Why The South Is The Most Dangerous Place To Live On Earth

The final vestiges of Christendom reside here. That's why they call it "The Bible Belt."

At a physical level, the most dangerous places to live are probably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea, or any inner city of the United States. However, if we're talking about spiritual danger, then the southern U.S.A. has got to be the most dangerous. That's because it's one of the few locations on earth where it's still more socially advantageous to be a Christian than not be.

Persecution, while unpleasant to say the least, has a way of purifying the church. It separates the wheat from the chaff. When trial comes, those who aren't truly in Christ bail out quickly. This type of thing is happening increasingly across the United States (albeit to much smaller degree than the persecutions many of our brothers and sisters in Christ face overseas). The South remains different, at least for now. Many folks continue to have some sort of vague connection to both the term "Christian" and an institutional church of some type. They may even be a "local church member."

As most of you know, I call Savannah, Georgia my home. I was raised in Western New York State, so I know what life is like outside of the Bible Belt. When I was about twenty-five, Alice and I moved south. I soon realized that almost everybody called somewhere church. The odd folks were the ones with no church home. This despite the fact that many only "went to church" on Easter and Christmas.

Things are changing. As our culture in general becomes increasingly secular, the South does as well. It's just that the South is, in my opinion, two to three generations behind the rest of the country in its movement away from Christendom. Because of this, many Southerners continue to believe they are fine spiritually despite the lack of fruit (evidence) in their lives.

And that's what makes the South so incredibly dangerous. A person who thinks he is in Christ but who is not is in a more dangerous place than a person who knows he is not in Christ. A false sense of salvation is a terrible place to be. This type of person sees no reason to repent and believe because he thinks he's already fine. However, Jesus made it clear that His followers will bear fruit. No fruit = no salvation.

I love living in the South. However, it is an odd place. I'd bet that no other spot on earth has such a high percentage of cultural Christians. This is a tragedy because they think they are fine but are in fact doomed. Some persecution might do them some good. Persecution is coming; however, since it's still a few years away it might be too late for them.

The South is indeed a dangerous place.

Christian Postmodernism Run Amok: "That's Unchristlike."

Christian #1 speaks the truth on a difficult topic. Christian #2 does not like what Christian #1 has said and/or it makes him feel uncomfortable. Christian #2 either knows that Christian #1 speaks the truth, does not know whether or not Christian #1 speaks the truth, or does not care whether or not Christian #1 speaks the truth. Christian #2 says to Christian #1, "You're being unchristlike."

Wham! The trump card has been played! Game, set, and match to Christian #2.

The above scenario happened to me recently on social media. I said something against homosexuality or some other prized topic of the Progressives. A Christian brother soon informed me that I was being "unchristlike." Since it was social media, I think I just let the conversation drop. I figured there was no point in pursuing it.

This a prime example of the postmodern poison that has crept into the church. Postmodernism is so dangerous because it not only attacks truth claims, but it also attacks the concept of truth itself. It calls the very essence of truth into question. In that regard, it (ironically) makes a most staggering of truth claims by asserting that objective truth does not exist.

Christianity is a belief system founded in truth. God truly exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. God truly made the world and everything in it. The Son of God truly came to earth as the God-Man. He truly lived a perfect life and died a perfect death. He truly rose from the grave on the third day. I could go on, and on, and on. Christianity is real in space and time. It is both truth and fact.

To borrow a term from Christian theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, Christianity is "true truth."

Apart from truth, Christianity simply falls into the waste bin of man's false religions.

It is a sad thing that many in the church today are embarrassed by some of the truth claims of Christianity. Some are embarrassed by the creation account in Genesis. Some are embarrassed by the virgin birth. Still others are embarrassed by the resurrection of Christ. However, my guess is that the most are embarrassed by what the bible has to say regarding moral/ethical issues.

When we speak the truth about issues of this sort, in particular homosexuality, we are flying in the face of all sorts of increasing social pressures. Christians, and I use that term loosely here, who do not like these sorts of statements simply fall back on their trump card: the claim of unchristlikeness. Since they do not want to deal with the issue of truth at all, they resort to postmodernistic claims that focus on feelings.

At the same time, they may say something like, "Remember to speak the truth in love." What they really mean is, "Stop speaking the truth at all you bigot. You are being mean."

