Sin had already cursed the very ground on which the first family trod, there were now weeds, thorns and thistles – obstructions to the farmer and thieves of the very soil in which they grow. But somewhere in a field a human being slew his brother and separated his soul from the body.  And on that day, the Bible records that the ground choked on something which had never before been dispersed upon it: the innocent blood of mankind. When God confronted Cain, He declared that his brother’s blood was crying out to God.

I have wondered about those cries.

Were they groanings and sounds of grief?  Were they audible words crying a particular message to the One Who created the circulatory system of man himself, filled it with the very blood it requires and also created the function for that blood to replenish itself?

I cannot be positive about the answer, but I am positive that the ground was forced to receive the blood of one person which through the brutality of another person was involuntarily dispersed from his body.  And the ground was repulsed by it.

When Israel was preparing to inhabit the land which God promised them, He warned them that the ground which would be their most prized possession had actually been defiled by the conduct of the previous nations and it “vomiteth out her inhabitants.” (Leviticus 28:24-28)

I have heard the environmentalists shriek about air pollution, water pollution, carbon footprints, the evils of plastic, shielding whooping cranes and owls.  But I’ve never read where they were concerned about blood pollution. The participants of Earth Day don’t seem to be as concerned about the earth as much as the earth itself is.

God warned Israel that the land which would be their new and permanent home would not tolerate blood pollution:

Numbers 35:30-34, “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.”

The blood of innocent people defiles the very ground which is compelled to receive it.

I can think of no more innocent blood than the blood of the over 54 million aborted babies since Roe v Wade in 1973.  If you were to calculate the amount of blood from a baby in the womb at just 14 weeks since conception and multiply it by 54 million, you would arrive at 61,626 gallons of blood which has been shed by greedy and wicked hands since Roe v Wade.  That is enough blood from just the infants alone during abortion, not adding much more which is lost by the mother (both during the procedure and afterwards), to fill an average tanker truck 6,847 times.  Or in other words, you could line those trucks bumper to bumper and it would fill an entire lane on I-270 completely surrounding Columbus. All this from little infants weighing a little over an ounce.

This nation cannot endure the sin of abortion.  The ground of this nation must surely be ready to spit the inhabitants out of it.

Briefly look at the basic problems of our nation through the eyes of abortion:

• ECONOMY – how much better would our nation be if we had an additional 54 million consumers?  If there were 20 million more car buyers looking for GM’s, Fords or Hondas?  Would we actually be closing a third of our public schools, or would we be building more?
• JOBS – imagine all of the items which would need to be made to feed, clothe and satisfy the buying impulses of 45 million more people!
• HOUSING – would we be in a slump?  Not hardly!  About 25-30 million consumers seeking housing units, apartments and homes would create a phenomenal boom to the market.
• SOCIAL SECURITY – a non-aborted baby from 1973 to 1983 would most likely be at the height of his or her earning ability.  Imagine how much more would be deposited by those 12-18 million people alone, besides adding those through 1991.  They would be 25 years old or older and would comprise a strong base of the social security contributions themselves.
• RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY – I wonder if one of those 54 million would have been on track to discover the cure for cancer, Alzheimers or hundreds of other diseases.  Perhaps one could have invented a new technology which would help us live longer or drastically improve our quality of life.  What if we have already aborted this century’s Einstein, Goddard or Salk?
• DIPLOMACY – Some great minds are hard at work at the problems plaguing our nation – what if we have already butchered those who would have led movements, inspired people and improved our society?
• CHARITY – I wonder how many more people would be dedicating their lives to help others; from wealthy philanthropists eager to ease the suffering of the afflicted to the individual who ladles the soup into the bowl or stocks the shelves at the shelter.

The next time you mow the lawn, plant flowers or take a walk in the park – stop.  Pick up a handful of dirt and ask yourself how much of the blood of innocents murdered across our land it contains.  Their blood has been washed down our sinks, streamed through our sewers…and eventually settled somewhere.  Possibly in that very turf on the palm of your hand.

No.  The die has already been cast.  The boulder has begun rolling downhill.  The germs have already begun multiplying in the veins of our nation.  America cannot survive.

The cries of the blood of over 54 million innocents are ascending to heaven.  By murdering our infants, we have murdered our future.

