to intent. 

Since ¹those of us within the church are given a clear standard of conduct we feel compelled to conform our behavior to this standard, if only in appearance because of peer pressure. However, if we are ¹not in Christ and not compelled by his love, this is the wrong reason to conform. We may be kind, thoughtful, and loving on the outside but in truth are "behaving ourselves" not to honor God but simply to fit into the prescribed and ²expected behavior of the church community.

When we do, we bring honor only to ourselves in the eyes of others. As Christ said, we have our reward i.e. the praise of men vs God. God, however, has absolutely nothing to do with this. This becomes apparent when real love requiring sacrifice is called for by someone who claims to be a believer and it's not there. This was the very same issue with the Pharisees. They did things to be seen of men not to honor God.

This is the core reason there are those within the church who are hypocrites. 

It is not necessarily unique to the church, however. All groups, associations, and memberships have hypocrites within their ranks. They are not there for the mission or vision of the organization but for their own purpose to impress others. It may have nothing to do with what an individual church teaches and everything to do with the individuals within the church. It actually may indicate that many churchgoers are not true believers at all or at least not looking to Christ as their primary source of love, identity, meaning, and purpose. 

For a discussion on "cultural Christians" vs true believers click here. 
______________________________________________________________

¹I distinguish between churchgoers and true followers of Christ not only because we can observe the difference in the values, attitudes, and actions, but also because Christ makes this distinction with the following three teachings.

...by their fruits -- the kind of fruit -- you will know them.

The parable of the wheat and weeds (tares)

Christ declaring he never knew some who had done many works "in his name."

²And when we do conform externally, we become proud and self-righteous, demanding others also conform while "looking down on them" when they don't. When in fact our conformity isn't true obedience from the heart but for show. Self-righteous folks, like anyone else, are still a mess on the inside, self-righteousness itself is an indication. 

The "last days" - two world views

The following is part 5 of a 5 part paper at 

https://thotsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2010/02/doom-and-gloom-of-dispensationalism.html 

I am posting this article separately for those who may not be interested in the weakness of the biblical claims behind the "last days" or "end times" teaching. I cover these claims in parts 1-3, particularly part 3 at the above link. If you wish to look at the rest of the paper after reading the below, click here or the link above. I have also put the link to the entire paper at the end.

5. Two World Views - two opposite approaches to our world

In parts 1-3, I addressed the more technical aspects of our understanding of key passages and the history of Dispensationalism in part 4. But are there any practical implications regarding this issue? Do these ¹two systems affect how we as the Church universal address our world today? I have already alluded to this in part 4 but wish to review this more closely in the following part (part 5).

______________________________________________________

Let’s look at how each position deals with the moral decay in our society, the courts, and culture. Why do you think the Evangelical church, to a great degree, is resigned to let things continue to deteriorate morally, politically, and economically, virtually unchallenged? Whenever I have sent info or articles to my Dispensationalist friends regarding the current decline, their response is always, "It's a sign of the times and the imminent return of Christ." Then they go about their business as if there is nothing they can or should do. "Why try to fight it?" they reason. "It is all part of God’s plan and has already been predicted and predetermined," they might say. 

But how does a "Preterist" respond? (Preterist means references to the "last days" are about past events, not future ones. This is covered more in the full paper linked above). When things grow more oppressive, they pray even more earnestly and work even more diligently that God would reverse the trend to aid the advancement of His kingdom on earth. Reversal of moral corruption and the advancement of God’s kingdom is believed to not only be possible but is, in fact, God's desire, design, and will. The "preterist" sees current events as an opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God instead of a reason to "throw up our hands" in defeat and "hunker down" while we hold on and endure the decay until the Lord returns to rescue (aka "rapture") us out of this current mess. The Preterist view is the complete opposite of the all-too-common passive approach by a large number of dispensationalists.

The dispensationalists say it's all planned out, and to fight against the "signs of the times" is futile. These are the "last days." It’s all inevitable. Fighting this is the equivalent of "polishing the brass on a sinking ship" as one author suggested. Why bother?! The ship is sinking.

The "Preterist" however, says the current deterioration we are facing now is contrary to God's will (the advancement of His Kingdom on earth), and we must pray and work all the more earnestly for its reversal. The worse it gets, the greater the opportunities to do so because we are, in fact, called by Christ himself to this end. 

