Exchanging the Pastor for the Rancher, the Gospel for the Vision and the Savior for the Founder

I have had this post in the back of my head for almost two years. I held back on posting this because I just wasn't sure I wanted to post another entry on the issues I have with Victory Outreach. So i tucked it away for a time when I would not be labeled a "hater". Recently, however, I discovered Chris Roseborough's Fighting for the Faith podcast, and because of this program I have discovered that the issues that I have with Victory Outreach are not limited to them, but are legion in the the "seeker sensitive" churches throughout the nation. So I want to take some time and look at these so-called "vision driven" churches and their negative impact on the body of Christ in general.

On Fighting for the Faith, Roseborough, plays sermons from pastors...well, he calls them fuhrers...of these seeker sensitive churches. The reason he calls them fuhrers, is not to be shocking, but to describe what these men really are, leaders who beat and fleece the sheep, rather than loving shepherds who care and tend to the flock that God has given him. Let's look at the leadership first.

Ranchers as Opposed to Shepherds

I have heard a number of sermons from these "seeker sensitive" leaders, and it really has stood out in my mind, and caused me to remember a number of statements my old pastor who covets a "megachurch" (a church of 1,000 or more attendees). A number of these leaders seem to hold the members of their churches in disdain. I have heard them speak about how they hate attending functions with church members. They don't take time to do visitation, in-home or hospital. This is where the term "rancher" comes in. You see a rancher is busy overseeing all the business of the ranch. The individual cowboys are the ones that are charged with the everyday care of the flock. The rancher has the big picture, or vision, in mind and is just too busy to tend to the needs of the ordinary members.

Is this the way the church is to be handled according to Scripture? The answer is an unequivocal, "No!" Let's look at how the resurrected Jesus charged the soon-to-be Apostle Peter in John's gospel:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you
love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to
him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Hesaid to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He
said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he
said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything;
you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when
you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are
old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not
want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after
saying this he said to him, “Follow me.” (John 2115-19, English Standard Version)

"Feed my lambs." "Tend my sheep." "Feed my sheep." These are commands that require individual, everyday and personal attention. This is the work of a shepherd. No where in Scripture is there an office of "rancher". Why? Because the pastor, the shepherd, is to be involved in the life of sheep under his care. By extension the people are to see the life of the pastor, and be able to speak into his life as well.

Secondly, I do believer that their is a rancher in this analogy. The rancher, however is not the local church pastor, but rather Jesus Himself. The sheep are His, and pastors are the lone shepherd charged with caring for the sheep that belong to Jesus. Jesus bought His sheep with his own precious blood (Acts 20:28). He has given these sheep to men whom He gifted in order to feed and care for them (Ephesians 4:1-16). Sadly, too many pastors are deluding themselves into thinking that they are the ranchers instead of the lowly shepherd.

The Vision Replaces the Gospel

What is also interesting about these "seeker-sensitive" churches is their abandonment of the Gospel for the vision of the rancher. Let me illustrate,Steven Furtick's Elevation Church has 12 points that he calls "The Code" of the church. In it he lists the things that are important to him, and it is even more interesting that his "Code" has no scriptural citations as backing. Second example, Victory Outreach is an inner-city church ministry that is based on "The Vision" that God allegedly gave Sonny Argonzoni, the founder of this Word-Faith/Pentecostal church movement. The vision is based on a narcissistic reading of Isaiah 45:2-3, in which Mr Argonzoni believes applies to him and the people he reaches (drug addicts, prostitutes, gang members and their families). As an aside, and I hate to bring this up, but this passage does not apply to Victory Outreach or any other modern church movement. No, this passage applies to Cyrus the Great, the Persian emperor to whom God gave the Babylonian empire.

Further, I do not think that any church needs to steal promises from Old Testament people, especially a ministry that ministers to the bottom end of society. Did not Jesus model this in His ministry on earth? Who did Jesus go after? I do not see any reason why a church would need a "vision" from the Old Testament when there is abundant evidence supporting outreach to the social outcast.

Nowhere in the scriptures are Christians charged to promote subjective "visions", but rather to preach the Gospel! The Great Commission is not about promoting the subjective vision of a founding pastor, but rather to promote the saving work of Jesus Christ on a cross outside the ancient city of Jerusalem and His resurrection three days later!