In the neighborhood where I grew up we would choose sides as evenly as possible and get scoops of gravel from the neighborhood driveways as ammunition.  Then we would either attack the other base or defend our owh; or occasionally try to divide up and do both at the same time. When someone was pelted enough times and reached the point where they did not want any more welts on their body, they gave up and were relegated to “the cemetery.” Johnny was a member on my team that day (yes, real names so we won’t protect the guilty) and he had a good arm.  Anywhere below the neck was the target.  Walter was leading our opponents that day. He was the same size as Johnny with an arm almost as strong and accurate.  It was to be an epic battle with these two titans facing each other on the field of battle. Each team began testing each other with several volleys and then Walter decided to lead the first charge. He left the security of the tree which gave him cover and dashed toward us – only to Walter’s dismay, none of the rest of his troops were eager to test Johnny’s arm, so they stayed at the base. Here came Walter, roaring and throwing and dodging, intrepidly leading the assault of his troops which were now AWOL. Walter hated the “cemetery” and kept advancing, grimmacing and ducking all the way.  Finally, he caught an errant missile in the head…and the stone just stuck there, right in the center of his forehead. Of course, he started screaming, with blood beginning to roll down his face. There was an immediate cease fire and we did what anyone our age always did when they were faced with getting in trouble – we ran.  All of us.  Our team, his team – even his brother bolted to safety. Walter had to trudge home, five doors down, all by himself. Ultimately he didn’t need any stitches and we learned that even small head wounds bleed alot. But that certainly cured us from having any more rock fights. Until the next day, when Walter (gauze on his forehead and all) talked us into picking up sides and going at it again.

“What,” you may ask, “does this have to do with anything you thought you would find on a church website?”  Just this: I learned real early in life that there are always consequences of throwing stones – and I’ve learned how to face them.

I hold an unpopular opinion in “modern” Christian circles concerning issues which used to be classified as “secular” and “sacred” music. Miraculously someone must have waved a magic wand because now (supposedly) the separation between the two doesn’t exist. There was a time when everyone – regardless of the denomination – railed against the way our society was being poisoned by wicked music.  I remember when preachers thundered out against the Beatles, who, apparently, just wanted to hold someone’s hand. Those old “dinosaurs” in the pulpit tried to convince the people in the pews that if rock music was allowed to course through the minds of young people unaltered, that it would have a greatly adverse affect upon our society. Divorce rates would climb, juvenile delinquency would rise, teen pregnancies would become a plague and drug use and alcohol use would become critical problems among the youth. My, weren’t they overreacting fifty years ago!

I hold to the position that their conclusions were scripturally sound then, thus they are still scripturally sound today. I teach that music is not and cannot be amoral – it is either moral or immoral. That position must have hit a sensative nerve with people because many are angry at me and have started throwing stones. I was just standing at my base minding my own business…so I guess I’ll have to start throwing some stones back.

“Hymns were just bar room songs with Gospel words put to them.”  Hah, that stone didn’t hurt me a bit!  Because it is so dishonest to say, it reveals an immense ignorance of hymnology, accurate history and honest biography.  I have never been an admirer of Luther or Wesley, but one only faintly familiar with their writings would rapidly come to the conclusion that they – differently from many “preachers” today – would never find their inspiration from worldly practices. It’s definitely a straw man argument. Have you never read about Ira Sankey, Phillip Doddridge, William Williams, John Fawcett, Fanny Crosby and others who wrote hundreds of hymns apiece? I’ll chuck another stone back. Could it be that you relish using the “bar-room-lie argument” concerning hymns so you can try to excuse yourself doing exactly the same thing? Are you singing essentially the same music in church on Sundays that you enjoyed hearing in the bars yourself during the week?

“Music is amoral – neither right nor wrong.”  Such a weenie arm!  I can simply pick up the same stone and hurl it back at you in an article I previously wrote here.

“Christian rock is not wrong because of the words.” You must throw like a girl! (Oops, my apologies to all the women on church platforms who are disobeying Scripture and leading men.) The issue, I’m told, is not the music but the words. Funny, but that’s not what these rock stars are quoted about music (the rhythm and tune without the words) – and I assume they must know, they are experts in the field:

“My true belief about Rock ‘n’ Roll – and there have been a lot of phrases attributed to me over the years – is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic. A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. If you study music in rhythms, like I have, you’ll see that is true…”  Little Richard

“It (the Bible) says make merry with the joy of God only. But when it comes to worldly music, rock ‘n’ roll…Man, I got the Devil in me! If I didn’t have, I’d be a Christian…Cause I’m draggin’ the audience to hell with me. How am I gonna git ’em to heaven with “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On?” You can’t serve two masters; you’ll hate the on an’ love the other.” Jerry Lee Lewis