In the postmodern world the only love is one that accepts all behaviors as valid (as long as they fit inside the Progressive, liberal, socialistic narrative). For the postmodern Christian, the label of "unchristlike" is their ace in the hole. Since it is not well defined, they can throw it around willy-nilly. It's sort of like another ridiculous term that the left wing loves to use: white privilege.

Back to "unchristlike." The term heavily implies that the person speaking the truth is not being like Jesus. Of course, to the Progressive person Jesus was simply a guy who walked around healing people and loving on them, but who never said anything about nasty topics such as holiness and repentance. However, we know that Jesus actually said lots about those things.

Jesus also spoke some fairly harsh words from time to time. They were also true. Read Matthew chapter 23. Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees as children of Hell, blind guides, blind fools, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, and brood of vipers among other things. According to the postmodernists, Jesus Christ sounds "unchristlike"!

The fact is that we, the body of Christ, must indeed speak the truth in love. But we must speak the truth.

We are not of Pilate who asked in John 18:38, "What is truth?" Rather, we are of the one who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6a). Truth is loving because it is ultimately from God, and He is the source of all truth. Political correctness and postmodernism are evil because they aim to suppress the truth. Postmodernism would have us believe that everything is relative. Jesus tells us otherwise.

Sometimes it is difficult to listen to the truth because it exposes sinfulness in our own lives. However, it's far better that we hear it and act upon it than never hear it at all. It can at other times be difficult to speak the truth. This is especially the case when confronting someone we love with their sin. We must show tact and grace, but we must speak the truth no matter what the cost.

It is never unchristlike to speak the truth.

Truth is Revolutionary

Interestingly, this quote actually may not have come from George Orwell (author of the famous and troubling classic 1984). Regardless, the quote rings true as our culture sprints farther and farther away from the truth every day.

A Bad Reason for Returning to the Institution: the Lure of the Mega Church

This is the final installment in my series Ten Bad Reasons for Returning to the Institution.

The mega church is a fairly modern phenomenon. Massive churches with thousands of attendees meeting in a massive building did not exist even 100 years ago. However, today (at least in the USA) every city has at least one. And that one has an inordinate impact on all the churches around it.

My home, Savannah, has one mega church. That church acts as a giant magnet, attracting believers from other local churches. All the others fear it because they don't want to lose their people. Mega churches like this one don't generally grow from conversion but rather just from believers switching churches.

But why do so many Christians these days end up at mega churches?

I can only speak from the American experience; I do not claim to be familiar with church situations in other countries. In this country, bigger and more expensive is often seen as better. Most mega churches have nice, large, comfortable buildings that cost millions (literally) of dollars. "They must be better than the other churches since so many people attend" so the thinking goes. If nothing else, mega churches make church entertaining for kids. Because of this, children pull to go there. I vividly remember one time visiting what I would call a semi-mega church soon after we moved to seminary. It had a very nice wooden Noah's ark outside that the kids could play all over. My son wanted to go back the next week to play on it some more. We didn't go.

Mega churches are, above all else, comfortable. When you arrive, somebody from the "parking ministry" directs you to a spot. After you drop off your kids at the fun house, you can get your caffeine at the coffee shop (the "coffee ministry"). Then it's off to sit through a Sunday School/small group and then a worship service. After that, go home. Easy-peasy.

I guarantee you that if you give in to the pull of the institutional mega church you will gag at yourself. Stay the course in following the biblical model for church life even if you have to walk alone for a while. The worst thing you can do is follow the lure of the mega church.

Different Color Scheme

Despite their failings, I still love my Buffalo Bills. However, I'm just not happy with the red, white, and blue theme for my blog. Every time I look at it I'm reminded of the issue of patriotism. That certainly has its place, but it's not one of the things I want my blog to reflect. Therefore, I'm changing to the current colors. I prefer the clean, simple look. Additionally, green is my favorite color. So there it is.

"Women’s Sanitary Bins and Bathroom Theology"

Peter Jones has penned an excellent piece that is well worth your time. In Women’s Sanitary Bins and Bathroom Theology he tackles head on the insanity that is the current gender-identity mess in this country. Jones discusses the links between world religions, truth, and feelings. I appreciate that he calls a proverbial spade a spade. We are, quite frankly, at a point of madness in this culture. I highly encourage you to read it.

Modesty is Not a Dirty Word

I expect nothing good from secular culture. Minds closed to the things of Christ will never live according to biblical standards.