I believe that there is a vision for the church. It is a vision that its founder had, and that is that all types of people from all over the world will hear the Gospel, repent of their sins, and believe in the work of Jesus Christ.

No Understanding of Law and Gospel

The other thing you see in "vision" driven churches is a lack of differentiating between law and Gospel. They will claim that they are not legalistic. Nearly all of these churches have a slavish devotion to tithing, prayer and fasting. For instance, nearly all "vision" driven churches insist that the member "honor God with their finances". This always entails tithing. Tithing is the practice of giving ten percent of your income to the church. It is also a practice that is NOT required of the Christian (for more on this please read my series on Tithing).

There is a sort of cooperation between the member and God that is taught. If you, the member, does X, Y and Z, then God is obligated to do A, B, and C. This is law. It is teaching that your works do something to move God into your favor. The Bible teaches that God is already on our side, and nothing we can do would ever move God. The leaders (pastors) of these "vision" driven churches simply do not understand that anything you do to please God is law.

I wish to take some time to make something clear. I am not talking about fruit that indicates a changed life, i.e., obedience. A Christian that is truly saved will pray, give and fast, but their motivation will be love for their Savior, not as an act of propitiation. 

No Balance Between Evangelism and Disicipleship

A number of these "vision" driven churches are overly focused on evangelism. Many of them have a slogan such as the one at Elevation Church. It says, "We need your chair." In other words, they need your chair because they are too focused on evangelizing and getting people into the church, rather than making disciples. The pastor of the "vision" driven church is not interested in taking the members of his "ranch" down deep. No, instead he focuses on a pragmatic gospel. A gospel in which the members or the pastor is read into every scripture, rather than expositing the true gospel of Jesus, His cross, and His resurrection!

I can't tell you how many times I heard my old pastor preach about the miracles he supposedly performed 30 years ago. I can't tell you how many times he taught that "damaged emotions" were the causes of sin in the life of the believer. That if we only prayed, fasted and read the bible enough that those activities heal the damaged emotions, and by logical extension attain a sinless life (this was never explicitly taught, but the implication is there).

Sadly, all this does is heap law on the hearer. Grace is nowhere to be found in those messages. This is a problem indicative of the "vision" driven churches that have popped up all over the country. These pastors are not preaching the biblical gospel, but rather "therapeutic moralistic deism". In other words, a sermon consists of a scripture (ripped from its context) and three points to apply to your life to make your life better. Even worse, there is a deism that is taught in these churches. God is far off, until you need him to perform a miracle in your life. In fact, he is so far off, that he won't responded to the prayers Jesus taught in the gospels, but instead we need to pray "audacious" prayers, "sun stand still" prayers, or "circle maker" prayers.

Many of these churches have an unbalanced view of finances. In my old church, the offering was a 30 minute ordeal that entailed a 20 to 25 minute guilt trip from scripture (sometimes in context, but most times ripped out of context) with five to 10 minutes for receiving the offering. There is an overemphasis on tithing, but I have already addressed this above. The ultimate problem, especially in my old church is that while the members were focused on wealth and health, the members are in spiritual poverty and sickness.

Exchanging the Savior for the Founder

Lastly, there is an adulation of the founding pastor that borders on idolatry. Let me give you an example, in my old church you would here this prior to a person giving their testimony, "I want to thank God and Pastor S. (the founder of the movement) for my salvation." Really? The founding pastor was responsible for your salvation? Are we to thank God for the pastor, because if not for him God was somehow helpless to reach the inner-cities of the nation and world. Thanking a pastor for your salvation is like thanking the flotation device instead of the person who threw it to you, as you were drowning!

Because of the overemphasis on the founder, the preaching is skewed towards his personal bias. The members never get a well-rounded diet of spiritual food, but are instead continually forced to eat the pastor's favorite topics, which is usually the "vision" God gave him.