“Atmospheres are going to come through music, because music is a spiritual thing of its own…You can hypnotize people…and when you get them at their weakest point you can preach into the subconscious what you want to say.” Jimi Hendrix

“Rock music is sex. The big beat marches the body’s rhythms.” Frank Zappa

“Rock is the total celebration of the physical.” Ted Nugent

“That’s what rock is all about – sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat.” Gene Simmons

“There are very few verses in the entire Bible about music.” (Yawn) That stone didn’t even reach me. There are over 400 verses in the Bible which directly deals with music. To list all of them here would be like firing rocks back at you out of a Gatling gun.

“The value of Christian rock is that it always makes me feel better.” Wow, nice try, but that rock went WAY over my head. Here’s one right back at you!  So, where in all of Scripture does God declare that His main objective is for us to feel good? Please give me some verses which support the position that we should trust our feelings.  What passages can you quote which uplifts the notion that the feelings of God’s children are more important to Him than the obedience of His children? Do you really expect me to believe that Paul journeyed thousands of miles so people could feel better about themselves? Or that the other apostles went to the edges of the world with the message to encourage people to feel better? Of course I CAN find scores of passages which exhort us not to have any confidence in the flesh, not to make provision for the flesh, that the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the flesh is an enemy of God. One that pleased his own belly was not well-spoken of in the Bible, that’s for certain. Try this: I dare you to not listen to ANY CCM, Christian rock, etc. style of music whatsoever for an entire week. I guarantee you can’t do it. You have become addicted to the things of the flesh.   2 Peter 2:19, “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”

“The evidence of CCM’s influence is obvious to anyone.” It was impossible to hurt me with that one, I’ve been claiming this for a couple of decades now. My turn to throw now: It IS obvious to anyone with any spiritual discernment that overall churches are much weaker in their dedication, quieter in their opposition to evil and much less influential upon the society around them then they used to be decades ago. And worldly and wicked music has certainly contributed to the problem.

“Contemporary Christian Music causes me to love God more.” Bad throw, again. This is a missive oft intended for those “judgmental” people who are so quick to make broad sweeping judgments against whole masses of people while assuming they can discern someone else’s spirituality. No…that WAS my throw. I must say that I have heard MANY MORE of the CCM-loving crowd judge the spirituality of the more conservative believers than I have the opposite. I judge the music and in return my opponents judge me. THEY are the ones who heartily assume I am never in the Bible, never on my knees, never lift a finger to help another and rejoice to see souls die and go to Hell. THEY are the group automatically assuming that I am less spiritual than they – simply because of my position against something they love. I may as well throw another stone back, too: How can you measure a believer’s love for God? Impossible to be done?  It’s something that is only ambiguous? Wrong, it CAN be measured:  1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” As a believer’s love for God increases, so will his obedience to Him. So, after listening to the CCM and other music like it, are you more ready to follow all the “Thou Shalts” in the Bible and more determined to abstain from the “Thou Shalt Nots?” My interaction with this New Age Christian crowd has shown that generally the CCM & Christian rock crowd are the ones disdaining the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots for a mis-labeled “Christian liberty” devoid of any obligation to God or His Word.

“God loves it when the new believer in Africa plays the same music to the glory of God.”  OK, let’s start a whole barrage of stones back to you.  First, I am amazed at the number of people who claim to speak for God while they are overruling what God has already said for Himself.  Nine times we are commanded and exhorted to sing a new song unto the Lord. We are told that every man in Christ is a new creature, old things are passed away and all things are made new. No, God does not expect any newly saved individual to believe the same doctrines, to walk the same course, to speak the same message or to sing the same songs that he did before he trusted Christ. God requires holiness as a response to the work of His blood upon our previously filthy state. ALL believers are to walk in newness of life. And, while we’re at it, it’s always interesting to me that example is given of someone in Africa when it comes to music.  Follow the roots of rock music and it’s easy to see why.

“Music is the greatest tool to spread the gospel.” What a terrible miss! All through the New Testament the Good News of the Gospel was NOT spread by singing. The prophets were not sent to sing. The disciples were not sent forth to sing. The churches were not exhorted to sing the Gospel.

Matthew 4:23, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom…”

Matthew 9:35, “And Jesus went about all the cities and villages…preaching the gospel of the kingdom,”

Mark 1:14, “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,”

Mark 3:14, “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,”

Luke 9:2, “And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.”