It is also during hard events that people are more open to hearing the good news that God has provided the way to return to Him. If the economy continues to deteriorate, what a significant opportunity to minister to people in need and point them to Christ as their comfort in a time of trouble! A very different mindset than shaking our heads at the downturn while we sit around gazing in the sky, looking and hoping for our Lord’s return to physically remove us from the world - wouldn’t you agree? Not unlike Israel, which expected the Messiah to rescue them from the hard circumstances of Roman occupation instead of their spiritual bankruptcy. 

Now consider how much greater an impact the church could have on our culture if they all held a historical/ preterist view of God's Word compared to a futurist view. Christians would be far more actively engaged in challenging and seeking to infuse God's influence into society today. And when we share Christ, it would not be as a fire insurance policy to "rapture" them out of this doomed world and save their "skin," but because they need Him to change their lives and deliver them from the MORAL decay of this present existence, not remove them physically from the earth. This would help advance His rule and reign on earth. Are you starting to see the difference? These are two VERY different views with two opposite approaches to our current world.

So there is no confusion, I am not suggesting that we change our understanding of scripture to be more effective in the world today. What I am saying is by aligning our worldview with scripture we will be more effective.

There is another very significant area that these two views influence. Would not the church be far more aggressive in seeking to point men and women of Jewish ancestry to Christ than we are today? Whenever Paul addressed the "Jew/Gentile" question regarding the gospel did he not say "to the Jew first, then the Gentile?" Yet this is not the attitude of much of the "Gentile" church today. (Actually, there should be no such distinction within the church. I am speaking only of our priority in advancing God's kingdom here on earth). How many converted Jews attend evangelical churches that you are aware of? How many converted Jews do you know personally? We know converted Hispanics, Asians, even Arabic/Moslems, etc. etc. don't we? Where are our fellow Jewish believers? Why are they not more incorporated into our evangelical churches? Why are there churches made up solely or primarily of "messianic Jews?" According to Paul, there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11.  Yet many evangelical churches and "Messianic Jews" today encourage and promote this distinction and have separate churches.

If we held a "Preterist" view, our focus, instead of seeking to support national Israel financially and politically, would be to reach them spiritually first. Yet we "Gentile" believers somehow (actually, it is clearly tied to a futurist view of the nation of Israel) ignore their needs spiritually and seek to advance them materially and politically instead. Was it not the focus of Christ while on earth to reach His fellow countrymen spiritually, and was this also not the same reason they missed the message of the Messiah? Wasn't it because they assumed His message of deliverance was earthly (i.e. political) instead of spiritual? Their desire for "political/earthly salvation" caused them to miss the actual message of Christ - and the Old Testament - altogether. 

Are we as evangelicals making the same mistake in seeking the political, earthly salvation of the state of Israel first, instead of their spiritual salvation? What is the greatest need of all men, the Jew first and then the Gentile? Is it not to find and recognize him as the Christ, the anointed one i.e. the Messiah and Savior first and foremost? Again, these are two unique approaches to this matter regarding the nation of Israel.

With this understanding, how differently might we handle events in the Middle East? Instead of sending billions in cash over the years to Israel, to aid them in defending themselves militarily, wouldn't they be better served if this money were used to send missionaries (of course, this is the church's role, not governments). 

And what best sustains "freedom and democracy" if not the gospel itself. No culture has ever advanced because "democracy" was the focus. The solution to man’s problems is not political but spiritual. When Christ is the focus i.e. the advancement of his Kingdom on earth through the conversion of individual men and women, it has always resulted in a dramatic change for good in society. In every culture where God's kingdom was advanced through the conversion of people to Christ; liberty, order, truth, and morality followed soon after and often for years to follow. 

There is a definite distinction between conversion to Christ and the “Americanization” of a country. I am not opposed to America. I love America for the freedom it historically has stood for and the creativity and generosity it still promotes. I love all aspects of America that recognize God's promises and grew out of a desire to honor Him. But what made America great was the humble submission of men and women to Christ and his rule/kingdom individually, which led to our submission to His rule collectively. Somehow, many in the church have confused conversion to Christ and “being American” as one and the same thing. That which is still good about America is only that which springs forth from a desire to honor God. 