Another reason that this sort of "vision" driven pastor is dangerous is that by claiming that he has a "vision" from God, he is now above correction. Who, in their right mind, is going to correct a man who got a "vision" from God? I believe that one of the reasons for a "vision" driven church is to quash legitimate criticism of the founder or pastor. This vision can be used as a hedge to keep the founder/pastor free from correction that is not based on personality but on scripture. All and all, "visionary" leadership can be a dangerous thing.

The Remedy for "Vision" is the Mission

Jesus, prior to ascension to heaven did not give a "vision", rather he gave a mission. That mission is to go all over the earth and make disciples and to teach these people to obey all the things Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). We are not to focus on one particular type of person, but we are commanded to go to all kinds of people. This was something that the early church in Jerusalem forgot right away. So God had to move them on in their understanding that the gospel was not just for the Jew, but for the Samaritan, and for the Gentiles (good news for us)! In each case, it appears that God had to move circumstances so that this early church would move along to these people groups. Further, the figurative capital of Christianity also changed locations in the early days. Early on, the capital of Christianity was Jerusalem. This was in keeping with Christianity's early influence. However, in Acts 9 we see the center of Christianity moving away from Jerusalem and landing in Damascus.

We are to be on mission, and not on vision. A vision is subjective, the mission is objective and our focus. A vision is a gateway to law and legalism. The mission is the way we rehearse the gospel to ourselves as we preach to those who are not saved. We go not vision cast into our lives, but rather we need to be reminded of what the gospel is all about, namely the forgiveness of sin! We do not need old tired stories of what the pastor did 30 years ago, but to rehearse the works of Jesus and how they were used to preach the gospel in the lives of the people he healed.

If you are a part of a "vision" driven church that has as one of its values, "We need your chair." Then be all means oblige that church, and leave. Find a church that is mission-centered. I church that is focused not only on making converts, but also making disciples. 

The Hundredfold Promise: Mark 10:30

In my time at a Pentecostal church there was an inordinate emphasis on money. Usually it was emphasizing transferring money from the people's wallets to the pastor's. In the process of this transference, many Scriptures were ripped out of context in a weak attempt to pry as much money from the people. Most of these Scriptures were called "promise" Scriptures to those who both paid tithes and gave additional free-will offerings.


One of these "promise" scriptures used at nearly every offering was Mark 10:30 (ESV):

...who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands....

Now I want you to notice the two uses of ellipsis, the three periods (at the front of the quote), and four periods (at the end of the quote). The ellipsis is a literary device used in quoting to show that the author has not made a full quotation, but rather has taken a phrase or sentence from the full quotation. Now there is nothing wrong with the use of ellipsis per se, unless the author is taking the partial quote out of context from the full quotation to make a point that the quoted author never intended. This sort of misquotation is exactly what we have with the use of this verse as a proof text for prosperity teaching.


This verse, when examined in its context has nothing whatsoever to do with financial prosperity! Let's look at the entire context of Mark chapter 10 (ESV) from which this verse is taken:

17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and(W) knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" 20And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." 21And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have(AD) treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

 23And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" 24And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." 26And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" 27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." 28Peter began to say to him, "See, we have left everything and followed you." 29Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

 As we can see from the full context that surrounds the verse in question, the verse is not talking about financial prosperity, but rather what it is required from a disciple of Jesus. Jesus requires from those that want to follow Him is the abandonment of comfort and security for the sake of following Jesus and believing in the Gospel. Further, the hundredfold promise is in no way a reference to financial prosperity, rather it is referring to a whole new community that would be created with the birth of the church which a new believer would then belong to. The verse refers to a multiplication of relationships-many of which will become stronger than blood relationships (cf. Mark 3:31-35; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Timothy 5:1-2).

Not only is a new family promised, but also "persecutions". This is not an idea that Prosperity teaches want to speak about. They never seem to talk about this aspect of Christianity. Instead the Prosperity teachers teach that only good things will happen to the new believer. Sadly, when bad things begin to happen to the new believer, the new believer does not know how to process these bad things. Instead of knowing that bad things are normative, and may even be part of their character growth, they operate out of a religious fear of God. This fear is the old religious idea that the human needs to please God through his/her life. This thought then brings on an unnecessary guilt that the new believer is not pleasing God, because if she had been these bad things would not be falling on her. Sometimes the guilt gets so great that they believe that God is not happy with them. Some reach levels of despair so deep that they attempt or commit suicide.