Mark 16:15, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Acts 5:42, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”

Acts 8:4, “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

Acts 15:35, “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.”

Romans 1:15, “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.”

1 Corinthians 1:18, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

1 Corinthians 9:16, “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”

2 Corinthians 10:16, “To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.”

2 Timothy 4:17, “Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Titus 1:3, “But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;”

Goodness, it looks like my opponents are running out of rocks.

You know, it’s almost not even fair getting into rock fights with a crowd who were never allowed to have them before.  They are shocked and stunned when you actually throw those very same rocks back at them that they storm away. But it’s so easy to find where they are – people shouldn’t throw stones if they go to glass churches.

Music should be sacred in its contribution – it is NOT directed toward man.

Music should be directed toward God. He is the object of praise. He is the One Who is to worshipped “in the beauty of holiness” or sacredness.  The Almighty said that He would not give His glory to another. 1 Peter 3:18 tells us, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” Romans 1 declares that mankind has made continual attempts to bring God down to man. God uplifts, places His divine nature in us; while sinful man seeks to interject a sinful nature in God.

Everything which attracts God is holy and pure and clean – including music. If we truly seek to praise Him and exalt Him in song, then those songs need to be holy and pure. But most modern music today is actually directed toward the “worshipper” not toward the One they claim to worship. We are like selfish children, seeking to purchase a present for another that we like.

Music should be sacred in its composition – it is NOT amoral.

A letter of the alphabet is amoral – it carries no intrinsic morality.  However, when multiple letters are arranged into words and sentences, the message itself may convey a moral and holy sentiment or it may be a vulgar or immoral statement.  The individual who has arranged those letters into a message has directed whether those amoral letters give a moral or immoral message.

A color is amoral.  Whether the color is directly one from ROYGBIV, or a combined shade, the color itself is not good or bad.  Yet when an artist paints a canvas and arranges those colors in such a manner that one views an image, the image itself will be either moral or amoral.  It may be a seascape, landscape or a bowl of fruit – or it may be a nude or violent image.  The painter has arranged those amoral colors in such way that now the colors reveal either a moral or immoral image.

A piece of fabric is amoral.  Whether it may be lace, silk or gingham, the fabric itself does not contain moral worth.  But that fabric in the hands of a designer and tailor can be formed into a piece of clothing which can cover our bodies and promote modesty or be purposely revealing to promote sensuality.  That material has been formed into something which now carries morality or immorality.

In the same way, a music note is neither moral or immoral – it is amoral.  Notes on a scale, whether they emanate from a guitar, piano, saxophone or someone’s voice, carry no innate moral quality.  Yet when a composer arranges those notes, he is creating music which can either be moral or immoral regardless of whether the music has words, which makes it a song.

Letters in our alphabet are arranged to deliver a message.  Colors are blended to reveal a picture.  Fabric is tailored to create clothing.  And notes from the scale are arranged to make music.  Even without words, music delivers a message, reveals a picture and creates a mood.

It is dishonest to say that music is amoral, like this CCM and Christian rock crowd attempts to do.

Music should be sacred in its companionship – it is NOT worldly or sensual.

While Moses was on Sinai for forty days, he was face to face with God. As he and Joshua descended into the camp, they noticed such a noise that Joshua thought it was war. Instead, it was sensual music which accompanied nakedness, immorality and the worship of a false god. Although Aaron attributed their “worship celebration” to the LORD (meaning Jehovah), in actuality, it was not.

Ungodly and wicked music accompanied worship to Molech, Baal and Ashtaroth – the heathen deities worshipped by the nations which surrounded Israel. In the middle of Moses’ last warning to the people, he reminded them, “For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.”

So, what happened to sacred music? Did a holy God develop a sensual or worldly appetite? Did a God of decency and order now begin to author confusion? Was God’s Word nullified with the passing of Y2K? Did an immutable God change?

If He has not, then those who claim to be His children certainly have.

 

In fact, I was meditating on the former passage when it set my mind to working…

Isaiah 55:8-11, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

God doesn’t think like us, and most of the time, unfortunately, we don’t think like Him.  This is what has been troubling me lately as I have seen quotes like this repeated in various forms from many believers:

“The Westminster Shorter Catechism says: ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.’  John Piper says it might be more accurate to say: ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever.’”