America historically has been one of the best displays of this but is not the only example. Our loyalty should be to Christ first, and our country only to the extent it seeks and promotes Him and His rule over us. Everything wrong with America is exactly that which is the opposite of this. We should not be saying “America, love it or leave it” or “might makes right” but be considering how America as a whole has strayed from its original commitment to God and His truth. Understanding this is important, so we might pray with our eyes open and seek God to restore her original honor. When we, as a nation, honor Him again, not with lip service but with our resources, loyalties, and actions, He will honor us again as a nation. As long as we flippantly disregard honoring God, He will disregard us and continue to remove His hand of provision and protection.

Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

Jas 4:10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

Spiritual awakening… a history.

Knowing the history of our past spiritual awakenings may be a clue to future ones. 

"The First Great Awakening" occurred in the North American Colonies in the early 1730s. Do you think this played any role in the formation of our country in 1776? Look at every spiritual awakening in history. History is full of examples of this very truth. Do you think it was because we were set up as a "Republic" that we prospered as a nation, or was it rather that we recognized God was the ultimate lawgiver to whom we must give an account and sought to design a government that best reflected this? Yet in today’s US of A, we wish to transport "democracy" around the world. Democracy, however, is not the solution to man's needs, Christ is and Him alone!!! "Advancing democracy" is like hanging plastic apples on a bush and saying, "See, it's now an apple tree" and then patting ourselves on the back for how good a job WE did!! 

Yet, the hearts of men must change first before any real and lasting change in culture can occur. And that is only through the work of Christ. We know this to not only true from scripture but from history.

As one pastor of my church pointed out, the difference between the Dispensational and Preterist camps is like the contrast between two armies - one planning to endure a siege, the other planning for an extended campaign of conquest. 

But we are speaking of spiritual conquest, not military conquest. Not only are the attitudes different, but their activities also reflect the needs they anticipate. In the army expecting siege (i.e. Dispensationalism), there would be little need for leadership development or generational transfer. With Dispensationalism they gear everything toward the immediate future, not for the long-term planning of building something that will help advance God’s kingdom for years to come for our kids and theirs.

This same pastor pointed out a quote he once saw on a futurist website: “Actually, it's always darkest...just before it goes completely black!” Not a very optimistic approach to the world. 

However, a historical understanding of scripture gives you a totally different attitude with huge implications for how we approach everything. With this understanding, you seek the advancement of the kingdom and see the importance of sharing this with all who will hear it. As our world becomes increasingly bankrupt, spiritually, morally, and financially, the appeal of Christ and the need for His solutions only become more apparent, and the opportunities only increase, not decrease.

The sad truth is in much of the American evangelical church, we have a pessimistic mindset about the advancement of God’s kingdom, and it shows. The reality, however, is that God is about advancing His kingdom. It’s just not happening to a great extent in America today due to the "doom and gloom" mindset of dispensational teaching.

·      According to the author Jim Rutz’s book Megashift, until 1960, Western evangelicals outnumbered non-Western evangelicals – mostly Latinos, blacks, and Asians – by two to one. As of 2000, non-Western evangelicals outnumbered Westerners by four to one. He says in 2010, that ratio should be seven to one.

·        "There are now more missionaries sent from non-Western nations than Western nations," according to the author.

·       Church growth outside of America is now breathtaking. Every morning, there are 175,000 more Christians in the world. And if current growth rates (8% a year) continue, there will be more Christians than the present world population by the autumn of 2032... about 8.2 billion.

Does the bible say anything about this?

Yes, through King Nebuchadnezzar'a dream.

31 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 As you looked, a stone cut out by no human hand, struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But …the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. 

Further down, Daniel interprets the meaning.

Who is the stone? Christ! What is the mountain that filled the whole earth? The church universal. This is believed by both Preterists and Dispensationalists alike. 

The decline in the numbers above is no surprise because America is the strongest promoter of Dispensational theology.

When Christ said "the gates of hell will not prevail" against the church, our English translations don't do justice to the full meaning of the original Greek language. The verb tense in the original is the gates of hell will not withstand or stand up to the advancement of the church. (That was originally pointed out to me by a Dispensationalist interestingly, Dr. Ed Hindson who used to teach at Jerry Farwell's Liberty University). 