The Bible does teach us about finances. It teaches us a balanced view in which we do not believe that wealth is a sin (e.g., Abraham, Job or Solomon). The Bible, however, does condemn the love of money (Luke 16:13; 1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Love of money is an unhealthy fixation with money. The love of money indicates that the person who has it is actually living with a temporal perspective rather then an eternal perspective.

Scripture also takes a dim view of those who desire for wealth (1 Timothy 6:9). Paul also noted that the love of money would be a sign of the end times (2 Timothy 3:1-9).

Jesus also warned that a man life is not about what he has (Luke 12:15). Jesus also taught his followers to regard money as a tool for the building of His kingdom. In other words, that priority of the believer is not of this earth, but are instead focused on a heavenly perspective (Matthew 6:19-20; cf. John 6:27).

According to Jesus, the priority of the believer is living for God (Matthew 6:33). When this is done, then God will provide His followers with what they need, not what they want. Further, these gifted necessities, are not to be viewed as ours, but instead are to be offered back to God with an open hand and with the attitude that whatever God wants back, it is His, and given back to Him with a joyful disposition. Our attitude towards finances and material things does not end there. Paul tells us that a Christian should be content in both good times and bad times (Philippians 4:12-13).

In conclusion, Christians must be discerning when it comes to anything that is taught by a pastor or teacher. As a teacher myself, I am not threatened by students that verify what I am teaching with the word of God. No one, not even the Apostle Paul, is above that (Acts 17:11). Therefore, I plead with my readers to search the Scriptures and make sure that the things you are being taught is so.

Does the Gospel Guarantee Physical Healing?

I attended a Pentecostal church for a number of years. One of the things that was done during the regular services was a prayer for those with needs physical, financial etc. A special emphasis was placed on those with sicknesses and physical infirmities. This is one of the unique distinctions of Pentecostalism, and a distinction that I agree with because this is something that Scripture mandates in James 5:14. I still believe that God can heal today.


My issues are not with healing but with the nonsense that is being preached by Pentecostal preachers and evangelists to justify healing. Further the way healing is preached makes it appear that God is somehow obligated to heal because I have said the appropriate "magic words" or "magic" Bible verses. Take, for example the following video from Victory Outreach.

I do not know if this was a real miracle or not. No one has placed a before and after x-ray of this young girl's back on the internet, that I am aware of. Because "leg lengthening" has been exposed as a fraud I have a hard time believing that this was an actual miracle. Further the lack of any documentation raises my suspicions even more. I would like to see the documentation, and since this is being labeled a true healing that documentation should be readily available.


However, I am not here to question the legitimacy of the healing, but rather the misuse of Scripture during this alleged healing. In the video, the healer invokes three Scriptures. One of them was Isaiah 53:4-5 which reads as follows in the English Standard Version:

4  Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

 smitten by God, and afflicted.

5  But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

 and with his stripes we are healed.

 Pentecostals and Word-faith healers use this Scripture to show that physical healing is guaranteed in the Gospel. Further, there are those in the Word-faith movement who actually believe that a true believer in Jesus will never be sick. Further, they teach that it is up to the believer to appropriate this guaranteed healing by positive confession of the healing claims. Word-faith teachers also claim that any doubt is a sin and that can prevent the healing of a sickness in a believer. This is a great card to play especially when someone is not healed at one of their "deliverance" services.


There is a guaranteed healing in these verses. But it is not physical healing. In fact, I am not aware of a single verse in the bible that guarantees physical healing of the believer. The healing that is guaranteed in these verses is the spiritual healing that the cross accomplished. Why do I say that? Very simply the verses themselves. Verse five uses the words "transgressions" and "iniquities". What do they mean? The Hebrew word translated into English as "transgressions" literally means a revolt. Sin is a revolt against God. A revolt against His revelation as seen in Genesis chapter 3. The Hebrew word translated in English as "iniquities" literally means perversity or moral evil. These terms set the context of this verse not in the realm of the physical but in the spiritual. The healing spoken of here by Isaiah of the future Messiah is spiritual and focused on the redemption of humanity from the misery of sin.