I am unclear whether Mr. Piper actually places the same application to his statement which the multitudes do.  This statement, though, has led to such absurd conclusions that our enjoyment is more important than God’s glory – or at least the misconception that my enjoyment and God’s glory are actually intertwined and inseparable.  “I should not be concerned about God,” I am basically told, “I should be concerned about myself enjoying Christ.  Since every good gift comes from God, when I am enjoying myself, I am actually glorifying God.”  What a sad perversion of Holy Writ!

I am greatly troubled by statements like this because it is not thinking biblically.  In reading my Bible, I find some defining and fundamental passages about man and God.  Yes, I will enjoy being with Christ forever and having the privilege and joy to serve Him the way He deserves – in a completely sinless body and with superhuman effort.  It’s just I don’t find in Scripture where my enjoyment brings God glory.  The glory of God is one thing and my enjoyment is an entirely different one.

Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

Matthew 22:35-40, “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Philippians 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

Colossians 3:1-5, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:”

I wish to be the first one in line to say that the entrance of Christ into the soul of man definitely brings joy.  We rejoice because we are no longer enemies and strangers to God but are adopted into His family.  Our sins are washed away by the precious blood of Christ and we have been made righteous in the sight of God.  The Psalmist reminds us that He has put a new song in our mouths and taken us out of the miry clay and set our feet upon a rock.  I am a generally happy person because I am saved.

However, and I don’t wish to be overly critical, having joy because of Christ’s presence, His active work in our lives and the confidence of experiencing His Word to be true is quite a different thing than “glorifying God by enjoying Christ.”  It is not our enjoyment which brings God glory.  It is a changed life through yielding to the authority of Christ and His Word along with giving a verbal testimony of what He has done for us that brings glory to God.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying Christ, enjoying a church, enjoying a family or even, as we are told in Ecclesiastes, enjoying the result of hard work.  However, when enjoyment becomes the focus of “Christian” living – when it becomes the engine which runs our life with Christ – we have exchanged a life of gold, silver and precious stones for wood, hay and stubble.  Living for enjoyment basically erases the “Christian” part out of Christian living.  Teaching like this substitutes doctrine for experience, holiness for happiness and conformity to the image of Christ for the “freedom” of the serpent’s lie in the Garden.

The disciples enjoyed the fact that God gave them power when they went out preaching, and our Lord told them when they returned that they should rather glory that their names are written in Heaven.  Their enjoyment in the gifts given to them by our Lord Himself was misdirected and corrected by Him.  In Galatians we are reminded that we should not glory in any fleshly activity – or in the abstention of that activity – but we should glory only in the cross of Jesus Christ.  The church at Corinth was reminded that if this life alone was the main focus of enjoyment – then we should be miserable and not happy.  The motivational truth which prompts us to declare the Gospel to others is that I will enjoy myself in Heaven one day – even if I cannot live in enjoyment today.

It is a shame to see the effect of this pseudo-spirituality fulfilling itself in the lives of the modern believer.  Since the platform of service has been erected on this rotten wood of selfishness, it’s little wonder that there is a spirit of agitation and even hostility in most “modern” churches with “progressive” Christians against archaic notions like duty and holiness.  Those characteristics don’t mesh with enjoyment.  Of course not, our ways are not God’s ways.  His ways demand abasement of self and obedience to His Word.  Or, put another way, Galatians reminds us the the spirit and the flesh are always contrary to each other.

Can you see how this false concept pleases us, but doesn’t really please God?  This whole train of thought is running down the wrong track and will eventually cause derailment from serving Him or a terrible collision of fundamental ideals in one’s life.  Living a life where “personal enjoyment” equals “glorifying God” is an oxymoron like “Bible Humanism” and is devilish in its conception.

Peter recoiled when the Lord told him exactly how his martyrdom would bring glory to God – and when he asked what would happen to John he was simply told, “What is that to thee?  Follow thou me.”  Jesus didn’t placate him with the idea that he would enjoy his Christian walk, tantalize him with the love of his family or encourage him with prospect of material goods he would enjoy.  He simply told him, “Follow me.”  When he was in prison, I don’t believe he “enjoyed Christ” but he obeyed Him.  When the disciples were beaten for their testimony, they didn’t enjoy it; rather they thanked God that they were counted worthy to suffer for the sake of His name – His glory vs. our enjoyment.