I expect a lot of good from the church. Minds enlightened by the Holy Spirit both can and should live according to what God desires. As with so many things, however, the church often disappoints. One particular area where this is the case is with modesty. In particular, I'm referring to modesty of dress.

How is it that just about any Christian who brings up modesty is almost immediately accused of being a legalist or a prude? One time I actually dared on social media (my mistake) to speak out against women wearing bikinis. I of course received a ton of push back along with the all too frequent question, "Do you expect women to wear burkas?" It is sad that any suggestion that men and women dress modestly is rejected by (it seems) the majority of believers.

Paul tells us in I Timothy chapter 2:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works (I Tim. 2:8-10).

The only explanation I have for this phenomenon - that of the church rejecting modesty of dress - is that the church has largely adopted the values of the world. This is not news; we've seen it all our lives. It is simply a very troubling thing.

A basic reading of the New Testament teaches us that followers of Christ will live far differently from the world. We will, in fact, be a peculiar people. Peter actually refers to us as aliens. When the body of Christ looks and acts like what it is (something unique), that pleases God. On the other hand, when the church looks and acts like secular culture something is very wrong.

Modesty of dress is not legalism. No one is calling upon Christian women to wear burkas. What I am calling for is the body of Christ living as what we are - a holy people. When it comes to dress, we should not be flaunting our physical bodies for the world to see. Rather, when we dress modestly it allows God to be glorified through what stands out - our acts of righteousness and service.

Please brothers and sisters, let's all embrace a lifestyle of modesty. When it comes specifically to dress, let's fault on the side of covering up as opposed to showing it off. There will certainly be some gray areas in this; we will not all agree, for example, what constitutes shorts that are too short. However, if we will strive to please Christ and embrace modesty we will look far different from the world around us. This pleases our Lord.

A Republic, Not a Democracy

I don't generally post about politics, but the above graphic is too good to pass up. With religious liberty in this country increasingly under attack, we need to know the difference between a republic and a democracy. My guess is that most Americans don't have a clue. That said, our hope ultimately rests in Christ as opposed to man. Therefore, even if our religious liberty is completely stripped away God will remain faithful. Life will just become much more uncomfortable.

From Columbia to Charleston!

Friday and Saturday were challenging days, but challenging in the good sense.

I participated in the Palmetto 200, a relay race from Columbia to Charleston, South Carolina. As part of a twelve-person JCB team, I ran three of thirty-six total legs that took us from the middle of the state all the way to the coast. My mileage sum was about twenty.

I'd never taken part in anything like this event before. As a team we collectively ran more than 200 miles over the span of about thirty-one uninterrupted hours. We used two vans, alternating between running and sleeping (sort of). One very enjoyable aspect for me was that all three of my legs were far different. On the first, I ran six miles in the early evening from out in the country into a small town. Second, at five in the morning in the dark I ran eight miles through a largely barren section of a national forest. It was so dark! My final leg, in the afternoon of the next day, took me over a huge bridge in the middle of downtown Charleston. That last segment was a long five miles.

The best part of the relay was the camaraderie. Prior to this I did not know many of the other team members very well if at all. It was a blast to spend over a day with people who love to do what I love to do. We had a lot of time to simply talk about all sorts of things. I already cannot wait until next year's relay.

Below are pics of A) me sprinting to the finish line of the relay in order to beat the guy in the banana suit (you simply cannot let yourself be beaten by a banana), and B) the entire JCB team.

The Danger of Separating Romans 13 from Romans 12

Each Sunday morning our family gathers with some fellow believers in our home. As part of these meetings we've recently been studying through the book of Romans. It has been a joy.

As we looked at Romans chapter 12 and then chapter 13 I was struck by the importance of not separating the two in our minds. Of course, it is all too easy to do this since most bibles make a fairly big deal out of the man-made chapter divisions. Even we, as a small group of Christians, tend to study chapter-by-chapter each week. For example, one week we read through and discussed Romans 12 and the following week Romans 13. It would have been simple to miss the relationship between the two if we didn't pay active attention.