There are a number of other verses which show that healing is something guaranteed to the Christian.

• Paul evidently could not heal Timothy's stomach problem, and instructed him to take advantage of medicinal remedies (1 Timothy 5:23).
• Paul was unable to heal Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20) or Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27).
• Paul's own bodily illness was never healed (Galatians 4:13-15).
• There are many scholars that believe the issue that Paul referred to as his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7-9) was a chronic illness.
• God allowed Job to go through a time of sickness (Job 1 & 2).

In none of these cases was sickness said to be caused by sin or doubt in the peoples' lives. There is one exception to this statement, and that is the case of Job. In his case his sickness was said to have been the result of sin by the three false friends (Job 4:7). Further, Paul or any other apostle act as if they thought their healing was guaranteed in the atoning death of Jesus. Even more devestating to the Word-faith teachers is the fact that on two occasions Jesus said that sickness could be for the glory of God (John 9:3 & 11:4)!


Scripture does speak about the health of believers. It tells us that our bodies are weak and perishable (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), decaying (2 Corinthians 4:16), and subject to death and disease until we receive our resurrection bodies that will be immune from these issues (1 Corinthians 15:51-55).


One last point I want to make about the use of Isaiah 53 is that the clearest Old Testament prophecy about the purpose of the Messiah's life has been hijacked by unscrupulous Word-faith teachers and greedy pastors that are interested in cheeks in the church seats and checks in the offering plates. This verse is not about us, but about Him! His work made salvation possible. His work made it possible for our sin to be forgiven. He need salvation more than we need healing. Sin is the real problem. I would gladly suffer 70 or 80 years of sickness than an eternity of being punished for my sin!


Again, I do believe that healing is an active aspect of the work of God today. I do not believe, however, that the manner in which healing is preached by Word-faith teachers and most Pentecostal preachers is in line with Scripture, and it is Scripture that defines what we believe and how we behave. I hope and pray that those that are leaning towards the view of healing that is utterly unscriptural will move away from it and back towards the Bible. I also pray that those who preach this abomination repent of their false teaching and return to biblical teaching.

Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See

Christmas is a time that brings mixed emotions to me. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and I never celebrated Christmas until I was 22. That first Christmas was awesome. I felt something akin to what Ebenezer Scrooge felt after his awakening in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. For the first time the joy, the peace, the reason for Christmas was very clear to me. Since then I have loved Christmas. But it is during Christmas that I also think of the family that is still lost in the Jehovah's Witness cult. Nearly all of my family is involved in that cult, and I feel so sad for them. I am trusting in God to rescue them from their servitude to that cult. It appears more and more that the Jehovah's Witness cult is crumbling. That, however, is the topic on another post.

What I want to talk about today is the theology of Christmas: the incarnation of Jesus. I want to do this using a portion of lyrics from Hark the Herald Angel Sings.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail incarnate Deity.

This lyric appears to be a distilled version of John 1:1-14; the Christmas story without the angels, the star, the magi, the shepherds, the manger, etc. This is the theology of Christmas. That Creator condescended and became His creation. I don’t know about you, but I find this jaw dropping! Why would God do this? Not only the condescension of incarnation, but the ultimate insult, allowing Himself to be nailed to a Roman cross some 33 years after the first Christmas! This is the miracle of Christmas. This is John’s Christmas story.

John tells in four simple words, “The Word became flesh”. In the most humble of surroundings of a barn, the Creator of heaven and earth entered time and space. This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Our God, in His effort to save His fallen creation, came to earth.

He did this because we can in no way establish a righteousness that is perfect. Our actions, our words and our thoughts are stained with sin. The Apostle Paul, in his magnum opus on the gospel of Jesus Christ, the book of Romans, quotes from the Old Testament with this stinging indictment on humanity:

There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one. Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:10-18, NET).

Now, I realize that some of you reading this may be shocked to find out that this is what the Bible actually says about you (please don’t trip when I say “you”, because I am in the same boat with you). Perhaps you attend a church that doesn’t teach that you are a sinner. Perhaps they teach you that you simply have made bad decisions, and that if you simply follow the principles they will educate you with you can live your best life now? Or perhaps the pastor of your church teaches that your problem is not sin, but damaged emotions? Or perhaps you have been taught that the reason Jesus came to earth was to teach you how to have health and wealth in this life? If the church you attend does not teach you that you are a sinner in need of a savior then they are robbing you, and your eternal soul is in danger (Matthew 23:15).