Lazarus died – just so he could bring glory to God.  I don’t know how he died, just that he was gravely ill.  Was he “enjoying Christ” as he struggled for those last breaths, most likely unable to eat or drink much?  His body may have even been wracked with pain as he slipped into unconsciousness.  Jesus allowed him to die so his resurrection would bring glory to God.  John’s Gospel does not record that Jesus was concerned for Lazarus’ enjoyment.

Our brother, Paul, recorded he was given 39 stripes five times, often in prison, beaten with rods three times, stoned once, shipwrecked three times, spent a day and night floating on the sea, lived a life constantly in peril, went hungry and thirsty, was cold and underdressed and on top of all that he was in constant care and personal distress for the spiritual welfare of a multitude of churches.  That doesn’t sound like “enjoying Christ” to me.  It does sound like faithfulness to Christ and his calling, though.

The very testimony of Jesus Christ is amplified throughout the New Testament which gives us the model for living.  It encourages us through suffering, not enjoyment.  The hallmark of popular passages resounds the opposite of what Mr. Piper declares.

1 Peter 2:18-21, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.  For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.  For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”

The life of a true disciple of Christ in the Bible is commonly associated with suffering – not enjoyment.  This gives a whole different perspective on all the WWJD bracelets, charms and T-shirts.  Christ suffered, and we will, too.  We are reminded that all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution – not live a life full of enjoyment.

His ways are not our ways, neither is the way God thinks the same as we often think.  The Bible gives the necessary perspective in this upside-down world.  What would have happened if Moses would have lived his life based on this principle?  Rather than choosing affliction, he would have stayed in Pharaoh’s courts and cloaked himself with the fallacy that his enjoyment was actually glorifying God better than identifying himself with the bondage of slavery.

Jude 1:3-4, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Lasciviousness is a compound word carrying with it the context of vulgarity, wantonness, abandonment of restraint (generally in immorality) – really just a general and complete filthiness.  Since Mr. Piper uses the ESV, even that translation labels this word “sensuality,” which the dictionary defines as “the gratification of the senses or indulgence of the appetite, a preoccupation with the senses or appetites.”  Would it be too much of a generalization to say that this word could be defined as “fully pleasing yourself instead of God?”  God’s grace was not given just for us to please our senses, simply for our enjoyment.  Romans Chapter Six reminds us that we should no longer continue in sin – because it is the antithesis of what Christ expects from us as believers.

The hypocritical notion that our enjoyment equals God’s glory will eventually bring forth an ugly harvest after these corrupt trees have been planted and germinate.  Already the average “evangelical” refuses to endure hardship, changes churches based on comfort level instead of dedication to God’s Word and seeks after music which pleases the flesh instead of music which exalts Christ.  This is why churches “need” Starbucks, movie screens, and a “come-as-you-are” mentality.  Most of the dialogue from the pastors has become so softened and bereft of the mention of judgment that the messages are appropriately not labeled preaching any longer.  Thanks, in part, to this new hybrid God/self theology, progressive churches avoid the topics of Hell, the Judgment Seat of Christ, Apostasy, Worldliness and Obedience to the Word.  These “dark” topics are not enjoyable, so they are ignored while popular themes like, “The Gospel According to The Beatles,” and “God Wants You To Have Great Sex” are promoted.  These are the definitive results of “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.”

While we do not deserve God’s grace, and we never will, God does deserve our glory.  And not on our terms – on His.  The glory of God is never compatible with the sinfulness of man.

So, thank you to Mark Driscoll, John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Dever, Joshua Harris, Al Mohler and all of their followers.  They have helped to illustrate the Bible.  Unfortunately it is Philippians 2:20-21.

“For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.  For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.”

With one exception, however.  They are teaching others to seek their own and call it enjoying Christ.  What a shame.

Now, common sense would dictate that when an individual deviates from the standard or norm, the burden of proof to validate why he is straying or erring from the original point of reference actually lies upon the one departing.  Our position on the KJV is essentially the same as that of most “orthodox Christians” for nearly three hundered years.

For four hundred years God has used the Authorized Version as the Bible which formed nations, birthed religious freedom, established hundreds of thousands of churches and blazed a trail around the globe to people groups in need of the Gospel.  No other English version of the Bible can make that claim.