The beginning of Romans 12 is a well-known transition point in the book. The previous eleven chapters focused mostly on what God has done in His grand plan of redemption. Romans 12-16 looks primarily at what man's response should be in light of what God has accomplished. Paul sums this up well in Romans 12:1-2, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

Paul expects us to be "living sacrifices" to God. But what does this look like? The apostle teases this out through the remainder of the epistle. In chapter 12 Paul lists various expectations of the Christian life. Toward the end of the chapter he tells the Roman Christians to "repay no one evil for evil" and "never avenge yourselves." His language is clear. The chapter ends at this point.

This is where the danger comes into play.

In chapter 13 Paul discusses the importance of being subject to governing authorities. Verses 13:3-4 say, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

The danger to the church, if we separate chapters 12 and 13, is that we might fall into the trap of over applying 13:3-4. I've seen this again and again as Christians point to these verses to support our government's nasty habit of invading other countries whenever we feel it is in America's best interests. I've also heard these verses used to defend self-defense to the point of vigilantism.

We cannot ignore what Paul said at the end of chapter 12. As Christ's followers, we are not to avenge ourselves. We are not to repay evil for evil. This hearkens back to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies." When we keep these things in mind, we are forced to see that Romans 13 has a much smaller application than what has been popular in modern evangelicalism. In Romans 13 Paul is simply saying that government uses its power to discipline those who would break the law. The apostle is discussing how a nation state functions within its own borders. It has nothing to do with invading other countries. It's got even less to do with any sort of self-defense.

For whatever reason the church in the USA has a tendency to support the military almost no matter what it does (at least as long as there's a Republican in the White House at the time). Romans 13 is frequently used as biblical justification for doing so. This is extremely poor interpretation of scripture.

We do much better to keep chapters 12 and 13 linked (which is what Paul intended). While the beginning of chapter 12 serves as a significant transition point in the letter, the beginning of chapter 13 does not. Paul's thought flows directly from 12 into 13. Therefore, everything in 13 must be read in the context of us being living sacrifices, repaying no one evil for evil, and us not avenging ourselves.

Avoid the danger of misinterpretation. Keep 12 and 13 linked.

20 Cognitive Biases That Affect Your Decisions

Good stuff here from Mental Floss. The first step in avoiding these pitfalls is being aware of them.

On Modern Worship Choruses

What You Are Owed...

The Biblical Text Has Meaning; We Do Not Bring Our Own Meaning To It

This is the third post in my blog series entitled Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

Postmodernism has swept through our society over the past half-century leaving a trail of destruction in its path. Postmodern thought is essentially a rejection of modern thought. Objectivity has given way to subjectivity. Absolute truth has been rejected as old-fashioned. Postmodernists scoff at the idea of meta-narratives. Instead of the focus being outside of self, postmodernity emphasizes personal feelings and opinions.

One critical aspect of postmodernism is the idea that the reader of a book brings meaning to the text. In essence, this allows the reader to determine what any book means based upon the reader's own background, presuppositions, political leanings, beliefs, etc. This doesn't really matter if someone is reading something of little significance like this. However, it's fairly obvious how troublesome postmodernism is when it comes to Biblical interpretation.

Many churches and denominations have happily embraced the idea of the reader bringing their own meaning to the scriptures. This allows them to say that the Bible means whatever they want it to mean. In this way folks who claim to be followers of Christ can reject straightforward scriptural teachings on issues such as the atonement, homosexuality, women's roles, etc.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces the Bible, or any other book for that matter, to meaninglessness.

The Bible is not a postmodern book. The Bible is also not a modern book. The Bible is an ancient book. It is an ancient one that remains meaningful and relevant for today. Its meaning and relevance stem from the fact that the text has objective meaning. A basic reading of the scriptures shows that The Biblical Writers Meant What They Said and The Bible is a Book That is Meant to be Understood. The writers meant certain things that had meaning then and have meaning now.

When we read the Bible at no point is there any suggestion that we ought to bring our own meaning to the text. Frankly, that idea is just ridiculous. God has spoken through the pages of scripture. He means what He means. It is our duty to responsibly interpret the Bible to comprehend what God means.

God gave meaning to the Bible. We do not bring our own to it.

"Anglican Split Is Really About Scriptural Authority, Not Gay Marriage"

Click here to read an excellent article by Eric Metaxas entitled Anglican Split Is Really About Scriptural Authority, Not Gay Marriage. He hits the nail on the head.

In Case You Missed It...

A few days ago Russell Moore penned an excellent piece entitled 2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics. It is one of the best articles I've read in quite a while on both American politics and biblical interpretation. This is a must read - especially for all culture warriors.