The reason that God condescended into flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth was to live the life that you could not live; a life of perfect obedience to God’s Law in action, word and thought. As an aside, Jesus did not accomplish this because he was devoted to prayer and fasting, as I once heard from the pulpit of a church. No, Jesus accomplished perfection because He was perfect. Jesus’ life was not an example for us to follow either. Jesus life was, no, is the life we receive credit for as a result of his resurrection (Romans 4:25). In return for His perfect life, Jesus was burdened with all our sin! It was on the cross that Jesus received the full punishment for our depravity. This punishment does not make salvation possible, but secures it for each and every person that believes.

God became flesh in order for Him to feel temptation. In the wilderness after his 40 day fast, from the desires of others, in the garden, and at other times Jesus felt temptation. Yet He was without sin (Hebrew 4:15). Yes, He knows everything about us. He faced temptation, stared it in the eye and vanquished it. He did this not as an example for his followers to emulate. He did not do it through the power of prayer and fasting. He did it because hidden in the flesh of Jesus was all the fullness of God (Colossians 2:9).

This is the theology of Christmas. It is simple, and to the point, but don’t let that fool you. The Gospel is simple. Yet within it there are some of the most profound and deep ideas that the human mind could never think up (2 Corinthians 2:9).

My message to you this Christmas is simple. Know who you are honoring today. He may have come the first time in a manger, but he will return again riding a warhorse and dressed in all-white. Why all-white? Because He’s not going to get bloody! So today, as you reflect on the birth of our Savior, do not just reflect on him as a baby in a manger, but as the Most High God wrapped in human flesh.

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King, 

peace on earth, and mercy mild, 

God and sinners reconciled!" 

Joyful, all ye nations rise, 

join the triumph of the skies; 

with th' angelic host proclaim, 

"Christ is born in Bethlehem!" 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Christ, by highest heaven adored; 

Christ, the everlasting Lord; 

late in time behold him come, 

offspring of a virgin's womb. 

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 

hail th' incarnate Deity, 

pleased with us in flesh to dwell, 

Jesus, our Emmanuel. 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! 

Hail the Sun of Righteousness! 

Light and life to all he brings, 

risen with healing in his wings. 

Mild he lays his glory by, 

born that we no more may die, 

born to raise us from the earth, 

born to give us second birth. 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Music by Felix Mendelssohn. Lyrics by Charles Wesley

The Death of a Foe

I woke up this morning to discover that the noted essayist and "New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens has died. I am not happy at his passing. In fact, I am very sad. God said that He takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23). Therefore, I am not here to gloat over his death, but rather to reflect on the impact Mr. Hitchens, one of the so-called "Four Horseman of Atheism". A moniker he shared with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

What was the impact of Mr. Hitchens? On me personally, I loved his later political views. He began as a Trotskyite, but later moved away from the Left and to the Right of the political spectrum. I loved the rhetorical flair that he often used to deliver his ideas. He was a master of rhetoric. He called former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, a rapist, Mother Teresa a fraud, and former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger a war criminal.

Hitchens also had a less than chivalrous side. He left his pregnant first wife for another woman.

What vaulted Hitchens to worldwide fame was his response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. He and the other "New Atheists" tarred all religion with every evil act committed on the face of the earth. He wrote with a vicious pen that ripped into anyone that believed in God, as well as God himself.

I read his book God is Not Great. I love his style. Direct, to the point, and filled with biting sarcasm, which I love! That said, I do recall in chapter one of God is Not Great, Hitchens reminisces of his first inclinations towards atheism at the age of nine. Sadly, most of those inclinations that later became a full blown world view were never reflected upon, and refined.

Much of Hitchens railings against God, like the railings of the three other Horsemen (Dawkins, Harris & Dennett) are simply warmed over 19th century rationalistic attacks on Christianity by atheists of that age. These arguments have been summarily refuted, and continue to be. What made the "New Atheism" new, however, was the caustic manner in which they attacked religion. Saying that religion is not only unbelievable, but it was not even worthy of respect or tolerance.