Scripturally, the tenor of words which demand a proof or evidence of God’s power do not arise out of a heart which exalts God’s words, but are commonly from those who lightly esteem them.  The rebellious Jewish leaders during the ministry of Jeremiah constantly demanded proof of his words.  The leaders during Malachi’s days grieved God with their words against Him, demanding proof why they should obey His commands.  The Pharisees and lawyers (scholars of Jesus’ day) attempted to catch our Lord in His words – to trap him or even twist His words into an untruth.  Unfortunately, it is not a rare thing for those who trust in man’s ability over God’s to question God’s ways or His works.

God has never been limited by man’s destructive effect upon His words.

• After Moses, in his great wrath, brake the tablets of stone which contained the very words of God, God Himself carved upon two new tablets the very words again.  Moses then placed them inside the ark, this action thus caused referring to the ark of God in a new term, “the ark of the testimony.”
• After the wicked king of Jerusalem cut Jeremiah’s prophecy with a penknife and burned it in the fire page by page, God spoke the words again in Jeremiah’s ear and as Jeremiah pronounced them Baruch the scribe recorded them – and God added more words after the first set of words were recorded.
• Jesus Christ, in Matthew 5:17-18 declared that not “one jot or one tittle” shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  The ark of the covenant had disappeared centuries earlier, but our Lord was confident enough to know that the exact words which Moses recorded – even the very strokes of those Hebrew letters – was in their possession at that very point in time.  The Lord Jesus Christ did not give the explanation of exactly HOW those very words were preserved, just that they were and that they will continue to be preserved.

I teach clearly and plainly that the King James Version is the authoritative translation in the English language and therefore we are blessed to hold in our hands a perfect Word of God, without error, in our own mother tongue.  I believe the very words of God have been providentially preserved for us in the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Received Text – basically as God delivered them in the original autographs.  I counted at least 251 times in the Old Testament and 67 times in the New Testament where reference was made to the exact “words” of God, and not merely His “word.”  The “words” are the vehicles which convey the message of the “word.”  The “message” or “word” is not the only item which Scripture declares will be perpetually preserved – but the “words” which actually convey that message.  When we tamper with the “words” the message itself, or the “Word,” is altered.  The consistency of those who claim God’s “Word” has been preserved, but not His “words” is suspect; any honest person with common sense must admit that the alteration of God’s words actually changes His Word.  As other men have so aptly stated, “Things that are different cannot be the same.”

I view this phraseology as a deceitful and subversive “play on words.”  Many preachers and educational institutions brazenly make an attempt to to frame their allegiance to “God’s Word” as being authoritative, preserved and even inspired “in the originals” without an honest clarification to the layman of what he actually holds in his hands.  They wish to appear consistent with the accepted “orthodox” position through the centuries, but in truth they have deviated from that historical position which true Bible-believers have held.

I wish those who claim to have God’s Preserved Word, but not His actual words, would be honest to their congregations and stand in their pulpit and boldly announce that they do not believe God’s actual words are even in existence.  I make my position clear, why do they make murky, clouded statements instead of being plain and clear?  I doubt they would have the gumption to declare that were it not for recent scholarship, we would not even have an understanding of the basic message of God.  I wonder if they would be so bold as to explain in detail how they hold to the position that God’s Word is actually a work in progress, that man possesses just a basic message but they cannot be dogmatic about the specifics of that message.  I would imagine that if many preachers and pastors would make their position abundantly clear, without any misunderstanding, and be honest and avow that God’s actual words do not exist – their congregations would probably throw them out on their ear.  Instead, they continue their deceptive speeches and speak of their love for and allegiance to “God’s Word” (meaning only the message, not the actual words) all the while changing and adapting that message for each successive generation and culture.  To make matters worse, I read their hollow “platitudes” for the KJV and how much they revere it – while at the same time amputating verses and phrases, altering the message by exchanging “harsh” words for ones much more appeasing or palatable and amending God’s explicit commands into mere beneficial suggestions.  This practice of obfuscation saddens my spirit and grieves my soul.