The Best Thing I've Seen on Facebook This Year

A couple of weeks ago I posted The Stupidest Thing I've Seen on Facebook This Year. On the positive side of things, today I came across the best thing I've seen on Facebook in quite a while. It's always good when Batman puts Robin in his place, especially when sound theology is on the line.

The Stupidest Thing I've Seen on Facebook This Year

The above nonsense showed up on my Facebook feed a few days ago. Just to be difficult I left this comment, "I kept scrolling."

7 Reasons Why Your Two Week Trip To Haiti Doesn’t Matter: Calling Bull on "Service Trips"

(I intended to wait until the new year to post anything serious, but the article I'm linking to is simply too good to wait that long.)

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The above saying can be applied to all sorts of situations in life. One of the most appropriate is short-term missions trips. Many churches send groups of volunteers overseas with the hope of doing some good. Their intentions are great. Unfortunately, these groups frequently do more harm than good. Sadly, the level of cluelessness is often extreme. Many western Christians go to foreign lands for a week or two, do some stuff, and then return home feeling good on the inside. However, what they've left behind is often more damage than anything else.

The article 7 Reasons Why Your Two Week Trip To Haiti Doesn’t Matter: Calling Bull on "Service Trips" skillfully addresses the above issue. While I do not agree with all of the details or conclusions in the article, I do believe most of it is right on target. I appreciate the fact that the author not only diagnoses the problems involved with missions trips, but also offers specific solutions.

The church in this country literally spends millions of dollars each year to send unskilled Christians abroad with the hopes of somehow doing some good. The results are generally not positive. Is there a better way? Can the money be spent more wisely? Can we avoid harming the locals and even accomplish some lasting good?

I encourage you to read the article and see what you think.

We Must Not Sacrifice the Truth for the Sake of Unity

The church is this country is largely in disarray. One of the primary reasons for this is its turning away from the truth in the name of unity.

If you've read this blog for a while, you know that I'm actually a proponent for unity within the body of Christ. In part because of this I acted as editor of Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity.  Since Jesus Christ is for the unity of his church, I'm for the unity of his church. It's that simple.

A massive problem within the church today is that some local bodies have sacrificed gospel truth for the sake of unity. Numerous denominations (see the Episcopal Church, the PC-USA, and the UCC for examples) have either watered down or outright rejected biblical teachings on the truth of the good news. They desire togetherness over truth. They are full of unregenerate people who see no need for repentance and faith. The cross is an offense to them.

Other bodies of believers, while not rejecting the gospel itself, have caved in on other issues. The two most common are women pastors and homosexuality. These folks have given in to secular culture, letting outside political pressures make decisions for those inside the church. This is all done in the name of unity. I call it cowardice.

Christianity is a belief system based in facts. It is true. Facts and truth are not popular today since they are so offensive to so many. Political correctness wages a constant war against any metanarratives, crying and whining about anything resembling absolute truth. Because of this, many who claim to follow Jesus have turned from the truth.

Despite this cultural nonsense, truth and facts stand the test of time. We learn these facts primarily in one place: the bible. Truth is a stream that runs throughout the pages of scripture. Psalm 86:11 says, "Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name." Psalm 119:160 tells us, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Later in this book we read, "The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth" (Ps. 145:18).

In Proverbs 12:19 we learn, "Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment."

What about the New Testament? Did those writers care about the truth? Let's see if we can find any examples:

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'" (John 8:31-32).

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6).

"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Gal. 5:7).

"Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:15).

"Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth" (I John 3:18).

Truth does not change. God's facts do not change. In order for us to embrace Jesus Christ, we must embrace his truth and facts. Even while society wars against the very idea of truth, we must stand firm. We cannot bend either to increase perceived unity within the body or to coddle a politically correct Thought Police.

I will admit that the church, at least in this country, has a tendency to divide over some nit picky and/or stupid issues. Many reasons Christians separate are of no consequence. This needs to stop. However, what also must stop is the sacrificing of truth, especially gospel truth, for the sake of unity. The consequences of this failure are eternal.

In John 18:38, Pilate famously asked our Lord, "What is truth?" Our society is asking that same question today. However, it is not seeking an answer but rather making the massive (and ironic) truth claim that truth itself does not exist. We must reject this notion. Salvation depends upon it.