My thoughts, however, are not on his writings or his style, but instead with his family. They lost a husband and a father. Their pain is real. I pray for them. I also pray that perhaps, before he died, Hitchens realized the futility and foolishness of denying his Maker, repented of his sin, and accepted the work of Jesus on the cross.  That is my hope, the reality may be opposite.

In either case, Christopher Hitchens is no longer an atheist. The writer of Hebrews, said, "...[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (English Standard Version). He has faced his judgement, for better or for worse, a judgement that I leave to God. Based on what Mr. Hitchens believed, however, leads me to believe that his judgement was for the worse. Consignment to an eternity in hell, where he will recieve full punishment for his sin against the God he so vociferously denied.

You might be saying to yourself, "What an intolerant thing to say!" Well, I ask, why would God allow a man that not only denied His existence, but HATED Him for even being a figment of the collective imaginations of humanity to spend eternity with Him?

The ultimate question, though, is not what happened to Christopher Hitchens, but rather what will happen to you when you die?

You see, you are a sinner. You have lied. If you have ever told one lie, no matter how small or how white, you are a liar. If you have looked at a man or a woman with sexually charged thoughts, then you have committed adultery. If you have gotten angry at another for no reason, then you have committed murder (Matthew 5:27-29).

You have committed idolatry. Worshiping other gods. No, I'm not talking about lighting candles to saints, or that. Rather, you have taking a good thing that God has created for your enjoyment, and made it an ultimate thing in your life! You have taken something or someone, and devoted yourself first and foremost to that someone or something to the exclusion of God! This is the essence of idolatry.

No amount of good performance can ever tip the scales of God's justice to your favor, let alone get them to even! You will never be able to satisfy God's wrath over your sin! There is only one work that can ever satisfy God's wrath over your sin, and that is the death of an absolutely perfect man. That man was Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life. A life that you should have lived. He never violated any aspect of God's law.  It was not just that he lived a perfect life, but he died a death that you should have died. A violent and bloody death on a Roman crucifix. On that cross, Jesus became sin by receiving the full wrath of God for sin.

That death, however, is not the end of the story. If Jesus simply paid the penalty to God for our sin, then we would be forgiven, but still under the power of sin. This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. SO important that Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then we might as well, party on, for there is no hope. So three days after Jesus died, he rose from the dead and presented himself alive to his closest followers! Jesus' resurrection was so potent, that it not only convinced Jesus' closest followers, but also a hardened skeptic, James (how was Jesus' own brother), and a zealous persecutor of the church (Saul of Tarsus, who later became Paul). Not only these, but many others on the 2,000-plus years since then have had there lives radically changed by the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

I do not want to eulogize Christopher Hitchens. Rather, I want to say that here is a man that spent his whole life railing against God, and at the end of it, he may be facing a eternity feeling the full wrath of that very God he mocked, scorned and denied. I want to tell you, the reader, that you do not have to face that same eternity. Today, you have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and I implore you to choose life!

Christopher Hitchens will pay for his sin for eternity. I am deeply saddened by his death, because as the English Reformer John Bradford said, "There but by the grace of God go I!" It is only God's grace that kept me from a path similar to Hitchens'. You to can join us in Bradford's sentiment by accepting the free gift of God for salvation. I pray that you will accept it.

The Religion of Him or the religion of him

You will notice, if you have an education that was not from a public school within the past twenty years that I have not capitalized the title of this post correctly. I have done so in order to make a point. You see the modern church has abandoned the Religion of Him for the religion of him, and in doing so has placed the souls of many in jeopardy.

First, let me define some terms. When I use religion, I don't mean religious acts designed to placate an angry God. no, when I use the term religion I mean a philosophy that tells one what to believe and how to live. Doesn't Christianity tell one what to believe and how to live? Further, when I use "Him", I am referring to Jesus, as he has been historically understood by the historic Christian faith. Lastly, when I refer to "him" I am referring to pastors that are exchanging their mission, vision, etc. for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So what is the Gospel of which I write? The Gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 (ESV):

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

This is the Gospel. The Good News. The thing that is ours to proclaim, not to edit.