I call also as witnesses the very men who gave us the texts upon which all of the modern translations are based in evidence against themselves.  The chief translators which perverted the Greek and Hebrew texts were ungodly and unsaved men.  Griesbach, the father of modern textual criticism, did not believe in the deity of Christ and held the presupposition that every text which favored theological orthodoxy should be a suspect text.  George Vance Smith, a committee member for the ERV, wrote that Jesus is not God and does not have the nature of deity.  He further wrote about inspiration of the Bible (as a Bible translator), “It nowhere, in truth, claims inspiration, or says anything definite about it.  The biblical inspiration, whatever it is or was, would seem, like the genius of Shakespeare, to be unconsciously possessed.  The phrase ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and its equivalents are simply to be referred to the style of the prophet; or to be understood only as indicating his believe that what he was about to say was conformable to the Divine Will…It is scarcely allowable, in short, to think of inspiration as being or acting in the dead words of any book.”  The Bible claims its words are living, while this translator claims it to be dead.  B. F. Westcott rejected the Bible claims of infallibility, embraced Darwinism fully – thus believed the first three chapters of Genesis to be fable, believed that the concept of Christ bearing the sins of man was “immoral and counterfeit” and the blood of Christ is not necessary for man’s salvation.  Fenton J. A. Hort was even more vocal in his unscriptural views – denying the bodily resurrection of Christ, claiming the Bible is only literary and not dogmatic for faith and even in writing to Westcott in 1861 encouraged the two to be silent about their true beliefs or they would be unable to complete their “version” of the Bible because they would be branded with suspicion for “what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy.”  Therefore, it is not surprising to see the texts which they preferred are intentionally weakened in these very areas.

The modern translators, who may not all be unbelievers, follow the same trail blazed by their academic forefathers in a deceitful and dishonest representation of their version of the Bible.  Wayne Grudem, one of the catalysts behind the ESV, states it “is an essentially literal translation that stands as today’s direct inheritor of the great King James Version. tradition,” and claims a direct line of descent.  The preface to the English Standard Version claims that it is a part of the “fountainhead of that stream” of Tyndale’s Bible and the KJV.  However, if one simply keeps reading the preface to the ESV, they discover that the RSV, not the KJV, is the starting point of the ESV.  Why would the translators claim that the ESV sprang from the KJV, when, in truth, it did not?  Could it be because the RSV was widely recognized as being a very liberal version when it was introduced?  After it was first published completely in 1952, Dr. C. F. Lincoln, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, began his 1953 Critique of the Revised Standard Version by stating, “There are two very obvious but nevertheless very weighty reasons for condemning this version as an unreliable and unacceptable translation for the reverent Bible believing Christian,” and also, “It is evident that the personal views of these men have been introduced into the text of this new translation.”  Another misrepresentation given by ESV translators is the claim that that they have taken advantage of “older, more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of various books of the Bible,” which is a distortion of the truth.  Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the revision committee for the English Revised Version of 1881 is on record admitting, “The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts.  The general character of their text is the same.  By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus…that pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity.  The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.”  The text of the KJV did not originate in 1516, Erasmus simply compiled and printed the Textus Receptus, he did not “write” it.  While the text of the ESV is primarily based on 5 “codexes” or manuscripts, dating to the 4th, 5th & 6th Centuries, the Byzantine Text is actually older than them all.  Thus the ESV (printed in 2001 and already needing 2 more “face lifts” in 2007 and again in 2011) is actually based on newer, more recent texts than the Authorized Version.  Finally, I must not overlook the fact that the RSV was published under the direction and design of the National Council of Churches in 1946 & 1952 and revised again in 1971.  As far as the National Council of Churches, Dr. Lincoln further wrote, “The NCC…has, since 1908, proved to be unBiblical in its objectives, socialistic in its aims, and destructively modernistic in its doctrine…True Christians know too well the character of this sponsoring organization to approve it at a trustworthy guide in determining and safeguarding the text of Holy Scripture.”  The RSV is a poor starting point for the ESV, and hardly is a successor of the KJV – more honestly it is a successor of the ERV, which was actually an attempt to correct the KJV, not retranslate it.

More scriptural evidence is found in the Bible itself as we are given clear warnings and commands that no individual should ever take it upon himself to alter, change, distort, pervert or remove any of Gods “words.”

Isaiah 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”

Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Psalms 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

2 Chronicles 34:21, “Go, enquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book.”

Deuteronomy 18:18-19, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Matthew 5:17-18, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

Proof?  Sure, how about 400 years of evangelism and doctrinal clarity?  Or examples of preservation of Scripture within the very Scripture itself?  Or perhaps the importance and distinction placed by God on not only His “Word” but His very “words?”  Or clear commands that no man is to alter or change God’s words?  Should we not at the very least, trust in claims of what the Bible says about itself?

So, go ahead and place your trust in the scholarship of men who actually hated the very Book of Books they were “translating” (or more accurately “editing”).  I would rather place my trust in the very item which enabled me to be born again – the incorruptible seed of the Word of God – and its very words.

“1 Corinthians 1:27-29, “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”