Talk about an optimistic mindset!!!! We are on the winning team, not just in eternity but here and now, and we need to act like it if we will have any chance of significantly impacting our world for Christ! How desperately the church needs to get a hold of this (myself included). How sad and unfortunate it is that because of the futurist pessimism (“It’s a sign of the times. The end is near. Hold on! Jesus is coming soon!” etc., etc.) permeating much of the church. We - the church - have disengaged to a large extent in speaking into our world. As a result, we look to the government to turn things around instead of Christ. 

Where in the bible does it tell us to look to government as our Savior? Nowhere!!! If we understood God has called us, - you and me - to be salt and light wherever there is darkness, and that the decay of our culture and society falls on us to address - by the power of His Spirit driving us and not our government - we would be on our knees day and night until His Spirit got a hold of us first. And then through us, He would get a hold of our fellow man and ultimately our culture and government. 

Government plays a role but as an instrument of God for change, not the cause of it. Desperate times call for desperate measures and desperate dependence on God and Spirit-driven action for God. Instead of enduring all the garbage and deception in the world as we look to the sky, hoping and waiting for Christ to come and rescue us from it all, we should speak out on the bankruptcy of this world and unapologetically offer the hope and power of Christ in this life and the one to come. How exciting, positive, and refreshing is that!?! May God give us the grace and understanding to see His heart regarding these things!

For a look at what the bible says about the promise to Abram (later named Abraham) regarding the nation of Israel, click here. 

For a discussion on how "last days" teaching aids the advancement of one-world government, click here. 

If you wish to read the rest of the paper this article is taken from click here.

If you wish to discuss any of the points addressed in this article or have questions, please message me at  

thoughtsaboutGod@pm.me Ask for Jim. God Speed

__________________________________________________________________________

*When referring to two systems I have Dispensationalism specifically in mind and not the broader category of Futurists. I do so because that was the camp I was in for years and am most familiar with. I have also been told by non-dispensational futurists that their view of the world is more optimistic than how I characterize Dispensationalists in this section. If so that is good. I never had an extended conversation with any while still in the Dispensational camp.

A common challenge for the evangelical church

The issue with the typical evangelical church is they have the right form but are often missing substance; the right motivation. There is a lot directed toward the head (right doctrine/ information) and the will (doing the "right" thing) but not the heart.

Given our natural inclination to be our own god (the essence of our original and ongoing rebellion), we must be ever-vigilant over our hearts. After all, we are cautioned that the heart is desperately sick (or wicked). 

Because our hearts are still fallen (even as his children) we are naturally inclined to focus on form (law/commands/right behavior) and lose sight of the substance (intent) that brings about that form/fruit. Therefore, many endeavors (churches, schools, ministries, etc.) start out well but only decline and deteriorate into a shell of their original self i.e. they/we lose sight of the good heart and passion that birthed and drove the action/behavior/ministry to begin with, like the Ephesian church in revelation, who lost sight of their 1st love.

This is also why unbelievers can hide in and be a part of a church and never experience saving faith. They can hide behind "right-thinking" and "right-doing" without ever looking at their heart. They hide behind "correct doctrine" and "righteous" behavior and find comfort and a false sense of security in these instead of depending on the gift of righteousness God provides for us only in and through Christ. As a result, they can do and say all the "right" things for the wrong reasons. 

Possibly one of the scariest passages in all the bible for church goers is...

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

The prescribed thinking and behavior of a church may be perfectly spot on but our hearts are so rebellious and so inclined and committed to being our god that we can and often do use the best things (even prayer or the very commandments of God) for the wrong reasons and miss the importance and necessity of the gospel completely i.e. the grace and love of God extended to us only through Christ.

Right doctrine and "right behavior" do not automatically indicate a right (righteous) heart.

To act without total trust and dependence on the Father and passionate love for Him can be an act merely of the will and not of the heart i.e. not out of love for God and the desire to increase His honor and notoriety. Actions that only engage the will and not the heart lead to pride and arrogance and away from humility. This results in the classic, "do as I say, not as I do" approach to others i.e. the hypocrisy that often plagues otherwise "good" evangelical churches. 

This also eventually leads to burnout and can lead to disillusionment with the church and unfortunately sometimes even burnout with God. For more discussion on this point, click here and here. 

In truth we are to engage all three; the heart, the head, and the will. But the last two can only be pursued correctly to the degree the heart is first engaged properly and fully.

Mat 15:8  "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 

1Sam 15:22  And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 

For more discussion on the difference between head and heart knowledge click here.