What I want to write about today is men who exchange the Gospel for a vision, and the Savior for a founder. This is "the religion of him." In other words, exchanging the Religion of Him, for the religion of him. Understand that the use of the term vision came into vogue in the early 90s with the development of the "seeker sensitive" church. This term refers to the particular and subjective thought, burbling, or idea that motivated the pastor to found a church or movement.

So what is the "vision"? It comes in many forms. Usually in some pithy statement like "reaching the lost at any cost." What it really is, however, is law. It is do more, give more, follow these principles, etc. There is no rest, no trust, no grace, but only law. It is clearly the religion of him; the religion of the pastor. Many of these "vision-driven" churches are slavishly devoted to prayer, fasting and giving, and on the other hand pay lip service to God's word. This is demonstrated by whether or not the Bible is preached in a systematic and expositional manner. The "vision-driven" sermons are long in home-spun sentimentality and short on gospel truth.

Most of these "vision-driven" churches are mere fronts for "therapeutic moralistic deism". They teach that when you do for God, God is some how obligated to do for you. This is primarily taught to the church attenders through tithing principles. Many of these churches teach that your and your finances are under a curse if you do not tithe (pay 10% of your gross pay to the church). Now I have written on the tithe and why it is not applicable to the Christian on this blog in the past. Most of these churches over emphasize financial prosperity and health. These pastors teach their congregants to "lick the earth" as Blaise Pascal once said. In other words, these visionary pastors teach the congregants to get their sustenance from the world rather than from heaven.

The Religion of Him, by contrast, is not focused on what we can do for God, but on what He did for us. That everything we do to propitiate an angry God; a God that is rightfully angry at our sin. Jesus, on the cross, became us! He took on all of our sin, and the full measure of God's wrath came down upon Him on that Cross. He paid for every sin we have committed, and will ever commit has been atoned for on that cross. If you have placed your faith in that work, then there is no need for you to work in order to propitiate an angry God. The religion of him focuses on you and how you can live your best life now by applying various life principles.

Ultimately, the religion of him is about the pastor and what he has done, the miracles he performed, and his life spent for the church. The Religion of Him is about Jesus, His life, His work! Why would anyone want to exchange the Religion of Him for the religion of him? That is the question I leave you to answer.

The Door Scratching God

Recently someone whom I have as a "friend" on my Facebook posted a quote from Ezra LaTurco, Director of Victory Outreach's West Coast Urban Training Center. The quote was as follows:

God can only do what you believe he can do.

The problem with this statement is that God's ability is not limited by our belief about what He can or cannot do, but by His nature and character. God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18); God can never send a flood to destroy all life on earth (Genesis 8:20-22); God cannot get tired (Isaiah 40:28); God cannot take on a task too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17); God cannot be prejudiced (Acts 10:34-35); God cannot remember the sins of those forgiven by Him (Isaiah 43:25). I would ask Mr. LaTurco, based on his statement, if I believe that God can do one or all of the above, then does that mean He has to perform them?

I'm sure that Mr. La Turco would categorically deny that form of reasoning. Why then would Mr. LaTurco make a statement like this? More than likely it was in the midst of some emotional fund-raising rant. Something that Victory Outreach is especially good at, but that is another post.

What this statement demonstrates is a core problem with word-faith/prosperity teaching. The key error with word-faith teaching is that it makes God the servant of man. God is the cat scratching at the door of the human heart begging to be let in. What is stopping Christians from having the abundant life is the fact that we have not allowed God to do the impossible for God! That if we gave our tithes and offerings (in faith) then God could enter our lives and bless us. Note the key, we (humans) have the ability to allow or prevent God from acting! Where in the Bible is this taught? I am just asking for one clear and in context Bible verse!

Ultimately, this statement is bunk, and should disqualify anyone who utters such piffle from standing behind a church pulpit. What is more frightening, is that Mr. LaTurco is leading young people! This sort of triteness is being taught to a generation of young men and women in the guise of Christian education! If I had college age children they would not be attending any Victory Outreach youth group if this is an example of what they would be taught.

I pray that Mr. LaTurco would repent of this error.